“No good fish goes anywhere without a porpoise”.
So said Lewis Carroll in the marvellous Alice in Wonderland and it’s a lesson, fishy puns to one side, that Salmond and Sturgeon should take on board.
I would wager that the Scottish public are open to being convinced by the merits of independence and its superiority as a constitutional option over Scotland remaining part of the United Kingdom but convinced they need to be, and with a burden of proof that requires to be overwhelming. The current apparent purposelessness of the SNP is particularly unappealing and is at best preventing support for independence to increase, at worst it is leaking it. Whether full independence in a matter of years is even where the First Minister is looking to lead us has been questioned. I suppose there is comfort to be found that if you don’t know where you’re going, then any road will get you there.
This inert waywardness is the SNP’s primary problem right now. The party’s reason to be has been hamstrung by Alex Salmond’s smart, quite possibly too smart, push for a Devo Max fallback option behind full independence. The big-tent politics of old is riddling with cracks from republicans vs royalists, fundamentalists vs gradualists and Europhiles vs Sterlingistas vs Scottish poundheads. If the SNP isn’t careful, it’s going to have to resort to Lib Demmy, wishy-washy statements like ‘we’re for fairness for everyone’ in order to sound like it has a single objective. Of course, if you’re for everything and everyone, then you’re really for nothing and no one.
Margo MacDonald wasn’t shy this week to call the SNP out on these very weaknesses, citing “a lack of preparedness and a lack of planning” as part of the reason for her own frustration at the lack of progress Yes Scotland has made. The unnecessary muddying of the independence waters with Devo Max was another bugbear, as too was the “noise” that exists rather than a proper debate. Her advice to the pro-independence campaign was to “stop talking about winning or losing and start talking about what they would like to do” (with independence).
Indeed, the SNP frantically going nowhere reminds me of the Caucus Race, again from Lewis Carroll. Everyone starts from different positions, everyone starts and stops the race whenever they like, the race ends at an arbitrary time, everyone thinks they’ve won and everyone gets a prize.
The ongoing, circular dialogue between unionist and nationalist has grown tiring for those that can still bear to listen in, but still they run and still they tell themselves they’re winning. I would have hoped by now that the SNP would have struck out in a different direction and taken the initiative with a clear, stripped down (and preferably bullet-pointed) x-point, bite-sized plan for why and how Scotland would be independent. They’ve had 75 years to come up with one, it shouldn’t be too difficult. However, with polls last night showing in inglorious regional detail the extent to which support for independence is falling way back, the SNP can’t stay in the starting blocks of a race that’s going nowhere for too much longer. They won’t even win a prize at that rate.
The bottom line of the recent past is this, Alex won’t make it to Wonderland unless he finds his porpoise.
#1 by Doug Daniel on July 11, 2012 - 11:08 am
I’m a bit confused by the “support has dropped to 30%” line we’re getting as a result of this poll. After all, unionists have always insisted that it was no higher than this anyway, in fact many are reluctant to admit it’s even this high. They’ve also always insisted that “the overwhelming majority” want to remain in the union. Errr, 50% isn’t even a majority, never mind an overwhelming one.
It’s early days. If the polls still show support for independence at 30% and the union at 50% in January 2014, I’ll start worrying. But the Yes Scotland campaign has only just appointed it’s CEO and advisory board, and I imagine there will be more to come if the Greens decide to formally join after their conference. We’re still in the midst of the biggest propaganda period the British state could ask for, and the union can’t even muster a slim overall majority. Surely nobody seriously believes support for the union can actually grow?
As for Margo, the “We should have had the information stage. We should be at the stage now of arguing what is the best way” line is the same thing Jim Sillars was saying on Scotland Tonight after the formal launch of the referendum consultation. I’m sorry, but how exactly was this meant to happen? Where is this pliant media that would have happily promoted the arguments for independence without a referendum imminently on the horizon? And would people have been paying attention anyway? The whole point of having a two and a half year campaign is to focus people’s minds so they’ll pay attention to the information that’ll get put out.
