The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.

beecher2

.string. wrote: »

A question to, or for, Scots; what role do local councils have in a referendum, would they be able to frustrate or even block an illegal referendum?

This possibility has been mentioned before and I wonder if it is a real possibility.

I know that the largest party in most councils is the SNP but there is this little problem they have of not having overall majorities.

In this one would take a leaf from the SNP handbook on "How to behave in Parliament".

No doubt the LibDems, Labour and the Tories would work together in that common cause.

councils would not be able to block a referendum, they have no power to do so. All of which makes it even stranger that Labour didn't run their campaigns on austerity, education, tackling homelessness, bins - all things which were coming up in the hustings I attended where independence wasn't even mentioned.

Overall majorities in STV are pretty much impossible and we'd be hearing accusations of a one party state if that had been the case. If we used the same system as England, then I think I'm right in saying that Glasgow City Council would be 100% SNP.

We've always had very strange combinations of parties running local services, and if I had one wish it would be that political games were not played. Not much luck of that unfortunately and I think it would be very discouraging if labour block SNP policies which they would otherwise agree with, purely on constitutional grounds.

AnotherJoe

beecher2 wrote: »

councils would not be able to block a referendum, they have no power to do so.

Who actually organises the whole voting process? Opens up schools and the like, gets ballot boxes in, arranges people to monitor, collects the ballot boxes, counts the votes ? I dont know but if thats local councils, it can be done by simple inaction.

mollycat

beecher2 wrote: »

We've always had very strange combinations of parties running local services, and if I had one wish it would be that political games were not played. Not much luck of that unfortunately and I think it would be very discouraging if labour block SNP policies which they would otherwise agree with, purely on constitutional grounds.

Playing these type of games short term is a legitimate "end justifies the means" scenario.

All for the long term "greater good."

beecher2

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Who actually organises the whole voting process? Opens up schools and the like, gets ballot boxes in, arranges people to monitor, collects the ballot boxes, counts the votes ? I dont know but if thats local councils, it can be done by simple inaction.

I'm not sure what would happen if a local authority refused to carry out its duties with regard to a referendum which had been called legally (which I am assuming we're talking about). The Returning Officers are in charge (and on another note are, in my opinion, paid far too much for their duties)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-36161189

mollycat, democracy is quite important too - using phrases like the 'greater good' makes me a little concerned. BTW, I don't really think that SNP stating they'll never work with the tories is a good tactic either, they made concessions to the tories when Goldie was in charge, and when we saw consensus politics as a good thing. The constitutional debate has overtaken everything, and I do wonder how we'll get back to conventional politics.


edit: you see it on this thread too, as it is very rare to see someone who supports unionism agreeing with someone who supports independence on anything, and vice versa. I find it hard to believe that there really is no consensus, and have to believe it is a 'they voted yes, I can't possibly agree (and vice versa). Depressing stuff.

mollycat

beecher2 wrote: »

Depressing stuff.

The depressing stuff is the hard core of (say) 30% in Scotland who fail to recognise or respect the result of 2 referenda.

Despite the argument in 2014 being clearly won, and the indy argument being weaker now than then.

Yes the Leave argument in 2016 was not won, but as a Remainer, I accept the result and move on to fight another day.

Yes, you and I may have areas of consensus on a number of issues, but in modern day Scotland, one's position on Independence trumps everything.

Scotland is divided now beyond conceivable repair; it wasn't 10 years ago, or 20 years ago....so whose fault is that?

Clue...those who cannot accept the democratic will of the majority.

beecher2

mollycat wrote: »

The depressing stuff is the hard core of (say) 30% in Scotland who fail to recognise or respect the result of 2 referenda.

Despite the argument in 2014 being clearly won, and the indy argument being weaker now than then.

Yes the Leave argument in 2016 was not won, but as a Remainer, I accept the result and move on to fight another day.

Yes, you and I may have areas of consensus on a number of issues, but in modern day Scotland, one's position on Independence trumps everything.

Scotland is divided now beyond conceivable repair; it wasn't 10 years ago, or 20 years ago....so whose fault is that?

Clue...those who cannot accept the democratic will of the majority.

In any democracy people have different opinions so let's not get carried away with the division talk - many of us like a good political argument but can also continue to be friends/family/colleagues. I think sometimes some people down south might think it is all we talk and think about which is clearly not the case. Divisions caused by football are a far more popular topic than those caused by politics!

