Thursday, May 21, 2015

Which Scottish electorate will turn up in 2016, and what effect will this have on the outcome?

A guest post by Hapleg

Until this year, the received wisdom was that Scotland was settling into a pattern of voting Labour at Westminster and SNP at Holyrood. This view was predicated on the observation that Labour landslides in 2005 and 2010 alternated with SNP victories in 2007 and 2011. 2015, of course, seems to have blown that theory to bits but I will return to that later.

Turnouts for Holyrood elections have (so far) tended to be a good 10% lower than those for Westminster and those voters that have turned out have tended (until this year) to be more SNP-friendly than the Westminster electorates (and more Green-friendly too, for that matter, but it's unclear how much of this is down solely to the electoral system - my guess would be a lot). Is it the case that those who have turned out for Westminster but not for Holyrood have been people sceptical or scornful of the 'wee pretendy parliament' and therefore, for obvious reasons, much less likely to vote SNP? If so, will this continue and what are the implications?

Perhaps it is better to ask it this way: are unionists less likely to vote in Holyrood elections? I make a distinction here between those who voted No last year out of concern (fear?) over the consequences of independence and hard-bitten unionists/Brit Nats. While acknowledging that there are many sincere devolutionist Brit Nats, e.g. Adam Tomkins and most Tory MSPs, I will refer to a portion of this unionist group as 'direct-rulers', as in pining for 'direct rule' from Westminster à la pre-1999, in opposition to 'home rule'. This sub-group is vehemently opposed to independence for reasons other than economics and is opposed to Scottish self-government in any form (polling suggests somewhere between 10-20% of the population*). It would seem to follow that those who are sceptical or contemptuous of devolution per se are less likely to be motivated to vote in elections for the devolved legislature. Equally, it seems likely that those committed to independence (and therefore, it is reasonable to assume, to devolution) are correspondingly more likely to turn out for elections to 'Scotland's parliament'. My guess is that, by and large, No voters who vote SNP are, on the whole, at least pro-devolution in some form.

Those who continued to vote Labour at Holyrood and Westminster but who were initially at least open to, and then latterly committed to and voted for, the prospect of a more socially just, independent Scotland have been sheered away from Labour by its despicable shenanigans during the referendum campaign, moving en masse to the SNP (for 2015, at least – I don't discount a decent portion of them voting Green/SSP next year). Labour's remaining constituency seats in the central belt must now look very vulnerable to SNP. Indeed, there is now only one Labour Holyrood constituency the nearest Westminster equivalent for which the SNP does not hold (Dumfriesshire, whose approximate Westminster counterpart is Tory-held). Will Edinburgh Southern, a constituency with very different boundaries from its Westminster near-namesake, remain yellow, especially without (surely?!) a Cybernat scare thrown into the mix?

There is also a second group that I would posit is less likely to turn out at Holyrood than Westminster: older Labour No voters. My unscientific impression is that a large proportion of the residual 'traditional' Labour vote which still cleaves to the People's Party is composed of older folk whose parents won the Second World War and built the post-war welfare state. For many of them, George Galloway's characterisation of Holyrood as the 'White Blether Club' strikes a chord, while Westminster is still thought of as the 'real deal', the arena of giants like Attlee, Bevan and John Smith. Many of these people will vote Labour at Westminster but not see Holyrood as being worth the bother. Many who might otherwise have been included in this category, as I have experienced from canvassing, have simply given up on politics altogether and will likely never vote again, save for possibly another indyref, when scares over pensions inevitably rear their heads again. They are disgusted by Westminster but remain dismissively hostile to Holyrood, despite the enormous influence it already wields over their lives.

A big anomaly presents itself however - do Tories always vote? The Tory vote appears to have stagnated, standing at around 15-17% at every Westminster and Holyrood election since 1997. It seems that the Tory party is now only gaining supporters roughly in line with the mortality rate. Interestingly, however, there doesn't seem to much, if any, evidence to suggest that Conservative voters, arch-unionists though they generally are, are any less likely than the average voter to turn out in elections to Holyrood, despite the fact that they are the most anti-devolution of the main parties' voters. Perhaps being a Tory in Scotland requires a particular doggedness or even eccentricity?

Another counter to this point would be that, despite the low turnouts they attract, European elections record much higher levels of support for UKIP than other elections do. This may seem to fly in the face of my argument, as it would seem to follow that those who vote for a virulently anti-EU party (Eurosceptic feels far too gentle a term) are plainly not turning out to vote for an institution about which they feel enthusiastic. I would posit that the European parliament is far less well understood by its opponents than Holyrood is by the direct-rulers. Kippers view the EU as a growing but distant and obscure foreign threat against their wholesome British way of life, whereas direct-rulers are resigned to life with devolution. Since UKIP dropped their commitment to repealing the Scotland Act 1998 a few years ago, no party even remotely close to electoral success now advocates a return to direct rule and so their options are rather limited.

The 'energised electorate' trope, something anyone with eyes in their head can see is both true and an unalloyed blessing (although the smug self-back-slapping around it is close to becoming a sickening ritual), is an obscure variable. Its consequences are difficult to predict but, based on the scant and contested evidence which we can draw from the indyref and GE 2015, it seems more likely to be of benefit primarily to the SNP and probably also the Greens and SSP. The question has been posed rhetorically many times before, but how many people are likely to have broken their habit of abstention to vote No in 2014 or Labour/Tory/Lib Dem in 2015? Some, but not many. On the other side, however, the Yes movement in general, and RIC in particular, were superb in creating the engagement which has continued to flow to this day.

