The intensity of the debate/kerfuffle/furore about the independence referendum continues to build with the publication of the UK Government’s consultation document today – which at first glance doesn’t appear to bear much relation to the weekend spin from the Prime Minister.
Despite the legal concerns of Scotland’s finest legal tweeters, I share Jeff’s view that Holyrood could ask a question which is politically equivalent to an independence referendum, even if the previous “open negotiations” one is a poor choice and one that would require a vote on what had been negotiated. No matter: the Coalition proposal is for clarity on Holyrood’s ability to legislate here, and that’s welcome. The date limits and nature of the question are far more problematic, and I’ll return to the latter shortly unless someone gets in ahead of me again here. On the date front it’s long been my view that a late poll with a tired SNP administration (domestically they’ve basically run out of ideas already) is more likely to be lost, so both sides appear to be arguing for the position which suits them least.
In any case, the constitutional battle is truly upon us. But are the armies well-matched? Is the terrain more suited to one side or another? Is there a parity of intelligence? Clearly not. Just consider the main combatants: the Coalition versus the SNP administration.
Starting with the ground war, the former have, at a Ministerial level, the full-time efforts of Michael Moore and David Mundell. Even the most ardent Lib Dem or Tory wouldn’t pretend they were their parties’ most imaginative or tactically shrewd generals. The best you can say for Moore is that he’s tall and looks Ministerial, whereas Mundell is no friend to his notional colleagues at Holyrood and hardly a first-class campaigner. Neither of them appear terribly in touch with matters on the ground – even just working in London rather than Scotland can’t help, and Moore, like most Lib Dems, has the air of someone who knows he’s not got another Parliamentary term awaiting him: time to enjoy the limo, the staff and the state receptions before heading off into oblivion.
The Coalition also have the Prime Minister’s occasional attention, as this week, which typically doesn’t help very much. David Cameron, despite the name, clearly views Scotland as a far-away country where one’s chums go shooting, which makes it more interesting than the North of England, but only marginally. He regularly overplays his hand, as this week, and I have no doubt that every time he discusses the constitution or Scotland a little dial in SNP HQ twitches perceptibly towards the shiny yellow YES end.
And as for the rank and file, who are they? Imagine a non-party No campaign had been set up: other than hacks from the three main anti-independence parties, who joins up? Who volunteers to be the lion led by these donkeys? Who wants to spend their rainy evenings in a forlorn attempt to move David Cameron’s drinks cabinet six inches closer to Edinburgh? And where are the financial backers who’ve waited their whole lives to fund a defence of the Union?
Consider next the Coalition’s air force. The Scotland Office has perhaps three press officers, and no credible sign of a strategy unit. According to Guido, there isn’t even a SpAd in evidence, while the press team’s work is the kind of stolid and neutrally-worded stuff the civil service insist upon. Finally, the big intellectual guns – presumably naval to stick with my metaphor – in other words, Unionist campaign central. What is it? Where is it? There is simply no devoted and organised hard core with the preservation of the Union as its raison d’être, contrary to Alex Neil’s suspicion of a Yoonyonisht Conshpirashy. Admittedly there are first class journalists for whom the Union is crucial, including the trenchant Alan Cochrane, the self-described black-hearted Unionist, and Alex Massie, who deserves a wider audience than Twitter and the Spectator, but the current field of battle regularly leaves them bemoaning their side’s mistakes.
Above all, the Coalition has lots of purposes, some contradictory, some associated with grinding the faces of the poor, and some day-to-day fire-fighting. The Scottish question is not their main concern, apparently not even for those Scottish Lib Dems for whom the prospect of independence ought to be focusing their minds. Fighting on lots of fronts at once is much harder than a single determined effort, and it shows.
