This seems almost uncannily topical on the day that the merger of Scotland's police forces finally takes effect, but a YouGov survey of leading political strategists and advertising executives has found that Tavish 'Two Hoots' Scott's famous "save our p'lice" TV ad from the 2011 Holyrood election is held in higher regard than most of us realise -
Top five most effective UK Party Political Broadcasts since 1970 (in reverse order) :
5. "Crisis? What crisis?", Conservatives, 1979
4. "24 hours to save the NHS", Labour, 1997
3. "John Cleese explains proportional representation", SDP, 1987
2. "Labour's Tax Bombshell", Conservatives, 1992
1. "Save our p'lice", Scottish Liberal Democrats, 2011
Yes, I'm way ahead of you here. It does appear, to say the least, somewhat bizarre that a component part of a campaign that saw the Lib Dems' representation slashed by more than two-thirds could be considered the greatest party political broadcast of the last four decades. But in his commentary on the poll findings, our old friend Peter Kellner has an explanation (of sorts) -
"The test of the effectiveness of this broadcast is not how many seats the Scottish Liberal Democrats lost, but how many more seats they would have lost without the brilliance of the "save our p'lice" strategy. Former aides to Mr Scott have privately told me that the party had braced itself for the possibility of being left with only two or three seats after the May 2011 election. It's quite probable that Mr Scott's visionary successor would not have been among the successful candidates in that scenario. The broadcast may not have succeeded in saving Scotland's p'lice, it may not even have saved Mr Scott's own leadership, but by saving the skin of the charismatic Willie Rennie, it might just have helped safeguard the Liberal Democrats' long-term future as one of Scotland's top seven political parties.
Anyone who stumbles upon the broadcast on YouTube today might be slightly bemused to discover the awe in which it is still held by experts. But it has to be seen as very much "of its time". The techniques pioneered by the ad have since been copied so extensively by rivals that, two years on, it's all too easy to forget the extraordinary impact they originally had. The unconvincing siren noises at the beginning and the end, Mr Scott's endless pacing up and down in front of a stationary Lothian and Borders police car, his struggle with the wind as he attempts to keep his dome-shaped Lib Dem "save our p'lice" postcard in an upright position, his sing-song voice as he outlines all the things that he doesn't want to happen to his p'lice (counterpointed by the shocking force with which he delivers the instruction "AND NOR SHOULD YOU"), his determined failure to pronounce the letter 'o' in the word "p'lice" - these are all things of genius. But, if anything, the broadcast is even greater than the sum of its parts. If there was such a thing as an 'X Factor' for party political broadcasts, I suspect Tavish Scott and "save our p'lice" would have been 2011's Christmas No. 1, and deservedly so."
Showing posts with label Tavish Scott. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tavish Scott. Show all posts
Monday, April 1, 2013
Monday, March 26, 2012
Hankering after a socialist alternative is incompatible with British nationalism, I'm afraid
Kevin McKenna in the Observer, arguing that Scottish Labour should combat the SNP by getting back to its socialist roots -
"Douglas Alexander, the shadow secretary for foreign and commonwealth affairs, seems to have sensed this. Already, in two recent speeches in Scotland, he has tried to light a torch for Labour in Scotland. He has conceded that the SNP's heart is probably in the right place in relation to social justice and inclusion. But that these ideas will always be of secondary importance to a party which is hellbent on destroying the United Kingdom. Even if the UK was an enlightened and socially diverse Xanadu where every institution was underpinned by social justice and private corporate greed was punished and reviled, the SNP would still claim that Scots were downtrodden and enslaved."
First of all, can anyone remember the last time the SNP claimed the Scots were "enslaved"? If the party really did hold such a belief, it would probably be organising an uprising, not running a democratically-elected devolved government and calmly preparing the ground to win a democratic referendum on independence. So a direct quote from the SNP leadership might be in order the next time Kevin feels moved to embark on such a flight of fancy.
As for the priorities that ensure a belief in social justice can only be of secondary importance, I'd suggest that we could start by looking at a boneheaded commitment to Scotland remaining within the United Kingdom regardless of circumstance. After all, why is it that the United Kingdom not only fails to be a "Xanadu" of social justice, but is always bound to fall further short of that ideal than an independent Scotland would? Because it's a state with an in-built centre-right majority. It's not merely that Tory governments are the norm in the UK (whereas they plainly wouldn't be in an independent Scotland), it's also the character of the supposedly 'progressive' interludes between the long spells of Tory rule. Is Kevin not capable of spotting the irony that it's Douglas Alexander making these arguments? A man who was part of a Labour government that only made it into power by tacking well to the right to appeal to voters in the south of England, thus ensuring that we've had wall-to-wall right-of-centre governments at Westminster for the last thirty-three years.
In a nutshell, my question to Kevin is this - how do you imagine that Scottish Labour will ever get back to its roots, without first ditching its own British nationalism to which the cause of social justice will always play second-fiddle? Haven't you noticed that many people who support independence do so precisely because they believe in social justice?
"The Labour movement is essentially internationalist in nature; it ought not to place child poverty in Scotland above child poverty in the rest of the world as the SNP seeks to do."
Tell me, Kevin - when did a Labour government ever place just as much importance on child poverty in Istanbul at it did on child poverty in London? Did the Attlee government do that? Nope. And why not? Because it was a British nationalist government, and its nationalism was no more or less morally objectionable than anything the SNP currently propose. This is such an obviously irrefutable point that it's hard to understand how McKenna and Alexander can keep churning out their high-minded nonsense with a straight face, and yet on they trundle.
"Next year the Scottish government will establish a new single police force for Scotland. This will be a sinister and deeply troubling development in modern Scotland. Effectively, we are creating a national militia under the command of a superannuated plod who is not elected, will have very little accountability and has a good attendance record at the local ludge."
He may or may not have a point there. I've never been able to work out what I think about a single police force - every time I ponder the idea I'm hopelessly distracted by the memory of Tavish Scott walking menacingly down a street, intoning the words "save our p'lice".
"Douglas Alexander, the shadow secretary for foreign and commonwealth affairs, seems to have sensed this. Already, in two recent speeches in Scotland, he has tried to light a torch for Labour in Scotland. He has conceded that the SNP's heart is probably in the right place in relation to social justice and inclusion. But that these ideas will always be of secondary importance to a party which is hellbent on destroying the United Kingdom. Even if the UK was an enlightened and socially diverse Xanadu where every institution was underpinned by social justice and private corporate greed was punished and reviled, the SNP would still claim that Scots were downtrodden and enslaved."
