Over the weekend the Scottish Government has been under accusation of attempting to rig its independence 
referendum consultation through accepting anonymous submissions, with Labour demanding a “proper” consultation.
According to Scottish Labour Deputy Leader Anas Sarwar, “Everyone knows that Alex Salmond desperately wants a second question on the ballot and now he has left the door open for his army of Cyber-Nats [sic] to deliver the response he wants.”
The Scottish Government has now announced that anonymous submissions towards the independence ballot rules will be excluded. But this rules out only 414 anonymous responses out of the total of 11,986. I suspect it’s very unlikely this 3.5% has in any way been transformative of the consultation findings through some sinister cybernat diktat.
James Maxwell has an excellent piece up on today’s Staggers, discussing the fallacy of the unionist parties continuing to accuse the SNP of “civic chauvinism”. But the tendency to denigrate the nationalists as foaming-mouthed, petty-minded little Scotlanders, not worthy of higher political debate amongst the elite, is not only a mistake in terms of perception of the SNP’s identity. It is also symptomatic of the laziness in which the other political parties, but especially Labour, constantly attack the Scottish Government on the first sliver of a perceived wrong, instead of providing a proper opposition.
Instead of trying to work out exactly what failings in ideology, message, narrative and policy have led Labour to be at this abysmal state in Scottish politics, it’s far easier to attack the SNP for being anti-English, neo-fascist, crazy… Absolutely none of these accusations tally with the party and people that make up Scotland’s party of government, but it’s too simple and straightforward a soundbite for Labour politicians to resist. Too stupid as well.
I don’t think anonymous submissions to consultations are a great idea. But by attacking the SNP on this Labour have again focused on the facile, and not the fundamentals. Dissing how the consultation is run is far easier than engaging with a consultation with a sizeable number of respondents. And again Labour have attacked on the first sliver of perceived wrongness. To jump up and down demanding parliamentary recall on an issue resolved by one simple decision by the Scottish Government again makes the SNP look measured and in control, and Labour hysterical.
One simple change to the acceptance of consultation responses turns Labour’s agitation into tomorrow’s chip paper, and reinforces the SNP’s strength and competency on the Scottish political sphere.
#1 by R.G. Bargie on April 2, 2012 - 7:46 pm
Mm. Sarwar’s assertion that providing a name and email address somehow verifies a contributor’s identity is perhaps either the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard a politician say, or the most mendacious.
(Here’s a tip – my name isn’t actually Roy Gerald Bargie, and that isn’t my real email address either.)
#2 by Alec on April 2, 2012 - 7:57 pm
That’s the joy of opposition… Sarwar doesn’t have to present a fully formed alternative proposal. Pointing-out the flaws in the existing one is a good start.
Maybe if he were in charge he’d be motivated to marshal a coherent proposal. He could start by looking at the Westminster system which requires proof that you’re on the electoral roll whilst giving you the option not to publicly reveal your names.
~alec
#3 by R.G. Bargie on April 2, 2012 - 8:09 pm
Except, of course, that if you look at the UK government consultation it does absolutely no such thing, and is entirely open to anonymous responses.
http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/scotlandoffice/files/17779-Cm-8203.pdf
” How to respond to the consultation
We welcome your comments on any aspect of this document, particularly your responses to the questions set out in section 4.
The deadline for responses is Friday 9 March 2012. You can respond by letter or e-mail to:
Referendum Consultation
Scotland Office
1 Melville Crescent
Edinburgh
EH3 7HW
email: reply@scotlandoffice.gsi.gov.uk “
#4 by Alec on April 2, 2012 - 8:47 pm
That would be a major flaw, and one which has absolutely no relevance to Salmond’s conduct here.
Sarwar was neither leading the Westminster nor Holyrood consultation process, with access to the retinue of civil servants and advisers which this position of power attracted.
Unless you’re saying that allowing anonymous submissions is not a cause for concern (so, in effect, are in opposition to Salmond’s now admission), you’re making a non-point. The stomping sound I can hear is what is happening to grapes of the sourest vintage.
~alec
#5 by R.G. Bargie on April 2, 2012 - 10:18 pm
I have no idea what point you’re floundering at. There IS nothing wrong with anonymous submissions – it’s a consultation, not a vote – and I’m slightly disappointed that the SNP have made that concession, but I can see how it’s politically smart for them to do so.
Sarwar is either an idiot or a liar – there’s no way of escaping that conclusion. Being in opposition isn’t an excuse for it, or for his hypocrisy – the Unionists are the only ones who’ve actually been caught out trying to rig the consultation with hundreds of identical responses, and the process in question WAS designed and previously implemented (several times) by Labour.
And by pointing out the (supposed, though it turns out non-existent) contrast between the Scottish and UK consultations, I’m afraid Sarwar MADE it relevant.
#6 by Alec on April 3, 2012 - 8:44 am
Yes you do. In your first response to me you gave an accurate precis of what I was saying, and now are consciously trying to divert the discussion to the Westminster led consultation thus making the Scottish Government one look less worse by comparison.
Of course there is. This is not blogging. We don’t have anonymous voting in this country for a very good reason.
Then you, Salmond and whomever should retake the initiative and pursue this point. To do that, however, would require the admission that the Scottish Government led consultation also was flawed.
And that won’t do. So you flounder about in the hope that the reader will accept outrage in the place of sincere disagreement.
This reader doesn’t.
~alec
#7 by R.G. Bargie on April 3, 2012 - 10:21 am
“and now are consciously trying to divert the discussion to the Westminster led consultation thus making the Scottish Government one look less worse by comparison.”
Not at all. I merely made the passing point that Sarwar is a hypocrite as well as a buffoon and/or liar. I have no problems whatever with the Scottish Government’s consultation, and therefore no interest in distracting attention from it. YOU raised the subject of the UK one, not me. I didn’t even mention it except to point out that you were wrong.
“Of course there is. This is not blogging. We don’t have anonymous voting in this country for a very good reason.”
Indeed, but a consultation isn’t a vote. A valid idea is a valid idea whether it has a real name, a fake name or no name attached to it. Are you suggesting that your opinions here are invalidated because you’re only identified as “Alec”? If so, I’ll happily ignore them from now on.
“Then you, Salmond and whomever should retake the initiative and pursue this point.”
You seem to have mistaken me for a member of the Scottish Government. I’m not even a member of the SNP. As far as I’m concerned, no point needs “pursued”. I’m perfectly happy with the consultation as it stands.
#8 by Alec on April 3, 2012 - 10:41 am
No you didn’t. At least have the courage of your convictions.
You’re hedging your bets, and transparently so.
Blimey, you must have asbestos cheeks to come out with that guff! You jolly well know it’s being posed in order to form the basis of a certain highly important vote.
All those angels are getting tired on the end of that pin you’ve got them balancing on.