As for the SNP and the Scottish Government, they have an entire team of Ministers with a dedicated interest in the constitutional question. The FM and DFM are truly first class officers, generals with strong tactical nous, irritating as I find the Great Puddin’ in particular. The next tier has brains too, notably Swinney and Russell. They’re all based here in Scotland, which makes for a much stronger connection to the ground campaign, their careers still look like their trajectory is upwards, and their supporters don’t cringe when they come on the telly. And those front-line troops are gee’d up to say the least. They’ve just had the best ever election result in their lifetimes, they’re experienced, and they believe one more push will see them achieve total victory. They can also call on irregulars, ex-SNP fundies and those for whom the current leadership is too right-wing, people who wouldn’t campaign in a local election ever again but who would do anything they could to deliver independence.
And on the air war side the SNP have a staggering array of media professionals. They have a team in the party’s own offices, from where electioneering and campaigning are led – and they buy in strategic support. They have Liz Lloyd’s well-run team on the fourth floor at Holyrood, dedicated to getting backbench SNP MSPs into the papers and on the telly. They have their own vast civil service press team who can’t promote the SNP, but promote the hell out of their Ministers in a pseudo-non-partisan way, just as they did for the last lot (and who seem brighter than the UK equivalents). And they have 11 SpAds, led by the always-on Kevin Pringle (incidentally, the odds on an all-male team like that occurring purely by chance are less than a twentieth of one percent, all other things being equal), bridging the gap between the civil service press teams and Ministers’ partisan positions. Each and every one of these people is based in Scotland, and they know the key Scottish political hacks in a way the Coalition’s press team simply don’t. With the exception of the Record and the Telegraph, all the important papers backed them in May, even if they won’t back a Yes vote whenever it comes.
I felt the disparity when it was just me doing media for the Green MSPs by day and for the party by night and weekend, but the assets the Coalition itself can deploy on a day-to-day basis fall almost as short: the exception will be on rare weeks like this where Scotland is indeed their overall front line.
Finally, the SNP itself is that single-issue big gun the Union side lacks. They have some serious shortcomings – how and by whom the constitution should be written is one, what they want to do with an independent Scotland is another – but they know how to make the case and they have the organisation. They’ve also got an overflowing war chest, from poets to lottery winners, and they’re supported by a series of thinkers like Pat Kane and Gerry Hassan, blogs like Bella Caledonia and, well, there’s actually a bit of a dearth of non-mental SNP-backing blogs, but you see the argument. (edit – this has been taken as an insult to first-class bloggers like Kate and LPW: it’s not, just that neither are exactly uncritical, and there are others too, but many good ones are now sorely missed)
These substantial disparities don’t guarantee an SNP win over how the referendum will be held, nor in the referendum itself, but they’ve certainly put themselves in about the strongest position possible, and the appearance of a UK administration being a larger force is superficial and entirely misleading. In fact the gap between them is almost what Iain Banks calls an Out Of Context Problem in the opposite direction. Your civilisation is getting on swimmingly with swords and pikes when a ship turns up and men with guns get out. Taking account of all these imbalances, the next phases of this war remain the SNP’s to lose.
#1 by JPJ2 on January 10, 2012 - 8:19 pm
It is nice to be able to agree with you totally-I just hope you are right 🙂
#2 by Nick Bibby on January 10, 2012 - 8:30 pm
You have of course left out one little detail which may be the Tories’ (and I mean the Tories) strongest weapon. I’m simply working on the basis of their performance in the AV Referendum – they’ll cheat.
#3 by James on January 10, 2012 - 8:36 pm
Ah. That has been known, yes. But that was over an issue which wasn’t even the LD’s actual preferred model, and the SNP are going to be harder to make go away than the LDs too.
#4 by Brian Nicholson on January 10, 2012 - 8:52 pm
You have missed two other groups that add more firepower to the independence arsenal.
The First is the growing number of Labour and LibDem supporters who now support independence or FFA. If they speak out, it will portray their parties as divided on the question. If they argue process or strategy, they play into the hands of the nationalist who will use every argument to undermine the No camp.
The Second is the pro-independence position of other political parties, such as the Greens, who will also speak out on the issues of the referendum. Unionists will try to make this a straight anti-SNP fight but support from a broader portion of the political class will shoot that fox.
While both these groups seem to be smaller, the effect they will have in support of the YES position will far exceed their size.