Things won’t truly get serious until we at least know what people will be voting on. In the meantime, people are free to wonder what powers Devo Max could mean, and will soon find out they won’t get them if they vote “no”…
#2 by Indy on July 11, 2012 - 11:48 am
I don’t know how Margo could have said any of that with a straight face. Who was supposed to put out “the information”? And how was it supposed to get to people?
Can anyone imagine what the reaction would have been if the Scottish Government had said OK we are now going to supply the population with all the information they need on independence and it’s going to be delivered to every household and there will be public information events held also organised by the Scottish Government to help people make up their minds.
Everyone would have gone mental! Quite seriously I don’t think the SNP would still be in power if they had tried that. Of all people Margo surely knows how impossible it is for the SNP to control the information.
#3 by Jeff on July 11, 2012 - 12:08 pm
The Yes Scotland launch was the opportunity to put some real meat on the independence bones. The powers that be (Salmond presumably) opted for soundbites from celebrities, too much tartan jingosim and a rather silly declaration. They’ve been chasing their tails ever since and really need to find a way to win back the initiative.
An announcement with real depth involving economic, academic and cultural reasons for independence and the impact this would have on the Scottish people would attract significant media attention. Anything that gets over the real sense of purpose and direction from the SNP would do.
#4 by Indy on July 12, 2012 - 8:54 am
Do you seriously think that would be reported? The media would just carry a straight report of something like that? It just doesn’t work that way. They pick and choose what they report. They decide what is important and it’s not what other people might think is important.
I am not a crazed cybernat, media bias is not imaginary, it is quite real. I’ll give you a couple of examples.
Just in the last week or so there were a couple of stories that I think were pretty significant but weren’t really given any prominence. One was that incidents of C-diff and MRSA are now at a record low. Fear of hospital acquired infections is pretty widespread especially among older people so I would have thought it was worth giving quite a bit of prominence to this story but the media really weren’t interested. I am not a paranoid cybernat imagining that the story was considered primarily in terms of whether it was a good news story for the SNP rather than whether it was a good news story for NHS patients.
The second was about the UK Government planning to extend its influence over public sector pensions in Scotland by increasing requirements for the Treasury to consent to any changes. The status quo is that the Scottish Government can negotiate the terms of its own deals on pensions provided any additional costs or shortfall in revenue is met from the block grant. What the UK Government is proposing now would remove that flexibility. That will affect all public sector pensions – police, fire, NHS, teachers, the lot. The UK Govt will be able to impose conditions on all of them. That is also a big story but I saw very little about it – and interestingly not a dicky bird from the Labour Party.
Neither of these stories directly impacts on the referendum but are, I think, relevant when people consider how to vote. So there is a big challenge for the SNP not simply in terms of getting out information on independence – but also on getting out information on what is happening here and now in Scotland.
#5 by Doug Daniel on July 12, 2012 - 1:44 pm
Of course, another factor in media bias is the usual bias towards bad news. Considering anti-independence stories are necessarily negative, and pro-independence stories are necessarily positive, it’s quite clear which ones the media will tend towards showing.
So even if we think those who choose the news are not letting pro-union bias get in their way, there are the usual factors inherent in the media which get in the way of getting positive messages about independence into the public eye.
#6 by Jeff on July 11, 2012 - 11:54 am
Doug, you sound a bit like a football fan who doesn’t mind being 2-0 down because there’s still 70 minutes to go, though you’re already gathering the ‘we should have had a penalty’ excuses early (i.e. the media are against us). Independence support at 30% is surely not a good sign?
I personally don’t buy this odd cocktail of misplaced optimism that it’ll magically be alright in a couple of years and the tiresome defeatism of everyone’s against us. A clear-eyed, straight-bat set of arguments in favour of why Scotland should be independent and what the benefits are in good detail should be a no-brainer. Amidst the declarations, the celeb endorsements and the misty-eyed romanticism on Yes Scotland’s website I still can’t find that. And that’s nothing to do with a so-called media bias and it’s nothing to do with being two years out from the vote.
There’s a danger that the Yes group don’t give the public enough credit and try to take the shortcuts and soundbite approach to winning this referendum rather than trusting us with the detail, the facts and the choices. A strong sense of purpose from Salmond would help avoid this risk but, well, we’ll see….
