Independence - how would you vote?

[xbl]

I like the ending:

But Scotland needs to understand more about the Northern Isles’ “have-a-go” outlook and the true extent of their desire for more local control. Instead, politicians seem doomed to point-score into perpetuity rather than consider what might be learned from the thrawn folk of the Northern Isles about powerful communities, land reform and self-government.

It really backs up my point about Scotland being the most cowardly nation in the world. I recall being subjected to considerable abuse a couple years back when I suggested we should just give independence a go and stop being so cowardly and afraid of the consequences.

On the article, I have no problems if the people of Orkney and Shetland want independence. If that is what they want, then good for them. The article does pick up on just how much Tavish Scott seems to be motivated by a hatred of the SNP, rather than wanting what is good for the people of Orkney and Shetland. The article points out just how many holes it blows in every single other Lib Dem argument, and also even briefly mentions the Enclave word!

Like Ad Lib, I find it hard to disagree with the article, it nicely sums up the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Lib Dems, the cowardice of the Scotch, and makes a good argument for small being better.

[Todders]

Which they haven't been doing. They quite simply weren't fighting for or against it until at least post the 2007 election up until polling day of the 2011 election. The only times where we have done ANYTHING to obstruct an independence referendum was under Nichol Stephen when we refused to support the SNP minority government's Referendum Bill and when Tavish Scott declared in the 2011 election debates "if you want a referendum on Scottish independence, vote for the SNP".

No major political party now opposes a referendum on Scottish independence. Not being proactively in favour of one is not the same thing as being against it or doing anything to prevent it, let alone "fighting" it. This "decades of fighting" you speak of is in fact... 4 years.

Paraphrased as "We've done nothing to stop the referendum except block the referendum bill"

Ummm...ok

[BarryHills]

Ad Lib can you please join the SNP.

Cheers BarryH.

[Ad Lib]

Paraphrased as "We've done nothing to stop the referendum except block the referendum bill"

Ummm...ok

Different Bill, different referendum.

[Ad Lib]

Ad Lib can you please join the SNP.

Cheers BarryH.

I'd sooner choke on my own vomit.

[Todders]

Different Bill, different referendum.

The only time the Lib Dems ever held any sway on a referendum bill they blocked it. That is a fact.

[BarryHills]

I'd sooner choke on my own vomit.

Hey Adlib, can you choke on your own vomit?

BarryH

[Ad Lib]

The only time the Lib Dems ever held any sway on a referendum bill they blocked it. That is a fact.

There are distinct aspects to the referenda. The first would have been illegal, for instance, absent an agreement akin to the Edinburgh Agreement which required UK Government consent. That other referendum also could not have been delivered by the Lib Dems and SNP alone. We could not have guaranteed its delivery, though I grant you that we should have voted for it.

To deliver that referendum you would have had to have had consent from Gordon Brown's Labour Government. The Lib Dems could not have made it happen.

[BarryHills]

There are distinct aspects to the referenda. The first would have been illegal, for instance, absent an agreement akin to the Edinburgh Agreement which required UK Government consent. That other referendum also could not have been delivered by the Lib Dems and SNP alone. We could not have guaranteed its delivery, though I grant you that we should have voted for it.

To deliver that referendum you would have had to have had consent from Gordon Brown's Labour Government. The Lib Dems could not have made it happen.

Leaving aside any political buddying the Lib Dem's betrayal of democracy has been startling. They had the opportunity to win a large portion of the Scottish vote at Westminister, by simply being not Tory, Labour and actually listening to the people of Scotland.

I simply couldn't vote for any of the parties if we have another GE.

[Apache Don]

Can't believe I missed this beezer of a scarestory yesterday. There will be no blood transfusions in an independent Scotland

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/384799/Independence-threat-to-hospital-blood-supplies

Fkg fact man. An independent Scotland will lose all it's best people, off searching for jobs elsewhere and we'll just be left with the junkies. Therefore, of course we can't do blood transfusions. Get a grip.

[xbl]

There are distinct aspects to the referenda. The first would have been illegal, for instance, absent an agreement akin to the Edinburgh Agreement which required UK Government consent. That other referendum also could not have been delivered by the Lib Dems and SNP alone. We could not have guaranteed its delivery, though I grant you that we should have voted for it.

To deliver that referendum you would have had to have had consent from Gordon Brown's Labour Government. The Lib Dems could not have made it happen.

Still peddling the "illegal" line eh? So why were the Lib Dems mocking the SNP for not bringing forward a referendum bill before the 2011 election? Why did Liberal Democrat Michael Moore describe a referendum as a matter for the Scottish Parliament?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13330641

The illegal line was something hastily thought up in an effort to deflect. Lets face it, if the SNP had called a referendum, then it would have happened even without the British granting their generous permission.

[Ad Lib]

Still peddling the "illegal" line eh? So why were the Lib Dems mocking the SNP for not bringing forward a referendum bill before the 2011 election? Why did Liberal Democrat Michael Moore describe a referendum as a matter for the Scottish Parliament?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13330641The illegal line was something hastily thought up in an effort to deflect. Lets face it, if the SNP had called a referendum, then it would have happened even without the British granting their generous permission.

