Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Parties

Johann’s Lament

Dec 17

Posted by Dom in Education, Equality, Ideology, Parties | 7 Comments

 

gray

I thought the BBC News website was playing up again when ‘Johann Lamont raises questions over free tuition policy’ popped up. Surely she hadn’t decided to go further down the road taken at the infamous ‘something for nothing’ speech?
At the centre of Lamont’s critique of current education policy is something fairly irrefutable. Despite there being no tuition fees for Scots students there is still a frightening disparity in the number of rich and poor children attending university. This is simply not good enough, and with one eye on academia I must say that universities are shooting themselves in the foot by not tapping the underdeveloped potential of some children from poorer backgrounds.  I’ve seen it both as a student and latterly as a course tutor.

But Johann’s critique, instead of asking what is desirable in society and asking what the best way to get there would be, simply looks at all the bits of the train set and makes a decision on how best to put the track together. It illustrates well the managerialism which has crept into politics and the lack of real vision which has accompanied it. The ‘long term solutions’ envisaged by Lamont only reinforce the status quo which has caused so many problems. There is an implicit acceptance in the existence of rich and poor, and with it the idea that social inequality is to be tolerated so long as those at the bottom have the means to raise themselves to the sunny plains of the middle class.

This background-based approach to the provision of services also reinforces the very notion of patronage which I thought Johann’s party were supposed to dislike. By linking children to their parents we reduce them to assets. Should a mother receive less maternity pay because she has a rich husband who can keep her whilst she is off work? Removing universalism as a philosophical grounding to how we organise our society can only lead to social friction. It reduces our personal freedoms and traps us in systems of patronage which can only be broken via collective understanding of and consensus on universal rights.

If you charge for university based on the assumption that it will result in higher earnings, you reduce a degree to nothing more than a means of individual self-betterment in the narrowest and most soulless sense. If you charge because you feel that those from wealthier backgrounds should pay, why not just levy a higher rate of income tax as a general principle?

Universalism is vital to a society because it is a concrete sign of the fact that all of us, wherever we may be from, have the same basic rights and opportunities. Furthermore, to try and remove universalism from higher education is an attack on the right of all people to develop what makes us people, our minds. If Johann wants to see an end to the something for nothing culture, why not reduce subsidy for railways used predominantly by middle class commuters, or airports used by people from privileged backgrounds as they jet off on holiday?

There is an argument to be had about the appropriate subjects for a university to be teaching, and whether or not some disciplines would be better taught in a non-university environment, but universities are built on the notion of universalism – of teaching all subjects and all students equally.

A university can take no blame for what happens before students reach its gates. It can try to discern more carefully between students with an expensive education and students with a keen mind, something many are not currently very good at, but the inequalities which are inherent in society from a child’s formative years cannot be laid at the door of the university. It is a responsible government which will work to eradicate poverty which will change the kind of student entering Scotland’s numerous and generally good universities.

The narrative presented by Johann Lamont in her education vision is one of hardworking individuals working their way out of poverty. This is in some sense admirable, but it is also inherently antagonistic toward those who currently enjoy publicly funded education. It is a strange corruption of class politics which assumes both the continued existence of poverty and buys into an old fashioned concept of social climbing, rather than an aspirational vision of what an egalitarian society can look like.

This is not to say that the SNP are any better in their educational/social/economic policy (and these things are inseparable). Neither do I buy into the SNP spiel about having a social democratic vision for Scotland. Social democrats don’t freeze local tax and refuse to use the income-tax powers given to them, nor do they spend increasingly large amounts on private transport and refuse to embrace truly social urban policies. The worrying thing is that, in a country where we have two parties who call themselves social democrats, neither seem to really understand what the term means. We need to have Johann’s honest conversation, but the outcome should be a recognition of the need for greater collective resources, not the abandonment of the principle that all of us are of equal worth.

Do the Liberal Democrats have a political future?

Dec 3

Posted by Andrew Page in Parties | 19 Comments

Better Nation proudly announces a new Editor this morning with Andrew Page joining our ranks. Andrew is a history graduate, advocate for LGBT equality, Albion Rovers supporter and a Liberal Democrat so (as he admits himself) well accustomed to being identified with minority causes. Andrew contested Renfrewshire North and West for the his party in 2011 and also blogs at A Scottish Liberal.

