Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Referendum democracy in Scotland and UK
3 views
Skip to first unread message
INIREF*I&R ~ GB
Apr 23, 2013, 11:02:21 AM4/23/13
to
Campaign for Direct Democracy I&Rgb <http://www.iniref.org>
REPLY
Thank you Dr. Maver for this historical account of the referendum in
Scotland. Work on this subject has been neglected, perhaps suppressed,
in the countries of the UK.
To answer your implied question, do we need more, direct democracy,
well, we should ask the "demos" – the people and electorates. Public
survey data gathered since the 1990s confirm that there is widespread
and strong public support for the binding referendum which can be
initiated by citizens in central government as well as at local level.
The benefits of citizens' direct democracy are many. It does not replace
"representative" rule but improves it, for instance by helping to reduce
hostility to politicians and so-called apathy about public affairs.
Fundamentally and more positively, people justifiably want to have more
control over important matters which affect them and will influence the
lives of their children.
If direct democracy is so popular and beneficial then why do we not have
it already? Dr. Maver's review shows that the seeds of strong,
participatory democracy had already sprouted in the Scotland of the 19th
century or before, so why did it largely fizzle out across the whole UK?
A major reason for our currently "weak" democracy is that the power to
introduce the legal framework and regulations for citizen-led direct
democracy lies with the politicians and governments.
Politicians and parties, of course, are aware that votes are to be won
by promising more citizen power. For instance, in 2009 the leader of the
Conservative party promised that if elected he would introduce the
citizens' referendum for local and national government. In 2010, in
reply to a formal survey, the Scottish National Party claimed to be in
favour of the citizens' initiative and referendum for Scotland. None of
these reforms have been enacted by these parties having come to power.
How could we citizens obtain our "right to referendum"? We must vote
only for politicians, candidate MPs, who promise to introduce direct
democracy if elected to power. Campaigns of awareness and education will
be needed, taking inspiration from successful reformers such as the
Chartists, Suffragettes and maybe the Campaign for Real Ale. Information
about a "campaign for direct democracy" may be found in the internet or
by writing to info AT iniref DOT org
------------------
Above is a reply to an article by Dr Irene Maver, "
<http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/opinion/comment/comment-should-local-scots-referendums-be-revived-1-2904829>Comment:Should
local Scots referendums be revived?"
<http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/opinion/comment/comment-should-local-scots-referendums-be-revived-1-2904829>
Dr Irene Maver is an honourary research fellow in history at the
University of Glasgow
--------------------------------------------------
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R ~ GB
e-mail: in...@iniref.org
http://www.iniref.org/ Link to site index
http://www.iniref.org/carta.htm Election campaign call
REPLY
Thank you Dr. Maver for this historical account of the referendum in
Scotland. Work on this subject has been neglected, perhaps suppressed,
in the countries of the UK.
To answer your implied question, do we need more, direct democracy,
well, we should ask the "demos" – the people and electorates. Public
survey data gathered since the 1990s confirm that there is widespread
and strong public support for the binding referendum which can be
initiated by citizens in central government as well as at local level.
The benefits of citizens' direct democracy are many. It does not replace
"representative" rule but improves it, for instance by helping to reduce
hostility to politicians and so-called apathy about public affairs.
Fundamentally and more positively, people justifiably want to have more
control over important matters which affect them and will influence the
lives of their children.
If direct democracy is so popular and beneficial then why do we not have
it already? Dr. Maver's review shows that the seeds of strong,
participatory democracy had already sprouted in the Scotland of the 19th
century or before, so why did it largely fizzle out across the whole UK?
A major reason for our currently "weak" democracy is that the power to
introduce the legal framework and regulations for citizen-led direct
democracy lies with the politicians and governments.
