Monday, 23 July 2012 22:40
70 Comments
By G.A.Ponsonby
Analysis of a newly published poll suggests that the Scottish National Party would achieve an even better result in a Scottish election, if it were held today, than it did in May 2011.
The poll, carried out by Panelbase for the Sunday Times and Real Radio Scotland, also placed support for a Yes vote as the most popular option.
However in what will be a concern for Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont, the poll results suggest that Iain Gray’s replacement has made no impact since taking over leadership of Labour in Scotland.
It also shows the SNP would take former Labour leader Iain Gray’s East Lothian seat and the Tory seats of Galloway and West Dumfries and Ayr – currently held by Alex Fergusson and John Scott.
The poll puts SNP support at 47 per cent in the constituency vote for the Scottish Parliament – a 2% increase since the historic election result of 2011.
This compares to the three other parties falling back or remaining static with Labour at 32%, Tories at 12% and Lib Dems on 6%.
Commenting, the SNP Campaigns Director Angus Robertson MP said:
“The results of this very welcome poll are a result of the SNP’s hard work in governing in the interests of the people of Scotland.
“To have increased our poll ratings by 2% since our sensational election landslide over a year ago is fantastic.
“But it piles even more misery on the anti-independence parties – and is particularly embarrassing for former Labour leader Iain Gray who would lose his seat to the SNP.
“Labour fare no better than its disastrous result last year, or indeed on its election-losing position in 2007 – which comes as a severe blow to a party which has been five years in opposition.
“The people of Scotland are rejecting Labour’s position of ‘no change’ for Scotland and the party’s unholy alliance with the Tories.”
The poll suggests that the SNP would increase its seat total from 69 to 73, Labour would drop one to 36 and the Tories down two to 13. The Lib Dems would hold on to their current tally of five with the Greens on two and independent one.
The survey of 1022 people was carried out between 27th June and 5th July. It also showed that when asked to choose between independence, devo-max and the status quo, more people opted for independence than any of the other two.
In a straight choice between independence and the status quo, the poll showed that gap narrowing with 45% opting for no change and 36% backing independence.
Mr Robertson added:
“The Tories must wake up and realise their vague promise of more powers for Scotland is not convincing the people of Scotland – so much so that they would lose two seats on this poll analysis.
“The Panelbase results pile more pressure on the anti-independence coalition to spell out what their vision is for Scotland’s constitutional future – the people of Scotland deserve to know what their alternative amounts to.”
INDEPENDENCE QUESTIONS:
When the three constitutional options are asked alongside each other, independence is the most popular:
Independence: 30%
More devolution: 29%
Status Quo: 28%
Asked about supporting independence the figures are:
Yes: 36%
No: 45%
Don’t Know: 20%
A TNS poll taken earlier this month showed the following figures:
Yes: 30%
No: 50%
Don’t Know: 20%
Comments
#
2012-07-24 08:04
The continual negativity that emanates from the NO campaign camp is obviously beginning to wear folks down.
Voters know that the failure of Westminster to demonstrate any possible advantage to Scotland to remain within this Union can only mean that there is none.
I fully expect the figures for a YES vote to start their inevitable climb towards a significant majority in 2014.
Voters know that the failure of Westminster to demonstrate any possible advantage to Scotland to remain within this Union can only mean that there is none.
I fully expect the figures for a YES vote to start their inevitable climb towards a significant majority in 2014.
#
2012-07-24 08:07
29% want more powers.If that option isn't on offer,most of them will currrently plump for NO.This is down to a mixture of a lack of confidence/fear about an independent Scotlands prosperity.And not wanting to be "cut off" from the rest of the UK.We need to convince them that because plenty other countries of similair size are doing fine...so can we.And we have the benefit of oil as the icing on the cake.And we need to convince them that an independent Scotland will be an integral part of the world community.
#
2012-07-24 08:38
I'm not so sure people would choose the status quo over independence, mealer. With son-of-polltax being introduced south of the border, and the inevitable protests being broadcast via MSM, the people of Scotland will be able to see exactly what the status quo means for Scotland's future.
Benefit cuts and attacks on the old, the disabled, the poor, public service cuts, privatisation of the NHS, our prisons, the police, our army. The list goes on.
Interestingly, wee Dougie (you know, the feminine one of the Alexander twins), is in Paris discussing youth unemployment. No doubt, if anything successful comes from this, it'll be trumpeted all over the MSM. However, since one of Labour's main arguments is that they are just as concerned about the peoples of Bradford as the are of those in Glasgow (being internationalis ts, n a' that), by showing different countries co-operating to improve the lives of the citizens of both, they throw their own argument out of the window. They (inadvertently) prove Scotland can be independent and still co-operate with the rest of the UK (and the world) to improve the lives of the citizens of both. Take that argument away and what are we left with? We'd be leaving the rUK to the mercy of the tories? (an argument that doesn't stand up to any real scrutiny).
If there is little more than a moose's ba' hair between those that'll vote yes and those that'll vote no (with a large chunk of don't knows) in this jubilee year when everyone is getting a Union flag enema with the beeb in ramming speed overdrive 24/07, with the Wiggler winning le tour, with a respectable medal haul expected over the next few weeks from the greatest yawn-fest on earth, with the higher echelons queuing up to ensure the commoner Kate produces a great British heir in 2014 (EDD 2 weeks before the referendum date), then I'm confident that as all that team GB fervour fades away, Scots will see through the smoke and mirrors and make the right choice for Scotland, voting for independence.
Benefit cuts and attacks on the old, the disabled, the poor, public service cuts, privatisation of the NHS, our prisons, the police, our army. The list goes on.
Interestingly, wee Dougie (you know, the feminine one of the Alexander twins), is in Paris discussing youth unemployment. No doubt, if anything successful comes from this, it'll be trumpeted all over the MSM. However, since one of Labour's main arguments is that they are just as concerned about the peoples of Bradford as the are of those in Glasgow (being internationalis ts, n a' that), by showing different countries co-operating to improve the lives of the citizens of both, they throw their own argument out of the window. They (inadvertently) prove Scotland can be independent and still co-operate with the rest of the UK (and the world) to improve the lives of the citizens of both. Take that argument away and what are we left with? We'd be leaving the rUK to the mercy of the tories? (an argument that doesn't stand up to any real scrutiny).
If there is little more than a moose's ba' hair between those that'll vote yes and those that'll vote no (with a large chunk of don't knows) in this jubilee year when everyone is getting a Union flag enema with the beeb in ramming speed overdrive 24/07, with the Wiggler winning le tour, with a respectable medal haul expected over the next few weeks from the greatest yawn-fest on earth, with the higher echelons queuing up to ensure the commoner Kate produces a great British heir in 2014 (EDD 2 weeks before the referendum date), then I'm confident that as all that team GB fervour fades away, Scots will see through the smoke and mirrors and make the right choice for Scotland, voting for independence.
#
2012-07-24 08:50
One fine day I will meet one of those 1022 people and be enlightened to know where they reside ?. It must be in some far off remote place where the outside world simply doesn't encroach for if it is otherwise, then they must retain abosolute secrecy as to their polling procalvities as I have never in 50 odd years ever met a Scot who has ever been polled. nor indeed has anyone I have ever known similarly met anyone who has ever been polled.
In that case one of the two scenarios above must apply, or the whole polling thing is rigged for I would have only to expand my questions out to two or so more rings of connection before I found someone who knows the voting intentions of the Pope !.
In that case one of the two scenarios above must apply, or the whole polling thing is rigged for I would have only to expand my questions out to two or so more rings of connection before I found someone who knows the voting intentions of the Pope !.
#
2012-07-24 09:19
I've been polled by random telephone number selection twice. Once by IPSOS MORI for their Scotland public opinion monitor and once by TNS BMRB on the Borders railway.
A polling company making up results would be very counterproducti ve. It is their ability to 'predict' outcomes of elections etc accurately that gives them credence to clients.
However, that does not mean they will give an accurate picture of the entire electorate from a 1000 sample. There is a large error involved and in the case of the referendum, the wording of the question, muddying of the waters by devo max all play a role. Hence changes of 5-10% in responses from different polls held within the space of a few weeks is common, at least for the Y/N (the devo max option does not suffer this same variance because it is very popular and not scary).