This question has inevitably been asked following the party’s poor performance in last week’s by-elections – most notably in Rotherham where the Liberal Democrats finished in eighth place with two per cent of the vote.

What results from Middlesbrough, Croydon North and Rotherham actually tell us about the Liberal Democrats is minimal.  These are constituencies where Liberal Democrats never did well, even in the supposedly good times.  Middlesbrough (and its predecessor constituency Middlesbrough East) has not returned a non-Labour MP since 1931.  The same is true of Rotherham.   Croydon has been Labour held since 1992.  That Labour won comfortably should not be remotely surprising.

That hasn’t stopped many in the media predicting the imminent death of the Liberal Democrats.  The Daily Telegraph has claimed Rotherham to be the worst ever result for a major political party, clearly forgetting Inverclyde – a constituency in which we had controlled the council until 2007.  Nigel Farage has joined them, making the grandiose claim that UKIP are now the “third force” of British politics, himself conveniently forgetting the various nationalist parties or Respect, the one-man party that has been able to do on multiple occasions what UKIP never have: win a parliamentary seat.

It has been quite astonishing to see how the media have bought into UKIP’s spin.  What these by-elections have shown is that UKIP is never likely to become any kind of force in domestic politics, third or otherwise.  They are not the SDP.  Rotherham was certainly a by-election they could and should have won.  The former MP stepped down in disgrace, his reputation and that of his local party in tatters.  This, combined with the child adoption scandal and virtually anonymous and poorly-resourced local Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, gave UKIP a real chance of making a breakthrough.   

The Independent claimed that UKIP was now “within touching distance of mainstream politics” on the basis of securing 22 per cent of the vote in a single constituency.  George Galloway must be positively an establishment figure by that logic.  If the result says much at all, it is that voters in Rotherham prefer authoritarian parties.

Of course, the result was spectacularly poor from a Liberal Democrat perspective.  But what it doesn’t actually do is tell us anything we didn’t know previously.  Clearly we are no longer the beneficiaries of public anger towards the establishment, as we are now very much part of it.  The identity as a “none of the above” party, which to an extent the Liberal Democrats were responsible for cultivating, has been consigned to history – protest votes now going to various parties perceived as best placed to overthrow the incumbent party.  Certainly that role we sought for ourselves has now been usurped.  But these by-election results do not reveal this to us, they merely underline an already obvious reality.

The media are right about one thing, and that is that the Liberal Democrats are in mortal danger.  The Scottish parliamentary elections and the local elections across the UK have demonstrated a pattern, which shows little sign of being reversed.  Not only is the party suffering electorally, it has been struggling for cultural and political relevance particularly in Scotland.  A growing insecurity is becoming evident in the public words of some of our key parliamentarians. 

John Curtice has estimated that, in 2015, the Liberal Democrats will be reduced to 15 MPs.  Using data from all elections since 2010, I calculated a figure of 23 – i.e. 1992 levels.  In constituencies where we are the Conservatives’ closest rivals, or they are ours, we look set to do well.  That may not appear too disastrous until we consider the implications for the Liberal Democrats in Scotland: both Professor Curtice and myself have a single Scottish Lib Dem MP surviving the potential massacre – Alistair Carmichael.

The reasons we find ourselves in this position are numerous, and more complex than mere association with the Westminster coalition – although that certainly has contributed to the scale of the problem.  Inflexible and outdated campaigning methods, financial difficulties, a lack of distinctiveness on policy matters and leadership that struggled to resonate with the public all contributed to some degree to the disastrous Holyrood election results.  The SNP’s slick, professional and ruthlessly effective campaign further highlighted our deficiencies.  Since then, there has been little evidence– in spite of positive rhetoric and a few good performances from Willie Rennie in FMQs – that we are capable of turning this around.

