Wednesday, July 10, 2024

Are Scotland and England still diverging politically, in spite of all the hype?

There's a really interesting Twitter thread by David Clark, a former adviser to Robin Cook at the Foreign Office, in which he argues that the UK is still likely to break up within the next 10-20 years and that last Thursday's election result shows that beneath the headline story of a Labour victory, Scottish electoral trends are still diverging from the rest of the UK.  He points out that Labour has never increased its share of the vote at the end of a full term in power, and that therefore they are at risk of losing at the next election to the second-strongest electoral blocs, which in England is the right-wing vote for the Tories and Reform, and in Scotland is the pro-independence vote for the SNP and to a much lesser extent the Greens.

Obviously this is music to my ears, so I've been trying to work it through and see if it stacks up.  One obvious complication is that power in Scotland is not determined solely or even primarily by what happens in Westminster elections.  When the Holyrood election comes around in 2026, it won't be Labour trying to hold its vote at the end of a full term, it'll be the SNP trying to hold on after four full terms, which is a very different dynamic.  In a worst case scenario where the wheels really come off for the SNP, it might destroy their credibility as the main opposition to Labour in the run-up to the next Westminster election.

However, if the SNP can at least remain competitive in 2026, it's true that they would be extremely well placed to benefit from any Labour slippage in 2028 or 2029.  They are second in the vast majority of seats in Scotland.  I would question, though, how confident we can be that Labour will drop back, because although they may not have increased their vote share at the end of any previous full term, they certainly more or less held their ground in 2001 when Tony Blair was re-elected, and in Scotland their vote actually increased in 2010 after three consecutive terms in office - albeit that may have been partly down to a personal vote for Gordon Brown.  Luckily, in spite of the hype, there aren't many Scots at the beating heart of the new Labour government.

106 comments:

  1. This is one of the reasons we need another independence party such as ALBA or ISP to be successful and by success I mean picking up about 8pc and one or two seats. The more we become like NI where UK politics becomes more irrelevant the better. This is why I think the SNP meltdown might turn out to be a good thing long term. On top of that they deserved it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But the SNP meltdown made us less like NI, not more like it.

      Delete
    2. The SNP meltdown will continue for as long as Swinney and his merry band of Nicophytes are still in power. They are the problem. Their record in government is poor and only getting worse. And since Nicola bungled Indy with the UK "supreme" court ruling, everyone and their ginger dug knows the constitution's off the table.

      If any of this was going to change, we would have seen Kate on manoeuvres for a leadership challenge and recognisable faces calling directly for Swinney to step aside. The morning after the election and the weekend was the time to strike. Clearly, that's not happening, Swinney will tough it out, and so this clueless Scotgov is doomed to a bad defeat in 2026. That matters far more than bums on green leather London seats. Scotgov is Indy's best instrument—independent Scotland's government in waiting—and once the Brits have it back, we're humped until they're out again.

      The optimist in me looks over at Biden in America. He's their tired old Swinney, doomed to a looming defeat that everyone can see. Will the Dems man up to shift him? Or will they death march right on into Trump's sweeping November victory? That's their problem, frankly, but either path offers a lesson for the SNP back here.

      Make a change or go with the loser you know: you decide.

      Delete
  2. There really is a story beyond the obvious as I know screeds of pro indy people in their 30s and 40s who voted Labour but may come back to the snp in time. They didn't vote Labour in enthusiasm


    Time is a healer and it may swing back.

    Christ the venom against Labour in 2015 was more than the disappointment with the snp in 2024 and they came back.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In some ways it could be a blessing as it reminds everyone labour are not much better than the tories when they (inevitably) become unpopular.

    I am convinced half of the battle is simply time makes the heart grow less fonder with political governments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "In some ways it could be a blessing as it reminds everyone labour are not much better than the tories when they (inevitably) become unpopular."

      I think the issue for SNP supporters though is that will take time and in the meantime there is a sentiment for 'change'. That we've replaced one Government who's been in power for 14 years, it's time to also replace the one who's been in power for 17.

      That feeling for change will be difficult to combat against as the change via independence isn't on the horizon and without that it only leaves the change by removing the SNP from power.

      Delete
    2. Anon@5:02,
      Labour will no doubt become less popular through time.
      Whether they become as unpopular as the SNP though, I very much doubt it.

      Delete
    3. 3 policies that will see that.

