In 1945, when the Conservatives suffered one of their worst defeats of the 20th Century, they were led by WINSTON CHURCHILL.
In May 2015, when Scottish Labour suffer their worst election result in living memory, they will be led by JIM MURPHY.
This means (I think) that Jim Murphy is EXACTLY LIKE WINSTON CHURCHILL.
No need to thank me, chaps - just send me the royalties.
* * *
I must say I'm utterly baffled by the logic behind the modified version of the leaders' debates plan. I had originally assumed that the four-way debate between Sturgeon, Wood, Farage and Bennett was intended as compensation for the Question Time special that will feature Cameron, Clegg and Miliband only. But the four-way debate has now been expanded to five participants with the addition of Miliband, and yet Question Time is going ahead as planned. So on the face of it, the Labour leader is getting an unfair advantage. However, it may not work out too badly for the SNP, because it means that both debates they take part in are now guaranteed to be taken seriously, and should attract a huge Britain-wide audience.
I can only assume the thinking was "we'll call it an opposition leaders' debate and exclude Nick Clegg, and that way we can weave a convenient fiction that Cameron isn't there because we didn't invite him".
The biggest problem with the SNP's exclusion from Question Time is the programme's proximity to polling day - it's scheduled for just one week before May 7th. If memory serves me right, when similar leaders' Question Time specials were broadcast in 2001 and 2005, the SNP leader of the day was given his own special (shown in Scotland only) to balance things out. So I hope the party will be pressing the BBC to see if the same fair approach will be taken this time.
* * *
Today has been distinguished by the appearance of what is possibly my all-time favourite Blair McDougall tweet -
"We did save the NHS. Now we have to do it again."
So it appears that when Better Together said "vote No to save the NHS", what they actually meant was -
"Vote No to save the NHS. For the next six months only. Terms and conditions apply. Your statutory rights may be affected if you do not vote Labour for the rest of your natural life. Jim Murphy is God. Unbelievers shall perish."
* * *
Political Betting have excelled themselves once again, although this time the treat is courtesy of David Herdson rather than Mike Smithson. In his weekly Saturday essay, Herdson tells us (and I paraphrase) : "we can forget all about independence for the time being because of the oil price or sumfink and the SNP's sole purpose in life now is to get the Tories to replace Labour as the second biggest party in Scotland".
You won't be surprised to hear that Mr Herdson is a Tory himself. You know what? When we're just two days on from Survation showing majority support for independence for the first time in history, right-wing commentators might want to stop and reflect on who exactly it is that's missing the point about oil. It's just possible that it's not the people of Scotland. But even in the unlikely event that the SNP do ever put independence on the back-burner, I suspect they could think of at least twenty-nine billion alternative objectives that are considerably more worthwhile than the Mission Impossible of making the Scottish Tories more popular.
So it appears that when Better Together said "vote No to save the NHS", what they actually meant was -
"Vote No to save the NHS. For the next six months only. Terms and conditions apply. Your statutory rights may be affected if you do not vote Labour for the rest of your natural life. Jim Murphy is God. Unbelievers shall perish."
* * *
Political Betting have excelled themselves once again, although this time the treat is courtesy of David Herdson rather than Mike Smithson. In his weekly Saturday essay, Herdson tells us (and I paraphrase) : "we can forget all about independence for the time being because of the oil price or sumfink and the SNP's sole purpose in life now is to get the Tories to replace Labour as the second biggest party in Scotland".
You won't be surprised to hear that Mr Herdson is a Tory himself. You know what? When we're just two days on from Survation showing majority support for independence for the first time in history, right-wing commentators might want to stop and reflect on who exactly it is that's missing the point about oil. It's just possible that it's not the people of Scotland. But even in the unlikely event that the SNP do ever put independence on the back-burner, I suspect they could think of at least twenty-nine billion alternative objectives that are considerably more worthwhile than the Mission Impossible of making the Scottish Tories more popular.
"Jim Murphy is EXACTLY LIKE WINSTON CHURCHILL." Whit! Deid?
ReplyDeleteThey'd probably still roll him out for interview on the BBC. Oh...wait a minute,,, I think they already did. Sunday Politics anyone? It's like party-time down the mausoleum in there this lunchtime.
DeleteIf Smurfy is really dead, then he needs to be interred in St Paul's Cathedral in the section reserved for les artistes.
DeleteHe is a piss artist after all, no more, no less and equally as useful.