#5 by James on January 10, 2012 - 9:14 pm
True, but I also missed out Labour on the other side, for instance. The military metaphors were strained enough already!
#6 by Alex Buchan on January 10, 2012 - 11:27 pm
Yes and the Labour Party are going to have a problem if the report in the Guardian that the head of the STUC is going to be one of those fronting a new campaign group to campaign for Devo-Max turns out to be true.
#7 by Alec on January 10, 2012 - 11:41 pm
>> The First is the growing number of Labour and LibDem supporters who now support independence or FFA.
On this point, I recall that Shuggy once revealed himself to be pro-independence. If he’s reading, mebbe he could confirm/refute.
~alec
#8 by Nikostratos on January 10, 2012 - 9:21 pm
Yeah! But Westminster has the nuclear option they are the ‘Law’
always a winning strategy.
#9 by Craig Gallagher on January 10, 2012 - 10:05 pm
What would the “nuclear” option achieve other than to make the Coalition look obstructionist and illegitimate? The Lib Dems in particular would resist any attempts to further worsen Scottish public opinion against them, as we are seeing with their disavowal of Cameron’s 18-month timescale
#10 by Colin on January 10, 2012 - 10:01 pm
One thing I think you may be underestimating is the influence over the mainstream media, which is pro-union. Especially the broadcast media. They will play a big part in this too.
#11 by James on January 10, 2012 - 10:36 pm
I think the print media is split, as discussed – many back Salmond for FM but will oppose independence, like the Scotsman. And that the broadcast media are genuinely neutral on the subject. I’ve never gone for the idea that they show collectively bias to any party or issue.
#12 by Martin on January 10, 2012 - 11:02 pm
I wouldn’t put ‘The Scotsman’ into the pro-Salmond category either. They may have eventually endorsed him as First Minister, but that was only when the writing was on the wall, a few days before the polls opened. For months before the election they were doing their best to spin any story in a negative way for the SNP. In fact, much like what we’re seeing just now ….
#13 by Colin on January 10, 2012 - 11:09 pm
bbc scotland are the worst culprits imo, although not surprising given they are broadcasting arm of the british state. not meaning to come over all paranoid, but the editorialising on reporting scotland etc is astounding at times.
don’t know if accept that broadcast media are generally neutral. maybe problem is that they tend to be so london-centric that they come accross ill-informed and unprepared when it comes to the scottish dimension. i also think they lack respect for politics outside of the Westminster bubble.
#14 by Colin on January 10, 2012 - 11:09 pm
p.s. this is a great piece overall. enjoyed it.
#15 by Fraser Wight on January 11, 2012 - 12:31 am
This is more down to a lack of overlook politically over BBC Scotland as there is in UK. I think we need a face a bit like director general of Scotland kind of thing.
With this its fine. I don’t really buy some peoples arguements over the BBC – at times yes its a bit ‘hmm’ but its like that for all parties (How do you think Invisible-Ed felt tonight with his ‘relaunch’! haha!) and tbh sometimes I think it can be a bit more them just asking hard questions and not just nodding at SNP and shaking their head at others.
But it does need a bit more top-down management tbh.
Certainly room for a Scottish based tabloid (well a mix of broadsheet and tabloid tbh) imo, Daily Record does a poor job – and is increasingly just The Mirror with a new front page (some of which front pages are AWFUL, they had one one day that claimed they’d saved a woman £20 that a company FAIRLY charged her for a service – their editor is truely bonkers!) – the sudden change in opinion after the disasterous defeat of Iain Grey’s Labour says it all really.
#16 by Mac on January 10, 2012 - 10:19 pm
James,
Good form, old chap. I’ve missed reading writing like this. It has the dual enjoyment of being great writing AND being spot on.
#17 by Dewi on January 10, 2012 - 11:43 pm
Good grief I never realised Alex Massie was a Unionist – what on earth is wrong with him?
#18 by An Duine Gruamach on January 11, 2012 - 11:12 am
He’s a critical Unionist. I quite like him actually – I don’t always agree with him, but he does repeatedly make the argument that “The Union is A Good Thing” is not axiomatically true, and that unionists really need to up their up their game.
