Monday, February 17, 2020

*******FACTUAL INACCURACY IN A POLL QUESTION KLAXON*******

On the day that Kate Forbes delivered the Scottish Budget, the controversial anti-independence journalist Kevin Schofield made a trademark straw man reply to one of my own tweets.  He said he couldn't think of a bigger story that day than the SNP Finance Secretary being forced to resign just hours before he was due to give his Budget address.  It was an incredulous-sounding defence of the extreme prominence being given to the story across the media, ie. "how could anyone seriously doubt that it's justified?".  Now, it's quite true that Derek Mackay was the author of his own downfall and that his resignation was a significant embarrassment for the Scottish government, but there are reasonable suspicions that the timing of the Sun's exposé was just a bit too convenient from a journalistic point of view. Had they been sitting on the story for some time with the irresponsible intention of sabotaging the Budget process?  If so, was it tantamount to a declaration of war against a government that they urged their own readers to vote for?  And is the new hostile posture as a result of orders from the rabidly pro-Brexit Rupert Murdoch, who will presumably want the SNP to cease being such a thorn in the side of Boris Johnson?

We'll have to wait for more full-scale Scottish polls to find out whether Murdoch's tactics are succeeding in chipping away at public support for the SNP, and possibly for independence itself.  But there's a reassuring straw in the wind from the new GB-wide Opinium poll, which shows the SNP on an unusually high 6% of the vote.  (4% or 5% of the vote is more typical, although a post-election revision of the weighting scheme may be having an impact.)

Actually there are a number of supplementary questions about Scotland in the poll as well, but unfortunately one of them starts with a blatant factual inaccuracy, which misinforms respondents and thus effectively invalidates the results.  Here is the full wording -

An independence referendum in Scotland can only legally be held if the UK government agrees to it.  The UK government agreed to the 2014 referendum after the SNP won a landslide in the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections.  Supporters of another referendum argue that:
*Circumstances have fundamentally changed since 2014 where one of the main arguments was that Scotland would have been forced to leave the European Union if it became independent.  
*Scotland has now been "dragged out of the EU against its will" given that 62% of voters in Scotland voted Remain.
Opponents argue that:
*The 2014 vote was "once in a generation" and settled the issue.
*Holding another one opens the door to a "neverendum" where the question gets repeated until Scots eventually vote for independence.
Which comes closest to your view?

You probably won't need me to point out the inaccuracy, but I'll do it anyway.  It is flatly untrue to claim that an independence referendum "can only legally be held if the UK government agrees to it".  The UK is not Spain, and even private citizens in this country can legally organise consultative referendums, as Brian Souter proved two decades ago.  It may even be legally possible for the Scottish Parliament to specifically legislate for a consultative referendum without Westminster's consent - legal opinions differ on that point, and it has never been tested in court.  Essentially Opinium's question presents the UK government's untested opinion as indisputable fact.  That's an outrageous thing to do, although arguably the Scottish Government have to accept a small share of the blame, because they've been far too hesitant and apologetic in challenging the London narrative of "illegality".  Hopefully this sort of incident will be a wake-up call.

For what little it's worth, the result of the inaccurate question was that 43% of respondents across Britain think there should be another indyref, and 57% don't.  That's a bit closer than I would have expected.

Another question finds that 44% of respondents think that majority support for Yes in the opinion polls should be the determining factor in whether a referendum takes place, and only 23% say election results are more important.  In a way that suits us well enough, because Yes are in the lead in the most recent polls.  But as I've said many times, giving opinion polls a de facto status in the British constitution is utterly ludicrous.  There are never any guarantees that pollsters are getting it right.

35% of respondents expect Scotland to leave the UK within the next decade.  That's not a bad figure, but we could do with working on it a bit, because a greater sense of inevitability would undoubtedly work in our favour.

73 comments:

  1. On reading your post young James we are now in for another us and them battle. You being us and us being them. I look forward to another filthy verbal battle... Us that being you had better get your policies right if there is another referendum. Them that is us will finish you off for decades. Screw up the currency!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Pretty sure USA got independence without England agreeing. India. South Africa. Etc. Also, why do you always play along with the UK / GB crap. ?? It's England. Your $$ goes to build houses in England so they vote Tory. It's not going to wales!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most of you Yanks hardly know the name of your adjacent State. Worse still you think Bernice Sanders is a socialist.

