Monday, 09 July 2012 19:54
60 Comments
By G.A.Ponsonby 
People living in Scotland have given their clearest indication yet that they are in favour of major constitutional change.
With the referendum campaigns of both pro and anti-independence camps now having been launched, a poll published today shows support for major change running at 60 per cent with less than 30 per cent now in favour of the status quo.
The survey, carried out by TNS BMRB showed support for independence has fallen 3 points in six months, going from 26% to 23%. However it also showed a similar fall for those supporting no change, dropping from 32% to 29%.
According to the survey, the most popular option amongst the electorate is the so called Devo-Max (DM), option which calls for all powers, with the exception of foreign affairs and defence, to be transferred from Westminster to Edinburgh.
With 37% saying they would opt for DM on the ballot paper and 23% desiring full independence, the mood amongst Scots is now one of a significant transfer of powers.
Commenting on the TNS BMRB poll, SNP Campaigns Director Angus Robertson MP said:
"A clear majority of people across Scotland are rejecting the constitutional status quo on offer from the No campaign and choosing a positive change and progress for their country.
"The more people look at the kind of country they want Scotland to be the more they realise the status quo is holding Scotland back. People across Civic Scotland are considering the powers that Scotland needs to have a successful economy and fair society.
"As an independent country we will have the economic levers to create new jobs and the responsibility for welfare to protect the vulnerable – increasing opportunities for our young people to realise their career ambitions. It is only with independence that we can see Trident removed from our shores and the people of Scotland take all the decisions on their future.
"This poll puts further pressure on the anti-independence parties who are offering nothing to Scotland. It follows calls from Labour’s biggest union backers Unite for a more powers option, which is also backed by much of civic Scotland as well as Tory Donor John McGlynn and leading businessmen Sir Tom Farmer and Jim McColl. This simply reinforces the case that the referendum must be made in Scotland, without any Westminster strings attached.
"We have the opportunity to make our nation a better place to live, for this and future generations, and are very confident we can win the Yes case for an independent Scotland in 2014.”
Commenting on behalf of TNS BMRB, Chris Enyon said that earlier polls showing higher support for independence was due to the competence of the SNP Government. The polling company head insisted that the apparent fall in support was because the "level of debate" has become "intensified" since May 2011 and that "this has served to focus minds on the realities and implications to a greater extent, resulting in a significant weakening of support and reassertion of opposition to Scotland becoming an independent state."
However, whilst saying the No camp would be "enthused" by the poll, he urged caution and added: "Around 1 in 4 of those currently supporting independence and almost 40% of those undecided on the ‘yes/no’ scenario would switch to the ‘devo-max’ option of increased powers within the United Kingdom if this were offered. In the event that it is not offered, whether this latter group decide to vote for or against [independence] will have a considerable bearing on the outcome."
The poll contained a boost for the No campaign with figures giving the status quo a 20 point lead over independence when no second option was offered, 50% opting to remain in the Union against 30% opting for independence.
However with the Scottish Government consultation on the referendum, which included views on a multi-option ballot, yet to reach a conclusion, the overwhelming support for more powers leaves Unionists with a major quandary should the consultation lead to an inclusion of Devo-Max.
Thus far all Unionist parties are against offering the Scottish electorate any option of enhanced powers on the ballot paper, and have indicated they may offer something more only if Scots return a No vote in the referendum. At least one leading Unionist commentator, former Labour councillor and Lord Provost of Glasgow Michael Kelly, has already called for a boycott of the referendum if more powers are included.
The Scottish Government has stated it will wait to find out the results of its consultation before making a decision on the number of questions on the ballot paper.
The Scottish Green’s stance at the moment is supportive of a Devo-Max type option, but today Patrick Harvie MSP suggested that this stance will be debated at his party’s conference later this year.
Former SNP MP, Margo MacDonald has expressed her opposition to a second question instead arguing for a straight yes or no to independence on the ballot paper.
Comments
#
2012-07-09 21:10
Independence is the only way Devo; plus; max; jam-tomorrow can be delivered.
It is why unionists don't want it there..... The "devil" is in the question.
The "devil" is in the unionist MSM spin. Think of it as karma. Unionists make the best Scottish nationalists.
It is why unionists don't want it there..... The "devil" is in the question.
The "devil" is in the unionist MSM spin. Think of it as karma. Unionists make the best Scottish nationalists.
#
2012-07-09 21:55
The status-quo-ist power machine is the MSM and the BBC, denude the power delivered from these sources by circulating the full facts of the NO campaign and the full facts of the YES campaign to every household in Scotland and let the people be informed enough to decide for Scotland's future.
Many pro-independence commentators and bloggers are urging the SNP to bring forward much more detail on future Scottish finance and defence to shoot down the innuendo and lies of the NO camp. This has to be a priority issue.
Spike the guns of the warmongers. Disown the casino banks. Return democracy to the Scottish people. Take a firm grip on the disastrous Education and NHS PFI scams and name and shame the Councils and their Chairmen who signed up to them.
Get the gloves off and put the proverbial boot in where it should go!
The poll figures must be seen for what they are and even the hint of rejection of the YES vote must put shivers up and down every thinking Scottish spine.
Many pro-independence commentators and bloggers are urging the SNP to bring forward much more detail on future Scottish finance and defence to shoot down the innuendo and lies of the NO camp. This has to be a priority issue.
Spike the guns of the warmongers. Disown the casino banks. Return democracy to the Scottish people. Take a firm grip on the disastrous Education and NHS PFI scams and name and shame the Councils and their Chairmen who signed up to them.
Get the gloves off and put the proverbial boot in where it should go!
The poll figures must be seen for what they are and even the hint of rejection of the YES vote must put shivers up and down every thinking Scottish spine.
#
2012-07-09 22:01
The Westminster unionist establishment campaign strategy is to attack and undermine the self confidence of Scots voters.
So far they appear to be succeeding in doing so if only 23% now support independence and 37% would rather vote for devo-max instead.
On the face of it the YES campaign have an enormous challenge to surmount if they are to turn enough of that 37% around to vote for full independence if the devo-max option is also included on the ballot paper.
However the reality is that the unionists have backed themselves into a corner for when faced with the simple choice of independence vs status quo, I am quite certain that the great majority of these 37% of Scots voters would opt for independence rather than for the status quo.
So far they appear to be succeeding in doing so if only 23% now support independence and 37% would rather vote for devo-max instead.
On the face of it the YES campaign have an enormous challenge to surmount if they are to turn enough of that 37% around to vote for full independence if the devo-max option is also included on the ballot paper.
However the reality is that the unionists have backed themselves into a corner for when faced with the simple choice of independence vs status quo, I am quite certain that the great majority of these 37% of Scots voters would opt for independence rather than for the status quo.
#
2012-07-09 22:23
" I have not yet begun to fight " said John Paul Jones, a Scot and father of the American Navy.
In our history we see the will to fight, for our future we have that right, for Scotland.
Take a stand against the unionist and media lies put forth about our country, and put it down with the truth.
Show them "we have not yet begun to fight"
In our history we see the will to fight, for our future we have that right, for Scotland.
Take a stand against the unionist and media lies put forth about our country, and put it down with the truth.
Show them "we have not yet begun to fight"
#
2012-07-09 23:01
I've long been convinced that the SNP and YES Campain's strategy is to keep everyone talking about Devo-Max for as long as possibility. Then when it comes to the final choice between the status quo or Independence, most of those that wanted Devo-Max will choose Independence.
#
2012-07-09 23:07
The architect of the German political state (Bismarck)said "Politics is the art of the possible."