Think you're being a bit unfair to Herdson there.His argument is rather confusingly and clumsily expressed but his main point seems to be that the SNP's strategy should be to replace Labour as the main centre-left party in Scotland (a process that is well underway). This means that the SNP would thus be seen as the main alternative to the Tories, and would not be vulnerable to Labour calls for anti-Tory tactical votes to go to the Labour candidate. It would require the SNP to shift left, but most commentators seem to agree Sturgeon is indeed to the left of Salmond.
ReplyDeleteTheoretically this might mean that the Tories overtake Labour, but not because they increase their support but simply because Labour lose all theirs.
Is this a credible scenario? Well, I wouldn't have said so a year ago, but then who would have predicted opinion polls showing the SNP winning 50 seats or more?
Last point - Herdson references Margaret Thatcher's biggest success as being to redefine what the Labour party stood for. The point he doesn't make (but you've hinted at on this blog before) is that if Scottish Labour suffer a catastrophic defeat in this election some voices might be raised in the aftermath calling for a rethink in its attittude to independence, if it is to retain relevance amongst centre left Yes voters.
I don't think I'm being unkind to Herdson at all. However sophisticated he thinks his argument is, it won't make sense until he explains what the SNP are doing any of this FOR. If he thinks they're trying to win elections for the sheer hell of it, he's missing the point. Your suggestion about Labour changing its attitude to independence would square that circle, but I'm pretty sure that isn't what Herdson had in mind.
DeleteOh, and the Tories will overtake Labour in Scotland when hell freezes over. The SNP have made almost unbelievable inroads into the working-class Labour vote, and yet Labour are still a good 10 points ahead of the Tories.
We've got our two debates and to be fair if the BBC and other broadcasters want to make a twat of themselves by covering up for the coward Cameron then we can't stop them.
ReplyDeleteIt's hardly going to go unnoticed by the public anyway considering everyone will be laughing at Cameron's cowardice in the second debate and mocking his absence hugely. Running away also still throws a completely needless lifeline to little Ed when every single attempt by the tories and Cameron to mock little Ed's leadership qualities can and will be slapped back in their face with 'why doesn't their leader have the guts to debate me?' by a grateful little Ed. Christ knows which fuckwit at CCHQ thought having Cameron running scared from the second debate and a head to head with little Ed was a good idea. After all, the entire point of Cameron was supposed to be that he was the second rate Blair impersonator who could do all the 'touchy feely' PR stuff with the public. It is the ENTIRE reason he was elected tory leader for those with a short memory. Now he has made it look like he's just dead weight if he bottles it from the second debate and the head to head with little Ed. There have also been stories to the effect that CCHQ want Boris to be front and centre rather than the cowardly Cameron on the campaign trail. It's an astonishingly complacent 'strategy' that could only have possibly worked if the tories had been miles ahead in the polling for months. If you aren't in a winning position then pretend you can blithely afford to pass up some of the biggest chances you will get to change minds.
Of course maybe Cameron is just very lazy leader and just can't be bothered with all the hassle now that he's got PM in his CV. Leaving the inevitable catastrophic EU split in the tories for some other mug to deal with would seem to be his style.
Fact is the absurd format of a Q&A with the three westminster establishment twits is hardly going to play well for them either. It's purely interrogative with no way to deflect to another person and is a sure fire way to get some extraordinary unhelpful questions from the public. Stuff like Stafford, Rotherham and Hedge funds for little Ed. The various dodgy financial tory links and corruption and the somewhat telling trial of the coward Cameron's close friend and spindoctor Coulson for Perjury. (that occurred while in Cameron's employ so sadly for the twits it's entirely relevant to Cameron's staggeringly poor judgement).
Both leaders will rely on the BBC to protect their establishment chums though and I'm sure Dimbleby and the BBC trust will try to make sure no awkward questions get aired. ;-)
Clegg could spend half an hour juggling on a unicycle on stage and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference. There somehow appear to be some part of Clegg self-evidently being toxic for these past five years that still hasn't sunk in for his amusing ostrich faction.
As for the risible PB tory 'analysis'. LOL indeed.
