Give Scots (and the others too) their say
I&R ~ GB
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/sos-news-columnists/Duncan-Hamilton-Give-Scots-their.5846767.jp
"Can it be right that in a 21st century defined by the information age
and packed full of technical advance, there is no
mechanism for public opposition other than a general election?" ......
"And maybe it is time for this Scottish Government to champion
referendums on matters other than the constitution. Not
because it doesn't matter any more, but because there is a danger that
the Scottish Government starts to be portrayed as
interested in that exercise in direct democracy simply as a vehicle for
its own priorities, and not in the other areas
where Scots also want a voice. Develop the means for regular national
plebiscites on a range of subjects � whether the
euro, nuclear weapons, climate change, immigration or tax � and show
that the desire for an independence
referendum is driven by a core belief in the sovereignty of the people.
In doing so, create a culture of sharing power
with the people and establish the precedent for referendums on matters
of importance, regardless of whether they are
devolved or reserved.
The argument for a referendum on the constitution should never be
allowed to become "that the SNP wants one". It
should always be about the right of the people to be heard. The Scottish
Government should not champion an
independence referendum as an exceptional circumstance. Rather, it
should regard regular national plebiscites as an
essential part of government in the 21st century."
I&R ~ GB comments:
Develop the means for national plebiscites on a range of subjects?
That's a guid (good) idea for all the countries of the UK and any which
may decide to leave ;-)
Politicians are opposed to this sort of reform. A campaign will be
needed in order to achieve progress. Ways to tackle this may be found at
http://www.iniref.org/carta.htm election campaign call
http://www.iniref.org/index.enter.html web site index
I&R ~ GB
Robert Peffers
"I&R ~ GB" <info...@OUTiniref.org> wrote in message
news:7n50b9F...@mid.uni-berlin.de...
> Extracted from Scotland on Sunday
> http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/sos-news-columnists/Duncan-Hamilton-Give-Scots-their.5846767.jp
>
> "Can it be right that in a 21st century defined by the information age and
> packed full of technical advance, there is no
> mechanism for public opposition other than a general election?" ......
There is that public petitions thing used by the Scottish Government.
Then there are the devolved government elections, local elections and
by-elections.
These are all looked upon by the main parties as votes, for or against, the
sitting governments populartiy, policies and performance.
>
> "And maybe it is time for this Scottish Government to champion referendums
> on matters other than the constitution.
What rubbish! In the first place the Scottish government is, a freely
elected, independence party and, if they were to drop their stance on
independence, they would be betraying the people who elected them on that
agenda.
> Not
> because it doesn't matter any more, but because there is a danger that the
> Scottish Government starts to be portrayed as
> interested in that exercise in direct democracy simply as a vehicle for
> its own priorities, and not in the other areas
> where Scots also want a voice.
How illogical!
We Scots elected the SNP as our representatives at Holyrood.
We know they stand for independence. That is why most of us voted for them.
If they do not make independence their main raison d'�tre they are NOT
representingtheir voters.
This morning's news carries a report that Westminster Labour's Scottish
Secretary, Jim Murphy has urged Alex Salmond, Scotland's First Minister to,
"To shelve his plans for a referendum on Scottish independence and
concentrate on fighting the recession".
How hypocritical is that?
The the hypocrite goes on, "to accuse the SNP of a, "Peculier obcession",
with independence..
How illogical!
He accuses a nationalist party of having a, "peculier obcession", with
independence but the only peculier thing would be if a nationalist party
were NOT obcessed with independence.
What is even more hypocritical is that Murphy's own Scottish Labour Party
have a peculier obcession of wishing their own country to be ruled by
another, much larger, neighbouring country. It is also a peculier obcession
of their's to thwart every action the elected Holyrood Government has
attempted to get through the Scottish Parliament to boost Scotland's
Ecomomy.
> Develop the means for regular national plebiscites on a range of
> subjects � whether the
> euro, nuclear weapons, climate change, immigration or tax � and show that
> the desire for an independence
> referendum is driven by a core belief in the sovereignty of the people. In
> doing so, create a culture of sharing power
> with the people and establish the precedent for referendums on matters of
> importance, regardless of whether they are
> devolved or reserved.
How hypocritical! You want to stop the Scottish people from having the right
to a referemdum on the independence of their own country so that you can
forward your own pet agenda to have a referenda run political union in which
one country has an overwhellming population that can vote down three other
countries in any, and every, subsequent referendum.
In the first place the very idea of a UK of GB & NI run on the lines of
referenda led system assumes that the UK of GB & NI is only one country.
To put that another way, the very idea of a UK of GB & NI run by referenda
is a unionism in the extreme.
This mornings news alse carries a report from a leading economic think tank.
