The day may well come when the people of Scotland want a referendum to settle their constitutional future once and for all, but not in the midst of a recession and not on a question rigged and fixed by the SNP.
No!...Yes!...Er...Maybe Sometime.
Gray is guilty here of making the perennial Salmond presumption, a single politician does not have the right to speak on behalf of the "people of Scotland" before actually asking their opinion at the ballot box (but yes, maybe he's right, perhaps the average voter is indeed incapable of coping with more than one topic at a time).
Second point is: if there is a referendum, why would a party holding a minority of seats get to choose the question?
3 comments:
The 'question' is simple, accurate and constitutionally correct. Something like;
Do you wish for the Scottish Parliament to negotiate with Westminster on Scotland becoming independant?
How the hell is that rigged? I suspect that these labour half-wits want words like 'separatists' and pictures of weeping grannies and weans over coffins marked UK. I make that probably 5 u-turns now, does anybody really take these clowns seriously anymore? This Gray even invited Salmond to a debate on St. Andrews day knowing wee Eck's diary is choca as that is the day that the independence Bill is introduced. The cheek of the man! Salmond would beat him wi misses!
>>why would a party holding a minority of seats get to choose the question?<<
Nobody is saying they would, though the one spouted is quite correct and bereft of emotive nonsense. Remember that the SNP have put forward the idea a few times now that there could be another question put on the ballot. Allowing those wishing to vote for more powers.
>>Gray is guilty here of making the perennial Salmond presumption, a single politician does not have the right to speak on behalf of the "people of Scotland" before actually asking their opinion at the ballot box<<
Glad to see you supporting the referendum Oneil;¬)
I reckon wee Alex with a higher approval rating than any political leader on these islands can speak for Scotland far more than the Grey man Gray who recently admitted himself that no-one knows(lucky them). Salmond is the FM of Scotland, does that not give him a degree of lattitude to speak for the people?
I have been pretty consistent in saying that I think a referendum would be the best strategy for the unionist parties to follow, I would even be relaxed about the wording. The question you've given (I think) would constitutionally necessitate a second one where any package agreed with Westminster would need to be put again- so, it would make more sense to have a more definite first question and have it over and done with then.
Unless a politician claims 100% support at the ballot box he hasn't the right to speak on behalf of his or her people.
What!?!?
Who can speak for the people if not the democratically elected leader. What utter nonsense!
The Unionist parties fear the 'perfect storm' oneil. Sad that democracy will probably not allowed to run it's course, England's interests run too deep. There is overwhelming support in Scotland for a referendum and if the opinion polls are to be believed ;¬) Unionism just has the upper hand. Why don't we have it then? You tell me!
Sorry but your point over a second referenda is mistaken. The first referenda authorises the negotiations. Pointless unless it also authorises any subsequent deal.
Post a Comment