      Nhs privatisation (streeting & starmer have links to hedge fund owner, that owns a very private healthcare company)
      Gaza
      Seeing nothing improve overvnext 2 years. (Labour has said no new taxes to pay for service improvements)

      Delete
    4. Also worth keeping in mind though that it's perfectly possible for the SNP to do things over the next 2 years that are unpopular with the public adding onto the current sentiment that exists from the chaos over the last 2.

      There's also still things looming over the SNP, for example Operation Branchform hasn't yet concluded. It would take a lot for Labour to make themselves more unpopular than the SNP are atm.

      Delete
  4. 2026 election is still 22 months away, lots of water to go under the bridge before then. We must concentrate on labour's failings in government in the next 2 years to trying and convince anyone who voted for them in 2024. I'm very confident with 2 years under his belt that John Swinney will not only win in 2026 but win with ease.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are we going to need to put up with two years of "I'm confident John Swinney will win with ease" nonsense like we had to put up with "The SNP will not only win the election, I'm confident they'll gain seats!"?

      Delete
    2. But but but ... what do the artistic licence ski slopes show?

      Delete
    3. Away and punch the air you headcase!

      Delete
    4. The clown Declan is back.

      Delete
    5. Lord of the SlippersJuly 10, 2024 at 8:00 PM

      Declan isn't Skier. I know Skier's MO and indiosyncrasies well. It ain't him.

      Delete
    6. Anybody that thought there was even a remote chance of the SNP gaining seats at the GE flies with the birds.

      Delete
    7. Declan is obviously a parody account. You'd have to be severely internet autistic to think it's Skier.

      Delete
    8. If he was skier, there'd be charts.

      Delete
  5. Labour ran a campaign against the Tories that normally the SNP would have run, except they included the SNP in it
    All three governments were voted against, Wales Labour vote went down as people voted against them blaming them for the cost of living
    Same in Scotland and England, SNP government blamed, Tory government blamed
    The Labour vote was I think the second lowest in history making it appear that nobody actually really wanted Labour, it was just a case of punishing everybody or anybody for the cost of living

    In no universe can the SNP come back in 2026, it doesn't matter what they do, the British and their Scottish allies have already combined to destroy the SNP
    Trades unions in Scotland are set to strike for the next two years playing their part in efforts to take out the SNP
    The Scottish voters being what they are will buy it and the SNP and all thoughts of independence will be gone for a very long time

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why do you want Scotland to be independent if you think its people are such thickos

      Delete
    2. Because all humans the world over are just as "thick."

      Democracy's in a bad way right now because the only choices on offer on the ballot are those the political parties put there. Political parties have staffed up with spads, lobbyists and policy consultants, who all consider the general public to be a bunch of easily manipulated sheep best kept as far from policy as possible. They have weaponised focus groups, identified wedge issues, and penned us into convenient herds for their support. And you know what we can do about it? Spoil our ballot? Baa!

      Government needs a lot of change, worldwide. We would do well to hold Citizen's Assemblies and write our constitution to require a referendum on major policy changes. Either we voters have the power, or they do.

      Delete
  6. With the right leader and a much more confrontational style that consistently highlights the significant benefits of Indy, and a unit dedicated to directly tackling the lies and disinformation of the BBC, it can be turned round.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You'll see Alex Salmond on TV every week from now on in criticising the SNP even though he was completely wiped out in the GE

      Delete
  7. This is OT but this headline from the National if correct:

    "Alba use Holyrood motion to pressure SNP to mitigate Labour's two-child benefit cap "

    is sheer stupidity by Alba. THAT is a Unionist tactic for one, and secondly shows an absolute ignorance of the budgetary constraint of the ScotGov - any ScotGov - with devolution.

    ReplyDelete
  8. With votes at 16 and the fact the Tory/Brexit vote is ageing. And if the divided vote on the right persists...the future is hard to predict!

    ReplyDelete
  9. All of Scotland's public services are set to strike without end till 2026
    Who will the voters blame? it won't be Westminster, and when it is you won't hear it on the news

    ReplyDelete
  10. If anybody can do it John Swinney can.

    John Swinney has hit the ground running.

    Nicola Sturgeon has pointed out that Swinney is best placed to unite the party and progress independence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 不不不不不不不不不不不不

      Delete
    2. That's like Tony Blair saying that Keir Starmer has hit the ground running.

      Delete
    3. Swinney hit the ground with his face. That counts too, right?

      Delete
  11. The UKGE was a vote against the Tories. Noe the job is done, 2026 will not be a vote against the SNP.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That would be a good argument to make except for the fact that in England Labour's vote share decreased from 2019, whereas in Scotland it increased significantly. In fact, Scotland is probably the only part of the UK where you can say that Labour won the election rather than the Tories losing it.