“Things won’t get serious until the public know what they’re voting on”. I fully agree, but while support for independence is only at 30% and going backwards, the ball is very much in the SNP’s court on that one.
#7 by Indy on July 11, 2012 - 12:14 pm
Where is the misty eyed romanticism on the Yes website? I think the independence stuff is pretty straightforward as is the print version. It will eventually go through every door and every household will eventually be canvassed in both the Voter ID stage and the conversion/follow up stage.
But you know we are talking about almost 4 million voters. We can’t do that in the space of a few months. I am not slagging you off here but really I feel people like you have no idea of the timescales involved in that level of engagement. You go out with a list of, say, 200 households. That will take you around 3 hours and you will be lucky if you speak to one third of them. Work it out – how long it takes to get round everyone!
Doug is absolutely right, if independence is still standing at 30pc in the polls at the start of 2014 then we have lost. But there is a lot of time between now and then and we’ve just really started.
As for media bias – it’s not an issue. The media are pretty biased against independence but that’s inevitable and there is no point, absolutely no point at all, in worrying about it. If support for independence starts to increase then the media will start to hedge their bets a bit, because that is what they do. If they think indepedence is unpopular they will be against it, if it starts to become more popular they will adjust accordingly. We have done all we can to negate the influence of the press and make the case to them to give us a fair hearing – some would say we have gone too far – there is no more we can do. It really is down to the doorstep campaign, more than anything else.
People generally don’t believe what they read in the mainstream media anyway. And they don’t believe what they read in the social media either most of the time. Everyone knows that people place most trust in personal recommendations. If someone you know and trust says they are voting for independence that has more influence than if someone on the telly says it. Equally, if someone you know and trust says we would all starve to death with independence that will also have an impact. So it is all going to go on way below the level of the media. Just don’t expect it to happen tomorrow!
#8 by Doug Daniel on July 11, 2012 - 1:50 pm
Well, if we’re using football metaphors, then the No campaign’s crowing about an opinion poll reminds me of England fans cheering when Frank Lampard put England ahead of France in Euro 2004, with the inability to turn that mass of pro-union propaganda into a solid 60%+ support for the union being the penalty David Beckham missed, which would have put them 2-0 up. For those who can’t remember, England were 1-0 at injury time, only for Zidane to pop up and score an amazing free-kick and a penalty. 2-1 France.
Now, I’m not saying Salmond is Zidane, but David Cameron and George Osborne may turn out to be the defenders who gave away that free kick and penalty, leaving the No campaign wondering how they managed to lose the game. Hmmm, that worked out better than I intended…
Anyway, I just feel people have misinterpreted the launch of the Yes campaign. It was only ever meant as a statement of intent, not as the full-blown argument. A lawyer doesn’t present their whole case in the opening statement, and likewise, you can’t bombard people with all the information at once. Undecideds aren’t going to make up their minds before we even know how many options are on the ballot anyway.
Independence support at 30% is not a good sign, but neither is it a bad one. It’s the baseline I would expect us to be at. 20% undecided is a huge amount, and I’ve always believed that undecided voters are far more likely to swing towards independence than the status quo. After all, being undecided generally means you’re willing to be convinced of the case for change. You can’t “convince” people of the case for the status quo, because they know what the status quo means to them.
I believe it’s a one-way street – the Yes Scotland launch was full of people who used to believe in the union but now support independence. I can’t think why anyone would go the other way. Once you’ve opened someone’s eyes to the case for independence, I think it’d be pretty hard for them to go back to supporting the union. This is why that 30% can only get bigger, and that 50% can only get smaller.
#9 by Doug Daniel on July 11, 2012 - 11:11 am
I wholeheartedly endorse the fishy puns, incidentally. Some may argue this is no plaice for such puns, but comedy is good for the sole, so you’ve certainly got me hooked.
#10 by Duncan Hothersall (@dhothersall) on July 11, 2012 - 12:04 pm
Good piece Jeff. We all know the SNP is united by only one objective, and divided on all others. We also know that everyone in the party has recognised Salmond as their best ever chance to achieve that objective, and is prepared far more than before to set aside all other differences to try to heave over the line.
