Panelbase have today released their second independence poll since the referendum -
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 47%
No 53%
The previous poll from the firm in the autumn actually had Yes slightly ahead, but the results are not directly comparable, because that one was commissioned by Wings Over Scotland, and used a very particular question. In a sense, then, this is the first 'conventional' referendum-style poll from Panelbase since September, and it bolsters the strong consensus across a number of firms that the Yes vote has increased by a modest amount since polling day. We can be extremely confident that this progress is real and not merely a methodological mirage, because all of the firms have changed their procedures to bring in weighting by recalled referendum vote. (YouGov were slower to do so than Panelbase or Survation, but they eventually fell into line.)
It's particularly important to stress (because someone has already made a misleading claim in the comments section below) that this means it is categorically not true to say that "the polls have barely shifted since the 19th of September". 47% Yes from Panelbase may look very similar to the results we were seeing towards the end of the referendum campaign, but it's likely that Yes are now being downweighted significantly based on recalled vote in a way that, for obvious reasons, wasn't happening in the pre-referendum polls. In real terms, the Yes vote has increased since those polls - by a significant if not dramatic amount.
The datasets for today's poll aren't out yet, but we can use the autumn poll commissioned by Wings as an illustration. On that occasion, the 491 respondents who recalled voting Yes were downweighted to count as 431, and the 474 respondents who recalled voting No were upweighted to count as 534. There's no way of knowing yet whether the adjustment was quite so huge this time around, but if by any chance it was, it means that Yes would now be ahead if Panelbase were still using their pre-referendum methodology.
Make no mistake about it - there was nothing inevitable about support for independence continuing to swell after the referendum. September 18th could easily have been as good as it ever got for Yes, with people feeling afterwards that they could "move on" now that the matter was settled. I suspect we have two main factors to thanks for that not happening - a) the inspiring positivity of the Yes campaign, which people didn't want to let go of, and b) the spectacular boneheaded obstinacy of David Cameron, David Mundell and Adam "IT'S THE LAW!!!!!" Tomkins in refusing the budge an inch over more powers for the Scottish Parliament. It's getting to the point where we may end up looking back on Tomkins as the midwife of a second indyref. Cheers, Adam.
We're told that a supplementary question in today's poll found that almost half of the population feel that people not born in Scotland should be excluded from voting in the next referendum. The Sunday Times commentary invites us to feel concerned about that, but I can't think why - the right-wing London media are pretty much unanimous in backing the decision to largely exclude people born outside the UK from the forthcoming EU referendum, so they can't credibly argue that anyone who feels that the equivalent principle should also apply to a Scottish referendum is a filthy xenophobe. I'm sure most readers of this blog would agree with me that we should remain as inclusive as possible, and use just as broad a franchise as we did last time - but the logic of those who take a different view can't be faulted. They're simply adhering to the Cameron Doctrine.
As you probably recall, research from Edinburgh University found that if the Cameron Doctrine had been applied in September and a more restrictive franchise had been used, Yes would have won.
So, the polls have barely shifted since 19th September.
ReplyDeleteAny chance that some of those demanding #indyref2 NOW might stop to consider this?
The Yes movement can't afford 2 defeats in quick succession :(
Considering Wings poll showing 30% still get political info from the BBC and another study showed 50 odd negative leader columns from major newspapers and only 1 positive in the GE, seems a reasonable progress.
ReplyDeleteA real positive approach from more newspapers and it would be steady move to Ind, of course don't expect that. People still afraid of the economics?
Project Fear didn't work in Greece. I hope people in Scotland will take note. We are about to be subjected to massive Westminster austerity cuts. When Scotland has its second referendum in two or three years time I believe most people in Scotland will reject another unionist Project Fear and vote for independence.
DeleteI think a lot of people have woken up to the media now. and everything thats happened since , I believe we will be independent if of course we ever get a fair, non-bias and properly-conducted 2nd vote
DeleteRoughly 50-50 with the margin of error.
ReplyDeleteAnother couple of years of the Tories and their 1 MP lording it over Scotland should start to see some regular leads for the YES side. People will only put up with so much.
Then we will also start to see the effect of younger voters replacing the old time unionists.
Margin of error works both ways.
DeleteThere's only one poll I'm thinking about today, and that's the one in Greece. All the same, we've had the "catastrophic" fall in oil prices, which hasn't appeared to blow any holes in the independence argument, and meanwhile all the EVEL, Scotland Act, EU referendum, welfare cuts stuff is simmering away. I'm struggling to see the circumstances, in the short to medium future anyway, where support for independence is actually going to fall, and would expect opinion to be shifting in favour over the next few years. How quickly that happens, and in what strength, is another question.
ReplyDeleteThe fall in oil prices is catastrophic for a Scotland looking to finance current levels of expenditure, let alone increase spending. These issues would be fully explored in a referendum campaign.
DeleteFor this reason (and others) I am coming round to the view that we need a second referendum sooner rather than later that would - once and for all - put the independence issue to bed for a generation, at least. Scotland is not going to move forward until that happens.
"The fall in oil prices is catastrophic for a Scotland looking to finance current levels of expenditure, let alone increase spending."
DeleteWarning, Jeff : this is an open forum, and people may feel free to challenge the establishment orthodoxy you have just rehearsed. You didn't seem entirely comfortable with dissent on previous threads, so it might be an idea to brace yourself.
It wouldn't.
Delete"The fall in oil prices is catastrophic for a Scotland looking to finance current levels of expenditure, let alone increase spending."
DeleteI think everyone who takes this issue seriously (i.e. everyone who isn't some mindless campaigner that will say whatever suits their position) knows that the economics are pretty problematic in the present situation to put it mildly. The last GERS report essentially showed we were generating around £4 billion less than we would need to match present levels of spending as an independent country, all things being equal. That was before the oil price drop so the next report will be far worse.
