Friday, January 2, 2015
Ringing in the new
Just a quick note to let you know that I have a New Year article in the International Business Times, which looks at the SNP's prospects for 2015, and compares them to the way things looked for the Yes campaign twelve months ago. You can read it HERE. (It's also on Yahoo HERE.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
James
ReplyDeleteI cannot comment on the IBT version of your article without them gaining access to my business and private account details.
So, a simple question.
Was not the Bloc Quebecois the official opposition in Ottawa for some years? In this position did the encumbent federalist and the other pro federal parties not just ignore the BQ?
Bearing in mind that the Referendum in Scotland was tackled by No and in particular by HM Treasury and assorted Sir Humphries using the Canada blueprint, does a pan unionist coalition not seem a real possibility before any sort of loose association between the there outlander parties and the unionist party with the most seats?
Very strong point Le Panda. Also a timely reminder that the post referendum defeat and subsequent YES surge to the SNP is not, as is being constantly implied, an unheard of political event. As you point out, a similar phenomena occurred post referendum defeat in Canada.
DeleteOur job is to take that on board and ensure that our political and electoral maneuverings, over time within the British 'system', does not end in the smothering that appears to have become the case (at present) to Quebec's movement for Independence.
Before the referendum I was quite dismissive of the comparisons, but having seen how closely the UK followed the Canadian blueprint to fight the referendum, as well as (or maybe because of that) the very similar electoral response to defeat that both YES supporters from each country appear to have followed (or are following), it definitely seems more and more prescient. If only as an insight into how Westminster may be viewing (long term) the 'unprecedented' turn of electoral events 'north of the border'.
We need to be very, very careful how we play this, Even with a large SNP victory come May.
braco
"Was not the Bloc Quebecois the official opposition in Ottawa for some years? In this position did the encumbent federalist and the other pro federal parties not just ignore the BQ?"
DeleteYes, but the clue is in your own question - they were the official opposition, rather than part of a governing pact. They did actually come quite close to indirectly wielding power during the bizarre constitutional crisis of 2008, but the Liberals eventually decided they would rather stay in opposition with a new leader than share power with "separatists".
And one precedent the unionist parties might prefer not to contemplate is that once the BQ became the majority party, they held onto that position for six successive federal elections.
Braco : It's not really an exact precedent - the BQ was formed from defections from other parties, and won a majority of seats in the federal election that took place two years before the 1995 referendum. After defeat in that referendum, their success was more case of holding what they already had, rather than surging forward as the SNP are currently doing.
DeleteThanks James, I knew you would have more precise opinions rather than my general recollections, albeit I was in and out of Montreal at that time. The Canadian politics were not my personal concern, just keeping my job.
DeleteJames, thanks for that. I thought I read somewhere that after the narrow defeat in the referendum the BQ surged in the following elections, completely dominating in Quebec and making a serious impact Federally also, but you can't surge if already dominant I suppose. That's a relief ! ;-) I was dismissive of any similarities before the referendum (except both being Indy refs obviously), but been picking up snippets recently, here and there, that have been making me think twice. Mostly in the way the UK government played the whole campaign I suppose, now that I think of it.
Deletebraco
Second point, whose photo is on the IBT artiocle and whose on this blog?
ReplyDeleteBLP
ReplyDeleteIf you followed this blog you would know that the photos are both James. The one on the IBT is recent. The one on the blog is not recent.
bjsalba
Delete`i do follow the blog and I was being ironic.
Happy New Year.
BLP : A bit harsh, the two photos were only taken four-and-a-half years apart!
DeleteA hat and a air of marauding nonchalence make all the difference
DeleteYou obviously had a hair transplant?
DeleteSorry BLP I had not realized that you were being ironic.
ReplyDeleteSorry James I thought it was older than that.
The idea of marauding nonchalance is fine but being female I prefer the idea of a wicked twinkle. I think that an air of gravitas (as befits a serious newspaper like the IBT) has a definite aging effect though.
What is wrong with Pandas and bow ties?
DeleteI thought I had posted this earlier from my 'phone or table but, no apologies necessary.
ReplyDeleteI repeat
Have a Good New Year.
It seems we are now "insurgents" in the opinion of sections of the British establishment. Ian Birrell has written an article for the Guardian speculating on a Tory-Labour unity government at Westminster. Apparently, he is a former speechwriter for David Cameron...Marvellously bonkers stuff from the clowns down at Westminster. I am sure this article will be welcomed with open arms by SLAB....
