Perhaps a bit too political for this forum. Other political parties and views are available...
http://mccraw.co.uk/yesscotland-not-for-cyclists/
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
YesScotland: not for cyclists
(118 posts)-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
This is an excellent critique of SNP policy since 2007, but surely not right to reduce pro-independence vote to a referendum on SNP?
Posted 11 years ago # -
"Perhaps a bit too political for this forum"
Well lets see...
There are a few people on here who have been open about party allegiance(s) but most avoid direct 'party talk'.
I think a lot of people would agree that "SNP Government has been 'managerially' successful" and "SNP Government's infrastructure/transport policies 'leave a lot to be desired'/'too traditional' ".
Many people will agree with both.
Most people won't decide their voting on cycling only.
If that means more to individuals than anything else, then it is a reasonable reason for voting accordingly.
Posted 11 years ago # -
SRD said it shorter...
Posted 11 years ago # -
I'm not convinced the Lib/Labs were any better. Jack McConnal actually sent millions of pounds back to Westminster because he couldn't think of anything to do with it.
Posted 11 years ago # -
And let's not forget that the Greens are far more pro-bike, AND they're in favour of independence.
Posted 11 years ago # -
The contrast between Boris and Alex is interesting but only to the extent that you can grope towards answering 'why?'. Why has Boris taken this leap into a bicycling future for London while the SNP resists it? Why has Edinburgh now decided that cycling should take a bigger slice of the transport pie having skirted around it for so long?
Boris has some track record in cycling as do some of the leading councillors in Edinburgh. Alex, not quite so active. Individual commitments matter but I don't really think it's down to individuals. Alex would back cycling if it would make a difference to him and his political project. He makes the same (some would say cynical) calculation all politicians make - which constituencies will get me (and my party) elected?
I came across this little quote years ago reading about climate change and inherent political conservatism.
"It is axiomatic in government that hornets’ nests should be left unstirred, cans of worms should remain unopened, and cats should be left firmly in bags and not set among the pigeons. Ministers should also leave boats unrocked, nettles ungrasped, refrain from taking bulls by the horns, and resolutely turn their backs to the music."
Essentially, politicians will back something when it suits them - when the boats have been sufficiently rocked in the right direction. Boris admitted as much in his acknowledgement of the bloggers.
There's a connection to independence to the extent that cyclists' votes are co-ordinated and focussed. That would rattle some politicians. The Greens have supported independence. Personally, I think that was a mistake before squeezing the SNP for the promises needed to help the Greens deliver cyclists' votes for independence.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Like the 'don't rock the cats, hornets, boat' quote.
"
Personally, I think that was a mistake before squeezing the SNP for the promises needed to help the Greens deliver cyclists' votes for independence?"
Know what you mean, but I assume that the 'Greens for Independence' stance is more related to a universal 'small is beautiful' sensibility rather than a 'we'll see what we can get from the SNP' by backing them.Conversely Patrick Harvie overplayed his hand in the past trying to get concessions (home insulation I think) in the run up to a John Swinney Budget when there was a minority Government.
SNP got its Budget passed without the Greens, so opportunity for future influence was lost.
Posted 11 years ago # -
This is an excellent critique of SNP policy since 2007, but surely not right to reduce pro-independence vote to a referendum on SNP?
To me they are too tied up to be treated separately. Post-independence there would still be a Labour, LibDem and Tory party in Scotland, but the SNP are/will be in control during the process of setting up the organs of a new state, and its direction.
Would the failings of the SNP be hard-baked into a new Scotland? I'm sure it's not completely the case, but at the end of the day, why risk it?
Also, evidently, the SNP are in a position to strengthen the case for independence with people who favour liveable streets and active travel by investing in it. They could do it today if they wanted. Instead they are sending the opposite message. Even while (they'd argue) constrained by Westminster they can't find money to invest in the areas that are important to us.
Posted 11 years ago # -
What SRD said.
Posted 11 years ago # -
But if you wanted to it would be fairly easy to construct an argument that with commitment to the EU, NATO, the Bank of England, the pound, the Queen etc, and the ongoing subservience to multinational corporations intrinsic to any capitalist economy, the only difference independence is going to make is in how the new independent state plans to use the powers that are unequivocally in its gift.
The Greens (and other parties) could, instead of throwing their hat in on one side or the other, argue that the choice is between a frying pan or a fire and press both sides on how they will deal with the questions that will continue to be pressing after independence. It seems to me that the current 'debate' is about issues that have no real relevance. The price of oil will not be affected by independence and the macro-economics of independence will be largely the same as the macro-economics of a continuing United Kingdom. Pensions, benefits, transport, taxation etc need not be and at the moment YesScotland is getting a free ride.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I don't think one should make one's mind up on the question of independence based on one facet of transport policy.
This is not a referendum on the SNP government, it's about the country's future. Greens support an independent Scotland for many reasons. An important one is the potential to rid Scotland of nuclear weapons and nuclear power. This is not just about pensions, benefits, transport, education, etc. It's also about defence, energy, foreign policy, all those areas currently reserved to Westminster.