      Delete
    2. Unionist Media BDSM ClubFebruary 18, 2020 at 1:02 AM

      Quite something to think that the unfunniest person ever to post on the internet, the unfunniest by a vast distance, is our very own GWC. His ratio of attempted humour to actual humour is not only the highest seen so far online, it is the highest the internet will ever see. It is literally impossible for a human being to be unfunnier than this guy.

      Try to stretch your brain far enough to take in the magnitude of his unfunniness. Take a week to do this and I guarantee you still cannot come near. Try for a month. Set quantum computers the task of theorising someone unfunnier and they'd still be struggling a hundred years from now. Impossible task.

      His unfunniness game is inconceivably broad and deep. And what makes it even harder to accurately measure is that he keeps adding to it by the hour. His unfunniness game is fucking *rococo*. It seeks out and sullies areas of life that should be unreachable by anyone's unfunniness game.

      He may well be the unfunniest person ever to walk this planet. If The Galaxy's Unfunniest Being show comes calling here for candidates, he's obviously our man. He'd steamroller the galactic competition. He's the singularity of unfunny.

      So we should maybe appreciate him while we still have him. In his own dismal way he makes history on a daily basis here.

      Delete
    3. Don't hold back there Unionist BDSM - tell it like it is LOL

      Delete
  3. I'm loving Johnson for going after the BBC. I really hope he makes it subscription only.

    I wonder how Sturgeon managed to persuade him. I'd have thought she'd have run out of favours, what with Bozo taking out Ruth taken then 1/2 the Tory seats, followed by the gift of a perpetual Yes vote generating machine (no Section 30). But seems Boris is still only too happy to help!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I doubt you Nat sis would fare much better with capitalist US style drivel channels where something may happen between adverts. The BBC if you ignore the News you do not want to hear makes excellent programmes.

      Delete
    2. I don't see the problem just changing the license to a
      subscription fee you pay if you want to watch like netflix.

      Delete
    3. Net Flix do not pat taxes!?? The U,S,A, will clean England out.Next step offshore haven,low wages,no protection,no safety nets.Take a good look at American life,welcome!!

      Delete
  4. As Opinium are a member of the BPC is it worthwhile pointing out to the association that this polling organisation are being factually inaccurate in their preamble, thus biasing the question and invalidating the results?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It might not make any difference apart from embarrassing this outfit in front of the public and their peers. If they care.

      Delete
  5. Who ever heard of asking the opinion of the people of the country (England) over the country (Scotland) who's trying to remove itself from

    Once again the English title themselves as arbiters over another country, they're arrogant Bastirts every last one of them and constitutionally illiterate in their opinions on anything

    The English think they have a Queen for Christs sake, they don't even know she's just a postcard picture for tourists, like Brighton Pier or a stick of Blackpool rock, you can't have a Monarchy and a democracy at the same time, how ffffffg stupid are these people

    Have you ever watched Gogglebox, that's the level of English intelligence, they vote for what newspapers and the television tells them because they don't have enough brain cells of their own to make decisions and folk ask their opinion on Scotland, a place most of them have never been to, don't intend to ever go and couldn't care less anyway until they're reminded we exist, then they remember they think they own us like the Falkland Islands that aren't theirs or the Chagos Islands that also aren't theirs, once again other places the mass majority on England have never been and couldn't pick out on a map, and that's only for the ones who know what a map is

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Skier, you should drop the christ thing it is boring. And well done to the Scots Guards at Tumbledown who gave the Spanish Fascist Argies the cold steel. KNICKERLESS displaying her crack brigade in Embra YESTERDAY was impressive. AYE FIFTY MORE YEARS OF THE UNION.

      Delete
    2. you can't have a Monarchy and a democracy at the same time

      Of course you can its called a Constitutional monarchy, in the minority of these the Monarch still has some actual power, but in the majority he/she does not or has technical power but in reality would never use it (like the UK).

      EU countries with a Constitutional Monarchy are Belgium,Denmark, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Spain & Sweden.

      Honestly if you are going to make a statement about how stupid people are make sure you are actually stating facts or you are the one looking a bit silly.

