So the election is over, those #sp11 winnings have been collected and all Holyrood political betting is off until 2015, right?
Well, no apparently. I was pleased to see that there are still some odds available on the minority bloodsport that is Scottish Politics over at PaddyPower.
First up, the date of the independence referendum.
2011 – 16/1
2012 – 8/1
2013 – 15/8
2014 – 11/8
2015 – 9/4
2016(?) – 5/1
Despite James’ recent (controversial) claims that 2012 would be the ideal date, we’re probably safer to take Salmond’s steer on this, given the First Minister has a majority Government in one pocket and an SNP Presiding Officer in the other.
Salmond told members of the Foreign Press Association: “We will organise a referendum on independence within this five-year term. It will be towards the end of the five-year term. The questions will be enunciated in good time for that referendum to take place.”
So 2014 or 2015 looks like a certainty, particularly with Cameron admitting that Westminster won’t stand in the way and those dates making strategic sense for the Nats too. Consequently, Paddy Power seems to be giving money away here.
Were you to put £10 on 2014 and £10 on 2015, you would make a profit of £3.75 or £12.50. Despite the short odds, I reckon 2013 can safely be ruled out and the rest of the years are simply bonkers bets. So, yes, easy money. Get in there.
The odds on the result of the independence referendum, a simple Yes or No, are much less interesting. At 5/4, a Yes result is eyebrow-raisingly short odds and 4/7 is probably too tight to put big money on. The old adage that you shouldn’t bet against Salmond comes to mind here and I think I’ll leave this one be.
The final option for Scottish betting is Labour’s next leader, a curiously under-discussed topic thus far from what I can make out. Amazingly, Jackie Baillie has the shortest odds at 4/7 but anecdotal evidence from Labour members backs up my belief that picking Jackie would be a terrible move for the party. Fiercely tribal, unable and unwilling to work with the SNP and not very Newsnight-friendly, I just don’t see it happening. John Park at 8/1 is a very interesting bet and there’s even some value in Ken MacIntosh at 13/8, though if he can’t even beat Hugh Henry in a constituency battle then is he going to win the party leadership?
Speaking of Hugh Henry, the man is current holder of MSP of the Year, has demonstrated a highly commendable no-nonsense approach to the civil service and would take Labour in a refreshingly different direction to that of the past couple of leaders. At 20/1, I’d be crawling all over that bet (and probably will do once I can find my cash card).
Malcolm Chisholm at 12/1 is a fine bet too as, despite not having too many friends in the last parliamentary term, many of them have moved onto pastures new now and Malcolm’s support for minimum pricing may prove to the party faithful that he ‘gets’ what Labour has to do next – move away from opposition for opposition’s sake. With such long odds, one could hedge their position by betting big on as many as four different contenders. And there’s always Gordon Brown at 200/1; highly unlikely given there’d have to be a by-election before Iain Gray stepped down.
So there we go; a rival to the Burdz flutter on a Friday but bookmakers do tend to be happy to give money away when it comes to betting on Scottish politics and it’s great to see that trend continue even today.
#1 by Aidan Skinner on May 27, 2011 - 10:24 pm
Not sure that being a terrible choice contradicts being likely in the case of Scottish Labour. FML. Chisholm’s my choice, unless we find the guts to go for Kezia Dugdale.
#2 by Jeff on May 27, 2011 - 10:29 pm
Kezia for Deputy Leader? A bit of an Edinburgh raj but why not, a cross-generation has particular appeal and I’m sure Kez is sharper than many that have propped up the Labour benches for the last couple of terms.
#3 by Malc on May 27, 2011 - 10:50 pm
Hugh Henry? The same Hugh Henry who wanted the PO’s job? Wouldn’t that make being LOLITSP his second choice? He’d never live that down.
