It’s a phrase I believe Nicola coined last year, and I admit I was sceptical about it. There’s rarely a natural majority for anything, even a binary choice like independence. But I’ve come to agree with her, and now I have polling that demonstrates what she means. Using my regular pollsters Survation, I asked a series of nine trust questions. These are the results with the Don’t Knows excluded (full tables here).
| Who do you trust more on each of these issues? | Holyrood | Westminster | Net Holyrood |
|---|---|---|---|
| Doing what is right for Scotland * | 79.9% | 20.1% | +59.8% |
| Representing our views * | 76.7% | 23.3% | +53.4% |
| Having our best interests at heart * | 72.5% | 27.5% | +45% |
| Improving the lives of the most vulnerable * | 70.2% | 29.8% | +40.4% |
| Keeping public services in public hands * | 69.6% | 30.4% | +39.2% |
| Making the best choices for me and my family | 64% | 36% | +28% |
| Protecting our environment | 60.3% | 39.7% | +20.6% |
| Delivering a fairer economy | 59.5% | 40.5% | +19% |
| Playing a responsible role internationally | 42.7% | 57.3% | -14.6% |
So, on eight out of nine “values” issues, voters in Scotland trust Holyrood more. Only on one (which I admit baffled me – *cough* *Iraq*) was Westminster narrowly preferred. On the first five, indicated with an asterisk, there’s an absolute majority for Holyrood even when you include the Don’t Knows. And that’s on what this question is really about: where should decisions be made? As now, split between Holyrood and Westminster, or entirely at Holyrood?
It’s no wonder, either. The last decade plus of Westminster’s decision-making could have been designed as a campaign to make the entire institution as unpopular as possible. A system of bank deregulation in favour of the City led to an extraordinary crash. The aftermath of that crash was used not to fix banking and tackle inequality, but to build a three-party consensus for a war on the poor and disabled, the demonisation of immigrants, yet more tax cuts for the highest earners, and a continuation of the ideological privatisation agenda. How could an ever harsher Union not have been designed to alienate Scottish voters?
Maybe the extraordinary scare campaign against radical change, coordinated from within 10 Downing Street with their FTSE 100 allies, will win. Maybe our superior ground campaign will win. But sooner or later we will be independent. There’s a natural majority for it.
#1 by Aileen Blok on September 17, 2014 - 1:45 pm
When you’ve asked the question “playing a responsible role internationally”, I’m not entirely surprised Westminster gets more votes, simply because the Scottish Government doesn’t have control over foreign policy or intervening on foreign matters. i.e. there is no visibility of Scotland playing any role internationally because as yet it hasn’t had the chance to.
#2 by James on September 17, 2014 - 1:49 pm
I agree that’s probably why.
#3 by anon on September 17, 2014 - 7:58 pm
“5. Alistair Darling: MP for Edinburgh South-West: 7 April 2011, He received a fee of £10,200 for addressing a dinner organised by Cinven, London. Hours: approx 6 hrs. On its website it states: ‘Cinven has been involved in European healthcare over a 20-year period and invests in market-leading, cash-generative companies.’
Cinven is a leading buyout firm, who bought 25 private hospitals from Bupa. Other UK investments include. Spire Healthcare, who run private healthcare hospitals, and whose clinical director Jean-Jacques de Gorter said the use of private sector would spiral as a result of Andrew Lansley’s reform proposals. General healthcare group, which runs healthcare services, and whose group includes: BMI healthcare. The other company is Générale de Santé who are France’s leading healthcare provider.
Patricia Hewitt (see below) was an advisor to Cinven.”
http://socialinvestigations.blogspot.de/2014/03/compilation-of-parliamentary-
#4 by Iain Menzies on September 18, 2014 - 8:11 pm
Three points:
1) This is somewhat brave considering people are still voting…This post could look wrong very quickly!
2) Holyrood doesn’t get the level of coverage that Westminster gets. Although I wouldn’t go so far as some do, there is a case to be made that we have a rather weak media in Scotland that doesn’t pay as much attention as it perhaps should. I suspect very much if it did then the people that make up Holyrood, and by extension Holyrood, would not be as well thought of. If indeed they are well thought of.
3)I think you asked the wrong question. Just because I may trust A more than B does not mean that I don’t trust B.
#5 by James on September 19, 2014 - 7:57 pm
I wasn’t saying we’d win. Just that, without a campaign of spin and fear there was such a majority out there.
#6 by Bill Chapman on September 20, 2014 - 8:38 am
I hope you’ll welcome the view of an outsider, even if you disagree. It was the footwork that won it. On polling day the “No” team went up and down streets talking to people, listening to their concerns, while the “Yes” side gathered in public squares waving flags and shouting slogans. My Welsh friend accompanied his Scottish neighbours to knock on doors in Glasgow. While he was talking quietly to residents, the Yes side had a noisy loudspeaker van blaring out inaudible slogans.
I don’t like unnecessary flag-wearing and flag-waving, whether that’s the union jack or the saltire. The Yes side, in my view, did too much waving of the saltire and not enough listening. There, I’ve said it.