During the referendum it was possible for sites like Business for Scotland to muddy the waters enough to confuse a fair chunk of people into thinking independence would give us a net economic gain, all things being equal. It was based largely on quoting the 2011-12 GERS report, which happened to be one of the few in recent history that had us generating more revenue than we received proportionally in spending - which has happened in precisely four years in the last 16 and always because of some temporary fluctuation in North Sea revenue. It led to articles like this one: http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/breaking-news-9-3-is-a-smaller-number-than-9-9-indyref/
That was convenient timing because this was the latest GERS report to be published for the bulk of the campaign. The 2012-13 report came out in Spring 2014 and showed that we were now generating less revenue than spending, but Business for Scotland managed to ignore that by selectively quoting averages that included the previous 2011-12 figures and one of the earlier years that had a similar North Sea revenue boost. By the time the 2013-14 report came out (which showed the £4 billion gap) the referendum had already been held so it had no impact.
In reality the "vote Yes and we'll be rich" approach would be a nonsense long-term at the best of times, but the circumstances were such that it allowed organisations like Business for Scotland to convince a large amount of people that it was true. Even now you'll regularly hear people quoting the 2011-12 GERS report as cast iron proof that we'd be rich under independence, completely oblivious to the fact that the latest GERS report (and 12 of the last 16 GERS reports) show that we'd be worse off, using precisely the same logic as Business for Scotland used in their article above.
If you held the referendum now the case would be far more difficult to make. There is nothing anyone can see in the latest GERS reports to make the case for independence so it would have to fall back on vague gibberish about magical productivity gains, or mere wishful thinking. The SNP are clearly aware of that and I think that plays a large part in the fact they're not pushing for a second referendum after 2016.
"Warning, Jeff : this is an open forum, and people may feel free to challenge the establishment orthodoxy you have just rehearsed. You didn't seem entirely comfortable with dissent on previous threads, so it might be an idea to brace yourself."
DeleteThe gold standard in this argument is to quote the GERS report (as the SNP, Business for Scotland and other pro-independence actors regularly did when they felt the figures suited them). The 2013-14 GERS report had us with a £4 billion shortfall before the oil price drop and the estimated effect of the oil price drop is around an extra £3 billion on top of that.
That's not so much "establishment orthodoxy" as it is stating the basic facts we have available - which, if it needs to be said, are published by the Scottish Government. If you disagree then perhaps you could explain why and indicate the evidence you're using to arrive at your opinion.
"The fall in oil prices is catastrophic for a Scotland looking to finance current levels of expenditure, let alone increase spending. These issues would be fully explored in a referendum campaign"
DeleteGoodness me, there I was thinking that the "catastrophic" fall had been "fully explored" in the wall-to-wall headlines of the press, BBC, STV, unionist politicians, nay, the very paving slabs in the street. And yet support for independence is up.
And here's Jeff back with the same old mantra we had last time - another referendum's looking probable, let's have it NOW before people get a chance to think through the issues and we end up losing. "Bring it on!", eh Jeff?
"I think everyone who takes this issue seriously knows that the economics are pretty problematic in the present situation to put it mildly"
DeleteTranslation : unionists agree with the establishment orthodoxy. We knew that, Robin, honestly.
Yes, bring it on. Or not, as the case may be. Right now, it is clouding every single economic, fiscal and political debate and decision affecting Scotland. That is no good for anyone.
DeleteGERS Figures, GERS Figures. I bet Robin the mindless arrogant unionist campaigner has never looked at the GERS figures. So lets summarise a few things for him/her.
Delete1.The methodology behind it is questionable, anyone with higher education can tell you that - have a look for yourself
2. We are charged a per population share for items such as debt payments, defence and accounting adjustments. These do not reflect actual spending. When readjusted to reflect actual spending the deficit becomes negligible.
3. It does not take into effect the benefits of Scotland having its on voice in the world, attracting investment, business and people.
4. It does not take into effect the surplus paid to the UK for many, many years.
5. It does not take into effect the removal of our contribution to large infrastructure projects that have no benefit to us like LDR, HS2 and Crossrail.
6. It does not take into effect the establishment of an inward migration policy.
7. It does not take into effect bilateral trade deals that could be set up with other nations.
8. It does not take into effect a Scottish Stock market.
Do I need to go on.......
GERS are the official UK Government's figures and have been produced by Civil Servants for about 30 years now! They show the present position of Scottish finances within the UK and show nothing about an independent Scotland's finances. For instance, Scotland's share of the cost of a new runway in London will be added to Scotland's expenditure under GERS.
DeleteGERS are the official UK Government's figures and have been produced by Civil Servants for about 30 years now! They show the present position of Scottish finances within the UK and show nothing about an independent Scotland's finances. For instance, Scotland's share of the cost of a new runway in London will be added to Scotland's expenditure under GERS.
DeleteI'm getting a bit sick of these people who have nothing positive to add or new suggestions on how to improve Scotland. If you are just someone who is happy with the status quo or who wants the situation to get worse, can I suggest go somewhere else. Nobody really wants to read your nonsense and your attempts to wind people up are pathetic.
DeleteJames, calling something "establishment orthodoxy" is largely meaningless unless you provide some alternative viewpoint that contradicts it. For instance, the science behind climate change is "establishment orthodoxy" but in the absence of any alternative evidence it would be ridiculous to deny that climate change is happening.
DeleteHence my question above. You've claimed that the basic account written above based on the GERS reports is "establishment orthodoxy". That implies that your opinion is based on something else that contradicts that "orthodoxy". I'm simply asking you what you're basing your opinion on and what evidence you have to back it up.
Robin, have a look at points above. Evidence has been provided. Stop relying on one single document that you havn't confirmed if you have actually read or not.
DeleteWilliam: this isn't an argument for independence, it's an argument that we should ignore the evidence entirely. As I said above, Business for Scotland and the SNP repeatedly quoted the GERS figures when they felt it suited their case so you can hardly expect the other side of the debate to just roll over and accept that they're now irrelevant simply because you find them inconvenient for your position.
DeleteBut we'll take it as given that from your argument you accept that the evidence in GERS presents a fundamentally negative picture of what independence would mean for the economy. In that case what evidence can you cite to back up your case? If GERS is all establishment nonsense then what is the alternative? How did you personally arrive at your opinion, in the face of all mainstream evidence, that independence will improve Scotland's economy? These are honest and open questions, not an attack - I'm genuinely interested.
