My first reaction to The Herald’s exclusive that the Greens have “walked out on the Yes campaign” was exactly the same as Labour MSP Patricia Ferguson’s soundbite – it’s either Salmond’s way or the high way.
It would take the most blinkered Cybernat to dress this up as media bias or an exaggeration of a minor split. Patrick Harvie sat cheek by jowl with Alex Salmond in the Cineworld cinema two weeks ago as part of the ‘broad church’ Yes Scotland campaign kick-off. Now Patrick can’t confirm that the Scottish Greens will even be participating. We will have to wait until the SGP conference in October to learn if that’ll happen.
This isn’t the first time that the Greens are concerned they are being taken from granted by the SNP. Who can be forget the pulsating drama as the Greens voted against Swinney’s budget in 2009 over an insulation plan that did not go far enough? And on her blog, Joan McAlpine has regularly mildly scolded the Greens for not pushing independence harder:
“As a party, they claim to support Scottish independence, but I see little evidence of this in their campaigning.”
Two parties wanting the same thing but undermining each other by not overcoming their relatively minor differences makes me think of the squabbling Socialists and their unfortunate lack of representation at Holyrood. The second parliamentary term contained six Socialist MSPs, so the appetite for their policies is out there, but political infighting is the easiest way to scare away voters and that’s what could happen with Yes Scotland here if this disagreement isn’t fixed.
Why would floating voters vote Yes to independence if even the proponents of a separate Scotland can’t get on? Indeed, why would would-be-Yes-voters vote Yes?
The silver lining is that we are still well over two years away from the independence referendum and a more consensual approach from the SNP coupled with a notably hungrier attitude to winning a Yes result from the Greens is a compromise well within reach.
Those in the SNP may reasonably point out that the SNP have all the campaign money and its election machine won a parliamentary majority at the 2011 election while the Greens didn’t improve upon their lowly two representatives, so who is best placed to lead, perhaps even dominate, the Yes Scotland campaign? That may be so, but it would be arrogant to assume that any party would want to sit under the SNP only to lend their arguments a greener hue and more weight. As James has said before, the Scottish Green Party is not the environmentalist wing of nationalism. It certainly shouldn’t be treated as such.
So what happens from here? Well, it may sound dry and boring, but hopefully an organisational design can be drawn up that satisfies all relevant Yes Scotland stakeholders and decision makers, and then the coalition can get on with doing what really matters – taking their arguments to the nation and convincing the voters.
Alex Salmond doesn’t suffer fools gladly but if he continues to see Patrick Harvie (and Colin Fox) as passengers and not partners, and by extension ‘fools’, then he’s going to win a very small battle but lose a very big war.
There needs to be a third way over and above Salmond’s way and the high way for something as important as this.
#1 by Aidan on June 10, 2012 - 2:25 pm
I’m intrigued by your suggestion that the Greens need to “hungrier”: is part of the reason they’re not being let into the campaign control structures because they don’t want independence unconditionally?
(I also think it’s a bit unfair to charactarise what’s happened to the SSP as squabbling and infighting, more a salutary lesson about charismatic leadership and the dangers of one-man-bandism, but that’s obviously *totally* irrelevant to this. :cough: )
#2 by James on June 10, 2012 - 2:35 pm
That’s very generous to the SSP/Solidarity if you ask me. I’d be hard pressed to come up with a better example of political squabbling and infighting: even Major and the “bastards” weren’t in court.
#3 by Aidan on June 10, 2012 - 2:41 pm
To be fair nobody in Major’s cabinet attempted to involve them in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice to satisfy their ego.
#4 by Jeff on June 10, 2012 - 2:38 pm
I guess by “hungrier” I mean that the Greens need to think (a little) less about how independence would look under their own terms (keep the monarchy, public debate on constituion etc) and more about winning 50%+. Joining Yes Scotland involves some compromise, but, don’t get me wrong, my sympathies on this issue lie considerably more with Patrick than the SNP.
As you say, if they don’t want independence unconditionally then they don’t have to join Yes Scotland. I would have thought that given Patrick sat beside Alex in the front row two weeks ago, that decision on principle (rather than process) had been made.
