Scottish independence: ‘Only double referendum can decide UK’s future’
Alex Salmond: accused of changing position on referendum day by day. By SCOTT MACNAB  Published on Thursday 8 March 2012 00:31

INIREF REPLY (comment 111):

The idea that a ballot of the Scottish people should be held to decide on whether to accept a final negotiated treaty is not new. We put this forward a few weeks ago, recommending

“A first ballot to see if there is a majority for independence. If  Yes, then Referendum II to decide on the content of a treaty with the UK. Failing to carry out the second ballot would be like buying a pig in a poke. There are many potential tricks and traps. We the People should be made aware of the treaty’s content before we must commit ourselves. The decision is very serious, will affect the lives of many generations and so should be based on full knowledge.”

See the discussion from scot.politics and other Usenet groups via
http://groups.google.com/group/scot.politics/browse_thread/thread/cc95a27100bbac2b?hl=en#

Our “pig in a poke” comparison – see Scotsman article – seems to have caught on

To be fair, we did not dream up the idea of a “treaty referendum”. Robert Hazell (constitution unit UCL) mooted this in 2002 and in 2007 the SNP conceded, “A second referendum would recognise the significance of the decision for Scotland to become independent and allow the people of Scotland the final say on the matter.” (Constitutional conversation)

The SNP’s (so far) rejection of a referendum about the completed treaty seems unwise. If the people were able to consider and decide upon matters of substance in this way there would be a better foundation for the future of Scotland and for its relationship with the (remaining) UK.

1. The referendum as proposed (February 2012) by the SNP led scottish government will be about the principle of independence or some weaker variant, putting a simple, “opener” question (or maybe two). It cannot address the substance of an independence treaty.

2. In order that the people of Scotland can decide democratically and legitimately, the FINAL NEGOTIATED TREATY or SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL must be put before the electorate and people in a legally binding referendum ballot, after the government and others have organised comprehensive public briefing, detailing  and explaining what is on offer.

I&R ~ GB Citizens’ Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
http://iniref.wordpress.com/

Despots and governments have oft used the plebiscite (decision by the people or electorate, “referendum”) to manipulate politics and trick their rivals.

Who will decide how and when to hold a referendum about independence of Scotland? Will that be the Scottish National Party, one or a few of its leaders, the Scottish government or parliament, or perhaps our masters the UK government? Why should not the *electorate* decide when to have a referendum and also possess the right to put forward a clear, written proposition? According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights “Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country” both directly (on issues) or by electing MPs. See how this can work at http://www.iniref.org/steps.html

similar posted also to:

http://ourscotland.myfreeforum.org/sutra122819.php#122819

http://www.scotland.com/forums/scottish-politics/

————————————————–

INIREF Citizens’ Initiative and Referendum

Campaign for direct democracy in Britain

Chances for direct democracy in Scotland

The scottish political parties approaching a Holyrood election 2011
———————————————————————————

We present a sketch, a rapid survey, drawn from manifestos and other sources.

We appeal for factual corrections and comments.

Statement of our aims in this rapid survey.
As a campaign we of I&R ~ GB at iniref.org advocate the introduction of citizen-led direct democracy (CDD) at all levels of government. We regard a combination of direct democracy with existing forms of indirect, “representative” democracy to be the best known realistically achievable system of legislation and government. So we measure the promises and apparent intentions of political parties against this “gold” standard which, although probably not perfect, is “state of the art” governance.

An “authority-imposed” referendum or plebiscite is not regarded as belonging to citizen-led direct democracy. Provided that the result of the ballot is legally binding then this form of referendum may be classified as direct democracy. If the result is non-binding then the procedure should be considered to be a sort of consultation.

Scottish Conservative Party
No promise of citizen-led democracy CDD. The manifesto mentions that citizens of some Scottish cities may be allowed to vote in a referendum on the question of elected mayors.