Stormfront Lite is every bit as out of touch and westminster bubble in it's thinking as the rest of the absurd establishment media. The PB tory twits were certain the debates weren't going to happen. Multiple times in fact. Just like those ever elusive scottish tory surges. :-D
*chortle*
We've been hard at work campaigning for months now. Today was a loooong day with a mixture of everything. (canvassing, leafleting, stalls, the lot) All the branches we are in contact with are also hard at it. We simply do not give a shit how westminster bubble pundits view the tories and Labour's relative position in scotland because we have a job to do winning an election in scotland by trying to overturn some truly gigantic Labour majorities and we're getting on with it.
" it won't make sense until he explains what the SNP are doing any of this FOR."
ReplyDeleteWell, I'm sure Herdson recognises that the SNP aim is independence. Saying that it is off the agenda for now is not really that controversial, I think you're letting your annoyance at his swipe over the oil price colour your reaction. Most people would agree that another referendum within five years (in the absence of a serious, winnable attempt to take the UK out of the EU) is pretty unlikely. Thus, SNP strategists are probably looking to the election of 2020 and beyond, at which point it's anyone's guess what the political makeup of Scotland will be.
It will be interesting to see what happens to Labour in Scotland after the coming defeat, should it be on the magnitude the polls predict. Then we will find out whether the high votes Labour are still getting in West and Central Belt areas are because voters genuinely believe in and support the party, or whether their totals are inflated by inertia, familial and generational loyalty, the personal popularity of certain figures, tactical anti-Tory voting, and so on. The Tories went from a commanding position in Scotland to total oblivion in a few decades. The Lib Dems went from being a solid second (in WM seats) and a party of government (at Holyrood) to wipe-out in ten years. Perhaps things will shift very fast once voting Labour no longer means voting for the status quo.
"Well, I'm sure Herdson recognises that the SNP aim is independence."
DeleteCan you show me any evidence that he does understand that? The whole purpose of the article appears to be to argue the opposite. He merely acknowledges that their "long-term" aim remains independence - well, unless long-term means only a few years, he simply doesn't get it. The respondents to the Survation poll, nearly 60% of whom want an independence referendum within the next decade, would certainly disagree with you that Herdson's point is uncontroversial.
"Most people would agree that another referendum within five years (in the absence of a serious, winnable attempt to take the UK out of the EU) is pretty unlikely"
DeleteYeah, well, we'll see about that. A week is a long time . . .
Consider Jim Murphy's disastrous Dirty Harry interview in the Times, just yesterday, wherein he intimated there would be no confidence and supply pact. The SNP can support a minority Labour government or they can bring it down (For the sake of brevity, the gist was: "Go on punk, make my day!").
If the SNP holds the balance of power, the consequences of such boneheaded idiocy would be the immediate establishment of inherently unstable half-arsed federal governance in the UK.
The realpolitik is there would be two parliaments, two prime ministers, one house. And we all know that a house divided against itself cannot stand.
"You see, that's the trouble with consensuses, they're like assholes; everybody's got one."
More detailed exposition here http://www.weourselves.com/not-the-brightest-bulb-on-the-christmas-tree/
"Can you show me any evidence that he does understand that?"
ReplyDeleteOK, what he actually wrote was:
" Obviously, the number one long term goal remains independence but with the loss of the referendum and the halving of the oil price since then, that’s likely to be off the agenda for the time being"
This might dissolve into a semantic argument about the meaning of 'long-term' versus 'the time being'. I took it to mean that whatever happens in the future, we should expect independence to be off the agenda for the lifetime of the next Westminster Parliament (and therefore most likely the next Holyrood one) and for the SNP's campaigning focus to shift, for that timescale, to 'standing up for Scotland', devo-max and running to the left of Labour on austerity economics.
60% of people might want an independence referendum within the next decade. People also wanted a referendum before the 2011 Holyrood elections, yet the result of that referendum was a No. I wonder what SNP strategists think? I suspect they don't want to rush into a second referendum too soon, because if that one was lost too, it would be a huge setback for the pro-independence movement. Now they have a little more 'breathing space' which they didn't really have in 2011 to choose the timing of the next one - I would suspect they will want to make sure support behind Yes is consolidated, which it certainly is not at present.
" I wonder what SNP strategists think? "
DeleteThen let me help you out. They certainly aren't wasting their fucking time trying to devise some ludicrous and impossible 'strategy' to make the tories more popular than SLAB. So James is entirely correct in not taking the Stormfront Lite/PB tory 'analysis' seriously.