In short, therefore, I am speculating that there is a turnout differential that benefits the pro-indy parties. Speaking as an SNP member, this is not a call for complacency in any way. I am also not in any way celebrating the fact that our opponents' supporters may not deign to cast their votes – in my view every citizen has a responsibility to cast their vote and low turnouts harm the legitimacy of our democratic processes. I am simply positing that the electorate that turns out for Holyrood tends to be more favourable to the SNP, Greens and SSP and that, if anything, this effect will be amplified by the massive switch away from Labour witnessed since the referendum. If I am correct about this trend, is there any good reason to believe it will not continue? Well, for one, I certainly would not rule out an SNP Holyrood manifesto pledge of indyref2 prompting No voters to turn out in greater numbers than hitherto observed. For us on the Yes side, the referendum was a joyous awakening; for most on the No side, it was a deeply traumatic and risk-fraught process that they will not be keen to repeat. We will see if I am proven correct.

*The level of support recorded in opinion polls for abolishing the Scottish Parliament varies considerably, principally because the choice of options presented alongside it is not consistent. Indeed, abolition itself is rarely presented as an option at all, with most pollsters preferring to present 3 options: independence, status quo (whatever that happens to be at the time) and 'more powers'/devo-max. When this is the case, we can only presume that direct-rulers opt for a mixture of the status quo and 'don't know'/'refused'/'none of the above'. I am convinced, however, that it accounts for a steadily diminishing but still non-negligible portion of the public.

*  *  *

This is guest post no. 4 since I made my 'appeal' the other day.  Guest posts are welcome on any topic (within reason!).  My contact details can be found at the top of the sidebar.

78 comments:

  1. "There is also a second group that I would posit is less likely to turn out at Holyrood than Westminster: older Labour No voters. My unscientific impression is that a large proportion of the residual 'traditional' Labour vote which still cleaves to the People's Party is composed of older folk whose parents won the Second World War and built the post-war welfare state." A generalisation, and untrue in my experience.

    I have passed my three score years plus ten, which puts me comfortably in the above bracket. I have friends and relatives of similar age or older and we all vote, and despite the pension and other scares we almost all vote SNP.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think the SNP have to be very careful about the 2016 elections, and what is in their manifesto, particularly of course whether to have another indy referendum pledge in it or not. I believe they should leave it out for next year. I do not understand why some independence supporters want to have another referendum so soon after the first one. You only get two shots at indy referendums, and if there is a No vote next time, then that will in all likely finish off our chances of ever getting it. It is a massive responsibility, given that we would lose any leverage at Westminster if we lose a second referendum. I think we need to let the dust settle on the first referendum for a considerable period of time. I think LPW and others are right in warning against rushing into another referendum so soon. Hopefully the SNP will not have a pledge to hold another referendum in their 2016 manifesto.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A conditional pledge in the manifesto to hold a second independence referendum if Britain leaves the EU is surely now inevitable, and quite rightly so. It would contradict everything Nicola Sturgeon has been saying for months if they don't reserve the right to do that.

      Delete
    2. ...and I suspect it would represent a really excellent opportunity for a Yes vote as well.

      Delete
    3. I don't think a cleverly worded conditional pledge will be a problem. There is sure to be a motion at conference to include a commitment to a referendum and a certain portion of the membership will need to be placated. If it's done properly, it will allow for a referendum if there's the expectation that it can be won, no matter what the EU vote circumstances - pretty much anything can be defined as a 'material change'.

      Delete
    4. Pollsters are currently in the dog-house. But would consistent polling suggesting an above 60% support for independence be a 'material change'?

      I'm just thinking that when the Tories do their worst, laying waster to the country, that it might provoke such a reaction.

      Delete
    5. Funnily enough, not in Scotland they're not! They get full marks for noticing what any canvasser in the country must have seen brewing at first hand...

      But seriously, I don't think we should now simply dismiss the polling industry because they had one bad election. They'll learn lessons, change methodologies, improve.

      Delete
    6. We have to bear in mind the possibility of sudden shifts in opinion, and carpe diem. We've seen a sudden shift in voting opinion to the SNP for Holyrood in 2011, and for Westminster in late 2014. The third shoe, that is a sudden shift in independence opinion, might happen before anyone is quite prepared for it.

      If we have the option of going for a second referendum when the wind is fair for us, we will be able to capitalise on that. If it's been ruled out in such a way that it can be claimed there is no mandate, we could be screwed.

      Delete
    7. Instead of an indyref2 the manifesto could have a "home rule" pledge.

      Delete
    8. The Scottish government can't pledge any variation of the devolution settlement, because that is entirely within the gift of Westminster.

      Delete
    9. We are not beggars at the Westminster bowl. If we want it we will take it. They will have no option but to concede.

      Delete
    10. Too many people are thinking inside the square. The challenge is to come up with realpolitik solutions which the Establishment cannot deny.

      Delete
    11. Fine words that have been said before, but they've always crashed and burned against the buffers of Westminster power. We can't simply "take" something they won't give us.

      We can invoke self-determination to leave the UK completely, but even that requires manoeuvring as can be seen in the Edinburgh Agreement. We can't unilaterally change the terms of the union from within.

      Delete
    12. As Peatworrier has repeatedly pointed out negotiating with Westminster for extra powers is clearly within the competence of Holyrood and so an indicative referendum asking the electorate if they wish Holyrood to negotiate for independence/FFA is entirely within the competence of Holyrood.

      But also as last time if there is a clear democratic mandate in Scotland for another referendum and Westminster attempts to deny us one then add lots of votes to the Yes column. So they will accede again and hope to win again since the alternative is worse. Which is why UDI should never be absolutely denied or put beyond use. WM must be always scared that if they push us hard enough we might reach for it.

