Date: 2007-02-17 05:40 pm (UTC)
Please show me where I confused the two.

I asserted that there has to be a threshold before holding a referendum, which I think is clear - otherwise we'd be voting every damn day of the week - and I also said that electing 50%+1 of MSPs who support a referendum is a good threshold to have. I said nothing about independence except that if 51% of Scots want it, they should get it. I realise very well that representative democracy isn't perfect.

I note that in 1999 the plurarilty of MSPS were against proportional representation for local elections, but the Lib Dems negotiated for and won that issue as the price of entering a coalition. That seems to me to be a more significant constitutional issue. What's the difference? If the Lib Dems sincerely think that a referendum would be a bad idea and also that independence would be a bad idea, and they say so in public and are elected on that basis, why should they not negotiate to enter a coalition on that basis?

If you think that a plurality of MSPs supporting a referendum is a good enough threshold, fair enough. But the SNP is centred around the proposition of independence and there is PR for the election of MSPs, so I really do think it's fair that if there's no majority in Pa rliament for a referendum then there will not be a referendum.

Incidentally I would like to apologise for saying assembly rather than parliament earlier - absence of mind. I suppose I could pretend that in making a purely procedural point I deliberately used a description that applied to any collection of representatives, but no.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

If you are unable to use this captcha for any reason, please contact us by email at support@dreamwidth.org

.

Profile

spudtater: (Default)
spudtater

Most Popular Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags