Independence - how would you vote?

[Colkitto]

I can see why the Scotsman went for the Tavish story as the headline story today. The Darling story was dreadful, absolutely dreadful.

[Mr.Bojangles]

The thing that bothers me about the 'bedroom tax' is that our built environment was mostly designed at a time when we had fairly large families in most dwellings. Our family size is getting smaller and smaller and we are seeing more and more single occupancy dwellings. That's not particularly great, but the drop in benefits would presuppose that there are places that single people and small families are able to find two bedroom houses. Won't that put their price up as the poor will desperately seek one and two bedrooms out? We are building more of these types of houses, but not nearly fast enough.

I suppose it's good news for those who don't need benefits since there will probably be much less demand for them now.

[xbl]

Ah, defending the indefensible.

[Mr.Bojangles]

Ah, defending the indefensible.

I'm assuming the reason he didn't use any breaks in that massive wall of text was because he didn't want anyone to read the twisted logic that was no doubt slathered (I was about to say sprinkled) all around that tome.

[xbl]

I'm assuming the reason he didn't use any breaks in that massive wall of text was because he didn't want anyone to read the twisted logic that was no doubt slathered (I was about to say sprinkled) all around that tome.

As far as I can see, he is saying that if it had been a different resolution, at a different time, about a slightly different topic, then that would have been okay. But it wasn't, it wasn't, and it wasn't. Allow me to help.

They are neither in favour of nor against Shetland becoming largely autonomous within a larger state but assert their right to do that. It's not exactly a complicated position.

Essentially, the Lib Dems are principled federalists. Stop sniggering at the back.

The only respect in which that position is different from their position regarding Scottish self-determination is that they have a specific respect in which they want Scotland to self-determine (i.e. the Home Rule report). That they failed to help the SNP put that to a referendum is something I've openly criticised them for before, but in absolute policy terms, this motion is not controversial.

This is the precisely the sort of thing for which the term "weasel words" was invented. So essentially, for Shetland, they think the people have the right for any self determination. For Scotland, well we can get what we're told. He's right to say this isn't controversial.

The northern isles do contain a historically distinct people, who already enjoy certain autonomy with some distinctive laws (e.g. Udal law for property) and local governance, who have somewhat stronger Scandinavian roots than other parts of Scotland, and who enjoy a quite distinctive culture and way of life. It's no less valid to say they are a people. With the right to self-determine than the Scottish people, the Welsh, the Irish, the Mancs, the English, the Western Islanders, the people of Cornwall and the Channel Islanders and Falkland Islanders. There's no obvious advantage to most of these island communities becoming, essentially, European micro states, but internal self-governance is something that should be taken seriously if and when these people ask for it.

In brief. People have the right to take control of their destiny. Except for viewers in Scotland obviously. Once again, we'll get what we're given and be damn grateful for it.

It's not illegitimate to use this constitutional juncture to ask the question "how are we governed" alongside "who should govern us". The problem with the Lib Dem strategy is that this motion is, outwardly, a political act looking for isolated attacks on the economic arguments for Scottish independence rather than stimulating more thoughtful discussion about the first of those 2 questions. It's about the oil arguments. This should and could have been about so much more: about autonomy for the different island groups of Scotland in terms of resource control, economic development and so forth. It could have been about changing the debate to ask what powers we could transfer from BOTH Westminster and Holyrood back to local authorities. It was a wasted opportunity for a marginally more interesting, but ultimately more inconsequential set of headlines.

And here is the key bit. Forget "outwardly". It is 100% a political attack. Tavish said it explicitly (its "wir" oil). Tavish, who REALLY needs to look up Enclave in a dictionary. What Ad Lib is saying is that this could have been about something different to what it was. No. Really? Do you think anyone at that conference gives a damn about Shetland? No! Face it, all it was about was 100% trying to get at the SNP.

And this is what the Lib Dems stand for in Scotland. They stand for opposing the SNP and anything they do. Ad Lib is right to say that giving autonomy to the isles is an interesting idea, and one that would probably do good things. Why NOW though? Why didn't this get brought up during their time in government? Calman? The Scotland Act?

No, Ad Lib is at least condemning the act, although he covers it in that many convolutions and twists that its hard at first glance to see what he thinks. How very loyal.

[MassiveFanDan]

When it comes to politics I am more of a 'glory hunter' type. So I will look at the policies, I look at the facts, I look at what is best for me, my family and their future.

