Independence Referendum
Posted by Gordon Banks, MP for Ochil and South Perthshire, at 14:14, Fri 9 May 2008:
Wendy Alexander was right last weekend when she said that the Labour Party had nothing to fear from a referendum on Scotland’s constitutional future. But she was also right to say that the decision to take a referendum to the people of Scotland must lie with the country’s elected representatives. So why have the SNP not shown the courage of their convictions and called for a referendum now rather than in two years time? Why haven’t they even brought one single proposal before Westminster or the Scottish Parliament?
Well let me tell you why. I and the rest of mainstream Scottish public opinion want to remain part of the UK and to capitalise on the benefits that it brings and the Nationalists know that. Two years gives the SNP ample opportunity to manufacture the myth that the SNP is standing up for Scotland against the big bad bullies at Westminster. How long are we going to be subjected to this myth that the SNP are the saviours of Scotland? It's absolutely ludicrous coming from a party which can barely count on the support of 1 in 5 voters in Scotland.
I took part in a debate in Westminster Hall recently organised by SNP MP Pete Wishart. The debate was intended to examine the Scotland Act ten years on. In the debate, MPs from all parties were subjected to a baseless rant by Mr Wishart and his SNP colleagues which brought nothing new or particularly noteworthy to the debate on Scotland’s Constitutional future.
The Labour Party, and other Unionist party’s have tried to engage in a mature debate on this issue and that is why the Calman Commission was established to look into this very issue. However the SNP refuse to take part in this Commission, preferring to engage in their National Conversation. Anyone who has looked at the Conversation’s website will have seen it is merely an opportunity for bigoted individuals to vent their twisted views in a public forum at taxpayer’s expense.
Independence for Scotland is not the dominant issue that my constituents raise with me – and I’m sure our local MSP's would tell you the same. However, independence is an issue that strikes a chord in the media and it would be folly for me not to put my views in public when I know that the majority of you agree with me. Perhaps it is time to put a line under this issue once and for all and deal with the issues that affect people’s day to day lives in Scotland?
Comments
Commenting on this message is now disabled.
Posted by Jim Bisset, 14:25, Fri 9 May 2008: (Is this post abusive?) #
That's rich coming from an Englishman. Then only folly is in the system that let Labour govern with just over 20% of those eligible to vote having voted for them. Roll on the next election so we can rid ourselves of the labour government, and Englishmen as Scottish MPs.
Posted by james white, 14:28, Fri 9 May 2008: (Is this post abusive?) #
To all MP's wake up join the real world.......... the money wasted by government is at best incompetant and at worst criminal.....the bickering between parties playground behavior and you wonder why the man/woman in the street can't be bothered to vote.....shame on you.
Who's accountable ..... ? no one.
Posted by George Stafford, 14:31, Fri 9 May 2008: (Is this post abusive?) #
Boris Johnson, Mayor Of London, David Cameron the next Prime Minister,Independence is coming anyway with or without a referendum. So it will be good bye to Westminster and some of the Labour jobsworths who sit as Scottish MPs
Posted by Jim Bisset, 14:41, Fri 9 May 2008: (Is this post abusive?) #
"It's absolutely ludicrous coming from a party which can barely count on the support of 1 in 5 voters in Scotland."
And, let me see.... Labour, our elected government, could count on how many more voters nationally? 21.6% of the vote translates to... Why yes, barely 1 in 5! (And the SNP didn't take us to war in Iraq using a pack of lies as justification, or turn us into a police state. I know who *I* trust more!)