First of all, can anyone remember the last time the SNP claimed the Scots were "enslaved"? If the party really did hold such a belief, it would probably be organising an uprising, not running a democratically-elected devolved government and calmly preparing the ground to win a democratic referendum on independence. So a direct quote from the SNP leadership might be in order the next time Kevin feels moved to embark on such a flight of fancy.
As for the priorities that ensure a belief in social justice can only be of secondary importance, I'd suggest that we could start by looking at a boneheaded commitment to Scotland remaining within the United Kingdom regardless of circumstance. After all, why is it that the United Kingdom not only fails to be a "Xanadu" of social justice, but is always bound to fall further short of that ideal than an independent Scotland would? Because it's a state with an in-built centre-right majority. It's not merely that Tory governments are the norm in the UK (whereas they plainly wouldn't be in an independent Scotland), it's also the character of the supposedly 'progressive' interludes between the long spells of Tory rule. Is Kevin not capable of spotting the irony that it's Douglas Alexander making these arguments? A man who was part of a Labour government that only made it into power by tacking well to the right to appeal to voters in the south of England, thus ensuring that we've had wall-to-wall right-of-centre governments at Westminster for the last thirty-three years.
In a nutshell, my question to Kevin is this - how do you imagine that Scottish Labour will ever get back to its roots, without first ditching its own British nationalism to which the cause of social justice will always play second-fiddle? Haven't you noticed that many people who support independence do so precisely because they believe in social justice?
"The Labour movement is essentially internationalist in nature; it ought not to place child poverty in Scotland above child poverty in the rest of the world as the SNP seeks to do."
Tell me, Kevin - when did a Labour government ever place just as much importance on child poverty in Istanbul at it did on child poverty in London? Did the Attlee government do that? Nope. And why not? Because it was a British nationalist government, and its nationalism was no more or less morally objectionable than anything the SNP currently propose. This is such an obviously irrefutable point that it's hard to understand how McKenna and Alexander can keep churning out their high-minded nonsense with a straight face, and yet on they trundle.
"Next year the Scottish government will establish a new single police force for Scotland. This will be a sinister and deeply troubling development in modern Scotland. Effectively, we are creating a national militia under the command of a superannuated plod who is not elected, will have very little accountability and has a good attendance record at the local ludge."
He may or may not have a point there. I've never been able to work out what I think about a single police force - every time I ponder the idea I'm hopelessly distracted by the memory of Tavish Scott walking menacingly down a street, intoning the words "save our p'lice".
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Tavish : the bitterness lives on
I genuinely expected to come away with a more favourable impression of Tavish Scott after reading his candid confessional about the Lib Dems' catastrophic election campaign in Scotland on Sunday, but...I didn't. His legendary irrational bitterness towards the SNP leaks out again and again -
"Money was an enormous problem. Business either backed the SNP or was frightened to back anyone else publicly. The Nationalists' approach of public charm and private threats - the intimation (sic) of anyone who is against them - had paid off."
And how exactly was this supposed "intimidation" so effective when everyone and his granny (including me, if I'm honest) thought Labour were highly likely to win just a matter of weeks before polling day? A party seemingly heading into opposition is hardly in a position to "threaten" anyone.
"The BBC's leaders' debate in Perth went fine. Iain Gray looked like the world was about to fall in and Salmond who, as usual, knew the audience was stacked with Nationalists, was himself."
The audience stacked with nationalists? Nonsense. I vividly recall the Daily Record's authoritative account of that debate, and there can be no doubt that Iain Gray was cheered to the rafters, while Salmond was left a broken man.
And the SNP aren't the only targets for Scott's bitterness. Unsurprisingly, the man who had the temerity to put up a stiff challenge in Fortress Tavish itself comes in for a special mention -
"But what told me how bad it might be was a late March afternoon campaigning in Shetland. Having won 67 per cent of the vote in the 2007 election the only way was backwards. I faced an unpleasant local campaign led by an anti-wind farm campaigner masquerading as an independent, egged on by the local media."
Ah, is that a bit like Jo Swinson masquerading as "Deputy Leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats", but magically turning into an English Lib Dem when she votes on tuition fees just to get Tavish off the hook? Oooh, for heaven's sake, Gordon, go and ask her about that.
"Money was an enormous problem. Business either backed the SNP or was frightened to back anyone else publicly. The Nationalists' approach of public charm and private threats - the intimation (sic) of anyone who is against them - had paid off."
And how exactly was this supposed "intimidation" so effective when everyone and his granny (including me, if I'm honest) thought Labour were highly likely to win just a matter of weeks before polling day? A party seemingly heading into opposition is hardly in a position to "threaten" anyone.
"The BBC's leaders' debate in Perth went fine. Iain Gray looked like the world was about to fall in and Salmond who, as usual, knew the audience was stacked with Nationalists, was himself."
The audience stacked with nationalists? Nonsense. I vividly recall the Daily Record's authoritative account of that debate, and there can be no doubt that Iain Gray was cheered to the rafters, while Salmond was left a broken man.
And the SNP aren't the only targets for Scott's bitterness. Unsurprisingly, the man who had the temerity to put up a stiff challenge in Fortress Tavish itself comes in for a special mention -
"But what told me how bad it might be was a late March afternoon campaigning in Shetland. Having won 67 per cent of the vote in the 2007 election the only way was backwards. I faced an unpleasant local campaign led by an anti-wind farm campaigner masquerading as an independent, egged on by the local media."
Ah, is that a bit like Jo Swinson masquerading as "Deputy Leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats", but magically turning into an English Lib Dem when she votes on tuition fees just to get Tavish off the hook? Oooh, for heaven's sake, Gordon, go and ask her about that.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Scottish Liberal Democrats take (another) step backwards
Willie Rennie, from the little I've seen of him over the years, seems like a decent bloke, and I have a feeling he'll have more of a personal appeal than his predecessor Tavish Scott. Paradoxically, that's partly because he's less polished than Tavish, who often looked as if he was reading from a script even when he wasn't - Rennie comes across as unspun, and therefore more genuine. That's the good news for his party. But where to start with the bad news? The new leader basically had to make two big strategic calls to set the course for electoral recovery. Firstly, he needed to argue the case for the kind of substantial constitutional progress that would break the Scottish Lib Dems out of the straightjacket of being just another shade of grey, humdrum unionism. Secondly, he needed to make a psychological (if not literal) break with the federal party and its catastrophic alliance with the Conservatives. Rennie has flunked both tasks on day one - and he's seemingly done it with his eyes wide open. All he's offering on the constitution is more of the same (after all nothing's really changed, has it?), and he's incredibly offering an even closer relationship with Clegg and the gang than before. As noted here a number of times, Tavish's stance on the latter point during the election campaign was intellectually incoherent - if you wanted to know about something good the UK party had done, he was your man, but if it was something more toxic for heaven's sake go and ask them about it. But at least that showed a flickering of understanding of the kind of distancing that was required to limit the damage. Rennie, by contrast, is giving every indication of being a party leader who quite comprehensively does not "get it" at all.