ReplyDeletehttps://archive.today/7Qm0K
Muttley79
DeleteThey have lost the plot and that is very significant shout it continue up til the 7th May 2015.
They just haven't got a clue/
Happy New Year
Happy New Year to you Bugger.
Deleteplease do bear in mind that all independistas (Welsh, Irish, Scots) are of course insurgents in the eyes of the British Establishment and will be treated accordingly
Delete"That programme can be expected to include the scrapping of Trident" I think that would be a mistake, it would be Scotland imposing its will on the rest of the UK and would be resented, not just by the rUK, but by many democrats in Scotland too (like me). More reasonable and perhaps more likely, is that the SNP would oppose the renewal of Trident, i.e. the building of the 4 Successor boats, and perhaps push for a program of removal from Scotland.
ReplyDeleteCurtice has currently concluded by the way (27 Dec) from the ICM poll: "In short, pretty much every Labour seat in Scotland has to be regarded as currently at risk of being lost to the SNP.”
My feeling is that the SNP should virtually ignore Labour in the coming campaign, not make too much of a point that polls are polls and they're not taking anything for granted, but push out a raft of policies including the push for more powers, for if/when they are the kingmakers, but not the Coalition. It should include UK-wide policies for growth, and a reduction of the Westminster austerity proposals of both Tory and Labour (almost the same thing).
Yesindyref2,
ReplyDeleteyou seem to be contradicting yourself, in that first you say,
'"That programme can be expected to include the scrapping of Trident" I think that would be a mistake, it would be Scotland imposing its will on the rest of the UK and would be resented, not just by the rUK, but by many democrats in Scotland too (like me)'
And then go on to say that you think that the SNPshould
'push out a raft of policies including the push for more powers, for if/when they are the kingmakers, .... It should include UK-wide policies for growth, and a reduction of the Westminster austerity proposals of both Tory and Labour (almost the same thing).'
I don't see how the former is to be resented (by democrats like you) yet the latter is somehow different and wouldn't/shouldn't be?
My own view is that this is the 'democratic' system the UK and Bettertogether lied and cheated to defend, so whatever the SNP decide to do in the interests of Scotland, rUK should just suck it up. I strongly believe the SNP's interests and actions should be guided by what is in the best interests of Scotland only. This is the Westminster system. We did not create it, we want out of it ASAP.
braco
Braco. Yes, it's a contradiction in a way, but on a very fine line. If, as we hope, Pro-Indy (SNP) MPs do hold the balance of power, it's a contradiction they'll be living and working within, every day they're in the House of Commons, nearly every debate they take part in.
DeleteBut the SNP MPs won't be going to Westminster to push for Independence, that belongs in Scotland not the UK. They'll be pushing for Scotland's interests, while also supporting the UK. It's going to take very level-headed thinking, and a strong awareness of why they would be voted into Westminster by the electorate of Scotland, and their own constituencies. Not to destroy from within, but to build for Scotland within.
As a regular reader who has enjoyed reading the blog since 2013, I'd like to wish you a happy new year James. Best wishes for 2015.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Calum, and the same to you!
DeleteSc rapping Trident in return only for a confidence and supply deal? That strikes me as a high opening price which is fully expected to be negotiated down.
ReplyDeleteI'm struggling to see where the scope for compromise on Trident is - either it's renewed or it isn't. Delaying the decision for five more years doesn't really seem to be an option anymore.
DeleteNo, I meant - the SNP will initially ask for Trident to be scrapped but will allow themselves to be bargained down to Smith-Plus and referendum powers for Holyrood instead.
ReplyDeleteI just can't see the Labour (or Tory) leaderships agreeing to scrap Trident in return for not even a full coalition. Perhaps if there was also significant internal pressure from Labour MPs to scrap Trident - but how likely is that?
Yes, I know what you mean, but I just can't see the SNP going into any formal deal that allows for the renewal of Trident. I think that genuinely is a red line.
DeleteNiall, IMO you've nailed precisely what the SNP will be aiming for in any C&S negotiations. London Labour will never scrap Trident because "told to" by the Scots and the SNP know this, just as they know FFA will never be granted under any circumstances (too easy to UDI after Devomax). The former demand will be dropped completely during negotiations and the latter will be watered down if the real prize, no more WM vetos over irefs, is attained.
