Came across this on the SNP website.
Independence is more popular in Scotland than the Unionists would like you to think.
See Below:
SNP Constitutional Affairs Spokesman Pete Wishart MP has welcomed an opinion poll by Angus Reid Public Opinion which shows a majority of the people of Scotland back independence or more powers with independence as the most popular option for change. The poll also shows that a majority of people across the UK back independence or more powers.
According to the poll 64% of people in Scotland want independence or more powers. This breaks down as 22% for “some additional powers, including the introduction of a new Scottish rate of income tax”; 17% for “many additional powers, such as full financial autonomy from the UK”; and 25% for independence - the greatest number for those supporting constitutional progress.
The poll also showed 56% of people across the UK supported independence or more powers for Scotland - and again independence is the most popular change option.
Commenting Mr Wishart said:
“There is a clear desire for Scotland to move forward and this poll shows that the Scottish Government’s white paper, which lays out these options, is in tune with what the people of Scotland want - the right to have their say on their constitutional future.
“There is an overwhelming desire in Scotland to extend the powers of the parliament, with independence the most popular option for change. The status quo is no longer acceptable to the VAST majority of the people of Scotland, and this poll reflects that.
“It is very welcome that independence is the most favoured option for constitutional progress and it can be the winning option for Scotland.
"The Calman Commission has been kicked into the longest of long grass by Labour and the Tories, and people's aspirations in Scotland are far more ambitious than the watered down ideas of the London-based parties.
“Independence would allow Scotland the ability to generate MORE jobs and investment with full responsibility for our economy; to remove nuclear weapons from our waters rather than spend £100 billion on new weapons of mass destruction; and to keep our forces out of illegal wars.
“We would also be able to use all the levers and powers available to tackle poverty and to fully represent our interests and our values – such as our world leading commitment to tackle climate change - amongst our neighbours, in the EU and in the world.”
ENDS
Monday, 21 December 2009
Sunday, 20 December 2009
Reply to CWI article
A reply to Phillip Stott of CWI
I am disappointed with this article. He argues that present disaffection with current devolution arrangement is caused by failure to solve the problems of working class communities. But this ignores the cultural question and lack of democracy. The strenghtening of Scottish parliamentary powers begins to solve the problem of lack of Scottish Democracy. In other words a parliament the people will find useful to democracy. He recognises the fact we could face a Tory government after the next general election. What better arguments have they ever been to opt for full independence. I am also not happy that he slates the SNP by claiming they would slash public services. I don't think the SNP want that but remain tied to the capitalist system putting limitations on their ability to fight budget cuts and protecting public services. Furthermore Mr Stott of the CWI or Committee Workers International comes out in favour of a parliament with full econonmic powers but ignores the need for full independence. Someone should educate him that in order to get a Socialist Republic first we have to smash the British constitution and crown powers and create a free Scotland, Wales, Ireland and indeed England. Support for beefing up the powers of the Scottish parliament may be widespread amongst the people but that is no excuse not to argue for Scottish independence in full. The political climate will change and indeed the mood of the Scottish people after the election of a Tory government. Republican Socialists will be better placed than ever to argue alongside the SNP for nothing less than Scottish independence therefore solving the problem of a lack of Scottish Democracy.
Larry
I am disappointed with this article. He argues that present disaffection with current devolution arrangement is caused by failure to solve the problems of working class communities. But this ignores the cultural question and lack of democracy. The strenghtening of Scottish parliamentary powers begins to solve the problem of lack of Scottish Democracy. In other words a parliament the people will find useful to democracy. He recognises the fact we could face a Tory government after the next general election. What better arguments have they ever been to opt for full independence. I am also not happy that he slates the SNP by claiming they would slash public services. I don't think the SNP want that but remain tied to the capitalist system putting limitations on their ability to fight budget cuts and protecting public services. Furthermore Mr Stott of the CWI or Committee Workers International comes out in favour of a parliament with full econonmic powers but ignores the need for full independence. Someone should educate him that in order to get a Socialist Republic first we have to smash the British constitution and crown powers and create a free Scotland, Wales, Ireland and indeed England. Support for beefing up the powers of the Scottish parliament may be widespread amongst the people but that is no excuse not to argue for Scottish independence in full. The political climate will change and indeed the mood of the Scottish people after the election of a Tory government. Republican Socialists will be better placed than ever to argue alongside the SNP for nothing less than Scottish independence therefore solving the problem of a lack of Scottish Democracy.
Larry
Friday, 11 December 2009
Still on track for independence
Murray Ritchie
Still on track for independence
Scottish Review
Have I got this right? Alex Salmond, being the Sun King of Scottish politics, governs by force of personality. Without the benefit of a parliamentary majority he gets his way by turning his countenance on his enemies and watching them wilt in his glare.