      Delete
    3. Re, the monarchy, the ones in England are a bit different to the ones in Netherlands and Sweden etc in that the English lot are a) literally above the law, and b) are funded by the people of the whole of the UK, own masses of land and even seas and have massive assets in the UK, ( though how they got it all is dubious anyway, all that art! ) and in fact the queen does get involved in politics when it takes her fancy, maybe not to save Assange from being extradited to the U.S, ( 'it's a political matter', interesting! ) but she interferred in Scotland's independence referendum, she signs bills at the parliament, which then makes them law, the queen is not really apolitical at all. In the Scandic countries usually their royals are purely heads of state, they are not necessarily mega rich with several massive castles to their name, (Spain perhaps, yes) enough land to start a new country, and Betty is one of the richest people in the whole world! Now Betty did not get all that through hard work and doing shifts, oh no! It has been taken, handed down, and kept in the family and by god do they intend to keep it that way.

      Also, the UK, England has NO written constitution, so how can Brit royals be a 'constitutional monarchy'?

      No, the English, supposed UK monarchy are a different kettle of fish to many others, they do have power re politics and they are definitely not just a tourist attraction at all.
      Unlike countries like Sweden, the Brit monarchy does not sit well with a true democracy at all!

      It's backward, and not in keeping with what we should expect in the 21st century, if UK are a democracy that is.

      Hetty.
      Ps I just read that the last time a Brit monarchy refused to sign a bill for the parliament was in 1707, was to block a Scottish Militia ( Scottish army,) Bill, scared it could destabilise the monarchy. Hmmm.

      Delete
    4. Again check you facts before ranting. A constitutional monarchy is a term to distinguish it from a Total monarchy. Since we are not a total monarchy we are a constitutional monarchy.

      As from were the UK Royal family being funded by the state and from assets, this is quiet normal amongst European Royal families:

      https://www.businessinsider.com/royal-family-net-worth-europe-ranked-2018-5?r=US&IR=T#5-queen-beatrix-netherlands-6

      Delete
  6. @GWC
    I was in the Falklands or Malvinas and nobody gave the *Argies* as you call them any such thing, those were untrained conscript boys who weren't capable of putting up a fight so basically no fight occured, the only soldiers crowing about that so called victory over a bunch of boys were the English who arrived after people like me had secured the surrender of those Argentinian lads, so don't come on here with you're English pish propaganda about anything victorious about that conflict considering the Argentinian airforce kicked our arse before we got that far because we the Brits and our so called superior forces were so arrogant about our power we ignored the fact that their air force were professionals even if their ground forces weren't

    The misguided belief amongst you Britnats that your Great English British forces can kick anybody's arse is insane, the only power English Britain has is air bombing and nuclear which they can never use, they just wave it around and con people like you into paying for a weapon that the Americans must give you permission to use
    In terms of any ground action by British forces even Israel would kick our arse and they have better air defences and more fighter jets
    Why do you think Britain can never mount a ground offensive against even middle east countries, because they can't win, there's not enough of them and they aren't trained to fight anymore, they're only trained to mop up after bombing and we've seen the crappy results of those engagements too

    Britnats are such a bunch of deluded idiots about themselves, and don't dare talk about soldiery when you have no clue of what it feels like to kill folk or them attempt to kill you, there's Fffk all victorious about it you childish Twat of a boy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It must have been the sheep that attracted you to the Falklands. You certainly never fought in that 1981 War.

      Delete
    2. I was 31 years old at that time kid, it might sound like a long time ago to you but not to me, and the only arse that needs kicking is your scrawny cowardly bigoted arse, I kicked arses then because I was paid to, yours I'd kick for free

      Delete
  7. GWC = James McGibbon.

    ReplyDelete

  8. JutemanAugust 4, 2015 at 12:13 PM

    Glasgow Working Class aka James McGibbon spouts the same pish on many blogs, not just here.












    UnknownAugust 4, 2015 at 2:04 PM

    Ahhhh - that is who he is?



    James McGibbon - On "Left Foot Forward" -


    "2 million people voted for the Union. Not all us Scots are narrowback Nat sis that want to dwell on Wullyum Wallace. The Nat sis have shown they have no respect for democracy and the will of the people."


    Same descriptives and same drivel there, as on here.



    So - Glasgow Working Class is actually James McGibbon.


    Welcome to this site, James.


    Why so shy?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought she was called Cordelia. Is she a transgendered person as well?