Greens Scotland
Their manifesto does *not* explicitly promise to introduce CDD.
They write “Local community empowerment is an agenda” but do not explain how this will be organised. Further they write, “We’ll argue for a multi-option referendum with choices including the status quo, a stronger Scottish Parliament with powers defined through a participative process, and full independence based on a written constitution, and we will back this third option. We’ll also put the case for the decentralisation of power from Holyrood and local authorities.”

Scottish Liberal Democratic Party
No promise of citizen-led democracy CDD.

Scottish Labour
No promise of citizen-led democracy CDD. There is a commitment to consult the electorate more about local planning issues.

Scottish National Party
No promise of citizen-led democracy CDD in the manifesto.
They propose to hold an authority-imposed plebiscite: “We think the people of Scotland should decide our nation’s future in a democratic referendum and opinion polls suggest that most Scots agree. We will, therefore, bring forward our Referendum Bill in this next Parliament.”
Background:
A. In 2010 Unlock Democracy (formerly Charter88) surveyed political parties, asking,
“Direct Democracy – does the SNP have policy on increasing direct democracy – eg. Petitions committees, people’s bills, referendums”
REPLY FROM SNP: “The SNP would like to see direct democracy initiatives that would see the sharing of power with people, giving them real power and a direct say over the most important issues affecting their communities. This would include the triggering of referendums on any national or local issue once a requisite percentage of the electorate had signed a petition on the matter, as undertaken in the likes of Switzerland, the US and New Zealand. We also support a new Petitions Committee in the House of Commons, much like that of the Scottish Parliament, which encourages active involvement in the proceedings of Parliament.” Source Alexandra Runswick www.votefordemocracy.org.uk
B. At a recent SNP party conference a motion to introduce CDD by Alex Orr from Edinburgh received overwhelming support.

United Kingdom Independence Party
They promise to introduce citizen-led direct democracy CDD. To quote the manifesto, “UKIP alone trusts Scottish and British people to exercise a new right to demand a legislative referendum on any law, present or proposed. The result of any referendum will be binding on those we elect.”
————————————

Above posted to forum http://ourscotland.myfreeforum.org/about7846.html&highlight=iniref

————————————
I&R ~ GB Citizens’ Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
http://www.iniref.org/
http://www.iniref.org/latest.html

You say you want your Indepe-e-e-endnce w-e-e-ll you know,
We all wanna change the world …
(After J. Lennon)

The referendum question or proposal – as far as the public knows in January 2012 – has not yet been finally decided.  Let us suppose that people resident in Scotland are asked to vote for or against Scotland becoming an independent country. Maybe after the years of Scottish National Party (SNP) campaigning the “yes” voters will win in 2014.

And then?

What will we have achieved?

As a Scot, in favour of peoples’ self-determination, of power devolved to regions, localities, above all to citizens, of strong democracy in the form of rule-by-the-people … (a) … I have my doubts about the proposed decision to separate Scotland from England and the rest of the UK.

I should mention here the fact that even “full” independence, of the sort to be expected with the SNP steering the country, would be incomplete. We might remain subjugate in finance politics, if we keep the UK pound and of course if we take the Euro. Worse, much worse, from the above perspective (a) of freedom from illegitimate power is that we will remain under the yoke of the English and UK monarchy. This holds not only symbolic power but can act using the secretive and opaque “royal prerogative”, while resembling a rather powerful though unelected and hereditary (in which century do we live?!!) presidency. We do not forget that in Australia, a country with vassal status similar to that proposed for Scotland in “independence” a few decades ago the UK monarch dismissed a prime minister and forced a change of democratically elected government. Other monarchic powers are so secret that we the people are not even allowed to know what they are!!