Perplexed and divided they come up with a cunning plan. They decide to appease the great leader by offering some limited constitutional co-operation. This the Sun King graciously accepts because, of course, it serves his purpose. Half a loaf and all that…
But when the great man calls his opponents' bluff and invites them to vote for their own brainwave they suddenly lose their nerve and run again for shade. It is all rather confusing. They may appear ridiculous, even pathetic, as the onward march of Scottish self-determination is again delayed for a moment or two but that's Scottish politics, folks. We're all gradualists now, like it or not.
This constitutional constipation is interpreted by Salmond's enemies in the venal Holyrood commentariat – where the Unionists enjoy a hostile majority – as the SNP at last hitting the buffers and the Sun King heading for the guillotine.
Well, somehow I doubt it. At times like this the opponents of independence take heart. There’s Michael (Lord) Forsyth suggesting Gordon Brown should obey Wendy Alexander's 'bring it on' demand for an independence referendum. Considering His Lordship made a career from misreading Scottish political opinion, I doubt Gordon Brown would be tempted. I suppose he could overcome his party's parrot protest that in time of economic crisis we have more to worry about than further constitutional change. He could argue that the cost of an independence referendum would be minimal if conducted alongside a general election and his suggested referendum on electoral reform next year.
At first sight it is a plausible plan for calling Mr Salmond's own bluff – except of course that unlike the Unionists, Mr Salmond is not bluffing. He reckons – and I see much force in his optimism – that he might win, and his assorted Unionist opponents – less gung-ho than Forsyth and Alexander – worry that he might be right.
Here's why. At times like this our political class tends to get preoccupied with the small picture, the latest scandal, the newest opinion poll. But after a lifetime watching the SNP and its contribution to Scottish life I suspect the future looks rather rosy for Mr Salmond and for independence. Polls and scandals and reshuffles and by-election successes and failures come and go and are merely the punctuation in Scotland's political story. The narrative only becomes interesting when the SNP is making waves and that has been the storyline now for more than a decade.
History shows you should expect the unexpected with the SNP. Only four years ago the Nationalists were written off in Westminster opinion polls, registering a measly 13% support. Today they are running the country and favourites to continue after 2011. Salmond's plan for independence enjoys, at worst, a sound building block of support from about a third of the electorate where a generation ago it was almost non-existent.
Whenever the SNP dip in the polls we hear how 'the Scottish people don’t want independence' but remember this: we know from these same polls that the Scottish people want more constitutional power in some form. And when they get more devolution we have learned that this just feeds their appetite for yet more. This is gradualism in practice, which is why reaction to Salmond's white paper suggests if you put together those favouring independence and/or more devolution you get a huge majority. That explains Salmond’s belief that a multi-option referendum is another step to independence. If the high road via a referendum next year is closed, then it is only sensible to take the low.
In other words if Salmond manages to chip away at the Union, as he is doing with the Unionists trying to buy him off with concessions, then there will come a time when the pile of chips is bigger than what’s left of the block. From there it is just another step to the Sun King's apotheosis when the Union as we know it will be history.
The story so far has been relentless, from the disappointment of the 1979 referendum which signalled the death of Tory Scotland and the emergence of a new civic nationalism. Eventually this led to the 2007 referendum whose outcome stunned the Unionist last ditchers with the SNP going on to govern from a parliament established with the express objective of killing nationalism stone dead.
Nothing in 300 years of Union has been more significant than Scotland turning to a secessionist party for leadership. As Salmond said at the time there may be Labour governments in future – and he is probably correct – but the Labour/Unionist monolith crushing all aspects of Scottish life is busted for all time. With electoral reform local government has already been opened to all politics, killing off Labour's anti-democratic grip. Holyrood's loaded voting rules could be in line for the chop and if Brown goes ahead as promised with a referendum on Westminster electoral reform we could even see the day when the SNP is Scotland's biggest party in the Commons.
This cannot have escaped the attention of Unionists more thoughtful than Lord Forsyth and must explain why the Unionist coalition is in disarray on Calman.
The Tories have reverted to type on their promise of more devolution by reneging at the first phone call from David Cameron and now say they will bring forward their own proposals if they oust Labour at Westminster.
Labour says it sticks by Calman but won’t actually do anything to legislate unless and until it wins the general election. Some hope. As for the Liberal Democrats, still wondering where their fingers are, who can say?
Anyway, I am not sure British general elections matter much any more in Scotland in these devolutionary days. I remember a by-election in Paisley in 1997 that coincided with a new feature of Scottish politics. System Three opinion polling was first to suggest a consistent difference between voting intentions for Holyrood and Westminster and it proved correct. I can still see the face of Labour's campaigners in that by-election when we showed them the evidence that the SNP vote always rises when the contest is for Holyrood.