In a democratic society, that means creating the structures that the people want.
Politicians should argue for the positions that they want, but then create the opportunity for the people to choose what they want.
Independence would be great. Devo Max fairly good. Devo Plus - a bit better than what we have.
I remain an unashamed gradualist. Without a devolved Parliament in place, we wouldn't have the present level of demand for, at least, the Crown Dependency status of the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands.
If we have to wait a wee bit longer to get rid of WMD on the Clyde and no involvement in UK foreign wars (though it may no longer have that capability) then I'll live with that because my children and grandchildren will definitely live in an independent Scotland.
In a democratic society, that means creating the structures that the people want.
Politicians should argue for the positions that they want, but then create the opportunity for the people to choose what they want.
Independence would be great. Devo Max fairly good. Devo Plus - a bit better than what we have.
I remain an unashamed gradualist. Without a devolved Parliament in place, we wouldn't have the present level of demand for, at least, the Crown Dependency status of the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands.
If we have to wait a wee bit longer to get rid of WMD on the Clyde and no involvement in UK foreign wars (though it may no longer have that capability) then I'll live with that because my children and grandchildren will definitely live in an independent Scotland.
#
2012-07-10 07:57
Quote:
So am I. I want a better Scotland and consider the most practical way is for us to have increasing control of our own affairs.
I remain an unashamed gradualist.
So am I. I want a better Scotland and consider the most practical way is for us to have increasing control of our own affairs.
#
2012-07-09 23:09
Both sides of the campaign are trying to perpetrate a CON on the Scottish people.
Transferring power from one parliament to another is not what is required to convince Scots to authorize “Secession”
“The debate on a written constitution” is on the right track to independence.
This debate was about creating a new state called Scotland.
The YES vote depends on more of the undecided being convinced that we are creating a much superior brand of democracy. In my opinion a constitutional democracy is such a brand.
The “snake oil salesman approach” (political parties) vote for us and we will fix everything convinces no one.
As we are presently in the “consultation mode” of the referendum, it seems to me that a Constitutional Convention under the auspices of a select committee of the Scottish Parliament should set up.
Taking evidence from, bodies such as, the Constitutional Commission, civic Scotland and all other interested parties.
The convention should meet in public.
Transferring power from one parliament to another is not what is required to convince Scots to authorize “Secession”
“The debate on a written constitution” is on the right track to independence.
This debate was about creating a new state called Scotland.
The YES vote depends on more of the undecided being convinced that we are creating a much superior brand of democracy. In my opinion a constitutional democracy is such a brand.
The “snake oil salesman approach” (political parties) vote for us and we will fix everything convinces no one.
As we are presently in the “consultation mode” of the referendum, it seems to me that a Constitutional Convention under the auspices of a select committee of the Scottish Parliament should set up.
Taking evidence from, bodies such as, the Constitutional Commission, civic Scotland and all other interested parties.
The convention should meet in public.
#
2012-07-09 23:25
There is only one side selling snake-oil & it isn't the Yes campaign.
'YES' means exactly what it says. Independence & we make choices as the future unfolds.
'YES' means exactly what it says. Independence & we make choices as the future unfolds.
#
2012-07-10 08:31
Hi govanite,
Spot on.
If there ever is a third way in the referendum, it will be another thing the voters can thank the Scottish Government for because the FUD's are terrified at the very thought of it happening. Snake-oil doesn't come in a democratic flavour if that's what the people want.
Of course this is still all smoke and mirrors from the FUD's right now. You have to be daft to buy snake-oil,, but if that's all you have, well..........
Spot on.
If there ever is a third way in the referendum, it will be another thing the voters can thank the Scottish Government for because the FUD's are terrified at the very thought of it happening. Snake-oil doesn't come in a democratic flavour if that's what the people want.
Of course this is still all smoke and mirrors from the FUD's right now. You have to be daft to buy snake-oil,, but if that's all you have, well..........
#
2012-07-09 23:32
On the basis that (as far as I know) all the pro-independence parties support a written (more accurately, codified) constitution whereas (as far as I know) all the anti-independence parties want to keep the UK's uncodified constitution, I was content to leave the specifics of a Scottish constitution till after the referendum. (If we are stuck with the UK, there would be no proper constitution).
Having been at the Constitutional Commission seminar at Holyrood, I've shifted ground a bit - if only because of the suggestion that any constitution should be ours - and not just left up to trusting politicians.
What we don't need at the moment is agreement on whether Parliament should be bicameral or unicameral, whether the Head of State should be elected or genetic etc.
These are important questions, but should be decided through the political process after independence. Some will have one view, others will think differently. Let the people decide.
What is required is that all the supporters of the Yes campaign sign up to the immediate implementation of a codified constitution for Scotland which protects the citizen's inalienable rights, as opposed to the powers of Parliament or the Executive.
From the draft constitutions that I've seen, that shouldn't actually be too hard a task.
Having been at the Constitutional Commission seminar at Holyrood, I've shifted ground a bit - if only because of the suggestion that any constitution should be ours - and not just left up to trusting politicians.
What we don't need at the moment is agreement on whether Parliament should be bicameral or unicameral, whether the Head of State should be elected or genetic etc.
These are important questions, but should be decided through the political process after independence. Some will have one view, others will think differently. Let the people decide.
What is required is that all the supporters of the Yes campaign sign up to the immediate implementation of a codified constitution for Scotland which protects the citizen's inalienable rights, as opposed to the powers of Parliament or the Executive.
From the draft constitutions that I've seen, that shouldn't actually be too hard a task.
#
2012-07-09 23:29
Lets not forget what happened in May 2011.The Scots voted in an SNP government with a greatly increased majority because they were happy with its performance over the previous years.Because they had confidence.If they vote NO in the referendum it will be because they expect London to give them much greater powers.If those powers arent forthcoming they will vote in an SNP administration on the promise of another referendum.And they will vote YES.
We cannot fight and win the current battle in the media.Thats Londons ground.We must pick the ground where we can win.And thats outside the media.Its face to face.By word of mouth.Leaflets stuffed through letter boxes arent going to win the day.
Look at the NO campaign.Its bereft of all symbols of Britishness.They are scared to be too closely associated with what they stand for.That shows a huge paucity of argument.We can give good,compelling reasons for independence.Most Scots want to vote for it.But many just lack the confidence.They need all the questions answered.Over the next two and a bit years we will answer their questions.Face to face.One to one.And then they'll ask the Londonists what they've got to offer,though they already know the answer.As little as London thinks it can get away with.
We cannot fight and win the current battle in the media.Thats Londons ground.We must pick the ground where we can win.And thats outside the media.Its face to face.By word of mouth.Leaflets stuffed through letter boxes arent going to win the day.
Look at the NO campaign.Its bereft of all symbols of Britishness.They are scared to be too closely associated with what they stand for.That shows a huge paucity of argument.We can give good,compelling reasons for independence.Most Scots want to vote for it.But many just lack the confidence.They need all the questions answered.Over the next two and a bit years we will answer their questions.Face to face.One to one.And then they'll ask the Londonists what they've got to offer,though they already know the answer.As little as London thinks it can get away with.
#
2012-07-10 00:23
Let's kick this devo max stuff into touch. We have 2 years to win independence. A chance of a lifetime and we can do it. A yes/No question is all we need and the spoils are waiting for us.
#
2012-07-10 00:30
We might do it - no doubt of that. However, if we don't you are condemning my children (and many of the years of my grandchildren) to a tax, welfare and benefits system decided by the Tories (and their Lab/LD surrogates) in the South of England.