      Delete
  3. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that all older folk either vote Labour or that no older folk vote in Holyrood - if you read what I've written, I don't think that is how it could be interpreted. I don't even suggest that all older folk voted No! My 98 year old next door neighbour voted Yes and she has tended to vote SNP/Margo.

    That passage is about a certain type of person, the type that Gordon Brown and the Daily Record likes of as representative of everyone in Scotland, the type of person to whom the odious Davie Hamilton is probably a hero. I know enough of them too.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well if we lose the next one then we lose all our leverage over Scottish affairs at Westminster.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By the same token, if excessive caution prevents us from holding a referendum at a moment of maximum opportunity (such as Brexit), we may never get the chance back.

      Delete
    2. True, but you need to know why we lost the first one before thinking what to do next time. That is a lengthy process.

      Delete
    3. I don't see why it's a process that would preclude a referendum in the event of Brexit. Even if the EU referendum is next year, the absolute earliest indyref2 could be is 2017.

      Delete
    4. James, with all due respect, an indy ref 2 vote in 2017 at the earliest would only be a year and a half away. This is far too soon to even think about holding another referendum imo. Do we know exactly why we lost the one last September? Do we have the right strategy to counter the MSM more effectively this time? Do we know what to argue on the currency the next time? How are we going to ease fears over pensions? Are the demographics in Scotland going to change as significantly as it will take to win in just a few years time (I am trying to be delicate in my wording of this issue as it is a very sensitive one)?

      I simply do not believe that there can be the adequate time and care put in over the next four years at least to warrant holding indyref2.

      Delete
    5. Well, we're not on the same page, then. To me, this is about choosing the moment of maximum opportunity (which Brexit would be), not about waiting for ten or fifteen years just for the sake of waiting ten or fifteen years. If we still don't have the answers to your questions after nine hundred days of thought, there's no reason to suppose we're going to have them after five thousand days.

      Delete
    6. James, independence will happen if it is meant to happen. I genuinely believe that. I also think that it is far too soon after the first one to want to hold another one in the next 4 years. This is not about waiting for the sake of it, it is about having time to learn the lessons from our defeat last September, and plot a course that is going to be successful next time.

      I also don't believe that the UK will vote to leave the EU, big business wants to remain, and as we saw last year they have tremendous influence, particularly over the middle class we need to win over to independence.

      Demographics and voting patterns are such that if we rush into a second referendum, then the same elderly and middle aged voters who voted No will do so again, and if this happens then independence is not going to happen period. We need to have a sustained period of thinking about how we are going to win next time. Answers about why we lost such a major vote last year do not usually come quickly, they need a great deal of focus and study imo. I would hate to go into a second referendum so soon, not only lose again but probably destroy the chances of us ever getting independence, and then try to look at those who come after us in the eye.

      Delete
    7. "James, independence will happen if it is meant to happen."

      I don't subscribe to that sort of fatalism. Independence will happen if we take a clear opportunity by the scruff of the neck and make it happen. If we let an opportunity like Brexit go by, then the reason independence hasn't happened is our own excessive caution.

      You don't believe Brexit will happen. You may well be right. But what do we do if you're not right, especially if the manifesto has tied our hands in the way you want?

      Delete
    8. Brexit is FAR from the only force at play and while I agree it could be a tipping point and opportunity be assured we aren't putting all our eggs in that one basket.

      The sheer fact of the nasty party being in power again is a very powerful force as the weak Cameron won't be able to control his lunatic fringe right-wing backbenchers for very long.

      Expect more of the same incompetence from IDS. He who wasted billions on his vindictive welfare 'reforms' which saw so many of the poorest, disabled and most vulnerable targeted by the out of touch public schoolboys at the top of the tory party.

      Yet more creeping privatisation of the NHS after the inept Lansley 'reforms' debacle. Have a look at the 160 or so MPs and Lords with serious money invested in private healthcare firms and then ask yourself, just why they are doing that?

      Even more incompetent warmongering and childish posturing as civil wars rage all over the middle east with the only response from the establishment parties being to join in and make things far, far worse. Look at Iraq, Libya, hell, just pick a fucking country in north Africa and the middle east to see how clever it was throwing yet more bombs into intractable civil wars. Not going too well, is it?

      To top all that the Labour contest looks to deliver yet more bloodless tory triangulation from a party that still lives in fear of right-wing tabloids that simply don't give a shit how many in "Blue Labour" try to wear their clothes.

      The lib dems are an irrelevance and it's a measure of how far they are gone that some of them were talking about using Clegg to support the EU IN campaign. Sure, if you want to be certain of losing it then use Clegg. FFS!

      Calling the EU referendum vote this far out is also fraught with danger. Granted, Farage is an obvious fool who could lose votes in England but he's not going to be the only one promoting No and this isn't Farage's Referendum.

      Cameron OWNS this IN/OUT referendum. It is his and he will forever be associated with it and have to make the case for IN. There is no conceivable way he can duck out of this one or run away. When the renegotiation posturing turns out to be Lisbon all over again the shit will indeed hit the fan in the tory party. You add to that Cameron's John Major impersonations, the hysteria from the lunatic right-wing papers and some tory backbenchers and activists who have been waiting all thier lives for this and you have the recipe for complete and utter chaos and chaotic polling to match.

      Delete
    9. I don't subscribe to that sort of fatalism. Independence will happen if we take a clear opportunity by the scruff of the neck and make it happen. If we let an opportunity like Brexit go by, then the reason independence hasn't happened is our own excessive caution.