We are where we are, and who could've guessed the unintended consequences of the referendum. I envy economic historians of the future looking at this time period,I would've loved it! I would never have expected to see tory representation in Ferguslie or Ravenscraig, and it does remind me as a nearly 50 year old that I do sometimes view politics through a 1980s filter, which young people just don't.

I accept the result of the last referendum, but I reserve the right to vote again in the future. I despair at how insular politics has become, with people in echo chambers reinforcing their existing views. That isn't what politics should be about, we should be open to other people's views and not dismiss them because of their constitutional views.

I suppose the only way to truly move on is to have another referendum and then that's it done and dusted one way or another.

mollycat

beecher2 wrote: »

I suppose the only way to truly move on is to have another referendum and then that's it done and dusted one way or another.

Why on earth would anyone think that is an appropriate course of action!!:rotfl:

Translation for our rUK readers.....SNP want to keep having referenda till they win one.

Talk of "consensus" as spurious as the whole Indy arguement.

Spend some time outwith the south of Glasgow; the people of Scotland do not want another referendum.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

beecher2 wrote: »

In any democracy people have different opinions so let's not get carried away with the division talk - many of us like a good political argument but can also continue to be friends/family/colleagues. I think sometimes some people down south might think it is all we talk and think about which is clearly not the case. Divisions caused by football are a far more popular topic than those caused by politics!

We are where we are, and who could've guessed the unintended consequences of the referendum. I envy economic historians of the future looking at this time period,I would've loved it! I would never have expected to see tory representation in Ferguslie or Ravenscraig, and it does remind me as a nearly 50 year old that I do sometimes view politics through a 1980s filter, which young people just don't.

I accept the result of the last referendum, but I reserve the right to vote again in the future. I despair at how insular politics has become, with people in echo chambers reinforcing their existing views. That isn't what politics should be about, we should be open to other people's views and not dismiss them because of their constitutional views.

I suppose the only way to truly move on is to have another referendum and then that's it done and dusted one way or another.

And when would you hold this referendum?
Besides the apparent fact that a majority of us don't want another referendum, do you not think that there is a malaise setting in with the number of recent elections in Scotland?
It seems hardly fair to expect much enthusiasm for another, for whatever reason.

beecher2

mollycat wrote: »

Why on earth would anyone think that is an appropriate course of action!!:rotfl:

Translation for our rUK readers.....SNP want to keep having referenda till they win one.

Talk of "consensus" as spurious as the whole Indy arguement.

Spend some time outwith the south of Glasgow; the people of Scotland do not want another referendum.

mollycat, I'm trying to have an unemotional conversation about how we move on as a country, not what you want or I want. You always become so hysterical - I see on the other thread you say that indy supporters are a 'real danger to the society I cherish' which is just crazy stuff.

I don't want a referendum right now, I'm not talking about what I personally want - I'm trying to look at the broader picture and have a slightly more nuanced discussion. I realise this thread is not the place to do so though so I'll bow out again, now I've remembered

WengerIn

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Who actually organises the whole voting process? Opens up schools and the like, gets ballot boxes in, arranges people to monitor, collects the ballot boxes, counts the votes ? I dont know but if thats local councils, it can be done by simple inaction.

I'm not sure about how it works for referenda but in elections its returning officers. A quick Google suggests that these are generally Council workers but they may be working outside their council area as constituencies =/= council areas.

The primary problem the SNP would face in setting up an illegal referendum would be paying for it. The SNP itself has assets totaling a few hundred grand so can't afford it and it seems deeply unlikely that the Tories would vote to pay for an illegal election at Westminster. If the SNP tried to pay with Scottish Government money (I use the term advisedly as so much of the cash actually comes from London taxpayers that it's not fair to call it Scottish taxpayers' money) then they'd find themselves struck down by the courts.

But then once you get into the procedure it looks like you'd need to involve the local councils to appoint regional returning officers (RROs). I suppose the SNP could pass another illegal law so that only SNP-run councils were appointing RROs but even then would the SNP really require every RRO to support an illegal referendum in order to hold the position? If they didn't then they could simply refuse to administer the election.

Like so much to do with independence, an illegal referendum is laughable.