Do you really think that, if the No side wins, that their is any realistic prospect of the triumphalist SLab lot pushing for more powers for Holyrood?
Do you really think that, if the No side wins, that their is any realistic prospect of the triumphalist SLab lot pushing for more powers for Holyrood?
#
2012-07-10 01:04
The Tories are saying just yesterday they would remove universal benefits for pensioners and impose some sort of means testing. It can only get worse if the Tories get back in unhindered by their coalition partner and Labour would be no better.
It will be 'who let the dogs out?'
It will be 'who let the dogs out?'
#
2012-07-10 00:30
Very depressing news. Lets not kid ourselves. Most people on the street aren't interested in politics. The average person cares more for reality television than what government they wish to represent them. Most people are completetly oblivious to the facts and due to general apathy and indiffenece would rather vote for more of the same than massive constituational change, the average person seems to look across to Greece or Africa, and think to themselves we aren't doing too badly here at all.
Of course we are just coming off the jubilee, olympics etc. But if trivial things like that can change people opinion then its perhaps better not to vote at all. I'm at the stage now where I'm wondering what the point is. Maybe we are just a nation of spineless cowards who are quite happy to act as a cash cow for the SE of England. All the while we are told we are a dour ungratetful miserable bunch who should feel priveledged to be in the most succesful union of all time with England who mothers and subsidises us to keep us all from being a bunch of unemployed heroin addicts.
Has the YEs campaign been a total failure. Is it time for a more aggresive strategy. I certainly think so. Its all very well going on about what we can do, but until the time comes when our politicains stand up and challenge the media, let the public know what a bunch of liars these Brit nat politicains are then people will not listen.
We are the ones telling the truth and in that we can take comfort but just because we have won the intellectual debate does not mean we have won the public debate, we are clearly losing that one.
Of course we are just coming off the jubilee, olympics etc. But if trivial things like that can change people opinion then its perhaps better not to vote at all. I'm at the stage now where I'm wondering what the point is. Maybe we are just a nation of spineless cowards who are quite happy to act as a cash cow for the SE of England. All the while we are told we are a dour ungratetful miserable bunch who should feel priveledged to be in the most succesful union of all time with England who mothers and subsidises us to keep us all from being a bunch of unemployed heroin addicts.
Has the YEs campaign been a total failure. Is it time for a more aggresive strategy. I certainly think so. Its all very well going on about what we can do, but until the time comes when our politicains stand up and challenge the media, let the public know what a bunch of liars these Brit nat politicains are then people will not listen.
We are the ones telling the truth and in that we can take comfort but just because we have won the intellectual debate does not mean we have won the public debate, we are clearly losing that one.
#
2012-07-10 02:49
Quite right macdoc , and so we need to get as nasty as the unionists and present the public with a stark choice as from now ! . Two years to decide on either the status quo and the continuing decrepit decline of a British establishment which every week shows up corruption in every level of government or a fresh start where we make our own mistakes and reap the benefits our own successes . Its a no brainer to the intellects on this site but will take a better intellect than mine to convince another 20% of the populace . It has to be kept simple in my opinion and so one question on the ballot paper .
#
2012-07-10 10:02
Macdoc - I agree that the poll is depressing. We should consider of course all the unionist propaganda that is floating around at the moment which will hopefully die away when the Olympics is over. It is also sad to think that people can be persuaded to vote because of jingoism and tokenism. Where I disagree with you is "are we just a nation of spineless cowards" - with respect I would have written "we are just a cowed nation". I have always believed that this is the reason for our knee-benders who think they and we are unworthy and probably part of the reason for our affinity with alcohol and other mood altering substances. Two years to go - hopefully positivity will prevail over dishonesty and negativity!
#
2012-07-10 00:31
Polls are just an indicator of perception at this particular time. The leaders of the Yes Scotland campaign team has just been appointed and they look like a formidable team who will no doubt become widely respected. Their main task will be to steer the debate away from Alex Salmond and the SNP where the unionists see weaknesses in some voters. Blair Jenkins hinted at this in his first interview and he does not seem to be the sort who will easily concede to the unionist pack of wolves. Dennis Canavan will also bring his conciderable influence to bear on labour party members and lib dems who must be getting fed up of their parties antics and Westminster meddling. This is where the polls will start to turn in favour of full Independence so have patience. As they say "a week in politics is a long time"
Aung San Suu Kyi the Burmese human rights activist also said that "Democracy starts with one person" we are Starting with around one and a half million based on the unionists dodgy polling figures.
We have two years to turn the tables, so keep the faith and keep trying to explain the facts to the undecided
Aung San Suu Kyi the Burmese human rights activist also said that "Democracy starts with one person" we are Starting with around one and a half million based on the unionists dodgy polling figures.
We have two years to turn the tables, so keep the faith and keep trying to explain the facts to the undecided
#
2012-07-10 01:11
I dont want the status quo or devo max/plus.. I want independence for Scotland & those Scots who wish Scotland to remain part of this union can hang their heads in shame!
Forget Devo-Max! Choose Independence.. Choose a better Scotland!
Forget Devo-Max! Choose Independence.. Choose a better Scotland!
#
2012-07-10 03:23
Here's an example of how fickle people can be when responding to polls: of the 30pc of respondents who backed independence in the first Y/N question, fully 7 per cent (ie 21 out of 302 in total, not 7 in 30) opted for the status quo unchanged when given the three-way choice. By contrast 3 per cent of the respondents who originally said they opposed independence actually backed it when asked to choose between status quo, devo-thingummy and full independence.
I don't know what that means yet. What I think is more significant is that only 49pc of those who were initially against independence backed the status quo in the multi-option question. The same number either supported devo-wotsit (44pc) or suddenly became uncertain (5pc). As far as I'm concerned, that confirms what I've long suspected: the 'no' vote is a weak one, and is unlikely to hold up as well as the 'yes' votes when it comes to the actual election.
Basically, your no-voter identified by a spot survey like this consists of three groupings: definite no (the 49pc above, or 1 in 4 of the total); 'I'm not sure independence is such a good idea ... yet' [probably a large chunk of the 44pc favouring more powers]; and 'I really haven't thought about it at all, so I'd have to say, um, no, I think'. Of those three groups, only the first can be guaranteed to come out to vote on the day, come hell or high water. The support of a great many in the other two camps is as permanent as 'snaa fallin on a river' -- many won't bother to vote or are open to persuasion by the yes campaign.
If we look at the 'yes' voters, we get a fairly different picture. Two-thirds (66pc) still opt for independence in a three-way question with just one in four (24pc) preferring devo-fudge-delicious. (I'm going to ignore the 7pc flip-flop misnomer here -- it's beyond my ken.) That gives us a very strong hell/high water 'yes' vote of 1/4 of the electorate: a precise match to the hard-no faction. I don't think there's any doubt the indy-leaning devo-muddlers will fail to vote yes when given a binary choice, but perhaps a larger number of them might not make it to the voting booth if it rains or they have a bit of a snuffle.
Now, that leaves us the 20pc undecided. When given the multiple-option question, 41pc of these folk still can't decide; they're professional ditherers. Almost as many, however, opt for the devo-heave-ho. This group - roughly 8pc of the electorate - are surely pretty open to persuasion once devo-tinkering is definitely off the table.
And then once again there's that discrepancy I mentioned at the start: a fifth of those who couldn't decide yes/no in a straight choice are able to make up their mind when you give them a third option, with 12pc saying 'no' and 8pc 'yes'. Would you like a black shirt or a white shirt, sir? If you're not sure, we do have a grey one too. Black it is, then,
I'm not really trying to rationalise what is undeniably a bad poll for the indy camp, just trying to use the results to tease out a more three-dimensional (if flawed) picture of voter-intentions. There are some very strange things going on in there. For example, only 25pc of Highlands&Islands backed independence in the Y/N question; I'm a Highlander and I know for a fact that there is a lot more support than that, especially since 2007. Just look at the voting patterns.
