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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-02-17 05:40 pm (UTC)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.