I can't explain the electoral strategy of a party I wasn't a member of.

It was well established that the Referendum Bill brought forward in the 2007-2011 Parliament would have been ultra-vires. It simply wasn't an issue because there was never any prospect of it passing in the Scottish Parliament anyway, meaning it would have never been put to the test.

And yet again, you misrepresent the true position. It's not about "the British granting their generous permission". It's about the Westminster Parliament altering the list of reserved matters to make it legislatively competent for the Scottish Parliament. If the SNP felt they didn't need this to have happened, they wouldn't have engaged in the Edinburgh Agreement at all, because it constrains them to, among other things, a single question, certain campaign and spending limits, Electoral Commission reference procedure etc.

Edit: and questions of referendum legality weren't "hastily thought up". They were raised as far back as when the original Scotland Act was being drafted! There were two amendments and about an hour of discussion in the House of Lords concerning the matter!

[MassiveFanDan]

Anybody catch that debate on Newsnight Scotland? Fucking dire.

I'm aware of the dangers of giving the No camp a rod for our backs, but honesty is also required, and I have to say the performance of the Yes representatives on there was pretty embarassing. This has happened a few times with the "professional" side of the Yes campaign - they get a rare opportunity to put the case across on TV to the whole nation, and nearly always manage to make a horses' cock of it.

Could someone please share with the Yes Scotland board the facts and figures that their grassroots campaigners have been aware of for the last two years, if not longer? Could they maybe be briefed before going on TV, or even consider taking up the reading of newspapers?

If I was an undecided rather than a committed Yes, I would probably be leaning towards a No after that. And we can't blame a biased media for it either, 'cos the Yes Scotland board chose to put that lassie on there to witter shite. To be fair to her, I realise she is only sixteen, and it was no doubt her first time on the telly so she got a bit overexcited. But that doesn't excuse Yes Scotland's decision to put her on.

Very disappointing. The Better Together guys made a better case for independence than the Yessers. In cheerier news Billy Fox, an independent member of the Shetland Island Council, seems to have delivered a stinging rebuke to our Tav in the comments section of this story: http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2013/03/18/tavish-baits-salmond-with-its-wir-oil-claim

"I discussed the importance of Shetlands energy resources on Monday with elected members of Shetland Islands Council.

On this there is no doubt its no your oil Alex, its wirs."

This was the quote on Shetland News on the 12th March the day after Tavish Scott attended a constitutional seminar in the council chamber. By this statement he was in my view implying that the Shetland Islands Council is four square behind him. I attended that seminar and while members are fully aware of the need to consider what Shetlands position may be after the independence referendum, in my opinion I did not consider members were giving him any sanction to make this statement.

In any case he left the meeting before it concluded to catch his flight back to Morningside. Yes, Shetland does need to consider where it may stand post referendum on whatever outcome and, as a council we will also consider what bargaining power we may have. But I for one do not support any form of home rule, nor would I have truck with any MSP using Shetlands future to make mischief in Holyrood.

Councillor Billy Fox

Quarff

Shetland -

Billy Fox March 18, 2013

[Mr Rational]

Ad Lib can you please join the SNP.

Cheers BarryH.

I'd sooner choke on my own vomit.

And we wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.

[chicmac]

John Curtice answers questions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-21808191

Nothing said that we didn't already know.

As usual Professor Curtice expresses only the results of the Scottish Social Attitudes survey with which he is intimately involved.

In my opinion, this is a very loaded survey. Why?

Well first of all, the sample used contains very nearly 50:50 for SNP:LAB voters, when the actual result at the last Holyrood election, averaging between FPTP and List vote and rounding to the nearest percent was: SNP 45%:Lab 29%.

Next, we have no less than 5 options used on constitutional status:

Scotland should become independent, separate from the UK and

the
 European Union

Scotland should become independent, separate from the UK but

part of the European Union

Scotland should remain part of the UK, with its own elected

parliament which has some taxation powers

Scotland should remain part of the UK, with its own elected

parliament which has no taxation powers

Scotland should remain part of the UK without an elected

parliament

Note first, that there are 5 options, 3 of which are not independence. That automatically introduces imbalance, especially for the eeny-miny-mo brigade.

There are 2 options out of the 5 which equate to independence, but note that both use the word 'separate' (which has even been banned in the Westminster bear-pit for being prejudicial) and that both mention Europe. Both of those inclusions are known to grossly distort response.

By my best reckoning the impact of using the word 'separate' in a poll (note 'in a poll' is not the same thing as a real vote) is between 5% - 10% in effect. Explains a minor bit of the puzzle re SSA v the rest.

Time and again Prof. Curtice has quoted the results of this survey while not mentioning other survey results where a clear Yes/No result to the question of independence has been asked, frequently stating that support for independence has remained at about 26% since Devolution. He is wheeled out with monotonous regularity to entone that mantra by the BBC.