So far he seems to be a voice crying in the wilderness, but it’s always worth reading what people who disagree say – especially when they write as well as he does.
#19 by baz1860 on January 10, 2012 - 11:54 pm
One the subject of Cameron’s intervention, I’ve heard through the SNP grapevine (which for the purposes of argument we’ll call my Facebook newsfeed) that the weekends grandstanding added 157 members to the SNP through their online membership signup.
While this itself is a fairly insignificant percentage of the Scottish electorate, the SNP website itself states that during the last election campaign “hundreds” of people joined the SNP, so an added 157 after Cameron speaking about forcing an earlier plebiscite may in fact be fairly significant given the lack of an actual organised campaign.
Pingback: Autumn 2014 | The Widmann Blog
#20 by Dom Hinde on January 11, 2012 - 12:24 am
Spot the anthropology student with the pikes and guns reference. Spot on though. Interesting also about what you say about Westminster politicians just being unable to contextualise Scottish issues and opinion at a very fundamental level. As Jean Brodie says, you do not live in a province.
#21 by Richard on January 11, 2012 - 2:48 am
“there are others too, but many good ones are now sorely missed”
Like SNP Tactical Voting? 🙂
I’m glad that the SNP has all these big guns that you describe, but I’m still worried about the issues that were conspicuous by their absence from the above article. These being:
1. The extraordinary bias shown by the media in general and the BBC in particular, as well as a lot of people’s ignorance of this;
2. The ability of the Unionist side to play on folk’s fears and create bogeymen out of thin air;
3. Populist persuasion, such as the Rangers team campaigning like they did in ’78.
#22 by Rory on January 11, 2012 - 5:25 am
Great piece James. You’ll recall that for many years, over many beers, I said that pound for pound (and he has many) Salmond is as good an operator as I’ve personally seen in politics, anywhere, ever.
I thought Hamish Mac made a good point today that expounds on your military analogy. The SNP have been wargaming this intensely for eons. They’ve discussed at length every possible permutation. They’ve argued over it, they’ve fallen out over it, they’ve fallen asleep in their pints absolutely spent from wondering how it would turn out.
Now they are in government they have been wargaming the tactical stuff – the attack on the Supreme Court to reduce its legitimacy type stuff.
I still think Salmond would settle for devo max and be able to buy off the party with the line that we are still moving forward: let’s run devo max Scotland well for ten years then go for full independence.
And one last thing, I know you didn’t do this but so many do, can people stop claiming an independent Scotland would entrench permanent Tory govt down south? Every Labour govt except 74 would have won their elections WITHOUT Scottish seats.
Minor rant over.
#23 by ReasonableNat on January 11, 2012 - 8:09 am
“I still think Salmond would settle for devo max and be able to buy off the party with the line that we are still moving forward: let’s run devo max Scotland well for ten years then go for full independence.”
The more I reflect on this, the closer I come to concluding that the current coalition power play is really about blocking devo-max more than anything else. They know they’ve lost the game on indy, that referendum will happen – this is all about preventing a yes vote for devo-max that would land them in the sticky position of having to say no to it. Once this realisation dawns in Scotland, the backlash is likely to be massive.
#24 by Alex Buchan on January 11, 2012 - 3:03 pm
ReasonableNat, I’d say you are half right. This is not so much about blocking Devo-Max as trying to wreck the SNP as a political force. Their reasoning is that if they can corner the SNP into a straight fight on Independence and defeat them it will set them back, just as the defeat of the 1978 referendum set them back for more than a decade.
Of course they also don’t want a vote on devo-max, but that is secondary because they could just ignore such a vote. But I’ve always agreed with you that it would be irresponsible not to have Devo-Max on the ballot so as not to grant the unionists their wish of the possibility of a decisive defeat of the SNP
#25 by James on January 11, 2012 - 9:20 am
Hamish’s bit on the Supreme Court was indeed spot on, at least as a theory. And thanks!
