Tuesday, August 14, 2018

Let's state the obvious again: waiting until Yes support is at 60% is a recipe for Scotland never becoming an independent country

You might have seen that I was name-checked the other day in an article by Iain Macwhirter about a supposed danger of SNP disunity after Nicola Sturgeon makes her long-awaited decision in the autumn.  I think the first thing to say here is that any implication that there could eventually be a threat to Ms Sturgeon's own position as leader is faintly ludicrous.  She's by some distance the party's greatest asset, and it's obvious that any replacement in the foreseeable future would be a step backwards.  The two most credible alternative leaders are Humza Yousaf, who is probably the long-term heir apparent but needs more experience, and Angus Robertson, who has left active politics for the time being.

Nevertheless, Iain claims that Ms Sturgeon "wants to see support for Yes heading in the direction of 60% before she acts".  And it's quite true that, if this reading is correct, I and a great many others within the SNP would believe she's about to make a terrible mistake.  But my question is the same one I've asked of the BBC's Sarah Smith: how does Iain actually know that Ms Sturgeon intends to 'wait' for the impossible 60%?  Is he guessing?  Does he have a reliable source?  Has he had direct conversations with Ms Sturgeon on the matter?  He doesn't tell us, and doesn't even give us any clues.  I'll be more open and concede I have absolutely no private insight into Ms Sturgeon's thinking, but I do find it incredibly hard to believe that she would be foolish enough to set herself a fanciful target for pre-campaign Yes support that every scrap of logic suggests will not and cannot be met.  Even amidst the initial shock after the Brexit referendum result, Yes support only reached the low 50s.  Bearing that precedent in mind, how can anyone expect to get close to 60% without even campaigning?  The only people who would seriously set a 60% target are those who don't want an independence referendum to take place, and who don't want Scotland to become an independent country within their political lifetimes.  I believe Ms Sturgeon does want independence as soon as humanly possible.

Iain also suggests that Ms Sturgeon might use her autumn statement to abandon an independence referendum in favour of a push for a second EU referendum, but that sounds even less plausible than the 60% claim (which makes me suspect the whole thing may be wishful thinking on Iain's part).  In doing that, she would be endorsing the right of the UK electorate as a whole to overrule Scotland's own constitutional preference.  In short, she would be embracing the logic of unionism.  That is quite simply unthinkable for any SNP leader.  She could of course stipulate that the SNP would only support another EU vote if a double mandate was required (ie. the UK as a whole would only leave the EU if Scotland voted Leave), but as that would mean she would remain opposed to any referendum that might actually take place in the real world, what would be the point?  It would just be a monumental distraction from the real task in hand, which is to keep Scotland in the EU by means of independence.

I was interviewed about this subject on Radio Sputnik a few days ago, and you can read a transcript HERE (the audio file is also available at the bottom of the page).  Of course when you speak off the cuff you always forget to mention one or two things - basically the point I was trying to make is that the whole purpose of delaying a decision until the autumn of this year was to make sure there was clarity on the shape of Brexit at the time a referendum is called, and to demonstrate that the SNP had sincerely tried (but failed) to keep Britain as a whole in the single market and customs union before turning to an independence referendum as a last resort.  If the necessary clarity arrives on schedule this autumn, a decision can still be made at the planned time.  If it doesn't arrive, a nonsense would be made of the SNP's strategy if they pushed ahead immediately with an indyref just because of a date on a calendar, and I suspect most of the party membership would have no great problem with Ms Sturgeon deciding upon a very short further delay of a few weeks or months until we know whether there is going to be a no deal Brexit or not.  But what would not be accepted is any suggestion that the delay will be open-ended and could lead to the current mandate for a pre-2021 referendum expiring altogether. 

And I just don't believe that the membership will be asked to accept any such thing.

*  *  *

Click here for the 2018 Scot Goes Pop fundraiser.

54 comments:

  1. I always think that people who are looking for the polls to be at 60% before indyref 2 is called think 'it could be like 1997, when it was a fait accompli'. This fails to take into account that in 1997, the three main non-Tory parties were in alignment with each other and many (but obviously not all) of their supporters fell in behind them on it.

