The Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg has announced that he is tabling an amendment to the Scotland Bill to force an immediate referendum on independence. Clearly, this is problematical on a number of counts. Firstly, until the election the Tories didn't want a referendum to take place at any point in the future ever, but all of a sudden their zeal to "give the people their say" can't even wait until a week next Tuesday. Secondly, this isn't terribly compatible with all the assurances we've heard that Westminster won't interfere in the referendum process. And thirdly, it's a tad undemocratic to try to force an early referendum just a few weeks after the SNP won an overwhelming mandate for a later one. But let's leave all that to one side. What really bothers me is Rees-Mogg's proposed question, and the accompanying explanation of what the effect of a Yes or No vote will be...
"The Scotland Act increases the powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Should there be full independence for Scotland instead?"
The amendment states that if more votes are cast for "No" in the referendum, then the full Scotland Act shall come into force. However, if more votes are cast in favour of "Yes", then the Scotland Act shall not come into force.
Now, do you think that many voters will actually spot that this is, in the strictest legal sense, merely a referendum on whether the Scotland Bill should come into force? Here's a radical suggestion - if the UK Parliament wants to hold a referendum on whether one of its bills should come into force, how about a straight question like "Do you want this bill to come into force?". Or, alternatively, if they want to hold a referendum on whether Scotland should become an independent country, they could always ask "Do you want Scotland to become an independent country?", without starting with an irrelevant preamble about an entirely different subject. I don't know if Jacob ever asked a girl out when he was at school, but if he did I'm quite sure she thought he was asking to swap hamsters or something. A rough equivalent of his planned question would be something like this -
REFERENDUM ON WHETHER YOU WANTED AN APPLE INSTEAD OF THE BANANA WE HAVE JUST SENT YOU
The UK government is pleased to inform you that it has just sent you a FREE banana. It's utterly delicious and should be with you in a couple of days. But we were just wondering - would you rather have had an apple instead?
Please put a cross (X) next to one (1) option only.
YES, I would rather have had an apple, and fully understand that this means I will have to send the banana back.
NO, I am more than happy with my FREE banana, and don't want to cause any unnecessary fuss.
Still, we shouldn't be churlish - Jacob's question may be very silly and a transparent attempt to rig the outcome, but it's at least marginally more neutral than Alan Cochrane's preferred wording of "Do you want Scotland to be completely separate from the rest of the United Kingdom, totally alone in the world, without food, shelter or warmth?"
Showing posts with label Alan Cochrane. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alan Cochrane. Show all posts
Monday, June 20, 2011
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Since you asked, Alan...
Alan Cochrane seems to have rather a lot of nagging questions and doubts about this new-fangled "independence-lite" concept. I really wouldn't want his nights to become tormented over this, so I feel it's my duty to help set his mind at rest...
"The stuff they’re advocating is the same old warmed over nonsense that they continually fall back on whenever they’re faced with the certainty that, their stupendous Holyrood election result notwithstanding, hardly anyone in Scotland supports their core objective of separation."
"Hardly anyone" seems to refer to the trifling 38% of the electorate a recent ComRes poll found to be in favour of independence. Even the last YouGov survey put the figure at 29%.
"The idea that Mr Salmond and his team no longer wish for Scotland to take its “rightful place” – their words, not mine – among the community of nations at the UN and EU is nonsense."
Glad you've noticed. They've only made that clear about 798 times over the last ten days.
"but how could these international bodies accept not one but two states from these islands as full members?"
They already do, Alan. Those states are commonly known as the "United Kingdom" and the "Republic of Ireland". Easy mistake to make, though - the latter country has been relatively low-profile (at least for Telegraph readers) over the years, but now the British monarch has graced it with her presence it may finally enjoy a brief moment in the sun.
"And if Scotland wasn’t admitted to the United Nations or European Union, what kind of independence would that be?"
See above. Although I would have thought a rabid Eurosceptic like Alan ought to be insisting (like the troll over at Stuart Dickson's blog) that Scotland could only really be independent if it doesn't join the EU.