      If you want the SNP to retain power in 2026, it doesn't help to put your head in the sand and delude yourself into believing that the only reason the SNP lost so badly was just because Labour was seen as being the only way to get the Tories out. Labour's gains in Scotland were a direct result of shifting voter support from the SNP to Labour..

      Delete
    2. Nope, that is incorrect, half a million votes not cast tells a different story

      Delete
    3. 2019: SNP 1,242,380 votes LAB 511,838 votes = + 731,000
      2024 SNP 724,758 votes LAB 851,897 votes = - 127,000

      2024 - LAB have a small majority in votes, large one in seats.

      Not a lot in it.

      Delete
    4. AND in a PR system votes are much more important than for Westminster. A Labour lead of 5% for Westminster is well within striking range for the SNP to surpass. The real risk is that the SNP is the largest party but other unionist parties, or even the Greens, may ally with a second placed Labour Party to make Starwar FM. I believe Sarwar has been allying himself with the Tories in councils to make people accepting of the Tories voting with Labour to stop Swinney being FM and appointing Sarwar FM

      Delete
    5. YI2:

      As your numbers also show: Labour UP 300k votes, SNP DOWN 500k votes.

      Turnout was higher in 2019—that election, if you recall, felt like a direct assault on Boris Johnson's Tory government, and I voted SNP once again to arm Nicola to demand our referendum. But it's also true that Labour gained votes while everyone else (bar Reform) sank. People shifted TO them.

      Many of those votes were direct SNP to Labour switchers. It's exactly as Rutherglen showed us all those months ago. They are the group that should terrify the SNP: Labour voters tired of the SNP and returning home. They will be the story of the 2026 election, too. Win them back or kiss Scotgov goodbye.

      Delete
  12. Interesting. I presently don't have a clear opinion on how the mess created by our politicians will fall out.
    In the meantime I urge activists to keep a watchful eye on the parties, of course, but to put as much effort as possible into building the strength of the, non party political, independence movement and to keep that movement under the political control of it's active supporters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no independence movement though, there's only a bunch of do nothing moaners

      Delete
    2. Aunt Val says the same and I agree with her and you.

      Delete
    3. "There is no independence movement though, there's only a bunch of do nothing moaners"

      Who have been vindicated.

      You an disregard criticisms of the SNP as just being "moaners" all you like but if you're still doing it after the disastrous election results you'll just reap what you sow.

      Delete
    4. Stu Campbell agrees, too:

      "the grassroots Yes movement doesn’t really even exist any more in any tangible sense. (If you doubt that, try getting it to go on a march.)"

      Here's my view: the indy movement only ever exists when there's an event for us to participate in. 2014 was the mother of all events: we spent the year talking up indy and hitting the streets, because Indy was palpably in sight. When we lost indyref, we were reduced to campaigning in elections—which the SNP of course made all about mandates for indy, but didn't warn us they never meant it. Throw in a dwindling calendar of ever-less-attended marches and that's where we are: a movement without a practical purpose. We are rebels with a cause: INDEPENDENCE! But where's our leadership? We ourselves are just regular Scots like everyone else, we have no electoral mandate like the politicians who have so poorly led us. So you see us losing enthusiasm and patience.

      Like it or not, Scottish independence won't be brought about by a popular revolution. We will do it by peaceful democratic means. That, alas, means we need inspirational political leadership. We can't just do it by brute force and enthusiasm for ourselves.

      Delete
    5. Ah but we don't need leadership apparently, any criticism regarding our elected leaders and their strategy is just you moaning!

      We just all need to get out there, chap some doors and er... tell people on the doorstep that independence might happen one day or might not. Who knows. But they should care about it regardless!

      Delete
    6. It's almost mythic, isn't it? The Yes Movement is the greatest weapon in Scottish politics, but we can only be wielded by a leader of true spirit! Otherwise, there's nothing we can do, without our story's fated hero…

      Delete
  13. +1,000,000 Yessers don't vote SNP so unless and until the SNP addresses that fact, or leaves the field, we're not going anywhere soon where Indy is concerned.

    More's the pity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, if in 2026 the SNP got 50.1% for constituencies and 50.1% for the list, in a de facto referendum, which could actually happen with some courage, here's a possible scenario:

      https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/swingometer/scottish-parliament?election=2021s&cSNP=50.1&cCON=12.89&cLAB=27.19&cLD=6.94&rSNP=50.1&rCON=12.46&rLAB=19.2&rGRN=8.11&rLD=5.05&rALBA=1.65&rAFU=0.86#Scotland


      SNP Win 21 seat majority with 75 seats. 65 Constituency and 10 on the list.