Politicians and parties, of course, are aware that votes are to be won
by promising more citizen power. For instance, in 2009 the leader of the
Conservative party promised that if elected he would introduce the
citizens' referendum for local and national government. In 2010, in
reply to a formal survey, the Scottish National Party claimed to be in
favour of the citizens' initiative and referendum for Scotland. None of
these reforms have been enacted by these parties having come to power.
How could we citizens obtain our "right to referendum"? We must vote
only for politicians, candidate MPs, who promise to introduce direct
democracy if elected to power. Campaigns of awareness and education will
be needed, taking inspiration from successful reformers such as the
Chartists, Suffragettes and maybe the Campaign for Real Ale. Information
about a "campaign for direct democracy" may be found in the internet or
by writing to info AT iniref DOT org
------------------
Above is a reply to an article by Dr Irene Maver, "
<http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/opinion/comment/comment-should-local-scots-referendums-be-revived-1-2904829>Comment:Should
local Scots referendums be revived?"
<http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/opinion/comment/comment-should-local-scots-referendums-be-revived-1-2904829>
Dr Irene Maver is an honourary research fellow in history at the
University of Glasgow
--------------------------------------------------
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R ~ GB
e-mail: in...@iniref.org
http://www.iniref.org/ Link to site index
http://www.iniref.org/carta.htm Election campaign call
JNugent
Apr 24, 2013, 3:55:06 PM4/24/13
to
Come on, Salmon and SNP:
Give yourself a sporting chance of winning.
Let the English vote on it as well.
Give yourself a sporting chance of winning.
Let the English vote on it as well.
Tim Roll-Pickering
Apr 23, 2013, 4:53:30 PM4/23/13
to
INIREF*I&R ~ GB wrote:
> To answer your implied question, do we need more, direct democracy, well,
> we should ask the "demos" – the people and electorates. Public survey data
> gathered since the 1990s confirm that there is widespread and strong
> public support for the binding referendum which can be initiated by
> citizens in central government as well as at local level.
It's one thing to nod your head in a survey. It's another thing to make the
> To answer your implied question, do we need more, direct democracy, well,
> we should ask the "demos" – the people and electorates. Public survey data
> gathered since the 1990s confirm that there is widespread and strong
> public support for the binding referendum which can be initiated by
> citizens in central government as well as at local level.
effort to follow the issues & arguments and then make the trip to vote on
them whenever some other group has forced a referendum. Got any evidence in
practice of this strong support lasting?
Over in Ireland they recently had a by-election with a Direct Democracy
candidate standing - who came nowhere. If they had polled well I've no doubt
you'd have been shouting it from the rooftops.
--
My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c
INIREF*I&R ~ GB
Apr 25, 2013, 6:16:24 AM4/25/13
to
Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
> INIREF*I&R ~ GB wrote:
>
>> To answer your implied question, do we need more, direct democracy, well,
>> we should ask the "demos" – the people and electorates. Public survey data
>> gathered since the 1990s confirm that there is widespread and strong
>> public support for the binding referendum which can be initiated by
>> citizens in central government as well as at local level.
>
> It's one thing to nod your head in a survey. It's another thing to make the
> effort to follow the issues& arguments and then make the trip to vote on
> INIREF*I&R ~ GB wrote:
>
>> To answer your implied question, do we need more, direct democracy, well,
>> we should ask the "demos" – the people and electorates. Public survey data
>> gathered since the 1990s confirm that there is widespread and strong
>> public support for the binding referendum which can be initiated by
>> citizens in central government as well as at local level.
>
> It's one thing to nod your head in a survey. It's another thing to make the
> them whenever some other group has forced a referendum. Got any evidence in
> practice of this strong support lasting?
The use of referendum and citizen law-making has been growing for
> practice of this strong support lasting?
several decades in many countries, not GB. See
<http://www.iniref.org/latest.html>
Where direct democracy exists, electorates want to keep it. Turnout
depends on salience of the proposal but is commonly better than in
candidate elections. The Strathclyde poll, described in the article
cited in our opener, showed a massive turnout.