Scots, the English need us in order to struggle for their freedom and development. Their democracy is weak and resembles an “elective dictatorship”. Their (UK) parliament is largely supine, following the whip of the interest-controlled political parties. Even their indirect (“representative”) democracy is a laughing stock among experts and a bane for the electorate. The English need our help:

– to revitalise, revise and define their constitution of state, shaking off much dust of a thousand years;

– to introduce the principle that all political power belongs to the people, not to politicians and their rich supporters, not to corporations and banks, not to princes, kings nor emperors. This means “sovereignty” of the people and of nobody else;

– to pioneer citizen-led direct democracy in order to complement, steer, check and balance the sometimes erratic governance of parties and parliaments;

– to give our humanity, solidarity, energy and creativity for all these universal ideals;

– to cajole the UK into a crucible of constitutional reform and democratic development — this could most easily be done from the inside.

Having achieved the above we could stride down a path towards richer autonomy and national independence for all citizens, peoples, regions and countries.

Let us tak’ the High Road tae freedom!

Wallace-Macpherson

=================================
Published by
I&R ~ GB Citizens’ Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain

http://www.iniref.org/

Discuss at our WordPress blog, on Facebook or in other fora.

Unlock Democracy (formerly Charter88) surveyed political parties, asking,

“Direct Democracy – does the SNP have policy on increasing direct democracy – eg. Petitions committees, people’s bills, referendums”

REPLY FROM SNP: “The SNP would like to see direct democracy initiatives that would see the sharing of power with people, giving them real power and a direct say over the most important issues affecting their communities. This would include the triggering of referendums on any national or local issue once a requisite percentage of the electorate had signed a petition on the matter, as undertaken in the likes of Switzerland, the US and New Zealand. We also support a new Petitions Committee in the House of Commons, much like that of the Scottish Parliament, which encourages active involvement in the proceedings of Parliament.” Source Alexandra Runswick www.votefordemocracy.org.uk

So, the SNP say that they support stronger, direct democracy-by-the-people.

But, in their 2011 manifesto we can find no mention of democracy reform.

Can anyone explain this?

Posted at: http://ourscotland.myfreeforum.org/about7854.html&highlight=iniref
——————————-
I&R ~ GB Citizens’ Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
http://www.iniref.org/

Scottish parties and dd
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Democracy-Forum/message/378
]]> http://iniref.wordpress.com/2012/03/07/snp-policy-on-direct-democracy-and-referenda/feed/ 0 iniref Post Reply with quote http://iniref.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/campaign-aims-power-to-the-people-essential-principles-of-governance-outlined/ http://iniref.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/campaign-aims-power-to-the-people-essential-principles-of-governance-outlined/#comments Wed, 04 May 2011 09:44:07 +0000 iniref http://iniref.wordpress.com/?p=133 ]]> Iniref, the Campaign for Direct Democracy in Britain, has called for lobbying and campaign action for instance at general election times and to improve government law. Recently we drafted a call to lobby the Communities minister to improve his Localism Bill (see 1. below for blog and Facebook links).

For friends who are new to the Campaign we want here to summarise what our demands are and to define some basic principles of democracy by the people.

Power to the People when it comes from political parties sounds like a promise which they have no intention to keep if they win the election.

To put and fix “The People” in stronger control of the politicians and governments we propose that elements, or “tools” of citizen-led direct democracy should be formally introduced in the UK, in the countries and at local government level. So, an electorate could decide to intervene or innovate in any matter of public policy and would have the right to demand a veto of unwanted law or official action.

Our main Campaign demands are as follows:

Citizens’ Initiative
With the “initiative” a citizen or group has the right to put forward a proposal to introduce or change law. In order that a proposal will be put to the electorate (in a “referendum” or “ballot”) an agreed number of endorsements (“signatures”) must be collected and validated.

Legally binding referendum
If the required number of endorsements is obtained as above, there are two ways to proceed:
1. The proposal is put to the electorate in a referendum.
2. The proposal is first presented to parliament or local council, which must debate it. Parliament or council may adopt the proposal and pass it as law. Proposals which are rejected must be put to the electorate in a referendum. If a majority of the electorate votes for the proposal then it becomes law.

Power to the People: Principles of governance

The right to take part in running public affairs is a universal human right.

This right must be readily operable in politics and not subject to hindrances beyond reasonable regulation.