This is pure idle speculation on my part. I await Scottish Skier, Oldnat et al to tear my amateur analysis to shreds.
Saor Alba.
PS For the avoidance of doubt, the disparaging names for devo-max throughout are just me having fun over my morning coffee. It's just poking fun at the inherent ambiguity about what it actually entails, and I don't mean to belittle anyone who supports a fully federal UK. I think it's a fine concept and perhaps the only way to preserve union in some form. Except for the small problem that nobody's going to implement it and it probably wouldn't work even if they did.
I don't know what that means yet. What I think is more significant is that only 49pc of those who were initially against independence backed the status quo in the multi-option question. The same number either supported devo-wotsit (44pc) or suddenly became uncertain (5pc). As far as I'm concerned, that confirms what I've long suspected: the 'no' vote is a weak one, and is unlikely to hold up as well as the 'yes' votes when it comes to the actual election.
Basically, your no-voter identified by a spot survey like this consists of three groupings: definite no (the 49pc above, or 1 in 4 of the total); 'I'm not sure independence is such a good idea ... yet' [probably a large chunk of the 44pc favouring more powers]; and 'I really haven't thought about it at all, so I'd have to say, um, no, I think'. Of those three groups, only the first can be guaranteed to come out to vote on the day, come hell or high water. The support of a great many in the other two camps is as permanent as 'snaa fallin on a river' -- many won't bother to vote or are open to persuasion by the yes campaign.
If we look at the 'yes' voters, we get a fairly different picture. Two-thirds (66pc) still opt for independence in a three-way question with just one in four (24pc) preferring devo-fudge-delicious. (I'm going to ignore the 7pc flip-flop misnomer here -- it's beyond my ken.) That gives us a very strong hell/high water 'yes' vote of 1/4 of the electorate: a precise match to the hard-no faction. I don't think there's any doubt the indy-leaning devo-muddlers will fail to vote yes when given a binary choice, but perhaps a larger number of them might not make it to the voting booth if it rains or they have a bit of a snuffle.
Now, that leaves us the 20pc undecided. When given the multiple-option question, 41pc of these folk still can't decide; they're professional ditherers. Almost as many, however, opt for the devo-heave-ho. This group - roughly 8pc of the electorate - are surely pretty open to persuasion once devo-tinkering is definitely off the table.
And then once again there's that discrepancy I mentioned at the start: a fifth of those who couldn't decide yes/no in a straight choice are able to make up their mind when you give them a third option, with 12pc saying 'no' and 8pc 'yes'. Would you like a black shirt or a white shirt, sir? If you're not sure, we do have a grey one too. Black it is, then,
I'm not really trying to rationalise what is undeniably a bad poll for the indy camp, just trying to use the results to tease out a more three-dimensional (if flawed) picture of voter-intentions. There are some very strange things going on in there. For example, only 25pc of Highlands&Islands backed independence in the Y/N question; I'm a Highlander and I know for a fact that there is a lot more support than that, especially since 2007. Just look at the voting patterns.
This is pure idle speculation on my part. I await Scottish Skier, Oldnat et al to tear my amateur analysis to shreds.
Saor Alba.
PS For the avoidance of doubt, the disparaging names for devo-max throughout are just me having fun over my morning coffee. It's just poking fun at the inherent ambiguity about what it actually entails, and I don't mean to belittle anyone who supports a fully federal UK. I think it's a fine concept and perhaps the only way to preserve union in some form. Except for the small problem that nobody's going to implement it and it probably wouldn't work even if they did.
#
2012-07-10 07:01
The SNP are caught in limbo at the moment.
Until the results of the consultation and then a White Paper in parliament they won't give anymore detail on what independence means for the man/woman in the street.
That's the detail that's missing at the moment from the whole independence Campaign.
Elections/referendums are not won or lost over two years away from the actual vote taking place.
It's very early days in the Campaign. One criticism I would have of the Yes Campaign is there is no pressure being put on the No Campaign. Questions like what do they actually stand for - in detail? Who is funding them? Names of donors?
The No Campaign will always have media backing, but they have questions to answer also
Until the results of the consultation and then a White Paper in parliament they won't give anymore detail on what independence means for the man/woman in the street.
That's the detail that's missing at the moment from the whole independence Campaign.
Elections/referendums are not won or lost over two years away from the actual vote taking place.
It's very early days in the Campaign. One criticism I would have of the Yes Campaign is there is no pressure being put on the No Campaign. Questions like what do they actually stand for - in detail? Who is funding them? Names of donors?
The No Campaign will always have media backing, but they have questions to answer also
#
2012-07-10 07:10
What seems reasonably clear is that both sides YES/NO have lost ground to a centre position which, as yet, does not actually exist. It may be the preferred path of a sizable chunk of the electorate, but without the participation of the NO camp it cannot and will not be an option.
Say, just for argument, that the consultation supports a devo max question. Just how will the SG be able to put this question on to a consultative ballot? Would they put it on there anyway and force Westminster into a hissyfit? Or, would they merely dangle the numbers in front of Westminster and say 'well over to you', forcing them to make a choice on how to save the union? Unless I've missed something fairly crucial, one thing the SG cannot do is hold this referendum with this second question in place and act on any majority support for it unilaterally.
What they can and I suspect will do is garner support for it themselves and have Westminster either publicly reject it or force Westminster parties to accept it as their default offer.
It's a risky strategy if this is the case, but one that has benefits if executed well. Devo Max default NO camp position = Independence eventually - or have Westminster reject a second question and use the situation to attract the disgruntled Devo voter.
Say, just for argument, that the consultation supports a devo max question. Just how will the SG be able to put this question on to a consultative ballot? Would they put it on there anyway and force Westminster into a hissyfit? Or, would they merely dangle the numbers in front of Westminster and say 'well over to you', forcing them to make a choice on how to save the union? Unless I've missed something fairly crucial, one thing the SG cannot do is hold this referendum with this second question in place and act on any majority support for it unilaterally.
What they can and I suspect will do is garner support for it themselves and have Westminster either publicly reject it or force Westminster parties to accept it as their default offer.
It's a risky strategy if this is the case, but one that has benefits if executed well. Devo Max default NO camp position = Independence eventually - or have Westminster reject a second question and use the situation to attract the disgruntled Devo voter.
#
2012-07-10 08:23
The Scottish government can put devo max on the ballot - nothing to stop them doing that - although they do not have the power to impliment it, only independence.
As I've said before on various occasions, Devo max is being waved in front of the electorate by those in the Yes camp because it is perfectly reasonable (would put Scotland on a par with England in terms of sovereignty), yet never going to be accepted by Westminster. In time, the electorate will see that this is the case; for the moment they are holding out in the hope of it becoming an agreed option, encouraged by polls and MSM discussions of it.
The fact that polls consistently show ~7 in 10 support for devo max / FFA - which is all but independence - is a problem for the unionist campaign and a blessing for the Yes.
It is the unionists that must be the proponents of Devo Max. If we approach polling day with no second question, then a Y to independence will be the most likely result.
Of course remember we have 2 years of the Tories making the UK look very unpalatable to look forward too. This will only serve to increase support for Devo Max and independence, with the latter lagging for a while until such time as it becomes obvious the former is not going to happen.