      That is not fatalism. The people of Scotland have to want independence, demand it through opinion polls, and then vote for it in sufficient numbers. It is simply not enough for those in favour of it to shout the loudest about it and hope to get a result. I am not advocating going into another referendum without even considering where we went wrong and coming up with viable strategies to counter the MSM, the currency issue, how we combat the pensions etc. Nothing you have said James indicates to me that you are willing to admit that we have to think long and hard about the lessons of the defeat last September, and how we correct it next time. It simply will not good be enough to go into our final chance of achieving independence without having it consistently at around 60 per cent in the opinion polls imo. We are just not going to agree on this one.

      Delete
    10. I'm with Muttley. We will not win another indyref held on the next two years. The currency and pensions fears have not been squashed. They hold the trump cards over the £. Of course we thought they were bluffing - we know we could have used the £ whatever - but they will start that up all over again and there will be the same result all over again. Serious consideration needs to be given as to what it would take to set up our own central bank and have some answers firm and ready. I'm a fighter but I don't believe in fighting if I don't think I can win, and we lost on the currency issue and we will lose again until we have some more robust plans.

      The currency plan WAS workable. But it required political co-operation, and Osborne wouldn't give it. So we have to come up with a plan that won't require his co-operation in a campaign because we ain't going to get it.

      Anyway, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

      Delete
    11. I don't think anyone, not even James, wants to press for a referendum we look as if we're going to lose.

      Brexit isn't the point, or any other particular political event. The opinion polls are the point. We don't know which political event will provoke the tipping poing.

      We need to be in a position to move for a referendum when public opinion tips decisively. This can happen very quickly, in certain circumstances. I think what James is saying, and I agree with him, is that if the tipping point comes during the 2016 parliament, we have to be able to move. If another referendum has been ruled out in the manifesto it could leave us unable to seize the day when it comes.

      We got 45% despite the pensions scares and all the rest, and in fact the full force of Project Fear presided over a steady and significant rise in the Yes vote. If we're starting at a steady 55%, after a catastrophic swing, Project Fear is not going to harm us. At that point we don't need navel-gazing about the reasons for 2014, we need swiftness of foot to capitalise on the moment.

      Delete
    12. No, I really see no reason at all to want to hold a referendum in the next 5 years. People do not seem to want to even discuss the reasons for a No vote, nor how we can improve. Frankly I see people wanting to charge ahead with another indy referendum, regardless of the fact this is our last chance. Even if we got 49 per cent next time it would in all likelihood be all over. The worst thing of all will be knowing we had blown it for the people here in the future, those younger than us and those still to come. Thankfully I believe Nicola Sturgeon and co are far too wise and shrewd to listen to people who are calling for another one so soon, or at least put in the manifesto next year. I reckon they know the full gravity and consequences of a defeat next time.

      Delete
    13. Agree. I can't see that 55% budging significantly in the next five years. People have been saying that they voted No, not because they were against independence but because they did not believe the SNP's plans were credible. Here are people who would come our way whom we have yet to convince. Another Project Fear blitzkrieg and we would be in the same place. We have some work to do working on Plan B.

      Delete
    14. Nobody here is calling for another referendum within the next five years, if matters remain as they are. I thought I had been perfectly clear about that.

      Sometimes things change very quickly though. There will always be No voters, even No voters who are very stubborn about it, and if we wait for them to come round we'll wait forever. But, remember your Shakespeare.

      There is a tide in the affairs of men,
      Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
      Omitted, all the voyage of their life
      Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
      On such a full sea are we now afloat,
      And we must take the current when it serves,
      Or lose our ventures.


      Westminster is now an unpredictable sea of possibilities. Something may potentially happen that tips the independence voting pattern on its head, and that may happen very suddenly. It would be sheer madness to put a lock on the 2016 Holyrood government, preventing it from taking advantage of that flood tide, if it came.

      Delete
    15. Salmond has said in his book the currency issue was the biggest thing.

      We picked the wrong option on the currency union and weren't willing to be honest on sovereignty issues, whilst the other options were completely discounted as they might scare people, next time, we must go for our own currency, backed by Scottish treasury, we have friends and if the euro implodes along with Europe,we'll have many many friends out there in Europe who can help or we can work with.

      It takes away Englands posturing and snideness, yes it would be tough, banks would definitely leave, but so be it, it's up to us to have the balls to argue for an economy not tied to having a financial crash every 10 years, there are more positive arguments for having our own currency than there is for being in a currency union, where we would be the junior partner and behoven to the whims of tory chancellors and appointed officals to the monetary committee's.

      Delete
  5. I am a polling agent for the SNP and always go to the same polling station in what was up until May a strong Labour area.

    It was noticable at this election that a lot of the traditional Labour voters just did not turn out to vote. My take on it is, that even though they are scunnered with Labour and did not want to vote for them, they just could not bring themselves to vote against them, and so just stayed at home.

    Will that repeat its self again in 2016? Time will tell, but I think Labour have a mountain to climb to retain its traditional vote.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But turnout for last week's general election was a fair bit higher than it has been for awhile, so it does not really suggest that SLAB's vote stayed at home, it suggests that they have defected to the SNP in a significant way does it not?

      Delete
    2. As I wrote in the piece, a very large part of it clearly did but a bit has also pretty much given up - these people might vote Ukip if they lived in England. These folk are even less likely to bother at Westminster than at Holyrood. I don't think we should presume that just because turnout was up in the GE, it was up by the same amount among every single group of people.

      Delete
    3. My experience, from one polling station, was that the older Slab voter was replaced by much younger enthusiastic voters, who when talking to them said that they were energised by the referendum.

      I also think that the turnout would have been higher still if the 16 to 18 year olds who were energised by the referendum had been allowed to vote.