#5 by Aidan on June 10, 2012 - 2:45 pm
I wonder if there’s an element of this where it’s quite helpful to keep the Greens out the campaign because they’re likely to do dangerous things like ask what independence is actually going to mean in practice from inside the tent where they can’t be attacked.
#6 by Commenter on June 10, 2012 - 3:12 pm
Touché indeed 🙂
#7 by Jeff on June 10, 2012 - 3:18 pm
If that’s the SNP’s position then they should play it with a straight bat and not invite the Greens into Yes Scotland when, really, they’re not wanted.
#8 by Aidan on June 10, 2012 - 3:52 pm
It’s obviously not the official position, and could never be acknowledged as a goal, but it’s perhaps tactically useful for the Greens to be outside the official campaign structures articulating the radical case for Independence which the SNP basically don’t want to touch.
It also means they’re unlikely to accidently torpedo the campaign by going off message or, worse, leaving later on.
I’m not saying this *is* the case, just idly speculating.
#9 by Jeff on June 10, 2012 - 4:30 pm
I would have thought that the radicals would be already onboard for a Yes vote. The battle is for the middle ground, as always, and for me a joined-up, cohesive coalition (arguing Yes or No) is the best way forward there.
I just can’t see how the SNP would think it’s better having the Greens on the outside p’ing in as opposed to inside (& onside) and p’ing out. The SNP needs to make space for them if that’s so though.
#10 by Aidan on June 10, 2012 - 5:04 pm
I’m not convinced about that – remember there’s a substantial minority of Green party members who aren’t in favour of it, I’d wager a bigger slice of their voters aren’t. There’s also a bunch of traditional left radicals who are opposed on grounds of working class solidarity.
Sure, that isn’t the main battleground but it is the main battle ground that the Greens and SSP operate on.
I’m fairly sure some compromise will be found so that the Greens can be happily attached to the campaign.
#11 by Commenter on June 11, 2012 - 9:30 am
I would have thought that the radicals would be already onboard for a Yes vote. The battle is for the middle ground
Not to mention that even if they are not all yes voters, there’s not that many ‘radicals’ whereas the middle ground is big.
#12 by Commenter on June 10, 2012 - 2:29 pm
I’m torn on this. The idea of the Yes campaign being a ‘coalition’ of pro-independence voices from different parties and none is nice, and if it works it’ll help combat the narrative being pushed like crazy by the No parties that it’s all about Salmond Salmond Salmond. The No campaign would love to make it about the personality of one person, because then they could attack the person rather than the nation, as it were. Scots will feel better if they can pretend they’re giving Salmond a black eye as opposed to rejecting self-determination.
On the other hand, I worry that the small parties, motivated and driven by a sense of ideological purity (and as far as I can tell not massively fussed about independence) will bring their schismatic tendencies to bear and treat the whole process as a means to manoevre for political advantage. The SSP is a huge turn off for me in particular, and I can’t see their lending their support resulting in anything but a net loss of Yes votes.
The question is whether Yes-supporting voices baggaging up independence with their own relatively unpopular views will ultimately be helpful arithmetically.
#13 by James on June 10, 2012 - 2:36 pm
Greens don’t have “schismatic tendencies”.
#14 by Commenter on June 10, 2012 - 2:55 pm
In the context of a cross party coalition, I would say that their basis as a party of ideological purity makes them more likely to prize isolation and being right than compromise. A lot of talk from Greens on the subject of independence is griping about the awful wrongness of the SNP. It’s this “holding our noses if we have to be in the same room as the SNP” attitude that worries me. Is that kind of support really helpful? Not sure. Having said that, there’s a range of attitudes, and Patrick Harvie for example comes across as a real grownup.
#15 by R.G. Bargie on June 10, 2012 - 2:31 pm
“Why would floating voters vote Yes to independence if even the proponents of a separate Scotland can’t get on?”
Why would they vote No when even the proponents of unity spend all day every day vitriolically bashing the living daylights out of each other in Westminster?
#16 by Jeff on June 10, 2012 - 2:41 pm
Not over the question of whether there should be a United Kingdom including Scotland they don’t. Arguing over policies is healthy, even if rather shallowly conducted most of the time. The fault for that lies with the public as much as it does with politicians (as the lack of interest from the vast majority of the public indirectly allows it to happen).
Parties that want independence not being able to sit down together and front a joint campaign is a huge body blow for arguing for a Yes vote.