Specifically on the constitution, it seemed to me that there were three gaping holes in Rennie's line of argument on Newsnight Scotland tonight -
1) He repeatedly claimed that the Calman proposals had to be adhered to because a consensus between "the parties" had been reached. That was a dubious point even before the election given that only three of the five parties in the Scottish parliament were on board for Calman, but now? Can minority opinion at Holyrood really be described as a "consensus"?
2) He stressed that Alex Salmond couldn't claim a mandate for greater powers for the Scottish Parliament, because that issue hadn't been to the forefront of the campaign that won the SNP the election. But he then curiously made the claim that the unionist parties themselves had an "overwhelming mandate" to proceed with Calman on the basis of the 2010 general election result. The difficulty there is that I'm struggling to recall Calman being mentioned any more frequently during that campaign than the SNP's plans for greater powers were during the Holyrood contest. Rennie's own logic therefore surely suggests that the unionist parties can't possibly claim a mandate for their preferred constitutional blueprint - even if we were to accept the dubious premise that the 2010 result hasn't been superceded by more recent events.
3) A key part of the rationale for claiming a "consensus" in favour of Calman was always that of a dual mandate encompassing both Westminster and Holyrood - the unionist majority at Holyrood (which was complacently assumed to be virtually permanent) was endlessly cited as being just as critical a factor as the unionist majority at Westminster, and this interpretation was made concrete by the involvement of the devolved parliament in the scrutiny of the Scotland Bill. Having made such a song and dance of the arithmetic at Holyrood when it suited the unionist case, it simply won't wash for Rennie to now claim that a Westminster mandate alone is sufficient to proceed as if nothing had changed. The logic of the previous stance surely demands that a compromise between the two parliaments must now be reached.
Incidentally, does anyone remember the glee with which the London coalition partners pointed out a year ago that their combined vote in Scotland at the 2010 election exceeded the 32.9% support that the SNP secured in winning office? They must feel so nostalgic for the days when they could fall back on that line...
Specifically on the constitution, it seemed to me that there were three gaping holes in Rennie's line of argument on Newsnight Scotland tonight -
1) He repeatedly claimed that the Calman proposals had to be adhered to because a consensus between "the parties" had been reached. That was a dubious point even before the election given that only three of the five parties in the Scottish parliament were on board for Calman, but now? Can minority opinion at Holyrood really be described as a "consensus"?
2) He stressed that Alex Salmond couldn't claim a mandate for greater powers for the Scottish Parliament, because that issue hadn't been to the forefront of the campaign that won the SNP the election. But he then curiously made the claim that the unionist parties themselves had an "overwhelming mandate" to proceed with Calman on the basis of the 2010 general election result. The difficulty there is that I'm struggling to recall Calman being mentioned any more frequently during that campaign than the SNP's plans for greater powers were during the Holyrood contest. Rennie's own logic therefore surely suggests that the unionist parties can't possibly claim a mandate for their preferred constitutional blueprint - even if we were to accept the dubious premise that the 2010 result hasn't been superceded by more recent events.
3) A key part of the rationale for claiming a "consensus" in favour of Calman was always that of a dual mandate encompassing both Westminster and Holyrood - the unionist majority at Holyrood (which was complacently assumed to be virtually permanent) was endlessly cited as being just as critical a factor as the unionist majority at Westminster, and this interpretation was made concrete by the involvement of the devolved parliament in the scrutiny of the Scotland Bill. Having made such a song and dance of the arithmetic at Holyrood when it suited the unionist case, it simply won't wash for Rennie to now claim that a Westminster mandate alone is sufficient to proceed as if nothing had changed. The logic of the previous stance surely demands that a compromise between the two parliaments must now be reached.
Incidentally, does anyone remember the glee with which the London coalition partners pointed out a year ago that their combined vote in Scotland at the 2010 election exceeded the 32.9% support that the SNP secured in winning office? They must feel so nostalgic for the days when they could fall back on that line...
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Presiding Officer dilemma for SNP
Interesting to read the hints in both the Scotsman and Herald this morning that the SNP majority in Holyrood may coalesce behind "one of their own" (either Tricia Marwick or Christine Grahame) in the vote to select the new Presiding Officer tomorrow. If true, there are fairly obvious pros and cons...
Pros -
1. It would remove the danger that a Presiding Officer from the opposition ranks would do what John McTernan suggested, and pull a fast one by ruling an independence referendum bill out of order.
2. It would infuriate Tavish. In fact, it sounds like the mere possibility of it is already infuriating Tavish.
Cons -
1. It might look a bit tribal given that this is generally regarded as being Labour's 'turn'.
2. It would reduce the SNP's absolute parliamentary majority from a potential ten to eight. Of course, that's still a position that would have been beyond our wildest ravings a week ago, but who knows when an extra vote might come in handy? It's worth remembering that the SNP are now more vulnerable to having to face Holyrood by-elections than the other parties due to holding 53 of the 73 constituency seats. I gather that they also used up their full complement of candidates in Central Scotland, so if any of the list seats fell vacant in that region they couldn't be replaced. Of course it's still highly unlikely that such a solid majority would be significantly reduced over the course of the parliamentary term, let alone wiped out, but with five long years ahead you just never know.
Or to put it another way, you'd need to have a crystal ball to know what the most rational thing to do is!
UPDATE : I see that Labour's Hugh Henry has explicitly made clear that he would not use his powers as Presiding Officer to block a referendum bill, and indeed has added that he thinks opposition members should stop "carping on" about the validity of such a bill. So I'd suggest that removes the main argument against the SNP installing a Labour Presiding Officer.
* * *
What an absolute tragedy about David Cairns. I dare say I've criticised him on this blog at some point, but he came across as a genuinely lovely guy. He also has the important legacy of overturning the ban on Catholic priests becoming MPs - in some ways an even more pernicious piece of discrimination than the one on Catholics being able to accede to the throne.
Pros -
1. It would remove the danger that a Presiding Officer from the opposition ranks would do what John McTernan suggested, and pull a fast one by ruling an independence referendum bill out of order.