As the reality sets in that this best ever chance isn’t going to succeed, things will get ugly.
I feel a bit sorry for Salmond. He knew 2004 was way too early for his comeback, and 2007 was way too early to win power, but he was constrained by events. 2014 will prove way too early for the referendum, and this consummate tactician will rue his luck in the remains of his party.
#11 by Peter A Bell on July 11, 2012 - 9:01 pm
A triumph of ill-informed wishful thinking over rational analysis. Mildly amusing, in its way. But interesting only for the manner in which it illustrates some of the similarities between fanatical British nationalism and fundamentalist religion – which is similarly characterised by claims to arcane knowledge and the conviction that unbelievers are in denial of The Revealed Truth!
#12 by James on July 11, 2012 - 12:24 pm
“I don’t know what you mean by ‘independence,’ ” Alice said.
The Great Puddin’ smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘devo max!’ ”
“But ‘independence’ doesn’t mean ‘devo max’,” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master, that’s all.”
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. “They’ve a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they’re the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!”
#13 by Cath on July 11, 2012 - 12:55 pm
I don’t believe for a minute Salmond “wants” a devo-max question on the ballot paper. The stated preference in the white paper is one question: “Do you want Scotland to be an independent country?” Yes or no. And the SNP are fighting for a yes, for independence.
Devomax, FFA and whatever are still part of the narrative because the population want them to be, and because many big interest groups have said during the consultation that they want them to be under consideration. The Scottish government, however, cannot deliver them even if it wanted to – that would be down to Westminster and the Westminster parties.
70% of the electorate, even at this early stage, want substantially more powers, with only 29% preferring the status quo. The Westminster parties have managed to neatly form a 3 way coalition occupying only that 29% ground, while leaving all the rest as “things that nasty Mr Salmond wants and/or refuses to rule out”. Tactically, that seems like a big mistake to me. In time, the consultation responses will be analysed – by an independent company – and a question drafted. If no other party or group has framed devo-max by then, it won’t be there. The yes campaign can then get onto the job of converting as many of that 70% who want change into independence supporters as possible, on the basis that Westminster has allowed no other option and the only way to be certain of more powers is a yes vote (which it already is anyway, though people perhaps don’t realise this).
Until that point, debating what we want Scotland to look like, and what powers we need to do it is a perfectly reasonable debate to have, and that includes all powers up to an including full independence. The SNP are not “doing nothing” but running the country, promoting Scotland – as a close-to-indy country – and, I think, quite deftly manouvering the anti-independence parties into a dead end. If it works and we get a “yes”, Salmond will be happy. If it doesn’t, and we get a no, Westminster will find itself running a country full of bitterly disappointed people, who’ve thought of what could be, demanding to know what powers the “no” campaign will now pass down. The answer will be none and it may seek to take some away. That will be a pyrrhic victory for Westminster.
#14 by Niall MacDougall on July 11, 2012 - 1:13 pm
Tell us Jeff…how is wonderland?,cause you were clearly tuned to the moon when writing this article.
Where is this overwhelming sense of ”unappealing purposelessness” that you describe of the SNP? The people of Scotland voted them into holyrood with a Majority gouvernment.They have delivered on so many important factors such as free education,greener energy, higher employment,doing as much as they can to protect Scotland from devastating westminister welfare cuts.More importantly,with the mandate they were given…have brought forward a referendum on Independence for the people of Scotland……..The purpose of Alex Salmond and his party has been fullfiled many times over,and will contine to seek any purpose that benefits Scotland.Make no mistake about it,Alex Salmond is for INDEPENDENCE.Anyone who argues otherwise is either seriously mislead,or deliberatley trying to convince the Scottish people that Salmond is”unsure,uncertain,undecided,”or basically ” not up to the task.
Love the piece about Margo MacDonald,the unionists have spun her disagreement over descisons within the SNP,as if to suggest the wheels are falling off the Yes campaign.Whatever disagreements may arise,they are miniscule compared to the thing we all agree on…that is Scotland will be a better Nation as an independent country,and any petty uncertainty that arises with this thought,is overshadowed by the extremley uncertain future of Scotland……under a tory gouvernment in westminister.
