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

[spudtater.livejournal.com]

> Please show me where I confused the two.

Your 35% versus 51% thing. The SNP are not "pretending", as you put it, that 51% of MSPs want independence. They are claiming that 51% of people want independence, which is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Had the Lib Dems agreed to a referendum, they could have formed a coalition government with the SNP, allowing them a far more powerful position. As it is, they've effectively sidelined themselves, having now ruled out coalitions with both main contenders.

Thresholds I think don't really come into it in this instance. Normally, no, a refendum should not automatically be given based on a plurality. But in this case, the SNP made an offer, and I think it was a reasonable offer. Ask the people what they want, and act on that. What are the Lib Dems saying by turning that down? That they don't trust the very people they are supposed to be representing? That they care more about their image in England than in Scotland?

And it's worth noting that a referendum is not guaranteed to favour the SNP's cause. I've already mentioned Australia, whose referendum on republicanism returned a "no", setting the republican cause back years.

[sigmonster.livejournal.com]

35 and 51 were both votes in a parliament there - I was still talking about thresholds, honest, I should have used 50%+1 though. And if the SNP claim 51% of people want independence and there are 4 parties supporting independence, then the people can vote for it in the assembly, even if they loath and mistrust the SNP.

It does not seem useful or sensible to me that the more important the issue, the lower the threshold should be for getting to a referendum. All referenda are "asking the people what they want". Like I said, the SNP is organised around the core demand of independence, so of course they're going to try to negotiate to get to a referendum. Doesn't mean the lib dems are obliged to do anything to help them, particularly ask lib dems MSPs to vote against their platform and quite possibly their conscience.

If you want a referendum and that outweighs every other issue, vote *for* a party for independence. If not, not. But please don't vote *against* the lib dems for having a consistent policy of opposing independence and referendum both - and sticking to that policy in the face of the enormous temptation of power...

[spudtater.livejournal.com]

Then you accuse the SNP of confusing the two. It is not their argument that 51% of MSPs want independence. It is their argument that 51% of Scots want independence, and that as representatives of the people, the MSPs should pay heed.

Politicians have a right and responsibility to act on their conscience, yes. But voting against a referendum seems to me more an insistence on power for themselves, not the people who they are representing. (Which to a large extent means Lib Dem voters — who, the SNP have pointed out, are 88% in favour of a referendum.)

More generally, I don't think thresholds of numbers of politicians are that important. More important are the less quantifiable ones of importance to the country and strength of public opinion. It's still a call for politicians to make, of course; it can't be enshrined in any sort of law. But part of a politician's conscience must be to occasionally bow to public opinion, even when it goes against thier own.

[sigmonster.livejournal.com]

It is their argument that 51% of Scots want independence, and that as representatives of the people, the MSPs should pay heed.

Bugger that. I want elected representatives to stick to the principles and platform on which they were elected. If 51% of the populace can't elect 50%+1 of MSPs who support a referendum (I note, again, that a form of PR applies to election for the scottish parliament) then that's just too bad - it doesn't impose any kind of duty on the MSPs whose manifesto was against a referendum, because their duty is to do their best as they see it and to fulfil the principles on which they were elected as best they can. So yes, the SNP are confusing the two, the more fools they.

[spudtater.livejournal.com]

We're talking about an upcoming election here, hence certain principles and policies are neccessarily in flux.

Look, you seem to be saying that a politician should doggedly stick to something despite the fact that the majority of the populace disagree, and despite the fact that a majority of their voters disagree.

They're entitled to do whatever they wish, of course. It's just that they're likely to lose quite a few of their voters if they do so — in this case, including myself.

I don't want to vote for the SNP. I certainly don't want to vote for the SSP or the Greens. Errr... what's left? Solidarity: *chuckle*. The Scottish Independence Party: the whuh? The Free Scotland Party: double whuh? The Scottish Jacobite Party: teh LOLz!

Where was I? Yes, I don't want to vote for the SNP. But the Lib Dems are leaving me little choice.