#17 by R.G. Bargie on June 10, 2012 - 3:01 pm
“Arguing over policies is healthy, even if rather shallowly conducted most of the time.”
Isn’t that exactly the root of the problem between the SNP and the Greens, though? (In so far as there’s one at all – Harvie has rubbished the Herald story this afternoon.)
After all, you yourself characterised the spat as “Two parties wanting the same thing but undermining each other by not overcoming their relatively minor differences”.
#18 by Jeff on June 10, 2012 - 3:17 pm
For me the crucial difference is that the SNP are Greens aren’t arguing over policy like most political parties whereby each has a different policy and require a compromise. They both hold the same policy (an independent Scotland) and seemingly can’t find a way to take that forward. That is concerning and does not help paint a better Scotland.
#19 by Commenter on June 10, 2012 - 3:24 pm
The weird thing I’m seeing, even in the Yes Scotland campaign itself, is an almost dismissive attitude to “independence”. Independence is too boring to talk about – what’s interesting is how it will enable us to regress to a magical pre-Thatcher land of socialism. Perhaps I took the Old Labour tinged launch event too much to heart…
#20 by Jeff on June 10, 2012 - 3:37 pm
Yes I agree.
How you sex up independence for the X-factor generation is beyond me. Of course, I’d rather people engaged with the process organically but that looks unlikely, as you say.
#21 by GML1320 on June 10, 2012 - 2:47 pm
Why does the Yes campaign need to be unified? Does anyone expect an Independent Scotland to be some homogenised Stepford dystopia? If not why would the Yes campaign be like that? Unionists frequently portray Independence as Alex Salmond’s personal whim, one man’s power grab. A multi faceted, multi party campaign would pull the rug out from under that cliché and allow folk who want to vote Yes but have their differences with the SNP somewhere to call home.
I find the Green’s havering over independence a bit irritating, especially as I think it would do nothing but good for their aims, most of which I agree with. It’s important that the SGP say they want a Yes, whether they do that whilst skipping hand in hand through fields of daisies with the SNP is by the by.
#22 by James on June 10, 2012 - 2:51 pm
There’s no havering about independence at a policy level, only about the structures of the campaign vehicle. However, it is true that perhaps a quarter or a third of the party either oppose independence or are in the “meh” camp.
#23 by Commenter on June 10, 2012 - 3:11 pm
Why does the Yes campaign need to be unified?
The campaign absolutely needs to be unified, in the sense of not pulling in different directions. The No campaign consists of a range of parties (helped by all being relatively large parties that aim to attract voters and so used to compromise to some extent). But they’ll need to be unified as well – imagine if the Tory section of the No coalition were to push a small-state vision of Scotlandshire while sharing a platform with Labour. Wouldn’t go down well.
#24 by peter on June 10, 2012 - 3:52 pm
i welcome all views about an Independent Scotland. if the Greens want to play their part in their own way; so be it.
#25 by Indy on June 10, 2012 - 4:54 pm
Me too. If they want to do their own thing that’s fine. It does seem a bit short-sighted to me as being part of the Yes campaign would actually give them a bigger platform for their views – as we have seen over the past few weeks when Patrick Harvie has had a high media profile – but at the end of the day it is up to them and is a decision for the members.
#26 by Jeff on June 10, 2012 - 5:03 pm
For me, these are short-sighted views to have. If what you’re saying is basically, ‘it’s up to the Greens if they want to be a part of this or not’.
Surely the more important question for the SNP is ‘to what extent do we want the Greens and other parties to be a part of this coalition’ and then act accordingly on that decision. That doesn’t seem to have taken place yet to an extent that Patrick feels he is truly onboard.
#27 by Daveinmaryburgh on June 10, 2012 - 5:16 pm
‘it’s up to the Greens if they want to be a part of this or not’.
Isn’t that what the Greens are saying by going to convention in October to ask members if and in what way they will be involved in the SNPs Yes campaign. Others involved in campaign will have to wait to see what the Greens agree on before involving them.
#28 by Jeff on June 10, 2012 - 6:03 pm
Good point Dave. It is refreshing for a party leader to say he is going to wait and discuss with the party before deciding. Perhaps there was a purposeful decision to compare and contrast that style of leadership with Salmond’s control freakery.