Robin, answer the following points.... (suggesting that there would be a positive using more accurate measurements, for the Scottish economy)
Delete1.The methodology behind it is questionable, anyone with higher education can tell you that - have a look for yourself
2. We are charged a per population share for items such as debt payments, defence and accounting adjustments. These do not reflect actual spending. When readjusted to reflect actual spending the deficit becomes negligible.
3. It does not take into effect the benefits of Scotland having its on voice in the world, attracting investment, business and people.
4. It does not take into effect the surplus paid to the UK for many, many years.
5. It does not take into effect the removal of our contribution to large infrastructure projects that have no benefit to us like LDR, HS2 and Crossrail.
6. It does not take into effect the establishment of an inward migration policy.
7. It does not take into effect bilateral trade deals that could be set up with other nations.
8. It does not take into effect a Scottish Stock market.
Anon:
Delete1. If you want to question the methodology in a study then post specific methodological flaws.
2. This is the equivalent of saying "if we didn't have any debt and didn't have to pay for our defence or any other form of currently centralised spending we'd be rich". You can't build a case for independence on the perspective that we'll spend nothing on servicing our existing debt and have the rest of the UK pay for our defence. The GERS methodology apportions a certain percentage of our spending for centralised undertakings like defence. If you think that's a "methodological flaw" then that's a bizarre comment.
3. What you're trying to do here is claim that there are a whole series of intangible benefits that trump the raw economic evidence we have available to us. That's not an argument anyone can ground in evidence, it's a faith based argument - someone could equally argue we'd be worse off in all of these areas and there's nothing anybody can cite to settle that argument one way or another.
4. This is largely irrelevant to the case for independence in 2015. If we became independent the only thing that would determine our success is our economic situation on day one as an independent country. Citing what happened 40 years ago is an argument focused on history (or cultivating some narrative of grievance), it's not an economic argument for pursuing a policy today.
The only reason historical figures matter is if they give an indication of what our likely economic position would be post-independence. Generally speaking the farther back you go the less informative that evidence becomes, but in 12 of the last 16 years we've produced a smaller share of revenue than we spent, proportionally speaking.
5. The purpose of the GERS report's estimate of expenditure is precisely to try and separate those aspects of expenditure that take place in Scotland and those aspects of expenditure that are outside of Scotland. Citing Crossrail has little impact on any of that debate beyond the usual appeal to grievance - namely the age old tradition of pointing at expensive projects in London and claiming, on the basis of no evidence, that it's being paid for by Scotland. If you want to claim that the calculation of our expenditure is fundamentally flawed then cite specific examples, cite the alternative figures that would be produced if we made your proposed methodological adjustments (assuming you have some, which I think is being generous) and illustrate how it would impact on the overall balance of revenue and expenditure.
6. It's not a projection, it's an assessment of current expenditure and revenue. If you want to argue about the effect of future policies then see the comments to point 3 above.
7-8. Again, see the comments to point 3 - although point 7 is a particular stretch as far as arguments go given we'd have substantially less weight in trade negotiations, given the level of integration we already have with the UK economy, and in light of the role our membership of the EU has in trade negotiations. Either way these points have essentially nothing to do with the GERS report/our present economic position and seem to be indicative of someone simply throwing random points about independence into the air in the hope something sticks.
Now anon, instead of unsuccessfully trying to pick holes in the evidence we have, what precisely are you basing your belief on that independence would give a net benefit to the economy? What reason is there for those of us like myself who go where the evidence tells us to think that independence will benefit the country financially?
DeleteI'm fully aware that many people work backwards in this context - you already agree with independence and try and manipulate the evidence to match your opinion. I get that, but for those of us who consult the evidence first and then arrive at an opinion, what coherent economic case can you make for the concept? Honest question.
Robin, have you actually read the GERS report?
DeleteNow Robin, you havn't actually addressed any of my points.
Delete1. I'm not going to list them all, I will give you a couple.Income tax - A survey on personal income, not all income will be recorded as personal, how many Ltd companies with one employee are set up due to the high number of contractors in Scotland? How many respondents? How truthful have they been? VAT - ONS Living costs and Food Survey, these are never that accurate due to data collection methods (students waking round supermarkets recording the price of milk?)
2. It is flawed in the sense that we are over charged against what is actually spent in Scotland. E.g. Charged £3.2 Billion as a population share but actual spend is £1.5BN. Same applies for debt and accounting adjustments. Therefore the deficit is perceived to be larger than what it is. As an independent nation we would most likely maintain the military as is, minus Trident. Debt would be much less as we wouldn't be contributing to the £80BN cost of HS2 for example.
3. Raw economic evidence exists for both sides of the argument, at the moment we are addressing what you have raised as your top trump. Food for thought, lets have a think of how the UK is viewed across the world, an oppressive, war mongering state... How much more effective will we be at attracting investment when we have the full tools at our disposal?
4. You missed my point entirely, I was eluding to the fact that we would start off with a much lower debt level than you were suggesting, based on a much higher contribution the the treasury. A strong negotiation point for sure, why on earth would we pay for London's vanity projects?
5. WE ARE CHARGED A PER POPULATION SHARE FOR THE NATIONS DEBT, CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ON THESE PROJECTS IS FUNDED BY DEBT WE ARE CHARGED FOR. THEREFORE OUR REMOVAL FROM THE UNION MEANS WE NO LONGER CONTRIBUTE TO THIS COST. This is true for all regions and nations of the UK. Can you please read my point before you reply, as clearly havn't done so here.
6. Migration and an ageing population are the biggest threats to our tax base and public services. An inward migration policy such as the previous FTWISS has huge economic benefits. Despite what you may think, migrants are a net benefit to the nation.
7-8. These are not random point, they are points to be considered. Someone who is actually open to the idea of independence would give them some consideration. In response to your point, trade negotiations are not a ransom negotiation. Scotland couldn't have any less weight that it does now. My point was in relation to establishing new trade agreements with other nations be this in the EU or outside the EU.
Anon, with respect I took the time to reply to your points in detail when I could have simply posted a flippant remark. If I'd expected "have you even read the GERS report" as an answer I certainly wouldn't have bothered wasting my time.