Only analyses of multiple polls will start to give you a general idea of what the opinion of the electorate is. A poll in isolation could be entirely meaningless.
At the moment, I see that there is no consistent majority against independence. However, neither is there a consistent majority for. It has tended to be neck and neck over the past year, possibly with the Y dropping a little recently due to economic worries. However, we must remember that the 'unsures' - which can often comprise 20% - like the idea of independence, but are nervous about what it would mean. This lot shift back and forth between yes and unsure; they've been doing it since 1997 at least. Also, keep in mind that polls ask if you would vote for independence 'tomorrow'. This is very different from asking e.g. 'Would you like Scotland to be independent in a ideal world' or 'would you consider voting for independence in 2014'.
A polling company making up results would be very counterproducti ve. It is their ability to 'predict' outcomes of elections etc accurately that gives them credence to clients.
However, that does not mean they will give an accurate picture of the entire electorate from a 1000 sample. There is a large error involved and in the case of the referendum, the wording of the question, muddying of the waters by devo max all play a role. Hence changes of 5-10% in responses from different polls held within the space of a few weeks is common, at least for the Y/N (the devo max option does not suffer this same variance because it is very popular and not scary).
Only analyses of multiple polls will start to give you a general idea of what the opinion of the electorate is. A poll in isolation could be entirely meaningless.
At the moment, I see that there is no consistent majority against independence. However, neither is there a consistent majority for. It has tended to be neck and neck over the past year, possibly with the Y dropping a little recently due to economic worries. However, we must remember that the 'unsures' - which can often comprise 20% - like the idea of independence, but are nervous about what it would mean. This lot shift back and forth between yes and unsure; they've been doing it since 1997 at least. Also, keep in mind that polls ask if you would vote for independence 'tomorrow'. This is very different from asking e.g. 'Would you like Scotland to be independent in a ideal world' or 'would you consider voting for independence in 2014'.
#
2012-07-24 10:53
"Only analyses of multiple polls will start to give you a general idea of what the opinion of the electorate is."
Really? If I have ten pols with a 10% error margin doesn't that make my error margin 100%???
;)
lol.
Really? If I have ten pols with a 10% error margin doesn't that make my error margin 100%???
;)
lol.
#
2012-07-24 10:58
If all polls have been collected using unbiased statistical methods then the margin of error decreases as statistical errors are cancelled out
#
2012-07-24 19:01
Quoting John Lyons:
No, you would still have a margin of error of 10%. Apologies, I had to be pedantic, I cant spell but I can do math good n stuv.
"Only analyses of multiple polls will start to give you a general idea of what the opinion of the electorate is."
Really? If I have ten pols with a 10% error margin doesn't that make my error margin 100%???
;)
lol.
No, you would still have a margin of error of 10%. Apologies, I had to be pedantic, I cant spell but I can do math good n stuv.
#
2012-07-24 19:27
Yes, you are correct. What multiple polls do give you is an idea of the range; the actual value typically lying close to the middle of this range. Of course if you start averaging then you should get close to that value, however, you can't completely ignore the error, it still applies potentially. All you can say with good certainty is that the value lies somewhere between the lowest and highest.
#
2012-07-24 09:03
Ref the above polls:- (1) We can remove the more devolution option, which at present will not be offered by the Unionists. (2): We can also remove the status quo option because the Unionists are not offering to retain the present status quo but are offering vote 'no' for some vague and yet undefined "mumbo jumbo" of the possible consideration of more powers to Scotland but only after the referendum (3): By removing the status quo, the 'no' vote will be giving the authority to Westminster do whatever it decides.(4): Vote 'no' and the Unionists will slowly but surely transfer back to Westminster those powers which its sees as counterproducti ve to those of Westminster. (5): Even the future of the Scottish Parliament would be at risk. (6): Thinking - Why don't the Unionists remove the possible more powers etc and give a commitment to retaining the status quo ?
#
2012-07-24 09:06
Aye, Upspake, I'm with you there - never been polled or know anyone who has or even knows anyone else who's been polled.
Looking forward to the Olympic backlash that's surely inevitable after the true cost is revealed, the inconvenience to the public, traffic chaos, brutal crackdown of any dissent and we find out how many millions Seb Coe made out of it.
The Royal baby scenario scars me though, I can see that happening
Looking forward to the Olympic backlash that's surely inevitable after the true cost is revealed, the inconvenience to the public, traffic chaos, brutal crackdown of any dissent and we find out how many millions Seb Coe made out of it.
The Royal baby scenario scars me though, I can see that happening
#
2012-07-25 11:12
Might be able to turn it on its head - not the baby of course.
But - comparing the lot of the royal infant and its parents with that of ones from deprived areas under both the English and Scottish NHS might throw up a few enlightening comparisons. comparetheenfan t.com ?
But - comparing the lot of the royal infant and its parents with that of ones from deprived areas under both the English and Scottish NHS might throw up a few enlightening comparisons. comparetheenfan t.com ?
#
2012-07-24 09:50
I've been polled once on my votng intentions, and once had a wee man round asking about my perception of crime for the Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics thingy.
However I have never been asked to do jury duty, nor do I know anyone who has....
GBP, the Royal Baby option could be a nightmare - just imagine little Rory Jamie Scott Andrew Windsor-Cambridge mugs everywhere......
However I have never been asked to do jury duty, nor do I know anyone who has....
GBP, the Royal Baby option could be a nightmare - just imagine little Rory Jamie Scott Andrew Windsor-Cambridge mugs everywhere......
#
2012-07-24 10:03
This year is the no camp's biggest and best chance to foment a seed change in public opinion. Diamond Jubilee, Olympics and full on media backing for both. So far, as skier has indicated, the percentage variance is small. A year of personal and collective media abuse and all the flag waving hype have produced only the loss of a few percentage points. Indeed after the olympics have passed we are back to austerity, governance under a microscope and a failing UK economy.
The SG only have to keep providing prudent government to show a clear water difference. What we require is for the YES campaign to step up a gear and start initiating air time and profile in any and all avenues, gearing up for Scotland's own flag waver of 2014. The YES campaign and the SG are heart and mind, one providing the moral and democratic argument the other the economic and procedural, both have to work in concert to encourage confidence in the electorate. The confidence not only to aspire to better, but to work for better.
I will be stunned to find Devo whatever anywhere near the final ballot question. I can't see the sense of its inclusion in this debate except as a way of highlighting Westminster's constitutional intransigence. Once that is settled it will be down to a simple choice for all voters.
Where do you wish your decisions made, Holyrood or Westminster?
The SG only have to keep providing prudent government to show a clear water difference. What we require is for the YES campaign to step up a gear and start initiating air time and profile in any and all avenues, gearing up for Scotland's own flag waver of 2014. The YES campaign and the SG are heart and mind, one providing the moral and democratic argument the other the economic and procedural, both have to work in concert to encourage confidence in the electorate. The confidence not only to aspire to better, but to work for better.
I will be stunned to find Devo whatever anywhere near the final ballot question. I can't see the sense of its inclusion in this debate except as a way of highlighting Westminster's constitutional intransigence. Once that is settled it will be down to a simple choice for all voters.
Where do you wish your decisions made, Holyrood or Westminster?
#
2012-07-24 11:00
I do wish the NO Campaign were more active; more street stalls, canvassing, billboards and televised adverts. Johann Lamont and Alastair Darling ought to appear more and continue to speak out for keeping the Union. They always boost support for Independence.
#
2012-07-24 11:11
The simplest way is to take our Independence, then WE can modify it to suit changing circumstances. For example, we can choose to ease to Devo Max (whatever that is) as and if the political climate suggests this option.
By keeping our Independence like virtually ALL other free countries, we minimise the possibiity of foreign manipulation, yet maximise our opportunities for commercial advantage.
The only Win-Win possibility.
By keeping our Independence like virtually ALL other free countries, we minimise the possibiity of foreign manipulation, yet maximise our opportunities for commercial advantage.
The only Win-Win possibility.
#
2012-07-24 11:29
“The Panelbase results pile more pressure on the anti-independence coalition to spell out what their vision is for Scotland’s constitutional future – the people of Scotland deserve to know what their alternative amounts to.”
The results also pile pressure on the nationalist campaign to “spell out their vision for Scotland’s constitutional future”.