#26 by Doug Daniel on January 11, 2012 - 9:34 am
I’ve been on a one-man mission to try and inform people about the referendum on a band forum I post on, and despite the forum users being generally pretty clued up on all things politics, it amazed me how deeply-entrenched this idea is of Scotland being the only thing stopping the rest of the UK from falling into permanent Tory rule.
In fact, the whole exercise is quite an eye-opener after spending so long on Scottish politics blogs – people in England just don’t get this concept of Scottish voters having the right to determine if Scotland is independent, and keep going on about how they should get a say as well.
#27 by Richard Thomson on January 11, 2012 - 10:41 am
“it amazed me how deeply-entrenched this idea is of Scotland being the only thing stopping the rest of the UK from falling into permanent Tory rule.”
Yep. What they don’t seem to take on board is the distorting effects of FPTP. Also, it assumes that any conservative ‘hegemony’ wouldn’t result in people reacting accordingly and changing their voting behaviour.
Paradoxical as it might sound, I think that the presence of Scotland holds back the centre left electorally in England. Without Scotland, the pendulum would be likely to start swinging a bit faster, to the benefit of the centre left and to the disadvantage of the Tories.
#28 by An Duine Gruamach on January 11, 2012 - 11:15 am
The English are a wonderful people, and have a great radical left tradition – they’re not daft and wouldn’t put up with the Tories indefinitely. They’re not daft (even if they did invent a sport you can’t play in the rain).
#29 by Rory on January 12, 2012 - 4:28 am
Ummmm, isn’t the Scottish sport of golf usually not played in inclement weather also?
#30 by Rory on January 11, 2012 - 11:19 am
Yeah. I find it hilarious the way right wing English say they should get a vote on whether Scotland leaves. I wonder if they think the rest of Europe should have a vote on whether the Uk should leave, as they want.
(Albeit I reckon the rest of Europe would vote unanimously, down to the last garlic muncher, to be rid of the moaning bastards)
#31 by Doug Daniel on January 11, 2012 - 12:03 pm
But here’s the thing, I’ve even found people who almost certainly wouldn’t class themselves as right-wing (or even centre-right) saying that as this will fundamentally change the UK, the whole UK should get a vote.
They don’t understand that this is not a referendum on dissolving the UK – just on one part leaving.
#32 by Craig Gallagher on January 11, 2012 - 6:59 pm
Well, constitutionally the United Kingdom is only Scotland and England (and what historically have been its territorial possessions, Wales and N. Ireland), so if Scotland does vote for independence then that will fundamentally dissolve the UK. Consider that any rUK could not longer use the moniker “United Kingdom of Great Britain” as it wouldn’t be any longer.
On the political point, you’re correct of course. England’s empire would go on as before.
#33 by Gaz on January 11, 2012 - 9:53 am
That is true Rory, but Labour only won a majority in England by becoming tories with a small t.
It’s a long way back for a truly ‘Labour’ party to win in England again.
#34 by Dr William Reynolds on January 11, 2012 - 7:58 am
I agree with you James and hope that your prediction is correct. Anyhow,congratulations on your very cogent analysis.
#35 by James on January 11, 2012 - 11:57 am
Ta. I’m just as likely to be right when we disagree as when we agree though 😉
#36 by Doug Daniel on January 11, 2012 - 10:02 am
Very good analysis James. There’s only one thing standing in the way of independence, and that’s misinformation. Those of us in the Scottish blogosphere know that even Annabel Goldie has admitted that Scotland is capable of standing on it’s own two feet, but those that aren’t Scottish politics nerds still believe the hype that Scotland is a subsidy junkie, and find it completely unfathomable that Scotland could possibly survive as an independent nation. You really would think that Scotland was trying to do something nobody had done before, despite there being almost four times as many independent countries in the world now than there were after WWII.
I think the results of that Scottish Attitudes survey recently attest to this. If the pro-independence side can finally convince people that Scotland is capable of not only standing on its own, but of doing better, then people will vote for independence. I don’t think many people are that bothered about the “stronger together, weaker apart” rubbish that Tories spout.