DeleteRobin, my response is above.
DeleteAnon: Let's pick out the key arguments in what you've posted.
Delete"Raw economic evidence exists for both sides of the argument, at the moment we are addressing what you have raised as your top trump."
This is precisely what I'm asking you to provide. You've claimed that "raw economic evidence" exists for the pro-independence case: Where? There have been tens of comments in this section claiming we should ignore GERS yet nobody has given an alternative body of evidence with a different conclusion. You're claiming this evidence exists: where is it?
-------
[Multiple points on debt and defence]
The share of the debt would be subject to a negotiation in which there would be no reason to anticipate that we'd get a favourable deal of the kind you're describing. And even if you wiped off the entire debt contribution in the 2013-14 GERS report (about 4.6% of total expenditure) we'd still have a shortfall. Future debt linked to infrastructure projects (your block capitals shouting in point 5) is entirely dependent on future policies.
For defence spending, we're currently assigned £3.025 billion for defence under GERS in the latest report. The SNP's planned defence spending was £2.5 billion. So this is an argument about a small proportion of spending that's entirely reliant on 1) the SNP remaining in power and sticking to that pledge and 2) the UK not deciding to cut defence spending in future. And that's even ignoring the debate about whether it's a good idea to spend less on defence in the first place.
Again these are little more than qualifiers, not reasons to believe the situation would be more positive than it's portrayed as in GERS. It's essentially coming up with a list of reasons whereby some favourable policy here or a favourable negotiation there (none of which we have any reason to believe is actually going to happen) can compensate for the economic figures.
In fact there's far more reason to think the situation would be worse than GERS would indicate. Two things you haven't mentioned at all are the need to create a reserve fund to compensate for fluctuations in the oil price (i.e. money being taken out of the economy and held back every year) and the cost of servicing our debt on the bond markets, which is far more likely to go up as an independent country, particularly if there's a fudge on the currency. Then there's transition costs, the potential loss of the EU rebate, and a hundred other negatives we could cite that aren't going to be apparent from simply looking at GERS. You also haven't entertained the possibility that the Scottish Government's policies could harm growth, but that's hardly surprising.
Anyone can go down that line of argument, but it doesn't take away from the fact that the most reliable estimate of our current revenue/expenditure shows we'd have a very large shortfall on the status quo, all things being equal.
"Migration and an ageing population are the biggest threats to our tax base and public services. An inward migration policy such as the previous FTWISS has huge economic benefits. Despite what you may think, migrants are a net benefit to the nation."
DeleteWell no, actually, you'll be hard pushed to find anyone who is more supportive of EU free movement and a more liberal immigration policy in general than I am. The point is that you can't randomly assign benefits from future policy improvements as a way of ignoring the economic figures. You can't meaningfully argue about whether Scottish or British policy is going to be better for the economy in five years' or ten years' time and we certainly can't simply say the faith in a Scottish government producing better policies is enough to outweigh the empirical evidence.
------
"A survey on personal income, not all income will be recorded as personal, how many Ltd companies with one employee are set up due to the high number of contractors in Scotland? How many respondents? How truthful have they been? VAT - ONS Living costs and Food Survey, these are never that accurate due to data collection methods (students waking round supermarkets recording the price of milk?)"
These are two examples of potential measurement error, not an example of systematic error that is going to skew the results in one direction. Nobody produces a report like GERS and claims that it has 100% accuracy. You can cite potential measurement error in almost any study on that scale - at no point does that get us to the point where we should simply ignore GERS full stop and we still haven't cited any alternative source of evidence that backs up the case for independence. Simply saying "GERS isn't 100% accurate" isn't an argument *for* independence.
Robin, you've asked for it. Here you go http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/10-key-economic-facts-that-prove-scotland-will-be-a-wealthy-independent-nation/
DeleteI think you'll find (with your chosen amount of arrogance) that this is the best demonstration of why Scotland's economy is more than capable of supporting us as an independent nation. ( Again using your chosen amount of ignorance) I will not accept any counter argument and will spout any old nonsense to try and prove my a point, I will actively ignore any point you raise and try and deflect and change the subject to not answer any questions raised. (I'm doing an impersonation of you here, if you havn't guessed).
Now, you havn't answered a crucial question, why do you want to continue to let the same morons run our economy that have got us into this supposed mess?
Also, who is paying you to troll this site?
Also, if you love the UK so much, you know where you can go if we vote for independence?
Robin, I would like to add, that your points are entirely about the deficit and Scotland's economy being unable to pay for current public services. You have based that on the GERS report. I have debunked the GERS report and your stance and you have changed your argument.
DeleteYou are clearly not someone who is in anyway open to the idea of Independence. It would be reasonable to assume that you are some sort of BritNat, who is happy to see Scotland burn and get worse under the Union; for our resources to be squandered, our ingenuity ignored, and our identity erased from history. I will therefore be spending my time on something more productive. It saddens me that people like you exist.
Good luck spouting your nonsense.
Anon: I have to say that it's beyond priceless that after paragraph after paragraph of people claiming to have "debunked the GERS reports" you've just linked to a Business for Scotland article that draws a large chunk of its evidence directly from GERS reports. Point 2 is based on a five year average Business for Scotland started quoting from GERS when the 2012-13 report didn't support independence. Point 5 is based on the same figures. Point 3 even *links directly* to the GERS report for 2012-13 (you think you might have picked up on that one).
DeleteSo we should ignore the GERS reports, but the "best demonstration of why Scotland's economy is more than capable of supporting us as an independent nation" is, er... a pro-independence lobbying organisation (Business for Scotland) selectively quoting some GERS reports. Brilliant.
Neil Aslen, a forensic accountant, made an excellent appraisal of why the GERS figures were so flawed a few years ago.
DeleteHis findings are as relevant today as they were then
I encourage anyone who hasn't read them before to avail themselves of his analysis
http://www.electricscotland.com/business/THE_GREAT_DECEPTION_FINAL.pdf
"Anon:
Delete1. If you want to question the methodology in a study then post specific methodological flaws.