#29 by Indy on June 10, 2012 - 7:17 pm
It is not the least bit different to what happens in the SNP actually.
#30 by Daveinmaryburgh on June 10, 2012 - 7:56 pm
Wish this had been either done before the launch or without the events of this week-end. How we work with other groups may be something for the SNP conference to discuss.
#31 by James on June 10, 2012 - 7:58 pm
That does sound potentially a constructive approach. I suspect the SNP membership would have a sensible position on this.
#32 by Indy on June 10, 2012 - 7:16 pm
Yes it is up to the Greens, specifically to the membership. Patrick Harvie is a good politician but he isn’t the Green party. My reading of the Green statement – and maybe I have picked this up wrongly, I don’t know – is that the decision to formally join the Yes campaign has to go to Conference. That suggests everyone may not agree with it.
Having been through some similar situations in the SNP, sometimes that’s what has to be done. Internal democracy can be very important in these types of situations.
As I said maybe I have got the wrong end of the stick there but in any case by October the Yes campaign will be running on the ground so the Greens will have a clearer idea of how it is shaping up and can take their decision on that basis. My understanding is that there is nothing to preclude Green members becoming active in the campaign now if they want to and I expect some will.
#33 by PMK on June 10, 2012 - 4:33 pm
Frankly, the Greens need to play by the rules for once! They have damaged themselves in the past by following Harvie’s whims (from here he looks more like a dictator, rather than a “co-convener”).
He is no Robin Harper, and they have suffered electorally as a result. Time to step-up and stick to their purported political beliefs, to demonstrate that they have beliefs beyond the purely environmental.
#34 by Jeff on June 10, 2012 - 5:02 pm
Not an unreasonable set of points at all.
Which “rules” are you referring to though? 100% the SNP’s rules? Surely you can see the problems with that…
#35 by Indy on June 10, 2012 - 7:27 pm
Perhaps if we knew what the Greens actually objected to it would easier to understand what the problem is but since we don’t it’s all speculation.
But on practical grounds there has to be one portal to access the campaign. There has to be one database to record the information. There has to be one data controller ultimately responsible for that information. There need to be policies set in place – such as the decision not to accept donations from people who are not on the electoral register in Scotland. And when the short campaign kicks in there will be one legally liable body.
The SNP is providing the money, the staff – and the lawyer. To a certain extent that gives them control but only in logistical terms. It does not give them political control so what is the issue?
If it’s all the stuff about the monarchy, NATO, the currency etc then sorry that is NOT central to the Yes campaign and the SNP should not give an inch.
#36 by James on June 10, 2012 - 7:30 pm
As I understand it, the main objection is to being given statements to sign or not rather than statements to discuss, to being given dates for events rather than options to discuss. Basically, the entire structure is a subset of the SNP flying a different flag, and so far they’ve proved resistant to any genuine and open cooperation.
#37 by Daveinmaryburgh on June 10, 2012 - 8:03 pm
And we are only two weeks in after how long working as individual orgs. Surely all realised it would take time to get used to how everyone works and agreeing on how they can work together. My opinion is that it may have be good for Patrick internally with the Green Party to back off, outside the Green Party, who knows.
#38 by Ross on June 11, 2012 - 7:14 pm
I can assure you that with our party structure, even if he wanted to, Patrick Harvie could do little without either our conference or council authorising it first.
#39 by Daveinmaryburgh on June 10, 2012 - 5:04 pm
What excited me most about the Yes Scotland campaign was the prospect of working with others from different groups to gain independence. During this time it would have been an ideal opportunity to share ideas and hopes for an indy Scotland although I never expected to agree with everything (I don’t support many of the suggestions put forward by SNP, my party) it would have been good foundation for the future.
Two weeks in we’re arguing about billing positions and wanting more say in strategy and running the campaign. Well I would have expected that sort of cooperation takes time especially between two parties that are in opposition. If the article and press release were a way of forcing the SNP to compromise, to open up to the Green party it was a big risk.
Couldn’t this put a hold on the joint campaign as we don’t know if the Scottish Greens will be part of it after October
#40 by John on June 10, 2012 - 5:06 pm
I think the split (or what ever you want to call it) was apparent on the BBC Scotland debate. Nicola Sturgeon was building a very positive picture, while Patrick Harvie was more realistic (You can say we’re going to be more prosperous as well you can’t predict the economic future 100%). The greens seem to be more open some realities than either the yes or no camp.