Is Scotland to remain a so called “parliamentary democracy” where we get a CHOICE, limited by the broken electoral system, every five years to replace the party in government?
Or are we to become a “constitutional democracy” with a codified constitution defining OUR rights and responsibilitie s on the one hand and the obligations of the POLITICIANS to consult before they legistlate on the other?
The results also pile pressure on the nationalist campaign to “spell out their vision for Scotland’s constitutional future”.
Is Scotland to remain a so called “parliamentary democracy” where we get a CHOICE, limited by the broken electoral system, every five years to replace the party in government?
Or are we to become a “constitutional democracy” with a codified constitution defining OUR rights and responsibilitie s on the one hand and the obligations of the POLITICIANS to consult before they legistlate on the other?
#
2012-07-24 11:37
anyone read Simon Jenkins in the DT?
Upspake , I have been polled on electronic devises and games - neither of which I know anything about and it shows!- but never on my politics.
Upspake , I have been polled on electronic devises and games - neither of which I know anything about and it shows!- but never on my politics.
#
2012-07-24 11:49
mealer 2012-07-24 08:07
“29% want more powers.If that option isn't on offer,most of them will currrently plump for NO.This is down to a mixture of a lack of confidence/fear about an independent Scotlands prosperity.And not wanting to be "cut off" from the rest of the UK.We need to convince them that because plenty other countries of similair size are doing fine...so can we.And we have the benefit of oil as the icing on the cake.And we need to convince them that an independent Scotland will be an integral part of the world community.”
I agree mealer, but there exists a distinct lack of information coming from the Scottish parliament.
We know that none of the political parties want to let the truth be known until we have voted. So what are we to base our decision on “blind faith”?
“29% want more powers.If that option isn't on offer,most of them will currrently plump for NO.This is down to a mixture of a lack of confidence/fear about an independent Scotlands prosperity.And not wanting to be "cut off" from the rest of the UK.We need to convince them that because plenty other countries of similair size are doing fine...so can we.And we have the benefit of oil as the icing on the cake.And we need to convince them that an independent Scotland will be an integral part of the world community.”
I agree mealer, but there exists a distinct lack of information coming from the Scottish parliament.
We know that none of the political parties want to let the truth be known until we have voted. So what are we to base our decision on “blind faith”?
#
2012-07-24 12:35
Exel.... your monomania on the "issue" of needing more information from the Scottish parliament, and/or a written constitution before 2014 etc, is (as many have pointed out to you over and over again) misplaced and ill-timed.
The current Scottish parliament has no mandate to decide on the future constitutional make up of an independent Scotland, any more than the YES campaign, or civic Scotland, or the SNP or any other party.
All these bodies are of course entitled to their view of what they would *like* an independent Scotland to look like, but the ultimate decision lies with the people of Scotland... ALL the people of Scotland. It is only sensible to act on the settled will of the Scottish people once they have expressed it, NOT before.
This isn't rocket science, and it escapes me why you continue to bang on about the need for ever greater levels of detail and certainty when they are not required at this point, when few apart from yourself are calling for it, and (most importantly) when it is increasingly obvious that such calls are actually aimed at diverting attention from the "real" issue, and promoting a NO vote in 2014.
The Scottish people are more than capable of taking the issues in the correct and sensible order; the referendum on independence first, and then if the vote is YES, proceeding to iron out the details.
The current Scottish parliament has no mandate to decide on the future constitutional make up of an independent Scotland, any more than the YES campaign, or civic Scotland, or the SNP or any other party.
All these bodies are of course entitled to their view of what they would *like* an independent Scotland to look like, but the ultimate decision lies with the people of Scotland... ALL the people of Scotland. It is only sensible to act on the settled will of the Scottish people once they have expressed it, NOT before.
This isn't rocket science, and it escapes me why you continue to bang on about the need for ever greater levels of detail and certainty when they are not required at this point, when few apart from yourself are calling for it, and (most importantly) when it is increasingly obvious that such calls are actually aimed at diverting attention from the "real" issue, and promoting a NO vote in 2014.
The Scottish people are more than capable of taking the issues in the correct and sensible order; the referendum on independence first, and then if the vote is YES, proceeding to iron out the details.
#
2012-07-24 13:26
OK ignore me and take your own advice.
But be prepared to see a “None of the above” result. This increasingly seems to be what the SNP are hoping for.
But be prepared to see a “None of the above” result. This increasingly seems to be what the SNP are hoping for.
#
2012-07-24 14:16
Well, I expect it is your advice that will be ignored, simply because it isn't coherent.
As I've said, I have no particular party political axe to grind, as I'm not an SNP member (tho' if I was in Scotland and had a vote, I would probably be voting for them, and voting YES in 2014).
I don't see any evidence however for your wishful thinking about the SNP's hoped for result being "none of the above" (whatever that even means!).
I imagine if the result in 2014 is NO, the SNP will be fairly gutted; however, if that comes to pass, especially if it is a close result, then the problem for Unionists won't go away.
Since the odds are that they will be incapable of delivering increased devolution (however that is defined), it is much more likely that a NO vote will simply increase the appetite for "devo-max" of some sort rather than the status quo.
The result in 2014, whether NO or YES, will not as you continue to insist, be majorly impacted by your hobby horse of providing chapter and verse about what a future independent Scotland looks like, any more than it will by lack of detail from proponents of devo-max about what that entails, or indeed justifications from advocates of the status quo about why that would be better than the other options.
Sadly, given your persistance and inability to see sense, it is all to obvious that you can't kill a bad idea.
As I've said, I have no particular party political axe to grind, as I'm not an SNP member (tho' if I was in Scotland and had a vote, I would probably be voting for them, and voting YES in 2014).
I don't see any evidence however for your wishful thinking about the SNP's hoped for result being "none of the above" (whatever that even means!).
I imagine if the result in 2014 is NO, the SNP will be fairly gutted; however, if that comes to pass, especially if it is a close result, then the problem for Unionists won't go away.
Since the odds are that they will be incapable of delivering increased devolution (however that is defined), it is much more likely that a NO vote will simply increase the appetite for "devo-max" of some sort rather than the status quo.
The result in 2014, whether NO or YES, will not as you continue to insist, be majorly impacted by your hobby horse of providing chapter and verse about what a future independent Scotland looks like, any more than it will by lack of detail from proponents of devo-max about what that entails, or indeed justifications from advocates of the status quo about why that would be better than the other options.
Sadly, given your persistance and inability to see sense, it is all to obvious that you can't kill a bad idea.
#
2012-07-24 14:53
Galen10 2012-07-24 14:16
“As I've said, I have no particular party political axe to grind, as I'm not an SNP member (tho' if I was in Scotland and had a vote, I would probably be voting for them, and voting YES in 2014).”
Now I understand!! You are one of the “I’m alright brigade” no matter how the vote goes it will not effect you.
“I don't see any evidence however for your wishful thinking about the SNP's hoped for result being "none of the above" (whatever that even means!).”
It means that if there is a three way split and a 50% turnout any result is not the settled will of the Scottish people and the SNP can say we tried. It is no fault of our campaign it is, as usual, everyone else. We are in power and the next election is not until 2016.
“As I've said, I have no particular party political axe to grind, as I'm not an SNP member (tho' if I was in Scotland and had a vote, I would probably be voting for them, and voting YES in 2014).”
Now I understand!! You are one of the “I’m alright brigade” no matter how the vote goes it will not effect you.
“I don't see any evidence however for your wishful thinking about the SNP's hoped for result being "none of the above" (whatever that even means!).”
It means that if there is a three way split and a 50% turnout any result is not the settled will of the Scottish people and the SNP can say we tried. It is no fault of our campaign it is, as usual, everyone else. We are in power and the next election is not until 2016.
#
2012-07-24 16:50
Quote:
Can I just establish that you understand that the SNP cannot deliver Devo Max in any form and that if that option fails to appear on the ballot paper it really will be the fault of everyone else?
It means that if there is a three way split and a 50% turnout any result is not the settled will of the Scottish people and the SNP can say we tried. It is no fault of our campaign it is, as usual, everyone else.
Can I just establish that you understand that the SNP cannot deliver Devo Max in any form and that if that option fails to appear on the ballot paper it really will be the fault of everyone else?