And then we have Labour becoming something between the Tories and the BNP. They have recently adopted the union jack, started talking about being tough on immigration and are now on about military schools.
news.bbcimg.co.uk/.../...
bbc.co.uk/.../...
Nick Griffin and Dave C watch out - there's a new kid on the block. This is important as it is the Labour vote that still holds Scotland in the union by its fingernails. If Labour really go for it in their increasing push for the right wing vote - which will happen as we get closer to the 2015 GE - then that will be that for the union.
As I've said before on various occasions, Devo max is being waved in front of the electorate by those in the Yes camp because it is perfectly reasonable (would put Scotland on a par with England in terms of sovereignty), yet never going to be accepted by Westminster. In time, the electorate will see that this is the case; for the moment they are holding out in the hope of it becoming an agreed option, encouraged by polls and MSM discussions of it.
The fact that polls consistently show ~7 in 10 support for devo max / FFA - which is all but independence - is a problem for the unionist campaign and a blessing for the Yes.
It is the unionists that must be the proponents of Devo Max. If we approach polling day with no second question, then a Y to independence will be the most likely result.
Of course remember we have 2 years of the Tories making the UK look very unpalatable to look forward too. This will only serve to increase support for Devo Max and independence, with the latter lagging for a while until such time as it becomes obvious the former is not going to happen.
And then we have Labour becoming something between the Tories and the BNP. They have recently adopted the union jack, started talking about being tough on immigration and are now on about military schools.
news.bbcimg.co.uk/.../...
bbc.co.uk/.../...
Nick Griffin and Dave C watch out - there's a new kid on the block. This is important as it is the Labour vote that still holds Scotland in the union by its fingernails. If Labour really go for it in their increasing push for the right wing vote - which will happen as we get closer to the 2015 GE - then that will be that for the union.
#
2012-07-10 09:55
Jeez skier, that's scary stuff.
This quote in particular - "One way this can be achieved is through educational provision."
Now remind me, wasn't this the party which howled in outrage at Scottish studies being introduced into our classrooms and declared SNP indoctrination?
You couldn't make it up.
Re - your take on the devo strategy. That's pretty much how I read it. Westminster will eventually be forced to make a choice and whichever choice they make will benefit independence. Labour increasingly need the right wing vote to swing power in England, more so as they lose their grip on the Scottish vote. Its not pretty to watch, but like independence itself almost inevitable.
This quote in particular - "One way this can be achieved is through educational provision."
Now remind me, wasn't this the party which howled in outrage at Scottish studies being introduced into our classrooms and declared SNP indoctrination?
You couldn't make it up.
Re - your take on the devo strategy. That's pretty much how I read it. Westminster will eventually be forced to make a choice and whichever choice they make will benefit independence. Labour increasingly need the right wing vote to swing power in England, more so as they lose their grip on the Scottish vote. Its not pretty to watch, but like independence itself almost inevitable.
#
2012-07-10 12:38
A quick search and it seems I'm not the only one watching the Labour party wrap itself in the jack and wondering about what implications this will have down the line. Has the 'true' socialists concerned too.
www.socialistworker.co.uk/.../
www.socialistworker.co.uk/.../
#
2012-07-10 12:46
skier - have you seen the article in the Daily Telegraph, penned by Stephen Twigg and Jim Murphy
telegraph.co.uk/.../...
It puts Gordon Mathieson's talk to the Orange Lodge before the local elections in a different light.
telegraph.co.uk/.../...
It puts Gordon Mathieson's talk to the Orange Lodge before the local elections in a different light.
#
2012-07-10 13:05
cirsium/scottish_skier
Well that's that for Labour and socialism. If those two links don't scare the bejeezus out of anyone with a modicum of old Labour in them, then I don't know what will.
The fact alone that Twigg and Murphy have no problem by putting their name to this speaks volumes for the future of the Labour party policy in Britain. Scottish Labour still have an out here, all they have to do is grasp the thistle and break away before its too late.
Well that's that for Labour and socialism. If those two links don't scare the bejeezus out of anyone with a modicum of old Labour in them, then I don't know what will.
The fact alone that Twigg and Murphy have no problem by putting their name to this speaks volumes for the future of the Labour party policy in Britain. Scottish Labour still have an out here, all they have to do is grasp the thistle and break away before its too late.
#
2012-07-10 13:35
Exactly----BUT I doubt if Union members will read this Blue/Westminster Labour stuff in the magazines of our respectives unions.
Not something to shout from the rooftops exactly----is it?
Keep us in the dark,and just bring out the socialist/left wing crumb from the table as elections approach.
Dad used to say,"Never trust a Tory".
Now we both say,"Never trust a Tory or a Labour."
Not something to shout from the rooftops exactly----is it?
Keep us in the dark,and just bring out the socialist/left wing crumb from the table as elections approach.
Dad used to say,"Never trust a Tory".
Now we both say,"Never trust a Tory or a Labour."
#
2012-07-10 22:03
Ye couldna make this up. They tout cadet kids as having greater "respect for authority" as though that were a good thing. In the common parlance, kids wi "respect for authority" are the ones as dae as they're tellt. They don't question orders and they definitely don't rock the boat, be it a coracle or a destroyer.
I can see why Jim Murphy would like a generation of such drones created, but I see no benefit for Scotland.
To adapt a famous Kennedy quote: ask not what your nation can do for you; ask yourself what you can do to make your nation better. (Mind, the powers that be might not like the answer you come up with.)
I can see why Jim Murphy would like a generation of such drones created, but I see no benefit for Scotland.
To adapt a famous Kennedy quote: ask not what your nation can do for you; ask yourself what you can do to make your nation better. (Mind, the powers that be might not like the answer you come up with.)
#
2012-07-10 22:55
I think they already gave their answer in the form of both the tuition fees riots and the London riots. As for the military styled indoctrination? My God what are the Labour high heid yins thinkin'?
#
2012-07-10 21:48
What hit me most was what we in the trade call the "balance quote" from the dept of education. Rather than the "well, that lot are just loopy aren't they?" as you'd expect it's: "They said what? Oh, we're ...uh... already, um, doing that. Yeah, well, but totally planning to ...I think. Maybe."
#
2012-07-10 08:30
Anyway, does anyone really doubt that the people who delivered a majority against the odds and Westminster plannning in May 2011 are incapable of delivering Independence in two years time? Keep the faith!
#
2012-07-10 08:49
I've been thinking about this and there is a strategy that could create a 'no lose' situation which would totally scupper the Unionist status quo position and make independence more likely.
It is widely expected that the result of the recent consultation will advocate the inclusion of a devo-something option. What if, using the consultation as a valid mandate and in consideration of the objections to a multi-option referendum, the Scottish Government decide to hold a separate referendum on enhanced devolution BEFORE the independence referendum, say in 2013? Something like devomax vs devoplus vs status quo.
The result would likely be overwhelming support for major constitutional change and give the Scottish Government a mandate to demand jam today. This would give Westminster one year to respond with a promise to deliver a comprehensive package of devolved powers, in the knowledge that if they fail to deliver what the Scottish public demand they will likely face a strong backlash with the independence referendum looming on their horizon. This tactic would also leave the Unionist parties looking rather foolish to continue arguing for the status quo.
We've been here before and it is blatantly obvious that, just like the last time, the 'secret jam tomorrow' unionist proposal is a bluff, so let's call their bluff before the Indy referendum. Either Westminster devolves the powers demanded of them or their empty promises are exposed for all to see.