"for the SNP's campaigning focus to shift, for that timescale, to 'standing up for Scotland', devo-max"
DeleteWell, frankly I can't see any evidence that Herdson even understands that the SNP will be pushing for Devo Max in the interim. He doesn't seem to grasp that the SNP is a party of self-government, or it is nothing.
"People also wanted a referendum before the 2011 Holyrood elections"
So ignoring that wish would have been equally 'uncontroversial'?
"They certainly aren't wasting their fucking time trying to devise some ludicrous and impossible 'strategy' to make the tories more popular than SLAB. "
ReplyDeleteNo, but they might be working very hard to make SLAB very unpopular, on the basis that the voters they are trying to capture are (were?) Labour voters, not Tory. Anyway look, this is semantics. I agree that Scots Tories often exhibit a Pollyannaish optimism totally unconnected to real-world events, and the Herdson piece probably unnecessarily talks up the bright side of things for the Tories for the benefit of his audience, but the central point (that the SNP want to replace Labour as the natural party of the centre-left) seems fairly cogent.
"People also wanted a referendum before the 2011 Holyrood elections"
So ignoring that wish would have been equally 'uncontroversial'?"
I don't think it's a valid comparison. I said it was not that controversial that independence was off the agenda 'for now' (meaning, barring a fairly unlikely turn of events with regard to the EU, within the next 5-6 years). The 60% figure you cited is people who want a second referendum within 10 years. It seems much more plausible that one could be held sometime between 2020 and 2025.
That said, I do indeed believe there was more of a pressure to hold a referendum after 2011 than there will be if the SNP win big in May or next year. 2011 was the SNP's first chance to get a referendum bill through in their entire history. There is no way they could have justified holding back to their activists, many of whom had waited their whole lives for that moment. But the received wisdom before the referendum was that a No would settle the question for a generation. The events of the SNP surge may have changed minds on that a bit. But if I were an SNP strategist I'd be thinking about how to temper the expectations of my base. The swingback towards a Yes vote the polls have picked up move us into the same territory as the polls taken in the 2 weeks prior to the referendum, of 49-51% support for Yes. This chunk of voters got cold feet and swung back to No, there's no guarantee it won't happen again. Rushing into a second referendum on the back of good Westminster results could be very, very risky.
Why on earth are you contorting yourself and bending over backwards to defend this self-evidently potty 'analysis' from a PB tory?
Delete"on the basis that the voters they are trying to capture are (were?) Labour voters, not Tory"
It's not just Labour voters. We are very happy to talk to and get votes from former lib dems or indeed anyone we can persuade.
" I agree that Scots Tories often exhibit a Pollyannaish optimism totally unconnected to real-world events,"
LOL
He's not even a scottish tory. His knowledge of scottish politics is laughable. He even tries to present some half-arsed false equivalence by stating..
"Whereas they were once labelled by Labour as the Tartan Tories, they now lump Labour in with the Conservatives due to the referendum campaign. Neither claim had much merit and was based on the logical fallacy that my opponent’s opponent is necessarily my ally"
Complete and utter bullshit. We just had Ed Balls doing the nodding dog to the tory austerity budget of £30 Billion in cuts and this after electing the right-wing ultra-Blairite westminster MP Murphy to be leader.
Anyone who doesn't grasp how far to the right that makes Labour or seriously believes that it was also some SNP 'strategy' or plot is living on another planet. We didn't do that, they did! They quite clearly ARE right of centre whereas the 'Tartan Tories' nonsense never had the slightest basis in reality. Nor did any of this start after the referendum since the Blair and Brown years were conspicuous by their lurch to the right and their endless attempt to triangulate on tory policies. (continued by little Ed) We won in 2007. None of this is new but the first Indyref has simply hammered it home like never before.
"but the central point (that the SNP want to replace Labour as the natural party of the centre-left) seems fairly cogent."
It's not his central point while pointing out that the SNP are a left of centre party could only ever be presented by those living in the westminster bubble as some sort of 'revelation'. Really?? The SNP aren't to the right of the tories and Labour?? Well knock me down with a fucking feather. LOL
He even tries (and of course fails) to imply that we aren't left wing enough which will be a mighty surprise to anyone who can read a poll these past few months.
"it’d also need a leftwards shift in the SNP’s own stance"
Would it indeed? If only we were doing better, eh? *chortle* Truly incredible stuff and like I say, this just days after the Labour shadow chancellor Ed Balls rubber stamped a tory austerity budget.
His comical 'analysis' is also predicted on this sort of lunacy..