"How could we share defence policy, when an SNP run Scotland would ban the use of Faslane as home to Britain’s nuclear deterrent and would object to Scottish troops being used in conflicts of which Mr Salmond disapproved; never forget his “unpardonable folly” jibe about the West’s offensive against Serbia in Bosnia (sic)?"
Which, I would have thought, also begs the question of how Britain and France's defence capabilities could become as intertwined and mutually dependent as they just have when the two countries were at loggerheads over the war in Iraq - a more recent conflict than Kosovo, in case Alan hasn't noticed. Answer : when it's in the overwhelming strategic and economic interests of two countries for such pooling of resources to take place, it's likely to happen. It doesn't preclude either side from opting out of a piece of reckless and unlawful adventurism.
"Perhaps above all, how could an independent Scotland share macro-economic policy with England, presumably eschewing the euro and continuing with sterling? That way Scotland would be bound still to ‘English’ interest rate policy. What’s independent about that?"
Again, I'll have to direct Alan's attention towards that obscure entity known as the "Republic of Ireland". The Irish retained sterling for five decades after independence - I doubt, in any case, that Scotland will be breaking their record.
"this latest flurry is merely the latest bid by the Nats not to frighten the horses and part of their incremental tactics to get what they want – which is "a completely separate state outside the United Kingdom". I was roundly criticised by Mr Salmond when this newspaper tested that precise formula in an opinion poll a few years ago. He accused me of using negative – that word again – concepts to attack his plans."
Ah, so it was your idea to turn YouGov into a laughing-stock by insisting on such an absurdly biased and emotionally-laden wording, Alan? That explains a lot. I trust in that case you'd have no difficulty accepting the findings of any SNP-commissioned poll that innocently asked the electorate if they want Scotland to be "a normal independent country with normal powers".
"With constitutional experts, such as Vernon Bogdanor...pouring buckets of cold water of these latest Nat ideas, it really is time for so-called Unionists to see what the SNP is up to."
Vernon Bogdanor is a likeable guy who added much-needed gravitas to the BBC's election night coverage last year, but he's an avowed unionist and an utter dinosaur on the question of British sovereignty. Hardly the most objective authority to pray in aid.
"As far all those Nat activists are concerned, I have only this to say: If this new policy really is Salmond-approved, did you work your guts out in that election to remain part of the hated British state?"
An academic question. But by that logic, "Nat activists" shouldn't have bust a gut campaigning for a devolved parliament within the British state in the 1997 referendum. No, that never got us anywhere, did it Alan?
"The stuff they’re advocating is the same old warmed over nonsense that they continually fall back on whenever they’re faced with the certainty that, their stupendous Holyrood election result notwithstanding, hardly anyone in Scotland supports their core objective of separation."
"Hardly anyone" seems to refer to the trifling 38% of the electorate a recent ComRes poll found to be in favour of independence. Even the last YouGov survey put the figure at 29%.
"The idea that Mr Salmond and his team no longer wish for Scotland to take its “rightful place” – their words, not mine – among the community of nations at the UN and EU is nonsense."
Glad you've noticed. They've only made that clear about 798 times over the last ten days.
"but how could these international bodies accept not one but two states from these islands as full members?"
They already do, Alan. Those states are commonly known as the "United Kingdom" and the "Republic of Ireland". Easy mistake to make, though - the latter country has been relatively low-profile (at least for Telegraph readers) over the years, but now the British monarch has graced it with her presence it may finally enjoy a brief moment in the sun.
"And if Scotland wasn’t admitted to the United Nations or European Union, what kind of independence would that be?"
See above. Although I would have thought a rabid Eurosceptic like Alan ought to be insisting (like the troll over at Stuart Dickson's blog) that Scotland could only really be independent if it doesn't join the EU.
"How could we share defence policy, when an SNP run Scotland would ban the use of Faslane as home to Britain’s nuclear deterrent and would object to Scottish troops being used in conflicts of which Mr Salmond disapproved; never forget his “unpardonable folly” jibe about the West’s offensive against Serbia in Bosnia (sic)?"