It is not the case that the only indicated support for independence has been at that level since independence.

For example, look at this table of Polls which asked the basic question - independence? Yes/No.

Most of them were are ICM polls, ironically commissioned by the Scotsman but were never anything other than 'buried' deep within their pages and in any event were dropped after two years (under Andrew Neil's instructions? Wouldn't surprise me.).

However, more straightforward Yes/No polls were carried out from 2005 to 2007.

The Sunday Telegraph one (ICM) in 2007 which is not on the list below, was the only one which actually made news, they headlined it because they thought they had discovered something new, (it also indicated a probable Yes referendum result of 59%, more than the previous polls average).

This series of polls also gives an interesting insight into the effect of including Europe in the question.

Back then, the EU was more popular than it is today. In the polls of Jan 1999 and Jan 2000, the same voters who were asked the straight Yes/No to independence were also asked during the same survey about 'independence in Europe'. The support for 'independence', when 'in Europe' was included, fell to about 25%. A 'drop' of 29%.

A question which asked 'Independence outside the EU' then, from other polls, was down around 14%.

These do not add up to the 54% yes support for independence obtained in the straightforward independence Y/N? indicated question in the surveys at that time.

So where is the 'missing' percentage for independence?

I think it is simply a case that there is a grey area, a significant percentage, who do not know, or do not have enough information to decide if the EU is good or bad.

When you ask the question Indy + EU you get those who are pro indy and pro EU, when you ask indy - EU you get those who are pro indy but anti-EU but what you DON'T get are those who are pro indy but ambivalent or unsure about the EU.

That last category would be happy to vote Yes in a real vote which makes no mention of Europe but are reluctant to tick a box in a poll which specifies position on the EU and are therefore quite likely to put down a NO or a DK.

But there is no -

Scotland should become independent, separate from the UK but I am unsure yet about the European Union

- option, which would have a chance of picking up the pro indy support which was unclear on Europe and would balance the survey at 3 indy and 3 non-indy options.

Are you following this? It is a bit complicated.

You are? Good.

Next.

Shortly after the SNP became the Scottish Government in 2007, albeit a minority one, it was impressed upon them by Whitehall mandarins and the Electoral Commission that any referendum question would have to be phrased so that it mandated only 'negotiation with Westminster'. So at that point, the proposed question in the SNP manifesto changed to reflect that supposed authoritive recommendation. (which as it turned out, was mince.)

A new series of straight Yes/No polls, using that new form of question, began at that point. Here is the graphic:

This phrasing of the question seemed to initially produce an immediate drop downward of 'independence' support of about 18%,

In my view (based on asking a lot of people but still anecdotal), that initial drop was mainly because a lot of the fundy support took umbridge at a Scottish government having to negotiate at all. However I have never had the slightest doubt that they would still have voted Yes when push came to shove in a real vote. Even so, at no point has it fallen to the levels reported in the SSA survey.

Anyway, it quickly recovered to a position of parity, but,... then of course, we had the large amount of uncertainty caused by the Credit Crunch. This was a much more serious blow to independence because, unlike the 'new question' temporary protest swing, it did, IMV, affect a real shift in voting intent, rather than being merely a poll artifact.

Again, hats off to the machinations of Brown and Darling and the Brit media for maximising this effect on indy support here.

It means that there is real work to do to persuade Scots that they and their families will be Better Untethered rather than Better Together. We really are now behind in the race, although again, nothing like that indicated by the SSA survey.

However, as they say 'Events dear boy, events'.

Even despite an almost 100% hostile mainstream media, and to give them credit once more, they have done exceptionally well, the parlous state of the UK will become more and more apparent as time goes on, despite their best efforts, and they cannot keep writing up the new oil boom as a disaster forever. They are already starting to resemble Comical Ali with the tanks moving into view behind him and there is still 18 months to go.

Anyway, I digress a wee bit, back to Prof. Curtice, while I am sure what he relates from the Scottish Social Attitudes survey is accurate, please bear in mind the comments above and evidence presented and apply appropriate amounts of salt.

[10 CC ICT]

Excellent post. Will greeny later when home.

[H_B]

Ah excellent...

The lizard people didn't get you chicmac... keep fighting the good fight....

[xbl]

Ah excellent...

The lizard people didn't get you chicmac... keep fighting the good fight....

What part of his post do you disagree with? Do you disagree with his numbers?

[xbl]

Ah good. Lib Dem watch:

Ed Davey warns wind farm companies about Scottish independence

Ed Davey told the Scottish Renewables annual conference in Edinburgh that its members could no longer rely on subsidies from energy bill payers across the UK to make a profit. Instead wind farm companies in Scotland would have to compete with green energy providers in countries like Norway and Ireland to supply the remainder of the UK.

Argh! What will we do with our energy surplus! As for subsidy, he seems to not realise quite a few key things. Still, good to see that yet again, the Lib Dems are engaged in their "Too Wee, Too Poor" chat.

[H_B]

I dont read chicmac's posts... i learned from experience they are always utter garbage.

This one will be no different.