      Delete
    2. I thought for a minute GWC had his own blog. Then we coudl all go on there and make inane disruptive comments and try to ruin it. Except I suspect not enough people would have such futile petty existences to bother.

      Delete
  9. Anon: Please stop wasting your own time and mine with these endless vexatious comments. They'll always be deleted, so you might as well just get on with something more constructive. In this particular case you're making yourself look even more foolish than usual, because as stated in the blogpost, it's a matter of historical fact that Brian Souter organised a private referendum. "But how did he man the polling stations?" There weren't any polling stations. He didn't need any.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't see your point anon. You've consistently argued the Scottish government can hold a referendum without London's permission (but it won't as it's 'too chicken').

      Now you are arguing against your own position.

      If the Scottish government does need England's 'permission', then I'm 100% right in saying it's only England which is the pathetic, chickenshit, cowardly freeloading nation, and the Scot Gov are unquestionably brave in doing all they can to facilitate a vote.

      Delete
    2. So England is a chickenshit, cowardly, freeloading waster of a nation too scared to stand on it's own two feet (hence no Section 30).

      By contrast, the Scots (and Welsh + N. Irish) are a proud, brave people, with the Scottish government doing all they can to secure democracy in the face of aggressive bullying by it's much larger, but cowardly (hence all the mocking by other states, e.g. Tusk) neighbour.

      This is exactly what I keep saying! Thanks!

      Delete
    3. Souter did have a postal ballot regarding Section 28. Tommy Sheridan and others organised a 'Burn It' in George Square. I was there and seen it. A few guys from the SWP were in attendance.

      Delete
    4. That's good news if Johnson can stop any iref. I was going to vote Tory as a pro-union vote in 2021, just as I've done recent elections, even though I'm more centre-left and pro devo max.

      So I will vote SNP now knowing the union is safe. That can pressure London for more powers without risking the UK.

      Delete
    5. GWC aka James McGibbon

      Delete
  10. 'Global Britain'.

    Both EU and non-EU skilled workers cramming the Exit gates and hiding in the back of lorries trying to get out now.

    This is why England has desperately restored to preventing people from leaving, just like the former USSR. Currently, well in excess of 5.4 m are being stopped from exiting the UK using legal threats.

    Large drop in skilled workers applying to work in UK since Brexit vote

    There haws been a 10% drop in the number of skilled workers from overseas applying to work in private companies since the Brexit vote, a new report suggests...

    ...Business advisers BDO carried out the research, which they said raises fears about an increasingly severe talent shortage after the UK leaves the EU.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This is an interesting post.
    We all know from Joanna Cherry that the legality is not actually cut and dried and has never yet been tested.
    If Opinium or indeed any polling company is asking a question based on factually incorrect information, does that not call into question the viability of their work - and should that not be exposed?

    ReplyDelete
  12. An independence referendum can only be legally binding if the UK government agrees to it. Everyone from the SNP to the Tories say that. James Kelly even says as much in this blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the Nat sis could have called a referendum then it would have been done by now. The Nat si Government represent the nation as a whole when in power not the Nat si Party.

      Delete
    2. GWC aka James McGibbon

      Delete
    3. 2014 wasn't legally binding though, just as the 2016 EU ref wasn't.

      The Section 30 was just to clear up any grey area around whether Holyrood could hold an independence referendum in case a member of the public tried to challenge that. Since the Scotland Act does not reserve the constitution, only 'the union', and independence is not a union matter (as it concerns only Scotland), the iref was possible without one as things stood, but someone might have tried to challenge it with unforeseen consequences. That still applies depending on how a new iref bill was framed in law.

      The Edinburgh Agreement was of course simply a political declaration that both governments would in principle respect the outcome.

      If you read up on the subject, you can find all this out.

      Delete
    4. 'Section 30 orders' are for making temporary exceptions to the laws they pertain to.

      Delete
    5. Furthermore by very large margin, the most used of section 30 orders are raised by Holyrood so that they can get to pass legislation that they are legally responsible for on to the Scottish office to deal with because MSP's can't be bothered.

      Delete
    6. Exactly. The Scotland act is very clear which votes are reserved to Westminster, and 'Indy refs' are not included. Likewise, only 'union' constitutional matters are reserved, and indy isn't the union as no other home nations would be directly affected. Scotland can't vote itself more devolution, as that's reserved, but indy does not change any English/Welsh/N irish law, so is not reserved specifically.

