Robert Peffers wrote:
"I&R ~ GB" <infoTAKE at (no spam) OUTiniref.org> wrote in message
news:7le2e8F3d69i2U1 at (no spam) mid.uni-berlin.de...
Robert Peffers wrote:
"I&R ~ GB" <infoTAKE at (no spam) OUTiniref.org> wrote in message
news:7ld4g3F3cos22U1 at (no spam) mid.uni-berlin.de...
Robert Peffers wrote:
"I&R ~ GB" <infoTAKE at (no spam) OUTiniref.org> wrote in message
news:7lboc5F3cs600U1 at (no spam) mid.uni-berlin.de...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rachel_sylvester/article6900028.ece
snip.
Why do you want to continue with weak democracy? Stronger democracy
would not hinder more devolution or independence.
Where did I say I did want to continue with weak democracy?
I only pointed out the obvious fact that attempting to do so by the
methods suggested was very much NOT the way to do so.
Why should the political elites be allowed to take all decisions
(between elections) with NO checks nor balances by the electorate?
By the same token why should a referendum of a mainly ignorant, (of
political issues), public be thought any better than what we have now?
The direct democracy lobby including we at I&R ~ GB pushes for
stronger, citizen-led democracy at ALL LEVELS of governance and in all
polities. That is villages, towns, counties, cities, devolved
parliaments and Westminster (and why not EU as long as we are in it).
Partial direct democracy.
Have you considered that the Scottish Parliament stands head &
shoulders over Westminster in many ways and the way the public can
raise matters with the house is but one of them.
The reality is that Scotland is still part of the UK so, as long as
that is the case, why should we refuse to obtain more say in what is
decided at Westminster?
Quite simply because Westminster has shown itself incapable of handling
the simple fact that we have a different party sitting in Holyrood and
they, (Westminster), have fought against the Scottish people's choice
from the moment that the SNP gained power.
Note that Gordon Brown actually refused to even talk to Alex Salmond
for quite some considerable time. Note that Cameron said, "He would
treat the Scottish Parliament with respect but on the very same day
objected to an SNP representation on both TV and in discussions.
If we had Citizens' Initiative and Veto-Referendum we could start
campaigns in Scotland as in other parts of UK. These might not gain
majority in referenda but experience shows that there can be powerful
indirect effects of such initiatives.
Why do you not find out just what we already do have before attempting
to force mainly English and Westminster ideas upon us?
Wallace-Macpherson
I&R ~ GB
http://www.iniref.org/
It is obvious you are ignorant of The Scottish Parliament: e-democracy
system. It may do you some good to check it out.
You will find the e-petitions system here -
http://epetitions.scottish.parliament.uk/
Our parliament has little fancy dress, pomp and circumstance and
archaic practices. When a vote is called for there is no traditional
closing doors or members trooping out and in the chamber, no bowing and
scraping and formal announcements by petty official. Quite simply the
chair call for a vote and the members press a button and the count is
instant.
We had no problems of members fiddling expenses as the system was
already sorted before it had problems.
We, the voters can raise matters that must BE ADDRESSED by the house.
So tell me, why should we not decide to dump the sleaze ridden, archaic
system that treats us like inferiors and go our own way?
We do not need the added complexity of a referenda ridden system as we
already do have access directly to our own parliament when we need it.
There are a few substantial points, some apparent misapprehensions and a
bit of "representative rulers'" rhetoric here (most political parties
are rabidly opposed to any effective citizen participation).
Your dismissal of the Scottish people as ignorant of public issues is --
to put it mildly -- breathtaking.
So it may help to define (in brief) what we at I&R ~ GB mean by "strong"
democracy:
(from
http://www.iniref.org/about.html )
QUOTE
The term “citizens’ direct democracy” refers to forms of democratic
decision-making which can be initiated by an agreed number of citizens
and which can lead to a decision by ballot or vote of the whole
electorate. In this context "ballot" means the same as binding
referendum or plebiscite. Thus citizens can identify, select and
prioritise public issues, stipulate the wording of proposals and put
proposals to the whole electorate of their state, city, town, village or
other political unit. Examples of such procedures are:
-- the citizens’ law-proposal (initiative) leading to ballot,
-- the veto referendum,
-- the constitutional referendum and
-- the recall-initiative.
UNQUOTE
What Robert Peffers calls e-democracy and e-petitions fall far short of
the above standards. An essential of the "citizens' initiative" is that
if the proposal is rejected by parliament, it normally must go before
the whole electorate in referendum.
In opinion surveys large majorities agree with the essential principle
of direct democracy, that a large number of voters should be able to put
forward a proposal and demand a referendum about it.
Our proposals for citizen-led democracy (www.iniref.org) are designed to
compensate for fundamental design faults of indirect democracy, dubbed
"representative". For instance, the electorate gains the ability to
intervene and decide on issues which they select, in the periods between
elections. With "representative rule" we have to suffer and wait for the
next election in order to elect a new bunch (who may turn out to be
little better). These faults are inherent both in Scotland and UK.
Rest assured that the I&R ~ GB campaign for direct democracy is not a
sassenach plot. In England and UK there is no direct democracy to speak
of and the vast majority of politicians hate the idea.
Wallace-Macpherson
I&R ~ GB
http://www.iniref.org/
I have been involved in the Scottish political scene since around 1945
and long ago came to the conclusion that the best way forward for
Scotland is to become either totally independent from Westminster or, at
very least, to form some more equitable form of government. It is very
obvious that this cannot be achieved by the form of government you would
have us adopt. The only other option for Scotland has to be a Federal
system with each UK country having their own parliament but with each
country sending a small group of ministers to deal with the very few
matters they share such as defence. Through the years I have seen enough
English attempts to browbeat everyone else and all of them with so many
wrong facts that I know, without doubt, that they have little knowledge
of real facts. Most, even sitting MPs, are devoid of factual information
but full of myth and propaganda.
Let us just see how your own knowledge stacks up against real facts shall
we?
What part of the UK has been the most consistent employment blackspot
since WW1?
What part of the UK has had more people on benefits since the NHS was
formed?
What proportion of North Sea revenues are credited to each home country
as their earnings by HM Treasury?
What proportion of earnings from Registered head offices in London are
credited as earnings by each UK country?
What is the purpose of the Barnett Formula?
What is the reason for only England being funded as the UK while all
other countries have block grants?
Are block grants capped or uncapped?
Is the English UK funding capped or uncapped?
Does England subsidise Scotland and if so by how much?
What are the official languages of Scotland?
So let's see how you do on that little lot.
You write "The
only other option for Scotland has to be a Federal system with each UK
country having their own parliament but with each country sending a
small
group of ministers to deal with the very few matters they share such as
defence. "
The citizen-led partial direct democracy which we propose is entirely
compatible with this formula.
The citizens' initiative and veto referendum can address all fields of
politics so some of the topics which you list in your "exam" above could
become topics of citizen-law-proposals.
Whether Scotland takes more independence from UK or not, the direct
democracy tools which we list above would serve to enhance quality of
governance, participation and representation.
Regards,
I&R ~ GB
http://www.iniref.org/
http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/i-and-r.gb sign up for reform
No it isn't. As long as there are 10 or 11 English people to every one Scot