" Put simply, the long term shift would not be to replace the Tories as the opposition to Labour but to replace Labour as the opposition to the Tories."
Put simply it's horseshit. Let me be clear. There are no strategists in the SNP dreaming up this kind of nonsense. It is the ignorant and arrogant westminster bubble attitude writ large that somehow the Labour party and the tories must be at the centre of the universe in everyone's thinking.
We are concentrating on our OWN party and reaching out to as many voters as possible while managing a massive increase in our membership and readjusting our logistics and campaigning to take maximum advantage of it.
Though it must pain some tories greatly to be almost an irrelevance like the lib dems, the blunt truth is that we just don't give a shit what the relative positions of Labour and the tories are in scotland.
The entire purpose and motivation behind his laughable 'analysis' is revealed near the end.
Delete"The first part of that game-plan is putting Ed Miliband into Downing Street."
Unspoofable.
He actually believes the SNP are hatching cunning plans to put little Ed into downing street so his response is to put forth some absurd nonsense that this is also part of some labyrinthine plot to make the tories more popular than Labour and replace them as the opposition.
There are still more pandas than tories in scotland and the polls are showing that there is a very good chance indeed that the pandas are going to put another one over on the tories come election day. There is no scottish tory surge and never was.
This kind of rubbish passing itself off as 'analysis' says more about the PB tories need to find some crumbs of comfort as they come to terms with the fact that their enablers (the lib dems) are facing a hammering while we in the SNP most certainly aren't and we will be doing no deals with the tories.
If they want to win an election then they would need to stop whining about everyone else while dreaming up imaginary plots/plans and actually put in the hard graft and fight for it. That also means the coward Cameron would have to stop cowering in fear from debates/little Ed and do what his party elected him to do. So I won't be holding my breath for that one. ;-)
*More pandas than tory MPs obviously. ;-)
DeleteMon the Pandas! :-D
Thanks
DeleteIs it just me but, I am feeling this campaign is just getting surreal and am having difficulty in understanding the complete lack of strategy coming from the unionist parties; tactics yes but no tangible objective beyond doing the others down and stealing the election.
DeleteIt is like they are all addicted to the game and have forgotten about why it is there.
I am away to do some creative macramé and then peruse some sub atomic theses, maybe vistit CERN and give them some advice.
YouGov sub-sample: SNP 43, Lab 28, Con 16, Others <7.
ReplyDeleteInteresting that they also ask an approval rating question of Nicola Sturgeon, even though it's a GB poll. Very high don't know (42%), but of those who express an opinion it's net +7 and not particularly skewed by Scotland (+23). Each region of England & Wales is net positive. For comparison, Cameron is -5, Miliband -39 and Clegg -47 across GB (all three are worse than that in Scotland).
Sturgeon for PM!
DeleteThat popular and well regarded even after a torrent of hatred and bile against Nicola and the SNP from the out of touch westminster establishment media and tabloids.
DeleteOf course, as some of us may have realised by now, that may not be entirely coincidental. ;-)
@ Christian Wright,
ReplyDeleteIt would seem that Jim Murphy has quickly lost his new found Scottish patriotism, and is now angrily telling us that, since we haven't got to the back of the bus as the Scots are supposed to, Labour will freeze our democratic representation, until we learn our lesson.
That should go down well!!!
Is his outing in Bolton his first move in seeking a lifebelt?
DeleteIt is arguable the Indy Ref was called too soon. The SNP rise started in earnest in the late sixties and the first high water mark was the early70's. So voters who would naturally think of voting SNP ( and who had ancestors who voted SNP ) are now a major demographic in the just starting to retire and below age. In 10 years, despite the increase in lifespan SNP government is causing, the shift will tilt more and more. A referendum in 10 years would in all likelihood see a demography most favourable to the outcome we desire.
ReplyDeleteYou should remember that some people have fought for 60 years or more to get as far as we have. We have to win decisively. It has to be by a good margin. Patience. Patience.
No, we don't have to win decisively. We just have to win. That's democracy.
DeleteTiming is a tricky decision, but it's possible to wait too long, just as it's possible to jump too soon. The sun won't shine on the SNP forever. Incidentally, it's almost certain the SNP would not be in the position they're in now if they'd refrained from holding the first referendum, so that's a useful reminder that caution is not always the correct approach.