#
2012-07-24 17:55
GrassyKnollingt on 2012-07-24 16:50
“Can I just establish that you understand that the SNP cannot deliver Devo Max in any form and that if that option fails to appear on the ballot paper it really will be the fault of everyone else?”
I can confirm that I fully understand devolution (which was voted for by the Scottish electorate and rejected by the SNP), I also understand Fiscal Federalism as outlined in the Steele commission report (in which the SNP refused to participate), but devo max (or devo anything else) will remain undefined as far as I can see.
The SNP claim to have detected, an appetite for something short of “Full secession” in their consultations, if they do not put that option on the referendum paper it is down to them and no one else.
“Can I just establish that you understand that the SNP cannot deliver Devo Max in any form and that if that option fails to appear on the ballot paper it really will be the fault of everyone else?”
I can confirm that I fully understand devolution (which was voted for by the Scottish electorate and rejected by the SNP), I also understand Fiscal Federalism as outlined in the Steele commission report (in which the SNP refused to participate), but devo max (or devo anything else) will remain undefined as far as I can see.
The SNP claim to have detected, an appetite for something short of “Full secession” in their consultations, if they do not put that option on the referendum paper it is down to them and no one else.
#
2012-07-24 18:10
Quote:
As I feared, you don't understand that any devolution has to be delivered by Westminster. Unless a Westminster party promises to deliver Devo Max in the form it's put on the ballot paper, it's an entirely pointless exercise and in fact the SNP would be lying to the electorate by leading them to believe it was a choice which would be implemented if chosen.
You're so utterly fixated on the constitution that you have completely failed to understand that Devo Max cannot be delivered by the SNP.
The SNP claim to have detected, an appetite for something short of “Full secession” in their consultations, if they do not put that option on the referendum paper it is down to them and no one else.
As I feared, you don't understand that any devolution has to be delivered by Westminster. Unless a Westminster party promises to deliver Devo Max in the form it's put on the ballot paper, it's an entirely pointless exercise and in fact the SNP would be lying to the electorate by leading them to believe it was a choice which would be implemented if chosen.
You're so utterly fixated on the constitution that you have completely failed to understand that Devo Max cannot be delivered by the SNP.
#
2012-07-24 18:39
@ Grassy
Exactly... well said. Excel has a total blind spot about this as he has demonstrated over many threads for some time.
Excel is one of those poor unfortunates who has swallowed the Unionist dogma whole, vis; the SNP have some secret agenda whereby they will threaten independence to achieve FFA.
The obvious flaw in this argument (apart from the fact that there is zero evidence to support it) is that even if it WERE SNP policy, whether overt or covert, they are in no position to bring it about.
It isn't UP to the SNP to define FFA, because they don't believe in it; the responsibility lies with those who support it.... and stangely they have been awfie quiet about what it will be, when it will happen, and how it will be decided upon.
Exactly... well said. Excel has a total blind spot about this as he has demonstrated over many threads for some time.
Excel is one of those poor unfortunates who has swallowed the Unionist dogma whole, vis; the SNP have some secret agenda whereby they will threaten independence to achieve FFA.
The obvious flaw in this argument (apart from the fact that there is zero evidence to support it) is that even if it WERE SNP policy, whether overt or covert, they are in no position to bring it about.
It isn't UP to the SNP to define FFA, because they don't believe in it; the responsibility lies with those who support it.... and stangely they have been awfie quiet about what it will be, when it will happen, and how it will be decided upon.
#
2012-07-24 18:41
GrassyKnollingt on 2012-07-24 18:10
“As I feared, you don't understand that any devolution has to be delivered by Westminster. Unless a Westminster party promises to deliver Devo Max in the form it's put on the ballot paper, it's an entirely pointless exercise and in fact the SNP would be lying to the electorate by leading them to believe it was a choice which would be implemented if chosen.”
What part of “devo max or devo anything else will remain undefined” don’t you understand? Stick devo anything else where the sun does not shine. If the Scottish people want something other than “secession” they are entitled to ask for it in a referendum and that includes Federalism.
This referendum only mandates negotiation, nothing else.
“As I feared, you don't understand that any devolution has to be delivered by Westminster. Unless a Westminster party promises to deliver Devo Max in the form it's put on the ballot paper, it's an entirely pointless exercise and in fact the SNP would be lying to the electorate by leading them to believe it was a choice which would be implemented if chosen.”
What part of “devo max or devo anything else will remain undefined” don’t you understand? Stick devo anything else where the sun does not shine. If the Scottish people want something other than “secession” they are entitled to ask for it in a referendum and that includes Federalism.
This referendum only mandates negotiation, nothing else.
#
2012-07-24 19:43
[Quoting exel:
This referendum only mandates negotiation, nothing else.
The SNP came to power with a mandate of holding a Referendum on Scottish Independence, nothing else!
The consultation and a number of policical polls have thrown up the Devo question. Home rule is a policy of the Lib Dems ( not likely to offer it as they back track on almost every other policy that they have - although they are to publish a review of said policy in the autumn, so you never know. Labour have a policy of Devolution, as Johann Lamont kept telling parliament. The Tories, well what are you to expect from them apart from lines in the sand.
A vote for Devolved powers, is a wasted vote, negotiation on Devolved powers has been laughed at by the unionist parties because they can not and will not offer it. They have kicked this into the long grass.
Salmond can listen to the population, but he can only but a single question on the ballot paper - that is his partys mandate. Another party has to want to offer further Devo and define it. Salmond cannot define Devo powers.
GrassyKnollingt on 2012-07-24 18:10
“
This referendum only mandates negotiation, nothing else.
This referendum only mandates negotiation, nothing else.
The SNP came to power with a mandate of holding a Referendum on Scottish Independence, nothing else!
The consultation and a number of policical polls have thrown up the Devo question. Home rule is a policy of the Lib Dems ( not likely to offer it as they back track on almost every other policy that they have - although they are to publish a review of said policy in the autumn, so you never know. Labour have a policy of Devolution, as Johann Lamont kept telling parliament. The Tories, well what are you to expect from them apart from lines in the sand.
A vote for Devolved powers, is a wasted vote, negotiation on Devolved powers has been laughed at by the unionist parties because they can not and will not offer it. They have kicked this into the long grass.
Salmond can listen to the population, but he can only but a single question on the ballot paper - that is his partys mandate. Another party has to want to offer further Devo and define it. Salmond cannot define Devo powers.
#
2012-07-24 23:30
Sorry exel, but galen 10 and grassy knollington have got you by the short and curlys yet again.
Your weird attempts to throw a spanner in the works is well reconised by most people.
So I have to ask are you Duncan Hothersall in disguise, because the arguements and their context are very similer ???
Your weird attempts to throw a spanner in the works is well reconised by most people.
So I have to ask are you Duncan Hothersall in disguise, because the arguements and their context are very similer ???
#
2012-07-24 19:23
Quoting exel:
The SNP are well aware of a sizable proportion of voters in Scotland wanting further Devo (Devolved powers). No party in Government in Holyrood can give the option of further Devolved powers unless they are in Government in Westminster. That then falls to the Tories or Lib Dems in London to do as they can if they wish offer the Scottish population further devolved powers as they can if they chose get these as yet unresolved Devo minimum/ Maximum powers through the Westminster parliament if they have an appetite to do so.
If any Scottish political party (and I include Labour, Lib Dems & Tories in this) wants to put Devo powers on the ballot paper then again it falls to the Tories & Lib Dems in West Minster to pass these powers. They do not want to pass more powers, that is why they do not want to see a democratic vote made on the option.
They are gambling our future on a no vote so they can drag their heals for another 10 or 15 years before giving us some other minor council like powers. They want to retain power and all TAX collection in Westminster and London Treasury. It is good for them to keep everything centered on London. It is not good for those of us that that reside in Scotland.
The Latest offerings from the Scotland Bill, which do not come in until 2016 will give Holyrood powers over speed limits, power over licensing of air weapons and very little else. Remember that Local councils are responsible for traffic signs - to put these extra powers into some perspective!
To Summerize
Without the Condems in Westminster village offering the people of Scotland further Devolved powers and naming/detailing these powers. We have no way of achieving them at the ballot box.
The people of Scotland (far less any political party or for that matter Democratically elected Government in Scotland) are bound by the wishes Westminster.
