Compromise, Labour-style
We greatly enjoyed the intervention of former First Minister and now Lord of Glenscorrodale, Jack McConnell, in the referendum debate last night. Appearing on both Scotland Tonight and Newsnight Scotland, he graced the nation's airwaves to present a statesman-like call for "compromise" on the planning of the vote on Scotland's constitutional question, and generously offering his assistance to the Prime Minister and First Minister in untangling the situation. Our favourite was his explanation of how to compromise on the timing of the poll.
"There are those who are pressing for the referendum to be held this year as quickly as possible, the SNP want it to be held in nearly three years' time – I'm suggesting we compromise on that, let's have an agreement that we hold the referendum in about 18 months' time, maybe 15 months' time."
Now, we're not quite sure who the people allegedly "pressing for the referendum to be held this year" are. We don't know of anyone even remotely sane who's seriously proposed that it could or should be held in 2012 – the UK government's own suggested timetable is for an "early" vote in September 2013. The SNP, meanwhile, want "Autumn 2014", which is widely held to mean October of that year. The SNP have never confirmed that claim, but let's use it for the sake of argument.
What that means is that Lord McConnell's proposal for a "compromise" date between September 2013 and October 2014 is, um… September 2013. (Or alternatively June 2013, ie three months earlier than even the UK government's preferred date, never mind the Scottish Government's.) No wonder he repeatedly struggled to conceal an embarrassed smirk during the Scotland Tonight interview.
Lord McConnell's other envisaged compromises follow surprisingly similar lines.
NUMBER OF QUESTIONS:
Unionists: one question
SNP: open to second question
Compromise: one question
FRANCHISE:
Unionists: no vote for 16/17-year-olds
SNP: vote for 16/17-year-olds
Compromise: no vote for 16/17-year-olds.
LEGALITY:
Unionists: UK Government must give permission to hold the referendum
SNP: Scottish Government has the right to hold the referendum
Compromise: UK Government must give permission to hold the referendum
And so on and so forth. Amusingly, the noble Lord also still hasn't even conceded that independence gets to be the "Yes" answer in the referendum, putting forward the hilarious "compromise" notion that BOTH sides should get a "Yes" option, astonishingly concluding that this would be an aid to clarity and decisiveness. (Though he subsequently went on to talk of "the Yes and No campaigns" anyway.)
We await the logical outcome of Lord McConnell's thought process – that we should compromise between the SNP's position of having a referendum and the Unionist side's ingrained opposition to the whole idea, by simply not having a referendum at all.
watched the interview on scotland tonight. i found it paternalistic and nauseating.
"NUMBER OF QUESTIONS:
Unionists: one question
SNP: open to second question
Compromise: one question"
Stu simply does not understand the genius of the noble lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale's proposal. It wholly concedes to the SNP, the arument for two questions.
Question 1 Do you agree that Scotland should become and independent country?
Question 2 Do you agree that Scotland should remain part of the United Kingdom?
This will assure a unified campaign across the Scottish body politic. The barking-mad nationalists and those nice colonial chapies from cheam, seconded to the "YES" campaign, will be able to share "Vote YES" stickers. That devious Salmond fellow and that darling Mr Darling will be able to end their speeches with the same unifying refrain to, "Vote YES on Octorber 18!"
All of Scotland's electorate will enter the polls with the same intent to vote YES for Scotland. What is the least confusing about that?
In fact, if have written to the Noble Lord that in the interests of economy and brevity, he should ignore the vicious nationalists two-questions nonsense entirely, and demand a single question that requires only a "yes" response:
Question – Should Scotland become and independent country or remain part of the United Kingdom?
Now what could be clearer or simpler than that?
He was always smirking when he was First Minister. I have no idea why.
LW
Chewin a caramel
more of the usual rubbish at the Spectator
link to spectator.co.uk
I think we can answer them……………………..
Oh dear. I think, for this and numerous other examples, Fraser Nelson needs to be added to the "Zany comedy relief" section of the links column…
Hmm, I don't seem to be allowed to comment on that piece, despite having no problems elsewhere on the Spectator site.
They moderate comments – it took some time for mine to appear
The difference between Alex Massie and Fraser Nelson is like night and day……….