Indeed I am not. I addressed you and Salmond and whomever in the same breath ‘cos this line of discussion is about both your opinion and Salmond’s conduct.
You are stating that you believe his conduct has been proper, so don’t be too surprised if readers in disagreement suggest other approaches.
And, even if I were doing what you’re saying, it would have no bearing on Salmond’s failure to show a scintilla of contrition until it was thrashed out of him (at which point, it strikes as self-pity rather than anything sincere).
~alec
#9 by R.G. Bargie on April 3, 2012 - 11:22 am
“No you didn’t.”
I’m really pretty sure that I did. Here’s the entire text of my original comment:
“Mm. Sarwar’s assertion that providing a name and email address somehow verifies a contributor’s identity is perhaps either the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard a politician say, or the most mendacious.
(Here’s a tip – my name isn’t actually Roy Gerald Bargie, and that isn’t my real email address either.)”
I’m reasonably certain that what I’ve done there is (a) note that Sarwar is an idiot and/or a liar, and (b) conspicuously NOT mention the UK government consultation. Do correct me where I’m wrong.
“And, even if I were doing what you’re saying, it would have no bearing on Salmond’s failure to show a scintilla of contrition until it was thrashed out of him ”
I am not aware of his having shown any “contrition” even now, and rightly so. Can you direct me to a quote in which he does so?
#10 by Alec on April 3, 2012 - 12:12 pm
To which I replied:
You have painted yourself into a corner on this one. You cannot insist that no abuse of this consultation through anonymous posting by Nats has been identified ‘cos this is the sort of thing which has come-out through Sarwar’s performance, which you say was unnecessary.
You cannot say that the discussion should be extended to the management of the Westminster led consultation ‘cos that would imply you believe the Scottish Government one should not be critiqued alone. Yet, you don’t believe the latter was flawed.
So you’re reduced to bagatellizing the consultation intended to design the upcoming referendum question(s) by insisting questions of transparency are of secondary importance.
You’re reduced to feigning surprise that a known opponent of the SNP and Devo-Max who occupies a senior position in the principal opposition Party should actually use an opportunity to promote his profile and case. No serious opponent of the SNP would deny that, until now, their competition in the Scottish political mercat has been pretty dire, and that Salmond was perfectly justified in going for their own goals.
What in Valen’s name d’you think happens on Parliamentary floors?
You’re reduced to reflexively calling Sarwar a liar and a hypocrite. This, in particular, is indicative of a wider malaise in popular discussion (aided by being protected behind an Internet pseudonym) in which simple disagreement or showing one’s opposite number to be merely wrong is not sufficient… one have to completely demolish them and show them to have forfeited the right to be taken seriously.
Salmond has presented himself as an antidote to the cliquish, politically skulduggerous and opaque but still legal attitude of Westminster/Whitehall/Establishment. Yet, after shmoozing with Murdoch or accepting cash donations from vested interests or not declaring visits to Bute House by subsequent Party donors or over-ruling local council decisions on environmental developments, we can add another example of creep towards the same blasé approach to transparency and probity in which his word [of good intentions] is considered a suitable replacement for actual demonstrations of transparency and probity.
Is there a term which combines the elements of comedy and tragedy?
??? Are you now saying that he’s initiated a change which he believes was wrong? Just to avoid some unnecessary criticism which you say could and should have been shrugged off?
I wouldn’t be impressed by his moral fibre if he has. I would be surprised if someone of his established rhetorical skills has, though.
~alec
#11 by R.G. Bargie on April 3, 2012 - 12:42 pm
“You cannot insist that no abuse of this consultation through anonymous posting by Nats has been identified ‘cos this is the sort of thing which has come-out through Sarwar’s performance”
Watch me: absolutely NO abuse of the consultation by independence supporters has been “identified”. It has been ALLEGED that it COULD be THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE. No more than that. Otherwise, kindly identify for me some of the instances which have been discovered.
The only *actual known* abuse of the process was that by Unionists, as covered by The Times.
“You’re reduced to reflexively calling Sarwar a liar and a hypocrite”
Not “reflexively” at all. I do it after calmly and rationally analysing his comments, which offer no other plausible explanation. He’s either so stupid that he thinks an email address provides verification of identity, or he knows it doesn’t but is saying that it does, which would be lying.
“Are you now saying that he’s initiated a change which he believes was wrong?”
As I said right at the start (are you really forgetting all this stuff so fast?), I’m disappointed with the decision ethically, but can absolutely see the political wisdom of it. Salmond is a clever politician and a pragmatist, and it would be foolish to expect him to suddenly not act as such.
#12 by Alec on April 3, 2012 - 1:52 pm
Yeah, yeah, yeah so what? Not only has this understanding been made much more easy by opening-up submissions in ways you say were unnecessary, but it aint what I’ve been driving at from the beginning.
The initiative has been given to Sarwar to present the SNP’s attitude towards the referendum in ways he [Sarwar] sees fit. . I share Shuggy’s view that referendums are exercises in manufactured consent, but don’t think this stramash arose from any conscious attempt at deceit by the SNP.
I simply think it was a cock-up.
Salmond, however, has allowed Sarwar to turn what, at worst, would have been a minor inconvenience into a well-deserved reminder that – especially after presenting himself as an antitode to the faceless and/or loose moral’d technocrats in London – he does not deserve to have any statement taken on face value.
Given that I have explicitly told you that I am not arguing there is Nat misconduct, your pursing this line has entered the territory of question begging.
No, you’re trying to demolish him. You’re judging his statements by the harshest possible standards whilst ascribing the most favourable interpretations to Salmond’s.
Furthermore, you so clearly want to be seen as a dispassionate observer and not a partisan polemicist… hence your erroneous claim that I was calling you an SNP member. When I see someone arguing tooth and nail to defend a Party’s conduct on a certain issue, I tend to think they’re in sympathy to that Party.
I’m funny like that.
Liar, liar! Pants on fire! Stupid and stupid gets.
The easy recourse to such accusations in popular discussion has made them as credible as those playground taunts. It also raises the question of what to call a falsehood which has far greater ramifications about how to complete an online form… big fat lie? The biggest lie you ever have seen?
Grown-ups learn to develop a sense of proportion.
Maybe Sarwar’s had further thoughts. Maybe, if presented with an opportunity to direct another consultation process, he’d get down to it and make serious attempts rather than a few comments for the television cameras.
Once again, either your expressed surprise that a senior party political figure should take an opportunity to oppose a policy which you know he opposes and which is being directed by a Party which you know he’s in opposition to is faked, or you are too innocent for this world and should hotfoot it to a nunnery.
You only are now talking of political wisdom. Just as I presume support for a particular Party from consistent defence of said Party, I find subtly changing the terms of the discussion to be a sign of trying to win completely and to demolish your opposite number. To envelop yourself in righteousness whilst leaving your opposite number humiliated.