2. It would infuriate Tavish. In fact, it sounds like the mere possibility of it is already infuriating Tavish.
Cons -
1. It might look a bit tribal given that this is generally regarded as being Labour's 'turn'.
2. It would reduce the SNP's absolute parliamentary majority from a potential ten to eight. Of course, that's still a position that would have been beyond our wildest ravings a week ago, but who knows when an extra vote might come in handy? It's worth remembering that the SNP are now more vulnerable to having to face Holyrood by-elections than the other parties due to holding 53 of the 73 constituency seats. I gather that they also used up their full complement of candidates in Central Scotland, so if any of the list seats fell vacant in that region they couldn't be replaced. Of course it's still highly unlikely that such a solid majority would be significantly reduced over the course of the parliamentary term, let alone wiped out, but with five long years ahead you just never know.
Or to put it another way, you'd need to have a crystal ball to know what the most rational thing to do is!
UPDATE : I see that Labour's Hugh Henry has explicitly made clear that he would not use his powers as Presiding Officer to block a referendum bill, and indeed has added that he thinks opposition members should stop "carping on" about the validity of such a bill. So I'd suggest that removes the main argument against the SNP installing a Labour Presiding Officer.
* * *
What an absolute tragedy about David Cairns. I dare say I've criticised him on this blog at some point, but he came across as a genuinely lovely guy. He also has the important legacy of overturning the ban on Catholic priests becoming MPs - in some ways an even more pernicious piece of discrimination than the one on Catholics being able to accede to the throne.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
John McTernan on one-man mission to thwart the democratic process?
It seems Scottish Labour's very own Prince of Darkness can't even let the dust settle on the election result before practicing the dark arts once again. Iain Macwhirter's jaw almost dropped to the floor last night when McTernan claimed that an independence referendum wouldn't happen on the grounds of illegality. McTernan loudly protested that this wasn't a political point, it was simply a matter of "fact". Which, however deluded, I was prepared to accept as an honest view until I spotted that he'd touched on the same issue from a slightly different angle in his latest Scotsman column -
"This leaves Labour with some stark choices. They need a candidate for presiding officer - a crucial position, given the SNP commitment to a referendum bill. The Scotland Act clearly states: "The following aspects of the constitution are reserved matters … 1 (b) the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England". The presiding officer has to assure themselves that any government bills are within vires before putting them before the chamber in Holyrood. Labour's Hugh Henry looks like the right man for this job."
Tell me, John, if an independence referendum's illegality is simply a matter of 'fact', why on earth would Labour need the 'right' Presiding Officer to interpret the matter in a favourable way?
I've no idea if Labour would be crazy enough to heed McTernan's advice - as Iain Macwhirter pointed out, it's these destructive neanderthal attitudes that helped to take the party into the wilderness in the first place. But I hope SNP members are at least alive to the danger, and bear it in mind as they vote in the secret ballot for the new Presiding Officer next week.
*
I've just caught up with the news that Tavish Scott has resigned as Liberal Democrat leader. In one sense I'm actually quite surprised, because a party that's been reduced to a rump doesn't have a lot of options. Well, to be precise, they now have four options, and by a process of elimination I presume it'll have to be either Liam McArthur or Willie Rennie.
"This leaves Labour with some stark choices. They need a candidate for presiding officer - a crucial position, given the SNP commitment to a referendum bill. The Scotland Act clearly states: "The following aspects of the constitution are reserved matters … 1 (b) the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England". The presiding officer has to assure themselves that any government bills are within vires before putting them before the chamber in Holyrood. Labour's Hugh Henry looks like the right man for this job."
Tell me, John, if an independence referendum's illegality is simply a matter of 'fact', why on earth would Labour need the 'right' Presiding Officer to interpret the matter in a favourable way?
I've no idea if Labour would be crazy enough to heed McTernan's advice - as Iain Macwhirter pointed out, it's these destructive neanderthal attitudes that helped to take the party into the wilderness in the first place. But I hope SNP members are at least alive to the danger, and bear it in mind as they vote in the secret ballot for the new Presiding Officer next week.
*
I've just caught up with the news that Tavish Scott has resigned as Liberal Democrat leader. In one sense I'm actually quite surprised, because a party that's been reduced to a rump doesn't have a lot of options. Well, to be precise, they now have four options, and by a process of elimination I presume it'll have to be either Liam McArthur or Willie Rennie.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Blaming the interviewer for Tavish Scott's Newsnight meltdown won't wash
I've just caught up with Caron Lindsay's defence of Tavish Scott's now-infamous performance on Newsnight Scotland earlier in the week. She broadly blames the meltdown on Gordon Brewer's impertinent questions (© Peter Cook). But, to put it mildly, a few points simply aren't stacking up -
"We can't pretend that the UK coalition doesn't exist - and nor do we want to, to be honest. It ain't perfect, but at least we're delivering Lib Dem policies..."
Which is fine, but if you want to credibly share the credit for the supposedly good things the coalition have done, you have to do one of two things in relation to the somewhat less good things they've also done - either a) back them up and take the flak for them, or b) condemn your southern colleagues for the mistakes they've made. What you can't reasonably do is say "if you like things the London Lib Dems have done, ask me and I'll tell you all about it, but if you don't like things they've done, for heaven's sake go and ask them - nothing to do with me, guv".
Caron goes on -
"Nor is he a member of the UK Parliament and as such is not responsible for the actions of our Scottish MPs and how they might have voted on tuition fees."
Well, I think he kind of is responsible for it when one of those Scottish MPs (Jo Swinson) is his own deputy as party leader, and when every single one of them was elected on the "Scottish Liberal Democrat" ticket last year. If Caron doesn't want the Scottish Lib Dem chief to be held to account for these people's actions, perhaps instead of moaning about an interviewer asking perfectly logical questions she should press for future Lib Dem candidates in Scottish Westminster contests to stand on a "British Liberal Democrat" label instead? Indeed, in relation to the Higher Education issue it would be more logical for them to go the whole hog and stand on an "English Liberal Democrat" label, given that Swinson, Bruce, Alexander and Moore voted through higher tuition fees for English students alone.
"One other low point was Brewer's line of questioning on a press release our George Lyon had put out attacking Labour for shifting position on closure of Accident and Emergency Units at Monklands and Ayr. What George was doing was rightly to point out the opportunism of the Labour party bending over backwards to be on the same page as the SNP in this election. Yes, Liberal Democrats were in the Government which attempted to close those units, but doing so was a Labour initiative, when Andy Kerr, Labour's current finance spokesman, was health minister."
Brewer was in fact making a very straightforward point - that Lyon was being hypocritical in criticising Labour for making a U-turn and supporting an SNP policy when the U-turn the Lib Dems have made on the same topic is identical. Literally identical. They supported the A&E closures in government (it doesn't matter if it wasn't their original idea because it couldn't have gone through without their backing) and now they support the SNP's popular decision to keep those departments open. That fact is absolutely irrefutable, which is why Tavish looked so foolish in trying to deny it, and indeed initially pretending that he didn't understand the question. He'd have been far better off simply distancing himself from Lyon's view.