#15 by Peter A Bell on July 11, 2012 - 1:33 pm
Type your comment here
This nicely demonstrates the very media influence that you so carelessly dismiss. The unionist propaganda machine has clearly managed to get you believing in something which simply doesn’t exist.
#16 by Jeff on July 11, 2012 - 4:10 pm
Whether you believe the website to be misty-eyed and/or romantic or not, where on Yes Scotland is the page that will win over a sceptical public with a convincing explanation as to why we should be independent and how it will be better than the alternative for the reader?
#17 by Peter A Bell on July 11, 2012 - 5:33 pm
I’ve never had a problem grasping the concept of independence. And I somehow managed to access enough information to persuade me of the desirability of independence for Scotland. I did it all by myself. I didn’t sit with my thumb up my arse waiting for someone to cut everything up into easily digestible syllable-sized chunks for me.
But even for those who don’t find independence an unfathomable mystery, how can they judge whether independence would be “better than the alternative” when nobody will tell them what the alternative is?
I am actually thoroughly sick of this moronic notion that there is some kind of mathematical calculation by which, if only the right input is provided, a “correct” answer may be arrived at on something that is inevitably and quite rightly as much a matter of the heart as the mind. There’s a reason only adults get to vote in referendums. It is assumed that adults can find things out and figure things out for themselves, appropriately weighing the factual and the emotional arguments in the process.
Maybe it’s time the doubters and the naysayers started treating the people who will decide the issue of independence with a bit more respect.
#18 by Indy on July 11, 2012 - 9:34 pm
Seriously – where is the misty eyed romanticism?
And the arguments are all there.
#19 by Nikostratos on July 11, 2012 - 6:53 pm
To be honest i find the idea that the Scottish people in the midst of an economic crisis are going to vote to march off into the great unknown.
To be Err! Magical thinking .
The fact is there is no compelling reason to make decision now or in 2014 after all the Nat malcontents will still be here and whinging as usual.
Ask again in maybe ten or twenty years if the economics are good people may feel more confident and may take a chance.
I dont actually believe there will be a referendum once it sinks in to the snp they will lose big time. Alex will manufacture a synthetic reason to collapse the whole project(no doubt due to Unionist malfeasance)
you lot go on about Unionist/Nationalist but do not consider(mainly because your extremist in your views) that most people are worried for their jobs and livelihoods
everyday concerns rather than Flag waving emotionalism from whichever side of the Scottish political chasm
#20 by Peter A Bell on July 11, 2012 - 7:16 pm
Type your comment here
I am over sixty years old. I have never known a time when the economy was not in the midst of crisis; on the verge of crisis; or tentatively and precariously recovering from crisis. Constant crisis is the nature of the capitalist system. If economic uncertainty was accepted as an excuse for not tackling issues, no issues would ever be tackled.
And independence is no more “unknown” than Scotland’s future mired in the corrupt, incompetent and anachronistic union.
#21 by Gabe Neil on July 11, 2012 - 7:33 pm
As others have already well-articulated, Jeff, it would make very little sense for Alex Salmond to go for a Devo Max option, and the fact that it’s being discussed at all is due to public support for it.
I believe this has also already been said, but I think it bears reiterating, this is the height of BritNat propaganda season. There will be no other time in the next 2 years that such an orgy of union-flag-waving and misty-eyed references to the idea of Britishness will take place. In terms of advertising the Union, this is pretty much as far as much as can be done. With that in mind, it is not in the least bit suprising that support for independence should be at a low, but the fact is, support has been higher before and when the bunting clears people will be able to get back into working out the arguments for and against independence with a more neutral background.
As Doug says, support for independence can only grow from here, obviously there is every chance that the no vote will win in 2014, but declaring victory for one side whilst the campaigns are still pretty much revving at the starting line (to move into another sports-based metaphor) is as premature as a teenager on a third date. This is all the Union has to give, after 2012, BritNat fervour will not have the momentum to sweep people along with it and the grown-up arguments can start to be made.