You are far from the only one that does not see this. It seems a third of those that are often polled on the subject - and express a preference for Holyrood to have further Devolved powers - as yet haven't made the 'Devolved' link in their understanding of process. Just because a few Scots might like it does not give a Scottish Government power to enact these peoples wishes.
We all have our hands bound and tied on the Devo matter. It is a reserved matter, for Westminster only.
GrassyKnollingt on 2012-07-24 16:50
The SNP claim to have detected, an appetite for something short of “Full secession” in their consultations, if they do not put that option on the referendum paper it is down to them and no one else.
The SNP are well aware of a sizable proportion of voters in Scotland wanting further Devo (Devolved powers). No party in Government in Holyrood can give the option of further Devolved powers unless they are in Government in Westminster. That then falls to the Tories or Lib Dems in London to do as they can if they wish offer the Scottish population further devolved powers as they can if they chose get these as yet unresolved Devo minimum/ Maximum powers through the Westminster parliament if they have an appetite to do so.
If any Scottish political party (and I include Labour, Lib Dems & Tories in this) wants to put Devo powers on the ballot paper then again it falls to the Tories & Lib Dems in West Minster to pass these powers. They do not want to pass more powers, that is why they do not want to see a democratic vote made on the option.
They are gambling our future on a no vote so they can drag their heals for another 10 or 15 years before giving us some other minor council like powers. They want to retain power and all TAX collection in Westminster and London Treasury. It is good for them to keep everything centered on London. It is not good for those of us that that reside in Scotland.
The Latest offerings from the Scotland Bill, which do not come in until 2016 will give Holyrood powers over speed limits, power over licensing of air weapons and very little else. Remember that Local councils are responsible for traffic signs - to put these extra powers into some perspective!
To Summerize
Without the Condems in Westminster village offering the people of Scotland further Devolved powers and naming/detailing these powers. We have no way of achieving them at the ballot box.
The people of Scotland (far less any political party or for that matter Democratically elected Government in Scotland) are bound by the wishes Westminster.
You are far from the only one that does not see this. It seems a third of those that are often polled on the subject - and express a preference for Holyrood to have further Devolved powers - as yet haven't made the 'Devolved' link in their understanding of process. Just because a few Scots might like it does not give a Scottish Government power to enact these peoples wishes.
We all have our hands bound and tied on the Devo matter. It is a reserved matter, for Westminster only.
#
2012-07-24 18:21
Well, yes it will affect me. Although I've lived in England for some time (and thus wont have a vote in 2014 unless I come home), I will have a Scottish passport assuming independence happens. My immediate family (mostly) live in Scotland.
As for you points about the turnout, they are immaterial; people who can't be bothered to vote have no place complaining about an outcome they couldn't be arsed to get up and influence.
You appear not to understand the basics of democracy, or perhaps you are just trolling for the fun of it?
As others have pointed out to you, as far as we know the three way split in opinion ISN'T going to be reflected in the vote, because there will only be a YES/NO choice.
If the vote in 2014 is NO, then everyone can knock themselves out planning for devo max/midi/mebbe/FFA... and then have a good laugh watching the Unionist parties trying to deliver it, let alone form a coherent platform to promote it.
As for you points about the turnout, they are immaterial; people who can't be bothered to vote have no place complaining about an outcome they couldn't be arsed to get up and influence.
You appear not to understand the basics of democracy, or perhaps you are just trolling for the fun of it?
As others have pointed out to you, as far as we know the three way split in opinion ISN'T going to be reflected in the vote, because there will only be a YES/NO choice.
If the vote in 2014 is NO, then everyone can knock themselves out planning for devo max/midi/mebbe/FFA... and then have a good laugh watching the Unionist parties trying to deliver it, let alone form a coherent platform to promote it.
#
2012-07-24 15:31
Quote Galen "the need for ever greater levels of detail and certainty......are not required at this point,". I couldn't agree more. We have two years to go and it would be silly to "draw lines in the sand" at this point. If the SG concentrate on the task in hand of governing Scotland to the best of its ability in the meantime, we will pretty much know what Scotland will look like post independence.
On the subject of polls, I've been contacted numerous times over the years, telephone and doorstep polls. Most of them asked some political questions and more recently about my views on independence.
On the subject of polls, I've been contacted numerous times over the years, telephone and doorstep polls. Most of them asked some political questions and more recently about my views on independence.
#
2012-07-24 12:37
O/T:
People in Wales and England are less satisfied with their lives than people in Scotland and Northern Ireland, the first national well-being survey says.
tinyurl.com/c8c3ac8
People in Wales and England are less satisfied with their lives than people in Scotland and Northern Ireland, the first national well-being survey says.
tinyurl.com/c8c3ac8
#
2012-07-24 22:17
Tilly, I know this is the headline and I guess some of us are dissatisfied with being run to a great extent by Westminster, but don't you find this reporting very, very confusing? (Mind you 'tis the BBC...)
"The Office for National Statistics asked people to rate their life satisfaction on a scale of zero to 10.
Overall, the UK average was 24.1%, with Wales at 25.3%, England 24.3%, Scotland 22.6% and Northern Ireland 21.9%."
Anyone good at maths able to get their head round this? - I'm only a linguist and I don't get the syntax here...
Cheers.
"The Office for National Statistics asked people to rate their life satisfaction on a scale of zero to 10.
Overall, the UK average was 24.1%, with Wales at 25.3%, England 24.3%, Scotland 22.6% and Northern Ireland 21.9%."
Anyone good at maths able to get their head round this? - I'm only a linguist and I don't get the syntax here...
Cheers.
#
2012-07-24 13:51
Interesting link Tilly. Did you notice that the lowest places for satisfaction on the map of Scotland were North Ayrshire, Glasgow, North Lanarkshire and Fife. Who is generally in political control of those areas?
#
2012-07-24 14:13
As a Fifer I can only agree that my general life satisfaction level has dropped since Labour have taken over control of the Council again.
LOL:
In spite of the SNP increasing their councillor numbers by 5 since the previous election. The increase in Labour seats came from the continuing decline of the Lib/Dems. There were other factors in the mix too around increased care charges which although were in the average range for Scotland held the SNP back in the final analysis.
We will have to roll the stone back up to the top of the hill again!
#:[
LOL:
In spite of the SNP increasing their councillor numbers by 5 since the previous election. The increase in Labour seats came from the continuing decline of the Lib/Dems. There were other factors in the mix too around increased care charges which although were in the average range for Scotland held the SNP back in the final analysis.
We will have to roll the stone back up to the top of the hill again!
#:[
#
2012-07-24 14:57
The English political establishment is clearly getting worried at the trends in the polls. A wee sop to Cerberus, giving Chris Hoy the job of lighting the wee fire in the Olympic Stadium and Andy Murray the torch relay to Wimbledon.
They're so darned transparent!
They're so darned transparent!
#
2012-07-24 15:01
Those coves at National Collective have a most fascinating article by some modest bloke and a tune that could change the Independence Referendum...
nationalcollective.com/.../...
nationalcollective.com/.../...
#
2012-07-24 16:40
I was at the Stanley Odd gig at the Wickerman, I missed Bad Manners in a different tent, I'm glad I did.
#
2012-07-24 15:32
It would appear that a single multi-option question could well secure independence.
#
2012-07-24 22:05
Oops, now it's 43.6 Yes, 56.4 No.
I wonder what odds I can get that the poll vanishes before the Yes %ge gets above 50% ?
There's definitly an arithmetic progression here, every time a single Yes vote is added. Perhaps the No voters have all gone down to the pub. Haha
I wonder what odds I can get that the poll vanishes before the Yes %ge gets above 50% ?
There's definitly an arithmetic progression here, every time a single Yes vote is added. Perhaps the No voters have all gone down to the pub. Haha
#
2012-07-24 21:08
O/T
Interesting what raking over the coals turn up!
24 July 2012
McKay Commission: Labour 'avoided devolution questions'
Labour made a "conscious decision" to stay away from the West Lothian question, Kim Howells says.
Probe into West Lothian question
The previous Labour government decided to avoid dealing with the "very difficult" questions created by devolution, says a former minister.
Kim Howells said Labour opted to "stay well away" from the implications for MPs' voting rights.
The former Pontypridd MP gave evidence to the McKay Commission meeting in Cardiff into the West Lothian question.
bbc.co.uk/.../...