It is widely expected that the result of the recent consultation will advocate the inclusion of a devo-something option. What if, using the consultation as a valid mandate and in consideration of the objections to a multi-option referendum, the Scottish Government decide to hold a separate referendum on enhanced devolution BEFORE the independence referendum, say in 2013? Something like devomax vs devoplus vs status quo.
The result would likely be overwhelming support for major constitutional change and give the Scottish Government a mandate to demand jam today. This would give Westminster one year to respond with a promise to deliver a comprehensive package of devolved powers, in the knowledge that if they fail to deliver what the Scottish public demand they will likely face a strong backlash with the independence referendum looming on their horizon. This tactic would also leave the Unionist parties looking rather foolish to continue arguing for the status quo.
We've been here before and it is blatantly obvious that, just like the last time, the 'secret jam tomorrow' unionist proposal is a bluff, so let's call their bluff before the Indy referendum. Either Westminster devolves the powers demanded of them or their empty promises are exposed for all to see.
#
2012-07-10 09:01
This comment by James Morton on Lallands Peat Worrier's blog summed up the situation rather well.
Quote:
Convincing the punter in the street that Devo max isn't coming down the line tomorrow or ever is going to be a challenge as so many political commentators who are immersed in Scottish politics are quite happy to treat it as a realistic prospect.
Why they think S.E of England MP's will successfully sell this ultimate version of feather bedding for Scotland to their constituents is completely beyond me.
Independence is the only thing that can be taken by Scots. Devo Max and the massive internal restructuring which would be required is a matter for voters in the whole of the UK.
If people vote for delivery at a later date ( emphasis on a later date) of further powers which will need to be voted through in Westminster by people ill disposed us and to the numerous advantages they think we enjoy at the moment..... well good luck with that one.
Quote:
"As for the second question - can you ask a question based on a fairy tale of could be's where demand hasn't got the power and supply hasn't made an offer. Surely that turns swither into fudge."
Convincing the punter in the street that Devo max isn't coming down the line tomorrow or ever is going to be a challenge as so many political commentators who are immersed in Scottish politics are quite happy to treat it as a realistic prospect.
Why they think S.E of England MP's will successfully sell this ultimate version of feather bedding for Scotland to their constituents is completely beyond me.
Independence is the only thing that can be taken by Scots. Devo Max and the massive internal restructuring which would be required is a matter for voters in the whole of the UK.
If people vote for delivery at a later date ( emphasis on a later date) of further powers which will need to be voted through in Westminster by people ill disposed us and to the numerous advantages they think we enjoy at the moment..... well good luck with that one.
#
2012-07-10 10:35
@ oldnat 2012-07-09 23:32
I am glad to hear of your conversion oldnat, but I note that you are still a tad too trusting of the political parties.
You write: “What we don't need at the moment is agreement on whether Parliament should be bicameral or unicameral, whether the Head of State should be elected or genetic etc. These are important questions, but should be decided through the political process after independence. Some will have one view, others will think differently. Let the people decide.”
The type of parliament and how our representatives are elected are essential elements of a constitution; by not including them we risk a repeat of the “hijacking” that took place, over 300 years at Westminster, by the political parties.
If you read a bit further into Elliot Bulmer’s “Model Constitution” you will find a chapter on “Ombudsmen, Auditor General and Independent Commissions”.
I suggest this discussion (started in public, well almost) on a Scottish constitution for an independent state should be carried ON IN PUBLIC.
As I have written before: “As we are presently in the “consultation mode” of the referendum, it seems to me that a Constitutional Convention under the auspices of a select committee of the Scottish Parliament should set up. Taking evidence from, bodies such as, the Constitutional Commission, civic Scotland and all other interested parties. The convention should meet in public.”
I am glad to hear of your conversion oldnat, but I note that you are still a tad too trusting of the political parties.
You write: “What we don't need at the moment is agreement on whether Parliament should be bicameral or unicameral, whether the Head of State should be elected or genetic etc. These are important questions, but should be decided through the political process after independence. Some will have one view, others will think differently. Let the people decide.”
The type of parliament and how our representatives are elected are essential elements of a constitution; by not including them we risk a repeat of the “hijacking” that took place, over 300 years at Westminster, by the political parties.
If you read a bit further into Elliot Bulmer’s “Model Constitution” you will find a chapter on “Ombudsmen, Auditor General and Independent Commissions”.
I suggest this discussion (started in public, well almost) on a Scottish constitution for an independent state should be carried ON IN PUBLIC.
As I have written before: “As we are presently in the “consultation mode” of the referendum, it seems to me that a Constitutional Convention under the auspices of a select committee of the Scottish Parliament should set up. Taking evidence from, bodies such as, the Constitutional Commission, civic Scotland and all other interested parties. The convention should meet in public.”
#
2012-07-10 10:56
I see a gradual shift to devo-whatever.
There are 2 problems with this.
1) The is the only chance we will ever have to gain independence.
2) Everyone forgets the unionist parties were about to begin dismantling devolution and reversing devolution through the Scotland Bill. The SNP in power thwarted them to a certain extent. A couple of years down the line of devo-whatever which in itself would take years to establish. The unionist parties would begin the process of reversal.
The only thing that can stop this is a sovereign independent parliament in a sovereign independent country.
There are 2 problems with this.
1) The is the only chance we will ever have to gain independence.
2) Everyone forgets the unionist parties were about to begin dismantling devolution and reversing devolution through the Scotland Bill. The SNP in power thwarted them to a certain extent. A couple of years down the line of devo-whatever which in itself would take years to establish. The unionist parties would begin the process of reversal.
The only thing that can stop this is a sovereign independent parliament in a sovereign independent country.
#
2012-07-10 11:32
It's so telling that it's the pro-independence people who are deeply analysing this situation and it appears the pro-sq camp are totally at a loss and relying on the misinforming MSM and media to maintain momentum. I feel happier with the situation. Now after thinking it through, there's no devo default position for the pro-sq camp, it simply wouldn't be allowed by the rest of the UK.
#
2012-07-10 11:35
Those who think Scotland's constitutional future lies in keeping defense and foreign affairs with a central government should perhaps consider colonies that fought and won their independence from the UK a few years ago. There were a number of independent states who chose to share defence and foreign affairs and agreed to use the central government to facilitate commerce, in the interests of interstate cooperation. All other powers were supposed to be reserved to the independent states.
That loose arrangement became known as the United States of America.
That loose arrangement became known as the United States of America.
#
2012-07-10 12:01
has anyone thought about who these so called pollsters and who they ask these questions. i can tell you that through word of mouth from a few friends is that the only people they ask are mostly unionists with just a few nationalists put in. i for one being almost 60 years old have never been approached by one single pollster during my lifetime, has anyone else on here ever been approached by these pollsters, just as an after thought i carried out a short survey in rosyth as i stay there near the naval base and i found that almost everyone in my locality will be voting yes. and p.s if the media here of anyone who is supporting this union they wholeheartedly trump this up way out of all proportions and completely ignore any pro-independence supporters.
#
2012-07-10 12:05
Far too much doom and gloom in the above comments. The poll is meaningless in the light of the free propaganda the NO camp has had during the last month or so, ie Jubilee, Wimbledon, Olympic Torch trek, and the Olympic Games coming up. The fact that the YES vote has only gone down a few points is very satisfactory. And there is no point the SNP doing anything until after the OGs; probably why its consultation results won't be published till after the Games have ended.
