YouGov have released the details of an SNP-commissioned poll that primarily inquired into where people think that key decision-making powers should lie.
Which government do you think should be responsible for all tax and spending decisions in Scotland, including tax revenues from oil and gas?
The Scottish Government 52%
The UK Government 35%
Which government do you think would be best at deciding welfare and pensions policy for Scotland?
The Scottish Government 53%
The UK Government 34%
Which government do you think would be best at representing Scotland and Scottish interests in the European Union?
The Scottish Government 50%
The UK Government 39%
The point being of course that if voters feel that all these things should be controlled by the Scottish Government, it would be a touch odd to vote No to independence and ensure that every single one of them remains controlled by London. But perhaps there is a logically consistent way in which people who hold these views could still vote No? The only thing I can think of is that they might feel so strongly that Scotland is too wee and too stupid to control its own defence and non-EU foreign policies that everything else just pales into insignificance. But that seems unlikely. It can't possibly be that they feel they will be economically worse off under independence, because presumably the desire for Scottish control over tax, spending and welfare implies that they think a Scottish government will take those decisions more wisely. That's a pretty big consideration by any standards.
So while there's an outside chance that defence and non-EU foreign affairs may be what is swinging the balance for some, there comes a point where the Yes campaign are entitled to point out that the emperor has no clothes, and that if you actually mean what you say about wanting Scotland to control tax and spending, oil and gas revenues, welfare and pensions, and its own EU representation, it's probably best not to vote No and prevent all those things from happening.
The poll also asked whether David Cameron should reverse his apparent decision to run away from a televised debate on independence with Alex Salmond...
First Minister Alex Salmond has called for a head-to-head television debate with the Prime Minister David Cameron during the referendum campaign on Scottish independence, but it has been reported that Mr Cameron will refuse to take part in such a debate. Do you think that David Cameron should or should not take part in a TV debate with Alex Salmond?
Should take part 67%
Should not take part 19%
* * *
Congratulations to Eve Muirhead, Anna Sloan, Vicki Adams, Claire Hamilton and alternate Lauren Gray for winning the world curling championship for Scotland yesterday, after an incredibly tight game against Sweden that was decided by the final stone. I seem to recall that when Hammy McMillan's rink won the world men's curling championship in 1999, and again when Jackie Lockhart's rink won the 2002 women's title, BBC Scotland hurriedly snapped up a highlights package from Canadian television. It would be nice if they could do so again this time and bring the event to a wider audience, because after all Scotland don't become world champions in team sports every day of the week. Assuming that doesn't happen, though, the entire final is currently available to watch for free at the TSN website. If you don't want to watch the whole thing, be sure to scroll through to the end to see the Olympic-style medal ceremony, complete with the raising of flags and Flower of Scotland being played in the team's honour. Best enjoy that spectacle while we can, because of course if Muirhead and co win Olympic gold in Sochi next year (as they will presumably now be slight favourites to do), it'll be the Union Jack and God Save the Queen!
Mind you, if that does happen it might just turn out to be the last Olympic gold for Great Britain ever, in any sport. Now there's a tantalising thought...
* * *
Yesterday was something of a landmark for this blog, as it received its second-highest number of visitors in its five-year history. (The outright highest number occurred on a freakish day in the spring of 2011 when one of my posts went viral on Twitter.) Thanks to everyone for dropping by on a very cold Sunday!
Showing posts with label Eve Muirhead. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Eve Muirhead. Show all posts
Monday, March 25, 2013
Friday, January 20, 2012
Six shamelessly trivial reasons to vote for independence
Most of us who support independence do so for weighty reasons - a belief in a more equal society, a detestation of the presence of inhuman weapons on this country's soil, a desire for a more dynamic economy. But I'm sure we can all think of some shamelessly trivial reasons that complement the more important ones beautifully. Here are my top six...
1) Scotland will have its own entry in the Eurovision Song Contest (naturally that was always going to be top).
2) When Eve Muirhead and co win the curling gold medal at the Pyeongchang Olympics in 2018, it'll be for Scotland, not Great Britain. Alas, we'll just have to accept that the 2014 gold will be for GB (perhaps Cameron's desire for an earlier referendum does have some merit after all).
3) We'll have a national Olympic association that actually supports and works with other Scottish sporting bodies, rather than undermining their very existence at every turn.
4) An immense strain will be lifted from countless TV sports presenters and commentators, who will no longer have to wearily go through the motions of pretending that they're speaking to a UK audience rather than an English one. (OK, they'll have to wait for Wales and NI to follow the Scottish example before that really happens, but it'll at least get the poor lambs one-third of the way there.)
5) The inevitable attempts to rig the TV leaders' debates at the next Westminster general election will still be an outrage, but won't actually matter.
6) It's a losing battle to try to convince several billion people all round the world that not all citizens of the UK are "English". If we can't move the perception closer to the facts, perhaps it would be simpler to move the facts closer to the perception?
Feel free to chip in with any other suggestions!
1) Scotland will have its own entry in the Eurovision Song Contest (naturally that was always going to be top).
2) When Eve Muirhead and co win the curling gold medal at the Pyeongchang Olympics in 2018, it'll be for Scotland, not Great Britain. Alas, we'll just have to accept that the 2014 gold will be for GB (perhaps Cameron's desire for an earlier referendum does have some merit after all).
3) We'll have a national Olympic association that actually supports and works with other Scottish sporting bodies, rather than undermining their very existence at every turn.