      For the SNP to get 2/3 of the seats at Holyrood, you'd need the SNP to get 59% on constituency and 59% on the list. 70 Constituency, 17 on the list.

      Bye bye Union, and good riddance.

      Delete
    2. Yep. And pigs might fly given last week's performance.

      Delete
    3. You said "+1,000,000 Yessers don't vote SNP"

      which is about correct compared to the 50% YES support with a large turnout. And then you said: "so unless and until the SNP addresses that fact"

      As I said: "in a de facto referendum". If that is why 1,000,000 YESsers didn't vote SNP last week, then a de facto ref in 2026 may be the answer.

      Delete
  14. Great to see Flynn reelected as Westminster leader. He commands respect in the House.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which benefits Scotland how, exactly?

      Delete
    2. Flynn is there to settle in, not settle up. His ambition is probably to be Speaker in 2046.

      Delete
    3. Great turn of phrase. So original. Any proposals for progressing the Indy cause? Thought not.

      Delete
    4. Anonymouse squeak squeak at 12.42. I already suggested whaty to do about progressing the Indy cause, here it is again:

      If in 2026 the SNP got 50.1% for constituencies and 50.1% for the list, in a de facto referendum, which could actually happen with some courage, here's a possible scenario:

      https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/swingometer/scottish-parliament?election=2021s&cSNP=50.1&cCON=12.89&cLAB=27.19&cLD=6.94&rSNP=50.1&rCON=12.46&rLAB=19.2&rGRN=8.11&rLD=5.05&rALBA=1.65&rAFU=0.86#Scotland

      SNP Win 21 seat majority with 75 seats. 65 Constituency and 10 on the list.

      No worries, don't mention it, glad to help.

      Delete
    5. As you clearly do not even understand the question it’s no surprise you can’t provide an answer. Squeak squeak? What age are you? No need to try to o answer this question. Dismissed.

      Delete
    6. Anonymouse squeak squeak at 5.35. You said "Thought not."

      Thought made a fool of you.

      Delete
    7. So you are actually infantile. Away out and play in the fresh air. You’re one of the widely recognised half wits on this blog. Stop embarrassing yourself.

      Delete
    8. Great to see Flynn reelected as Westminster leader. He won't be SNP leader as long as he's stuck in the wrong parly!

      Now that Stewart McDonald's out the way—HA HA! GIRFUY!—Flynn's the one who's making all the wrong noises about independence strategy. He'd be well positioned to take the Gradualist baton after Swinney if he weren't stuck in the wrong place to take the leadership. I'd much rather he was a roadblock down the road than in Holyrood.

      Delete
    9. Anonymouse squeak squeak at 11.33.

      I realise you're rightly very lonely and need social intercourse, but I'm sorry, I'm not a counsellor. Ask the penguin nicely!

      Delete
  15. Many have lost heart that it's possible. Sturgeon took us up a blind alley and then ran away. Now moans we can't get a legal referendum. Tactics to pressure were all wrong and she should take responsibility.

    Going to court without a plan b she was willing to pursue was frankly a disgrace to the thousands of Scots who have carried this cause for centuries.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nicola Sturgeon put her all into independence. She does not deserve criticism.

      Delete
    2. I was a fan but the reply to this comment is complete nonsense. She deserves criticism for taking us up a blind alley without a plan b. Whatever else she did, this is unforgivable in my opinion.

      We are where we are though and need to move on. How we do that from her needless cul de sac though, which has taken the teeth out of the movement is anyone's guess.

      I'm a positive person by nature and surely there is a way but it's difficult to see. Scots don't see Independence path themselves now, which is a problem in itself. We can go hard on it, we probably should, but our people need to believe in the path too. Without the belief, we look farcical banging on about it.

      Delete
    3. Nicola Sturgeon was very clear on ITV that the way forward is a de facto.

      Delete
    4. Which it obviously is! But they way she's gone about it, and her cronies not enough people believe in it. You don't go to supreme court and then run away from the only route left. You go to the court when you're prepared to take it. The delay means people lose faith in it and the weapon is stunted. Poorest tactics from an intelligent person I've seen in a long long time and, frankly, a disgrace to the cause.