And as I have said many times here the SNP would be foolish to start serious campaigning now; there are still 2 years to go and we don't want election fatigue to set in. The SNP is doing the right thing at the moment, muddying the waters and keeping the NO camp guessing about whether it will put two questions or even two referendums up. And by the same token the NOs are not going to give anything away until nearer the Referendum Date (RD). But be sure Westminster will bend at some stage. It has nothing to lose by giving Scotland DevoMax, Westminster gets all the advantages of Scotland with none of the disadvantages, the only losers would be the Labour Party as there would be a huge cry for a reduction of Scottish Labour MPs at Westminster.
And as I have said many times here the SNP would be foolish to start serious campaigning now; there are still 2 years to go and we don't want election fatigue to set in. The SNP is doing the right thing at the moment, muddying the waters and keeping the NO camp guessing about whether it will put two questions or even two referendums up. And by the same token the NOs are not going to give anything away until nearer the Referendum Date (RD). But be sure Westminster will bend at some stage. It has nothing to lose by giving Scotland DevoMax, Westminster gets all the advantages of Scotland with none of the disadvantages, the only losers would be the Labour Party as there would be a huge cry for a reduction of Scottish Labour MPs at Westminster.
#
2012-07-10 12:22
Yes, no need for folks to be stressed.
The primary reason for any apparent (we've only had a couple of polls suggesting this, so haud yer horses) shift towards devo max rather than full independence would be the European/global economic situation. This happened in 2008-2009 duing the banking crisis, with the Y dropping back to core 30%. Maybe this is happening now, maybe not. Even if it is, it will recover as the european economy recovers/stablises, if not before as people realise the sky is not actually going to fall in.
So long as support for Devo Max continues to sit at ~70%, indy supporters have nothing to worry about; and no way this is going to change. The status quo is no longer possible.
The primary reason for any apparent (we've only had a couple of polls suggesting this, so haud yer horses) shift towards devo max rather than full independence would be the European/global economic situation. This happened in 2008-2009 duing the banking crisis, with the Y dropping back to core 30%. Maybe this is happening now, maybe not. Even if it is, it will recover as the european economy recovers/stablises, if not before as people realise the sky is not actually going to fall in.
So long as support for Devo Max continues to sit at ~70%, indy supporters have nothing to worry about; and no way this is going to change. The status quo is no longer possible.
#
2012-07-10 12:30
Nicola Benedetti criticises Music Tuition cuts.Presumably Scotland, although Radio Times is unclear as to which country Nicola is actually referring.
bbc.co.uk/.../...
COMMENTS PERMITTED!
bbc.co.uk/.../...
COMMENTS PERMITTED!
#
2012-07-10 12:33
Im convinced there are posters on here only to spread confusion.
I would question their motives.
I would question their motives.
#
2012-07-10 12:34
@ mealer 2012-07-09 23:29
What I remember was: Shortly after the 2011 Scottish election the SNP policy on an independence referendum changed dramatically. Suddenly a referendum was not the burning issue it had been, on the question of independence anyway.
The party faithful had been happily painting themselves into the independence corner, safe in the knowledge that the electoral system did not provide for a majority government in devolved Scotland.
But the electorate had a “cunning plan”. The 2010 GE had thrown up a surprise, none of the UK parties had a majority and a coalition was formed between the Tories and the Lib/Dems. The Tories were persona non grata in Scotland and now the Lib/Dems had thrown away any credibility they had by abandoning their principles. All the main UK parties lost any chance in Scotland.
The SNP gained an unexpected majority of seats in 2011.Only 25% of those who voted (on a 51% turnout). Now they had to put up or shut up. They needed time to regroup so the referendum, suddenly, was to be held in the latter half of the parliament.
The SNP preference was for a single question referendum, but it was open minded on a second one.
They started a consultation process, mainly because none of the unionist (so called) parties was willing to articulate a second question (still haven’t).
The consultation came and went, still no answer offered on “how many questions” more time wasted whilst an independent body (we know not who) will analyze the result. Now we are at autumn 2012 and we still do not know what we are having a referendum ON.
What I remember was: Shortly after the 2011 Scottish election the SNP policy on an independence referendum changed dramatically. Suddenly a referendum was not the burning issue it had been, on the question of independence anyway.
The party faithful had been happily painting themselves into the independence corner, safe in the knowledge that the electoral system did not provide for a majority government in devolved Scotland.
But the electorate had a “cunning plan”. The 2010 GE had thrown up a surprise, none of the UK parties had a majority and a coalition was formed between the Tories and the Lib/Dems. The Tories were persona non grata in Scotland and now the Lib/Dems had thrown away any credibility they had by abandoning their principles. All the main UK parties lost any chance in Scotland.
The SNP gained an unexpected majority of seats in 2011.Only 25% of those who voted (on a 51% turnout). Now they had to put up or shut up. They needed time to regroup so the referendum, suddenly, was to be held in the latter half of the parliament.
The SNP preference was for a single question referendum, but it was open minded on a second one.
They started a consultation process, mainly because none of the unionist (so called) parties was willing to articulate a second question (still haven’t).
The consultation came and went, still no answer offered on “how many questions” more time wasted whilst an independent body (we know not who) will analyze the result. Now we are at autumn 2012 and we still do not know what we are having a referendum ON.
#
2012-07-10 13:40
And there are still 2 years to go. So why the rush for 'facts'? The sky isn't falling in while we wait, the SNP is doing a great job governing Scotland; it is doing better economically than the UK, and with the No-men and their media supporters in England constantly whining about Scotland, we are gaining great international publicity as a Nation.
#
2012-07-10 15:39
Quoting exel:
Can I direct you to the debate, which was held on Tuesday 3rd May, which you will acknowledge was prior to the Election taking place - in which Alex Salmond clearly states that a Referendum on Independence would be held in the "second half of the parliament".
Can you provide me with detail of the "sudden" shift you talk about? as you must be amongst the few who believe that there was a U-turn after the SNPs now famous majority win.
@ The SNP gained an unexpected majority of seats in 2011.Only 25% of those who voted (on a 51% turnout). Now they had to put up or shut up. They needed time to regroup so the referendum, suddenly, was to be held in the latter half of the parliament.
Can I direct you to the debate, which was held on Tuesday 3rd May, which you will acknowledge was prior to the Election taking place - in which Alex Salmond clearly states that a Referendum on Independence would be held in the "second half of the parliament".
Can you provide me with detail of the "sudden" shift you talk about? as you must be amongst the few who believe that there was a U-turn after the SNPs now famous majority win.
#
2012-07-10 17:56
Excel
SNP got over 45% of the votes cast in May 11.Your comment above is a lot of drivel.
SNP got over 45% of the votes cast in May 11.Your comment above is a lot of drivel.
#
2012-07-10 19:30
Yes, the SNP actually got a greater % share of votes with respect to total electorate than e.g. the Labour party got UK-wide when they won the 2005 UKGE.
The last time a party got a greater share of the vote than the SNP did in 2011 in Scotland was in 1966.
The last time a party got a greater share of the vote than the SNP did in 2011 in Scotland was in 1966.
#
2012-07-10 20:17
mealer 2012-07-10 17:56
“SNP got over 45% of the votes cast in May 11.Your comment above is a lot of drivel.”
Sorry mealer! It should have read: “The SNP gained an unexpected majority of seats in 2011. Only 25% of those, who were eligible to vote (on a 51% turnout). Now they had to put up or shut up. They needed time to regroup so the referendum, suddenly, was to be held in the latter half of the parliament.”
“SNP got over 45% of the votes cast in May 11.Your comment above is a lot of drivel.”
Sorry mealer! It should have read: “The SNP gained an unexpected majority of seats in 2011. Only 25% of those, who were eligible to vote (on a 51% turnout). Now they had to put up or shut up. They needed time to regroup so the referendum, suddenly, was to be held in the latter half of the parliament.”