Part of our problem in Scotland is inevitably the coalition and therefore in looking to the future we must look beyond 2015.  Whatever realpolitik demanded of Nick Clegg following the indecisive 2010 General Election, it was obvious that there would be significant ramifications for Liberal Democrats in Scotland – where any relationship with the Conservatives would inevitably be construed as treachery.  How long this perception will endure is uncertain, but it is not necessarily irreversible.  Accepting that a significant setback is likely in 2015 and building for the years beyond is far from the worst approach the party in Scotland could take.  It would certainly be preferable to the fierce defensiveness we’ve seen to date.

The best way for the Liberal Democrats to ensure they have a future is by demonstrating the need for a strong liberal party at the heart of politics.  In the last few weeks, issues such as secret courts and media freedom and shown how vital it is that liberal voices make themselves heard.  I, for one, have been impressed by Nick Clegg on these matters.  Of course, what impresses me as a party activist does not necessarily have similar effects on the public but championing an active, vibrant liberalism, especially in relation to issues of public liberty, is likely to be far more effective in recreating our social relevance than endless defence of participation in government.

Part of our problem is that only around eleven per cent of people identify themselves as liberal.  In a sense we have electorally overperformed for decades, persuading many to vote for us in spite of – rather than because of – our liberal credentials.  Populist positions on such things as the Iraq War and Higher Education funding have in the past helped to take our appeal beyond the philosophically liberal but we cannot rely on such issues in the future.  But the truth is that people identified less with our policies than they did with our character.  We were the nice guys of politics.  We cared.  We could be a bit of a gadfly party at times, but that was part of the appeal.  Moreover, we could be trusted. So, while proving ourselves to be the authentic voice of liberal democracy is necessary we also have to find new ways of reaching out to those who at one time would have willingly supported us.  We have to speak their language, invest in the issues that concern them and show we’re listening.  We have to find ways to show we can still be trusted.  As Boris Johnson has done so successfully, we must also learn how to convince people that we actually like them.  It’s quite simple, but if we don’t like them why should they like us?

What we must avoid is becoming inward looking, focusing on our own pet projects such as PR, Lords Reform or federalism.  Naturally, I believe in all of those but recognise two things: they are all virtually unachievable and very few voters are enthused by them.  While Liberal Democrats are wildly excited by the federalist ambitions of the Home Rule Commission, neither the public nor the media are particularly interested and the former seem not to understand our position at all – something not made clearer by identification with Better Together.  And of course the “debate” on federalism and Home Rule was an internal one, relating to but never engaging with Scottish voters. 

The Liberal Democrats’ problems are legion, but that does not mean the party has no future.  Much depends on Willie Rennie, and on the degree to which he can set his own agenda.  He will realise that if he can personally regain the trust of Scottish voters, so too will his party.  He will need no reminder of the importance of asserting our liberal credentials at every opportunity, but perhaps struggles to see new opportunities to reach out.  That sounds like a criticism, but isn’t – it’s the inevitable consequence of a tired campaigning mechanism and inheriting a party banished to the periphery of Scottish politics. 

We have to create a new identity for ourselves.  That of “a party of government” is woefully inadequate given that continuing in government is not only not guaranteed but looking increasingly unlikely and that, here in Scotland, we’ve been relegated to the ranks of minor opposition.  But similarly we cannot return to our former identity as a repository for protest votes or as a home for those with a dislike of the political establishment.  We must ditch that and change our language and campaigning strategy accordingly.  We must create a new identity while retaining our core purpose of facilitating a liberal society.

The Liberal Democrats have to demonstrate that the party is relevant.  A few poor by-election results will then be insignificant.  We need those distinctive, honest and trusted voices to again make themselves heard.  We must re-engage and rebuild the grassroots of our party if we are to have any future at all. We have to dare to be different.  We must again be that gadfly party.

How UKIP are on course to help out the Greens…

Nov 29

Posted by Jeff in Europe, Parties | 4 Comments

Assuming the Conservatives were to fall short of an outright majority at the next election, which smaller party would they rather form a Government with, the Lib Dems or UKIP?

It’s an interesting question, possibly rendered redundant if one stops to consider whether the still-shell-shocked Lib Dems can afford to be shackled to the Tory party for another half-decade up to 2020. My answer to that is, probably not. They’ll do well to even be shackled to Nick Clegg for that long.

