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]

As I said above, politicians should use their discretion as to when to hold a referendum. But I can't see how any politician who refuses to do so in the face of widespread demand for one is a good politician.

[zotz]

It depends what you mean by "widespread demand". There has to be some standard, and the one we've always used is that enough people vote for parties supporting it to get an act or motion passed. IN this case, the Lib Dems are saying that they are standing on a policy of not supporting it, and will therefore not support it in parliament, although they'll be constructive if it gets a majority elsewhere. If they were to stand on a policy of opposing it and then turned round and supported it after all because it seemed popular, they'd be (quite understandably) accused of being very cynical and faithless.

[spudtater.livejournal.com]

Err... so a party that gives the people what they want is somehow lacking in moral fibre? Isn't that kinda against the point of democracy?

A question (and I'm not being flippant):
Would you say you respected Tony Blair for driving this country into war in Iraq despite the fact that a majority of the population were against it?

[zotz]

A party puts forward its policies at an election and is given (or not) some amount of power to pursue them. The understanding is that they'll generally pursue those policies or similar ones to represent the views of the people who voted for them.

If they use the seats they won from the votes of people who oppose independence to assist independence . . . in what way would they be acting in good faith with the electorate?

Either most people don't vote for independence, in which case the LDP acts in keeping with their manifesto, or most people do, in which case it can go through without their support. I honestly cannot see what it is you think is inconsistent or undemocratic here. The LDP have said that if the electorate vote for it they won't get in the way - democracy does not demand that those who oppose a measure support it, but only that when a measure gets majority support it's proponents be allowed to proceed with it.

Would you say you respected Tony Blair for driving this country into war in Iraq despite the fact that a majority of the population were against it?

If he'd been right about WMD then the public might well have supported it, according to 2003 polls. MORI polls at the time found that with WMD findings and a second UN resolution about 75% of the British public would have been in favour. The big problem was that he was so convinced he was right that he supported action before finding proof.

No, I didn't and don't support action without the proof that was fairly obviously not going to arrive.

This is not the same, though, as the situation you're talking about. You're not saying that the LDP should allow independence to go ahead if a majority want it - they've already said that and it's not enough for you.

What you want is that they act to promote the policy, even if the majority of LDP voters oppose it. This is not representative democracy - according to the principles of representative democracy those in favour are represented by the representatives they elect, who are also in favour. Those against, even when in a minority, are also represented by their representatives, who still have a job to do in arguing the case of the minority, whose interests still need to be considered.

[spudtater.livejournal.com]

We're talking about policies for an upcoming election, so there's no question of any sort of betrayal at this point.

> I honestly cannot see what it is you think is [...] undemocratic here.

I said that it was "kinda against the point of democracy" for a politicians to say "screw you guys, I'm doing what I wanna do, and if you don't like it then too bad, 'cause who else are you going to vote for?"

Just for clarification: my argument was never "OMG it should be outlawed!!!1!". My argument is rather that the Lib Dems are alienating the people that they are supposed to be representing, and are going to lose a fair chunk of voters because of it.

[zotz]

I said that it was "kinda against the point of democracy" for a politicians to say "screw you guys, I'm doing what I wanna do, and if you don't like it then too bad, 'cause who else are you going to vote for?"

There are plenty of other people to vote for. They're putting forward their platform and inviting people to vote for them if they agree with it. They're also saying that they'll be reluctant to reverse any of their policy elements after the election, which seems fair - after all, if they turn round and do exactly the opposite of what they said, they'll look a bit cynical.

I would have thought it would be more undemocratic to accept people's votes and then forget exactly what it was you told your supporters you were going to do, but maybe I'm just strange.

My argument is rather that the Lib Dems are alienating the people that they are supposed to be representing, and are going to lose a fair chunk of voters because of it.

By having a policy and planning on sticking to it? The Scottish electorate have never voted for independence - presumably the SNP should therefore give up on the idea? After all, if more people consistently vote against it than for, it must be a major vote-loser.

[spudtater.livejournal.com]

> I would have thought it would be more undemocratic to accept people's votes and then forget exactly what it was you told your supporters you were going to do, but maybe I'm just strange.

Argh! For the last time, upcoming election.