DeleteCue Nicola faking mild disappointment in the handshake photoshoots afterwards and then clicking her tartan heels in private.
Although a Blue Tory Govt is still the most likely outcome.
#foamfingerinsurgents
I see the labour Quislings have got their election story all sorted.
DeleteHaving told us for years how evil the SNP are for leaving Scotland defenceless and costing 20 billion jobs they've not switched 180 degrees and are now spreading the smear that the SNP don't really want to scrap Trident.
There is no end to the evil of the labour party. Is it not time they joined their beloved BNP in being outcasts from decent society?
Oceania has ALWAYS been at war with Eastasia and has NEVER been at war with Eurasia,
DeleteAnd I see the bumbling indy Inspector Clouseaus are still posting their disruptive accusations about Unionist infiltration under the name "Anonymous".
DeleteOne more time, just because someone posts something you disagree with does not make them a Unionist.
As for your straw man that Niall or I are suggesting that the SNP and Nicola in particular don't really want rid of Trident: nope, of course they do. We all do. But to use it as a bluff to attain the real goal of no WM veto over iref2 is tactically admirable. I just hope it works. Then we can get indy and then get rid of Trident.
It's not that hard to understand. Whoever you are, why not just consider that all of this is guesswork about a poker game that may not happen anyway, and cut out the imbecilic accusations?
You want proof of indy credentials then email me and we'll take it from there. I may even ask for yours, and even your real name.
Maybe one of the most useful gains a strong block of SNP MP's could attain would be devolution of broadcasting (BBC in particular). Not very likely I know, but I think that the MSM has to be made answerable to the people they serve. If the Indy ref showed us anything it is that the Media, and the state broadcaster in particular, were (and have been) answerable to no one over the manner in which they broke every rule in the democratic rule book. That single change would, I believe, have been enough for a YES in September (and unfortunately why it is so unlikely to ever happen).
ReplyDeletebraco
"If the Indy ref showed us anything it is that the Media, and the state broadcaster in particular, were (and have been) answerable to no one over the manner in which they broke every rule in the democratic rule book. That single change would, I believe, have been enough for a YES in September (and unfortunately why it is so unlikely to ever happen)."
ReplyDeleteThat's a pretty wild exaggeration. Whatever anyone thinks about BBC bias, the idea that it was solely responsible for a 10% swing in the vote is completely absurd.
It was absolutely central to the diffusion of the VOW, cobbled together via the Daily Record and the BBC's subliminal endorsement of that lie, (Jackie Bird--"Let's call it DevoMax") mace it the truth, to many.
DeleteMost of the older voters, which was the demographic who voted most NO get their information from the printed press and the BBC.
Eddie : The swing required for Yes to win was 5.3%, not 10%, and the percentage of people whose primary source of information is the TV news is considerably higher than that.
Delete"The swing required for Yes to win was 5.3%, not 10%"
DeleteThat's great, it's still completely absurd to suggest that the BBC's coverage was the sole difference between a Yes win and a No victory, and there is zero evidence for that anywhere.
Trying to prove that by citing the percentage of people who get their information from TV news is utterly spurious. There's a mass of research on this subject that typically finds even outright biased networks like Fox News have effects far lower than that in elections (at best about 5% of their *viewers* not 5% of the population). That's an election, not a referendum on a fundamental constitutional issue where opinions are far harder to shift.
Yet you're trying to claim that the "minor imbalance" at the BBC (direct quote from the author) in the John Robertson study was enough to swing a referendum won by almost 400,000 votes.
"That's an election, not a referendum on a fundamental constitutional issue where opinions are far harder to shift."
DeleteWhat evidence do you have that opinions are far harder to shift in a constitutional referendum, rather than far easier to shift, given the fact that nobody has a past voting history to revert to as a default?
"Yet you're trying to claim that the "minor imbalance" at the BBC..."
Oh come, come, come. Nobody is claiming that a "minor imbalance" could be the cause of anything.
"What evidence do you have that opinions are far harder to shift in a constitutional referendum, rather than far easier to shift, given the fact that nobody has a past voting history to revert to as a default?"
DeleteIt was a vote on permanent change and was clearly accorded more importance by voters than regular elections (hence the far higher turnout). There's stacks of evidence that voters are more volatile in elections that have lower levels of importance (as shown by comparing volatility levels in national elections in post-war Western Europe with European Parliament election results - e.g. Hix, Marsh, 2007, Journal of Politics).