2. This is the equivalent of saying "If we didn't have any debt and didn't have to pay for our defence or any other form of currently centralised spending we'd be rich".",
We would only be paying for projects only in Scotland not both Scottish projects and English projects and the money saved from not contributing to the english project can then be counted as only in Scotland.
If the unionists are so confident that the polls haven't shifted, why are they in such a panic about a second indyref?
ReplyDeleteBecause the polls shifted from around 30% to 45% on the night over the course of the referendum campaign and they might shift again in IndyRef2 especially since the No side pretty much shot all their bolts last time. We have become inured to scare stories and as the FFA thing in the GE showed we no longer believe them. In addition there will not be a Vow2 in the last week, that too will not work again.
DeleteSo for those reasons they are far from confident of winning another referendum. However, we should not take too much heart from that ourselves, the polls are still not in our favour and we cannot assume that we can shift enough people in another campaign, especially with the MSM still dead set against us. Sure we have the new media but most Noes aren't touching it. My No voting wife isn't and her mind is as closed as ever on the issues and I'm not allowed to even mention them. Facts are still as inconvenient and unwanted as ever. Closed minds like that are not coming to Yes without something truly earth shattering. She doesn't want any more powers for Holyrood so the failure to live up to Smith or the Vow has no traction either. There are many just like her.
Sure there are lots of softer Noes around but remember even if we can reach them so can their harder No friends. I wonder how many of the 6 or 7 level Undecideds we found on the doorsteps voted Yes in the end, even here in the Yes City. At least here No is pretty much underground as the thing that dare not speak its name but it does so behind closed doors and between friends and family.
We need the Central Belt towns, the Falkirks and Edinburgh to become more Yes, significantly more Yes. Until that happens we will be foolish to go again. This is because losing a second referendum might well kick the issue into the long grass for a proper generation. Can the SNP stay popular and unsullied that long?
Hold the nerve and wait, the direction of the polls is right, keep living as though we are in the early days of an independent nation. Demonstrate what that is to others.
@James - I am very happy to be challenged. "No, it wouldn't" and "You're Simon so I am not telling" aren't really challenges though.
ReplyDeleteNo, but "I have already answered your questions a million times, and you damn well know it", which is what I actually said, is rather a strong challenge.
DeleteJeff, you have been answered and proved wrong on several occasions. Your arguments are structurally flawed. Have you not got something better to do? A basic economics course might be a suggestion? Or a lesson in being positive? Or a lesson in how not to try and wind people up (incase your mother didn't teach you that).
DeleteNot really. I am not Simon and have no idea what your answer is, so don't feel in any way challenged. Neither is calling me a supporter of the Tea Party or, pace Mr Pork, a racist, right wing Tory much of a challenge. All such insults and accusations seem designed to avoid anything that might look like engagement on the issues. But, as you say, this is an open forum (and kudos to you for that) so there may be other readers who are interested in understanding and discussing different points of view.
DeleteGERS, in relation to a discussion about Scottish Independence and its related true fiscal position, are badly flawed - as has already been alluded to.
DeleteIt would be very helpful if the SG came up with its own, independently verified, figures in this respect, which fully addressed GERS acknowledged shortcomings.
GERS, patently, is not up to the job.
Jeff, I answered your challenges in a previous post. I'm just going to repost them to you as you never replied. I suspect you never replied as you don't know what to say and would rather just continue trying to wind people up on here.
Delete1.The methodology behind it is questionable, anyone with higher education can tell you that - have a look for yourself
2. We are charged a per population share for items such as debt payments, defence and accounting adjustments. These do not reflect actual spending. When readjusted to reflect actual spending the deficit becomes negligible.
3. It does not take into effect the benefits of Scotland having its on voice in the world, attracting investment, business and people.
4. It does not take into effect the surplus paid to the UK for many, many years.
5. It does not take into effect the removal of our contribution to large infrastructure projects that have no benefit to us like LDR, HS2 and Crossrail.
6. It does not take into effect the establishment of an inward migration policy.
7. It does not take into effect bilateral trade deals that could be set up with other nations.
8. It does not take into effect a Scottish Stock market.
If (1) is an issue, then why hasn't the Scottish government changed the methodology to make it more accurate. I am sure at least a few o those who produce GERs and have cited it in years when it is helpful have university degrees.
DeleteAn independent Scotland will inherit a share of UK debt and it is reasonable to assume it will be allocated on a per population basis. An independent Scotland will also spend money on defence, as the SNP has made very clear.
It does not project, it reports - so your points 3, 6, 7 and 8 are irrelevant to GERs.
It does not take into account the years in which Scotland was in deficit to the UK in terms of spending either.
An independent Scotland would be more than entitled to an accurate and calculated amount of UK debt, which would be much lower than a population share.
DeleteTrue they are irrelevant to GERS, however, they are relevant to our future success as an independent nation. Which is what your original point was about.
Scotland being in deficit to the UK would be taken into account in debt negotiations, as mentioned above.
Try harder Jeff!
An independent Scotland would inherit a negotiated level of debt and it takes two to make a deal.
DeleteMy original point was that Scotland could not maintain current levels of expenditure with the oil price at its current level. In fact, I'll go further and say it needs to at least double for that to happen. So, that's a price - year in and year out of around $120 a barrel. Trade deals take years to develop, stock markets take years to grow, migration policy would be dependent on any deal negotiated with the rUK and so on. In short, you are talking about things that *could* make a difference over the medium to long term. That is absolutely fine and should be the basis on which the independence argument is made.
"I am not Simon"
DeleteWho the hell are you, then? Kermit the Frog?
See what I mean? You just can't handle it. If you don't like being challenged robustly, you've come to the wrong place, I'm afraid.
Yes but who in their right mind is going to take on debt that isn't ours or wasn't incurred by us,
DeleteYes it could maintain current levels of spending. My original point was that the deficit you refer to is based on GERS figures, these figures are not accurate and over inflate the perceived deficit by a huge amount. The short fall on spending would be easily covered by borrowing (just like almost every other developed nation) as I mentioned in a previous post. It's pretty simple really. In addition to this, the borrowing would be reduced as oil prices rise or over time as the onshore economy grows. The offshore economy is shrinking in comparison to onshore year on year (even during the good times), it is not unimaginable that this gradual change will continue. In turn, this will insure a more stable tax base.