#41 by Jim Bennett on June 10, 2012 - 5:27 pm
I’v voted SNP for the last several elections and where there is a second vote use it for the Greens. Although I reversed that at the local elections. i don’t know why there’s a problem in involvement in the Yes campaign but here’s where I have my issies (if anyone is interested!):
– the SNP policy of retaining the £ is actually pretty silly and the unionist criticism of it is right. (Noway=independepent currency)
– the SNP pronouncements on Scotland still being British and retaining the Union Jack for use by the monarchy, frankly silly.
– retaining the monarchy – vomit inducing.
– wobbling over leaving NATO
– the SNP wobbling over controversial policies like gay marriage shows a lack of philosophical backbone
The SNP are playing a “don’t frighten the horses” game while punters like me (who regularly vote for both the Greens and SNP) are actually interested in a policy led, principled philosophical stance. Why do I want an independent Scotland? because I want to live in a fairer, more equal society based on merit and not on birthright, not creating war and death all over the world.
The SNP are a legitimate social democratic party, they should stop acting like independence will change nothing and do what the Greens are (rather ineptly) trying to do and illustrate the actual reasons why independence will mean a well needed and seismic change in the way w live.
There, that’s my tippence worth!
#42 by Commenter on June 10, 2012 - 6:41 pm
Support for independence is currently a minority pursuit. It could be that people really want a ‘seismic shift’ to occur and selling that as the outcome of a yes vote will convert the convertible – people who currently intend to vote no. I doubt it though.
On the subject of the currency, trade offs need to be made. I personally believe that a maintaining fixed exchange rate with the rest of Britain is very desirable. The scoffing about retaining GBP being ‘not real independence’, mostly coming from people who oppose independence anyway does not resonate with me.
#43 by Indy on June 10, 2012 - 7:36 pm
We all know that the key to winning this is to persuade the undecideds – and of course they don’t want seismic change! They want change but they want it to happen at a rate they feel comfortable with and – crucially – they want to feel in control.
And that is, of course, exactly what independence would give them. A greater degree of control over their own lives and own futures.
#44 by Commenter on June 11, 2012 - 9:38 am
I agree with you, and throw up my hands at the folk who are griping at any vision of independence that doesn’t immediately tick all their ‘radical’ boxes. I guess they’ll have their radical vision to keep them warm in the aftermath of a No result.
#45 by James on June 11, 2012 - 9:40 am
Whereas I hope the uninspiring no-change keep-the-pound keep-the-Queen keep-NATO crap is some consolation for you when people vote to keep-Britain, the logical conclusion of that current SNP line of argument.
#46 by Commenter on June 11, 2012 - 9:48 am
People are already against independence. Check the opinion polls. A campaign that gets your radical juices flowing isn’t gonna do it James. People are set to vote no, but there’s evidence that people would vote yes to some maximal devolution settlement. The logical conclusion is that to get a yes result, it has to be shown to be ‘keep Britain’ to a large extent. I’m starting to think Cameron should have pushed through an early referendum so we’d have something to blame a no result on 🙂
Not to worry – after the No vote, I expect the SGP will sweep to majority rule with their inspiring, popular policies. So there’s another consolation 🙂
#47 by Jim Bennett on June 11, 2012 - 10:15 am
The key issue for me is what is independence actually for? If it’s not to change the way we live, the type of country we have, to create a better future then what is it for?
If we keep the £, stay in NATO, keep the monarchy, oppose issues such as gay marriage (the SNP has its fair share of nasty little homophobes) then frankly, there is no point to being independent.
Independence in and of itself will do absolutely nothing for us. It’s a means to an end, nothing more. Being independent changes nothing, it’s what we do with it that counts.
#48 by Commenter on June 11, 2012 - 10:42 am
So what you’re saying is, unless there’s some way to bind future independence Scottish governments to implement the policies that exite you, you’ll vote No.
Then presumably you’ll campaign for the UK to ditch the pound, become a republic, and leave NATO.
Bon voyage.
#49 by James on June 11, 2012 - 10:46 am
I don’t think that’s what he’s saying at all. Wouldn’t it be nice for the SNP to try to inspire with a vivid vision of a better Scotland, not try to soothe people into an insipid one?
