Referenda are good

[spudtater]

A referendum gives the public a chance to vote in a straightforward way for a single issue, without it getting clouded by other issues. In representative democracy, you might want to vote for party A because of their policy on issue X, but you might disagree with their policy towards issue Y. Or you might like party A, but know that they're never going to get in, and vote for party B instead (in order to keep the Tories party C out). It all gets very complex.

With a referendum on Scottish independence, the people of Scotland would be given a chance to make our choice in a simple, fair manner, unclouded by other political considerations. But the Lib Dems don't want to give us that choice.

No, they say. The only way we're going to get a referendum is if over 50% of voters vote for the SNP.

I am sorely tempted to do so.

Comments

[sigmonster.livejournal.com]

By the way, do you think that using purely procedural devices in opposition to hold up, or prevent, the will of the majority is justifiable? Or indeed the supermajority requirements of the US constitution for constitutional changes and to overturn presidential vetos?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#Filibusters_in_the_UK_Parliament

I do, so long as the rules of procedure can themselves eventually be changed. And I would in fact support a requirement for a supermajority on everything except money bills in the UK parliament, now I come to think of it.

[spudtater.livejournal.com]

Supermajorities are justifiable. Filibustering, however, strikes me as a bit of a dirty trick.

[sigmonster.livejournal.com]

I happen to have Simon Hoggart's sketch on the UK parliament's record filibuster for the 20th century in front of me...

"At midnight he was on to the higher cost of living for people who live on farms. At 1 am he was tackling the shortcomings of a particular tariff reduction scheme. By 2 am he was vigorously assailing the suggestion that British Telecom should not have the maintenance contract for telephone equipment. Just before 3 am the committee took a break, but Mr Golding was steaming ahead on the subject of comparative national and international price structures. Half an hour later they were back, and Mr Golding was eloquent on the topic of rural areas: would they suffer because people living there made fewer phone calls? At 5 am he considered the special situation in wales. A quarter of an hour later he rounded the speech off with some thoughts on other, similar amendments, which had also been put forward. At 5.22 he sat down."

Don't you think there's a strange, wild romance to it?

The Bill passed in the next session.

[spudtater.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I have to admit so. But it's still bad and wrong. (Especially when you consider cases such as the filibuster by Strom Thurmond against the Civil Rights Act of 1957)