It's easy to turn around and say these things don't matter to ordinary people on a day to day basis. They do have a huge impact on how our society and economy runs, though. Just as north sea oil has and contines to have a big influence.
Posted 11 years ago # -
The Scottish Motorway Party, as the biggest political grouping in the "Yes" movement, are always going to tar it with their bad name when it comes to things like cycling.
The big question or course is would things be better (or actually be worse!) for cycling in the Brave New World or as they are (or a slightly different version of the current political arrangements).
Posted 11 years ago # -
Kaputnik - it would at least be easier to change things for the better, I think. My own view is that a small self-governing country with its own politics would be more open to being influenced by its people, more able to change course towards doing things right. Currently we're an insignificant and distant province of a glorious imperial state whose interests lie elsewhere, and whose elections offer a choice between four conservative parties.
Also, I'm annoyed with these stupid pro-car policies but I would have thought they must also be strong in Labour, otherwise the M74 extension would never have been bulldozed through Glasgow; and the SNP seems to have an enlightened pro-cycling side too (e.g. Jim Eadie?). These things can change when the right person gets into the right position (Andrew Burns for instance).
Posted 11 years ago # -
Perhaps I have an unconventional approach, but I basically figure that the environment I live in every day is the important thing to focus on. Regardless of political stance, I find it hard to believe that the country will run out of power, for instance.
There are other issues I consider important, but I figure that if they became a genuine problem, popular discontent will keep things on an even keel regardless of the nominal beliefs of the ruling party.
If you want to be concerned about multiple things you immediately find that each party is good for one of them but hopeless on others, leaving you effectively disenfranchised. At least by concentrating on one it becomes a lot less ambiguous.
Posted 11 years ago # -
@cc : understand what you're getting at, but transport is already devolved. We've got the choice of political parties that we're going to get and they have the money and flexibility to use it as I'd (since we're discussing the OP) like. But they won't do it.
I left a comment to someone on the article which is sort of relevant. Feel free to pitch in.
Posted 11 years ago # -
That's the problem - each and every party has some policies I agree with and some which I really disagree with. Which leaves you with a choice of "which is least worst". By philosophically concentrating on one topic you at least gain some focus.
I think what Boris/London has shown is that what change requires is leadership and the inclination to make (perceived) bold decisions, something that Cooncils have not been particularly good at. And in Parliament the SNP is too concerned with not rocking the boat or putting out anything that might be perceived as "bad news" prior to the referendum.
Posted 11 years ago # -
There's no way I'm wading into the whole independence debate, but it is worth pointing out that at the last London mayoral election there was a concentrated effort to 'bike the vote' through Londoners on Bike which extracted 'Go Dutch' pledges from all of the mayoral candidates before the vote (this works better before an election than a referendum of course). The astounding thing about Boris's recent announcement is that he has actually apparently come good on a pledge made in the heat of an election. But then, he's always been a bit of a maverick politician
I would have thought the equivalent approach here would be to concentrate on the next Holyrood election and/or local elections - extracting pledges to support the POP manifesto (other pro cycling manifestos are available) from all the major candidates before the vote and making their responses very publicly known.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"
And in Parliament the SNP is too concerned with not rocking the boat or putting out anything that might be perceived as "bad news" prior to the referendum."
Lot of truth in that. Doesn't help that most media - London and Scotland - is hostile.
What is needed is for them to believe walking and cycling (formerly known as active travel) would be POPULAR - which seems to be difficult.
Sadly if it was an SNP policy, elements of the other parties would be against it...
Posted 11 years ago # -
We'd still have the same unambitious, blinkered-thinking cooncils in charge at the local level in an independents Scotland, it's hard to see how much for cycling would change quickly or at a faster rate / in a better direction than the status quo.
Personally haven't made my mind up about the Yes/No question. I would like to see some rationalisation of the council system to get a bit more joined-up when it comes to things that are shared between neighbouring councils. Try and deal with the stupid situations at (for example) border between Edinburgh and Midlothian where nothing ever happens because each seems to think the other should be doing their bit (or whatever the petty reason is). Yes a lot of cycling is for local journeys, but a lot of people live in dormitory towns to the cities and they too should be encouraged and helped to cycle the 5 or 10 miles from one council to another.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Do we perhaps need local-level manifestos for council elections? It's true that most of the day to day cycling stuff is in their hands and outwith Edinburgh they seem more likely to regard cycling as a problem than a solution
Posted 11 years ago # -
Re unambitious blinkered cooncils: Scottish "local" government is awful. It's largely not local. It needs huge change. This article by Lesley Riddoch and Eberhard Bort sets out some of the facts and arguments.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Sadly if it was an SNP policy, elements of the other parties would be against it...
There is actually a name for that. It's the Bain doctrine as espoused by Willie Bain MP. He admitted on Twitter that Labour in Westminster didn't vote for something purely because he thought it was an SNP amendment. I can't rmember what it was but you would have expected Labour to support it. He was wrong, it was a Plaid Cymru vote.
Of course last week we had a council in England proposing a statue of Mrs Thatcher. The Tories voted against it, Labour voted for it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-21712559
So I'm not sure what to expect now.