      Delete
    5. "Nicola Sturgeon was very clear on ITV that the way forward is a de facto"

      Why didn't she pursue that when she was First Minister though?

      It was clear multiple elections ago that a Section 30 referendum wasn't going to happen and she had the capability to change the strategy but didn't.

      Delete
    6. Not only that but she didn't even consult, unite and three line whip the defacto among her own party,.never mind the movement more widely.

      You had people like Stewart Mcdonald and Mcpherson briefing against it and the greens and alba unaware.

      Complete disgrace.

      You absolutely do not take the movement to an unfriendly court without the movement ready to take on the ultimate step if required. Even worse to then run away afterwards. A folly.

      Delete
    7. We now have people in our own cause, never mind the Scottish people, finding the defacto route difficult. The narrative around it could have been developed so much better. I'm seething.

      Delete
    8. The S C case was to ensure the unionists didn’t have control of time frame, but events then overtook N S. I have explained this before and cannot be arsed doing so again.

      Delete
    9. Wouldn't it have been wiser to press ahead with holding a referendum via the Scottish Parliament and forcing the UK Government to challenge it in the Supreme Court?

      That perception alone of the UK Government being the ones to go to court to prevent democracy from taking place would have worked more in our favour.

      Delete
    10. That court case, which she undermined as we all complained by choosing a unionist lord advocate to make it, and her response to it: "CHARRRRRGE!" then tumbleweed, that's when I lost my faith in her.

      I can understand poor judgement. Maybe she just had bad taste in friends? Maybe she couldn't see the obvious problems in them, blinded by personal loyalty? Maybe she thought, for whatever fanciful reason, the court would say Yes?

      But when their NO! response came, and she announced a plebiscite election, THEN DID NOT DO IT, that's when I got angry and scunnered with her. When she quit some months later and installed a stooge as the next leader, I was done with the lot of them.

      Nicola is as much an ally of independence now as George Fawkes. Mark my words, they're two trolls in a pod.

      Delete
    11. "The S C case was to ensure the unionists didn’t have control of time frame, but events then overtook N S. I have explained this before and cannot be arsed doing so again. "

      Please explain to this me as I don't get it.

      The timing matters not if you go through to supreme court and are not prepared to follow through come what may.

      Also, within minutes (pre isla bryson, arrests and general calamnity).you had supposed close allies briefing against and the rest of the movement caught unawares. How NOT do it.

      I liked the women but get your head straight. She took us there for her own electibility in a certain time, not for the greater good of the cause. Shocking doesn't cover it.

      Delete
  16. This concentration on the past and what Sturgeon did or didn't do or whether
    she supported a defacto or no is interesting as history. Maybe history can help us decide how to go forward or not .

    However , we do need to move on. Using an election as a defacto referendum seems to be the only way forward.
    Let's do it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have a wee word with John Swinney in that case.

      The wider movement, Alba etc have been onboard with a defacto referendum for quite some time. It's the SNP who need convincing.

      Delete
    2. John Swinney has been very clear that we should not focus on mechanisms. Rather, we should focus on building up support.

      Delete
    3. So after we build up support what happens then?

      Delete
    4. Humza stated that the union would melt away when support for independence was built up.

      Delete
    5. "So after we build up support what happens then?"

      John Swinney has been clear that to focus on mechanisms is the wrong approach.

      Delete
    6. Okay.

      Stage 1: Build up support.
      Stage 2: ???

      It's an important question to answer.

      Delete
    7. Stage 1: Build up support.
      Stage 2: Build up support.
      Stage 3: Build up support.
      Stage 4: Build up support.
      ... end up at 49%

      Delete
    8. Once support is built up the mechanism will come. Don't put the mechanism cart before the support horse.

      Delete
    9. People have to *believe* in something to support it. Without a route, no one's buying it.

      Delete
    10. I’ve been asking for days what the mechanism is. No one can give a specific answers.

      Delete
    11. "Once support is built up the mechanism will come"

      How?

      Does a magic genie appear to grant us three wishes when we reach a certain level of support?

      Delete
    12. Anon@11:29, am a wee bit concerned support hasnae built up since 2014, despite years o the tories an Brexit!

      Delete
    13. You can't separate mechanism from support. People won't support a fanciful notion they can't believe in.

      Another example is Universal Basic Income. Remember that idea? It's a lovely notion for a quality of life based economy, but the very notion of "the state pays you to live your life however you want" begs the question "HOW do they afford that!?" and puts people off.

      Back in 2014, we had to sell people on the vision of independence.

      Now, we have to sell them on the ROUTE as well.