>
> Over in Ireland they recently had a by-election with a Direct Democracy
> candidate standing - who came nowhere. If they had polled well I've no doubt
> you'd have been shouting it from the rooftops.
>
indirect democracy) in order to introduce direct democracy. On the other
hand this Irish project seems to have attracted much attention and money
and must have informed many, many people about how DD works. For ideas
about how to persuade politicians to work for DD see
<http://www.iniref.org/carta.htm>
INIREF*I&R ~ GB
Apr 25, 2013, 6:28:40 AM4/25/13
to
The English have failed to give themselves the tools of direct democracy
so they have no way to obtain an issue ballot except by begging their
rulers to give them one.
With citizen-instigated referendum the electorate could demand and
obtain a ballot on any public matter. See
<http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dd-gb>
David North
Apr 27, 2013, 7:03:42 PM4/27/13
to
"Tim Roll-Pickering" <T.C.Roll-...@qmul.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:atr1gj...@mid.individual.net...
> Over in Ireland they recently had a by-election with a Direct Democracy
> candidate standing - who came nowhere. If they had polled well I've no
> doubt you'd have been shouting it from the rooftops.
Actually, considering that this was the first election for a new party, I
would suggest that coming fourth, and beating Labour, who hold one of the
other two seats in the Meath East constituency, was a pretty decent result.
We can probably infer from the result that direct democracy is not a high
priority for most of the voters, but not that they are necessarily against
it.
--
David North
news:atr1gj...@mid.individual.net...
> Over in Ireland they recently had a by-election with a Direct Democracy
> candidate standing - who came nowhere. If they had polled well I've no
> doubt you'd have been shouting it from the rooftops.
would suggest that coming fourth, and beating Labour, who hold one of the
other two seats in the Meath East constituency, was a pretty decent result.
We can probably infer from the result that direct democracy is not a high
priority for most of the voters, but not that they are necessarily against
it.
--
David North
Tim Roll-Pickering
Apr 28, 2013, 11:10:31 AM4/28/13
to
INIREF*I&R ~ GB wrote:
>> It's one thing to nod your head in a survey. It's another thing to make
>> the
>> effort to follow the issues& arguments and then make the trip to vote on
>> them whenever some other group has forced a referendum. Got any evidence
>> in
>> practice of this strong support lasting?
> The use of referendum and citizen law-making has been growing for several
> decades in many countries, not GB. See
It's UK not GB.
>> It's one thing to nod your head in a survey. It's another thing to make
>> the
>> effort to follow the issues& arguments and then make the trip to vote on
>> them whenever some other group has forced a referendum. Got any evidence
>> in
>> practice of this strong support lasting?
> The use of referendum and citizen law-making has been growing for several
> decades in many countries, not GB. See
> Where direct democracy exists, electorates want to keep it. Turnout
> depends on salience of the proposal but is commonly better than in
> candidate elections. The Strathclyde poll, described in the article cited
> in our opener, showed a massive turnout.
another vote) regardless of whether they're forced by petition or the
exercise of powers to call them. I remain to be convinced that turnout in
referendums on Mayors or AV would have been higher if their proponents had
been required to go and collect signatures first.
>> Over in Ireland they recently had a by-election with a Direct Democracy
>> candidate standing - who came nowhere. If they had polled well I've no
>> doubt
>> you'd have been shouting it from the rooftops.
> It does seem paradoxical to launch a political party (an organ of indirect
> democracy) in order to introduce direct democracy.
particularly of binding measures written by any old pressure group - it's
not surprising that advocates would go and create a fringe party.
Tim Roll-Pickering
Apr 28, 2013, 11:15:31 AM4/28/13
to
David North wrote:
>> Over in Ireland they recently had a by-election with a Direct Democracy
>> candidate standing - who came nowhere. If they had polled well I've no
>> doubt you'd have been shouting it from the rooftops.