But this is the problem: with the print media generally against them, as well as the broadcast media (don’t care what you say James, there is inherent bias in the BBC, even if it’s just their wording, and it’s so entrenched in their psyche that they don’t even realise they’re doing it), the pro-independence side have a monumental task in shifting public opinion. This is why the unionists can afford to be half-arsed – for the time being, anyway…
#37 by English Boy on January 11, 2012 - 10:17 am
Interesting piece James that reflects an increasing partisan trend from Better Nation in recent weeks which is a tad disappointing from a neutral view like mine. In fact this large swathe of confidence in a Yes vote may well be the SNP’s undoing on the matter. Although I’m English living in Scotland I would be tempted to vote No to independence and then campaign for full fiscal responsibility.
On another note; i have noticed an increasing trend over recent months of anti-English sentiment linked with the Independence vote. I myself have experienced racism of this kind when out and even at work. About 400,000 English people live in Scotland that’s around 8% of the population (2001 Census). That is a lot of people to alienate if this trend continues.
#38 by James on January 11, 2012 - 11:15 am
Well, thanks for the kind words, and boo to racism. But this really isn’t a partisan SNP post – I’m a Green, though I do favour independence. Also, two out of four co-editors are actual Labour!
#39 by An Duine Gruamach on January 11, 2012 - 11:17 am
0/4 editors are SNP members. That’d make for a funny kind of SNP partisan bias.
#40 by Doug Daniel on January 11, 2012 - 12:59 pm
Sorry, but if it’s racism you’re looking for, you need go no further than the comments threads of articles about Scottish independence in the Grauniad. The things some English people write about Scots and Scotland are abhorrent, and would have the site shut down if they were saying them about an ethnic or religious group.
That’s without even daring to go near the right-wing press sites…
#41 by English Boy on January 11, 2012 - 2:33 pm
I’m not accusing the SNP of racism and I agree that the English are just as bad; the point I am making is that this kind of sentiment is alive and growing and could de-rail the bid for independence.
I’m dont know what the Grauniad is so i can comment on what may be on the threads there
#42 by James on January 11, 2012 - 2:51 pm
Grauniad.
#43 by Erchie on January 11, 2012 - 7:40 pm
The Grauniad s a nickname or the “Guardian” based on a history of typos
It’s a long established and well-known nickname
If you didn’t know that then you have a lot of background reading to do
But I post on the Graun, the abuse towards Scots is horrendous
But sois the abuse to many groups, including the ick
Can’t decide if they are real people or paid trolls posting that stuff
#44 by James on January 11, 2012 - 8:01 pm
Do you mean the Ik?
#45 by Erchie on January 12, 2012 - 1:26 am
Heh James
The sick. No matter how often the low rate of fraud is pointed out, or how stingy the benefits are, the boards are filled with “I know a guy who gets 3,000,000 a week on benefit” bollocks.
#46 by Rory on January 12, 2012 - 4:35 am
The Grauniad is hilarious. It is a s left and politically correct as you like, except, er, to certain groups. I’m Australian and the Graun only ever runs stuff on Oz when a shark bites someone or periodically to do a piece on how beastly we are to the indigenous people, removing all context from the piece.
#47 by EphemeralDeception on January 11, 2012 - 6:48 pm
A very good analysis James but, come on, why do you think the BBC in Scotland are not biased? Must be a major blind spot you have…
Just as an example without looking at party politics.
The blogs in Scotland on the website were curtailed, then stopped just at a time when the constitution and need for debate is high. Meanwhile blog for the UK/Wales/England remain. This is Bias in the form of silencing of proper debate. <<<<also prevents their broadcasts web or tv related to go unchallenged.
This is absolutely anything but 'neutral' !!
#48 by James on January 11, 2012 - 7:12 pm
Come on! The blogs were curtailed purely because of the high volume of bampottery on them. If you think the broadcasts or website are biased, fine, give me some evidence. If they won’t let the frankly bonkers attack each other in the comments section, well, that’s what Better Nation and other blogs are for. (not really here: we like polite debate too)
#49 by Erchie on January 11, 2012 - 8:02 pm
James
You don’t think that having Labour Part officials in charge of political reporting has an effect?