Interesting what raking over the coals turn up!
24 July 2012
McKay Commission: Labour 'avoided devolution questions'
Labour made a "conscious decision" to stay away from the West Lothian question, Kim Howells says.
Probe into West Lothian question
The previous Labour government decided to avoid dealing with the "very difficult" questions created by devolution, says a former minister.
Kim Howells said Labour opted to "stay well away" from the implications for MPs' voting rights.
The former Pontypridd MP gave evidence to the McKay Commission meeting in Cardiff into the West Lothian question.
bbc.co.uk/.../...
#
2012-07-24 22:42
Dr Kim Howells - cut him open like a stick of rock and 'unionist' will be engraved throughout...
#
2012-07-24 22:03
Adrian B 2012-07-24 19:23
"The SNP are well aware of a sizable proportion of voters in Scotland wanting further Devo (Devolved powers). No party in Government in Holyrood can give the option of further Devolved powers unless they are in Government in Westminster. That then falls to the Tories or Lib Dems in London to do as they can if they wish offer the Scottish population further devolved powers as they can if they chose get these as yet unresolved Devo minimum/ Maximum powers through the Westminster parliament if they have an appetite to do so."
This referendum has nothing to do with devolution, nothing to do with the powers of the party of government in Holyrood and certainly nothing to do with the party in government at Westminster.
It is about Self-determination: A principle in international law that nations have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no external compulsion or external interference. The principle does not state how the decision is to be made, or what the outcome should be, whether it be independence, federation, protection, some form of autonomy or even full assimilation. Neither does it state what the delimitation between nations should be — or even what constitutes a nation.
In fact, there are conflicting definitions and legal criteria for determining which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination. Moreover, self-determination is just one of many principles applied to determining international borders.
The key phrase is:” whether it be by independence, federation, protection, some form of autonomy or even full assimilation.”
The people of Scotland voted for one route to self determination (devolution) over twelve years ago after the disintegration of the Westminster system. Unfortunately devolution (a quasi federal system) was not the answer. It did not deliver the decentralizatio n of power from Westminster and left Scots with their aspirations unfulfilled. In reality the political parties, of all flavours, hoped that it would fail and it did.
There remain two further routes to self determination however:
1. The nationalists prefer the Independence route. That is, secession from the union, going it alone, separation, etc. etc. But to convince the electorate they need to explain what “set of principles” will govern the new state. In other words they must offer and have accepted, by a substantial majority, a Written Constitution entrenching the sovereignty of the Scottish people. Without the written constitution all we will get is a “Mini Westminster Elective Dictatorship”
2. The other route Federalism does not seem to be a priority for Westminster nor for Holyrood.
Although by all accounts it seems to be the preferred option for Scots and SNP if truth be known..
Plus:
3. The status quo; Devolution already exists and is an option for discussion along with the other two.
In my opinion all three should be on the referendum paper.
Do you think best route to self determination for Scotland is?
A. Independence?
OR
B. Federation of the regions?
OR
C. Status Quo?
"The SNP are well aware of a sizable proportion of voters in Scotland wanting further Devo (Devolved powers). No party in Government in Holyrood can give the option of further Devolved powers unless they are in Government in Westminster. That then falls to the Tories or Lib Dems in London to do as they can if they wish offer the Scottish population further devolved powers as they can if they chose get these as yet unresolved Devo minimum/ Maximum powers through the Westminster parliament if they have an appetite to do so."
This referendum has nothing to do with devolution, nothing to do with the powers of the party of government in Holyrood and certainly nothing to do with the party in government at Westminster.
It is about Self-determination: A principle in international law that nations have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no external compulsion or external interference. The principle does not state how the decision is to be made, or what the outcome should be, whether it be independence, federation, protection, some form of autonomy or even full assimilation. Neither does it state what the delimitation between nations should be — or even what constitutes a nation.
In fact, there are conflicting definitions and legal criteria for determining which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination. Moreover, self-determination is just one of many principles applied to determining international borders.
The key phrase is:” whether it be by independence, federation, protection, some form of autonomy or even full assimilation.”
The people of Scotland voted for one route to self determination (devolution) over twelve years ago after the disintegration of the Westminster system. Unfortunately devolution (a quasi federal system) was not the answer. It did not deliver the decentralizatio n of power from Westminster and left Scots with their aspirations unfulfilled. In reality the political parties, of all flavours, hoped that it would fail and it did.
There remain two further routes to self determination however:
1. The nationalists prefer the Independence route. That is, secession from the union, going it alone, separation, etc. etc. But to convince the electorate they need to explain what “set of principles” will govern the new state. In other words they must offer and have accepted, by a substantial majority, a Written Constitution entrenching the sovereignty of the Scottish people. Without the written constitution all we will get is a “Mini Westminster Elective Dictatorship”
2. The other route Federalism does not seem to be a priority for Westminster nor for Holyrood.
Although by all accounts it seems to be the preferred option for Scots and SNP if truth be known..
Plus:
3. The status quo; Devolution already exists and is an option for discussion along with the other two.
In my opinion all three should be on the referendum paper.
Do you think best route to self determination for Scotland is?
A. Independence?
OR
B. Federation of the regions?
OR
C. Status Quo?
#
2012-07-24 23:38
Do you think best route to self determination for Scotland is?
A. Independence?
OR
B. Federation of the regions?
OR
C. Status Quo?
Answer Independence - It's the only option that will be on the ballot paper that will give Scotland a proper and real Parliament, with all the powers required to run the country in a way that any business would be run. It can collect all taxes and decide how much and where they need to be spent for the benefit of the people of the nation.
Federation of the Regions - Well here is where the Lib Dems should be strong, but sadly, the dwindling number that exist across the whole of the UK seem to prefer the Union option - possibly with further Devo powers. Not an option, not going to be on the ballot paper.
Status Quo - Even David Cameron thinks that this would be a lucky escape. Not going to happen.
The chance of a lifetime is within reach, with the referendum being just over two years away. We have a SG giving us the chance to shape our nations future. We must focus on what is being offered. Independence. Once we have voted for that the whole Scottish political game will have changed overnight.
New parties will emerge from Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems - all of these parties will be forced to change and change radically for the new era. Even before we have Independence the SDA will emerge. I think that the SNP will stay much as they are for the first few years at least.
It's not until we have Independence that we need to have a written constitution - if at all. but it could be an option. We can then discuss a Second Chamber. Federal state? The point is that until we get to voting to be an Independent nation for many of the non political members of society, all the other options open to people like this will appear to be like noise - a distraction, then a portion of them may find the Status Quo an easier vote. We must gain Independence first.
Only journalists and political anoraks can endure so many options over such a long period of time. We need the options to be kept simple or we risk losing a large swath of the population along the way.
I go back to Devo powers. The Unionists are convinced that those that want more Devo powers will vote no (Status Quo), these voters have already decided that they do not want the Status Quo, it has been rejected. These voters have made a decision that Holyrood needs more powers. There is only going to be one option on that ballot paper one day two years from now that spells this out for them. These voters must be persuaded that Independence is their vote as it will be our vote.
If Scotland becomes an Independent nation in the autumn of 2016, then we will have voted the first new Government of our Independent country into power in the preceding May of that year. There will have been two years for the new political parties, alliances etcetera to have been set up. New faces, policies for a new Nation. We will be buzzing with opportunities, focused on doing better. The world will be watching the best wee small Nation in the world with full of excitement, fresh ideas, imagination and hope.
Where we go after that and how we get there will be our own making. We will only do this by going for Independence.
A. Independence?
OR
B. Federation of the regions?
OR
C. Status Quo?
Answer Independence - It's the only option that will be on the ballot paper that will give Scotland a proper and real Parliament, with all the powers required to run the country in a way that any business would be run. It can collect all taxes and decide how much and where they need to be spent for the benefit of the people of the nation.
Federation of the Regions - Well here is where the Lib Dems should be strong, but sadly, the dwindling number that exist across the whole of the UK seem to prefer the Union option - possibly with further Devo powers. Not an option, not going to be on the ballot paper.
Status Quo - Even David Cameron thinks that this would be a lucky escape. Not going to happen.
The chance of a lifetime is within reach, with the referendum being just over two years away. We have a SG giving us the chance to shape our nations future. We must focus on what is being offered. Independence. Once we have voted for that the whole Scottish political game will have changed overnight.