So Tory MP Michael Fabricant’s idea of some sort of electoral non-aggression pact with UKIP, whereby Nigel Farage’s party don’t stand against the Tories in key seats in return for a EU referendum, is not a totally bonkers one. That’s right, it’s only a little bit bonkers.

A smarter suggestion, or something that Farage might insist on perhaps, could be that UKIP do not stand in a wide expanse of nominal Tory seats and the Tories, in return, would not stand in Labour or Lib Dem nominal seats, allowing right of centre voters to coalesce around one candidate up and down the land. Except Scotland where barely anyone votes for either party anyway. Especially that loopy anti-EU mob, or UKIP for that matter.

Now, Cameron couldn’t be seen to be in favour of such a blatant democratic rip-off but he might arranage a small team to crunch the numbers and see if it’s worth doing anyway. After all, he must be mightily fed up with the Lib Dems by now, rightly or wrongly, quite rightly, and after all, if you can’t beat them join them. Or, in this case, if you can’t win with them by your side, send them somewhere else.

So, glossing over the inconvenient fact that this won’t actually happen, let’s consider how this might work in practice?

Well, Nigel Farage has a grand total of zero MPs within his party. You could say the only way is u(ki)p. He would surely be grateful to get a toe in the Westminster door any way he can, even if it’s challenging the Green party for 3rd spot in Labour and Lib Dem constituencies. Nigel can fight them on the beaches, but in Brighton rather than Bognor thank you very much.

Nigel’s chances wouldn’t be altogether terrible, and h is party desperately needs a similar impetus to that which the Green party gained when Caroline Lucas won their first Westminster seat. And jings, what an opportunity. This coming election may yet be something of a referendum on Europe, a dry run for the actual referendum itself. There’s no reason why 70-100 red constituencies across England might not vote against Europe rather than for Labour this time around. Bradford were so desperate for a change they voted in George Galloway for goodness sake.

Not that I’m saying UKIP can win 100 cosntituencies, or 70 for that matter, but 9 is a good number. It’s almost 10 better than last time, and would be infinitely superior to their current crop. Even winning 1 MP might be worth some sort of a deal for UKIP, particuolarly if it comes with an assurance that an EU referendum will take place. Is UKIP a party that’s in British politics for the long haul or just with the sole purpose of getting the UK out of the EU? The Tories putting a deal on the table would answer that once and for all.

Do UKIP have a chance in Labour/Lib Dem terrain? Well, a look at the European results suggests that they do.

Labour won 32 of the 53 seats in Yorkshire and Humberside in 2010 (the Lib Dems took a further 3) but UKIP took 17.4% of the European vote to Labour’s 18.8% the year before in 2009.

Similarly, Labour won 15 of the 46 seats in East Midlands in 2010 but only shaded UKIP 16.9% to 16.4% in the 2009 European elections (UKIP received 3.3% of the vote in the General Election, the Tories 30.2%).

It is easy to forget that UKIP came second in the 2009 European elections in the UK. Yes, I do mean second overall, the same number of MEPs as Labour but with a higher popular voteshare. This is with the added handicap of winning only 5% of the vote in Scotland to Labour’s 21%, and the further handicap of not having any well known personalities to work with beyond Farage (a trip to Strasbourg for anyone who can name the leader of UKIP at the 2010 General Election; travel, food & accommodation not included).

Let’s indulge ourselves further by letting ourselves get even further ahead of ourselves than is probably healthy. (Even Michael Fabricant would be shaking his head disdainfully at this post by now….)

Any emergence, by hook or by crook, of UKIP as a consistent ‘second-tier’ political party behind Labour and the Tories, and alongisde the Lib Dems and (humour me) the Greens, could be the beginning of a realignment of UK politics that is long overdue. If it is commonly understood that any future general election contest is between Conservatives/UKIP and Labour/Lib Dems/Greens(/SNP/Plaid Cymru), then voters can be more free to vote in their constituencies for the smaller parties without fear that voting left will allow the right wing in, or vice versa. This is commonplace in other European countries with populations far smaller than ours but with ballot slips considerably richer in options.