      Delete
    4. I'm in Edinburgh South. Ian Murray. His vote actually increased considerably and when I looked at the figures from last time, there were over 48,000 votes cast as opposed to over 43,000 votes cast in 2010. Where has this additional 5,000 voters come from? The turnout was much the same 74% last time and 75% this time. I know Edinburgh population is growing at about 900 a year, but they are spread across the city and are not all in Edinburgh South! Is this the effect of increased voter registration? Or people with second homes double registering? There are a lot of landlords in Edinburgh South. Just curious.

      Delete
    5. I don't know how easy it is to double register now. When I moved house, the registration form asked for details of where I was moving from so that I could be removed from the old register. This is also what the new registration requirements are intended to stamp out. You have to give your national insurance number to register, and they're not going to register the same NI number twice.

      Delete
  6. Dubbieside, I would argue that SLAB's traditional vote no longer exists, beyond a relatively small number of people that is. They have either gone to the SNP, the Greens, and the SSP, or stopped voting. The SNP started to bite into Labour's traditional vote in the 1960s; they did well in places like Bridgeton and Govan in Glasgow, Hamilton in Lanarkshire, parts of West Lothian, and other places in the central belt. This continued into the 1970s, declined significantly after the shambles of 1979 referendum, as the SNP were seen to be leading the devolution process. This and the resulting internal strife greatly hindered the SNP's development, along with a relatively right wing leadership. It really took Salmond's leadership to help the SNP regain credibility in the central belt, and even this took a relatively long time. I think Iraq, New Labour, PFI etc, have diminished SLAB's traditional vote to a great extent. They generally saw a viable alternative in Scotland with the SNP, and we are now seeing the consequences.

    I believe Labour's core support is now made up primarily of middle class professionals, some of whom are diehard Brit nats/unionists, others are just more conservative and fearful of change. This group generally instinctively fears and hates the SNP and independence. Sure SLAB still retain a element of working class support, but it is ageing, and is not significant anymore.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As you rightly say, there is still an older working class Labour vote - more habitual than anything else. There's no other way to explain them holding onto places like Rutherglen and Dumbarton in 2011 and still scoring ~30% in most Glasgow and West Central Belt seats this year.

      Delete
    2. Muttley

      Im not sure I agree with you, I think Slabs traditional voter is still there, but in much smaller numbers than before. The "I have always voted Labour and always will" voter will never change, indeed one of my brother in laws being one. He still thinks the Labour party are socialist despite Blair, Balls and Brown.

      Delete
    3. Hapleg, that makes their predicament even more acute. Scaring pensioners can only work for so long, what are they going to do to attract the votes of the young and the middle aged? This group has borne the brunt of neo-Liberalism, whether implemented by Tory/Liberal or Labour governments at Westminster over the last 30 years or so. Tory lite by and large does not appeal to this section of the electorate, and that is all they have been offered by the Red Tories in the same period. It frankly aint working for SLAB, none more obviously that in the results of the general election.

      Delete
    4. Dubbieside, I argued that I believe SLAB's traditional vote largely no longer exists, but that they still have a relatively small amount of support, particularly among the elderly working class section of the population in Scotland. I don't think we are disagreeing at all. Most of Labour's support now comes from middle class professionals imo. If that is wrong then fair enough, but that is just my impression of the present situation.

      Delete
    5. I'm 100% with you - they're screwed unless they can come up with more convincing arguments than fear and habit. It's difficult to see where that will come from though. Their situation is made all the more difficult by the loss of all those researchers and all that Short money - it's a massive set-nack for their policy making capacity.

      Delete
  7. As Colin Fox said after the results of the general election, SLAB have moved from Red Clydeside to Morningside!

    ReplyDelete
  8. (con) and no amount of whinging from the likes of Neil Findlay about the SNP supposedly favouring the middle class in Scotland is going to change that fact!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Why did we lose the referendum?
    The media, especially the BBC.
    Until we have more control over the media, I fear the result might be the same.
    Fear is a powerful weapon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said, Juteman. We lost the referendum because of the Mafia-like intimidation of the Unionist parties and their corporate paymasters, ably assisted by the financially secure who voted "no" because they believed it to be the best bet to protect their own assets. Of course the use of threat makes it a wholly discredited and immoral result but they knew they couldn't win on the arguments, so frightening people like feral punks on the street was the best they had. The warped Unionist elite believe "might is right" and "the ends justify the means" - the two classic hallmarks of gangsters the world over.

      Delete
  10. I wish people would stop fretting about Brexit, and building all sort of hopeful indy strategies on the back of it or we are going to end up with egg on our face. It ain't going to happen. Cameron doesn't want it. Business doesn't want it. Cameron is going to fix it so the vote is to stay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @devorgilla

      Agreed.

      Delete
    2. Disagreed. There is a referendum coming with two possible outcomes. It would be utterly crazy to prepare ourselves for just one of those outcomes.

      Wasn't a Tory majority government supposed to be "impossible" until a couple of weeks ago? Wasn't an SNP majority government supposed to be impossible, for that matter?

      Punditry is no substitute for preparation.

      Delete
    3. I'm not saying we don't prepare. But the fact will be: we are staying in the EU. There will be NO Brexit. Cameron doesn't want it and will fix it. Already we have seen his pals in the CBI chiming in in favour of the EU.

      But he is in pole position to really screw some concessions out of Europe. The Germans are desperate not to let Britain go. So are the French. They will deal. Cameron will emerge a hero. The referendum will be to stay. The Tories will be back in with an increased majority in 2020. If you think there will be a Brexit and that it will be grounds for indyref2, you are dreaming. It ain't going to happen. We need another route out. Like a larger Tory majority in 2020. That would bring the doubters round!