New parties will emerge from Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems - all of these parties will be forced to change and change radically for the new era. Even before we have Independence the SDA will emerge. I think that the SNP will stay much as they are for the first few years at least.
It's not until we have Independence that we need to have a written constitution - if at all. but it could be an option. We can then discuss a Second Chamber. Federal state? The point is that until we get to voting to be an Independent nation for many of the non political members of society, all the other options open to people like this will appear to be like noise - a distraction, then a portion of them may find the Status Quo an easier vote. We must gain Independence first.
Only journalists and political anoraks can endure so many options over such a long period of time. We need the options to be kept simple or we risk losing a large swath of the population along the way.
I go back to Devo powers. The Unionists are convinced that those that want more Devo powers will vote no (Status Quo), these voters have already decided that they do not want the Status Quo, it has been rejected. These voters have made a decision that Holyrood needs more powers. There is only going to be one option on that ballot paper one day two years from now that spells this out for them. These voters must be persuaded that Independence is their vote as it will be our vote.
If Scotland becomes an Independent nation in the autumn of 2016, then we will have voted the first new Government of our Independent country into power in the preceding May of that year. There will have been two years for the new political parties, alliances etcetera to have been set up. New faces, policies for a new Nation. We will be buzzing with opportunities, focused on doing better. The world will be watching the best wee small Nation in the world with full of excitement, fresh ideas, imagination and hope.
Where we go after that and how we get there will be our own making. We will only do this by going for Independence.
#
2012-07-25 00:49
Adrian B 2012-07-24 23:38
“If Scotland becomes an Independent nation in the autumn of 2016, then we will have voted the first new Government of our Independent country into power in the preceding May of that year. There will have been two years for the new political parties, alliances etcetera to have been set up. New faces, policies for a new Nation. We will be buzzing with opportunities, focused on doing better. The world will be watching the best wee small Nation in the world with full of excitement, fresh ideas, imagination and hope.”
“Where we go after that and how we get there will be our own making. We will only do this by going for Independence.”
Best of luck, only 1,999,999 to convince.
“If Scotland becomes an Independent nation in the autumn of 2016, then we will have voted the first new Government of our Independent country into power in the preceding May of that year. There will have been two years for the new political parties, alliances etcetera to have been set up. New faces, policies for a new Nation. We will be buzzing with opportunities, focused on doing better. The world will be watching the best wee small Nation in the world with full of excitement, fresh ideas, imagination and hope.”
“Where we go after that and how we get there will be our own making. We will only do this by going for Independence.”
Best of luck, only 1,999,999 to convince.
#
2012-07-25 01:11
You are well off the mark exel. But most of us on this site have been aware of that for some time.
#
2012-07-25 08:01
@excel
You really don't have the sense to stay down when you've been beaten do you?
As Adrain and others have demonstrated, your quaint attachment to a 3 option referendum, and to a fully federal solution is a non starter for a number of reasons. As Adrian rightly points out, there is no appetite amongst the Unionist parties for bringing it about, and no reason for the SNP to do so.
Further, even if there WERE an appetite on the part of the Lib Dems say to do so, and they had the power to bring it about (epic fail on both counts by the way... but let's leave that aside for the purposes of your windmill tilting exercise), the UK as a political system is peculiarly ill-suited to any federal solution.
Introducing such a system would require mucking out the Westminster stables on a truly Augean scale. Once again, there is ZERO appetite for this in England, and no chance of it being forced through Westminster even if those in favour of doing it could come up with a coherent plan, which they patenetly can't and won't.
You keep harping on ad nauseam about the right of the Scottish people to have the choice of devo-mebbe/max/midi/FFA on the ballot paper, but that is a matter for those in favour of that solution to bring about. As noted above, the SNP were voted in on a mandate to hold a referendum on independence, NOT greater devolution.
If the abject failure of the Unionist establishment to come up with a convincing alternative to independence leads to a YES vote in 2014, they will have nobody to blame but themselves. However, even if the vote is NO in 2014, it isn't something the Unionists can crow about, because if they fail to answer the legitimate desire of the Scottish people to have FFA or something similar delivered, they will find themselves being punished at the ballot box.
Either the SNP will gain support again from Unionist inability to make good on their promises, or Scottish conservatives, labour supporters and lib-dems will increasingly find themselves faced with Scottish splinter groups... a process which already seems to have started.
You really don't have the sense to stay down when you've been beaten do you?
As Adrain and others have demonstrated, your quaint attachment to a 3 option referendum, and to a fully federal solution is a non starter for a number of reasons. As Adrian rightly points out, there is no appetite amongst the Unionist parties for bringing it about, and no reason for the SNP to do so.
Further, even if there WERE an appetite on the part of the Lib Dems say to do so, and they had the power to bring it about (epic fail on both counts by the way... but let's leave that aside for the purposes of your windmill tilting exercise), the UK as a political system is peculiarly ill-suited to any federal solution.
Introducing such a system would require mucking out the Westminster stables on a truly Augean scale. Once again, there is ZERO appetite for this in England, and no chance of it being forced through Westminster even if those in favour of doing it could come up with a coherent plan, which they patenetly can't and won't.
You keep harping on ad nauseam about the right of the Scottish people to have the choice of devo-mebbe/max/midi/FFA on the ballot paper, but that is a matter for those in favour of that solution to bring about. As noted above, the SNP were voted in on a mandate to hold a referendum on independence, NOT greater devolution.
If the abject failure of the Unionist establishment to come up with a convincing alternative to independence leads to a YES vote in 2014, they will have nobody to blame but themselves. However, even if the vote is NO in 2014, it isn't something the Unionists can crow about, because if they fail to answer the legitimate desire of the Scottish people to have FFA or something similar delivered, they will find themselves being punished at the ballot box.
Either the SNP will gain support again from Unionist inability to make good on their promises, or Scottish conservatives, labour supporters and lib-dems will increasingly find themselves faced with Scottish splinter groups... a process which already seems to have started.
#
2012-07-25 15:13
Sorry, pedant alert, but I have to say this again -
Status Quo are Status Quo
The status quo is the status quo
(...it's just every time someone types 'Status Quo' I hear Francis Rossi singing... 'whatever you want, whatever you like...')
:)
Status Quo are Status Quo
The status quo is the status quo
(...it's just every time someone types 'Status Quo' I hear Francis Rossi singing... 'whatever you want, whatever you like...')
:)
#
2012-07-25 02:00
Mark 22nd September in your diaries and on your calenders for the March and Rally for Scottish Independence Rally.
www.ourscotland.net/
Donations required for event, but organisation is well underway. Only two months to go.
www.ourscotland.net/
Donations required for event, but organisation is well underway. Only two months to go.
#
2012-07-25 12:06
Galen10 2012-07-25 08:01
“You really don't have the sense to stay down when you've been beaten do you?”
That is life Galen, it never was my way to allow con artists to win. You may claim no affiliation to the SNP, I simply do not believe you.
Your crowing may yet jump up and bite you. Even if it doesn’t I will continue to express my point of view.
If you are correct and the people of Scotland do vote YES, they will be the losers in the long run. However Scots are not as gullible as you think, I put my faith in them.
If the SNP have not got the message after 80 odd years, then they never will, but I expect you will find some other “snake oil salesmen” to attach to.
“You really don't have the sense to stay down when you've been beaten do you?”
That is life Galen, it never was my way to allow con artists to win. You may claim no affiliation to the SNP, I simply do not believe you.
Your crowing may yet jump up and bite you. Even if it doesn’t I will continue to express my point of view.
If you are correct and the people of Scotland do vote YES, they will be the losers in the long run. However Scots are not as gullible as you think, I put my faith in them.
If the SNP have not got the message after 80 odd years, then they never will, but I expect you will find some other “snake oil salesmen” to attach to.
#
2012-07-25 12:41
"If you are correct and the people of Scotland do vote YES, they will be the losers in the long run. "
Wow,exel, that is some admission. So, are Denmark, Norway or Finland losers too or is it just Scotland that cannot benefit from independence?
Wow,exel, that is some admission. So, are Denmark, Norway or Finland losers too or is it just Scotland that cannot benefit from independence?