I agree whole heartedly with you James. It's a tricky question of timing to be sure, but lies so brazenly and shamelessly admitted too, given enough time through inaction of response, can soon become effective desensitisers of public opinion.
DeleteI am constantly amazed at the way the Union managed to turn 'It's Scotland's Oil', a campaign so effective at the time that it really did strike a chord with the Scots population (and shook the UK establishment) but within a decade of repeat exposure and a concerted unionist press/media effort, it was turned into an effective weapon against the SNP. 'It's OOR Oil!' Even working to a certain extent in 2014!
Timing is everything and I think that the Unionist establishment have always seen time as it's ally. Hence the first (and only really effective) establishment reaction is to endlessly attempt kicking everything into the long grass.
At the moment they seem to have constitutionally forgotten this tactic, what with devolution (labour) and EVEL (tories) which allowed massive Indy inroads to be made. Slowing things down and calling for 'patience' I think (over the long run of say 10 years) can only help the status quo's attempts at re-stabilisation.
braco
"it was turned into an effective weapon against the SNP. 'It's OOR Oil!' Even working to a certain extent in 2014!"
DeleteWas it? One of the most telling things about the first indyref is that when the chips were down, and the hysteria and omnipanic of possibly losing finally sunk in for the unionists, it wasn't oil or the pound or negative attacks on the SNP that they desperately turned to but giving more powers to scots that they bet everything on. It was then blasted across the compliant and biased unionist media 24/7 and treated as a fact for the most crucial final weeks and days of the first indyref.
After all, they've been whining away about oil for a couple of months now and it sure as hell ain't helping them in the polls.
"Slowing things down and calling for 'patience' I think (over the long run of say 10 years) can only help the status quo's attempts at re-stabilisation. "
On the contrary. Not only are the demographics very firmly on our side but you also seem to be predicating some level of competence from the westminster establishment that simply isn't there.
Barely a week goes by now when there isn't yet another scandal convulsing them while they feverishly keep trying to cover up previous scandals.
The current crop of westminster leaders are also comically short-termist and inept. Nor do they have any shining stars 'on the bench' waiting to take over as a swift look at the cabinet and shadow cabinets will tell you.
The bottom line is that there is systemic failure in westminster as the establishment parties continue their endless and pointless triangulation while complacently watching their base and vote decay ever faster. They are wildly out of touch with the public and it is their very nature and approach to politics that makes them so.
Will the timing be crucial for the next indyref? Of course it will. However, there can be absolutely nobody operating under the illusion that the SNP won't give one to the scottish people since they have already done so. Even that was ridiculed as impossible by the westminster establishment not so long ago.
Don't disagree with any of that really Mic, axcept for the issue of oil not playing badly for the SNP just now simply because we are not presenting this election as one on Independence, so those kind of economic arguments seem irrelevant at the moment.
DeleteI think your appraisal of Westminster is correct and the reason that the new Indy ref should be sooner rather than later, if it can be legitimised by however political means. Because things are bright just now, certainly does not mean they will be bright in ten years. Best act when the chance appears rather than wait and wait for a better one that might never materialise. Who knows what would have happened had Brown not bottled it just after the 2007 SNP Holyrood win for example?
braco
"we are not presenting this election as one on Independence, so those kind of economic arguments seem irrelevant at the moment. "
DeleteTo a degree they are Braco but it sure as hell didn't stop the BBC, establishment media and unionist parties desperately trying to use it as a stick to beat the SNP with these past couple of months. So they still thought it was a 'winner' for westminster even though the polls have proved them wrong.
"Because things are bright just now, certainly does not mean they will be bright in ten years."
You are indeed absolutely 100% correct.
Which is why I have stressed multiple times on James blog that we can't take anything for granted. Rest assured, even if the polls weren't great for us we would still be fighting hard to overturn these gigantic labour majorities.
I also keep coming back to the colossal membership numbers and levels of activism because it is the lifeblood of our party and the bulwark to keep us 'future proofed' and healthy no matter what is thrown at us and no matter what 'black swans' may appear. We are in this for the long run and always have been. We were never going to just fade away.
That certainly doesn't mean we will sit idly by and let a chance go begging (as we have already proved) but it does mean we have to be prepared for the hard slog and the future.