In short the borrowing required is no where near what you think it is and entirely sustainable and only required over a short perios. An additional point would be that Scotland in theory could be sitting on a surplus and wouldn't actually need any borrowing but I would agree with you that getting the UK to pay us back is going to be a hard task.
The deficit is not the same as the debt. Until you master that basic, we are not really going to be able to discuss much else.
DeleteCheeky.
DeleteThey are very much interrelated. The size of debt dictated the size of the payment, which influences the size of the deficit.
The blatant deception of the "Vow"; the result of the General Election; the prospect of at least 5 more years of Tory policies; the appalling treatment of Scotland in the UK media; and yet YES remains in the minority. I despair.
ReplyDeleteIf you keep moving in the right direction, you always reach your destination, sooner or later. What was the indy % 20, 40, 60 years ago?
DeleteThis will happen, it will take years not weeks, but it will happen. Unless you give up.
People don't change over night on such a key decision. It will take a bit longer and some gentle persuasion from people they trust and know i.e. family and friends. People, generally don't like to admit they made a mistake or show that they are flippant in their decision making, particularly since the decision wasn't made that long ago.
DeleteIf the methodology for the GERS report is questionable, why on earth does the Scottish government not change it? The fact is that it is the most accurate assessment of Scotland's current and past financial position within the UK.
ReplyDeleteOf course, an independent Scotland could develop a completely different trajectory - positive or negative. But the SNP have made their case for independence based on GERs and on Westminster retaining control over monetary policy, so it is no surprise that GERs is so commonly cited within that context.
It would be hard to justify (particularly for the SNP) spending vast amounts of public money on new measures on the economy. The most accurate measure as a non-independent nation would be Devo Max/FFA/FFR/Federalism or whatever the unionists media chooses to call it now. So why not put your money where your mouth is??
DeleteFFA would be a disaster for Scotland. I believe in redistributing wealth from the richer to the poorer, so support Barnett wholeheartedly and would not want to see anything imperil it.
DeleteHA HA HA HA HA. Please scroll up to our conversation above. I can't be bothered repeating my points. Are you an employee for the Daily Fail? Given that you use the term FFA which is entirely made up as Devo Max is such a popular term, It shows where you are getting your sources from. FFA based on flawed GERS figures would not be a disaster. The only transfer of wealth in the UK occurs from everywhere else to London.
Delete"I believe in redistributing wealth from the richer to the poorer"
DeleteAh, so that'll be why you're so keen on Scotland being ruled by a pro-austerity Tory government it didn't vote for? Yup, that makes sense.
No, I am not keen on that. I just believe that Scotland with Barnett will do better than Scotland with FFA, even under the Tories. That's how bad FFA would be for Scotland.
Deleteand what are you basing that on Jeff? Btw, the much more recognised term is Devo Max.
DeleteStop eating the Daily Mail for breakfast. It tastes of ####.
"GERS is compiled by statisticians and economists in the Office of the Chief Economic Adviser of the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government's Chief Statistician takes responsibility for this publication."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy/GERS
Everyone with a rational stance, admits that GERS is really not up to the job of estimating/predicting/projecting the true fiscal reality of an Independent Scotland - yet this does not stop the Unionist MSM and Unionists in general, using GERS for one year, to forecast never-ending fiscal doom and gloom for a Country which according to international experts would be ranked as well within the top twenty richest nations on this planet.
ReplyDeleteIt really never seems to dawn on Unionists, that something as important as Independence, encompasses a lot more than just relative wealth.
I also seem to remember, in the years when Scotland was clearly "better off" than rUK, the Unionists were lining up to tell Scots that this would never last, that it was a blip which would disappear etc.........
In other words, no matter what Scotland's fiscal position, according to Unionists there is NEVER a good time for our Country to be Independent.
Absolute and total negativity is definitely the hallmark of Unionists, in relation to Scotland freeing itself from this unequal, unfair, lop-sided and failed political Union.
Yes, Unionists believe that Scotland is better off in the UK. Don't say that you have only just worked that out.
DeleteNo, Unionists are never willing to concede that Scotland could do better outwith this decrepit Union - irrespective of what the figures might have said.
DeleteTotal, utter negativity - and negativity which is losing, and will continue to lose them votes.
You have worked that out, haven't you?
No, he hasn't. He will, though, when it's too late.
DeleteI could only suggest that we try the "Union" test on the independent neighbours we share this part of the planet with - Ireland, Iceland ,Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland.... Look at the terms Scotland enjoys within our union with the rest of the UK. Would you trade independence for these terms of union with the overwhelmingly larger country of your choice.
DeleteHow many do we reckon would take the trade? How important would this year's government accounts be in the decision they took?
What is this independence thing? Why is it that countries who achieve it celebrate it and hang on to it so passionately?
"It does not project, it reports - so your points 3, 6, 7 and 8 are irrelevant to GERs" . Yep, that, kind of, in a nutshell, is the problem.
"Everyone with a rational stance, admits that GERS is really not up to the job of estimating/predicting/projecting the true fiscal reality of an Independent Scotland - yet this does not stop the Unionist MSM and Unionists in general, using GERS for one year, to forecast never-ending fiscal doom and gloom for a Country"
DeleteAnd yet a few years ago GERS was being cited with great regularity by those on the Yes side.
1. Here's an article by Business for Scotland citing a single year of GERS figures as the be all and end all of the independence argument. It's titled "Breaking News: 9.3 is a smaller number than 9.9" and includes the somewhat awkward line that GERS means "it is a mathematical certainty that we will do better than as part of the UK". A "mathematical certainty" doesn't seem in keeping with the apparent nuance of your argument above.
http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/breaking-news-9-3-is-a-smaller-number-than-9-9-indyref/
2. Here's a direct quote from Alex Salmond on the release of a GERS report: "Today’s GERS report confirms what independent commentators and analysts have been making clear: Scotland is one of the wealthiest countries in the world." No sign of methodological flaws in that speech as far as I can see.
