This is surely the London media's problem with reporting the independence referendum in a nutshell - the Spectator organises a debate in London on whether "it is time to let Scotland go", gets two Tory MPs and one Tory journalist to speak against the motion, gets Kelvin MacKenzie (seriously!) to speak in favour, and then declares on the basis of the result that "the union is safe".
Memo to Fraser Nelson : Scotland's constitutional future is not going to be decided by how impressed London-based Spectator readers are by Kelvin MacKenzie's latest rant about the tiresomeness of the Jocks.
(And before anyone prays in aid the fact that Fraser Nelson himself is Scottish, I'd invite you to recall that he earnestly penned an approving introduction to Laurance Reed's barking mad piece about Shetland and the Hebrides a few months ago.)
On a similar theme, Chris Moncrieff in the Mail seems convinced in an even more literal sense that the independence referendum is going to be decided by London voters, among others. Yes, folks, he still thinks there's going to be a UK-wide referendum, and that the arguments for this happening are 'irresistible'. He's going to be a very baffled man before long.
But this is the kind of nonsensical analysis we're stuck with for as long as London editors remain locked in the mindset that if you want political analysis, you go to someone who knows the Westminster village inside out. It doesn't matter that the political issue at hand will be settled hundreds of miles away from London - a Westminster insider will still understand it far better than the locals. So poor old Moncrieff is left to look a bit of a fool as he gamely makes a wild guess on a subject he plainly knows virtually nothing about - and unsurprisingly gets it totally wrong. The good news is that he does finally concede that there are some gaps in his knowledge about Scottish politics. The bad news is that he then turns to Bernard Ingham to fill in the gaps for him.
"...one question remains unanswered. Why did Tony Blair, an opponent of separation, take the Nationalists halfway to their goal by giving Scotland its own Parliament? I put this question to Sir Bernard Ingham, who was Margaret Thatcher's press secretary at 10, Downing Street. His answer: "Stupidity"."
Hmmm. So nothing to do with the fact that there would have been civil war in the Scottish Labour Party if Blair had betrayed them on devolution, and that Scotland might already be independent by now if he had. No, it can't possibly be that. Bernard Ingham would have noticed.
* * *
John Rentoul has spotted the latest Ipsos-Mori Scottish poll, but only because he saw the post about it on PB (and you can probably guess the slant he's taken from that) -
"SNP down, Scottish Labour up. Ipsos-MORI could have captured a turning point"
I must say I'm fairly unconcerned by the warped analysis this time. Anyone who follows Rentoul's link to PB will be confronted by the hard figures. While there is such a thing as conflicting cognitions, it's going to be hard for most people (even in the Westminster village) to square a narrative of "SNP setback" with the reality of a double-digit poll lead for the SNP - especially as the fieldwork took place several weeks after the fictional outcome of the local elections was reported.
I'm reminded of what Tony Blair himself said when the Tories tried to crow about their 'progress' in the 1999 Scottish Parliament elections - "the better you think these results are, the better it is for us". If a 45%-32% deficit is now considered good for Scottish Labour, expectations must have sunk very, very low.
Showing posts with label John Rentoul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Rentoul. Show all posts
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Thursday, May 12, 2011
YouGov poll sends Alastair Campbell homewards tae think again
Alastair Campbell is one of a few members of the London establishment who have rather desperately been flying a kite in recent days to see if the idea of a UK-wide referendum to decide on whether Scotland could become independent would gain any traction. In other words, 91% of the people making the decision would not actually live in Scotland - not so much national self-determination as a hostage situation. I'd love to see how popular he'd become if he extended that logic to its natural conclusion by suggesting that the UK would need the permission of voters in Germany, Poland, France and Italy if it ever wanted to withdraw from the European Union! In any case, he's been given his answer loud and clear in a new YouGov poll -
Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond has pledged to hold a referendum of the Scottish people on Scotland becoming an independent country. Some people think English and Welsh voters should also be able to vote on whether Scotland remains in the UK or becomes an independent country, other people are opposed to there being a referendum at all. Which of the following best reflects your view?
The decision on whether Scotland stays in the UK should be made by Scottish
voters alone - 67%
Voters in England and Wales should also have a vote on whether Scotland
remains part of the UK - 9%
There should not be a referendum on Scottish independence at all - 19%
And even amongst English and Welsh voters themselves there is a majority of 42% to 34% against Campbell's wheeze. Well, there's our Alistair for you - always with his finger right on the pulse.
It has to be said the headline figures on support for independence itself (among Scottish voters) make for less encouraging reading...
Do you support or oppose Scotland becoming a country independent from the rest of the United Kingdom?