    Unless something seismic occurs we are just not ever going to see the same scenario arise here and now - while I often see people saying it will be 'Scotland v the Westminster Tories' in indyref 2, I can't (as of this time) see this including many Scottish Labour or Scottish Lib Dem politicians (although maybe insiders know different, I don't claim to live in any of their heads).

    This means that, like it or not, indyref 2 will have to be hard-fought and some No voters will have to be won away from their party's line to vote Yes. It is just not going to be 'we've reached 60% in polls, it's fallen into our laps and we didn't even to make an effort'.

    And I imagine that any politician in Scotland worth their salt knows this.

    The only disclaimer I'd lay on any of this is (as I say) unless there are somehow moves afoot to swing Labour and Lib Dem Scottish politicians in behind indy. And too many of them seem too bitterly opposed for this to happen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Labour and Liberal politicians are only a few voters, we do not need to convert them, it is ordinary no voters that need to be convrted to vote yes.

      Delete
    2. William, I believe I said as much by emphasising that I thought Lib and Lab politicians were too bitterly opposed to ever change tack and when saying that, accordingly, 'some No voters will have to be won away from their party's line'.

      To do that, a campaign to do so will have to be ongoing. It's easy to forget that the SNP's 'core vote' is only as high as it is because of the last indyref campaign - when people went over to them afterwards because they were enamoured with them following it. So, they have shown that they *can* effectively win people over to No as (of last time) in a campaign. There are no guarantees that the direction of travel to would be to Yes this time but we absolutely can know that it won't be if no effort is made (and that, barring something seismic happening down South, this will mean having whatever flavour of Brexit the Tories decide they want foisted upon us imposed against our will).

      Delete
    3. That should of course be 'win people over FROM No'

      Delete
    4. Fuck... Yor a bore. Yawn.

      Delete
  2. Iain McWhirter is using his article to push unsettling and confusing crap on the plebs. How the hell does he know what Nicola Sturgeon thinks about anything? The SNP and Nicola are to be painted into a corner by McWhirter? No thanks. By the way a 50.00001% YES will do me just fine. It's not for the likes of McWhirter to decide what % is needed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We Unionists will not accept a Yes Vote as it is a racist anti English vote. We will demand a second and third referendum until we win.

      Delete
    2. Fair enough - we'll be a sovereign country so the elected government will actually be able to hold referendums when they want. Knock yourselves out.

      Delete
    3. Glad I don't buy the Sunday Herald.

      Delete
    4. Jimmy Glesga AKA The Hon. Cordelia Bracely-Dubois

      Delete
    5. GWC2 AKA The Hon. Cordelia Bracely-Dubois

      Delete
  3. Two points, James.

    1/ I know it's your thing, but you buy into the BritNat polls too much. YES has been over 50% for some time, and may well be pushing the high 50s.

    2/ Your penultimate assertion:

    "I suspect most of the party membership would have no great problem with Ms Sturgeon deciding upon a very short further delay of a few weeks or months until we know whether there is going to be a no deal Brexit or not."

    Whether there's a Brexit deal or no deal is irrelevant to the case for constitutional change in the form of independence. Brexit is merely one of many symptoms of why we need independence. Further, we *will* indeed know by October whether there's a no deal Brexit. If you mean that Ms Sturgeon might delay an Indy Ref for up to 'months' after that, then you need to explain why you think the BritNat state won't seize the interim period between sending Brexit off for ratification and ratification to legislate to lock Scotland into Brexited Britain? That's a risk I wouldn't best the farm on 'the membership being happy with'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. YES has been over 50% for some time, and may well be pushing the high 50s.

      How d'you know?

      Delete
    2. Public Polls are mostly to shape public opinion rather than understand it.

      The interesting thing in the public polls is not the percentages but how contorted the methodology has become to produce results that keep NO ahead. That is a clue that the NO vote is crumbling.