> Actually, considering that this was the first election for a new party, I
> would suggest that coming fourth, and beating Labour, who hold one of the
> other two seats in the Meath East constituency, was a pretty decent
> result.
I think Labour doing shite has little to do with the presence of Direct
>> Over in Ireland they recently had a by-election with a Direct Democracy
>> candidate standing - who came nowhere. If they had polled well I've no
>> doubt you'd have been shouting it from the rooftops.
> Actually, considering that this was the first election for a new party, I
> would suggest that coming fourth, and beating Labour, who hold one of the
> other two seats in the Meath East constituency, was a pretty decent
> result.
Democracy and a lot to do with their own problems, including complacency and
the inevitale way coalition junior parties take the bulk of the flak. Plus
Fianna Fail seem to be mounting an extraordinary comeback that was likely to
eat into Labour anyway.
> We can probably infer from the result that direct democracy is not a high
> priority for most of the voters, but not that they are necessarily against
> it.
pressing for. Had the vote been much higher then we'd be hearing no end of
it.
David North
Apr 28, 2013, 11:46:54 AM4/28/13
to
"Tim Roll-Pickering" <T.C.Roll-...@qmul.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:au4sok...@mid.individual.net...
> David North wrote:
>
>>> Over in Ireland they recently had a by-election with a Direct Democracy
>>> candidate standing - who came nowhere. If they had polled well I've no
>>> doubt you'd have been shouting it from the rooftops.
>
>> Actually, considering that this was the first election for a new party, I
>> would suggest that coming fourth, and beating Labour, who hold one of the
>> other two seats in the Meath East constituency, was a pretty decent
>> result.
>
> I think Labour doing shite has little to do with the presence of Direct
> Democracy
I wasn't suggesting any connection.
>
>>> Over in Ireland they recently had a by-election with a Direct Democracy
>>> candidate standing - who came nowhere. If they had polled well I've no
>>> doubt you'd have been shouting it from the rooftops.
>
>> Actually, considering that this was the first election for a new party, I
>> would suggest that coming fourth, and beating Labour, who hold one of the
>> other two seats in the Meath East constituency, was a pretty decent
>> result.
>
> I think Labour doing shite has little to do with the presence of Direct
> Democracy
--
David North
INIREF*I&R ~ GB
Apr 28, 2013, 1:37:18 PM4/28/13
to
Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
> INIREF*I&R ~ GB wrote:
>
>>> It's one thing to nod your head in a survey. It's another thing to make
>>> the
>>> effort to follow the issues& arguments and then make the trip to vote on
>>> them whenever some other group has forced a referendum. Got any evidence
>>> in
>>> practice of this strong support lasting?
>
>> The use of referendum and citizen law-making has been growing for several
>> decades in many countries, not GB. See
>
> It's UK not GB.
>
>> Where direct democracy exists, electorates want to keep it. Turnout
>> depends on salience of the proposal but is commonly better than in
>> candidate elections. The Strathclyde poll, described in the article cited
>> in our opener, showed a massive turnout.
>
> Referendums here invariably have worse turnouts (except when bundled with
> another vote) regardless of whether they're forced by petition or the
> exercise of powers to call them. I remain to be convinced that turnout in
> referendums on Mayors or AV would have been higher if their proponents had
> been required to go and collect signatures first.
The Strathclyde poll, described in the article cited in our opener,
showed a massive turnout. So your statement that "Referendums here
> INIREF*I&R ~ GB wrote:
>
>>> It's one thing to nod your head in a survey. It's another thing to make
>>> the
>>> effort to follow the issues& arguments and then make the trip to vote on
>>> them whenever some other group has forced a referendum. Got any evidence
>>> in
>>> practice of this strong support lasting?
>
>> The use of referendum and citizen law-making has been growing for several
>> decades in many countries, not GB. See
>
> It's UK not GB.