Democracy must include rule-by-the-people and may not be limited to indirect “representative” rule by politicians.

Some features of this rule-by-the-people include

The people can decide directly on public issues in addition to electing and removing politicians.

Formal proposals concerning public policy may come from the people and not only from an “authority” such as a parliament, government, civil service or a political party.

Proposals supported by a large number of the people must be put to the whole electorate for decision by ballot.

—————————————————–

Can we expect “them” to improve the way our democracy works? The political parties in 2011

Modest proposals for democracy reform involving citizen-participation were put forward by the Labour government but were never put to Parliament for enactment into law. A number of proposals in this field have come from the ruling Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition. These proposals give the impression of a response to longstanding popular demand for better governance, greater accountability and more public participation. Under scrutiny the Con/Libdem proposals are seen to offer only half-measures: In local government affairs the people may make proposals and if the authorities agree the electorate may even be called to vote on a citizens’ proposal. However, according to the Coalition the Council will not be obliged to accept the electorate’s decision! At the level of state, only a right to petition Parliament is foreseen, with no citizens’ right to demand and obtain a plebiscite for a proposal with massive public support and no right to veto unwanted government legislation. See our critical overview of Con/Libdem proposals about democracy http://www.iniref.org/conlibdem.html  Further detail on request.

1. Letter to Communities ministry re. “state of the art” local democracy
Blog http://iniref.wordpress.com/letter-to-communities-ministry-re-state-of-the-art-local-democracy/
Facebook http://www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=117619011650368

Stronger rights of electors to govern their own affairs now anchored in constitution

For the around 300 local authorities and 26 regions the Swedes introduced from the beginning of 2011
1. Citizens’ law-proposal (initiative)
2. Right (improved) to demand a plebiscite (decision by the electorate, “referendum”).

These changes strengthen the role of citizens in regional and local government. Before this reform there was a citizens’ right to demand a referendum but this could be refused by the governing authority.

Swedish attention to detail for good governance is illustrated by some accompanying innovations. They propose to build a “comprehensive direct-democratic infrastructure” (Kaufmann), with local advice centres for voters who wish to contribute to governance and exploit their new democratic rights. Also planned is a national institution for political participation, which will inform citizens and support and encourage the newly introduced “direct” democracy.

The rules for citizens’ initiative and referendum were laid down by revision of the constitution of state which came into force in January 2011.

————–
Summarised from: Bruno Kaufmann,  “A more democratic Sweden”: Demokratischeres Schweden md magazin Nr.88, 1/2011 published by mehr-demokratie.de

key words, tags: direct democracy, citizens initiative, ballot

In short:
The Government backs our proposals for Initiative, Citizens’ Referendum and Recall (sacking) of Members of Parliament!

Three items from the coalition paper:

We will give residents the power to instigate local referendums on any local issue.

We will bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall, allowing voters to force a by-election where an MP is found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing and having had a petition calling for a by-election signed by 10% of his or her constituents.

We will ensure that any petition that secures 100,000 signatures will be eligible for formal debate in Parliament. The petition with the most signatures will enable members of the public to table a bill eligible to be voted on in Parliament.
—————————–

Campaign work must continue!

The realisation of these coalition proposals would bring considerable improvement to public participation in government. This reform could become a quiet revolution, a move from “steered” democracy to one with practicable, pro-active and veto rights for everyone, in a living, everyday democracy at local and national levels.

In order to ensure that these promises are fulfilled our Campaign will continue. There is a long way to go before legislators in parliament formally introduce genuine citizen-led democracy. Broad public demand for progress on this must become loudly audible. Our Campaign will:
– inform
– educate
– advocate
– lobby
– publish
– research

All of these activities depend on real people doing hard work with professional skill and original flair.

The Campaign for Citizens’ Initiative and Referendum in Britain needs helpers and support, see
http://www.iniref.org/crew.html volunteer
http://www.iniref.org/action.html support
http://www.iniref.org index
Independent of any political party
—————————————————