Posted 11 years ago # -
When Douglas Alexander spoke last week, he made a big deal about moving power from Holyrood to local government. Afterwards, I asked him how this might work. He waffled. either no thinking's been put into it, or he didn't want to tell me what they might propose. Disappointing.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Although I disagree with SNP transport policy, the following alone make them worth voting for:
- kicking Trident out (a waste of £40bn and makes us a nuclear target)
- pro renewable energy
- anti nuclear energy (too expensive & a serious waste problem left for future generations)
- no tuition fees for Scottish students
- free bus travel for pensionersOf course, they'll bankrupt the country paying for it all, but let's forget about that ;)
Posted 11 years ago # -
The biggest problem I've got with the Independence debate (either for or against) is the way all of the discussions are around the periphary. There's so much BIG background stuff that no-one wants to touch.
For instance, there are thousands (literally) of tax agreements between the UK and countries around the world covering all sorts of little bits and pieces of finance. Does Scotland remain a party to those? Unlikely. Will it have to renogotiate each one? Probably. Will that cost a lot of money and manpower? Definitely. Will Scotland get as good a deal or be in as strong a bargaining position as the UK? We'll just have to suck it and see.
Or what about the public ownership of RBS? Registered in Scotland, ownership spread over the whole of the UK - the remaining states of the UK (assuming it reforms) wouldn't really want that share of the debt surely? So does Scotland buy it back? Or maybe it will have to repay to the UK at some rate of interest?
The EU is the most interesting facet - absolutely no-one at all knows if Scotland will get straight back in. Technically it's a new accession so would have to abide by rules of new accession states, i.e. accept pretty much everything. Gone is the UK veto, in come tighter controls of fishing and agriculture, and... the Euro? It's possible. Though Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain will likely vote against because they all have states within them that are looking to separate (that we hear little about) and letting Scotland rejoin would be a nasty precedent for them.
Even the oil. That jewel in the crown... Very few people realise that independence would lead to a redrawing of boundaries. It's not actually guaranteed that the oil fields would remain in Scottish territorial waters (there's a possibility they will, but absolutely no-one is broaching the subject).
I've heard people saying we wouldn't be involved in wars like Afghanistan - which is a nice idea, except it's already been stated we'd probably remain within the British army, so it's an entirely incorrect statement.
By all means there's a huge 'heart' aspect to the vote, but we shouldn't ignore the 'head' stuff. It will be painful if we separate - certainly in the short to medium term there will be higher costs, probably higher taxes. The question is really whether people are willing to put up with that pain for an indeterminate end result. If the answer is yes, having been fully informed, then fire ahead.
It's a bit like the helmet debate. Saying you should wear one because it's 'common sense', while not reading research or the likes is blinkered. Saying you should wear one because, having read everything, cogitated, and come to a reasoned conclusion based on your interpretation of those facts is open and transparent.
Posted 11 years ago # -
One of the more thoughtful critiques of an independent Scotland is that it would lead to a greater concentration of influence in Edinburgh than at present, and much to the detriment of other areas, for example the North East.
Furthermore,it will thus increase the power of special interest groups. The relationship between Dublin and the rest of the Republic suggests there is truth here.
Thus it is ironic that Dave's pleadings which are on the first and last analysis Edinburghcentric, concern low single % parts of one department's budget and encroach on another level of government are used to justify a "No" vote.
Just an observation.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"The EU is the most interesting facet - absolutely no-one at all knows if Scotland will get straight back in."
I don't think that anyone really doubts this will happen. If the AU (which is far more anti-secession than the EU) accepts an independent Southern Sudan, it is inconceivable that an independent Scotland would not be warmly received by the EU (given its historical independence, the comparison is more to Namibia, Somaliland, Eritrea or W. Sahara anyway).
But against the background of recent accessions, it is highly unlikely that Scotland would be refused entry. however, we may well not be offered membership on anything like the terms that UK has.
Posted 11 years ago # -
@WC I've had a very similar discussion on a different forum and there the "unionist" discussion went round and round on how much an independent Scotland would need to spend on military. It got silly people squabbling over decimals of percent and how Scotland be free loading off NATO if we didn't spend over an arbitrary number, I did point out that we (the uk) are already free loading off the US if people are going to get pedantic on absolute or %/GDP military spending.
Point I made there is that none of the "little" problems are insurmountable, an army could be formed, treaties could be drawn up. I'm personally undecided but I really hope the Unionist bloc come up with something better than "you'll need an army" or "you'll need to do your own tax returns" because Salmond is selling "FREEDOM" and not reality. People are far more likely to buy into a dream/delusion than financial reality. My worry is that he's already won...
Posted 11 years ago # -
The rumblings we got from some Brussels based lawyers who work closely with the European Commission was a lot less clear-cut on Scotland's entry. Absolutely spot on that the comparison between Scotland and, say, Catalonia isn't really a direct one (even though it was been 306 years since Scotland was an independent nation) - but it still worries those countries with secession issues of their own. Let's face it, you know politics, and you know those pro-secession people involved in the other countries would be only too willing to use Scotland as an arguing point.
But yes, if it did get in there's absolutely no chance that it would be on the favourable UK terms.
Posted 11 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