      Delete
    4. I think you're right about that. However, I don't think we can or should discount the possibility of something else happening within the next three or four years that brings the doubters to their senses with a sudden slap.

      Delete
    5. " It ain't going to happen. Cameron doesn't want it. Business doesn't want it."

      Problem with that devorgilla is it was the accepted position on the tory party actually having an IN/OUT referendum before the weak Cameron caved in to his backbenchers and the kippers.

      I detect very little warmth from voters for the EU these days so take all polling this far out with a pinch of salt.

      There's also the somewhat pertinent fact that the voter has very little trust in any of the westminster establishment parties and that near mid-term an unpopular tory government may not actually be the best people to advocate the IN position since there will always be the temptation for the voters to give the establishment a bloody nose.

      For that matter Cameron has made more than enough enemies inside the tory party for them to very swiftly make calculations about who will replace him and whether IN or OUT benefits them the most with kippers still breathing down their neck in a large number of their constituencies.

      Just look at Cameron squirming today over his idiotic and failed immigration pledges. I somehow think his backbenches will have noticed that for sure and will be wondering just how weak the tories will look after renegotiation turns out to be just as meaningless.

      I can see no other outcome other than a split tory party, ferocious infighting and a great many in the Labour party likely willing to put party before principle if they see an advantage.

      Chaos, in other words.

      Not the ideal conditions to make certain pronouncements on the result.

      Delete
    6. I wouldn't say it's a given we will stay in it, nor is it a given that france and Germany will make concessions. Everyone has limits and if those limits call into question the whole point of the EU and its founding principles then you'll find the germans/French will tell him to bugger off.

      There is also the question of the smaller countries, economically speaking, spain,ireland,italy,greece, Portugal are all in massive difficulties, I would argue that it depends more on what happens with them, than what Cameron says, as if Greece leave the eu and move into a deal with Russia and their new bank then, it's very likely Italy et al will look to do the same, as they are sick of being in the role of debtors to countries who they are supposed to be in partnership with (Germany).

      There is a lot left to run in this debate and we all know the impact a right wing media can have on an immature and ignorant electorate (GE15), they will set the tone and narrative for Cameron to chase, he is a reactionary fool.

      Delete
    7. We all so what stoppers Cameron pulled to get Scotland to vote No to independence. He and the Tory media will do the same with the Euroref. Douglas Carsewell defected because he got wind of the fact that Cameron was not sincere over the Euroref and would get the Sir Humphreys to fix it.

      Delete
    8. I don't quite think Englands case for leaving the EU has actually been made yet in terms of what they believe it can do for their business. They see themselves as becoming a tax free haven, even more so, for trade with whoever and undercutting the EU. It would be effectively a free market, neo-liberal utopia according to those that want it. Those points haven't been put across yet and you might find opinion changes amongst the so called wealth-creators or as I call them, tax-dodgers, as they being to tally up the numbers, as without some EU rules, like the Human Rights Act, they could make a killing.

      Delete
  11. ". The Germans are desperate not to let Britain go. So are the French. "

    They have their own electorate to worry about first and foremost so any concessions will be purely for show and fairly meaningless.

    Enough to satisfy the most gullible eurosceptics on the tory backbenches? For a short while perhaps but just like the EU flounce and Lisbon it won't last for long before they belatedly realise they've been made a fool of and will be somewhat upset when they do.

    France and Germany will want the UK to stay IN but certainly not at any cost. They can scarcely afford to allow Cameron's lunatic backbenchers to dictate the future shape of Europe and it's direction. THAT just ain't gonna happen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is probably the most interesting thing about this referendum - the impact it will have on Tory party unity. We all know that there is a sizeable contingent on Cameron's backbenches who are just as committed to Brexit as any Kipper. These are in many cases those who gleefully rebelled through the last parliament at pretty much every opportunity. Are the inevitably cosmetic concessions that Cameron will agree with Germany and France going to placate them? I very doubt it.

      The result will be that you'll have Tory MPs campaigning on both sides of the EUref (like indyref - doubt it'll catch on) debate and the only way that Cameron has of mitigating the effects of this will be to approach it like Harold Wilson did with the 1975 one - allow dissent rather than suppress it like Labour did in the indyref, with the disastrous consequences (hilarious?) consequences we're seeing at the moment.

      Of course, the anti-Brexit side will have the money on its side and will probably win. Thank God too - it would actually be very bad news for an us, even if it resulted in us becoming independent, to have our largest trading partner cut itself off from us and the rest of the continent.

      Delete
  12. I think that the SNP only need to put a conditional referendum clause in their manifesto. They merely have to say that, exit from the EU or more importantly, exit from the the ECHR would be a potential trigger point. That committs them to being on the right side of the arguement, no more, no less.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think they should specify any specific trigger. We all know that the actual trigger would be a decisive shift in the opinion polls. We can't know in advance what might set that off.

      Delete
    2. @Rolfe - spot on.

      Delete
  13. All the SNP have to do is have a 'consultative referendum' in their manifesto, but not for indy, for devo max/ffa...it's obviously not binding but they can then campaign in Westminster for it as they have a mandate for it from Scotland, then if we do not get it, we have a pretty good reason to go for a 2nd indy ref.

    If they do that, they are showing respect to the decision AND gaining new no voters who do not believe indy but want more powers. It would also split the labour party as I assume they wouldn't be as stupid as they were before, but you never know with them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the consultative referendum card is only one you play if you really, really have to or if the conditions are absolutely right,e.g. the international community will sympathise and people won't boycott it, because the problems it causes are enormous - legal challenges, etc.