I’m sure I heard that John Park had ruled himself out of it as well… so that’s 2 contenders down. Malcolm Chisholm would be a fine guy to take over, but Labour won’t go for him. Jackie Baillie is most likely, though I understand from Labour sources (like I have those – ha!) that Jim Murphy has been heavily pushing Ken Macintosh… the Eastwood boy pulling for his Holyrood compadre.
As Aidan says, Kez would be a brave choice – and at 25/1 (Ladbrokes) if the Labour party itself were to have a punt on her, then elect her, it’d go some way to helping their funding situation. Not that I’m recommending insider trading or anything. (EDIT – credit Aidan with that line… I’m not stealing material, I just couldn’t remember who said it to me first!).
#4 by Aidan Skinner on May 27, 2011 - 11:05 pm
Oi! I made the bet-on-Kez to solve the funding problem joke on here a few days ago! Don’t go stealing my material man, that’s low, even for a crypto-Nat! 😉
I agree Hugh Henry’s not a runner, Chisholm will need to be leaned on heavily to even consider running and I heard the same as you about John Park. Realistically at this point it looks like it’s between Macintosh and Baillie.
But there’s a long, long time between now and the election. Time I hope we use well.
#5 by Malc on May 28, 2011 - 10:15 am
Haha. I knew I heard it somewhere. I’ll edit and give you credit!
I don’t even know what crypto-nat means.
#6 by James on May 27, 2011 - 10:57 pm
I got a little Park when he was at 40-1 (!), and some Macintosh at 20-1. Neither seem likely but those odds were irresistible.
#7 by James on May 27, 2011 - 10:59 pm
Also, burn your money rather than put it on Chisholm. I rate him but the party at Holyrood don’t.
#8 by Aidan Skinner on May 27, 2011 - 11:06 pm
Old SPLP or new SPLP? Cause 1/3rd are new, pretty surprised and quite a few are proper lefty…
#9 by James on May 28, 2011 - 9:32 am
Good point, good point.
#10 by Holyroodpatter on May 28, 2011 - 1:43 am
Yeah I asked park outright on twitter if he fancied it, shocked when he pretty unequivocally said no chance.
It’s not just Scotland politics, ladbrokes have 1/2 on chris huhne next cabinet member to leave, that’s just free Money I would rate him 1/5 or higher, I suppose all political betting is qualified by it’s sheer unpredictable nature, some 25/1 shot to leave cabinet takes only seconds to make a gaffe and their gone.
The next uk labour leader is an interesting Market, jim murphy at 28 is a steal in my view, as for scottish labour, not sure when you last checked, but macintosh was a favourite with most bookmakers as of wednesday
#11 by Stuart Winton on May 28, 2011 - 8:20 am
So if independence is diluted sufficiently, might the bookmakers decide not to pay out on a referendum being held?
I mean the way things are going the question might well end up being on devo-max rather than independence. As Michael Portillo said, the i-word might not even appear on the ballot paper.
As for the caption competition, my suggestion is:
“My kingdom! My kingdom! A horse for my kingdom!”
OK, pretty poor, but my original thoughts – involving a reference to kissing either Moira or Nicola – might have been considered in very poor taste.
#12 by Doug Daniel on May 28, 2011 - 10:13 am
Alex Salmond is feeling a little hoarse.
#13 by Malc on May 28, 2011 - 10:22 am
How about:
“Salmond denies horsing around at FMQs”
or
“Long faces all round as Salmond opens new glue factory” (sorry),
#14 by Jeff on May 28, 2011 - 10:37 am
‘Alex Salmond and Whinny Ewing pose for the cameras’
#15 by Alex Buchan on May 28, 2011 - 1:21 pm
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2011/05/what-salmond-will-do-next-snp-referendum/
Interesting article by Peter Kellner who predicts that, on YouGov polling evidence and the lessons of history, Alex Salmond couldn’t win a straightforward yes/no referendum on independence, and he does this without reference to any potentially explosive events in the interim like a default on its debts by Greece or Ireland both of which being highly likely etc. He further predicts that Alex Salmond wouldn’t be stupid enough to walk into an obvious trap like this, and finally suggests that he should embrace the reality that Westminster will impose a second referendum, by presenting the first referendum as a golden opportunity for Scotland to explore, in negotiations with Westminster, what the conditions of an independent Scotland would be like while making it clear that the final decision would up to the Scottish people after the negotiations had been concluded. Alex Salmond has always rejected this last point, no doubt seeing it as a spoiling tactic by Westminster, but I have always felt that the mere act of negotiating would knock such a dent in the stasis that is the UK political system that we could never go back to the status quo, regardless of the outcome of the second referendum.
