« This week's podcast touches on 'Gender Balance' | Main | How Donald was Trumped »

July 09, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5b0b53ef01761644323e970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Choice cut not to everyone's taste:

Comments

Colin Dunn

"But democracy isn’t about the “rightness” or wisdom of how people arrive at a preference. It’s about their right – after an open debate - to express it."

Agreed. I'll be voting YES, but still feel it's vital for the future that those who prefer a halfway house have the opportunity to register that opinion. Otherwise those who don't want YES or NO are excluded, and more importantly _feel_ excluded. If indy means a fairer, more representative country, then we need to start now by being inclusive of all views.

Cyril Matvech

Cameron and his Anti-Scots campaign are refusing to allow a "Plan B" option under any circumstances. That is more than enough reason for me to say, "Let us offer a better option for those British Nationalists who do not support Cameron's Broken Britain and want much more democracy without being as assured of independence as I am. The Scottish government retain the rights to set all the parameters and extents of any Devo-Max option including the collection of all tax excepting VAT. I say GO FOR IT.

Doug Daniel

I like Margo, but she should perhaps recognise that the approach taken by the SNP thus far is what has led us to a scenario where we can even HAVE a referendum, never mind how many questions are on it.

Devo Max doesn't work. As you've said, the more you scrutinise it, the more holes you find, and the less satisfactory it becomes. But it's this process of scrutiny which allows the very idea of constitutional change to become less radical in people's minds, and therefore less of a daunting prospect - rather than asking "can we really handle all these powers ourselves?", people will think "well, I'm already keen for Scotland to have full tax raising powers - why do I want defence to stay with Westminster?"

Margo should perhaps take a leaf out of Colin Fox's book - the SSP do not agree with the SNP on many things, but he's taken a seat on the advisory board because he can influence the direction of the yes Campaign that way. I've seen many people complain that the Yes Campaign is just being run by the SNP and not putting forward a broad enough vision for independence, but if pro-independence, non-SNP voices like Margo (and possibly the Greens) are not going to take part in the campaign when invited, then how can it be anything else?

Tony Little

I am still an undecided two-question voter. My main discomfort with a second "Devo-whatever" question is that unless we, the Scottish voters, have a clear and unequivocal commitment to the devo-plan by ALL the pro-dependency, Westminster parties BEFORE the referendum, we are voting for ... what, exactly?

I certainly do not want another Douglas-Home "vote No and we will offer more" moment. Once in a lifetime is enough for me, thank you very much!

So, unless Devo-X becomes the new 'status quo' before the referendum, it should be a straight YES/No and the pro-dependency position shown up for what it is.

Of course, the problem with this, is that there is No one in the MSM (and especially BBC Scotland) who will present an honest, unbiased, (as opposed to a pro-Union) discussion of the facts about an Independent Scotland.

If Scots do lose the referendum, then be prepared for a political back-lash that our grandchildren will never forgive us for. (Don't let's pretend we weren't warned!)

Seamus Innes

There will be no second question.

Surely this is blatantly clear?

The pro-indy people are floating it to show Westminster up.

It's manna from heaven to have the unionists refuse a 2nd question. It frames the final 2014 Yes/No in a whole new way.

It ain't recket science.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Lesley Riddoch Podcast

Blossom

  • Lesley's New Book

Contact Lesley