      Delete
    2. Why would the decision be challenged? It's non-binding, the decision does not have to be ratified by the UK gov ala the Edinburgh Agreement, so in effect there is no need for Westminster to adhere to it.

      It is merely a cast iron statement by the Scottish public of what they want from Westminster and an admission by the SNP that they aren't seeking independence yet, gradualism.

      If Westminster challenges it, then they are calling into question the sovereignty of the Scottish Parliament as well as the Scottish people in making their own decisions. They would not challenge it, effectively, they do not have to administer FFA, but they would damn sure have to deal with the consequences of not giving us it, in 2020 for example, the SNP could campaign on seeking a mandate for independence should FFA not be given to us.

      It's basically forcing the 15-20% of no voters who want more powers into realising, we aren't going to get them, even if we should from the rooftops and have a referendum on it.

      Delete
    3. It would probably be challenged on the grounds that it relates to a reserved matter, viz. the constitution, and that the Scottish Parliament is therefore acting ultra vires. Remember that a referendum, like any other public expenditure requires to be legislated for.

      Rather than Westminster (really the UK government) challenging it directly, they'd let any one of the many willing, anti-self rule cat's paws do it on their behalf - any citizen can make a challenge in the Court of Session. Before the Edinburgh Agreement was in place, there was speculation that there might be a consultative referendum might be pursued by the Scottish Government and this was accompanied by unionists crawling out of the woodwork to say that they were preparing legal challenges to it (no doubt with the connivance of Jim Wallace and others in the UK gov). The same would happen here - it would then be for the court to decide on the matter and there's no guarantee which way the verdict would go.

      The more damaging thing is the one you haven't addressed. If the referendum is perceived as having contested legality, there is a high chance that those who oppose the proposal will boycott the vote, rendering it meaningless and thereby destroying its credibility - for the effects of this, see the Catalan indyref 2014 and the Northern Irish border poll in 1973.

      Delete
    4. @Hapleg
      Negotiation about powers is clearly within the competence of Holyrood. It is expressly an activity they are allowed to engage in, more expected to engage in. If not Holyrood then who?

      So, it is then within the competence of Holyrood to hold a consultative referendum on whether they should open negotiations for FFA/Indy or anything really.

      As Chalks says that then puts the ball firmly in Westminster's court and there will inevitably be consequences for ignoring it, denigrating it or anything less than full engagement with it.

      The last thing Westminster needs is a rebel country inside the tent pissing in all directions including across the North Sea. The Norwegians high on their National Day celebrating their own independence say 'come form a union with us, together we will control all the North Sea oil'. With their sovereign wealth fund they can pay for it. If push came to shove they would support us.

      Delete
    5. "If the referendum is perceived as having contested legality, there is a high chance that those who oppose the proposal will boycott the vote, rendering it meaningless and thereby destroying its credibility - for the effects of this, see the Catalan indyref 2014 and the Northern Irish border poll in 1973."

      I don't think either of those examples are good ones. The Catalan indyref had clearly been ruled illegal, hence the problems in organisation that caused the abysmally low turnout. The Northern Ireland border poll was clearly legal, but was still boycotted by nationalists to avoid giving legitimacy to an act of self-determination on a Northern-only basis. In neither case did low turnout "render it meaningless" - the NI border poll result was respected anyway, and the Catalan result wouldn't have been respected even with a higher turnout (albeit that would have substantially increased the pressure on the Spanish government).

      Delete
    6. First of all, yes, you're right as far as the political consequences of a referendum on devo-max, all other things being equal. Let's say it was held very successfully, on an 80% turnout with (as the polls suggest) a 67% Yes vote. This would indeed be very difficult for Westminster to ignore entirely. I'm sure they would water it down a bit through negotiation because, let's be reasonable, proposals like this would have enormous potential consequences for folk in every part of these islands (the analogy always given is if you're leaving a club, that's your decision, but if you're altering the rules, all members get a say).

      But this tough to ignore mandate is exactly why Westminster and its proxies would fight like wildcats to prevent such a referendum through the courts and by encouraging people to abstain. What legitimacy would a (say) 97% yes vote on a 40% turnout have? Pretty much zilch.

      Legal opinion is extremely dubious as to whether Holyrood can hold a consultative referendum, the end result of which pertains to a reserved matter. Consult the inestimably learned Lallands Peat Worrier's numerous posts on this for a far fuller treatment than I could ever hope to offer (he himself is very sceptical).

      Delete
    7. James - I agree that neither of the examples are a perfect fit but it's quite difficult to find many others without wading into Caucasian breakaway republics where the rule of law is more of an aspiration than a reality. We're pretty short of instances of contested referendums in modern Western democracies.

      That said, I think you have to concede that the result of the Catalan referendum would have carried far more weight and would have created far more of a splash if it had had a respectable turnout, even despite its having been ruled illegal.

      The NI border poll is a bit different because it was the supporters of the status quo option that were proposing the referendum so, in the event that the referendum failed the credibility test, things simply remained as they were anyway. The point still stands that, as a credible expression of public opinion, it failed utterly.

      Delete
    8. "That said, I think you have to concede that the result of the Catalan referendum would have carried far more weight and would have created far more of a splash if it had had a respectable turnout, even despite its having been ruled illegal."

      Absolutely, but my point is that a Scottish consultative referendum would presumably only go ahead if the courts had ruled it legal, or if there had been no legal challenge at all. Therefore, there would not be the organisational problems there were in Catalonia, and the turnout would be higher.

      Delete
  14. Any challenge will obviously bring into the question the Scottish parliament and it's decision making processes, which can only help the cause for indy in my view. Could you imagine if it was ruled that the Scottish Parliament could not consult it's own people on how best to progress?