Ernst & Young's Item Club says there are, "disturbing weaknesses", in the
Scottish economy and predict growth of -4.9% this year and 0.7% in 2010.
This is the whole history of Scotland since quite some considerable time
before the Union of the Parliaments until the present day.
The English, "Navigational Laws", enforced before the Union of The
Parliaments were enforced by the English to force Scotland into the Union
for the benefit of English security. These prevented Scots from dealing with
the colonies, or anywhere else for that matter, unless they did so in
English ships, crewed by English crews and owned by English Merchants. That
meant Scots were ripped off by those English merchants who could force
prices down for all Scottish exports.
It was this that led to the Darien Expedition as the Scots tried to
establish a colony they did not share with England.
The first stab in the back came about even before a ship sailed. The English
urged the Dutch to join them in supporting the Scots financially and between
them promised a 50% financial share of the expedition. At the last moment,
after the ships & crews were bought, the English & Dutch pulled out leaving
the whole project badly underfunded.
The Scots had no option that to go ahead with the now underfunded project.
The next stab in the back came from the English when the monarch, (the one
we shared with the English), instructed that his navy, (It was both a Scots
& English navy), would lend no support to the Scots ships on their
expedition. The Scots had no option but to continue.
Then, after the Darien base was established, the natives and several other
nations who had colonial aims, started to attack the Scots settlers, the
King instructed his joint, English/Scots, army who were in the area, not to
assist his Scottish subjects.
As history shows the expedition was then doomed. Just think of what could
have been if this colony had come about. The Scot, and if Union had
happened, the UK would have controlled the Panama area and would have gained
all the benefits that the Panama Canal gave to it's owners.
So the Scots were forced into a political Union with England and this
started the, "London Head Office", mentallity that we have suffered ever
since.
All main UK business' is controlled by London Head Office and, in every
recession or bust, these head offices always cut/close/sell off, the
Scottish branches before they ever dream of closeing anything south of
Berwick.
Just look at the present recession. The Government bails out the failed
English financial institutions like Northern Rock, et al, but they force the
Scottish ones to be taken over by the English institutions. Just look at the
Dunfermline Building Society as example.
> The argument for a referendum on the constitution should never be allowed
> to become "that the SNP wants one". It
> should always be about the right of the people to be heard.
Rubbish! The Scots electorate electe3d the SNP because they are an
Independence party.
Are you suggesting we Scots are stupid? That we don't know the SNP are for
Scots Independence? That we only voted for them to spite the English?
> The Scottish Government should not champion an
> independence referendum as an exceptional circumstance. Rather, it should
> regard regular national plebiscites as an
> essential part of government in the 21st century."
Are you actually claiming that the break up of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain & Northern Ireland is NOT an exceptional Circumstance?
What do you think of as a, "National Plebiscite"?
Is this nation you speak off England, Scotland or the United Kingdom of
Breat Britain & Northern Ireland?
Let me remind you what is meant by, "The United Kingdon of Great Britain &
Northern Ireland".
This is a Political Union formed by a legal Treaty of Union between two
NATIONS Scotland and England that formed, "The United Kingdom of Great
Britain", and followed by TWO Acts of Union in the Respective parliaments of
these two nations.
i.e., It formed a joint parliament between two nations who had a common
monarch - note it is called, "The United *KIN*dom", but the monarchy was
already a joint one and thus it did not need either a treaty or two acts of
parliament to make it so. What was being joined was the two parliaments ot
TWO nations.
The Welsh were an English Principality & the Irish, (all of them), were
conquered by England and under English law. The Scots were an independent
NATION.
Later the partition of Ireland, and subsequent Acts of Union, changed the
name of the whole to, "The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern
Ireland"
No other nation signed that treaty
So the whole remains a political Union between nations.
Your agenda thus only aims to force the nations that form the union to be
treated as only one nation and thus forces all others to be dominated by the
English who outnumber us all.
> I&R ~ GB comments:
>
> Develop the means for national plebiscites on a range of subjects?
>
> That's a guid (good) idea for all the countries of the UK and any which
> may decide to leave ;-)
>
> Politicians are opposed to this sort of reform. A campaign will be needed
> in order to achieve progress. Ways to tackle this may be found at
> http://www.iniref.org/carta.htm election campaign call
> http://www.iniref.org/index.enter.html web site index
>
> I&R ~ GB
Get it right - we Scots, knowing that the SNP are an Independence Party,
voted them to office.
Yet you want to tell us we have no right to do so and should adopt your
agenda so that the English can continue to dominate us.
Aye! Richt!
That'll be richt!
--
Auld Bob
I&R ~ GB
> "I&R ~ GB" <info...@OUTiniref.org> wrote in message
> news:7n50b9F...@mid.uni-berlin.de...