As an aside: Duncan Hothersall, despite your assertion that “we all know” that the SNP is united only by one issue, my experience with friends who have been members of the SNP has been that they all seem to fit along the centre-left perspective. Now I don’t claim to know what others in the party think, and I myself am not a member, but frankly neither should you. As a Labour party member do you even know any members of the SNP? Have you conducted a survey of the political opinions of SNP members? I would be suprised if the answer to both those questions is yes. You simply cannot assert that the SNP is a flimsy organisation united around one narrow objective – certainly not without inviting similar points about the Labour party.
#22 by Duncan Hothersall (@dhothersall) on July 12, 2012 - 9:23 am
I have good friends in the SNP – and across all the other parties. Discussions over a pint are always more frank and honest than discussions online.
Of course I haven’t conducted a survey. But if you are going to tell me that Fergus Ewing, to pick one prominent example, is a centre-left politician, then I have some magic beans to sell you.
The SNP has garnered electoral success from positioning itself on the centre left in campaigning – even though its tax-cutting and centralising policies are in direct opposition to that pretence – so it’s not surprising that the party is filling up with centre-left folk. But there really is only one policy which unites the whole party, and everyone who knows Scottish politics knows that.
#23 by Doug Daniel on July 12, 2012 - 1:23 pm
Sorry, are you actually trying to tell us that centralisation is a centre-right policy? That is quite simply the most absurd thing I have ever seen you say, and you’ve spoken some right mince in the past.
Besides which, it’s one thing for folk from the Greens or SSP to accuse the SNP of pretending to be centre-left while actually implementing centre-right policies, but as a member of the Labour party, you really aren’t in a position to do so. Your party leans about as far to the left as a person wearing a platform shoe on their left foot and a flip-flop on the right.
Which brings me to a final point – you can criticise the SNP for uniting around one single policy all you want, but at least it’s an actual policy and one which we’ve never abandoned. When will Labour stop pretending it’s still a socialist party?
#24 by Indy on July 12, 2012 - 11:17 pm
The SNP is in the middle ground of Scottish politics – which is to the left of the middle ground in English politics. Labour members however have to motivate themselves to go on hating the SNP by latching onto anything they can portray as right wing – council tax freeze, corporation tax, ending presciption charges etc. So they can continue to believe that they are the defenders of the true faith and the SNP are a bunch of neo-liberal Tartan Tories.
At the same time of course Labour at UK level is moving onto Tory ground in a whole range of areas. They have to. To win, they have to win back people who voted Tory at the last election.
Scottish Labour deal with this by becoming, in policy terms, increasingly separate. At the same time as telling us we are better together.
It is so funny it should have its own show. But not sustainable over a 2 year period!
#25 by Gabe Neil on July 12, 2012 - 7:42 pm
The thing is that all political parties have dissenting views within them. Your own Labour party (somehow) still contains principled Socialists liek John McDonnell, but pretty much solidly centre-right figures like, well, most of the shadow cabinet. Certainly there are voices within the SNP who verge more towards the right, but I very much doubt that they are generally more right-leaning than the Labour party.
However, my main point wasn’t an emprical one, but a methodological one – you simply cannot claim without having done some kind of survey or study of the make up of the SNP that they are a disparate group of people with very little in common other than support for independence. Calling the SNP’s centre-left-ness a “pretence” is unsound unless you have some actual varifiable evidence to back it up. You may as well say that since Radiohead take some influences from electronic music, it’s a “pretence” to call them a rock band, without looking at the kind of music they release (ok maybe not the best metaphor, but it makes sense to me).
On your more concrete points, centralisation is neither a left nor right wing policy, it falls on the authoritarian/libertarian axis of politics, so that’s a null point. The tax-cutting policy is certainly much more right wing than I would like (I’m an SSP supporter myself), but the point of a centre-left party is that they have some policies from across the divide so to speak. It’s entirely consistant with their espoused centre-left-ness.
#26 by Dubbieside on July 11, 2012 - 7:53 pm
Here’s a quote from, Mike Weir, MP for Angus, reported in today’s local paper. “My position and the SNP’s position is that we favour ONE question. We want independence, and that is the question we will put. If civic Scotland want a second question, it’s up to THEM to come forward and ask for it. The constant talk about a second question is just a Unionist smoke-and-mirrors attempt to distract the Scottish people from the real issues. It is clear there are people in Scotland who want more devolution, and, if there is no seond question, they are going to be faced with the choice of what to do. I am confident they will take that further step to independence.”