      It doesn't get easier with time.

      Delete
    14. Without a mechanism we might as well be campaigning to replace the House of Lords with an elected chamber.

      We probably could get a lot of people to agree that an elected second chamber is a good idea... but how would we turn that into a reality afterwards?

      In order to win people over on an idea you need to also be able to convince them that it's actually possible to put into practice.

      Delete
    15. Lords reform is easy for the WM government to do. They can force it through by the Parliament Act. It would be a battle, but they have the numbers and ultimately the legal supremacy to do it.

      We have none of those things re: independence. So, actually, ours is the harder argument to make, by far.

      Delete
  17. Britnat alert at 10.09 . The colonial masters will keep encouraging the likes of him/ her to try to undermine us but we're no that daft.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Am no daft enough to think independence is a gid idea a Ken that.

      Delete
    2. KC's been watching Rab C. Nesbitt for research. Good on him!

      Delete
  18. If labour gets power in holyrood

    Say goodbye to ..
    free prescriptions
    eye tests,
    bus pass for over 60s and under 22 year olds
    Scottish water remaining publicly owned
    No tuition fees
    Scotrail remaining publicly owned

    Say hello to
    privatisation of NHS Scotland services
    More Privatisation of council services

    In other words take away everything that shows Scotland does better than England. And make everything as shite as England.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would that happen?

      In Wales for example Labour have maintained free prescriptions, protected NHS services from privatisation, and supported public ownership of essential services.

      They would also want to make themselves look good and by being in power at Westminster as well they could leverage their position there to implement policies and allocate resources that make their governance at Holyrood more successful.

      By all means campaign for the SNP but don't use the unionist tactic of project fear, that's not how you'll give them a chance of retaining power. If Labour use the positive campaign of "change" and you try and combat that with a negative campaign they'll win easily.

      Delete
    2. If—and it's a big if—the likely future Labour Scotgov really proves so friendly and effective here, they will be a mortal threat to the SNP, whichever way it chooses to campaign. A great many folk care more about effective government than independence, as proven consistently in polling.

      What got the SNP into Bute House in the first place was Labour's ineffectiveness in government. What lost us indyref was our inability to persuade the people that independence would lead to good, effective government. We lost on the details, just as Labour had done before us.

      Back to that big If, then. When I look at Anas and his team, what comes to mind isn't good governance, it's "good luck!"

      Delete
    3. Should rich people get free university tuition?

      Delete
    4. Anon 11.22. Yet another Tory/ britnat argument. YES they should and they should pay mair tax.

      Delete
    5. Exactly right. 11:29. Means testing is a wasteful nuisance. All benefits should be automatic and for all. We solve the wealth iniquity in taxes, which can go a hell of a lot higher than just child benefit, prescription charges and tuition fees!

      Delete
    6. Labour will come for the remaining oil , our renewables , build nuclear power stations and pipe oor water doon tae England in dry periods . That and pump hydro will ruin the ecology of oor lochs- including Ness that has mair watter than all the lakes doon sooth.

      Delete
    7. Anon at 11.22. Completely the wrong question.

      Delete
    8. Anon@11:29,
      Here in Scotland we kan a aboot payin mair tax. We pay mair income tax than England already.

      Delete
    9. Anon@10:34,
      LOL不不不不不

      Delete
  19. People need to stop gabbling in Latin (because they think it looks clever? It doesn't if you know what the words mean), and call it a single issue election campaign, because that's what the opponents would call it, and they would have a point. And it really would have to be a single-issue campaign (about holding a referendum) - if it included anything about the NHS or housing it would just be a normal election campaign. Whether or not that would prove to be overwhelmingly more popular than anything else is disputable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear me - for a start referendum is Greek , dinnae ken aboot defacto.

      Everybody kens fine it needs to be single issue they're no daft. Perhaps you think we are? Another Britnat are you?

      Delete
    2. A didnae Ken a boot “de facto” either. Never heard the expression afore til Scot nats started usin it.

      Delete
    3. I think that 'referendum' is a Latin derivative, but everyone knows what it means. If ya dinnae ken fit 'de facto' means either look it up or don't use it and ask other people notto baffle you. Ditto for 'plebiscite'.

      Delete
  20. Latin expressions are embedded in our language. No reason to stop using them if they are used Correctly. And a de facto referendum would be used to highlight the significant improvement across a whole range if issues that Indy will bring. Energy costs and NHS for starters. It’s not difficult unless you are actually opposed to it.

    ReplyDelete