He’s failed to rise to the challenge here. As clever as he is, the quality of competition on the Scottish political mercat until now has left him as the tallest person in Lilliput.
Arrival of new blood, changing of the game and the gradual unraveling of other policies/programmes will highlight his shortcomings.
He’s become sloppy. It happens to the best of us.
~alec
#13 by R.G. Bargie on April 3, 2012 - 2:21 pm
Sorry, I can’t quite tell which you think it is – is Sarwar an idiot or a liar?
#14 by Alec on April 3, 2012 - 4:02 pm
This, ladies and gentlemen, is a classic example of a loaded question.
Your ability to blather is incredible. All you had to say was “gosh, that’s a silly design. Let’s not just insist the consultation results are not flawed, but show to to be not flawed. There! Phew! Everything’s alright”.
That would have been the sensible thing to do. Except you didn’t and, as with Salmond, snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by turning what should have been an open and shut case with only one-eyed monomanical anti-Nats pursuing it into one about why one-eyed monomanical Nats and their supporters seem pathologically incapable of conceeding a single point.
~alec
#15 by R.G. Bargie on April 4, 2012 - 12:47 am
You still haven’t answered the question. He must be one or the other, because his apparent belief that email is a magical and foolproof identification safeguard cannot be otherwise explained.
#16 by Alec on April 4, 2012 - 9:59 am
I don’t answer loaded questions on the questioners desired terms, because it’s… well… a loaded question which reflects a predetermined conclusion.
I have, however, responded individually on repeated occasions to each accusation.
~alec
#17 by R.G. Bargie on April 4, 2012 - 1:37 pm
If you have, I’m afraid your answers were lost in the fug of waffle. I have no idea whether you think Sarwar is a liar or an idiot. Since you claim to have answered, can you just quickly recap those answers here, ideally in less than 1200 words?
#18 by Commenter on April 3, 2012 - 4:18 pm
I have no idea what point you’re floundering at. There IS nothing wrong with anonymous submissions – it’s a consultation, not a vote
Hear hear. Some people (e.g. Alec here, from hurryupharry.org) are labouring under the illusion that this process is a kind of online web poll.
First off, it isn’t. And secondly, online web polls, even if people are restricted to one vote, are not a gauge of public opinion.
The efforts of political parties to spam the consultations with identical responses indicates that they are also mistaken in this area.
#19 by Alec on April 3, 2012 - 5:52 pm
I make no attempt to conceal that. You clearly have your ideas about what it represents, and are using it in an attempt to discredit me.
It’s the blogging equivalent of a one kid who loudly proclaims that they know who other kids’ friends are, and they’re smelly
Nope. Try again.
~alec
#20 by Commenter on April 4, 2012 - 10:16 am
Nope. Try again.
Anonymity shouldn’t be a problem then, if there’s no goal of gauging public opinion. Try again Mr McP.
#21 by Alec on April 4, 2012 - 12:34 pm
This is not a common garden consultation process. If you believe it should be seen in such terms as a consultation on town centre trees or a local bypass, you are talking the whole referendum into irrelevance.
Now, it is pretty chuffin’ rich of you to try to ‘unmask’ me by revealing my other blog haunts and full name when you are protected behind a pseudonym.
Tell us your full name, home town and web-habits, or desist with this loutish attempt at intimidation. It’s not that I make any effort to conceal this information… it’s the thought that counts.
~alec
#22 by Angus McLellan on April 2, 2012 - 10:45 pm
Anonymous submissions aren’t be a cause for concern. A compelling argument is or equal worth whether it’s made by some eminent academic in oral or written evidence to a comittee or on web form by a random nym on teh internets. And a boilerplate astroturfing submission is just as worthless however submitted.
It’s not a vote after all, and shouldn’t be confused with one.
#23 by Alec on April 2, 2012 - 7:49 pm
I don’t subscribe to any conspiracy theory here. More the much more common explanation for events like this… screw-up.
It’s without doubt that Salmond has led the debate – not just on any referendum, but other domestic issues – until now, being much more adroit and cunning than his opponents and members of his own party. This worked when he was able to present himself as an antidote to the establishment, and to take the power without the responsibility.
Now it’s coming unstuck. What was once cheeky non-conformity now might be seen to have been making it up as he went along; and there comes a point after promising anything to anyone, everyone starts calling in their dues.
And you won’t be able to satisfy them, ‘cos how could you have lots of foreign investment from Trump and a windfarm overlooking this prize? After encouraging a boorish assumption that your Party is the arbiter of Scottishness, what position are you in to object if al-Fayad plays you at the same game?
~alec
#24 by JPJ2 on April 2, 2012 - 8:07 pm
al-Fayed tried to ingratiate himself with the SNP but they would have none of it.
“Now it’s coming unstuck” says alec BUT:
Salmond’s poll ratings are in the stratosphere relative to Cameron, Clegg and Milliband (as for their Scottish henchmen-“did not register” probably covers it).
Those opposed the Salmond like yourself have been forecasting his demise for many a year, but it would not surprise me if he outlasts at the top level all of Cameron, Clegg, Milliband, Lamont,Davidson & Rennie.
#25 by Alec on April 3, 2012 - 7:09 am
Talk about damning with faint praise! I did not say “has come unstuck”… I used the present progressive.
I draw your attention to my saying:
~alec
#26 by Barbarian on April 2, 2012 - 8:07 pm
While I don’t really see hordes of cybernats jamming up the consultation, the fault for the criticism lies with the Scottish Government.
Preventing multiple responses is easy enough from a technical point of view, but this was never implemented. The argument that previous consultations were carried out in the same manner smacks of laziness. And these were different consultations with no significant political gain whatsoever.
There may only be a tiny percentage of anonymous responses, but the damage is already done.
It is about time that the SNP actually sat down and thought out what they are doing. There seems to be a bit of the “yes that sounds good, Alex”, with everyone lacking the courage to question a strategy.
I wouldn’t say Labour look hysterical. I’d say the SNP’s reaction is bordering on hysteria in this case. Rather than jumping about shouting that they are not rigging the consultation, they should have given the numbers that had submitted anonymously, and announced that these would be ignored. End of story. But no, everyone went macho (in a political sense) with outrage.
Why am I criticising the SNP? Because they are in my opinion digging themselves into a hole over some issues, very slowly but surely. This despite an opposition that couldn’t wipe their backside without a map. They need to smarten up, but I doubt that will happen considering they should make significant gains in the council elections.
#27 by Hugh Jarse on April 2, 2012 - 10:12 pm
‘Preventing multiple responses is easy enough from a technical point of view, but this was never implemented’ – it’s basically a failure of compentency here to run a simple online consultation excercise.Next time use surverymonkey.com guys – less chance of screw up.
#28 by Commenter on April 3, 2012 - 4:20 pm
Sweet fancy Moses it’s a consultation, seeking argued ideas IT ISN’T A FLIPPING WEB POLL.