      The other clue is how shrill and scared British Nationalist commentators and press have become. I think this is because their private polling shows an altogether more scary picture for them. Their main hope is to avoid another Referendum.

      It is shaping up well

      Delete
  4. "It would just be a monumental distraction from the real task in hand, which is to keep Scotland in the EU by means of independence."

    Waiting for 60% in the polls is crazy of course, but connecting a YES vote with automatic EU membership would be fighting on 2 fronts at once.

    Of course, Scotland would likely vote to remain again, but a 2 question referendum similar to the devolution vote, would maximise the indy vote.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Iain Macwhirter does seem a gentle aimable guy.I've read his article in the Sunday Herald, my reaction was that he was simply earning his Sunday Herald fee. "Yes boss no boss, that OK boss?".The article was disappointing, fell well short of his standards, could have been penned by any number of tabloid scribes.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Just commented on WGD, I totally understand both your arguments about patience and all that but if the SNP don't start upping the ante then people will start to dessert either the cause altogether or move on mass to either a new or existing indy party. I have faith in Nicola and I could only see myself accepting a delay if we start being a bit more disruptive at WM, start a semi campaign by dropping leaflets ads etc. Seeing more high profile Mps and MSPs seen and speaking at marches or organised SNP events outside conference. Also using TV or online whatever a proper list of options that will be used if section 30 is continuously denied eg a,b,c Holyrood election GE, advisory ref whatever. I personally don't think there will be a GE anytime soon so I think it will be something else. I don't envy Nicola it's high stakes but we can't fear not going for it. If the SNP let WM own and control this and go down with a whimper and don't use the mandate they have they are finished. You can tell by the trolling on indy sites that they are shitting it lets ramp up the pressure. Patience is a virtue n all that but inactivity will kill it stone dead

    ReplyDelete
  7. I believe the driver for an independence vote will be the impending Brexit crash. We will not be casting runes or reading poll entrails to see if the signs are favourable. Necessity will dictate the course of events and we will present our case against those emerging circumstances. I always took the trend of 60% in the polls as an alternative fundamental change in circumstances regardless of whether there was a Brexit referendum or not and which would indicate that a poll was necessary because the groundswell of popular opinion was such that it could not be ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I doubt a referendum held in greater London would support staying with great Britain, much less all England. 40%+ of Glasgowans( I can't get it spelled right here) would not support keeping Edinburgh in Scotland. BREXIT vote got nowhere near 60. And we now know they cheated. I say if you have more support than the actual government in power, go for it. I do think the constant slow rise is troublesome. I don't see current 16 to 22 year olds supporting ind like the old ones did.get them and you have a race!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You don't see folk - teens to early twenties, supporting Scottish Independence, like the old ones did.

      Whit? Let me see, your poll(s).

      Delete
    2. The last one I saw had it at low 50's for. If it was high, we would see it in the overall numbers.

      Delete
    3. Bill!, Bill!, I thought the old folk were against Scottish Independence and, the teenagers/early 20s for Scottish Independence.

      You paragraph above (15th - 7-05am), has me somewhat puzzled.

      Delete
  9. Yin o the reasons tae support Indy is the attitudes of our rulers towards working class folk.
    Yesterday a UK minister declared that social housing tenants 'shouldn't feel stiigmatised'! Here's one who never has. Scotland has schemes-not 'sink estates' why should we feel 'stigmatised? We're not inferior.
    Thatcher sought to free people from working class identity by' allowing 'them to buy there council houses.
    The Scottish Government were spot on in ending right to buy as it was having a disastrous effect on the provision of housing for those who needed it.
    Mair hooses for thaim maist in need.
    The SG tho, will struggle tae deliver whilst Scotland is tied intae a Union where politicians look doun thair nebs at working people.
    Stigma is clearly in the eyes o the beholder.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The FM has a really tricky problem, and yes, nobody knows what's in her head. The ideal form of democratic secession from UK, which I think we'd all prefer, is a legitimate referendum agreed and negotiated with Westminster – as in 2014. I can't see any UK government (of whatever colour, especially if its majority is bound to the tender mercy of Arlene) agreeing to that unless polls consistently show high 60+% levels of support for Independence (which I would like to see, and would render the rest of this post redundant). At that point it becomes pointless to fight it, so the battle then becomes about what assets and resources the UK can wrench from Scotland before and as the two countries dissolve the union.