Posted by David Mackenzie, 14:45, Fri 9 May 2008: (Is this post abusive?) #
Beyond Punch and Judy I think we need to be open and rational in our discussion of this issue. One element of potential independence that resonates for me is the possibility of being unhitched from negative elements (such as Iraq, Trident and an aggressive Nato)in the UK's relations with the world at large. This at least the SNP is offering and that inevitably enhances their status in Scotland. David Mackenzie
Posted by Christina Hollinshead, 15:27, Fri 9 May 2008: (Is this post abusive?) #
"Roll on the next election so we can rid ourselves of the labour government, and Englishmen as Scottish MPs." Are you also suggesting then that only English born people, (shouldn't that include women and men, or is that something you also feel strongly about,) should be in post in England, only Welsh in Wales and Irish in Ireland? My big concern is the bigotry this issue brings out. I do believe Scotland should be run by people who know and understand Scotland and have lived in Scotland for a substantial time. The same for any other place in the UK, (not even going to think about Iraq right now!) But their place of birth surely is not relevant to this debate? I think there are many issues including tax, health care and education which could be very difficult run and fund if Scotland did become independent. Just take a look at southern Ireland to understand some of the issues we may encounter here? Thank you Gordon for telling us what you stand for, at least we know that sectarianism is not one of them.
Posted by Rosemary Meechan, 18:34, Fri 9 May 2008: (Is this post abusive?) #
Windy Alexander should stay at home and look after her weans(but then the nanny would be out of a job...). Her public utterances make her look ever more ridiculous. She is the best possible advertisement for the SNP. Pity we can't all follow her career path. Use family connections, marry a MUCH older man, neglect your children. Sounds rather like Margaret Thatcher doesn't it?
Posted by Andy Millar, 21:31, Fri 9 May 2008: (Is this post abusive?) #
Dearie me, it would appear that the Labour Spin folk are in damage limitation mode, trying to make out that everyone in SLAB/ELAB are singing from the same hymn sheet, when in reality they're in 2 different kirks.
Some of your (or Central Office's) comments are a little disengenuous "Two years gives the SNP ample opportunity to manufacture the myth that the SNP is standing up for Scotland" The Nationalists ARE standing up for Scotland, just have a look at what SLAB and SNP managed to achieve during their period in power:
Labour/Liberals with a Majority over TEN Years at Holyrood
Presided over 60% Rise in Council Tax
Created 34,000 Modern Apprentices.
Lifted 100,000 children in Scotland out of relative poverty.
Guaranteed a free part-time early years place for every 3-4 year old
Invested £1 billion mainly in PFI to rebuild or refurbish schools
Introduced Graduate Endowment Fees
Banned Smoking in Enclosed Public Spaces.
Introduced Free Eye checks for all.
Delivered Free Personal Care for Older People
Introduced ASBOs
Supported the Iraq War
SNP with a Minority over 12 Months at Holyrood
Frozen Council Tax / Consultation on LIT
Reduced Prescription Charges / Abolished by 2001
Saved Local A&E Units
Building Scotland's Largest New Hospital with Public Funds
Capped Prescription Charges, to be abolished by 2011
Capped Hospital Carpark Fee's, to be abolished
Backdated the NHS pay award
Fighting for lost £30M Attendance Allowance
Abolished Graduate Endowment Fee's
Started cutting Class Sizes
Begun an expanding pilot for free school meals
Equal Rights to the Children of Asylum Seekers
Doubled the International Aid Budget
Established a New Concordat with Local Authorities
Ending Ring-Fencing / Increasing Local Accountability
Rejected New Nuclear Power Stations
Cut Business Rates
Abolished Forth + Tay Bridge Tolls
Increased number of Renewable Energy Projects delivered fourfold over same period
Created a record new Global Prize for Marine Renewable Innovation
Continues to condemn the Iraq war.
Thanks to Wardog for the info.
Can you explain why, if "Independence is not a dominant issue" that you feel compelled to email the 'party line'? yet do not email on me on other topical subjects, such as the mire of illegal donations that Labour accept or an explanation of the 10p tax rate fiasco or why we need the 42day detention rule etc. etc.
Posted by Jim Bisset, 22:27, Sun 11 May 2008: (Is this post abusive?) #
To "Richard" - why are you alone in all the posts here, in omitting your surname? Perhaps Richard is a nom-de-plume? Or are you in the employ of Mr. Banks, even?