      The problem is, that someone could have tried to drag the 'union' question though the courts, throwing the result into dispute. The court may have concluded that the iref was illegal due to some small technicality, meaning it needed to be held again based on fresh legislation. What a mess that would have been. So, the Section 30 removed any ambiguity.

      We face the same with any new iref. It's highly unlikely that a new iref can be stopped by London, but it could well challenge the bill and/or result, causing delays, even a re-run if the challenge was after.

      There is no way the Scottish government could actually be stopped from simply asking the electorate their opinion on something however in a consultative referendum identical to 2014.

      Which is what the plan seems to be; a vote identical to 2014 in every respect is very difficult to challenge. If it was ok then, why not now the court will ask.

      Delete
  13. I have been saying, ever since BoJo got the top job: the English will never miss an opportunity to throw the "Once in a Generation: (OIAG for short) quote in our faces.

    The answer is for us - every time a Unionist uses OIAG we counter with: "Margaret Thatcher said Scotland electing a majority of pro-Independence MPs was grounds for Independence" back at them. If we do this, in no time at all, we will never hear OIAG used and can move on.

    But, for me, the quickest way to Independence is to challenge the validity of the Act/Treaty of Union and kill the lie that England subjugated Scotland when we signed up to that Act.

    Kill that, we have grounds for withdrawing from the Act.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Thatcher thing is a good rebuttal if it's a Tory you're speaking to. Not so much if they're Labour. But I guess you don't meet many of those these days.

      Delete
  14. And by the way - I think it really would be illegal for the Scottish government to hold such a referendum - it would have to be organised by private parties. As such, the polling question is correct. There is certainly a lot of misleading bumph about it, but none of the misleading bumph is coming from the Scottish government.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unionist Media BDSM Club -- Trialling Robot Doms Due to Shortage of Human Unionist DomsFebruary 18, 2020 at 12:25 PM

      >And by the way - I think it really would be illegal for the Scottish government to hold such a referendum

      That's the end of that, then. Anonymous thinks it would be illegal. No arguments, no laws cited -- just Anonymous' gut feeling.

      Maybe we could sort out the cornonavirus and climate change the same way. Do us all a favour, Anonymous. Just type out the words 'I think neither of those will come to anything.'

      Weird that nobody thought of this solution before.

      Delete
  15. There obviously can be a referendum in May 2021, or when the next UKGE comes around, even if a standalone iref2 vote was somehow blocked.

    50%+1 for pro-indy parties in an election is gives a perfectly valid mandate for indy. It's just not really enough based on seats alone if vote share was less than 50%, not for international recognition.

    We can be very confident that blocking a section 30 will result in exactly this. The longer democracy is suppressed, the greater the support will grow. So 60% for pro-indy parties within a year is quite possible.

    SNP + green is already into the low 50's in the most recent polls.

    This is the problem totalitarian regimes - as the UK is moving to - face. Simply curbing democracy causes a backlash, so you need to actually end it completely. The only way to stop Scots voting for indy is to actually stop all forms of voting in Scotland.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you prevent >50% of the electorate expressing support for indy in a referendum, they'll just do it in the next available way, obviously.

      Johnson is setting the nat parties up for massive landslide in 2021 with no section 30.

      I don't know of any country in the world where >50% back indy, but independence isn't happening or about to. It's just not possible to contain things once it becomes the majority view, which is what's happening in Scotland.

      No Section 30 is the last throw of the English dice. It means we are very near the end.

      Delete
    2. The benefit of elections is that they're 100% legal, so any boycott by unionist just helps the nats. Unionist would just be boycotting a legal 'British' vote.

      Delete
    3. Also, Johnson has totally screwed unionists for 2021 in that people now think they don't need to vote unionist as Boris will block an indyref. With 70% of the electorate backing devo max, an SNP vote becomes the natural choice for more powers, safe in the knowledge that the UK will go on...

      Delete
    4. Sturgeon asked for a Section 30 hoping Johnson would turn it down for all to see. He did exactly what she wanted. The man's an imbecile.

      She asked 'Boris, we want a permanent, long term yes majority and guaranteed wins for pro-indy parties going forward' and he duly obliged because he's in a really feeble position with no choice.

      If he has any baws, he'd have agreed and put her on the back foot as why not before 2021 if you have the s30?

      Instead, the SNP are now fully in control matters while the votes roll in.