Scots may be lukewarm about independence for the moment – which is why Salmond is perforce a cautious gradualist – but they still perceive an advantage in having the SNP in strength in Edinburgh. I can see no reason why this should change and every reason why the SNP can only benefit next time from the Sun King’s personal domination of parliament. According to a Nationalist friend of mine, Salmond is the only man in Scotland who can swagger when he's sitting down. I suspect the Scots rather like that and respect him for it even if not everyone loves him. For the moment our First Minister remains the smartest political operator in Britain and the Scots know it. I have no faith in a government of English Tory toffs driving Scottish voters to independence. Rather the Tories are simply irrelevant now. Labour will split and argue about the Scottish question if defeat comes next year and that again can only benefit Salmond. I suspect the Labour left, if it survives, would warm to independence when it assesses its future.
So, despite those routine dips and blips in its fortunes, I think the independence cause will prosper. Even a defeat two years from now would not be fatal for the SNP, just another pause until the next advance, probably at a time when Scotland is recovering from this year's economic shocks. Salmond knows all this and is content to play the long game, confident that his gradualism proves that advance is inexorable as he continues to confound his opponents. And he can reflect that the other Sun King, the French chap, never faced the guillotine but died in his bed a happy man in old age.
Murray Ritchie is former convener of the Scottish Independence Convention
Still on track for independence
Scottish Review
Have I got this right? Alex Salmond, being the Sun King of Scottish politics, governs by force of personality. Without the benefit of a parliamentary majority he gets his way by turning his countenance on his enemies and watching them wilt in his glare.
Perplexed and divided they come up with a cunning plan. They decide to appease the great leader by offering some limited constitutional co-operation. This the Sun King graciously accepts because, of course, it serves his purpose. Half a loaf and all that…
But when the great man calls his opponents' bluff and invites them to vote for their own brainwave they suddenly lose their nerve and run again for shade. It is all rather confusing. They may appear ridiculous, even pathetic, as the onward march of Scottish self-determination is again delayed for a moment or two but that's Scottish politics, folks. We're all gradualists now, like it or not.
This constitutional constipation is interpreted by Salmond's enemies in the venal Holyrood commentariat – where the Unionists enjoy a hostile majority – as the SNP at last hitting the buffers and the Sun King heading for the guillotine.
Well, somehow I doubt it. At times like this the opponents of independence take heart. There’s Michael (Lord) Forsyth suggesting Gordon Brown should obey Wendy Alexander's 'bring it on' demand for an independence referendum. Considering His Lordship made a career from misreading Scottish political opinion, I doubt Gordon Brown would be tempted. I suppose he could overcome his party's parrot protest that in time of economic crisis we have more to worry about than further constitutional change. He could argue that the cost of an independence referendum would be minimal if conducted alongside a general election and his suggested referendum on electoral reform next year.
At first sight it is a plausible plan for calling Mr Salmond's own bluff – except of course that unlike the Unionists, Mr Salmond is not bluffing. He reckons – and I see much force in his optimism – that he might win, and his assorted Unionist opponents – less gung-ho than Forsyth and Alexander – worry that he might be right.
Here's why. At times like this our political class tends to get preoccupied with the small picture, the latest scandal, the newest opinion poll. But after a lifetime watching the SNP and its contribution to Scottish life I suspect the future looks rather rosy for Mr Salmond and for independence. Polls and scandals and reshuffles and by-election successes and failures come and go and are merely the punctuation in Scotland's political story. The narrative only becomes interesting when the SNP is making waves and that has been the storyline now for more than a decade.
History shows you should expect the unexpected with the SNP. Only four years ago the Nationalists were written off in Westminster opinion polls, registering a measly 13% support. Today they are running the country and favourites to continue after 2011. Salmond's plan for independence enjoys, at worst, a sound building block of support from about a third of the electorate where a generation ago it was almost non-existent.
Whenever the SNP dip in the polls we hear how 'the Scottish people don’t want independence' but remember this: we know from these same polls that the Scottish people want more constitutional power in some form. And when they get more devolution we have learned that this just feeds their appetite for yet more. This is gradualism in practice, which is why reaction to Salmond's white paper suggests if you put together those favouring independence and/or more devolution you get a huge majority. That explains Salmond’s belief that a multi-option referendum is another step to independence. If the high road via a referendum next year is closed, then it is only sensible to take the low.
In other words if Salmond manages to chip away at the Union, as he is doing with the Unionists trying to buy him off with concessions, then there will come a time when the pile of chips is bigger than what’s left of the block. From there it is just another step to the Sun King's apotheosis when the Union as we know it will be history.