    As things stand at present, when Nicola requests an Indyref again – or rather demands a formal written answer to her written request of last year – she knows she'll be knocked back by WM. What to do then then? Hold our own unilateral one? Civil disobedience? Not the FM's style. Maybe try and force a vote through the courts – or rather force the right to hold one?

    I thought it was a peculiar thing for the SNP to hold July's 'Claim of Right' debate. At the end of the process the House of Commons agreed unanimously 'That this House endorses the principles of the Claim of Right for Scotland, agreed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention in 1989 and by the Scottish Parliament in 2012, and therefore acknowledges the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs.'
    https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-07-04/debates/18070455000001/ClaimOfRightForScotland

    I wonder whether that Commons motion could have been planned as a major plank in a future case whereby the Scottish Government sues the UK Government for the right to exercise that Claim without needing Westminster's permission. It would go straight to UK Supreme Court of course, and certainly take as long as the current Scottish EU Continuity bill decision, but what exactly else is a regrettably still finely-balanced Yes/No Scotland to do?

    One thing's very important though, especially in the light of the to-ing and fro-ing over the close EURef result: Independence for Scotland - do it cold and do it indisputably, not wildly in a Big Charge into the muskets just because a clock's running down

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't see any UK government (of whatever colour, especially if its majority is bound to the tender mercy of Arlene) agreeing to that unless polls consistently show high 60+% levels of support for Independence (which I would like to see, and would render the rest of this post redundant).

      You think that would make the UK government more likely to support a referendum???

      Delete
    2. Really not sure TBH. Could WM hold out at 80/90%? If that's so (and, yes, it still might), when does that effect begin? Main point was really about possible legal avenues to obtain the Claim of Right in practice without the need for WM permission

      Delete
    3. Nice woman is Arlene and a true Brit in spite of witnessing her father being murdered by the IRA Fascists.

      Delete
    4. I'M Jimmy Glesga AKA The Hon. Cordelia Bracely-Dubois.

      Delete
    5. I am Spartacus.

      Delete
    6. I am The Hon. Cordelia Bracely-Dubois.

      Delete
    7. He got his face blackened, as he was a 'Black & Tan'.

      Delete
    8. Aye the bum boy Pape Priests didnae kerr whether it wis a black or tan young erse they were tannin.

      Delete
    9. Jimmy Glesga AKA The Hon. Cordelia Bracely-Dubois

      Delete
    10. GWC2 AKA The Hon. Cordelia Bracely-Dubois

      Delete
  11. Polls? It would be stupid to form policy around polls, especially since most are conducted by bitish organizations. Likewise we must not play by Westminster's rules - they are blatantly stacked against us.

    Time to get radical.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed, Did England/UK ask permission to leave the EU? No and neither should we seek any such permission from the UK.
      The Scot in the street, even the NOs think we have the right to self determination.
      We weaken our case by placing overdue importance on a S30 order.

      Delete
    2. My favourite actress Framboise Gommedy has no interest in S30 orders. For that reason, neither do I.

      Delete
    3. GWC2 AKA The Hon. Cordelia Bracely-Dubois

      Delete
  12. 60% not really needed and a bit of a red herring I think.If as is stated Nicola is waiting till the polls are heading towards 60% and the secret polls taken by all political parties the SNP is no different.So in calling for an honest referendum or indyref2 as its called,heading towards 60% might let some unionist parties think that the SNP private polls has it at 60% and throw them into disarray,just maybe,it's only a thought of mine and as we all know many folk will join in the yes vote because they see we are winners,and they like to be seen as on the winning team.Then again perhaps the polls are really at 60+% and the companies used by the unionists ask leading questions (and they do) so that their polls look closer.Well it's as good as any other guess or imagination that anybody else has dreamed up.