      Delete
  16. Indeed, I was worried that Jphnson would throw a curveball and catch the SNP when they were not ready. He could have offered a conditional section 30 and at least have some say in the matter (and also look a bit fair-minded). cameron managed to pull it off (although he messed everything up by ignoring his VOW and then embarking on an utterly disasterous Breixt referendum. I guess he just felt invincible after seeing off the scots LOL.

    Anyway, too late now for Boris. He bottled it and to agree now would make him look even weaker and terrified than he actually is. Ho Ho.

    Thank you Boris.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Not for a generation, even if Scots want indy and keep voting SNP!' is a tactic admission that they (the Scots Tories at least) know what the response to no Section 30 will be. It's going to electorally damage them, and quite possibly in a huge way.

      Everyone is looking at Labour, but watch the Scots Tories. Scottish unionism about being able to vote for the union; something Johnson is bring to an end. By preventing iref2, he ends the reason for the existence of Scottish unionist parties.

      Ruth saw this English-Scots Tory war coming and bailed before it started to tear them apart.

      Delete
    2. When opinion polls show the majority of the people don't want another referendum, it's very hard to see how not having one would be electorally damaging.

      Delete
    3. Aye, I was surprised about these apparent rumblings within the scots tory branch about supporting a second ref.

      That seemed to come out of nowhere!

      Delete
    4. Pro-indy parties projected to take a majority vote share an 58% of seats in 2021 seems a bad outcome for pro-union parties to me.

      As polls stand, a simple manifesto commitment to indy and Scots will vote for independence freely in May 2021, with unionists utterly unable to stop it, as it's one of their (a devolved British) votes.

      If Johnson says he's stop any separate iref, then that's what 2021 becomes, very obviously.

      Delete
  17. I reslly really cannot see the problem of a unionist boycitt, even if they managed to pull it off. The momentum to sort it out (and free Scotland) would become unstoppable and the optics would look terrible across the world.

    The key to this struggle, any struggle is momentum, and whilst a boycotted referendum may stall the process for a very short time, in the medium term the momentum would become unstoppable. What's not to like?

    I say: Force this, up the stakes, let them organise their childish boycott. It would merely ahow everyone that the UK is well and truly finished.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unionist Media BDSM Club -- Robot Doms on Rampage, 5 Subs Hospitalised, Reporting Scotland CancelledFebruary 18, 2020 at 12:59 PM

      We shouldn't just shrug off a Unionist boycott IMO. Not great in the early years of an independent country to have ~40% grumbling about how that independence was achieved.

      Nevertheless it's doubtful how sucessfully such a boycott could be maintained by the media. The BBC would maintain its Yoon discipline, of course, for a while at least, but papers struggling as badly as the Herald, Scotsman and Record would sooner or later be tempted to go for the boost in sales that the horse-race of a referendum provides.

      An issue that's seldom mentioned, though, is that with the BBC etc screeching 'wildcat!' for months before the referendum, there's a chance that a good chunk of the soft Yes vote might not show up.

      The best way to negate this and even a chaotic semi-boycott, and negate other possible problems too, is to ask on the day of the Holyrood elections whether the result of an indyref should be respected in Scotland, WM and internationally. That vote would be won easily, with lots of Unionists participating, which would then provide a much more solid mandate to the Yes vote in the referendum.

      Delete
  18. I think the only place to vote 51% in favour / 49% against independence were the Faroe Islands. They didn't get independence due to the percentage of spoiled voting papers. Recently, consultative referendums were held in Venetto, and Lombardy. In both cases 98% voted in favour. They have both been pretty much ignored.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The outcome of the narrow Yes in the 1946 referendum was devo super max / full home rule for the Faroes. This is why they play in international football tournaments etc; they are an indy country in a loose union with Denmark.

      Venetto and Lombardy didn't hold independence referendums, but votes on more devolution; something the rest of Italy can ignore as that's an Italy-wide decision.

      When are Venetto playing in the 6 nations out of interest?

      Delete
  19. There may be a few manipulated opinion polls out soon (just to settle nerves and provide some comfort). However, if support for independence either settles above 50% and/or continues to rise, then just watch the Tory civil war burst out into the open. English Nats vs "British" Nats.

    Popcorn ready.