3. In Stuart Campbell's words GERS "provides empirical evidence that Scotland can afford to look after itself – even in an emergency – better than by handing over all its money and entrusting itself to the “charity” of the UK. And that’s why the No campaign is pulling out all the stops today in a desperate and comical attempt to distract people’s attention from it."
Which is an oddly appropriate description of how the pro-independence side seem to regard GERS now, but I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that GERS no longer backs up independence and is entirely about the methodology.
Now of course an analysis of our current revenue/expenditure can't predict the future perfectly. Nobody (other than Business for Scotland strangely) is claiming that it can. But making qualifying statements about a body of evidence isn't an excuse to ignore all evidence in its entirety. GERS is the best picture we have of our current economic situation, which is why it's cited so regularly by both sides of the debate. If it's showing a shortfall of billions of pounds (around £4 billion in 13-14 and undoubtedly a larger gap in 14-15) you can't simply brush that under the carpet.
If it's showing that we'd have been worse off, all things being equal, in 12 of the last 16 years, that should have at least some relevance to the discussion of the economic effects. It's not the end of the argument but if you want to present the alternative case then it has to be founded in similarly rigorous evidence. Otherwise it's simply a punt - a "who really knows what will happen let's go for it anyway" style case and you can hardly be surprised that people don't find that very convincing.
It's funny as you are relying entirely on GERS to back up your case. Got any other sources of evidence? The GERS report has been successfully challenged and not just the methodology but the figures. Which has shown the deficit to be much lower than suggested.
DeleteThere are a list of economists and business leaders (credible people in your eyes i'll suggest) as long as my arm that support independence. Just as you will have the same for your stance.
Now, in regards to the GERS being used positively and negatively as an argument is neither here nor there. It's what politicians do! It's stating the bleeding obvious! In fact, telling you the methodology is wrong and the deficit figures are lower is actually a positive for the Independence argument.
Now, this raises the question, why on earth would you continue to have the morons in charge that got us into this supposed mess? They clearly aren't up to the job! Which makes me question your intentions on being on here. Who is paying you?
Robin,
DeleteI have previously called for a Scottish alternative to GERS, in relation to making far more accurate assessments of both the current fiscal position and that of an Independent Country.
I simply do not believe GERS is accurate, no matter who quotes it.
As someone has just posted, it is also instructive to note that it is, and has been, Westminster's stewardship of our economy, which has led to the present situation, in any case - not that of the SG.
Not exactly a strong argument for sticking with the same management, is it?
You also miss the far bigger point - Independence is not and never will be, purely about relative wealth.
Scotland will remain a top-twenty Country in terms of wealth, whatever happens.
Independence is much more about control being vested in Scotland, rather than London.
There is no doubt now, that England and Scotland are moving in completely different political directions and that is not compatible with a long-term political union.
"As someone has just posted, it is also instructive to note that it is, and has been, Westminster's stewardship of our economy, which has led to the present situation, in any case - not that of the SG.
DeleteNot exactly a strong argument for sticking with the same management, is it?"
This is a red herring that's frequently brought up in this discussion: the idea that because the evidence doesn't back up independence we have proof that Westminster is mismanaging the Scottish economy.
It's wrong, in the first instance, because the Scottish economy functions perfectly well on its own merits. We generate roughly the average UK revenue excluding the North Sea and more than the average if you include the North Sea. The reason why independence doesn't make sense if you look at the GERS figures is because the distribution of spending gives Scotland an above average level of spending by UK standards.
And that's perfectly reasonable because Scotland has a lower population density which makes public service delivery more expensive on average.
Rubbish.
DeleteThe argument that Scotland is only kept afloat by English subsidies is one of the main Unionist planks.
If that is indeed the case - and it is a big if - then that is down to consistent mismanagement over many decades, by those who have always held, and still hold, the main fiscal levers - Westminster.
You clearly haven't bothered to read what was actually written. At no point, anywhere, did I say we're only kept afloat by subsidies. I said the exact opposite: that our economy functions perfectly well, but that we receive an above average level of spending by UK standards for perfectly valid reasons (e.g. our lower population density making public spending more expensive to deliver).
DeleteAnd really, I was being charitable because the logical foundation of your argument is completely ridiculous. You're basically saying that if the economic evidence supports independence (as the SNP tried to argue) then we should be independent, but that if the economic evidence doesn't support independence we should still be independent because that proves we're being mismanaged. It's an utterly absurd principle that can never in any circumstance lead to someone thinking independence (for any territory, not just Scotland) isn't justified on economic grounds.
Totally wrong.
DeleteI said that the requirement of English subsidy to keep Scotland afloat, was one of the the main planks of Unionist arguments against Independence - and it is.
I also stated the obvious - that if, indeed, that was the case, then those to blame were situated in Westminster.
Your second paragraph - and I am being generous here - is nonsensical claptrap.
When you can make even the semblance of some sense, you might well be worth a response.
Try again., please,
You claimed that the mere fact the economic evidence doesn't support independence indicates that we're being mismanaged.
DeleteI pointed out that argument is completely misleading given the revenue we generate is perfectly acceptable - the reason we have a shortfall is because of the high level of spending we receive. You haven't posted a single coherent response to that point - if you have one post it, if you don't then retract your original comment.
Robin, GERS is used as the benchmark because of two things...
Delete1. It'sall we have
2. Successive UK governments refusal to open up the books and quote 'real' figures
Neil Aslen, a forensic accountant, has written extensively on why the GERS figures are so flawed.
I invite you to read his analysis and make your own mind up
http://www.electricscotland.com/business/THE_GREAT_DECEPTION_FINAL.pdf
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteRobin,
DeleteYou clearly did not read what I posted.
I did not say that the economic evidence doesn't support Independence.
I said that the present state of the Scottish economy - IF you believe one of the main planks of the Unionist argument against Independence, namely that Scotland's economy is only kept afloat by English subsidies - is down to those who have held, and still hold, all the main fiscal levers - Westminster Governments.
Your response was nonsensical and ridiculous, but totally in keeping with most of your posts on here which are far more concerned with attempting to demonstrate how clever, logical and astute you are ( you are not) rather than making pertinent points.
