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

[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.