    ReplyDelete
  20. off topic here - does anyone know what has happened to Commonspace? I haven't been able to access the site for 2 days now.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Scottish Tories at each other's throats. Nice to see Jackson 'how to lose half your seats in one easy lesson' Carlaw dumping Ballantyne after she went for the jugular on his general shiteness.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-51547582

    The leadership contest became bad-tempered, with the candidates trading insults ahead of the final result on 14 February - which saw Mr Carlaw win out by 4,917 votes to 1,581.

    Ms Ballantyne accused Mr Carlaw of running a general election campaign in December that "lacked vision and ambition" and saw the party lose seven of its 13 seats north of the border.

    Mr Carlaw hit back that the South Scotland MSP was the only member of the old front bench team who had never submitted "a single policy proposal".


    'Next government of Scotland' lol. Okey dokey!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Roddy Collarless-ShirtFebruary 18, 2020 at 7:59 PM

    I think that reading can be jolly interesting. This is from McGibbon's “Decline and Fall of the British Empire”:

    “The native Caledonians preserved, in the northern extremity of the island, their wild independence, for which they were not less indebted to their poverty than to their valour. Their incursions were frequently repelled and chastised, but their country was never subdued. The masters of the fairest and most wealthy climates of the globe turned with contempt from gloomy hills assailed by the winter tempest, from lakes concealed in a blue mist, and from cold and lonely heaths, over which the deer of the forest were chased by a group of naked barbarians.”

    I'm only on page 7, but I'm feeling more enlightened from my exposure to the classical world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a good read.

      https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3004197-the-blood-never-dried

      The Blood Never Dried: A People's History of the British Empire

      ..."A People's History of the British Empire" challenges the claim that the British Empire was a kinder, gentler empire and suggests that the description of 'Rogue State' is more fitting. How many people today know about Britain's deep involvement in the opium drug trade in China, or that Tony Blair's hero Gladstone devoted his maiden parliamentary speech to defending his family's slave plantation in Jamaica? John Newsinger has written a wonderful popular history of key episodes in British imperial history. He pays particular attention to the battles of the colonised to free themselves of its baleful rule, including Rebellion in Jamaica; The Irish Famine; The Opium Wars; The Great Indian Rebellion; The Conquest of Egypt; Palestine in Revolt; 'Quit India' and the struggle for Independence; Suez; Malaya; Kenya and Rhodesia; and, Britain and American Imperialism.

      Delete
  23. This ones good as well:
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Scotland-British-Empire-History-Companion/dp/0198794622

    Lots of information about how the blood was on Scots hands as much as the English.

    I await the string of posts saying that they were not Scots but 'Brits'

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But that's because if someone supported the empire and actively participated in it, they were 'British'. This goes without saying. How could it not be the case? It still applies today.

      Many were against the empire, including in England.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Englander

      These are/were not 'British' in identity/politically, but English, Scots etc primarily. Like me.

      I don't understand why you are unhappy with the fact that many people from Scotland saw themselves as British and still do.

      It seems you just want to do the classic Andy Murray. When it comes to the empire, everyone involved from Scotland was a Scot. But when Scots ask for iref2, all of a sudden they're all British. You are just full of shite basically. You can't have your cake and eat it.

      Delete
    2. Next you'll be telling us that the likes of Micheal Gove and Alister Jack are not 'proud Brits'.

      Delete
    3. The Empire was driven by Scottish entrepreneurs and the English followed like sheep. It was a good Empire they even let the Irish get involved and away from their spud disaster. London, Dublin and Glasgow all prospered, Edinburgh bankers syphoned some money.

      Delete
    4. 'British' Entrepreneurs.

      It was a 'UK-wide' endeavor run by 'British' people.

      Delete
  24. I'm thinking of sending out a butter alert.

    Have you seen Jackpot Carwash's cabinet. Cabinet? More like a septic tank.

    ReplyDelete
  25. A hard brexit will be something to behold. We will have an unprecedented grovelling in the anus of history by the Scottish Nat sis to the EU. The Nat sis will shame our ancestors who fought the Nazis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The chickenshit waster cowardly English are just taking over from hitler. He tried to stop voting and prevent Scottish self governance too.

      Delete
    2. @ GWC Nazi alert!

      Get the dambusters theme tune oan.

      Delete
  26. GWC= Gutless wee Internet Coward

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jist in from the boozer then spending your benefits.

      Delete