#
2012-07-10 22:18
As has been pointed out before people who do not wish to vote are happy to abdicate that responsibility. Those people are happy to let others take that decision for them.
Unless we make voting compulsory we must accept the result that the system throws up.
I, for one, would like to change the system in a new indy Scotland, but for the moment we have to work with what we've got.
Unless we make voting compulsory we must accept the result that the system throws up.
I, for one, would like to change the system in a new indy Scotland, but for the moment we have to work with what we've got.
#
2012-07-10 18:07
All polls should now be taken with a pinch of salt as theyare virtuallyall phone polls. A phone poll today contacts a fairly narrow and untypical subset of the electorate - predominately middle aged and above and predominately lower middle class. It contacts only a tiny percantage of below 30 year old voters and is in this circumstance a poll mainly of a hugely conservative selection of voters.
This however is the section most susceptible to change of position as a result of persuasive propaganda
This however is the section most susceptible to change of position as a result of persuasive propaganda
#
2012-07-10 22:07
Absolutely Snecked. Polls are and always will be used to distort the narrative for the purposes of the group financing them or, often more blatantly to mask a substantial shift in among the electorate in the opposing direction to the one they are trying to show.
This was obvious here in Scotland in 2011, when the Labour Party lead was exaggerated until the end of 2010, and then the SNP fightback was under-exaggerated in the weeks up until the election, and the final result was far, far higher than the polls were implying.
I have been observing the Mexican election closely in the last few weeks, with special attention to the distortion of opinion polls. When the opinion polls started showing the election-favourite (and financer of said opinion polls) losing his (exaggerated) lead, they called in the polling companies and his lead in the opinion polls was immediately restored.
Images have been flashing into my head of Darling and Cameron in such meetings with UK pollsters over the next two years.
This was obvious here in Scotland in 2011, when the Labour Party lead was exaggerated until the end of 2010, and then the SNP fightback was under-exaggerated in the weeks up until the election, and the final result was far, far higher than the polls were implying.
I have been observing the Mexican election closely in the last few weeks, with special attention to the distortion of opinion polls. When the opinion polls started showing the election-favourite (and financer of said opinion polls) losing his (exaggerated) lead, they called in the polling companies and his lead in the opinion polls was immediately restored.
Images have been flashing into my head of Darling and Cameron in such meetings with UK pollsters over the next two years.
#
2012-07-10 20:25
Surely the quandary is for the Yes campaign with nearly 2/3rds of those polled expressing a preference to remain within a UK framework.
#
2012-07-10 22:33
That's something I was wanting to take issue with as well. The twisting of headlines is a tactic that I have become used to in the Unionist tabloids in recent years.
It would be nice to see a level of impartiality in the way news is reported. That's one of the reasons I started coming to Newsnet Scotland.
After all, most of the posters are going to interpret news in a pro-indy way anyway.
Let's see impartiality in the news coverage, and leave the partiality to the comments please.
It would be nice to see a level of impartiality in the way news is reported. That's one of the reasons I started coming to Newsnet Scotland.
After all, most of the posters are going to interpret news in a pro-indy way anyway.
Let's see impartiality in the news coverage, and leave the partiality to the comments please.
#
2012-07-10 21:14
They are not primarily expressing a preference to remain within a UK framework. They are expressing a preference for Scotland to have more powers over its own affairs.
If they don't have a well defined and guaranteed Devo Max to vote for - and they wont - they are unlikely to settle for Status Quo
If they don't have a well defined and guaranteed Devo Max to vote for - and they wont - they are unlikely to settle for Status Quo
#
2012-07-12 06:44
I would like to throw my tuppence worth in here:
I have little interest in polls, though I suppose they do indicate issues. However, as someone who has gone from a very firm “NO” to a slightly tentative “YES” in a matter of a few weeks I would like to say what has brought me to change my views. Mainly my views have changed due to what I see as the state of the UK. It is in a mess and I don’t see any real prospect of that getting any better as there is no real leadership with the main political parties. To my mind, for what its worth, the Tories are going to become more Tory and so are Labour as a sort of Tory-Light as the UK becomes ever more right wing and polarised, I actually do think that there will be hell to pay if Scotland doesn’t vote for Independence. So, for me it isn’t a fear of Independence, I more fear the Union now.
To a lesser extent, the YES/No campaigns have had influence on my personal change of view, but actually it is the poorness of the No campaign that has struck me most, as even I have spotted flaws in their arguments. So fight the good fight if you must, but for me at least so far, it is the Unionists that have lead me towards the Nationalist side of the debate. Is a long time to go though and my views are far from final and I would like to see more facts on how will effect me and mine etc. If that makes any sense.
I have little interest in polls, though I suppose they do indicate issues. However, as someone who has gone from a very firm “NO” to a slightly tentative “YES” in a matter of a few weeks I would like to say what has brought me to change my views. Mainly my views have changed due to what I see as the state of the UK. It is in a mess and I don’t see any real prospect of that getting any better as there is no real leadership with the main political parties. To my mind, for what its worth, the Tories are going to become more Tory and so are Labour as a sort of Tory-Light as the UK becomes ever more right wing and polarised, I actually do think that there will be hell to pay if Scotland doesn’t vote for Independence. So, for me it isn’t a fear of Independence, I more fear the Union now.
To a lesser extent, the YES/No campaigns have had influence on my personal change of view, but actually it is the poorness of the No campaign that has struck me most, as even I have spotted flaws in their arguments. So fight the good fight if you must, but for me at least so far, it is the Unionists that have lead me towards the Nationalist side of the debate. Is a long time to go though and my views are far from final and I would like to see more facts on how will effect me and mine etc. If that makes any sense.
#
2012-07-12 09:44
Welcome Ped and thanks for your thoughtful and interesting post, hope we'll hear more from you in the future as it's very important to know what folk like you think. Too often we preach to the converted.
#
2012-07-12 10:06
Welcome Ped.
Its all anyone can ask at the end of the day, that people keep an open mind and are receptive to the arguments on display.
Good post.
Its all anyone can ask at the end of the day, that people keep an open mind and are receptive to the arguments on display.
Good post.
Donate to Newsnet Scotland
Latest Comments
- STV independence debate a comf...
mountain man, nautilus The only weakness... - Nine candidates to contest Abe...
At least Mark McDonald has given up his ... - Europe's first electricity gri...
Its low key things like this that tend t... - STV independence debate a comf...
I would think that they already have a P... - STV independence debate a comf...
Plan B would be to adopt another strong ... - Nigel Farage has 'lost the plo...
Ah so you won't know that Ron Northcott ... - Nigel Farage has 'lost the plo...
Well said Gogsy. Like most people on thi... - STV independence debate a comf...
Looks like he's angling for a Westminst... - STV independence debate a comf...
I liked the way Nic invited Moore onto t... - STV independence debate a comf...
Alex Salmond had a piece in the Mail on ... - STV independence debate a comf...
The way Nicola kept hitting him with the... - Labour suspends selection proc...
But when is impartial media going to ask... - STV independence debate a comf...
Nicola only had one weakness,the the per... - Tories admit bedroom tax is de...
I think it's about money and priorities.... - Nigel Farage has 'lost the plo...
One of the two protesters arrested after... - STV independence debate a comf...
As I posted elsewhere, but relevant here... - STV independence debate a comf...
will ship them first thing on Monday Mo... - STV independence debate a comf...
He (Moore) or anyone else cannot articul... - STV independence debate a comf...
Hello Newsnetters, i haven't commented f... - Europe's first electricity gri...
Excellent! Great to see Scotland at the ...