The story so far has been relentless, from the disappointment of the 1979 referendum which signalled the death of Tory Scotland and the emergence of a new civic nationalism. Eventually this led to the 2007 referendum whose outcome stunned the Unionist last ditchers with the SNP going on to govern from a parliament established with the express objective of killing nationalism stone dead.
Nothing in 300 years of Union has been more significant than Scotland turning to a secessionist party for leadership. As Salmond said at the time there may be Labour governments in future – and he is probably correct – but the Labour/Unionist monolith crushing all aspects of Scottish life is busted for all time. With electoral reform local government has already been opened to all politics, killing off Labour's anti-democratic grip. Holyrood's loaded voting rules could be in line for the chop and if Brown goes ahead as promised with a referendum on Westminster electoral reform we could even see the day when the SNP is Scotland's biggest party in the Commons.
This cannot have escaped the attention of Unionists more thoughtful than Lord Forsyth and must explain why the Unionist coalition is in disarray on Calman.
The Tories have reverted to type on their promise of more devolution by reneging at the first phone call from David Cameron and now say they will bring forward their own proposals if they oust Labour at Westminster.
Labour says it sticks by Calman but won’t actually do anything to legislate unless and until it wins the general election. Some hope. As for the Liberal Democrats, still wondering where their fingers are, who can say?
Anyway, I am not sure British general elections matter much any more in Scotland in these devolutionary days. I remember a by-election in Paisley in 1997 that coincided with a new feature of Scottish politics. System Three opinion polling was first to suggest a consistent difference between voting intentions for Holyrood and Westminster and it proved correct. I can still see the face of Labour's campaigners in that by-election when we showed them the evidence that the SNP vote always rises when the contest is for Holyrood.
Scots may be lukewarm about independence for the moment – which is why Salmond is perforce a cautious gradualist – but they still perceive an advantage in having the SNP in strength in Edinburgh. I can see no reason why this should change and every reason why the SNP can only benefit next time from the Sun King’s personal domination of parliament. According to a Nationalist friend of mine, Salmond is the only man in Scotland who can swagger when he's sitting down. I suspect the Scots rather like that and respect him for it even if not everyone loves him. For the moment our First Minister remains the smartest political operator in Britain and the Scots know it. I have no faith in a government of English Tory toffs driving Scottish voters to independence. Rather the Tories are simply irrelevant now. Labour will split and argue about the Scottish question if defeat comes next year and that again can only benefit Salmond. I suspect the Labour left, if it survives, would warm to independence when it assesses its future.
So, despite those routine dips and blips in its fortunes, I think the independence cause will prosper. Even a defeat two years from now would not be fatal for the SNP, just another pause until the next advance, probably at a time when Scotland is recovering from this year's economic shocks. Salmond knows all this and is content to play the long game, confident that his gradualism proves that advance is inexorable as he continues to confound his opponents. And he can reflect that the other Sun King, the French chap, never faced the guillotine but died in his bed a happy man in old age.
Murray Ritchie is former convener of the Scottish Independence Convention
Wednesday, 2 December 2009
Independence not despair
Alex Salmond produced his White Paper on a referendum on Scottish Independence on St Andrews Day. A multi-option referendum no less but more significant is the Unionists determination to vote down any referendum in 2010.
As Republican Socialists we are revolutionary in thinking and can see the limitations of parliamentary representative democracy in today's Scotland.
But should we despair? No probably the best time to hold an independence referendum is after the election of a Tory government. People in Scotland will vote Labour, SNP, Green and Socialist but not Conservative. This leaves the unsolved issue for the union that is England votes Tory while Scotland and Wales don't. An issue in the 90s a Westminster government with no democratic mandate to rule in Scotland. The SNP have promised to make independence referendum an election issue (general election) if the Unionists vote down the Referendum Bill.
So are we reformist for waiting for party politics to change our political future? Of course not we put our faith in the working class as John MacLean did. However with no revolution round the corner we still campaign. Let party politics take it's course. The SNP intentions are by large genuine.
So we should say let the Unionists be suffocated by their own intransigence.
As Republican Socialists we are revolutionary in thinking and can see the limitations of parliamentary representative democracy in today's Scotland.
But should we despair? No probably the best time to hold an independence referendum is after the election of a Tory government. People in Scotland will vote Labour, SNP, Green and Socialist but not Conservative. This leaves the unsolved issue for the union that is England votes Tory while Scotland and Wales don't. An issue in the 90s a Westminster government with no democratic mandate to rule in Scotland. The SNP have promised to make independence referendum an election issue (general election) if the Unionists vote down the Referendum Bill.
So are we reformist for waiting for party politics to change our political future? Of course not we put our faith in the working class as John MacLean did. However with no revolution round the corner we still campaign. Let party politics take it's course. The SNP intentions are by large genuine.
So we should say let the Unionists be suffocated by their own intransigence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)