#16 by Doug Daniel on May 28, 2011 - 4:29 pm
“YouGov polling evidence” – bear in mind that YouGov polling evidence was telling us in the not-too-distant past that Labour were going to romp home in the Scottish elections. We’re still very much in the early stages of the independence debate, a debate that is going to go on for about four years before the referendum appears. I’ll start taking notice of polls once the actual referendum date has been announced.
As for the dual referendum idea, I still don’t get it. I can see the logic in the idea that the public would be more willing to vote “yes” in a first referendum that was only seeking permission to negotiate with Westminster, and then lead to them also being more willing to vote “yes” in a second referendum on the finalised details… But I’m not sure this logic is taking into account the fickle nature of voters.
I would suggest one of the reasons many people who voted against AV would actually have had no problem with AV being adopted as the voting system for Westminster, but they wanted to take the opportunity to give the Lib Dems a kicking. In some ways, it wasn’t a referendum on AV, it was a referendum on the Lib Dems. With this in mind, I can see a couple of problems with the two-referendum idea.
1) People who are not necessarily opposed to independence not bothering to turn up for the referendum, thinking it an unimportant referendum as it’s only seeking permission to negotiate, and they’ll think “well, you don’t need my permission to speak to fellow politicians. WHy don’t you just do it?”
2) Others taking this stance, but actually voting “No” specifically to punish the SNP for wasting their time putting forward a referendum that isn’t going to actually bring any change.
The SNP already got the public’s permission to negotiate the terms for independence with Westminster. They did this on the 5th May, when they voted in large numbers for a party whose manifesto stated their desire to put forward a referendum on independence. What question would this initial referendum have – “Are you sure you want us to put forward a referendum on Scottish independence, and that it wasn’t just a joke?”
Those who staunchly support independence will vote “Yes” in any independence-related referendum. Those who staunchly support the union will vote “No” in any independence-related referendum. It’s the ones in the middle we need to worry about, and there’s no reason to assume they would be lining up at polling stations in vast numbers to vote for a referendum that didn’t actually change anything. I could be wrong of course, but it’s definitely something that needs to be very heavily weighed up before rushing into a permission-seeking referendum.
#17 by Doug Daniel on May 28, 2011 - 4:49 pm
Urgh, that third paragraph is terrible. Anyway, another point – with a dual referendum, the first referendum would be giving the government – i.e. the SNP – explicit permission to negotiate the terms of independence by themselves. This isn’t what we want. The whole point of the debate which is starting up is that it has to include as many sections of society as possible. An independence commission of sorts will be set up, and through this vehicle the terms of independence will arise. It is this picture of independence which the government will put forward to the Scottish public, not some picture cooked up between the Scottish and Westminster governments. Why would the government need to be given permission to negotiate what has already been agreed upon in Scotland?
The more I think about it, the worse the idea of a dual referendum seems. Let’s just concentrate on getting the terms right, and getting the public to realise that independence is the way forward for Scotland, rather than thinking up ways to cook up a “yes” vote with multiple referendums.
#18 by Alex Buchan on May 28, 2011 - 5:52 pm
My reply below was written before you posted this. If there is a credible process that appears to carry the will of the people, similar to the Constitutional Convention then the political argument about voters’ perceptions over whether they want a second vote or not could be affected. But it means that any convention has to be seen to be representative of the majority view in Scotland and representative of a wide cross-section, rather than of only those individuals who are long term committed supporters of independence.