Support Scottish independence - 29%
Oppose Scottish independence - 58%
I think we're going to continue to find, though, that the numbers on independence vary wildly depending on the pollster and the precise wording used. In recent years, YouGov has been consistently less favourable for what we can now loosely call the 'Yes side'. Although this particular wording is somewhat less skewed than others they've used in the past, such as 'completely separate from the rest of the United Kingdom', I'd argue that it's still far from ideal. On past form, it seems likely that removing the words "from the rest of the United Kingdom" from the end of the question would make a statistically significant difference.
One phenomenon that's been observed in recent years is that whenever the issue of independence comes under scrutiny in the heat of an election campaign, the numbers in favour of independence seem to go down. I think there's a limit to what that can tell us, though, because the SNP's strategy in that scenario has invariably been not to full-bloodedly defend the idea of independence itself, but rather to 'decouple' it (to use Sally Magnusson's favourite word) from the idea of voting SNP. So, if you effectively only have the 'No side' talking about independence the impact on the poll figures is not that surprising - but that quite obviously will not be what happens in the run-up to the referendum.
Of course, the real beauty of the SNP now having a parliamentary majority is that they can assess movement in public opinion over the coming years as they make the case for independence, and then reach a strategic decision on what the format of the plebiscite should be. In recent days, John Rentoul has been having a riotous time on Twitter smugly suggesting that the question of whether Scotland would vote to become independent was one of his #QTWTAINs (Questions To Which The Answer Is No) - although of course I'd suggest it's more of a #WWDWBWASJ (Well Why Don't We Bloody Wait And See, John?). But intriguingly he seemed rather less sure of himself when he spotted an article pointing out that it was perfectly possible that the SNP would go for a multi-option or multi-question referendum - he observed that this would be "too canny by half". Now, would that be a #SRTWTAIG (Snide Remark To Which The Answer Is "Gotcha"), John?
Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond has pledged to hold a referendum of the Scottish people on Scotland becoming an independent country. Some people think English and Welsh voters should also be able to vote on whether Scotland remains in the UK or becomes an independent country, other people are opposed to there being a referendum at all. Which of the following best reflects your view?
The decision on whether Scotland stays in the UK should be made by Scottish
voters alone - 67%
Voters in England and Wales should also have a vote on whether Scotland
remains part of the UK - 9%
There should not be a referendum on Scottish independence at all - 19%
And even amongst English and Welsh voters themselves there is a majority of 42% to 34% against Campbell's wheeze. Well, there's our Alistair for you - always with his finger right on the pulse.
It has to be said the headline figures on support for independence itself (among Scottish voters) make for less encouraging reading...
Do you support or oppose Scotland becoming a country independent from the rest of the United Kingdom?
Support Scottish independence - 29%
Oppose Scottish independence - 58%
I think we're going to continue to find, though, that the numbers on independence vary wildly depending on the pollster and the precise wording used. In recent years, YouGov has been consistently less favourable for what we can now loosely call the 'Yes side'. Although this particular wording is somewhat less skewed than others they've used in the past, such as 'completely separate from the rest of the United Kingdom', I'd argue that it's still far from ideal. On past form, it seems likely that removing the words "from the rest of the United Kingdom" from the end of the question would make a statistically significant difference.
One phenomenon that's been observed in recent years is that whenever the issue of independence comes under scrutiny in the heat of an election campaign, the numbers in favour of independence seem to go down. I think there's a limit to what that can tell us, though, because the SNP's strategy in that scenario has invariably been not to full-bloodedly defend the idea of independence itself, but rather to 'decouple' it (to use Sally Magnusson's favourite word) from the idea of voting SNP. So, if you effectively only have the 'No side' talking about independence the impact on the poll figures is not that surprising - but that quite obviously will not be what happens in the run-up to the referendum.
Of course, the real beauty of the SNP now having a parliamentary majority is that they can assess movement in public opinion over the coming years as they make the case for independence, and then reach a strategic decision on what the format of the plebiscite should be. In recent days, John Rentoul has been having a riotous time on Twitter smugly suggesting that the question of whether Scotland would vote to become independent was one of his #QTWTAINs (Questions To Which The Answer Is No) - although of course I'd suggest it's more of a #WWDWBWASJ (Well Why Don't We Bloody Wait And See, John?). But intriguingly he seemed rather less sure of himself when he spotted an article pointing out that it was perfectly possible that the SNP would go for a multi-option or multi-question referendum - he observed that this would be "too canny by half". Now, would that be a #SRTWTAIG (Snide Remark To Which The Answer Is "Gotcha"), John?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)