#50 by Commenter on June 11, 2012 - 10:51 am
I don’t really mind if Jim is inspired, but I do care that lots of people who don’t really think like Jim are inspired.
Question James: would you say that the SGP tries to inspire with a vivid vision of a better Scotland in its manifestos? How’d that work out.
#51 by James on June 11, 2012 - 1:07 pm
Pretty good – we’ve only been an independent party since the 1990s and we’re the only radical voice to have been in every Parliament since it was established. You should go back in time and ask Labour how they were getting on in the 1890s.
#52 by Commenter on June 11, 2012 - 1:29 pm
2 years is a long time, but if we’re admitting that inspiring visions with minority support take decades to gain traction then… hmm. We have a problem. Frankly given the display from the yes camp so far I think we are looking at a farcical Judean Peoples’ Frontesque campaign culminating in failure. I don’t have the answers though.
#53 by andrewgraemesmith on June 10, 2012 - 9:10 pm
i dont really agree with this. the currency point you’re possiblyright on, but i can understand the political neccesity in saying otherwise. However, what is being voted on is not about the Monarchy, I rather liked the old SNP policy of that being a seperate referendum issue if an issue at all. I look at NATO in the same way, there’s a legitamite debate to be had but it doesnt seem right to say that it’s being voted on at the same time as independence (an issue for wheoever is in government afterwards) I also havent seen any wobbling on gay marrige and would expect them to support it when it comes to the vote.
#54 by Jim Bennett on June 11, 2012 - 11:00 am
God spare us from this juvenile approach by commenter. I’ve spent the last 35 years campaigning against NATO, the monarchy and the Union. I won’t vote no but I do actually want independence to mean something. There is no point in independence if it is simply a new-labour type vacuous concept.
#55 by Willie Taylor on June 10, 2012 - 7:32 pm
The Greens , Patrick, are on an ego trip, I ndependence deserves more commitment.
We can argue about the policies and constitution after we have won the vote
#56 by scottish_skier on June 10, 2012 - 8:56 pm
Yes. Could not agree more.
Given that the anti-independence parties – by their own admission – ‘hate’ each other, it is hardly a big issue if the Greens and the SNP might differ on respective visions for an independent Scotland.
After all, we are not voting for an SNP governed Scotland, rather for the ability to vote for an SNP, or Green, or [insert party/parties standing in the first independent Scotland GE] governed Scotland.
This is a significant factor in convincing me that voting for independence is the correct way forward. The fact that those supporting the Union wish the SNP to spell out what independence will look like clearly shows they know little to nothing about what the referendum means/how democracy works. Either that, or they have a very low opinion of the intelligence of the electorate.
#57 by peter on June 10, 2012 - 7:41 pm
when i write: it’s up to the Greens, i’m merely expressing that how a party(s) approache the independence debate is their perogative.
i would be appalled if there was any credence that the SNP a trying to crack a whip.
#58 by Allan on June 10, 2012 - 9:09 pm
“Two parties wanting the same thing but undermining each other by not overcoming their relatively minor differences makes me think of the squabbling Socialists and their unfortunate lack of representation at Holyrood.”
I’m not entirely sure that’s true. The SSP (& i’m sure the Greens) would like an Independent Scottish Republic, the SNP would like us to retain (prehaps for the time being though no one has officially said anything otherwise) the privilage of a constitutional monarchy with the Queen as our head of state, and that’s before we get to diferences on Europe (there are issues about taxation which isn’t really relevant pre Independence).
It goes back to my previous comment about Harvie & Fox having different opinions from the SNP as to the future direction, indeed different opinions on how an Independent Scotland should be built.
#59 by Duncan on June 10, 2012 - 10:41 pm
Humble pie is a dish best consumed when you have been conned by a lazy journalist keen to demonise the SNP at every straw grasping chance:
By G.A.Ponsonby
The Scottish Green party has rubbished claims made by a Sunday Herald journalist who said that the party had formally decided not to join the Yes Scotland campaign for Scottish Independence.
The article, written by journalist Tom Gordon, entitled ‘Greens walk out on the Yes campaign’ contained a claim by Mr Gordon that the Scottish Greens had “formally decided not to join” Yes Scotland.