After careful consideration of all these, and when it comes to the referendum I will be voting YES

Good to hear, I've been hearing quite a few folk say the same lately.

Wouldn't call it a groundswell or anything, certainly not enough to win yet, but every new Yes voter is good news, and fair cheers me up. It can get hell of a depressing arguing with No folk - intelligent and informed ones are alright, good to have a back and forth, but the folk you get in the street who just repeat debunked scare stories from the dark ages wear ye doon over time. Cannae really insult them either, no matter how tempting it gets.

Ad Lib gets a hell of a hard time on here. More so than he deserves I reckon. It's not a crime to be a Lib Dem... it's just a ... failing.

[Ad Lib]

The Lib Dems are not telling Scotland it doesn't have the right to self-determine. They argue as a matter of party policy that it should self-determine within the UK state, and has drawn up proposals as a starting point for a proposed settlement in the event of a no vote. That's not the same thing. They're not telling Scotland they'll take what they're given. Ming Campbell's report is not being thrust upon Scotland. It is not Lib Dem policy to ban Scotland from becoming an independent state if it votes Yes. Stop mischaracterising, xbl.

[Ad Lib]

As far as I can see, he is saying that if it had been a different resolution, at a different time, about a slightly different topic, then that would have been okay. But it wasn't, it wasn't, and it wasn't.

No. I'm saying the actual content of the conference motion (not a "resolution") was not objectionable, and that it is perfectly legitimate to have party policy stating that island communities, one of which is referenced explicitly in the motion, should have the right to self-determine either within the state of which Scotland is a part or to become a microstate. The subject matter of the motion was an entirely legitimate thing to discuss at this Conference, being the one immediately after the essence of the Home Rule Community Rule Commission's findings were adopted. What is legitimate to criticise is not the content or the timing but the motives of Tavish Scott and other senior figures for arguing for it, and why they termed their justifications (note, not the actual text of the motion) in the context of undermining Scottish independence's oil wealth arguments, rather than properly enunciating the localist merits of such a policy

Essentially, the Lib Dems are principled federalists. Stop sniggering at the back.

Straw man. I never claimed that. I've criticised the lip service the party has paid to federalism in the past and am not going to accept you treating me like I am some sort of conformist drone.

Forget "outwardly". It is 100% a political attack. Tavish said it explicitly (its "wir" oil). Tavish, who REALLY needs to look up Enclave in a dictionary.

And he's a cretin. What more, exactly do you want me to say

What Ad Lib is saying is that this could have been about something different to what it was.

Again, wrong. I'm saying it should have been about something different.

Do you think anyone at that conference gives a damn about Shetland? No!

Now THAT is an unmitigated lie. Of course they care. Most of them live there! Seriously though, we have been quite consistent in arguing for more autonomy for Shetland, even before the referendum. We played a big part in getting them the cushy financial settlement they now enjoy from the Crown Estates et al. That's why they keep voting for us. That's not to say that Tavish's motion wasn't politically motivated, but to pretend we've never had time for this before is factually inaccurate.

Ad Lib is at least condemning the act, although he covers it in that many convolutions and twists that its hard at first glance to see what he thinks. How very loyal.

It's not loyalty. It's called constructive criticism of what they did and nuance of the issues at hand and the nature of Lib Dem conference. Two things I'm in a better position to understand than you.

[xbl]

The Lib Dems are not telling Scotland it doesn't have the right to self-determine. They argue as a matter of party policy that it should self-determine within the UK state, and has drawn up proposals as a starting point for a proposed settlement in the event of a no vote. That's not the same thing. They're not telling Scotland they'll take what they're given. Ming Campbell's report is not being thrust upon Scotland. It is not Lib Dem policy to ban Scotland from becoming an independent state if it votes Yes. Stop mischaracterising, xbl.

So if I was to google "Michael Moore settled will Scottish", then I wouldn't find any Lib Dem quotes? And why is it that they support referendums on just about everything, but have always bitterly opposed one for Scotland? Not only that, but all of their changes, Calman, Scotland Act, and even this new one, will be pushed through without being put to referendum.

Lets face it, when it comes to the Lib Dems and Scotland, we are told to accept what we are given and to be grateful for their crumbs. This isn't mischarachterising. This is based on solid evidence of previous Lib Dem actions.

[Ad Lib]

So if I was to google "Michael Moore settled will Scottish", then I wouldn't find any Lib Dem quotes?