    Who cares if Unionists object, this is a battle for sovereignty and I'd be confident of succeeding as the main thing is that it is NON-BINDING, which is what a court will see as the biggest point, Scotland would not be acting ultra-vires as it is not insisting on getting devo-max, it asking it's people a question.


    If turnout was over or the same level of turnout as a general election or Scottish one, then I don't think anyone would have any issue. If people do not turn out for it, then so be it, but given the differences between independence in Scotland and devo max in Scotland, you'd find turnout would be high even if the legality of it was tested, as the majority want it, rather than independence. Unionists would vote because they are absolutely rabid about scotlands constitutional question.

    Especially after all that has gone on with heightened levels of interest in politics AND the mere fact that the tories and brit labour would see it as a chance to put a nail in the coffin of it, as surely if we voted no to devo max then they'd be very happy indeed.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See my response to muscleguy above.

      The heightened political engagement in Scotland is overwhelmingly a factor among people who voted Yes. The 'unionists' that you describe as rabid are limited to a few crypto-loyalist nutjobs and similar misfits on Twitter - the SNPouters. They are not representative of mainstream opinion among No voters. Think about the older folk that still listen to what Gordon Brown has to say about their pensions - if personages like him tell folk not to vote because they've described the vote as an illegal sham, many won't.

      Additionally, it's worth noting that no referendum is binding - the UK constitution doesn't work like that. It still requires an Act of Parliament to effect it. In the shorter term, it is in the hands of the judges whether it would be permissible for Holyrood to hold such a referendum.

      What I would like to see would be for whatever devo-a-bit-more settlement (though how settled it is likely to be is another matter altogether) to give the people of Scotland the same right accorded to the people of Northern Ireland, viz. the explicit right to decide their constitutional fate. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 sets this out in its s.1:

      (1) It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll held for the purposes of this section in accordance with Schedule 1.
      (2) But if the wish expressed by a majority in such a poll is that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament such proposals to give effect to that wish as may be agreed between Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland.

      Ultimately, I believe in the sovereign right of the people of Scotland to self determination, you do and muscleguy does. But the what the courts say in terms of the way that that is obtained is not and must not be irrelevant.

      Delete
    2. The problem with the Northern Ireland legislation is that it leaves the decision to hold a referendum entirely at the discretion of the British government.

      Delete
    3. I'll give you that. It's still better than the deafening silence from the Scotland Act.

      Delete
    4. Hapleg I don't think you are understanding the position that such a referendum would put the labour party in Scotland in, they are supposed to be the party of home rule....it would tear them apart and I firmly believe the majority of their supporters want home rule. Not independence.

      So you have that, then as I have said, which you don't seem to be understanding, is that yes, it may be in the hands of the judges, but the chances of them turning down a non-binding referendum on something that isn't quite as dramatic as a total constitutional change are very slim.

      The Scottish Parliament has already been set up, along with numerous powers, so the constitutional upheaval you talk of, isn't quite true to be honest.

      The Scottish Government would not require an Act of Parliament to hold a consultative referendum. To be honest, given the current political climate in Westminster, would it be voted down?

      I guess my main point in all of this, is that the Scottish gov should poke the bear and go for it, it's a win win situation really, as if it's deemed it isn't allowed, it further fuels the indy fire, if it does get it, then have what I have described above.

      You should remember that the legal system in Scotland is different to that of the UK and was a condition of the Union of Parliaments....that in itself says a lot, but yes, ultimately it would come down to the judges in probably the UK Supreme Court....

      It is in effect a constitutional tinderbox just waiting to be lit.

      Delete
    5. Sorry, meant legal system different to England and Wales....we can but dream.

      Delete
    6. I'm sorry, chalks, but this comment is just a string of unsubstantiated assertions. You haven't backed up any of your points at all.

      1) The judges - why do you believe this?
      2) No constitutional upheaval required - this is just a failure to even think about things. And the changes will be much more than just constitutional - economic, etc. also.
      3) No Act of Parliament required - yes, it would.
      4) The Scots legal system is indeed different but not in the way that statute law is applied.

      Delete
    7. 1) Simply because of the fact it is non-binding and would be sold as a consultative referendum...not sure how many times I am required to say this...non-binding, I doubt judges would actually appreciate being dragged into it, given that the SNP would have campaigned for it at the election and would have a mandate from the people of Scotland to do it.

      2)No they won't, as if Scotland voted yes for it, nothing would happen until Westminster granted us powers. A yes vote, would not be binding on Westminster to act on it.Just like a no vote would not be binding on Wesminster to repeal the Scotland Act.

      3)No, it wouldn't, an act of parliament would only be required to transfer powers, not to grant Scotland a referendum, as if they did that, then they are also effectively ratifying it and giving it a degree of authority. Like the Edinburgh Agreement, both pledging to work together.

      4)The principle that Scotland was not extinguished in the Union of Parliaments and retained it's own legal system as such, is important as it also shows that Scotland is capable of making distinct legal decisions from that of the partners of in the Union. Thereby it isn't that much of a stretch to assume that it is also possible of holding a non-binding, non-ratified by Westminster referendum that doesn't actually mean anything, only in pure political terms, rather than legislative, would it mean anything.

      I guess we'll probably continue to disagree on a decision the courts would take, I have legal credentials etc, so fully understand that the law is open to interpretation and is all about opinions, more so in this case than in others. LLP is entitled to his opinion, but to give an example of differing legal opinion on Scotland, I'd point you to the two idiots the UK gov employed, one was lawyer from Cambridge and the other was a Scotsman, who argued that Scotland was extinguished into a greater England upon joining the union.

      Think that would stand up in court?

      Delete