However questions were raised over the journalist’s claims almost immediately when a statement appeared on the Scottish Green website that made it clear that no formal decision had in fact been taken.
According to the official statement, the party will not make a formal decision until October when delegates meet at their conference.
http://tiny.cc/6hipfw
#60 by James on June 10, 2012 - 10:46 pm
Reads like one overplaying of the story in the Sunday Herald followed by one underplaying it on News Net Scotland.
#61 by Duncan on June 10, 2012 - 11:01 pm
James perhaps you should read the full article it contains information from Harvey himself. Hardly an underplay is it?
_____________________________________________________
Co-convener of the Scottish Greens Patrick Harvie has also made several tweets denying the Herald article claims. In one tweet Mr Harvie says:
“Not leaving – quite the opposite. Actively seeking involvement. Frustrated that it remains an SNP vehicle.”.
#62 by James on June 10, 2012 - 11:19 pm
We’ll probably have to disagree on interpretation, but I’d recommend looking at it again and just considering what Patrick says, not what News Net Scotland say.
#63 by Douglas McLellan on June 11, 2012 - 8:45 am
When I saw Patrick Harvie at the launch I thought he and the Greens were signed up to the Yes campaign. It was only after that issues around Yes Scotland campaign goverance became clear and even the tweets in the delightfully paranoid NewsnetScotland show that he is not happy with how the campaign is treating the Greens.
From my perspective the Greens have not left the independence campaign but are in no way singed up to whatever campaign the SNP are currently running this week (in/out Nato, currency issues, fiscal policy/monetary policy issues, monarchists etc).
It is becoming clear that the vision articulated for an independent Scotland by Patrick Harvie is a better one for Scotland. I do hope the SNP can take some his ideas on board and work in partnership with the Greens as opposed to assuming the Greens will do what they are told.
#64 by Stuart on June 11, 2012 - 9:44 am
I personally think this will, in the end, be a positive for the Yes campaign.
We’re still well over 2 years from the Referendum, and showing a bit of vulnerability at this stage could be seen as a good thing- the electorate don’t like pompous, know it all politicians so having a level of consideration and acceptance that not everyone is always right will, I think, be a positive thing for the campaign.
I see the Scottish Greens/SNP relationship as a crucial part of the campaign- and you saw a glimpse of it at the Big Debate. Let there be some plurality in the Yes camp, SNP will attract some people, while the Greens will pull in other people who don’t like what they hear from the SNP.
As far as I see it, the Greens simply want to be involved in some of the strategic decisions being made in the Yes Scotland campaign- a seat at the committee table, I don’t think that’s asking for too much?
Like I say, showing that there’s some plurality in the Yes Campaign will, I think, be seen in a good light by the electorate, compared to the “we know what’s best for you” attitude that will probably come from the No Campaign.
#65 by BaffieBox on June 11, 2012 - 10:08 am
In fairness, I actually have some sympathy for the SNP on this. They’ve spent decades trying to make in-roads with the Scottish electorate and be taken seriously by the media/press. They’ve only just managed that and to do so, they had to water everything down, be obsessive about controlling the message and offer a risk-averse interpretation of independence.
Whether we like it or not, the Green vision of an independent Scotland has seen no boost in poll or electoral ratings for them so it’s highly debatable whether their offering would have any chance of success, and had they spent years trying to push it up the agenda, they too might have resorted to something less radical by now.
There needs to be some sort of mutual respect for this to move forward. I think the SNP need to respected for the fact that were it not for them, we wouldnt even be here (and nowhere close either). And I think the Greens (amongst others), should be respected for offering something far more radical and inspiring in terms of vision (something Im sure SNP types must wish they had the freedom to do).
IMO, if I were involved in the Yes campaign, Id be making every effort possible to get the Greens and others far greater involvement and prominence. The SNP price of becoming electable was backing themselves into a stale and uninspiring corner, where they’ve had to outline a manifesto with many problems. The Greens and others offer something far more abstract, positive and attractive, and getting them to the forefront of the campaign would undoubtably take the strain of the SNP with some free-thinking the NO campaign would find difficult to attack.