#19 by Alex Buchan on May 28, 2011 - 5:38 pm
Of course one could find arguments against two referendums: the main one I would argue is that you are acknowledging Westminster’s view that only it has the political authority to hold a binding referendum. This view is based on the argument that the present Scots parliament is not the equivalent of the pre-1707 parliament and is merely a legally subservient assembly/parliament [it’s interesting that David Dimbleby, John Humphries and all the other television journos always say ‘assembly’. I don’t think this is just a slip of the tongue, they know its title is the Scottish Parliament, but they also know its official status, which is a devolved assembly and they’re making that distinction].
But you have to set against this argument the fact that in denying Westminster’s claim you are also denying the people a vote on the terms all Scottish governments of whatever political persuasion will have to work within in the future. That leaves you open to attack as undemocratic [regardless of the arguments about the May 5th mandate: it’s not a legal/technical argument, it’s about having the political nous to see how it will be presented in the campaign].
The conventional wisdom is that the SNP has done so well in 2007 and 2011, and overcome previous barriers to its advance, because people knew that, in voting SNP, they did not have to make an irrevocable decision on independence, because the SNP had given a commitment to defer this to a referendum. It follows that if the people feel one of the things that distinguishes the new SNP under Alex Salmond is that it doesn’t take the people’s views for granted, and lets them be in the driving seat as far as the nation’s future is concerned, then one squander’s that perception by insisting that the people shouldn’t vote on the out-come of the negotiations.
I can understand where the SNP is coming from on this in that they see themselves as the democratically elected government and also that a referendum of their choosing and their timing seems easier to win that one controlled by Westminster, but this could be short sighted. Ultimately, the SNPs hope that with enough persuasion Scotland can make one giant leap to freedom reflects more the SNP’s needs than voter’s needs, and voters will see through this. My other point still stands, which is that for the UK government to have to negotiate the terms of Scottish independence in the full glare of international publicity would be such a big deal that all bets would be off as to what effect this would ultimately have on the mythos of anglo-British hegemony regardless of a second ballot result.
#20 by James on May 28, 2011 - 5:40 pm
Its official status is the Scottish Parliament. The Scotland Act famously begins “There shall be a Scottish Parliament”. The Welsh, the Irish and the Londoners have Assemblies.
#21 by Alex Buchan on May 28, 2011 - 6:02 pm
Yes a devolved parliament, but with justice now devolved to the NI assembly and the likelihood that they might get corporation tax powers while we don’t, then the difference in name seems merely to reflect different sensibilities. Both assembly and parliament are in the same relation to Westminster, hence the journalist will still want to continue to call the Scottish Parliament an assembly no matter how often we correct them.
#22 by Doug Daniel on May 28, 2011 - 7:44 pm
“Ultimately, the SNPs hope that with enough persuasion Scotland can make one giant leap to freedom reflects more the SNP’s needs than voter’s needs, and voters will see through this.”
One thing that needs to come out of the debate is that independence will not be a giant leap, or at least not one into the unknown, which is what many people are afraid of. People need to see that independence isn’t scary, in fact quite the opposite. They’ll need to see that the world isn’t going to change the next day if they vote “yes”, that things they depend on will still be there, and that all we’re really doing is finishing the job that devolution started. This is actually one of the reasons why I don’t see the point of a third option on the referendum – I mean, what exactly is devolution max, after all? What’s the difference between fiscal autonomy and independence? If the only difference is that fiscal autonomy/devolution max leave defence and foreign affairs to Westminster, then people need to see that controlling these are actually two of the main benefits of independence, and far from being something to be afraid of, are just very sensible considering Scotland has no desire to wage wars and harbour nuclear weapons.
Once people see what independence actually entails and what the differences are between that and FA/devo max, then hopefully people who are more inclined towards FA/devo max will understand that they might as well be in favour of independence after all. In fact, I would argue that having an option for FA/devo max would be almost as pointless as a second referendum.