#
2012-07-25 13:22
Quoting cirsium:
So, are Bavaria, California and Alberta losers too or is it just Scotland than cannot benefit from devolution within a larger Union?
So, are Denmark, Norway or Finland losers too or is it just Scotland that cannot benefit from independence?
So, are Bavaria, California and Alberta losers too or is it just Scotland than cannot benefit from devolution within a larger Union?
#
2012-07-25 14:00
Exel, your paranoia that I am an SNP mole says much more about your penchant for playing the man rather than the ball than it does about the strength of your arguments. I have no way of proving to you that I am not a member of or affiliated with the SNP, but why would I lie about it on a site like this?
You are of course entitled to your opinion; what you are being called out about is your reluctance to back up your frankly eccentric views with any reasoned argument. Constant repetition simply doesn't cut it.
As cirsium and Adrian note below, give us some plausible arguments why you think the prople of Scotland will be the losers in the long term if they vote YES in 2014, tell us all why federalism is a better bet, and more importantly how it is going to be achieved given the current political system.
None of this is rocket science, and yet you are curiously reluctnat to actually engage in a proper debate supporting your assertions.
Hell, even most arch Unionists have admitted that Scotland is more than capable of being a successful independent state... so I'm really interested to hear why you think we of all people (given our history) are uniquely unqualified to make a success of an independent state.
I don't know why you characterise me as crowing about the prospects for a YES vote in 2014; I'm on record as saying in fact that a NO vote is still quite possible. It is surely unexceptional however to point out that even if that happens, the Unionists can take scant comfort from the result, and may even find it bites them in the arse later. That is at least as likely a scenario (and arguably much more likely) than your desired outcome.
You are of course adept at avoiding the actual issues in place of attacking the messenger, thus you consistantly avoided answering questions put to you about your constiution fixation, only to compund it by doing the same with your federlist fixation.
Please, either put up or shut up.
You are of course entitled to your opinion; what you are being called out about is your reluctance to back up your frankly eccentric views with any reasoned argument. Constant repetition simply doesn't cut it.
As cirsium and Adrian note below, give us some plausible arguments why you think the prople of Scotland will be the losers in the long term if they vote YES in 2014, tell us all why federalism is a better bet, and more importantly how it is going to be achieved given the current political system.
None of this is rocket science, and yet you are curiously reluctnat to actually engage in a proper debate supporting your assertions.
Hell, even most arch Unionists have admitted that Scotland is more than capable of being a successful independent state... so I'm really interested to hear why you think we of all people (given our history) are uniquely unqualified to make a success of an independent state.
I don't know why you characterise me as crowing about the prospects for a YES vote in 2014; I'm on record as saying in fact that a NO vote is still quite possible. It is surely unexceptional however to point out that even if that happens, the Unionists can take scant comfort from the result, and may even find it bites them in the arse later. That is at least as likely a scenario (and arguably much more likely) than your desired outcome.
You are of course adept at avoiding the actual issues in place of attacking the messenger, thus you consistantly avoided answering questions put to you about your constiution fixation, only to compund it by doing the same with your federlist fixation.
Please, either put up or shut up.
#
2012-07-25 12:35
Why not then write a a piece on why Federalism should be on the ballot paper. I am at a lose as to why it is required. No point in asserting that it should be tell me why. What share of the vote do you think it might achieve. Who should be campaigning for it. Give benefits of said system please.
#
2012-07-25 14:19
# Adrian B 2012-07-25 12:35
"Why not then write a a piece on why Federalism should be on the ballot paper. I am at a lose as to why it is required. No point in asserting that it should be tell me why. What share of the vote do you think it might achieve. Who should be campaigning for it. Give benefits of said system please."
I have twice submitted such an article to NNS and it is yet to be published. Apparently only articles from prominent journalists, anonymous Newsnet reporters and political activists qualify.
"Why not then write a a piece on why Federalism should be on the ballot paper. I am at a lose as to why it is required. No point in asserting that it should be tell me why. What share of the vote do you think it might achieve. Who should be campaigning for it. Give benefits of said system please."
I have twice submitted such an article to NNS and it is yet to be published. Apparently only articles from prominent journalists, anonymous Newsnet reporters and political activists qualify.
#
2012-07-25 14:29
exel, I also know of a few people who have submitted articles and had them turned down. Such is life I am afraid.
I suggest posting something here. If the article you wish to post is over the 5000 symbols allowed, then split it up as in part 1 and part 2.
I suggest posting something here. If the article you wish to post is over the 5000 symbols allowed, then split it up as in part 1 and part 2.
#
2012-07-25 16:54
I imagine the reason exel's input hasn't been published is because they have as their basis a very shoogly peg indeed.
The Basic point is, for any sort of FFA or federated solution to occur, Westminster would have to give stuff away, which is something they have no intentions, and if we're being honest, for their own survival plain cannot do.
I'd be as well writing a piece about why I think Scotland would be better if governed by sentient Wagon Wheels on the basis of a constitution authored by a Soreen loaf.
It's just not going to happen so whats the point.
The Basic point is, for any sort of FFA or federated solution to occur, Westminster would have to give stuff away, which is something they have no intentions, and if we're being honest, for their own survival plain cannot do.
I'd be as well writing a piece about why I think Scotland would be better if governed by sentient Wagon Wheels on the basis of a constitution authored by a Soreen loaf.
It's just not going to happen so whats the point.
#
2012-07-25 17:39
To the best of my knowledge federalism within the Lib Dems died out before the 1997 Election. Why on earth the SNP would pick up the baton and offer it up as an option is beyond me. No party is actively offering it up in the current political climate. That might change once Scotland gets Independent. A Lib Dem party in England looking seriously at their position may consider it for England and Wales, however the stranglehold of the Tories and a Right wing Labour playing catchup with said Tories would not make it a vote winner.
A Federal solution is in reality a Dead Duck.
People will want jobs, a health service and good schools above Federated Government. There may be some at grass routes wanting this, but it doesn't go further up the Lib Dem tree.
Exel would be better discussing this with other grass routes Lib Dems rather than those of an Independence mind that read and comment on NNS.
I wish exel would put his/her idea of Federalism within the comments of these pages. I have asked on occasion before and it hasn't happened.
To me exel is a lone Lib Dem sympathiser, harking after the good old days when things were going better for the party. Exel is without a natural home on a Lib Dem blog. Perhaps exel should set one up.
A Federal solution is in reality a Dead Duck.
People will want jobs, a health service and good schools above Federated Government. There may be some at grass routes wanting this, but it doesn't go further up the Lib Dem tree.
Exel would be better discussing this with other grass routes Lib Dems rather than those of an Independence mind that read and comment on NNS.
I wish exel would put his/her idea of Federalism within the comments of these pages. I have asked on occasion before and it hasn't happened.
To me exel is a lone Lib Dem sympathiser, harking after the good old days when things were going better for the party. Exel is without a natural home on a Lib Dem blog. Perhaps exel should set one up.
#
2012-07-25 17:58
Given the present quality of governance at Westminster, a sentient Wagon Wheel might well be an improvement.... and despite the long odds of confectionary becoming self aware, it's scarcely less likely than the Unionists coming up with a credible plan for further devolution, or indeed for exel to explain his mania about federlaism and writing a constitution before 2014. ;)
Donate to Newsnet Scotland
Latest Comments
- Frustration and anger over red...
I suggested the same a few months ago an... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
What we need is a Whistleblower telephon... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
No. It's up to the BBC. The information ... - SNP MSP leads debate on a nati...
My first thought was for the Rowan tree ... - Treasury claims on independenc...
The Westminster establishment and it's p... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
BBC would never dare cut off David Camer... - Frustration and anger over red...
Why not build some slaughter houses if t... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
Another own goal for the bosses at the B... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
OT but this is disturbing is.gd/z6ptTL (... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
It isn't brilliant. As most will not hav... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
However, according to BBC Scotland Head ... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
Keeping the financial books on guests' ... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
From a practical point of view would it ... - World's largest wave energy fa...
£705 million for an interconnector seems... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
Joker, it may be their own fault, but th... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
Great idea. Site Suggestions:- Pathetic ... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
We need look no further that the BBC Cha... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
Where in the public domain is the inform... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
Well done NNS. Keep them aware that they... - BBC Scotland refuses to disclo...
This scare story is obviously based on t...