#29 by Alec on April 3, 2012 - 5:32 pm
As you well know, its outcome will have slightly more impact than a consultation of town centre trees or a new bypass. For similar reasons there are suggestions that the referendum should be opened to 16/7 year olds… ‘cos it aint just another constituency election, like.
As I said to another commenter, if you’re reduced to this special pleading then it looks as if you know just how badly the SNP response has been managed.
~alec
#30 by Craig Gallagher on April 4, 2012 - 12:44 am
But you’re missing the point completely. Volume of submissions don’t matter, it’s the quality of the arguments that are being submitted that counts. Thus, even if the SNP’s famed army of cybernats [sic] did spam the consultation, saying the same thing over and over again, that sort of response would naturally be filtered out by the independent agency that is going to review the responses.
There is nothing wrong with anonymous responses to a consultation. In fact, in an ideal world, all responses would be anonymous, so as to remove the public pressure organisations and people face to represent a particular opinion.
#31 by Commenter on April 4, 2012 - 10:17 am
Alec, as far as I can see your comment is contentless. Perhaps this is because you want to insinuate that the consultation process is gauging public opinion and so is a poll, while at the same time shying away from stating that nonsense outright.
#32 by Alec on April 4, 2012 - 12:40 pm
I cannot remember the last time I used the term cybernat. What I am certain of is that it’s been used more times in this thread than I ever have.
Just because you see your opposite numbers as a herd of cattle with associated levels of intelligence and discernment doesn’t mean they see you as such.
Commenter, accusing another frequenter of political blogs of frivolity and lack of substance is a bit like going into a pub and accusing your fellow drinkers of public inebriation.
You must be deliriously pleased with yourself that you have found another blog I comment on. Having worked with children (and been one myself) I do recognize the tendency to snigger from the sidelines about how you know where the other kids play and whom their friends are.
There comes a certain age when it becomes tiresome, though.
~alec
#33 by Doug Daniel on April 4, 2012 - 3:16 pm
Hmmm. Presumably your experience working with children (as well as being one once) has taught you that making it obvious that a raw nerve has been struck is a sure fire way of making sure the person keeps going on about it?
The guy mentioned a website you post on. Big deal, who cares? Or at least that’s what people would have thought if you hadn’t made a fuss about him doing it…
#34 by R.G. Bargie on April 2, 2012 - 10:21 pm
“There may only be a tiny percentage of anonymous responses, but the damage is already done.”
What damage? The fact is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with either anonymous or multiple responses. You seem awfully keen, on almost any issue, to play the part of an SNP supporter who disagrees with the SNP. To be honest, it looks rather fishy.
#35 by Alec on April 3, 2012 - 7:17 am
Absolutely nothing? In no way shape or form?
You, Salmond and others do provide open goals on things like this.
It’s the immediate recourse to outrage, the use of bombast instead of introspection and self-analysis, the inability to accept that criticism of him (and, by making himself the figurehead of the SNP and colossus striding the Scottish political mercat, he has made himself synonymous with the SNP) which keeps these stories going.
~alec
#36 by R.G. Bargie on April 3, 2012 - 10:26 am
“Absolutely nothing? In no way shape or form?”
In themselves, no. Absolutely nothing. Anonymity and multiple responses CAN be abused, but no more than ordinary responses can.
“the inability to accept that criticism”
And yet the SNP moved within hours to act on it, even though there was no need to. You don’t seem to read the papers.
#37 by Alec on April 3, 2012 - 10:55 am
Which is not what you said.
So there is just such a potential.
A lot more than a process which links one submission to some demonstration of the individual’s status as being on the electoral roll in Scotland and discourages/prevents further submissions.
As for the flaws in other consultation processes, I am not disputing any. You are responding immediately to criticism of the Scottish Government led consultation with whataboutery.
With subsequent bad grace. Also, I was including your displayed attitude under that banner.
Now, can you or can you not say that the consultation was not being abused? Yes or no.
The following responses will not be sufficient:
i. Anecdote about never meeting a shy Nat, or speculation that pro-Union participants are wary of revealing their views.
ii. Pointing-out how many anonymous submissions have been rejected (400?). That revelation can be linked to this stramash.
~alec
~alec
#38 by R.G. Bargie on April 3, 2012 - 11:27 am
“So there is just such a potential. ”
Sigh. I pointed out that ALL contributions can be abused. So the only way to make a consultation abuse-proof is to stop ANYONE from sending in a response to it. Asking for a name and email address increases its legitimacy/security by exactly 0%.
“Also, I was including your displayed attitude under that banner.”
Then kindly don’t – I am not a member of the SNP, as you’ve already been told. I am not responsible for anything they do, and they are not responsible for anything I do. I don’t even vote for them.
“Now, can you or can you not say that the consultation was not being abused? Yes or no.”
Yes, it was being abused by Labour, who had already bombarded it with hundreds of identical responses, as detailed in The Times three weeks ago. (But mysteriously unreported by the unbiased Scottish press.) I am not aware of ANY evidence of independence supporters doing so having been presented at any point. Please do supply any you have.
#39 by Alec on April 3, 2012 - 12:32 pm
You previously said there was “absolutely nothing wrong” with anonymous contributions.
Alternatively ensure that demonstration of being on the electoral roll is required, followed by blocking any further attempts. No need to display publicly your name… better still, instigate some sort of blind testing in which even those with access to the retrieval system don’t see who has submitted what.
What an absurdly petulant response. You have spent this thread defending Salmond’s conduct and the management of the Scottish Government led consultation. That is the banner I was referring to, and perhaps if you weren’t operating from the assumption that your opposite numbers are trying to completely demolish you and run you into the group – ‘cos that’s what you do with accusations of idiocy and lying and hypocrisy (?) – you’d have realized this.
It would be like my responding to your inferences that I am insouciant towards anti-Nat misconduct or in full, uncritical support of Sarwar with “you seem to have mistaken me for a member of the PLP”.
I wouldn’t, ‘cos that would be an asinine comment intended to throw-up a cloud of angry smoke.
Let every individual voter have one go at submitting a suggestion. If they want to waste it by doing so in a way which easily can be picked-up upon and discarded, let them.
Once again, you can say this mainly – or, perhaps, only – through the consultation submissions being submitted to analysis and transparency. Which you say aint necessary.
You cannot have your cake and eat it. But you’re trying to.
Why should I? I aint saying there is. I am, however, saying that the ingrained tendency towards settee governance (as described by Barbarian with his criticism of an “that sounds good, Alex” attitude) followed by outrage that it be question is undermined the SNP and their initiatives more and more in the same way as the similar creep in the Westminster Government did.
~alec
#40 by R.G. Bargie on April 3, 2012 - 2:22 pm
“Alternatively ensure that demonstration of being on the electoral roll is required,”
Yes, that should certainly achieve the goal of getting no responses.