Which, I would have thought, also begs the question of how Britain and France's defence capabilities could become as intertwined and mutually dependent as they just have when the two countries were at loggerheads over the war in Iraq - a more recent conflict than Kosovo, in case Alan hasn't noticed. Answer : when it's in the overwhelming strategic and economic interests of two countries for such pooling of resources to take place, it's likely to happen. It doesn't preclude either side from opting out of a piece of reckless and unlawful adventurism.
"Perhaps above all, how could an independent Scotland share macro-economic policy with England, presumably eschewing the euro and continuing with sterling? That way Scotland would be bound still to ‘English’ interest rate policy. What’s independent about that?"
Again, I'll have to direct Alan's attention towards that obscure entity known as the "Republic of Ireland". The Irish retained sterling for five decades after independence - I doubt, in any case, that Scotland will be breaking their record.
"this latest flurry is merely the latest bid by the Nats not to frighten the horses and part of their incremental tactics to get what they want – which is "a completely separate state outside the United Kingdom". I was roundly criticised by Mr Salmond when this newspaper tested that precise formula in an opinion poll a few years ago. He accused me of using negative – that word again – concepts to attack his plans."
Ah, so it was your idea to turn YouGov into a laughing-stock by insisting on such an absurdly biased and emotionally-laden wording, Alan? That explains a lot. I trust in that case you'd have no difficulty accepting the findings of any SNP-commissioned poll that innocently asked the electorate if they want Scotland to be "a normal independent country with normal powers".
"With constitutional experts, such as Vernon Bogdanor...pouring buckets of cold water of these latest Nat ideas, it really is time for so-called Unionists to see what the SNP is up to."
Vernon Bogdanor is a likeable guy who added much-needed gravitas to the BBC's election night coverage last year, but he's an avowed unionist and an utter dinosaur on the question of British sovereignty. Hardly the most objective authority to pray in aid.
"As far all those Nat activists are concerned, I have only this to say: If this new policy really is Salmond-approved, did you work your guts out in that election to remain part of the hated British state?"
An academic question. But by that logic, "Nat activists" shouldn't have bust a gut campaigning for a devolved parliament within the British state in the 1997 referendum. No, that never got us anywhere, did it Alan?
Monday, January 17, 2011
If the Telegraph had done their 'research' (ie. asked me) they'd have realised Alan Cochrane is a rubbish columnist
Well, it was always fairly predictable that Alan Cochrane wouldn't be able to resist marking Alex Salmond's impertinent dalliance with Respectable London Society (ie. going on Desert Island Discs) with yet another tedious Telegraph ramble featuring the word "Eck" rather a lot...
"But I'm afraid Miss Young's researches – or researchers – let her down badly in her estimation of Mr Salmond.
The idea that he is this Great Debater is, quite frankly, rubbish. I have seen every single formal debate – in parliament and elsewhere – in which Alex Salmond has taken part over the past 15 years or so and it is simply not his forte. Oh sure, he can do the smart one-liners, the often-personal put downs and he is a very good, sometimes brilliant, television performer and an often inspirational campaigner. However, there are too many holes in his basic argument for him to win many debates."
So the Cochrane logic seems to go something like this. I think Scottish independence is a bad idea. Alex Salmond argues for Scottish independence in debate. Ergo Alex Salmond is a poor debater. Oh, and Kirsty Young doesn't acknowledge that fact, ergo she and her team don't read my column (it goes without saying they couldn't have read it and - gasp - disagreed with it), ergo they haven't done their "research" properly.
Oh-kaaaaay....
On one small point we can probably all agree with Cochrane, though...
"...the London-based media is too lazy to find out what is really going on in Scotland."
Where we'd have to instantly part company with him again, though, is in his estimation that the only things of relevance "going on" in Scotland are his own thought-waves. And Jenny Hjul's, at a pinch. How else can we explain his bizarre insistence a couple of years ago that the SNP's planned local income tax was "universally known in Scotland as the Nat Tax", when to the best of my knowledge no-one other than him had ever actually used the term?