>
>> Where direct democracy exists, electorates want to keep it. Turnout
>> depends on salience of the proposal but is commonly better than in
>> candidate elections. The Strathclyde poll, described in the article cited
>> in our opener, showed a massive turnout.
>
> Referendums here invariably have worse turnouts (except when bundled with
> another vote) regardless of whether they're forced by petition or the
> exercise of powers to call them. I remain to be convinced that turnout in
> referendums on Mayors or AV would have been higher if their proponents had
> been required to go and collect signatures first.
The Strathclyde poll, described in the article cited in our opener,
invariably have worse turnouts" is wrong.
You cannot hinge an argument against citizen-led direct democracy (CDD)
on low turnout in Britain because we have no CDD to speak of. You refer
to ballots IMPOSED by authorities. In countries where CDD is available,
with citizens' law-proposal, optional veto referendum and binding
plebiscite, involvement of the people in politics is much greater. The
culture of democracy is better. Elected politicians can be more
effectively supervised by the electorate.
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R ~ GB
http://www.iniref.org/ Link to site index
http://www.iniref.org/steps.html Basic presentation
Tim Roll-Pickering
Apr 28, 2013, 5:20:10 PM4/28/13
to
INIREF*I&R ~ GB wrote:
>> Referendums here invariably have worse turnouts (except when bundled with
>> another vote) regardless of whether they're forced by petition or the
>> exercise of powers to call them. I remain to be convinced that turnout in
>> referendums on Mayors or AV would have been higher if their proponents
>> had
>> been required to go and collect signatures first.
> The Strathclyde poll, described in the article cited in our opener, showed
> a massive turnout. So your statement that "Referendums here invariably
> have worse turnouts" is wrong.
Wrong. The Strathclyde referendum was an all postal affair so by definition
>> Referendums here invariably have worse turnouts (except when bundled with
>> another vote) regardless of whether they're forced by petition or the
>> exercise of powers to call them. I remain to be convinced that turnout in
>> referendums on Mayors or AV would have been higher if their proponents
>> had
>> been required to go and collect signatures first.
> The Strathclyde poll, described in the article cited in our opener, showed
> a massive turnout. So your statement that "Referendums here invariably
> have worse turnouts" is wrong.
nobody turned out.
And if you've got to go back nearly 20 years then you're on shakey ground.
Why not hold up the Section 28 referendum of 2000 as a Scottish example?
> You cannot hinge an argument against citizen-led direct democracy (CDD) on
> low turnout in Britain because we have no CDD to speak of. You refer to
> ballots IMPOSED by authorities. In countries where CDD is available, with
> citizens' law-proposal, optional veto referendum and binding plebiscite,
> involvement of the people in politics is much greater. The culture of
> democracy is better. Elected politicians can be more effectively
> supervised by the electorate.
wail that it's not comparable. The votes we have had have been the result of
political interest groups forcing them one way or another including through
petitions. Yes they may not interest other voters but that's The Whole
Bleeding Point.
And which precise countries or states are you holding up as being so much
better with direct democracy? Switzeland where racists can impose their
hate? California with its perpetually fucked state of affairs?
David North
Apr 28, 2013, 11:21:07 PM4/28/13
to
"Tim Roll-Pickering" <T.C.Roll-...@qmul.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:au5i4b...@mid.individual.net...
> INIREF*I&R ~ GB wrote:
>
>> The Strathclyde poll, described in the article cited in our opener,
>> showed a massive turnout. So your statement that "Referendums here
>> invariably have worse turnouts" is wrong.
>
> Wrong. The Strathclyde referendum was an all postal affair so by
> definition nobody turned out.
Presumably they turned out at their local postboxes. ;o)
>
>> The Strathclyde poll, described in the article cited in our opener,
>> showed a massive turnout. So your statement that "Referendums here
>> invariably have worse turnouts" is wrong.
>
> Wrong. The Strathclyde referendum was an all postal affair so by
> definition nobody turned out.
--
David North
0 new messages