We are of course still saddled with First Past the Post which is a particular hindrance for those of us wishing to move away from two-party politics, but progress can still be made despite this and from the unlikeliest of circumstances.

In a way, you get two votes:

If you’re right of centre, you get to vote for a right of centre Government and also vote for whether you want it to be anti-EU (UKIP) or moderately pro-EU (Tories, for now at least).

If you’re left of centre, you get to vote for a left of centre Government (again, humour me) and also vote for whether it will be trades uniony (Labour), closer to whatever the Lib Dem policies happen to be that day (Lib Dem), green (Green) or Nationalist in flavour (SNP/Plaid, ‘… but Jeff, I thought we were all Nationalists‘. ‘Shoosht’).

I rather gnomically alluded to a ‘Green-UKIP’ alliance in the title there but it’s not too much of a stretch to see that the rise of Farage’s anti-EU, pro-business, climate change denying, right wing party can indirectly assist Natalie Bennett‘s pro-EU, progressive, climate change fighting, left-wing party.

It’s a funny old world and it’s a deal that Nigel Farage would be made not to take, so it’s probably not going to happen.

And what’s all this got to do with Scotland you ask? Well, nothing really…

Porridge to Catalonia

Nov 28

Posted by James in Constitution, Elections, Europe, International, Parties | 9 Comments

The Catalan election at the weekend has attracted a lot of interest here, and comparisons are being drawn left, right and centre. Peter Jones in the Scotsman finds it rather baffling that the centre-right independence party of Artur Mas lost vote share while independence-supporting parties overall boosted their position.

Jones suggests two main reasons for this apparently odd result, the first being the austerity imposed by Mas’s administration before the election, and the second being some kind of cultural argument that he either didn’t flesh out or I simply don’t understand. The idea that one of the reactions to austerity is a shift left makes sense, though.

And it’s true, the three other parties in the Catalan Parliament who now support some form of independence are all more radical than Mas: the Republican Left, narrowly now the largest opposition party with 21 seats; the ICV (the Greens’ sister party there, with a strong ecosocialist side) who went up to 13 seats, plus the Popular Unity Candidates, who won 3 seats.

By coincidence, the Radical Independence Convention met in Glasgow as Catalans voted. I couldn’t make it, unfortunately, but if you read the press, it sounded rather depressing. If you followed it on Twitter, however, it was buzzing with ideas and collaborations and points of contact, all united by two common themes. First, support for independence. Second, a desire for that independent Scotland not be a kind of timid low-tax tartan-austerity Westminster-remade-in-Edinburgh.

Instead, delegates wanted various more radical versions of independence, typically ones where control over the details of the constitution is vested in the people, where there’s room to build support for a Scottish republic with its own currency, a Scotland outside NATO, not beholden to the banks and the speculators, more equal, so on and so forth. It’s a desire which extends into the SNP too, despite the cautious approach the leadership seems determined to take, as illustrated not least by the close vote on NATO.

Again, by coincidence, the Scottish Greens picked their top candidate for the 2014 Euro election this weekend, choosing Edinburgh councillor Maggie Chapman from the party’s left. First elected in 2007, Maggie will be the Greens’ most experienced top candidate ever.

These three events look intertwined to me. The June 2014 Euro-election will come just four months before the independence referendum itself, and it would be a serious mistake to think the media won’t regard the it almost exclusively as a prelim for the October vote. Given that likely media narrative, let’s accept it, and confidently treat that vote as a test of views on the constitution.

If you want a more radical version of independence in October and after, voting Green will be the only plausible way to indicate that (apologies to friends in the SSP). If you want an independence referendum that isn’t just tied to the SNP’s agenda, either because you think that can’t win or because you’d prefer an open constitutional process, electing a Green MEP will be the only credible way to try and achieve it.

What’s more, to get a third SNP MEP elected in place of the Lib Dems takes three times as many votes on average, given the specific electoral system. In real life that varies quite widely. To take 2009 specifically, it would have taken 47,000 more Green votes nationwide to take that final place, but more than 60,000 extra SNP votes would have been needed to see the Nats get a third.