#41 by Alec on April 3, 2012 - 4:07 pm
Are you now not trying?
I’m sorry if you’re surprised at any suggestiong that only those elegible to vote in any referendum should be able to influence its direction, but you’ll find that this is a eminently logical conclusion to the one about only those registered in Scotland should be able to vote.
~alec
#42 by R.G. Bargie on April 4, 2012 - 12:50 am
To be honest, trying to wade through your screeds of evasive, goalpost-shifting bluster attempting to locate any sort of coherent point just got too tiring.
#43 by Alec on April 4, 2012 - 10:23 am
You clearly want to be able to slip in definite statements of support [re your views] and to completely discredit [not only those of others, but their very reputations] whilst maintaining a image of aloof indifference and dispassionate observation: “I don’t even vote for them”.
You can’t… none of us can. We have to stand for something.
Reputations matter more to you, as seen with your demands for a retraction of the scurrilous accusation that you’re an SNP supporter. The reason I made this link was ‘cos you had spent the entire thread defending Salmond.
Oh, yes, you now say you merely acknowledge his political maneuvering [1], and it only was an expression of respect beforehand. Except, like it or not, Sarwar has scored a noted public victory with or without a compliant media which clearly failed to do this juju against the SNP in May 2011 and throughout those last few years of high popularity.
Consistency would require someone who merely respects adroit political skills to acknowledge Sarwar’s success. Not, as you have done, go from speaking of Salmond as some sort of political demi-god to seizing on every potential flaw in Sarwar’s approach.
That’s why I see you as a pro-SNP. You don’t see or consider important Salmond’s flaws, whilst eagerly looking for those in others to not only show them wrong but to demolish them.
Speaking for myself, whatever differences in the set-up of the Scottish Government led consultation process I might have wished for, I don’t have serious objections to the way it turned out. It’s the characteristically surly response to criticism of it and the suggestion that the SNP might have to prove itself which has been all fubar
~alec
[1] But no similar acknowledgement of Sarwar’s maneuvering, just as you now have gone from saying anonymous responses should have been retained to saying you can see the political wisdom in rejecting them. Goal-posts anyone?
#44 by R.G. Bargie on April 4, 2012 - 1:40 pm
“your demands for a retraction of the scurrilous accusation that you’re an SNP supporter.”
I made no such demands or statements. Kindly quote where I did. I pointed out that I was not a member or voter.
“Sarwar has scored a noted public victory”
I entirely disagree. He’s made himself look like an idiot, a liar or both. There is no evidence whatsoever, other than the opinions of organisations which are consistently anti-SNP, that the wider public views the matter differently. That his behaviour has been popular with Labour supporters is a shock on a par with the sun rising in the morning.
#45 by Robert Blake on April 3, 2012 - 12:47 am
The only way of weeding out multiple postings b the same individual is by
1) Slow and laborious analysis of the syntax
2) checking for multiple postings of the same wording especially coming in faster than is possible by human
Email address is no guarantee of anything
IP address or Mac address is no bar. If I, my wife and my son, using the same computer, fill in the same consultation form on the same day, is that somehow invalid?
if we went to the Library and used the computer there, is that invalid
If we go to Starbucks, and use the WiFi there, is that invalid
Unfortunately the only organisation to be seen setting up anything to influence the consultation has been the Labour Party.
even then, were people to use that form as the basis, but submit their own opinions, is that any less valid, even though done through the Labour’s website and monitored by them?
#46 by Colin Dunn on April 3, 2012 - 10:50 am
“Preventing multiple responses is easy enough from a technical point of view, but this was never implemented.”
How please? The only way to guarantee this is to issue everyone with a pin number to validate their identity. This is a consultation not a vote, so the more people make contributions the better, and I don’t see a problem with anonymity at all if people want to protect their privacy.
#47 by M G on April 2, 2012 - 8:34 pm
Surely ,if the ‘cybernats’ (anonymously )wanted to ‘influence ‘ a consultation,it would have been the UK consultation.
#48 by Indy on April 2, 2012 - 9:08 pm
Lol the major flaw in the cybernats swarming in an anonymous wave to demand a second question is that they won’t!
I don’t know a single, moderate, middle of the road SNP member who actively wants a second question. We all want a single question. And if moderate, mainstream nationalists feel that way how does Anas Sarwar think the cybernats feel?
It’s all very amusing really.
#49 by R.G. Bargie on April 2, 2012 - 10:23 pm
Precisely. The “cybernats”, you would imagine, would be likely to be exactly the fundamentalist type who would have absolutely no truck with any dastardly plan to secure a devo-max option.
But it’s all part of the big-lie-made-of-lots-of-little-lies approach. It doesn’t matter if individual aspects of Labour’s attack make no sense whatsoever, what matters is that the SNP can’t refute them all at once.
#50 by Robert Blake on April 3, 2012 - 12:49 am
Indy
Don’t forget that, to the likes of M’Lord Foulkes, you are a CyberNat
Don’t give into this labelling of your SNP supporters like this. It casts them as people whose opinion is automatically invalid
And smacks of snobbery for people who habituate the “grown-up blogs” like Betternation
#51 by Angus McLellan on April 2, 2012 - 10:56 pm
Lorraine Davidson said yesterday on Sunday Politics Scotland that she’d never met a shy nationalist and that that in her view anonymous submissions were more likely to come from unionists – businesspeople – who didn’t want to sign their names to their opinions. Given that Labour encouraged astroturfing at the click of a button, Sarwar and Lamont are in danger of being caught out saying one thing and doing another. Again. And in a counterproductive way if Lorraine Davidson is right.
#52 by Alex grant on April 2, 2012 - 11:56 pm
Cock perhaps, but minor one – though not reported that way. I have not heard one journalist say “how can the ability to present anonymous submissions be monopolised by one side?” Utter rubbish. And that is all the SNP had to say.
And not one journalist asked Sarwar why the flawed methodology had been ok when Labour used it?
#53 by CW on April 3, 2012 - 1:20 am
According to Scottish Labour Deputy Leader Anas Sarwar, “Everyone knows that Alex Salmond desperately wants a second question on the ballot and now he has left the door open for his army of Cyber-Nats [sic] to deliver the response he wants.”
This is both a ridiculous statement and bad politics. Nobody apart from politics obsessives (like the good people here) has a clue what a “cybernat” is – its a word that just sounds faintly retro and odd to uninformed ears. Many of those who do know might justifiably wonder what on earth a political party is supposed to do about anonymous internet posters. And as Kirsty pointed out, the numbers reveal Sarwar’s theory to be nonsense anyway.
I await solid evidence that Anas Sarwar is half the politician that Labour and the Scottish media claim him to be. So far, he just appears to be the new Jim Murphy, brilliant at climbing the Labour Party career ladder, all the while patronising the general public into submission during endless media appearances.