#66 by Andrew Smith on June 11, 2012 - 10:36 am
A slighlty over-egged Scotsman headline which suggests Margot isn’t 100% happy either: http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence-margo-macdonald-snubs-yes-scotland-campaign-1-2348611
#67 by Dr William Reynolds on June 11, 2012 - 4:02 pm
The Heralds exclusive was misleading of course,Patrick Harvie has confirmed that.As an SNP member I welcome members of the Green party and every other party,within the Yes campaign.It is a Yes campaign and not an SNP campaign.It is movement that is united in the belief that the best people to make decisions about Scotland live in Scotland.it has moved beyond party political poitics.It is a broad church that (like the no campaign) surely contains a diverse range of interests about how things should be done.Different elements may choose to contribute in different ways.For example the Green party may formally join the Yes campaign,or it may not.so what? I don’t care so long as all suppoters of the Yes campaign work hard to persuade people to vote Yes in the referendum.
The mainstream media appear to be incapable of thinking outside of the box,ie beyond viewing this as a party political thing.I am sick of their obsession with party political politics and attacks on individuals,such as Alec Salmond,Parick Harvie etc.It is time to move on.The only time that party politics is relevant between now and 2014 will be during the European election and the odd byelection.
#68 by Don McC on June 11, 2012 - 7:17 pm
This is a hard one. As Baffiebox has said, it, the SNP have spent decades getting to this position and it’ll probably be several decades before the planets align just right again, with everything falling into place like a majority government at Holyrood, an incompetent and unpopular government at Westminster and a healthy amount of cash available for campaigning. If we vote no in 2 years time, I’d go so far as to say we’ll never gain independence via the ballot box. We’ll just not have the same opportunity.
The thing to accept about the SNP strategy is that the referendum isn’t about the pound or the monarchy or NATO or WMDs or any other of these issues, it’s about having the ability for the peoples of Scotland to decide these issues for themselves.
So, yes. This does mean that the campaign might be a bit bland and “meh”. However, no one, absolutely no one, should doubt that things will never be the same again, regardless of the outcome of the referendum.
#69 by James on June 11, 2012 - 8:21 pm
I agree we shouldn’t be setting post-indy policy now, although the strength (to my mind) of the Green position is in being able to say what decisions the party would like to see made after, something the SNP daren’t do. But we do need a commitment on how the public will have their say in the constitution of any independent Scotland. Not doing so is a total hostage to fortune, and it gets harder to do the closer we get to 2014.
#70 by Dr William Reynolds on June 11, 2012 - 7:30 pm
I just noticed that someone states that support for in dependence is a minority view.Well my examination of the cumulative findings of all public surveys in recent times also suggests that support for the union is a minority view.However since this article is supposed to be about how diverse groups can work together in a common cause,that issue is not relevant.
#71 by Ross on June 12, 2012 - 4:15 am
A lot of the CyberNat criticism (and that from more serious commenters) is that it’s all simply about ‘winning the vote’ and ‘getting over the line’ and that we can all start disagreeing after then but present a rigid united and unquestioning front for the next two years. That’s just completely wrong. Aside from the serious debate we need to have on a number of policy isssues now, the debate over the constitution and whatever else is in the SNP’s white paper has to happen immediately, it simply cannot happen post-referendum.
But that entirely misses the point of the Greens decision to withold from confirming our support of Yes Scotland as an organisation. We remain totally committed to independence but our concerns are organisational. We cannot currently say that we’re comfortable with being part of an organisation we have no control over or say in at all but presents itself as ‘cross-party.’ This is not some personal ego-trip from Patrick, if anything we have annoyed some supposed allies but it needed to be done, the SNP just were not listening and until they grow up and learn to play well with others, I think the accusations of Yes Scotland becoming an SNP vehicle will become very true very fast.
#72 by Antoine Bisset on June 12, 2012 - 12:47 pm
It is excellent news if the Greens have left the Yes campaign. The Greens are an albatross around the neck of any sensible entity.
Many of the Greens views are almost sensible; the policies they propose on the basis of those views are almost all barking mad or utterly incompetent.
Any country that pays the slightest attention to Green policy can kiss its economy, future and prosperity goodbye.
The more circumstances work to push the Greens into oblivion the better for the people of this country.
#73 by James on June 12, 2012 - 1:28 pm
I thought I’d encountered you elsewhere, but a wee google and all I could find is this paen to the Empire. Glad to know we’re more mainstream than you.