You really need to get it through that obviously slightly dense Unionist cranium of yours, that just because you say something, it is so.
It is not.
As I said previously, go away and try again - this is the second time I have had to tell you that.
Please listen.
Certainly seems that way.
ReplyDeleteWonder if he needs a snorkel, with his head so far up..........?
The trolls are out in force.
ReplyDeleteAs i'm on my phone, my thumb was getting sore speed scrolling past the blah blah.
Idiot.
DeleteSo amusing to see the comments of the economic illiterate James Kelly and Mick Pork here.
ReplyDeleteLet us never forget that the SNP were cheerleaders for the disastrous Euro,
When it was launched, Alex Salmond said that sterling was a 'milestone around Scotland's neck' and that an independent Scotland would join the Euro asap.
Last year the same Alex Salmond sais that a sterling currency union was essential to Sctoland and the UK's shared prosperity,
The SNP has failed massively on the cureency question,
Talking about failing massively you've spelt Scotland wrong.
DeleteAs son of a Scots RAF officer (who was posted abroad when little ol me turned up) and my wife's Scot dad who was working in assignment in London, I'd be well pissed off of non-natively born Scots were excluded from the vote. Both of us voted yes.
ReplyDeleteI don't see the polling figures moving a lot in the near future - regardless of the situation. Support for Scottish independence was always roughly 30% until the referendum campaign.
ReplyDeleteThe only way I see another (drastic) increase in support for independence is with a second referendum - people may still have their referendum voting intention based on the previous campaign. If Sturgeon was leader of the Yes campaign - there may be certain policies different that could cause a surge towards a Yes vote.
I'm not overly concerned about the voting intention figures, until we're in another referendum campaign on the subject (if there is another). However, any movement in support towards independence is positive.
So, what this tells us is that, after 8 years of SNP government, a four year relentless campaign for independence (pre and post referendum) and an SNP landslide in the General Election, it's still pretty much business as usual on independence - a NO lead.
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to see the results inclusive of the 'don't knows'. If no are on 48 or 49%, then a relatively small push from the undecided category would push them over the edge.
Nicola Sturgeon has 9 months to decide what's going in the Holyrood manifesto. Will she commit to a second indyref on these figures? I seriously doubt it.
What this *actually* tells us is that, after 300 years of union, several lifetimes of pervasive unionist media, relentless narrative and accepted truths, umpteen unionist governments each with every opportunity to show why Scotland’s interests are sooo much better served by a parliament where we are outnumbered 9 to 1 than it would be if we ran our own affairs, that 9 out of every 20 people in Scotland would still rather trash the whole thing and go it alone.
DeleteJust a “relatively small push” over the edge ….
"So, what this tells us is that...it's still pretty much business as usual on independence"
DeleteIt tells us no such thing. I refer you to the contents of the blogpost you're commenting on.
James have you ever considered using crowdsourcing to commission your own massive poll based on your own questions? I'm pretty sure everyone on twitter would chip in.
ReplyDeleteSeconded.
DeleteYes, I've thought about it in an idle sort of way, but to keep this blog going in the long-term I'll have to have to run another fundraiser just for that, so doing a separate fundraiser for a poll might be overkill. Oh, and I'd also have to find a polling firm I haven't criticised too much - I'm not sure YouGov would accept a commission from Scot Goes Pop!
DeleteOnce you get your fundraiser out the way I would seriously look into it. There are a lot of people myself included who not only look forward to new polls coming out but also your take on them and I always think you could come up with a poll that asks the right questions. Does Lord Ashcroft not take commissions?
DeleteHmm, a difficult one, excluding non Scottish born, in a vote. I know mostly Scottish who voted no, and mostly English friends who voted yes. Having said that, if it was English born who voted to stay shackled to our masters, I would, forego my vote, my sons would vote yes.
ReplyDeleteIf we do ever have another Indy Ref, please lets have it without the long drawn out lead up, that gave the right wing and pretendy left wing press loads of time to get their project fearmongering out good and proper. I do hope it is on the cards as wm will ruin Scotland even more, if we wait too long. Thing is, most older, (sorry)no voters have just had it so good they see no problem in remaining shackled, it's the young and the up and coming poorer retirees who will suffer massively. I feel it is an uphill battle, but let's hope it's third time lucky, the sooner the better.
The majority of people born in Scotland voted Yes. The Edinburgh Uni study demonstrated that. Whilst I am not comfortable depriving residents the vote.
ReplyDeleteIf there are 20-30% of residents non natives, who want independence!Then how it comes about is irrelevent. If it can't come because the vote is open to non Scots 70% of whom voted no then it's a futile cause to be all things to all men so to speak.
We are giving the ethnic minority the vote to prevent the majority of natives from getting what they want. Sometimes the journey has to be less important than the destination.
It seems that the UK government have no problem in excluding group's from the EU referendum { http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-david-cameron-to-deny-under18s-and-european-union-nationals-the-chance-to-vote-10273781.html}, presumably using the not unreasonable argument that this is a UK matter for UK voters. Surely by this logic excluding non-Scots born people from a vote which is purely a Scottish matter can hardly be deemed unfair.
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line is that native born Scots did indeed vote by a small majority for independence. The problem we have is that having a small population the 100,000's of non Scots that voted no had a very significant impact causing us to lose the referendum . The massive number of English people living in Scotland makes up more than 10% of the voting population add in other non-Scots and we are left at a serious disadvantage in our own country. I would only allow the vote to Scottish born folk living in our country { irrespective of race creed or colour
Agree Jim. The problem was not so much non Scots. It was one ethnic(The English) minority that voted overwhemingly no by 80%. This is not a statement of blame it's a statement of fact. The Poles and other immigrants did not vote no in such proportions. It may have been 50/50.
ReplyDeleteSo in other words there was an agenda by Brits in Scotland to stop the Scots getting what they wanted. This can't be right. For a myriad of reasons the English in Scotland cannot give up their baggage and become new Scots like the rest of the immigrants. Like I would if I had moved to Canada when it went for independence. I would have been a Scot but a new Canadian as well.