#54 by Commenter on April 3, 2012 - 4:22 pm
Nobody apart from politics obsessives (like the good people here) has a clue what a “cybernat” is
Dont worry. Labour etc have settled upon the smear, so now newspapers like the Scotsman and the Daily Mail are working hard to nurture it.
#55 by Craig Gallagher on April 3, 2012 - 1:52 am
Excellent post, Kirsty. I particularly enjoyed the link to James’ Maxwell’s article, which gets right to the heart of the headbanging tribalism currently blinding the Labour party to any kind of serious analysis of what they’re doing to themselves. Your own sentence that reads “by attacking the SNP on this Labour have again focused on the facile, and not the fundamentals” is an excellent explication as well.
Labour probably believe they have landed a blow on the SNP, and I would expect them to harp on about this for weeks on end. You would think Tom Harris had won the leadership, given the party’s sudden all-consuming obsession with cybernats. They are seriously guilty of believing their own propaganda and are doing nothing to raise the standard of this debate. Their focus on process rather than particulars on almost every issue achieves absolutely nothing but to make them look clueless.
That said, I wish the SNP hadn’t caved on this stupid challenge from the NOpposition. There were undoubtedly very thoughtful submissions amongst the 400+ excluded, which probably featured several from independence-supporting Labour voters seeking to keep this quiet. Public ballots and consultations are the mark of dictatorships, by the way. There’s a reason we have a secret ballot in this country.
#56 by Alec on April 3, 2012 - 8:11 am
Then a less home-knitted online petition should have been used. This is supposed to be a grown-up political system… not one in which we give the benefit of the doubt to Salmond et al..
Whenever I’ve used the Westminster/No10 offering, I’ve had to prove that I’m a UK voter and have had one go; even if I were able to select a pseudonym for public display.
By going straight into outrage-mode, and then providing such admissions and figures only under duress and with the baddest of grace this is a victory which Sarwar has achieved entirely with Salmond’s help.
No they’re not. No ballots or options for consultations are the mark of dictatorships.
No we don’t. What d’you think that barcode/number on voting slips are for?
~alec
#57 by Robert Blake on April 3, 2012 - 10:18 am
Why is no one pointing out that the consultation is on the Scotland.gov.uk website
In other words thought the SNP led Scottish Government may have called for this, it is actually being run by civil servants, not the SNP themselves
Given that, surely we should be asking the questions of the Holyrood IT team?
#58 by Alec on April 3, 2012 - 10:58 am
Why not?
~alec
#59 by GMcM on April 3, 2012 - 1:02 pm
Does every consultation get a pop-up on the Scottish Government website?
#60 by An Duine Gruamach on April 3, 2012 - 2:57 pm
“No they’re not. No ballots or options for consultations are the mark of dictatorships.”
Not necessarily. Ceausescu, among others, used to have them fairly often.
#61 by Craig Gallagher on April 3, 2012 - 3:10 pm
“No they’re not. No ballots or options for consultations are the mark of dictatorships.”
There is a long-established practice, dating back to the Napoleonic period, of public ballots as a means to shore up the legitimacy of the regime. Holding sham elections and intimidating the population into voting for the ruling elites by making them cast their votes publicly undermines the very premise of an elective democracy.
“No we don’t. What d’you think that barcode/number on voting slips are for?”
Does your voting number display your voting intentions? No, it is merely a means to ensure you only vote once. Otherwise, how you cast your ballot is entirely secret to the wider world, as it should be.
You’re making a fundamental misconception by assuming that anonymous contributions to consultations are inherently bad, and the SNP are stupid for allowing them. In contrast, anonymous submissions are desirable, to remove any party political bias from either the submissions or the review of them. As I alluded to before, it also bullies those who hold views that go against the mainsteam of their parties into keeping quiet. That goes for pro-independence Labour supporters and pro-devo max SNP supporters.
#62 by Alec on April 3, 2012 - 7:02 pm
In a perfect storm of a developing political atmosphere in this country like something out of Knights of God then, yes, yes that would be a fear.
Alternatively, you’re constructing your own fantasies.
Shows of hands are commonplace in Swiss municipal elections, which I’d love to hear you describe as a dictatorship! I dunno which public consultations you’ve been to in this country, but I never have seen one in which attendees wear masks or hide behind screens.
In fact, I can’t think of would encourage unsigned questions (“wishes to remain anonymous” is NOT the same as not providing details of your identity which won’t be made public).
It could be cross-referenced.
My very first comment in this thread was that I didn’t consider this to part of a deliberate attempt at deceit, and have gone on to say again and again and again that I reckoned a simple fessing-up at the beginning would have sufficed.
Even the SNP admit they didn’t “allow” this. It was a poorly conceived design.
Yet still I am coming up against the presumption that I’m accusing the SNP of deliberate deceit. I’m not. I’m accusing them of a difficulty in accepting any reproach.
It almost is as if you have convinced yourself that any and all criticism of an SNP initiative is not just misplaced but inconceivable.
~alec
#63 by Craig Gallagher on April 4, 2012 - 12:55 am
“My very first comment in this thread was that I didn’t consider this to part of a deliberate attempt at deceit”
Right, which is why I said that you thought the SNP were stupid, not mendacious, for allowing them. Kindly respond to what I actually write if you insist on getting into a lather about my arguments.
I don’t think any and all criticism of the SNP is inconceivable. As a card-carrying member, I have plenty of points of contention with the party that I try my best to express.
Swiss municipal elections may indeed use a show of hands, but one swallow does not a summer make. That sort of democratic approach works well at the local level, but at the national, over such heated issues as elections and referenda, a secret ballot is the only way to ensure fair and free elections. No-one should be forced to publicly declare their inclinations, it should be a choice, and by demanding an end to anonymous contributions to this most important consultation, Labour have breached a fundamental matter of trust between them in the election, that reflects badly on their own paranoia. Likewise, the SNP were foolish to agree, and reflects badly on their own fear of picking legitimate fights over nevertheless minor issues because it might forestall their wider message.
#64 by Alec on April 4, 2012 - 10:03 am
I did respond, Craig. I don’t think was any intended real thought about the presence of anonymous options. It wasn’t “allowed”. It just wasn’t thought about.
The thrust of my argument here has concerned the response.
I already have addressed your questions of democracy/dictatorships @ 2219 hrs on 3 April. A lot of things are possible, I suppose, but your posited scenario arising from anything I’ve expressed approval of is a bit out-there and implausible.
~alec
#65 by Indy on April 3, 2012 - 9:05 pm
That old chestnut.
How many counts have you attended Alec?
How many briefings by Returning Officers have you sat through?
People can be assured that while the fact that they vote is recorded no-one – but no-one – can find out how they voted.