"We can't pretend that the UK coalition doesn't exist - and nor do we want to, to be honest. It ain't perfect, but at least we're delivering Lib Dem policies..."
Which is fine, but if you want to credibly share the credit for the supposedly good things the coalition have done, you have to do one of two things in relation to the somewhat less good things they've also done - either a) back them up and take the flak for them, or b) condemn your southern colleagues for the mistakes they've made. What you can't reasonably do is say "if you like things the London Lib Dems have done, ask me and I'll tell you all about it, but if you don't like things they've done, for heaven's sake go and ask them - nothing to do with me, guv".
Caron goes on -
"Nor is he a member of the UK Parliament and as such is not responsible for the actions of our Scottish MPs and how they might have voted on tuition fees."
Well, I think he kind of is responsible for it when one of those Scottish MPs (Jo Swinson) is his own deputy as party leader, and when every single one of them was elected on the "Scottish Liberal Democrat" ticket last year. If Caron doesn't want the Scottish Lib Dem chief to be held to account for these people's actions, perhaps instead of moaning about an interviewer asking perfectly logical questions she should press for future Lib Dem candidates in Scottish Westminster contests to stand on a "British Liberal Democrat" label instead? Indeed, in relation to the Higher Education issue it would be more logical for them to go the whole hog and stand on an "English Liberal Democrat" label, given that Swinson, Bruce, Alexander and Moore voted through higher tuition fees for English students alone.
"One other low point was Brewer's line of questioning on a press release our George Lyon had put out attacking Labour for shifting position on closure of Accident and Emergency Units at Monklands and Ayr. What George was doing was rightly to point out the opportunism of the Labour party bending over backwards to be on the same page as the SNP in this election. Yes, Liberal Democrats were in the Government which attempted to close those units, but doing so was a Labour initiative, when Andy Kerr, Labour's current finance spokesman, was health minister."
Brewer was in fact making a very straightforward point - that Lyon was being hypocritical in criticising Labour for making a U-turn and supporting an SNP policy when the U-turn the Lib Dems have made on the same topic is identical. Literally identical. They supported the A&E closures in government (it doesn't matter if it wasn't their original idea because it couldn't have gone through without their backing) and now they support the SNP's popular decision to keep those departments open. That fact is absolutely irrefutable, which is why Tavish looked so foolish in trying to deny it, and indeed initially pretending that he didn't understand the question. He'd have been far better off simply distancing himself from Lyon's view.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
It's equidistance, Jim, but not as we know it
I don't know if it's just me, but every time I hear Tavish Scott speak about the SNP government these days, I get the feeling he's mixed them up with the Khmer Rouge or the Ba'ath Party somewhere along the line. Is he cynically attempting to prepare the ground for his personal preference of an uncomfortable post-election alliance with Labour by relentlessly exhorting his party to view the alternative as unthinkable? Perish the thought. Here's the latest example of constructive opposition in the wake of Stewart Stevenson's resignation -
"Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Tavish Scott said: 'The people of Scotland deserve an awful lot better than they're getting at present from the SNP.
'The first minister needs to stand up and take responsibility for the shambles his government is in.'"
"a lot better than they're getting at present from the SNP"...given the context, I can only assume he's talking about snow? If by any chance the Scott/Gray Dream Team is in harness by this time next year, that might just prove to be something of a hostage to fortune.
"Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Tavish Scott said: 'The people of Scotland deserve an awful lot better than they're getting at present from the SNP.
'The first minister needs to stand up and take responsibility for the shambles his government is in.'"
"a lot better than they're getting at present from the SNP"...given the context, I can only assume he's talking about snow? If by any chance the Scott/Gray Dream Team is in harness by this time next year, that might just prove to be something of a hostage to fortune.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Mixed news for SNP with Ipsos-Mori
The latest full-scale Scottish poll conducted by Ipsos-Mori contains sobering news for the SNP on the constituency vote, with Labour's lead increasing from three to ten points. But that story is almost completely reversed on the list vote, with Labour's lead slipping from nine points to four. Here are the full figures -
Constituency vote
Labour 41% (+4)
SNP 31% (-3)
Conservatives 13% (+2)
Liberal Democrats 11% (-2)
Others 5% (+1)
List vote
Labour 36% (-2)
SNP 32% (+3)
Conservatives 12% (-)
Liberal Democrats 9% (-3)
Others 10% (+1)
Despite the conflicting signals here, and in spite of the fact that the list vote is (in theory at least) the more important of the two, I'd have to say this looks more like bad news than good for the SNP. The constituency vote is requested first and that will usually give the most accurate indication of the electorate's attitude towards the parties. However, there's the customary better news on the leaders' ratings, with Alex Salmond comfortably outstripping Iain Gray in the popularity stakes, and with Tavish Scott very tellingly being the only one of the four leaders to suffer a negative rating. That at least offers some grounds for optimism that the SNP's fortunes may improve once the campaign proper gets underway and the leaders are pushed to the forefront.
Constituency vote
Labour 41% (+4)
SNP 31% (-3)
Conservatives 13% (+2)
Liberal Democrats 11% (-2)
Others 5% (+1)
List vote
Labour 36% (-2)
SNP 32% (+3)
Conservatives 12% (-)
Liberal Democrats 9% (-3)
Others 10% (+1)
Despite the conflicting signals here, and in spite of the fact that the list vote is (in theory at least) the more important of the two, I'd have to say this looks more like bad news than good for the SNP. The constituency vote is requested first and that will usually give the most accurate indication of the electorate's attitude towards the parties. However, there's the customary better news on the leaders' ratings, with Alex Salmond comfortably outstripping Iain Gray in the popularity stakes, and with Tavish Scott very tellingly being the only one of the four leaders to suffer a negative rating. That at least offers some grounds for optimism that the SNP's fortunes may improve once the campaign proper gets underway and the leaders are pushed to the forefront.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Is the ultimate destination of Tavish Scott's logic that Tavish Scott will have to resign?
While most of us were enjoying our Thursday lunch, blissfully unaware of the existential threat that faced Scotland's democracy, Tavish Scott and his hardy band of realists continued with their grim, reluctant preparations for apocalypse. For a tantalising period yesterday afternoon it had appeared that the scare might just be over - Tavish's now-legendary speech at Holyrood had, it seemed, single-handedly brought about capitulation from the Chief Evildoer (the politician formerly known as John Swinney). Although the C. E. had impertinently insisted on choosing his own words, Tavish's attack had been so forensic, so devastating, so Obviously True, it was surely apparent to all right-thinking people that the newly-issued apology could only be intended to conform in full with each and every aspect of canonical Tavishian thought on What An Apology Was Required For.