What has that to do with the price of milk? That language pertains to a historical position endorsed by the 1997 referendum and is not a current statement of their position of the constitutional question in the context of the current debate triggered by the Edinburgh agreement.

And why is it that they support referendums on just about everything, but have always bitterly opposed one for Scotland

Correction. Nichol Stephen and Tavish Scott opposed having a Referendum. It has at no stage been official party policy to oppose the having of a referendum on Scottish independence.

Not only that, but all of their changes, Calman, Scotland Act, and even this new one, will be pushed through without being put to referendum.

1) Calman didn't change anything. Why would you need a Referendum to be allowed to conduct a consultation exercise!?2) The Scotland Act was a derivative of Calman, whose changes did not significantly deviate from the mandate the Scottish people provided for a Scottish Parliament with tax raising powers assented to in 1997. Maybe there should have been a referendum, politically speaking, but this wasn't a comparable situation to, say, the second Welsh Referendum, where the very nature, rather than simply the substance, of the legislative and executive power of the devolved institutions was changing.3) Willie Rennie has specifically stated that a new settlement along the lines proposed in our Home Rule Commission would be subject to a referendum. This was central to his argument that the question of Home Rule should be addressed separately from independence, manifestly flawed though the logic of Rennie's Riddle was.

[Todders]

They argue as a matter of party policy that it should self-determine within the UK state.

So not self determination at all?

How can it be self determination if the choices are artificially limited?

[Ad Lib]

So not self determination at all?

How can it be self determination if the choices are artificially limited?

They're not limiting anyone's choices. They're putting forward their preferred choices and post any No vote will be putting it to the electorate, first in the 2016 election then, if successfully legislating for it, a referendum in that Parliament for a new settlement they have crafted. Just like we did when we self determined in 1997.

[Todders]

They're not limiting anyone's choices. They're putting forward their preferred choices and post any No vote will be putting it to the electorate, first in the 2016 election then, if successfully legislating for it, a referendum in that Parliament for a new settlement they have crafted. Just like we did when we self determined in 1997.

You cannot be for self determination if you have spent decades fighting against a referendum on independence. It's that simple.

[10 CC ICT]

You cannot be for self determination if you have spent decades fighting against a referendum on independence. It's that simple.

It really is this simple.

[Colkitto]

Can't believe I missed this beezer of a scarestory yesterday. There will be no blood transfusions in an independent Scotland

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/384799/Independence-threat-to-hospital-blood-supplies

[xbl]

They're not limiting anyone's choices. They're putting forward their preferred choices and post any No vote will be putting it to the electorate, first in the 2016 election then, if successfully legislating for it, a referendum in that Parliament for a new settlement they have crafted. Just like we did when we self determined in 1997.

Just like in 2007 eh?

[Ad Lib]

You cannot be for self determination if you have spent decades fighting against a referendum on independence. It's that simple.

Which they haven't been doing. They quite simply weren't fighting for or against it until at least post the 2007 election up until polling day of the 2011 election. The only times where we have done ANYTHING to obstruct an independence referendum was under Nichol Stephen when we refused to support the SNP minority government's Referendum Bill and when Tavish Scott declared in the 2011 election debates "if you want a referendum on Scottish independence, vote for the SNP".

No major political party now opposes a referendum on Scottish independence. Not being proactively in favour of one is not the same thing as being against it or doing anything to prevent it, let alone "fighting" it. This "decades of fighting" you speak of is in fact... 4 years.

[xbl]

So apart from those four years...nothing. those are a fairly significant four years!

[Ad Lib]

So apart from those four years...nothing. those are a fairly significant four years!

I don't disagree. Hence my vocal denouncing of Tavish et al for that behaviour. With the here and now, on the other hand, the Lib Dems are in favour of Scotland being allowed to self-determine up to and including independence. Which was the original point. They are not telling Scotland that they'll take what they get and that they'll be grateful for it. On the contrary they are saying that if Scotland wants independence it can have it (but that they think they ought not to choose it and will make that argument in the referendum) but that if they want something else they have a proposal for them in the event of a no vote. That's scarcely any different from the SNP's current position, with the exception that they think Scotland should choose independence and will make that argument in the referendum instead.

[Ad Lib]

Lesley Riddoch has an excellent article in The Scotsman. Hard to disagree with any of it:

www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/opinion/comment/lesley-riddoch-lesson-in-islands-bid-for-autonomy-1-2842121