#66 by Alec on April 3, 2012 - 10:19 pm
Indy, it was Craig who presented those who wouldn’t have had the consultation process accept anonymous postings as being a short step away from requiring all voting to be done by public shows of hands, and then showed no sense of proportion by comparing any form of either to be unequivocal support for nasty Napoleonic systems.
I am completely unconcerned about those bar-codes on voting forms. Craig, however, was looking for Little Napoleons under his bed. I answered him on his own terms to show how irrelevant I consider his imagery to be to this discussion in hand.
If he thinks shows of hands are a dangerous practice, consistency would require him to call Switzerland a dictatorship. If he thinks anonymized submissions after the fact on the online consultation process (again, NOT the same as allowed anonymous postings), consistency would require him to express alarm at the bar-codes on voting forms.
I think doing so would be a tad of an over-reaction. But he set himself up for that.
That said, I can at least see where he wants the conversation to go. I am at a complete loss as to what his problem with public consultations is.
~alec
#67 by Craig Gallagher on April 4, 2012 - 2:15 pm
Really? What a masterful example of playing the man and not the ball. Not one of the things you have attributed to me matches what I actually said. I am not sure if that is because I speak in such mendacious subtleties that you were bewildered into seeing dark intent beneath my every word, or because you wished to deliberately misrepresent me.
In either case, I suggest you seriously consider what your type of spinning is doing to the standards of debate in Scotland. I would hope that most BN posters agree that I am usually pretty forthright in my opinions, and have always appreciated their equally robust responses. You are the first regular poster I have come across on this site who isn’t interested in content but in message. That is disappointing, particularly because everyone can see the written record of what you have been saying and can clearly see you came nowhere close to answering me “on [my] own terms”
#68 by Chris on April 3, 2012 - 12:05 pm
I agree this is a storm in a teacup. But for Sarwar this is a good weekend’s work. For the price of a press release he secures a climbdown has SNP ministers contradicting themselves and leaves a fishy smell over the referendum consultation.
It also makes the Devo-Max ploy a bit less likely.
#69 by R.G. Bargie on April 3, 2012 - 2:26 pm
“It also makes the Devo-Max ploy a bit less likely.”
And you think that’s a victory for Sarwar, rather than Salmond? Surely there isn’t still anyone left who honestly thinks Salmond wants devo-max on the ballot?
#70 by Iain Menzies on April 4, 2012 - 12:36 pm
I think he does. Easy way to show that he doesnt is to say that he wont legislate for a multi question referendum….he hasnt tho has he?
#71 by Chris Fyfe on April 3, 2012 - 3:57 pm
You’re right just me, Jim Sillars and everyone I meet
#72 by Indy on April 3, 2012 - 9:07 pm
You kind of prove his point there,
I like Jim Sillars on a personal level but his track record over the past few decades is one of being wrong about pretty much everything to do with the SNP I am afraid.
#73 by Chris Fyfe on April 3, 2012 - 4:00 pm
I believed that it would have been very convenient for the SNP leadership to respond to a demand from ‘Civic Scotland’ for a devo-max option that they would be happy to accept.
But for this to happen the SNP leadership would have to step back from the demand and let the demand appear naturally and spontaneously.
Strangely, this is exactly what is happening, right now.
#74 by Tormod on April 3, 2012 - 5:07 pm
This sorry event proves the MSM media / labour love-in is a strong as ever.
And how sadly the predicitable SNP fart and cause hurricaine headlines are still used enmasse.
Honestly it would so fecking hilarious if it wasn’t so depressingly predictable.
One of the very good things about this stack of merde is the total belief in labour that this type of event is making it’s mark.
Well I am afraid not, what folk outside of politics hear is tornfaced labour politicans at it again.
Ewan Crawford tweeted a very interesting piece of narrative he said:-
“Sometimes political coverage and debate in Scotland seems like a private conversation to which readers and voters aren’t invited”
Oh how true are those words.
#75 by Colin Dunn on April 3, 2012 - 8:12 pm
“Well I am afraid not, what folk outside of politics hear is tornfaced labour politicans at it again.”
Indeed. I’m no historical Labour voter (nor SNP either for that matter), but I do find it rather sad how a former great party is pissing it away spending all their effort railing against the SNP rather than trying to improve the lot of ordinary Scots.
#76 by Chris Fyfe on April 3, 2012 - 5:25 pm
You might want to speak to Alistair Campbell about the MSM/Labour love-in. A mainstream media that perpetuated the distortion that Tony Blair compared a Scottish Parliament to an English Parish Council, etc.
No the mainstream media take a knock at whoever is in power. Take it as a compliment.
#77 by Robert Blake on April 3, 2012 - 7:29 pm
I can see a denizen of hurryupharry referencing “Knights of God” as it centred around Albion and if memory serves Julian Fellowes was in it and I get te feeling you support the hoi Pollok knowing their place.
Calling on Valen does you know favours, he was very much in favour of opposing overweening empires and in favour of self-determination
#78 by Alec on April 3, 2012 - 10:00 pm
Robert, as I said to Commenter, I make no secret about it. I know you think you’ve stumbled onto some devastating secret about me, I know you think it’s a killer blow to point out that someone comments on different blogs… but it’s not, really it’s not.
Now, kindly give us a break-down of your web habits and get Commenter to reveal his/er real name, ore desist with the weirdly boorish attempt at intimidation.
It’s not working. It’s just weird.
~alec
#79 by Commenter on April 4, 2012 - 10:23 am
I actually quite like HP, although it’s a bit slavishly Labour. Not so keen on the slightly whimsical pseudo-intellectual contributions from Alec. Bit hard to read.
#80 by Alec on April 4, 2012 - 12:50 pm
Oh yes! The keeper of the old flame line! A member of the Recusancy who would return it to its former glories!
Weird!
If there are Better Nation authors whose writing style I find irksome, I tend to bite my tongue and read through it to the argument being made. Bloggers are amateurs – in the sense of not getting paid – so if yow want it written to the same standard of a professional publication, I’d suggest making a regular financial contribution or offering some industry-recognized qualification.
D’you pick-up the Metro and complain about the writing style?
~alec
#81 by Alec on April 4, 2012 - 12:57 pm
And “slavishly Labour”? Has the ATL view switched to uncritical support for Ken Livingstone?
~alec
#82 by Robert Blake on April 4, 2012 - 11:38 pm
Since you ask, recent activity includes here, Labourlist, Liberal Conspiracy, Burdzeyeview and Moridura
Intimidation? no. I refute that utterly
I was commenting on your viewing habits rather than your web habits
Calling you enamoured of elitism because of the one (or not the One) and missing the point on the other
#83 by Angus McLellan on April 4, 2012 - 12:49 am
The Hoi Pollok? Is that like the Carlton Club Tong?
I’ll get my coat.
#84 by Robert Blake on April 4, 2012 - 11:40 pm
Not quite
Other end, the people of Glasgow who vote Labour despite being retained in poverty and poor housing.