But today, at First Minister's Questions, it became frighteningly clear that may not be entirely the case. More in anger than sorrow, Tavish had little choice but to return to a war footing on Behalf Of Scotland. At his fearsome hair-splitting finest, he demanded to know what the C. E. had actually said sorry for - could it really be that the apology was merely for not being forthcoming enough, rather than for actively misleading parliament? After all, hadn't Tavish provided damning documentary evidence yesterday that the C. E. had repeatedly talked about making decisions on the Scottish Variable Rate when there was no decision to be made?
But, as the First Minister pointed out, there was just one problem here - the SVR had never, at any point, been implementable within less than ten months. Including the period when Tavish Scott had been Deputy Finance Minister. So whenever the former Labour/Lib Dem coalition had talked about making a decision not to use the SVR in the following financial year, that had been - according to the inescapable principles of Tavishian thought - a bit of a porky.
By the look on Tavish's face, we were no longer awaiting apocalypse. Apocalypse had arrived.
Please don't tell me he's the one that's going to have to resign now? Life's full of these cruel little ironies...
But today, at First Minister's Questions, it became frighteningly clear that may not be entirely the case. More in anger than sorrow, Tavish had little choice but to return to a war footing on Behalf Of Scotland. At his fearsome hair-splitting finest, he demanded to know what the C. E. had actually said sorry for - could it really be that the apology was merely for not being forthcoming enough, rather than for actively misleading parliament? After all, hadn't Tavish provided damning documentary evidence yesterday that the C. E. had repeatedly talked about making decisions on the Scottish Variable Rate when there was no decision to be made?
But, as the First Minister pointed out, there was just one problem here - the SVR had never, at any point, been implementable within less than ten months. Including the period when Tavish Scott had been Deputy Finance Minister. So whenever the former Labour/Lib Dem coalition had talked about making a decision not to use the SVR in the following financial year, that had been - according to the inescapable principles of Tavishian thought - a bit of a porky.
By the look on Tavish's face, we were no longer awaiting apocalypse. Apocalypse had arrived.
Please don't tell me he's the one that's going to have to resign now? Life's full of these cruel little ironies...
But does anyone give two hoots, Tavish?
I'm always a tad sceptical when I hear claims that Tavish Scott has "demolished" someone, so I'm grateful to Caron for reproducing his speech on the "SVR scandal" in full so we can all make our own minds up. It certainly sounds like he was terribly excited by the whole thing, which begs the obvious question - why? After all, it will be recalled that a few months ago, when pressed about his reasons for silencing debate on whether the Scottish people should be allowed a say on their own constitutional future, he informed us that the country had "moved on" and that no-one gave "two hoots about it" anymore. Well, he was demonstrably wrong about an independence referendum, the principle of which is clearly supported by an overwhelming majority of the public. But those words would, ironically, have been more accurate if applied to the minor constitutional matter presently in hand (if it can even be called 'constitutional' given that the tax-varying powers remain fully intact). It was once thought conceivable that the SVR could be used in the foreseeable future, but now that we've woken up to the downsides of such a decision, the country has indeed "moved on". And, while I haven't seen an opinion poll on the subject, I'd be - to put it mildly - somewhat surprised to learn that the electorate would have preferred that £7 million of extra cuts to public services had been made in order to symbolically 'upkeep' a power that isn't going to be used. I'd also be a bit surprised if they thought the unilateral demands from HMRC for extra payment were remotely reasonable in the first place, but given the widely-reported spin from the unionist parties we'll have to see on that one.
John Swinney has of course now apologised, very graciously, for the one aspect of this trifling affair for which the government can be legitimately criticised - not being more open with parliament about the problems they were encountering with HMRC. That apology leaves some of the apocalyptic conclusions Scott was drawing in his speech looking even more bizarre...
"Mr Salmond expects to pass a Budget. To negotiate with other parties. After this."
Yes, Tavish, I think he probably does expect that. After this. More pertinently, I think the Scottish public probably do still expect the opposition parties - yes, after this - to engage constructively on a matter of such national importance as the Budget, and will not look kindly on this most blatant and contrived of excuses for yet another round of immature obstructionism.
Perhaps the subtext of the speech can best be summed up in the following terms - "look, guys, I've found yet another wizard excuse for regarding the SNP as untouchables in coalition negotiations". No wonder he was excited. But honestly, Tavish, we got the message months ago - to say the body language has been leaking somewhat is a bit of an understatement.
John Swinney has of course now apologised, very graciously, for the one aspect of this trifling affair for which the government can be legitimately criticised - not being more open with parliament about the problems they were encountering with HMRC. That apology leaves some of the apocalyptic conclusions Scott was drawing in his speech looking even more bizarre...
"Mr Salmond expects to pass a Budget. To negotiate with other parties. After this."
Yes, Tavish, I think he probably does expect that. After this. More pertinently, I think the Scottish public probably do still expect the opposition parties - yes, after this - to engage constructively on a matter of such national importance as the Budget, and will not look kindly on this most blatant and contrived of excuses for yet another round of immature obstructionism.
Perhaps the subtext of the speech can best be summed up in the following terms - "look, guys, I've found yet another wizard excuse for regarding the SNP as untouchables in coalition negotiations". No wonder he was excited. But honestly, Tavish, we got the message months ago - to say the body language has been leaking somewhat is a bit of an understatement.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
YouGov : SNP trim Labour's list vote lead by five points
At long last, there is a new full-scale Scottish opinion poll out. It was conducted by YouGov for the Scotsman, and makes slightly more encouraging reading for the SNP than the figures from early September, when Labour enjoyed a comfortable ten-point lead on both ballots. Here are the full figures -
Constituency vote :
Labour 40% (+1)
SNP 34% (+5)
Conservatives 14% (-2)
Liberal Democrats 8% (-3)
List vote :
Labour 36% (-)
SNP 31% (+5)
Conservatives 15% (-)
Liberal Democrats 8% (-4)
Greens 6% (-)
The Scotsman's reporting of the story focuses on two points - that Labour is "maintaining" its "solid" lead over the SNP, and that the Lib Dems are finally taking the long-anticipated hit for going into coalition with the Tories. But this seems to me to miss an obvious point - not only have the SNP eaten into Labour's lead somewhat, but on the face of it that extra support seems to have come directly from the Westminster coalition parties, while Labour have remained roughly static. That may be a wholly misleading impression, but equally it could offer some grounds for optimism about what might happen if the coalition's (and especially the Liberal Democrats') support is squeezed yet further. Either way, I'm sure most SNP supporters will just be relieved to note that this poll shows them still very much in the game.