The risk of failure is substantial, too. Two pro-independence MEPs out of six, as now, and both from the same party: it’s quite a plausible outcome, and it would be seen as a massive dent in the Yes Scotland campaign. Electing Scotland’s first Green MEP, especially in a climate where this vote is seen as Scots giving their view on the constitution: that’d be a major prize for Yes.

Just as in Catalonia, that way the main party of independence might make no progress, but the cause of independence itself can be advanced and diversified at the same time. It’ll mean the Greens making an explicit pitch for the Radical Independence Convention vote in the runup to that June, and I hope that’s how the party chooses to take it. Cllr Chapman’s well placed to lead that argument.

Who stands up for Scotland?

Nov 12

Posted by Jeff in Parties | 26 Comments

Forgive the rather Cybernat headline, but I am taking my lead from a source as independent as YouGov.

Between Oct 10 and Oct 12 the polling company conducted a survey of ~1,000 Scots and asked, amongst other questions, the following:

Which ONE of the following people do you think would be best at standing up for Scotland’s interests?
Alex Salmond 43
Johann Lamont 6
Ruth Davidson 5
Willie Rennie 2
None of these 24
Don’t know 21

I find the above result really quite incredible and there are many talking points to be extracted from this one single question alone.

Alex Salmond
There’s no good reason why the above poll results shouldn’t follow the voter intention party breakdown. But there it is, the First Minister is greater than 700% more preferable as Scotland’s political guardian than his nearest challenger and 300% more preferable than the three nearest combined.

There were no Holyrood or Westminster polling results attached to this poll that I could see but 43% isn’t far off the 44%(constituency)/45%(list) who voted SNP at the last election which suggests a reassuring pat-on-the-back for the First Minister from the people who put him there.

It is interesting to note that Salmond is seemingly not adding to his 2011 support base which, given the derisory results for other leaders, is in a way somewhat disappointing and evidence that he really is a love him /loathe him politician. 43% is, of course, well short of 50% and I probably don’t need to explain why that may be a problem.

Others
Many derided Iain Gray for his lack of profile amongst the Scottish public in the last parliamentary term and one could be tempted to do the same here given Johann’s low figures above. I’m not going to do that but the question of why there is such a disintegration of respect for each of the unionist party leaders from their own would-be voters really does beg to be scrutinised.

The main conclusion that one comes to is that the public believes that Scotland is not currently devolved enough. That doesn’t mean that everyone is suddenly pro-independence, or will be in the future, but the public are watching and listening to the arguments that each party leader is making and, while many still clearly haven’t made their minds up as to what future they wish to see for Scotland, many more are finding the unionist leaders wanting.

There has been a meek unwillingness from each of these three leaders to push their individual party’s visions forwards. Johann Lamont personally announced a Commission on further powers but it is barely off the ground and won’t report its conclusions until after the referendum, Ruth Davidson has fallen into line behind David Cameron’s woolly ‘jam tomorrow’ promise of some sort of constitutional change after the referendum (if they still feel like it come then) and Willie Rennie has bizarrely ceded any Devo Max or federal initiative to Ming Campbell despite this quite possibly being the orange bullet that would salvage the Lib Dem’s reputation in Scotland, and Willie Rennie’s.

The Lib Dem leader occasionally states that a federal UK has been his party’s policy for over 100 years, but what have the Lib Dems actually done to advance that policy since the Scottish Parliament was up and running? Not much that I can remember and the party activists will only accept such atavism for so long.

It is particularly strange that all three unionist parties each have constitutional outlooks that are in theory closer to where the Scottish public seems to be right now but none of them can find a way to seize the agenda, elucidate their preferences and make a breakthrough in this area. If they did, and the ball is very much in their court with Yes Scotland visibly flummoxed, then they’d be a lot higher up the charts in poll questions like the one above.

Power wins prizes
To give the unionist party leaders their due, they haven’t had the opportunity to stand up for Scotland as none of them have held a position of significant power. How can they showcase to what extent they would defend the nation’s interests if their job is to hold a Nationalist Government to account?