Pollok kind of typifies those conditions, unfortunately
#85 by Indy on April 3, 2012 - 9:11 pm
Have enjoyed seeing Alec on a roll here.
More feared than any cybernat – behold! The cyberpedant!
New Dr Who villain in the making? Confounds the Doctor at every turn by repeating what he said and analysing it to the point where the good Doctor’s head is ready to explode.
Then he is saved by a swarm of cybernats heading for Lord Foulkes who sweep him away in a torrent of madness with only a final echoing “quiiiiisssssslllllliiiiiiinnnnng” Cue credits.
#86 by Alec on April 3, 2012 - 10:03 pm
Indy, I once watched a toddler who’d learn a naughty word. He was delighted at it, and clearly felt a frisson of excitement every time he said it.
Once he hid behind the settee saying it, apparently convinced that we didn’t know who was saying it.
I think it was “poo”. Or maybe it was “cybernat”.
Either way, we weren’t it. He was. He grew out of it.
~alec
#87 by Robert Blake on April 4, 2012 - 11:41 pm
If he’s referncing Kinights of God, which he was, he’s worse than that
Takes a real, real nerd to remember that
Which is why I do
#88 by Brian Nicholson on April 3, 2012 - 10:03 pm
An interesting debate.. if I were six years old.
One small observation, however, as my contribution. I find it strange that the unionists are complaining of the hordes of cybernats posting. Is this an admission that the nats are now to be numbered in the hordes? How then shall we count the unionist robo-Cons? parcels o’rogues? wee timorous beasties? Lilliputians? diminishing returns? Please advise.
#89 by BaffieBox on April 4, 2012 - 6:45 am
A bizarre debate and worthy analysis from Kirsty. The eagerness of the media to get excited by Labour’s apparent scent of blood on this is a timely and depressing reminder about where their priorities lie. A complete non-issue from start to finish, with the most remarkable aspect of it that Labour wanted to recall parliament because of it?!
Each and every occurrence of this faux-outrage from Labour, Unionists, and the Scottish media in general in reaction to anything the SNP do, only underlines the need for independence IMO. Whether they like it or not, their actions come to define what a “NO” vote represents: how Scotland will look and sound politically as part of the UK is exactly what we are getting from Scottish Labour and friends. In fact, it will probably be worse as we’ll probably hand them more power through an increased devolution settlement.
Absolutely woeful all round. A “NO” vote in 2014 is an endorsement of this s***. Absolutely remarkable that Labour and the wider Unionist movement seem to not only accept this, but actively encourage it.
We are surely capable of better?
#90 by Chris Fyfe on April 4, 2012 - 10:44 am
That’s a strange reason to support independence. Nearly as bizarre as citing David Cameron and the Big Bad Tories as a reason for fundamental political change.
This is a storm in a teacup. I think it has been politically useful to stymie any attempts to distort the consultation to accede to last minute ‘demands’ from ‘civic Scotland’ to a third question which has largely been invented as a backstop in the continuing likelihood that the people will vote decisively against independence.
It is also useful because of confusion in dither in the No camp. Most of the No camp are not Unionists and will not want to wrap themselves in the Union Jack so there is an immediate tension within the No camp. This is leading to what can best be described as uncertainy at best and dithering at worst.
So when a coherent and plausible challenge is made by a coherent and plausible opponent then it gets noticed and out of surprise and timidity the government backs down. That is the real story here.
#91 by BaffieBox on April 4, 2012 - 11:22 am
It isnt at all. Crying for parliament to be recalled on such a ridiculous non-issue? This is the Labour Party. Until 5 years ago the rulers of Scotland from since I was born, and since, the principle opposition to hold the SNP to account. And it’s been this sort of nonsense for a long, long time. This is what happens if we continue to give Scottish Labour responsibility and they’ll get more of it if independence is rejected. And they are the way they are because they’ve stagnated in the Union, but defend it for nothing more than “that’s the way it’s always been”.
If we submit to their nonsense, endorse it and encourage the utter nonsense we see from some of their parliamentarians like Tom Harris, Scotland deserves what it gets.
Independence is a very legitimate way of demanding something far better. I do not see how remaining in the Union offers anywhere near that same opportunity for change.
#92 by Iain Menzies on April 4, 2012 - 12:39 pm
You must be really young then, cos im sure there was this 18 years of evil tory rule in there somewhere.
#93 by BaffieBox on April 4, 2012 - 2:02 pm
Fair point sir!
But I was talking in terms of a majority in Scotland. When was the last time there was a Tory majority in Scotland (or a non-Labour majority before 2007)? No party has been allowed to govern or represent Scotland in the last 50 years like Labour have, at all levels of government.
And yes, I am young thanks. Reasonably. Mibbe. 😉
#94 by Chris Fyfe on April 4, 2012 - 3:22 pm
I would rather Labour had a more coherent response. I think Johann Lamont is promising (certainly better than Iain Gray and Jack McConnell) and I would like to think that some of those voices for change will come more to the fore, especially as the numpties with their sole eye on being called councillor are now as likely to jump in with the SNP to get elected.
But citing the state of the Labour Party in Scotland in 2012 as a reason for independence. That’s startlingly myopic.
I would rather hope that post referendum we can get back to normal business where not every question is filtered through the referendum lens. It is the tedious obsession of one political issue that has both minority support and even less actual interest that is damaging public life.
#95 by Doug Daniel on April 4, 2012 - 5:01 pm
It’s strange that in one response, you characterise independence as “fundamental political change”, and yet in the next you talk about it as if it’s some silly little administrative issue that political anoraks obsess over which interests no one else. Which one is it?
Such doublethink seems rife amongst those who oppose independence, where we’re told that the referendum should be brought forward to “get it over with” like some non-issue, while being told that voting for it would have disastrous consequences for Scotland.
As for characterising BaffieBox’s reasoning as being solely down to the state of Labour in 2012, I think you’re knowingly doing him a disservice. The state of Labour today is but a small example of the poor state of political discourse in Scotland at the moment, with the three unionist parties and the media all found wanting in the roles they should be playing. The Scottish public are not being adequately served by these institutions, who are happy to keep debate mired in petty little issues, and paradoxically paint those who want to look beyond the UK for solutions as parochial.
As long as Holyrood is at the mercy of Westminster for its powers, these parties and the media can continue to treat Holyrood as some diddy parliament. Independence will force them to up their game. That’s not myopic, it’s just sensible.
#96 by Iain More on April 4, 2012 - 4:50 pm
What on earth are you havering about Alec?
On topic!
The Brit Unionists are engaged in a process to smear the Scottish Govt Referendum consultation. Whilst there own already discredited consultation is in the process of being further ridiculed by the fact that more than one quarter of its responses came from a Brit Labour Party website where the response was already prefabricated. The Unionist consultation was in otherwords rigged!
Oh and then there is all those anonymous responses that they had under pressure to reject. as well.