You don’t think when Labour Party officials are presented as neutral observers, but SNP members have political affiliations pointed out, that that is not a symptom of something?
Aye right
#50 by James on January 11, 2012 - 8:30 pm
I’d take some evidence if you have it, especially for the wilder end of your accusations. I’ve also seen the Cuthberts presented as plain old economists, which is the same error in the other direction.
#51 by Erchie on January 12, 2012 - 12:17 am
Do you deny that the Head of News & Current Affairs is John Boothman, former chair of Labour Students? Husband to Susan Deacon? Reportedly censured for offering media training to Labour Candidates along with another BBC editor?
During the time John Boothman was a producer at BBC Scotland’s parliamentary unit, Catriona Renton was recruited. Former Councillor, Labour Candidate at Holyrood, who misrepresented Alex Neil as wanting David Cameron as PM, which was, of course untrue and relied on dodgy editing.
Now, what happened to Elizabeth Quigley when she married John Swinney? She was moved off Political reporting
nor is this a new state of affairs, as these articles point out
http://www.newstatesman.com/200012040025
http://www.scotsman.com/news/in_the_grip_of_the_party_1_1372429
Did the BBC hound Phil Hammond when the snow fell in 2010? No, but they did Stewart Stevenson, neglecting, of course, the fact that they were caught out by the weather themselves
When Stephen Purcell mysteriously resigned, who was commenting? Lorraine Davidson of the Times. Her former position as a labour Spindoctor, in a piece which said “nothing to see here”. The BBC Brian Taylor blog went into Mod meltdown, as referred to her http://www.scottishreview.net/BWallace219.html
Durign the election Newsnicht often used John McTernan with no affiliation made clear.
Sally Magnusson, still working at the Beeb Scotland News. Remember her first question to Alex Salmond in 2007? “what do you have to say to people in Scotland who are afraid this evening?”
Ring any bells?
#52 by Doug Daniel on January 11, 2012 - 9:57 pm
It’s funny you should mention that. Here are two entirely unrelated facts that people can read as much or as little into as they wish.
1. The BBC stopped comments on Scottish blogs in November.
2. The unionist parties are said to have started cross-party discussions on how to deal with the referendum in November.
#53 by Nick Bibby on January 11, 2012 - 9:06 pm
for those of us of southern birth this whole dissolution of the UK thing could be kinda handy. I would no longer have to flinch when Americans say “Oh, you’re from Eng-ger-land?” but could quietly reply, “Well, yes I suppose I am.” Think of the weeks of my life that will be saved in coming years by not having to explain the structure of the UK to denizens of the wilder parts of Asia and the Americas – I feel this is an important part of the Indy message that has been tragically overlooked thus far.
#54 by Erchie on January 12, 2012 - 12:18 am
Wales and Northern Ireland
#55 by Topher Dawson on January 12, 2012 - 8:16 am
If anyone is interested in an objective measure of how likely Scotland is to get independence by 2020, even if they don’t want to bet, look at http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/politics-and-election/scottish-politics/year-of-independence.
The odds William Hill are offering have shortened from 9 to 1 to 7 to 1, or in decimal terms, from 10 to 8.
#56 by Alex Buchan on January 12, 2012 - 8:21 am
Not sure if this helps te NO campaign or hinders it but there is a report today in the Telegraph that three conservative MPs are calling for the scapping of Barnett so that levels of spending per head in Scotland can be brought into line with those in England. The report also states that the Tory Welsh Secretary and Justine Greening, when she was a treasury minister, have both indicated support for this. These MPs want the Tories to go into the next election with a pledge on equalising spending levels between the different constitutuent parts of Britain. This is the fate that awaits if there is a NO vote. It has been said that the threat of the break up of Britain has been a major input into policy decisions in Whitehall. Take away that threat and notice the difference. It wont take long to manifest.