>> Extracted from Scotland on Sunday
>> http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/sos-news-columnists/Duncan-Hamilton-Give-Scots-their.5846767.jp
>>
>> "Can it be right that in a 21st century defined by the information age and
>> packed full of technical advance, there is no
>> mechanism for public opposition other than a general election?" ......
>
> There is that public petitions thing used by the Scottish Government.
> Then there are the devolved government elections, local elections and
> by-elections.
> These are all looked upon by the main parties as votes, for or against, the
> sitting governments populartiy, policies and performance.
Later we'll consider replying to Bob Peffer's latest lament. In the
meantime here is an extract from an article which may help to clarify
some points about direct democracy for Scotland (and elsewhere)
Scotsman.com News
Monday, 10th September 2007
Opinion
Power to the people should be way ahead
ALEX ORR (news_en AT edinburghnews.com)
DEMOCRACY in Scotland is in serious trouble. There are falling turnouts
at elections and a growing cynicism about the politician of all parties
- signs that faith in our entire political system is at an all-time low.
At the same time, governments of all persuasions have taken more and
more decisions away from local communities, further removing people from
any influence over issues affecting their lives.
The facts speak for themselves. In Scotland we recently had one of the
most exciting elections for a generation, and yet voter turnout in the
Lothians was just over half those entitled to vote - a damning
indictment of our political system.
The vast majority of the general public seem to feel politics is
something that happens to them and around them, not something they feel
they can control in any meaningful way or have any ownership over.
Trust in politicians has also plunged to new depths. The Power inquiry
was set up to examine why people are alienated from the political
system. It set out, in uncomfortable detail, research that revealed the
extent to which people hold politicians in contempt and have lost faith
in the political system itself.
The only way to restore trust and credibility to politics, and to
re-engage a disillusioned electorate, is to give people a real and
direct say over issues that matter most to them and their lives. That
means allowing them to decide on national and local issues, on a
case-by-case basis, through voting in referendums, instead of simply
electing a government once every five years to make all the key
decisions on their behalf.
One such method would be to introduce "Citizens' Initiatives". Based on
a Swiss model, this form of direct democracy also exists in New Zealand
and half the US states and has recently been introduced elsewhere in the
world, particularly in the new democracies of Eastern Europe.
Switzerland has one of the highest rates of political participation of
any advanced democracy and scores impressively in international surveys
that measure levels of voter satisfaction. Most observers acknowledge
this is a direct result of the country's system of direct democracy.
Swiss citizens have the right to call a referendum on any subject they
want as long they can gather the required number of signatures. If
enough names are collected within a set period, then a proposal can be
put on the ballot paper and voted on by the general public. If it is
passed, it becomes law.
According to Richard Layard's groundbreaking book Happiness, there is
compelling evidence to suggest a link between levels of human happiness
and public control over political decisions. The clear evidence shows
that if you allow people a meaningful say over the decisions that affect
their lives, be it the siting of a new supermarket or other community
wide issues, they will respond with great enthusiasm.
Not only does this form of direct democracy encourage participation and
political debate, it also improves happiness levels. Politicians in
Scotland should be seriously considering ideas like Citizens'
Initiatives to help reinvigorate our democracy.
======================
I&R ~ GB
> I&R ~ GB <info...@OUTiniref.org> wrote in
>> Robert Peffers wrote:
>>> "I&R ~ GB" <info...@OUTiniref.org> wrote in message
>>> news:7n50b9F...@mid.uni-berlin.de...
>>>> Extracted from Scotland on Sunday
>>>> http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/sos-news-columnists/Duncan-
> Hamil
>>>> ton-Give-Scots-their.5846767.jp
>>>>
>>>> "Can it be right that in a 21st century defined by the information
>>>> age and packed full of technical advance, there is no
>>>> mechanism for public opposition other than a general election?"
>>>> ......
>>> There is that public petitions thing used by the Scottish
>>> Government. Then there are the devolved government elections, local
>>> elections and by-elections.
>>> These are all looked upon by the main parties as votes, for or
>>> against, the sitting governments populartiy, policies and
>>> performance.
>> Later we'll consider replying to Bob Peffer's latest lament.
>
>
>> Scotsman.com News
>
> The Hootsman, eh?
>
> And why is this being crossposted to so many groups? It exceeds the
> limit set by scot.politics charter and will be chucked in the bit bucket
> by news servers operating cross-post limits.
Why dinnae yae reply tae Alex Orr's proposal?
Strangely the above cited article by Alex Orr seems to have disappeared
from The Scotsman newspaper's web site. I&R ~ GB www.iniref.org holds a
facsimile of the complete article.
soupdragon
berlin.de:
I already have elsewhere. It's just the same ill-considered, fatuous
nonsense you've been posting the past week. Now why don't you reply
to the point about the need for excessive crossposting?
[followups set]