Can anybody show me the quote where Alex Salmond said that he wanted a second question. What he has said is if there is a demand for a second question and someone can define Devo Max the SNP would consider including it in the referendum.
The question that the unionists need to consider is “where do all the people that want Devo Max go when it is not on offer in the referendum” Do they follow people like Tom Farmer and Jim Mc Coll and vote for independence if nothing else is on the table? or do the unionists think that they will all stay at home and not vote? The one thing for sure is they will not vote No.
#27 by Ben Achie on July 11, 2012 - 7:56 pm
The SNP has repeatedly provided effective government, which indicates either pretty broad agreement about policy and objectives or a remarkable level of discipline. Either way, if the SNP is united by “only one issue”, then it is quite incredibly united!
#28 by Charles Patrick O'Brien on July 11, 2012 - 8:15 pm
I too am past 60,and never known the economy to be anything but a crisis,I have st down and thought why,and I have so reasons,first one is its a lie we are having an odd ripple but we can keep more people poor by telling lies and saying to the people that they need to pull their belts in,and that is what I believe.I also think Alex is playing a blinder,most of the lies and muck will be cleansed by 2014 (April I’d bet) then the anger of the truth will be apparent,of course if there is a sudden rush for a second question (I think a red herring) Alex is well placed to smile,and if not well who blocked it?what an each way bet.remember the Austerity program has not yet bit us yet,and when it does it shall turn a few heads.
#29 by Charles Patrick O'Brien on July 11, 2012 - 8:17 pm
I also meant to say Labour have been in power in Scotland for most of my life.
#30 by Charles Patrick O'Brien on July 11, 2012 - 8:25 pm
I’d like to add this.
I have now found the answer to my quiestion of “Why are the English not British” Here it is;
Now I have been thinking and dagerous as it is I will persist.I have been thinking about the British thing and how some of our southern neighbours have this claim that we Scots don’t embrace being British,may I say the English establishment only start this British thing when they want to use the other people of this island,as there are so many cases when its always England never Britain until a Scot is winning or a Welsh person has won,it came to me that it is done in so many “little” ways.Even using the comedy programs like “Dad’s Army” the intro had England emblazoned across the south coast,yes that is part of England but were was the rest of Britain then?I have noticed this on numerous occasions and my wife always says ach “its only” whatever and not important,but as I continued thinking .Its like have just one little brick.its only one but when you get a thousand you get enough to build a wall,and that is what has been done all these little bricks have built the wall to divide.
#31 by Chris on July 12, 2012 - 9:10 am
Poppycock – as Lewis Carroll might have written occasionally.
Has no one noticed that support for independence has ALWAYS gone down during election campaigns? Perhaps some people like the idea in principle but their head rules their heart when information starts to circulate, perhaps others get scared. The same thing is happening now. The gap is shocking and the undecideds are falling.Particularly so after the launch of the Yes campaign which should have given a bounce, but was immediately lost in (a) the No campaign unleashing an opinion poll on the morning of the launch which took the Yes camp by surprise: they are politicians, why was this a surpise? It’s not as if the SNP in opposition couldn’t pull of a publicity stunt! But more importantly (b) Nicola Sturgeon getting in a complete fankle about the pound.
The latter point is far more serious and, I think, shows the inherent laziness at the heart of the independence campaign which – I think – comes down to Alex Salmond’s leadership style. He is very opportunistic, likes to take shortcuts, prefers grandstanding to detail (hence he could flatten Iain Gray but struggles with Johann Lamont). But the question on the currency shows the lack of thought, the lack of detail, the lack of ideas and lack of substance. Yes, they have the one big idea, but the lack of detail behind it is shocking.
Where are the nationalist think-tanks that have spent decades thinking through the options? Where are the academic nationalists able to think through and work through the ideas and, at least, present honestly the pros and cons of each issue? All of this seems to have been discarded in favour of a masterplan on a par with a flutter on the 3.30 at Paddy Power.