4) An immense strain will be lifted from countless TV sports presenters and commentators, who will no longer have to wearily go through the motions of pretending that they're speaking to a UK audience rather than an English one. (OK, they'll have to wait for Wales and NI to follow the Scottish example before that really happens, but it'll at least get the poor lambs one-third of the way there.)
5) The inevitable attempts to rig the TV leaders' debates at the next Westminster general election will still be an outrage, but won't actually matter.
6) It's a losing battle to try to convince several billion people all round the world that not all citizens of the UK are "English". If we can't move the perception closer to the facts, perhaps it would be simpler to move the facts closer to the perception?
Feel free to chip in with any other suggestions!
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
The wrong kind of player power?
The world women's curling championship gets underway in Denmark later this week, and Scotland will be represented by the core of the team that triumphed at the world juniors in Perth at the weekend. The big difference is that the skip will not be Eve Muirhead, but instead the third player from the junior team, Anna Sloan - the reason being that Sloan led the team to the Scottish title a few weeks ago without Muirhead's involvement. Nevertheless, Muirhead has very sensibly been drafted in as team alternate, which in years gone by would almost certainly have meant that she would have ended up playing at either skip or third if the early results had gone the wrong way. But this time it appears not. According to Bob Cowan's blog, unless there is an illness or injury in the team, Muirhead will not be playing at all -
"It will certainly be a different role for Eve - matching stones for the team in late night practice sessions is just one of her jobs with coach Isobel Hannen. Still, as the experiences of the junior men's team show, it is so important to have a well-qualified alternate on the bench in case of illness. She will not be used as a 'tactical substitute'. This is the official line."
If true, that strikes me as mildly insane. I can certainly see the argument that a tactical substitute can sometimes make matters worse if the person in question is not used to playing with the others. But that is clearly not the case here - Muirhead could slot in naturally at any time, and when you have the world and European silver medal-winning skip from last year at your disposal, it seems a silly hostage to fortune to needlessly limit that option.
From a distance, it's hard not to wonder if this is the legacy of the bizarre events of three years ago, when the Scottish skip Gail Munro was dropped midway through the world championships because of poor form, and her third Lyndsay Wilson withdrew from the team in protest, leading to a hurried recall for Munro to make up the numbers. Munro then refused to play in a show of solidarity with Wilson, and the net result was that Scotland took to the ice with only three players in games that were vital for Olympic qualifying. In a sense what happened was nobody's fault - it was more a question of differing perceptions. Wilson presumably felt that the team were there as of right as Scottish champions and thus shouldn't be mucked about with, whereas the coaches recognised that the team were first and foremost representing a country, and the country's interests were paramount. These are both understandable perceptions, but the bottom line is that the coaches were correct. If this particular example of player power has ultimately won the argument, it seems like a terribly retrograde step for the game in Scotland.
"It will certainly be a different role for Eve - matching stones for the team in late night practice sessions is just one of her jobs with coach Isobel Hannen. Still, as the experiences of the junior men's team show, it is so important to have a well-qualified alternate on the bench in case of illness. She will not be used as a 'tactical substitute'. This is the official line."
If true, that strikes me as mildly insane. I can certainly see the argument that a tactical substitute can sometimes make matters worse if the person in question is not used to playing with the others. But that is clearly not the case here - Muirhead could slot in naturally at any time, and when you have the world and European silver medal-winning skip from last year at your disposal, it seems a silly hostage to fortune to needlessly limit that option.
From a distance, it's hard not to wonder if this is the legacy of the bizarre events of three years ago, when the Scottish skip Gail Munro was dropped midway through the world championships because of poor form, and her third Lyndsay Wilson withdrew from the team in protest, leading to a hurried recall for Munro to make up the numbers. Munro then refused to play in a show of solidarity with Wilson, and the net result was that Scotland took to the ice with only three players in games that were vital for Olympic qualifying. In a sense what happened was nobody's fault - it was more a question of differing perceptions. Wilson presumably felt that the team were there as of right as Scottish champions and thus shouldn't be mucked about with, whereas the coaches recognised that the team were first and foremost representing a country, and the country's interests were paramount. These are both understandable perceptions, but the bottom line is that the coaches were correct. If this particular example of player power has ultimately won the argument, it seems like a terribly retrograde step for the game in Scotland.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
It's still mathematically possible for Scotland to qualify, no. 2837
I've been happily immersed in the European Curling Championships all week, although a few hours ago I stupidly took the Eurosport commentator's word for it that the Scottish men's team's loss to France meant that they were out of contention for the play-offs. Having looked at the standings, it instead appears we're into another of those ever-rewarding "it's still mathematically possible for Scotland to qualify" scenarios. If they beat Sweden tomorrow, and if Denmark lose to Switzerland, they'll be into a three-way tiebreak for the fourth and final play-off place. I'm not holding my breath.
On the plus side, the women's team skipped by Eve Muirhead is going great guns, having finished top of the round-robin. If by any chance they go on to win the competition, it won't be before time - Scotland haven't won gold in the women's event since the very first European Championships in 1975. As usual, there's unrivalled coverage over at Bob Cowan's blog.
On the plus side, the women's team skipped by Eve Muirhead is going great guns, having finished top of the round-robin. If by any chance they go on to win the competition, it won't be before time - Scotland haven't won gold in the women's event since the very first European Championships in 1975. As usual, there's unrivalled coverage over at Bob Cowan's blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)