Well, for me, this is still pretty weak as any of them could, at least in theory, defend Scotland’s interests from the opposition benches just as well as one can from within the Cabinet. Consequently, specifically for Johann Lamont, this poll is a warning that opposition to the SNP, on areas such as universal provision, council tax freezes and tuition fees, are simply not finding their mark within the public. Similar warnings apply to Ruth Davidson and Willie Rennie on, for example, contributors to the Scottish economy and cashing in on Scottish Water.

Scottish Green Party
They really aren’t getting a look in are they? The Lib Dems must be thanking their lucky stars that they still get included in these types of questions, and called upon so regularly at FMQs, when they have a mere taxi cab of individuals at the Scottish Parliament against the Greens’ tandem bike of representation. (suggested photo op for Alison and Patrick there…)

I’m not saying that Patrick Harvie would have rocketed to near the top of this chart had he been included but the Greens at least have something different and relatively radical to add to political debate in Scotland, from proposing revenue raising measures to Land Value Tax, and plenty more besides. They also took a lead in ‘standing up for Scotland’ through being the primary opposition to Donald Trump’s golf resort so they deserve being placed inside the public’s collective mind as a political option. After all, how would a Green voter answer the above question? Presumably acting the idiot with ‘None of these’ (see below).

I don’t know how the Greens are going to push their way into getting the recognition they deserve, but polls like these with an arbitrary limit of party options don’t help.

People are idiots
I’m sorry, that may be a bit harsh, but they are. The question asks “which one” of the party leaders is best placed to stand up to Scotland. The idiotic answer, “None of these”, which 24% of respondents went for, isn’t even an answer and YouGov should really remove it as an option. “Don’t know” is more understandable, if still nonetheless a moronic (moronic being officially preferable to idiotic) option for those that claim to have no clue who is leading them politically and how.

It is despairing that so few people are interested in what happens at Holyrood. That 45% of people are basically saying ‘don’t know’, ‘don’t care’, ‘they’re all a bunch of numpties’, ‘can I go now please?’ just disappoints me so very deeply.

Politics is about going for the least worst option, picking the cleanest dirty shirt, and the longer people mump and moan waiting for things to be perfect then the worse off we all are. (No offence James). It is a two way street though and our political leaders need to strive to inspire as best they can. Salmond is doing his bit and the quickest way for Johann, Ruth and Willie to boost their numbers by taking votes away from ‘None’, ‘Don’t Know’ and even the ‘Alex Salmond’ votes is to do as follows:

(JL) – resist opposition for opposition’s sake and join the SNP in standing up to the UK coalition where genuine cross-party agreement exists on behalf of Scotland, be it Trident, minimum pricing, council tax freezes, UK cuts (their not SNP cuts when it’s a block grant, let’s get serious), tuition fees or free care for the elderly. We’re stronger together and weaker apart, apparently. Also, arrive at a party decision on what type of Scotland you want to live in and don’t look back.

(RD) – use accurate arithmetic and clear figures to outline why Scotland would benefit from less Government rather than more. Explain and defend Osborne’s decisions in a Scottish context or loudly argue against them. Silence is not an option there.

(WL) – go for it wholeheartedly on extending devolution beyond the status quo, putting into words this apparently long held belief that the UK should be federal. In the absence of any other policy options given the Clegg-Cameron coalition mauling received in 2011, this should be an easy decision to make.

(PH) – keep pounding the SNP on their light green policies and lip-service to climate change despite policies towards oil, cars and roads. Also, keep the radical edge of being anti-Nato and for a Scottish pound under independence.

Some may wonder aloud how any party leader can outdo Salmond when it comes to standing up for Scotland but when it is a person’s job to do so, my sympathy for that plight diminishes as sharply as the polling gradient above. I genuinely hope for better from Lamont, Davidson and Rennie, but, whether they are successful or not, don’t forget Harvie.

And what else was in the poll? Nothing to get excited about, only that Yes Scotland would be ahead by 9% if they successfully persuaded Scots that they’d be economically better off to go it alone…