A lot is said about the SNP trying to emulate Blair. But one of the striking, mind-numbing at times, aspects of Blairism was the openness to new ideas and the development of think tanks – everything from The Third Way to Stakeholder Society, Anthony Giddens to IPPR. We don’t see that in the independence campaign. And, since they are the people who want to deliver change, you would think they would have put a lot more effort into it.
Maybe in 10 years time we’ll look back and realise that the circumstances that gave the SNP its majority were much more to do with the collapse of the Lib Dem vote in coalition and the hopelessness of the Labour campaign. As a competent and well-led government (there, I said it) they were given trust without really talking about independence. So they got a lucky shortcut. But it has come too soon, before the hard work was done. The referendum should have taken place when independence was closer to the settled will. But now it is scheduled for the day the Yes campaign hopes for its personal best.
I really think this referendum should be called off. A climbdown is better than this farce. If the polls go on like this the turnout will be abysmal (ironically putting the Yes share up). I ‘d guess 38% yes on a 40% turnout.
We should be having a full debate on what powers we want at Holyrood within the UK context. This is much closer to what the people, to the extent they are interested at all, want.
#32 by Cath on July 12, 2012 - 12:21 pm
“We should be having a full debate on what powers we want at Holyrood within the UK context. This is much closer to what the people, to the extent they are interested at all, want.”
That’s exactly what we are having. Unfortunately, Westminster and its associated parties – Labour, Tory and Lib Dem – are unwilling to engage with that debate, and do not want to give any further powers to Holyrood. Even the Crown Estates, which their own committee seems to agree should be devolved are not being.
So we, the Scottish people, will have the debate about what powers we want, and most people will settle somewhere short of full independence – devomax, full fiscal autonomy etc. But unless Westminster is willing to concede that, we’ll be whistling into the wind for it.
So we will then, come 2014, have to decide whether we vote yes and take those powers, or at least the power to negotiate from a position of having told Westminster very firmly that’s what we want. Or stick with the status quo where Westminster makes our decisions for us and further, or possibly less, devolution is down to them to decide what and when, and Scotland is just told what to do.
If that is the referendum we go into, God help us if we don’t have the courage to vote Yes.
#33 by Peter A Bell on July 12, 2012 - 12:55 pm
Type your comment here
Has it? Where?
And you would do well to take off those union jack-tinted glasses when looking at polls. At present, YES stands on around 30% while NO is at about 20%. It takes no more than elementary arithmetic to see that YES has a massive lead over NO. And the other 50%? In a single question referendum they are all undecided. But the majority of them are decided about one thing – they will not accept the status quo.
They are only a moment’s reflection on the consequences of a NO vote away from voting YES. And if only as few as half of those undecideds vote YES, independence is won.
As to turn-out – one of the BBC’s anti-independence propagandists recently tried to state as fact that there was a lack of interest in or enthusiasm for the referendum. Professor John Curtice responded by pointing out that more than 80% of poll respondents stated that they intended to vote.
Personally, I’m very happy for the British nationalists to continue convincing themselves that they have already won. But they shouldn’t expect the rest of us to be so foolish.
#34 by Cameron on July 12, 2012 - 3:39 pm
Absolutely surely the fact we just had a jubilee thing, and the olympics in london is about to pop up and they’ve gone out of their way to give the impression that everwhere up to and including Belfast is somehow hosting this. Wimbledon probably helped a bit too. Surely all this is going to be making people feel a bit more British than they usually would.
Just one question though, won’t the Glasgow Commonwealth games in 2014 do the same thing, except more so?
#35 by Don Francisco on July 12, 2012 - 8:59 pm
Good post Jeff, I was very much thinking along those lines. The No campaign was obviously a non-event (has anyone is history made an exciting case for the status quo? And presented by Alistair Darling?), but after the initial Yes campaign launch, what exactly? Not much at all.
The issue over the £ is interesting, 6 or so years ago, the SNP could be comfortable asserting that Scotland would ditch the £ and join the Euro. Now they haven’t got that option, and there isn’t any credible alternatives. Stating we will just remain in the £ then leads to questions over what exactly the point of independence is!
SNP can produce the improved constitutional setup, but to persuade people to vote Yes they need to guarantee economic stability or improvement.