You need to remember there's no "i" in SNP, and making up silly acronyms like that is not big or clever. My comment was not "racist" - English and Scots people are the same race, are we not? So how could my comment be racist? I have no objection to him being English, or being here; I do think it strange, however, that he apparently tries not to let people know that he is not a Scot, id erat:
If Mr. Banks' "roots" as you put it are so unimportant, why does his own website mention only "Educated Lornshill Academy, Alloa" when the full detail is: "Place of birth: Acomb, Northumberland Education: Samuel Kings Grammar School, Alston, Cumbria; Lornshill Academy, Alloa"
Is he ashamed to let his Scots constituents know he's English? And if he has spent most of his life in Scotland, why does he feel it necessary to affect an apparently English accent? Does he not want his English colleagues to know that he's spent all the years up here?
Further, how can my comment exemplify the "SNiP <sic> effect", when at no point did I mention that I supported the SNP, or indeed independence for Scotland? Why should you assume anything other than my plainly expressed view that our Labour government and, by association, Mr Banks, are the worst we have ever had?
I think it speaks volumes about how able he is to represent his constituents in important matters when he can release the public message above, presumably having re-read it several times, and is so poor in English Language skills as to use the possessive in place of the plural ("other Unionist /party’s/ have tried...)
As for your "SNiP's (there's that possessive instead of a plural again...) can try & get on with duping us into some other fantastic adventure ... maybe a scottish version of NASA, how about a tunnel link from the mainland to Orkney or Shetland" comment, may I add another? How about going off to look for "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq? Oh wait, though, no - we've already done that one, haven't we, and killed a lot of people doing it; but it wasn't the SNP, was it?
How dare Mr Banks say "I and the rest of mainstream Scottish public opinion want to remain part of the UK"? So he knows what the mainstream public opinion is WITHOUT a referendum, does he? Well, I'm part of that mainstream public opinion, and what ever I want is up to me, he has no knowledge of it, and thus he has no business professing to speak for me!
Finally, as for your statement that "Gordon Banks has worked tirelessly & selflessly for his constituents" - nonsense. Utter nonsense. He has perhaps worked tirelessly, but he has worked for:
1. Gordon Banks 2. Tony Blair, and presumably Gordon Brown 3. His consituents, apparently as long as their views accord with his own.
There is no doubt that in reality he only toes the party line. A Blairite yes-man. (I suggest you check his voting record if you doubt that, though I rather think you know it well already...)
A cynic might say he has no desire to canvass the views of his constituents, and having done so, to represent them as he should, in Parliament (he was - perhaps is? - a strong supporter of the Iraq war, I believe, when the majority of the public, and by extrapolation, probably of his constituents were against it), but has an eye only for his own political career... Note that he has voted in 85% of votes in parliament — well above average amongst MPs. (From Public Whip). That's 629 votes he's made, and - as if you didn't know - guess how many of those have been the vote that his Labour masters wanted him to make? 628. Yes, he voted against the government just once in 629 votes. That is surely an immense coincidence, that his own views - and, one must assume that he assumes, those of his constituents - accord with those of Blair and his cronies so closely. Or is it possible that he looking after his career prospects by voting so often, and so predictably, to make his obvious support for the abhorrent labour policies plain to the leaders? Who knows?
One thing is for sure; he is New Labour to the core, and as I would rather vote for the Monster Raving Loonie Party than Labour, I'd like him out; he makes no attempt to represent my views in Parliament, and has no mandate from me to vote with first Blair, and now Brown, on my behalf.
Posted by Jim Bisset, 17:03, Wed 3 September 2008: (Is this post abusive?) #
I find it extremely interesting that the reply, in praise of Mr. Banks, posted by "Richard" has disappeared from the list above. As there is apparently no way for a poster to withdraw his/her message, and it was not abusive, so with no reason for editorial withdrawal, it may very well be that I was correct in assuming that "Richard" was most likely a pseudonym for, shall we say, someone very close indeed to our ZanuLabour MP.......