"Oh come, come, come. Nobody is claiming that a "minor imbalance" could be the cause of anything."
I'll presume you didn't get the reference - John Robertson has described his findings as a "minor imbalance" (a ratio of 3 negative statements about independence to every 2 positive statements). For comparison, Fox News during the 2012 presidential election (which I mentioned above) had a ratio of 8 negative statements about Obama to 1 positive statement. MSNBC had a ratio of 23 negative statements about Romney to 1 positive statement. Those are the benchmarks we're talking about in the studies I mentioned above.
John Robertson also stated that he was "surprised it wasn't more so (biased)". Those are direct quotes from the only academic to have done any real research on the subject during the referendum - if we have no alternative evidence of the magnitude of the bias and no evidence of the impact that bias had on voting then what exactly are we basing the belief that the BBC won the referendum for the No campaign on?
It's a very different thing to complain about BBC bias in the abstract than it is to argue that it had such a monumental effect it was the sole difference between Yes winning and losing. The former is a reasonable perspective, the latter is a somewhat pointless exaggeration.
Here's John Robertson presenting his report with the most apposite passage summing up the conclusions.
Deletehttps://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/john-robertson/bbc-bias-and-scots-referendum-new-report
"So, on the objective evidence presented here, the mainstream TV coverage of the first year of the independence referendum campaigns has not been fair or balanced. Taken together, we have evidence of coverage which seems likely to have damaged the Yes campaign."
Needless to say the amusingly inept misrepresentation of his report is no more convincing than the imaginary "10% swing".
It's also obvious to those of us who aren't westminster bubble twits that the first year of the first Indyref campaign was quite obviously not where the most egregious and blatant bias was deployed as the overwhelmingly unionist media self-evidently went into overdrive in the last weeks and final days as the westminster omnipanic set it when it got down to the wire.
Those who want to pretend this bias didn't exist and was not crucial are clearly wasting their time but if it makes them happy by all means let them live in their own little bubble of ignorance and denial. You know, like Clegg's ostrich faction do. LOL
Those of us who were deeply involved in the campaign know the truth as indeed did former BBC Newsnight Editor and C4 News Editor Paul Mason.
"Not since Iraq have I seen BBC News working at propaganda strength like this."
(Obviously that goes with the caveat that some of the most stupid of the westminster bubble twits and their little minions actually believed the Iraq propaganda and wanted to pretend that bias didn't exist either.) :-)
Does that make Eddie's comment a structured extra contextural lie or just a brain fart from a wannabe spin doctor.
DeleteI am so bored by these wastrels.
So then Eddie, you will be pretty confident it will be the first meaningless sweetie any Westminster unionist politician will throw at us in order to secure their party a working government?
ReplyDeleteWe won't get anywhere near broadcasting and the media, it WAS the betterno campaign after all.
braco
"So then Eddie, you will be pretty confident it will be the first meaningless sweetie any Westminster unionist politician will throw at us in order to secure their party a working government?"
DeleteThat's irrelevant to the point being made. I'm not arguing that BBC bias doesn't exist or that it's irrelevant to vote shares, I'm saying that the idea it was the sole difference between Yes winning/losing is a wild exaggeration.
I believe we will have, already well grounded, a team of impeccable quality and engagement.
ReplyDeleteThe toffie jockies of Westminster will be out intellectually, strategically and tactically
Hopefully there is a nice cadre of SNP MP's holding possible coalition power after the GE.
ReplyDeleteMy advice to the SNP leadership would be to take a well deserved holiday, and step back and let Westminster squabble. Go MIA, and say nothing.
Since the ref I've been keeping an eye o n the SNP media centre, but missed this one over the Festive season, just as it seems the Scottish media did:
ReplyDeleteSmith Commission powers must be delivered in 2015
As an aside, I created a "league table" of SNP target seats for GE 2015, in order of where the SNP were favourits (19 seats), JF (3), and then sorted on the odds given by Ladbrokes. It's here, and anyone is welcome to view the source and copy the code, which is between "### welcome to copy and use this table ###" :
http://yesindyref2.wordpress.com
Eddie
ReplyDeleteGet a life not a career path.
Some of James regulars might just have seen the amusing blanket coverage of Prince Andrew today. As I said on here very recently we need not worry too much about the Royals as they will have their own problems soon enough of which the Prince Andrew stuff is but a very small taste.