I know some will dismiss things like the scottish youth parliament as peripheral, but I have seen some of the future rising stars for our party and it encourages me just as much as when the westminster bubble media used to bang on ignorantly about the SNP being a 'one man band'. Some of us knew fine well how wrong they were about that and why it was Alex had such confidence in Nicola. (It's also very funny watching them now trying to manufacture fake 'who holds the power' stories between Alex and Nicola as it only shows just how little any of them know about Alex and Nicola's history.)
Only yesterday while campaigning a young woman came to the stall and showed us her signed copy of the Salmond biography and was clearly very proud and delighted with it. This wasn't one of our activists mind, just a young lass who had taken the time to line up for ages and then have a few words with Alex while he signed it.
We really are getting some fantastic responses from the public at times so I would heartily encourage anyone to have a go, help out a wee bit and see for themselves. You will not regret helping as it can be incredible rewarding.
There will be harder times ahead and there will be lulls in support and bad polls for us. However, right now we need to do what we can to keep the enthusiasm up and keep persuading ordinary scots up and down the land that we want a better future for all scots and that we can and will deliver that to them.
We do that and we will keep strong for the future while the westminster establishment will continue to rot in it's own fetid heap of arrogant entitlement, privilege, avarice and corruption.
Braco, I agree with Mick above that demographics mean time is indeed on our side -- 100k more No voters dying annually than Yes voters, etc. It also looks like unprecedented anti-Scottishness in the MSM will do much of our indy recruiting for us (and may yet turn our victory in May into a landslide).
DeleteSo let's say by 2017 the polls have Yes at 55% and increasing annually by 2%, for the above reasons. Would you recommend calling iref2 at that point or wait till say 2019 when we may be nearing 60%?
Have to be short here, sorry Sean and Mic. We seem to mostly agree. Sean, I would call it as soon as I honestly thought it was winnable. World events outside our control but easily within my lifetime and experience, such as the cold war, are part of what made Scottish independence practically impossible and almost unthinkable. When the chance is there to reset the landscape I would always vote to do it ASAP. I understand and agree re the demographic arguments too, but never as a replacement for an active political plan. I've been hearing about Northern Ireland's inevitable demographic drift to a united Ireland for the last thirty years. Politics and economics is still controlling that.
DeleteI am agreeing but just emphasising that we have never teetered on the edge of Independence as we have in the last six months. Now is not the time to start leaning back and relying on provenance, we are here from all our incredible efforts and actions, even when they seemed to be foolhardy and failed. As James says, given the chance many would have preferred to wait for the right time to fight the first referendum. Yet even with the NO, it was the catalyst that sparked this incredibly fertile moment. Maybe the most fertile moment in the last 300 years that Scotland has ever had? Do we keep pushing, or is it more 'patience'? I can't wait.
braco (sorry not had a chance to check this post)
Mic,
Delete'To a degree they are Braco but it sure as hell didn't stop the BBC, establishment media and unionist parties desperately trying to use it as a stick to beat the SNP with these past couple of months.'
This is what I mean. The Scots electorate more than certainly know the difference between a truly pertinent argument to a particular circumstance or election, as opposed to yet just another lash around with whatever is at hand that the Unionist establishment think will do some damage. I am not implying doubt about the argument at all. Just that in the correct and pertinent setting, the Scots electorate will make a serious and considered decision. Until then, I don't think such games will effect voter intentions.
braco (same again, sorry)
Next time Alec Salmond's on with Andrew Marr: "Slight change in strategy, Andrew. From now on we'll just leave everything to Providence."
Delete;-)
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHe could just keep repeating it, 'Prudence' worked great for Brown.
Delete'Providence' would be a great name for our central bank, once providence had finally delivered Independence of course! ;-)
night Sean
braco
One of the main reasons the referendum was lost was because London continues to rule most aspects of Scottish life.
ReplyDeleteUntil Scots see major decisions being taken by a democratically elected government in Holyrood,the perception that London rules will remain and support for independence
uncertain.
Much greater devolution of powers will be required before another referendum can be called.
The Westminster parties know this,of course,which is why they will fight tooth and nail to prevent any major transfer of powers to Scotland.
If the SNP ends up holding the balance of power, broadcasting definitely needs to be on the negotiating list.
DeleteSpot on!!!
DeleteIn fact I would say TOP of the list.
The 'received wisdom that a No vote would settle the referendum question for a generation' was drivel that came out Cameron's mouth,no-one else's.
ReplyDeleteThis is the same pathetic arsehole who's wisdom thought that the Scottish Referendum was actually all about English Votes for English Laws.