> The Scottish electorate have never voted for independence - presumably the SNP should therefore give up on the idea?

Obviously every party has to have a platform from which to campaign, or there wouldn't be any parties in the first place. But I have a hard time believing that the Lib Dems' platform neccessitates the continuation of the union against the wishes of the masses. That's the sort of thing I expect from the Tories.

[zotz]

Argh! For the last time, upcoming election.

Yes, I know. That's not a time-bound statement. The accepting can take place in the future, as can the telling - the use of were implies that the telling takes place before the forgetting, but both can be in the future.

But I have a hard time believing that the Lib Dems' platform neccessitates the continuation of the union against the wishes of the masses. That's the sort of thing I expect from the Tories

But they haven't said that. They've said that if there's a majority vote for independence then they'll abide by it. I don't see where your problem lies.

To turn your previous question slightly, if WMD had been found in Iraq and the second UN resolution had been passed, and 75% of the British public had indeed decided to support the war, would all of the war's opponents in parliament have to support the invasion, or would it be OK for them to keep disagreeing?

[spudtater.livejournal.com]

> That's not a time-bound statement. The accepting can take place in the future, as can the telling - the use of were implies that the telling takes place before the forgetting, but both can be in the future.

Then what's the problem? If somebody promises to hold a referendum and then gives one, there's no broken promises. If they promise to not hold a referendum and then does not give one; also no problem.

> But they haven't said that. They've said that if there's a majority vote for independence then they'll abide by it. I don't see where your problem lies.

The problem is that they've said "if there's a majority vote for independence, we'll abide by it", followed by "we're not going to allow any vote to take place". That's the political equivalent of "if you want some cake, just ask me", followed by the sticking of fingers in ears.

> if WMD had been found in Iraq [...] would it be OK for them to keep disagreeing?

Yes, but I wouldn't neccessarily consider it to be the only honourable thing to do. If the majority of the populace — and particularly if a majority of Lib Dem voters — were to start supporting the war, why shouldn't the Lib Dem politicians do likewise?

[zotz]

Then what's the problem?

That's what I'm asking you. I'm not the one who has a problem with the LDP policy - it seems perfectly reasonable and consistent to me. As is the SNP/Green/SSP one, of course

The problem is that they've said "if there's a majority vote for independence, we'll abide by it", followed by "we're not going to allow any vote to take place".

No, they've said they won't vote in favour of a referendum, because they don't favour independence. If enough people vote for other parties, then there'll be a referendum anyway - the LDP will, however, go on representing people who do not favour moves towards independence, and will act accordingly. There is no onus upon them to support a referendum on a measure they oppose.

Your statement, of course, refers to two different polls - the first being the Scottish parliamentary election, and the second a referendum. They can't say they won't let allow the latter, because it's not their decision. They can and have, however, say that they as a party won't vote for one.

Yes, but I wouldn't neccessarily consider it to be the only honourable thing to do.

So what's wrong with the LDP going on disagreeing with independence?

[spudtater.livejournal.com]

It's one thing disagreeing with independence, but disagreeing to a referendum on independence is less defensible.

They've said that they'll support independence if the people want it. A referendum is the simplest and fairest way to find out if the people do want it. On what grounds, then, are they blocking that referendum?

[zotz]

That argument applies equally to anything, but we have to have some criterion as to which issues warrant a referendum. There has never been an election where the majority of the Scottish electorate, or even of those voting, voted for parties supporting it. It's quite unlikely that we will this time.

If we're going to have referendums on issues on that sort of trigger, then we're going to have a hell of a lot of referendums. If not, then why are we saying that this one issue is different?

On what grounds, then, are they blocking that referendum?

I really don't understand why you think they're going to be blocking anything. If the Scottish people vote for parties supporting independence, then there'll be a referendum whatever the LDP do. The fact that they aren't personally going to vote for it (in line with the policies they stood on) isn't blocking anything.

If the public want independence, then the public has to elect politicians who support it and push it through - it's the public's job. People who oppose it are under no obligation to help out. Tony Benn once said that politicians can be divided into signposts and weather-vanes. Personally, I would like to think that if I vote for, and help elect, an MSP who supports certain policies, then they'll generally pursue those policies rather than changing their mind whenever they think it appropriate.