ReplyDeleteImagine the fury at the newsdesks as the tabloid hacks were forced to chase up foreign 'news' sources (yet again) and they all ended up late to the party and with no magic early 'exclusive' which would have ensured them the BIG sales. They won't stand for this much longer, be certain of that. This is their bread and butter as they look fearfully at their circulations which show no sign of stopping their relentless year on year very large and very costly drops.
You mean a select few usual suspects who seem to have a career protected by unionist fairie dust, come what may?
Delete@Mick Pork
DeleteIs there bigger stories to come in regards the royal family?
Probably
DeleteThe dirt on Prince Phillip, Lord Mountbatten as well as King Eddie, are well known
The latter would have been shot, had he abeen a commoner and betrayed troop deplacements during the First World War to his cousins and profited from currency speculation in illegal £ AND $ transactionsm when he a=was Governor of Bermuda during WW 2.
For the rest, ask the Royal Grooms?
If it was just Andrew and his chums then "a few usual suspects" would be fair enough. It ain't. The tabloids were willing to risk jail when they were 'investigating' some of the Royals. We aren't just talking about the likes of Fergie and co but William, Harry, Kate and Charlie-boy himself. They would hardly risk everything over small and inconsequential stuff.
DeleteThe relationship is complex as some of the Newspaper Barons are indeed inclined to spike some stuff (particularly if it get's them some exclusive puff piece interviews and piccies from grateful Royal press minions and Clarence House) but they won't turn a blind eye forever. Once the heat dies down from Leveson and the trials it's every man for himself and exclusives sell papers. The bottom line will persuade even the most staunch of the Royalist Press Barons to run some of the stuff they have sat on and have got wind of.
Bear in mind too that the press were at their happiest during some of the most turbulent of the Diana years. That means all of them as it was a bonanza time for massive selling Royal gossip which even the broadsheets were only to happy to dive in to as well. These days the insipid Prepackaged PR pieces (from the small army of communications wonks the Royals now employ) on the latest royal baby/Wills and Kate just ain't cutting it for them. Sooner or later they are going to go back to what they know and love. You only need look at the hilarious blanket coverage today to see how much they miss all those lovely Royal exclusives.
With one glaring media exception of course. Guess who are still bending over backwards to placate, please and ingratiate themselves with the Royals?
BBC documentary criticising the Royals postponed after Clarence House intervention
Reinventing the Royals, which was due to air on Sunday, has been shelved
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/11316569/Prince-Charles-used-spin-doctor-to-boost-Camillas-profile-shelved-BBC-documentary-claims.html
That's a surprise.
LOL
No question of blatant bias there from the recipients of the grossly unfair TV Tax. ;-)
Two words
DeleteNicholas Witchell
Out
I have heard about Mountbatten, but the rest I do not know about. I am not surprised if there are stories about Andrew, Harry, Charles, thought Kate and William were less scandal prone.
ReplyDeleteApart from his £2 million private budgie.
DeleteLeveson suggests otherwise. A veritable iron curtain of silence came down when some of the testimony that veered close to Kate and Wills came up. None of that was public and only the most fleeting of references to it appear in the final report.
DeleteWhich is not to say you can believe every rumour you find on the net as some of it is clearly preposterous bollocks. Thing is though we are still talking about a Royal Family who simply do not ever get told "No" by those flunkeys and establishment 'worthies' eager to court them. That incredible hothouse environment has scarcely changed and remains much as it was when Charlie grew up. The Royals are a product of that, and while you can feel a great deal of sympathy for William because of Diana's fate, the fact of the matter is they all have their own private feuds and quirks just as any family would have. With the crucial difference being that all encompassing sense of entitlement and privilege it is simply impossible not to have being one of 'the firm'.
The fawning deference the likes of the BBC and a some of the papers used to give the Royals was always going to have consequences down the line. Scandal is that consequence. Unless the Royals drastically cut down to a more scandinavian type model then they had better get used to the love/hate relationship they 'enjoy' in the papers. The papers only care about them because they are so prominent and such a huge and lucrative target. Were they far less ostentatious and not worshipped so publicly and so deeply by the likes of the BBC (and some others in the establishment) I strongly doubt the papers would find that much purchase. Scandal sells regardless but the bigger the target the bigger the public interest and the bigger the profits to be made.