Hmm, kind of drifted from your comment there…
#23 by Alex Buchan on May 28, 2011 - 10:22 pm
You haven’t drifted off from what I’m interested/concerned about.
The difference between devo-max and independence is that one has for a long time consistently show majority support in opinion polls and one hasn’t. One could be something the majority of opinion across parties and civic Scotland could coalesce around and one is restricted in its support. I should also say that I don’t expect any revised Scotland bill to be anywhere near devo-max.
Now I would rather it was the other way round and I am personally very open to any suggestion as to how this change around in support for independence as opposed to devo-max could be achieved. I accept that arguing that not much will change in peoples’ daily lives is a strategy of sorts. It’s not entirely clear how successful this will be, though, because people aren’t daft and they know that independence means just that; no safety net, and this could be dramatically demonstrated between now and the referendum as the latest thinking is that Greece, Ireland and Portugal’s currency collapse is merely being postponed for 3 years or so to allow Spain and Italy time to restructure their economies.
I suppose we could all just shut up and let Alex sort it all out, and I have a feeling that is the prevalent mood, even on this blog, and elsewhere, but that seems a strangely passive way to prepare for the challenge of a referendum campaign which will be the most important political event in most of our lives. And if there isn’t a great surge of people wanting to discuss and debate the way forward I’m not sure where the enthusiasm to get involved in the commission you referred to is going to materialise from unless it’s from inside the SNP.
#24 by An Duine Gruamach on May 28, 2011 - 1:39 pm
Malcolm Chisolm is 62. He’ll be 67 by the next election, and would then be expected to lead the country for four more years after that should he win. It’s not impossible, but I suspect it’s unlikely. Which is a pity, since if the Labour party had more folk like him, and the sense to put Ewan Aitkin on the regional list it would just possibly be worth voting for them again. They’d be the Labour Party again.
#25 by James on May 28, 2011 - 1:59 pm
Fully agree about Aitken. Holyrood would be a better place if he was there. No diss to Kenny intended.
#26 by An Duine Gruamach on May 28, 2011 - 4:01 pm
Mhm, I agree. Still, I’d be sorry for the Kirk to lose him.
#27 by douglas clark on May 28, 2011 - 2:59 pm
You can get 3/1 on Paddy Power for the SNP to win Inverclyde.
#28 by Jeff on May 28, 2011 - 3:32 pm
I personally wouldn’t touch it with a bargepole Douglas; it’d be optimistic to say the least to equate Holyrood results with Westminster results.
#29 by Daniel J on May 28, 2011 - 3:41 pm
They do have a pretty epic history of by-election wins though. Labour being out of power will make it harder though.
#30 by douglas clark on May 28, 2011 - 3:50 pm
Jeff, I agree. I was just mentioning it for the sake of completeness.
#31 by Jeff on May 28, 2011 - 3:54 pm
Oh, sorry. Yes, you’re right, I should have included it. Not sure why it wasn’t on the list of Scottish bets that I had clicked on. Maybe because it’s Westminster-focussed rather than Holyrood-focussed. Have to keep that in mind as I think some more betting posts are in order for this blog…. 😉
#32 by douglas clark on May 30, 2011 - 8:12 am
Think that could be an interesting idea. Look how well that nice Mike Smithson does, and he’s a Liberal Democrat!
#33 by Andrea on May 28, 2011 - 5:17 pm
“Kezia for Deputy Leader?”
will there be a vacancy for that position?
#34 by Bryan Potter on May 31, 2011 - 12:25 pm
Lab, Lib & Con just keep shooting themselves in the foot don’t they?
If they had agreed to a referendum in the last parliament, they would have had a say in the timing, the number of questions, and the wording as Alex would have required a majority of the parliament to agree it.
Now, with a majority, it’s all up to Alex
Pingback: An air of resignation. « Better Nation
Pingback: A short guide to beating the Bookies « Better Nation