Another concern facing enthusiasts for the nascent Iain "the Snarl" Gray/Tavish Scott Dream Team is that, on these figures for the Liberal Democrats, such a coalition may quite simply not be arithmetically viable - even if Labour emerge as the largest party. A second consecutive minority government (of one colour or another) is looking somewhat more likely tonight.
Constituency vote :
Labour 40% (+1)
SNP 34% (+5)
Conservatives 14% (-2)
Liberal Democrats 8% (-3)
List vote :
Labour 36% (-)
SNP 31% (+5)
Conservatives 15% (-)
Liberal Democrats 8% (-4)
Greens 6% (-)
The Scotsman's reporting of the story focuses on two points - that Labour is "maintaining" its "solid" lead over the SNP, and that the Lib Dems are finally taking the long-anticipated hit for going into coalition with the Tories. But this seems to me to miss an obvious point - not only have the SNP eaten into Labour's lead somewhat, but on the face of it that extra support seems to have come directly from the Westminster coalition parties, while Labour have remained roughly static. That may be a wholly misleading impression, but equally it could offer some grounds for optimism about what might happen if the coalition's (and especially the Liberal Democrats') support is squeezed yet further. Either way, I'm sure most SNP supporters will just be relieved to note that this poll shows them still very much in the game.
Another concern facing enthusiasts for the nascent Iain "the Snarl" Gray/Tavish Scott Dream Team is that, on these figures for the Liberal Democrats, such a coalition may quite simply not be arithmetically viable - even if Labour emerge as the largest party. A second consecutive minority government (of one colour or another) is looking somewhat more likely tonight.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Can the Lib Dems have their coalition and eat it?
In a couple of posts a few weeks ago, I explained my theory that a reconstituted Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition was an unlikely outcome after next May's election. However, Professor John Curtice's views clearly need to be taken seriously, and in his appearance on the BBC's Politics Scotland this afternoon, he seemed fairly convinced that both Iain Gray and Tavish Scott were inching towards that outcome (assuming the arithmetic allows them to, which of course remains a very big if). Certainly there can be little doubt from Tavish Scott's increasingly hysterical Nat-bashing rhetoric of late that he at least is positioning his party for the possibility of coalition with Labour. But I still struggle to see how all this stacks up from Labour's point of view. Yes, I can see Curtice's point that they will not want to be hobbled by the limitations of minority rule as the SNP have been. But there's surely another consideration that easily trumps that concern. The very life-blood of any new Labour administration will be in portraying itself as Scotland's protector against the Tory-led UK government. How can they do so if they effectively relinquish their licence to demonise that government's man in Scotland, ie. the Lib Dem Secretary of State for Scotland? Even more general attacks on the UK government would have to be somewhat nuanced if they weren't to risk breaking an alliance with the Lib Dems apart.
My guess is that the Lib Dems' best (and perhaps only) hope for a stable partnership with Labour in Scotland is, ironically, that Hamish Macdonell in the Caledonian Mercury turns out to be right, and that their Westminster coalition with the Tories is already doomed.
My guess is that the Lib Dems' best (and perhaps only) hope for a stable partnership with Labour in Scotland is, ironically, that Hamish Macdonell in the Caledonian Mercury turns out to be right, and that their Westminster coalition with the Tories is already doomed.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Can anyone spare a hoot (or two) for Thoroughly Modern Tavish?
For months now, Hamish Macdonnell seems to have been determined to promote the narrative that a Labour return to power is written in the stars, and his latest rather dubious astrological observation is based on a supposed hardening of the Lib Dems' opposition to a referendum on independence. His conclusion is that "the only logical powerbroking deal after next May's election looks like being between Labour and the Lib Dems".
Frankly, I'm struggling to think of a deal that looks less logical than that one just at the moment. I can certainly see the theoretical appeal to the Scottish Lib Dems of demonstrating their independence from the federal party by choosing a coalition with Labour (although that appeal may fade pretty fast when they start pondering the full implications), but for Labour it would be an incredibly difficult leap. They would effectively be sacrificing their capacity to launch full-blooded attacks on a Tory-led Westminster government whenever they feel like it, and my guess is that would be too high a price, even to secure the prize of a stable four-year term in office. Macdonnell is also overlooking two obvious possibilities - a) that the Lib Dem vote might collapse so far that a coalition with Labour isn't even arithmetically viable, and b) that the Tories may be more pro-active than before in trying to forge an alliance (whether a coalition or something short of that) to freeze Labour out.
More broadly, the quotes from Tavish Scott in the article are highly amusing. Apparently the Lib Dems used to be "concerned" about his negativity towards a referendum, but the "modern party" has "moved on" and "couldn't give two hoots about it". Hmmm. Given that, to the best of my recollection, those concerns reached their peak as recently as the last year or two, this "modern" incarnation of the party of which Tavish speaks must be almost as new as his last haircut. In which case, the SNP have every reason to keep the faith - at this rate of change, the Lib Dems will in all likelihood be embarking on a brave new postmodern era by Christmas.
As an aside, I'm somewhat dubious about Macdonnell's assertion that the SNP made a referendum a precondition of a coalition in 2007. They were certainly vocal about the policy's central importance, but the only party setting literal preconditions were the Lib Dems themselves - it was beneath their dignity to even enter discussions unless the SNP abandoned the referendum policy in advance.
Frankly, I'm struggling to think of a deal that looks less logical than that one just at the moment. I can certainly see the theoretical appeal to the Scottish Lib Dems of demonstrating their independence from the federal party by choosing a coalition with Labour (although that appeal may fade pretty fast when they start pondering the full implications), but for Labour it would be an incredibly difficult leap. They would effectively be sacrificing their capacity to launch full-blooded attacks on a Tory-led Westminster government whenever they feel like it, and my guess is that would be too high a price, even to secure the prize of a stable four-year term in office. Macdonnell is also overlooking two obvious possibilities - a) that the Lib Dem vote might collapse so far that a coalition with Labour isn't even arithmetically viable, and b) that the Tories may be more pro-active than before in trying to forge an alliance (whether a coalition or something short of that) to freeze Labour out.
More broadly, the quotes from Tavish Scott in the article are highly amusing. Apparently the Lib Dems used to be "concerned" about his negativity towards a referendum, but the "modern party" has "moved on" and "couldn't give two hoots about it". Hmmm. Given that, to the best of my recollection, those concerns reached their peak as recently as the last year or two, this "modern" incarnation of the party of which Tavish speaks must be almost as new as his last haircut. In which case, the SNP have every reason to keep the faith - at this rate of change, the Lib Dems will in all likelihood be embarking on a brave new postmodern era by Christmas.