    ReplyDelete
  13. When the UK leaves the EU and thrives without making payments to the Mafia you Nat sis will have a problem selling out Scotland to the Godfathers, Herr Junker and Co. Pitiful lot you Nat sis are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jimmy Glesga AKA The Hon. Cordelia Bracely-Dubois.

      Delete
    2. Ah, a unionist mad-dog.

      Are you lodging, in Kilwinning ?

      Delete
    3. Jimmy Glesga AKA The Hon. Cordelia Bracely-Dubois

      Delete
    4. GWC2 AKA The Hon. Cordelia Bracely-Dubois

      Delete
  14. Polls are more a campaigning tool than a search for the true opinion of the electorate. Generally it is seen as being a bit behind is better because it encourages your supporters to push a bit more. Whereas a large lead relaxes your supporters and discourages them from making an effort to actually vote. YouGov (tory setup owned and run) was as you remember the poll company that reported a lead for YES just a little before the 2014 vote. Thus whipping up a frenzy in the British media and politicians.
    What I feel the SNP is looking for is upward movement that if extrapolated could lead to a 60/40 YES split. But it will be in polls we will never see publicised. What we normally see are polls using a weighted model for part of England. Perhaps because that is what is to hand or because nobody wants to pay for the work necessary to produce a Scottish model. We can be sure that's what Labour's internal polls consisted. At least from the look on Jim Murphy's face we can. The 2015 election was a much greater surprise to Labour because of internal polls.
    Will they have learned their lesson? Do they ever?
    They are parties of First Past the Post. Local seat numbers not national numbers. Whereas the SNP is a and always has spread nationally rarely focusing on individual seats. Labour focused as the do in England on their private territory and Tories on theirs. It why they are happy to bow out and put Tories in charge. That is your sphere this is ours. Keep the salaries rolling in and hands firmly in local graft and corruption. SNP never played the game because it is focused on a cause which only seems crazy to Labour careerist looking for a payout. The only national vision the Tories have is enrich the few by impoverishing the many. You can do that from London. How do they get into government? By tying up local seats particularly around the South of England.
    Simply put the SNP has a better knowledge of how things are going in Scotland than parties run by remote control from London. We have to trust they will make the best of real conditions even if we do not personally have the all the facts. I expect it to be a surprise to Labour and Tories who are waiting for a near 60% YES on "their" internal polls.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps TM you can explain why the Scottish rich are getting richer under Nat si rule. The only difference between Knickerless and the Tank Commander is their rear ends.

      Delete
    2. Jimmy Glesga AKA The Hon. Cordelia Bracely-Dubois

      Delete
  15. Well said, now away tae yer bed.

    ReplyDelete
  16. James, you have to love Kim Yung Eck and that sixties hankie hinging oot his breast poaket. Takes ye back tae the Barraland and pullin ra burds.
    Wonder if Eck is comfortable wie the former Soviets and the Gulag!

    ReplyDelete
  17. I've been at talks by multiple MPs and MSPs where they've said explicitly that there will be another referendum so we should get ourselves prepared. I doubt they're daft enough to say that if they didn't know something. I think we all need to get off our arses. Active campaigning is the only way to shift the needle. We won't have such a long campaign this time. Whatever your skills, whatever your interests, whatever your resources, there is something you can do to get us closer. If the SNP let us down, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. In the meantime, let's assume an announcement is coming soon and then it's going to be all campaigning, all the time. Let's be ready.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jimmy Glesga AKA The Hon. Cordelia Bracely-Dubois.

      Delete
  18. Scottish split:
    SNP 42%
    Con 23%
    Lab 22%
    LD 10%

    giving (Baxter):
    SNP 51 seats (+16)
    LD 4 seats (nc)
    Con 3 seats (-10)
    Lab 1 seat (-6)

    https://www.ncpolitics.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/voting-intention-2018-08-15.pdf

    ReplyDelete