* * * * *
The substantial gap between Labour and the SNP in the latest TNS-BMRB poll clearly makes for sobering reading at this stage of the electoral cycle, but the raw percentage shares for the parties frankly have very little credibility. Does anyone seriously think Labour has the slightest chance of achieving 47% on the list vote, when even under Donald Dewar they only managed 35%? On past form, it may well be that both Labour and the SNP are being overestimated - the million dollar question is whether they're being overestimated by a similar amount.
"But I'm afraid Miss Young's researches – or researchers – let her down badly in her estimation of Mr Salmond.
The idea that he is this Great Debater is, quite frankly, rubbish. I have seen every single formal debate – in parliament and elsewhere – in which Alex Salmond has taken part over the past 15 years or so and it is simply not his forte. Oh sure, he can do the smart one-liners, the often-personal put downs and he is a very good, sometimes brilliant, television performer and an often inspirational campaigner. However, there are too many holes in his basic argument for him to win many debates."
So the Cochrane logic seems to go something like this. I think Scottish independence is a bad idea. Alex Salmond argues for Scottish independence in debate. Ergo Alex Salmond is a poor debater. Oh, and Kirsty Young doesn't acknowledge that fact, ergo she and her team don't read my column (it goes without saying they couldn't have read it and - gasp - disagreed with it), ergo they haven't done their "research" properly.
Oh-kaaaaay....
On one small point we can probably all agree with Cochrane, though...
"...the London-based media is too lazy to find out what is really going on in Scotland."
Where we'd have to instantly part company with him again, though, is in his estimation that the only things of relevance "going on" in Scotland are his own thought-waves. And Jenny Hjul's, at a pinch. How else can we explain his bizarre insistence a couple of years ago that the SNP's planned local income tax was "universally known in Scotland as the Nat Tax", when to the best of my knowledge no-one other than him had ever actually used the term?
* * * * *
The substantial gap between Labour and the SNP in the latest TNS-BMRB poll clearly makes for sobering reading at this stage of the electoral cycle, but the raw percentage shares for the parties frankly have very little credibility. Does anyone seriously think Labour has the slightest chance of achieving 47% on the list vote, when even under Donald Dewar they only managed 35%? On past form, it may well be that both Labour and the SNP are being overestimated - the million dollar question is whether they're being overestimated by a similar amount.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Baloney, sir!
As my last post was related to a ten-day-old Alan Cochrane article in the Daily Telegraph, my eye was drawn to Cochrane's billing on the Telegraph website - "[he] cuts through the baloney and explores all corners of the devolved government in Edinburgh with vigour". Just alter a few words and that's close enough to true - it's rather more that he generates the baloney himself and makes sure no corner of devolved government is left undistorted. Baloney exhibit A - "the local income tax, known to everyone as the 'Nat Tax'." Now who exactly is this everyone? Well, there's Cochrane himself, his well-trained parrot, he's working very hard on his goldfish...
Let's face it, almost nobody apart from Cochrane called it the Nat Tax. The problem, it seems to me, is that he's primarily talking to a non-Scottish audience and he's very self-conscious about it. It's a trap we've probably all fallen into at some point or another - he's presenting the version of our country that he'd personally want outsiders to believe in. He probably thinks it's all true when he says it. I saw a similar phenomenon during my interminable 'debate' with the American gun enthusiasts a few weeks ago - the odd British person (displaying what Paul Keating might have called a 'cultural cringe') was periodically popping up to say something like "I'd just like Americans to know that not all of us Brits have surrendered".
Aye, that's right. Some of us told Bush exactly where to go.
Let's face it, almost nobody apart from Cochrane called it the Nat Tax. The problem, it seems to me, is that he's primarily talking to a non-Scottish audience and he's very self-conscious about it. It's a trap we've probably all fallen into at some point or another - he's presenting the version of our country that he'd personally want outsiders to believe in. He probably thinks it's all true when he says it. I saw a similar phenomenon during my interminable 'debate' with the American gun enthusiasts a few weeks ago - the odd British person (displaying what Paul Keating might have called a 'cultural cringe') was periodically popping up to say something like "I'd just like Americans to know that not all of us Brits have surrendered".
Aye, that's right. Some of us told Bush exactly where to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)