Do me a favour.All the chickens are coming home to roost on the BT UKOK fuckwits.
Cameron is finished and the biggest knife in his back will have Boris's hand on the handle.Just like the monster Thatcher ,his own people will do for him.
Clegg GONE
Milliband despised by his own party.He won't last long anyway.
Brown,Lamont,Darling,Murphy,Curran,Alexanders both,the list goes on and on.All done for.LOL
The curse of No ain't finished yet.
Things are starting to get real interesting.
Bring it on.
You couldn't make it up
"Much greater devolution of powers will be required before another referendum can be called."
ReplyDeleteNot necessarily. On the other hand if Westminster stubbornly REFUSES more powers or tries to fob us off, another referendum may well be in the offing.
Yep. They promised the moon at the first indyref and there is no way that won't come back to haunt them if they fail to deliver anything meaningful.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be a ICM/Guardian Scotland poll on its way.
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/guardian_clark/status/579743649157742592
Guardian ICM is out. Full scale Scot poll: SNP 43, Lab 27, Con 14, UKIP 7, LD 6, Grn 3
ReplyDeleteThe senile old bigot and Clegg spinner Smithson has really gone nuts over at Stormfront Lite today.
ReplyDeleteSalmond has apparently had a 'Sheffield rally moment' because a pair of right-wing tabloid shit-papers are foaming a the mouth and lying about what he said again.
This from the betting 'pundit' Smithson who told anyone stupid enough to listen that last election all that mattered was his lunatic "Golden Rule" whereby Angus Reid was the only pollster who mattered.
ROFL
Oh and just to correct the tory twits, Crosby and Osbrowne's 'master strategy' of spewing hatred at scotland and the SNP has two main beneficiaries. One of them is the SNP but the other isn't the tories, it's the kippers.
ReplyDeleteThis is the usual 'master strategy' stupidity whereby the idiots in CCHQ somehow forget that they simply cannot outkip the kippers. They did it for Europe, they did it for immigration and now they are doing it with English nationalism.
Even the coward Cameron's ministers and spinners cannot hope to match UKIP's foaming at the mouth lunacy and hatred directed at scotland and the SNP.
When the right-wing press and the tories raise the prospect of trying to 'defend' against the SNP the kippers will be right there to make their usual inflammatory statements and try to milk any English nationalism for all it's worth.
The kippers won't believe their luck as they have been trying to make this an election issue for even longer than the tories.
The kippers and Farage support an English parliament, Cameron doesn't. Though some tories might and what on earth could go wrong raising yet another issue that could split the tory party?
*chortle*
"The kippers and Farage support an English parliament, Cameron doesn't. Though some tories might and what on earth could go wrong raising yet another issue that could split the tory party?
ReplyDeletejust not yet, we need the Conservatives and Labour Parties to be with a gnat's eyelash of each other in seats, the Libdrems reduced to single numbers and the SNP at 40 or so.
After we bugger off we can bequeath UKIP to them with much love.
"just not yet"
DeleteIndeed.
It's yet another issue along with Europe and immigration that the tory activists (those that are left and not totally infirm) are bound to agitate over if it keeps getting raised.
When there is a leadership election in the tories then you can expect it to become yet another hot button issue as tory MPs look over in fear at the sizable amount of kippers in their constituencies waving English flags and demanding the tories harden their line because they are too weak on it.
Like I said the kippers have been trying to make this an election issue long, long before the incompetent fop, Osbrowne and the right-wing tabloids desperately started to shriek about it. That certainly isn't because the kippers think it's bad for them. Quite the reverse.
.... we have never teetered on the edge of Independence as we have in the last six months. Now is not the time to start leaning back and relying on provenance, we are here from all our incredible efforts and actions, even when they seemed to be foolhardy and failed. As James says, given the chance many would have preferred to wait for the right time to fight the first referendum. Yet even with the NO, it was the catalyst that sparked this incredibly fertile moment. Maybe the most fertile moment in the last 300 years that Scotland has ever had? Do we keep pushing, or is it more 'patience'? I can't wait.
ReplyDeleteYou know, that's probably the most perceptive thing I've read on all this. We teetered on the edge of final success. They expect us to roll back into the trough of "another generation". We're not doing that. We're SO not doing that. But we have to make bloody sure we keep not doing that. It's far easier to tip over when you're teetering on the edge, than to get there again after having rolled back down the hill.