As an aside, I'm somewhat dubious about Macdonnell's assertion that the SNP made a referendum a precondition of a coalition in 2007. They were certainly vocal about the policy's central importance, but the only party setting literal preconditions were the Lib Dems themselves - it was beneath their dignity to even enter discussions unless the SNP abandoned the referendum policy in advance.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Lib Dem triumph : children will now be incarcerated in a slightly less chilly climate
Some absolutely ghastly coverage for the Scottish Liberal Democrats this evening, and really they can have no complaints after Tavish Scott jumped the gun last week by trumpeting his party's success in 'ending child detention'. It transpires that all this means for now is that children will instead be 'rendered' to England and caged with their families in a detention centre there. Are they really supposed to be grateful for the slightly better climate during their period of incarceration?
Tavish may have many qualities, but talking himself out of tight corners really isn't one of them. The best he could come up with tonight was that "individual cases are a matter for the Home Office". That'll be that department of a government your party now jointly controls, will it, Tavish?
Tavish may have many qualities, but talking himself out of tight corners really isn't one of them. The best he could come up with tonight was that "individual cases are a matter for the Home Office". That'll be that department of a government your party now jointly controls, will it, Tavish?
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
The dream has died. Time to face facts - the SNP must now disband.
Until quite recently there was a feeling among many nationalists that this really was their moment. The Scottish government appeared to be very popular, Alex Salmond in particular being massively preferred as First Minister to all the varied potential alternatives. And, while it was far from clear whether an independence referendum bill could pass through parliament in this session, the SNP's seemingly commanding position made a second term in office all but inevitable, offering them another bite at the referendum cherry. By which time, the conventional wisdom went, the SNP would have built up their credibility still further, thus increasing the likelihood of a 'Yes' vote.
A cruel illusion.
On Sunday 15th March, a YouGov poll in the Sunday Times put an end to these childish fantasies forever. The numbers for the SNP were utterly devastating, leaving no realistic chance whatsoever of recovery even in the distant future. The collapse had occurred in every single aspect of voting preference - for the Scottish Parliament constituency ballot, support for the party had slumped from 33% at the 2007 Holyrood election to a dismal 35% today. On the list vote, support had similarly fallen from 31% to 32%. On the Westminster vote, support for the SNP had nosedived from 18% at the last election to a pathetic 27%. While for the European Parliament vote, support had plummeted from 20% in the last election to a frankly laughable 29% now.
Of course, there seems to be something in the nationalist mindset that leads us to clutch at straws, even in the face of such overwhelming evidence that the party is facing certain meltdown. A few misguided people pointed to the irrelevant detail that the SNP are still ahead on the constituency ballot, and only two points behind on the list. Some weirdly tried to suggest that the above figures showed an increase rather than a decrease in the SNP's support (shows you the desperate state of education in an SNP-run Scotland). Some resorted to the tired old argument that you can't draw too many conclusions from a single poll, especially not one that is - due to the standard margin of error of 3% - what the Americans would call a statistical tie on both ballots.
But thankfully we have Scotland's second most virile Alpha Male (affectionately known throughout the land as AM2 to distinguish him from the nation's undisputed leading Alpha Male Frank McAvennie) to force us to confront the cold, hard truth. This opinion poll is quite simply game over. In our heart of hearts, we all know it. Alex Salmond might as well just enjoy the dregs of his fleeting spell in office, for the return to power of the dream team of Iain Gray and Tavish Scott on a wave of public euphoria is now, quite simply, a scientifically proven certainty.
Facing such a hopeless future, Alex Salmond would be well-advised to take a leaf out of David Owen's book - and in so doing show some maturity by finally acknowledging the glorious unionist future Scotland is about to embark on - by simply proposing the party's immediate dissolution. What is there to gain by fighting on?
A cruel illusion.
On Sunday 15th March, a YouGov poll in the Sunday Times put an end to these childish fantasies forever. The numbers for the SNP were utterly devastating, leaving no realistic chance whatsoever of recovery even in the distant future. The collapse had occurred in every single aspect of voting preference - for the Scottish Parliament constituency ballot, support for the party had slumped from 33% at the 2007 Holyrood election to a dismal 35% today. On the list vote, support had similarly fallen from 31% to 32%. On the Westminster vote, support for the SNP had nosedived from 18% at the last election to a pathetic 27%. While for the European Parliament vote, support had plummeted from 20% in the last election to a frankly laughable 29% now.
Of course, there seems to be something in the nationalist mindset that leads us to clutch at straws, even in the face of such overwhelming evidence that the party is facing certain meltdown. A few misguided people pointed to the irrelevant detail that the SNP are still ahead on the constituency ballot, and only two points behind on the list. Some weirdly tried to suggest that the above figures showed an increase rather than a decrease in the SNP's support (shows you the desperate state of education in an SNP-run Scotland). Some resorted to the tired old argument that you can't draw too many conclusions from a single poll, especially not one that is - due to the standard margin of error of 3% - what the Americans would call a statistical tie on both ballots.
But thankfully we have Scotland's second most virile Alpha Male (affectionately known throughout the land as AM2 to distinguish him from the nation's undisputed leading Alpha Male Frank McAvennie) to force us to confront the cold, hard truth. This opinion poll is quite simply game over. In our heart of hearts, we all know it. Alex Salmond might as well just enjoy the dregs of his fleeting spell in office, for the return to power of the dream team of Iain Gray and Tavish Scott on a wave of public euphoria is now, quite simply, a scientifically proven certainty.
Facing such a hopeless future, Alex Salmond would be well-advised to take a leaf out of David Owen's book - and in so doing show some maturity by finally acknowledging the glorious unionist future Scotland is about to embark on - by simply proposing the party's immediate dissolution. What is there to gain by fighting on?
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Tavish doesn't do straight talking
Of course, the one thing we know about politicians of all parties is that they're unlikely to give you a straight answer to a straight question. But it does seem ironic that, of the four main Scottish party leaders, the one with the greatest tendency towards opacity represents the party which has always presented itself as being in the vanguard of a 'new kind of politics'.
Over at the Two Doctors blog, James is wondering aloud whether the Lib Dems are preparing the ground to do a deal with the SNP over a multi-option referendum about Scotland's constitutional future. If they were, it would seem like an eminently sensible tactical switch, given that all the indications from the opinions polls are that the Lib Dems' preferred option of greater devolved powers would win out over both independence and the status quo. Such an outcome would also, in my personal view, suit the SNP down to the ground, because the referendum result would not be a straight 'defeat for independence' but rather a victory for Scottish constitutional progress.
In the early days of Tavish Scott's leadership, there also seemed to be reason to suspect this was the direction he was travelling, as he gave his cryptic comment about "not being instinctively against" allowing the people of Scotland to decide their constitutional future. But this is where the problem with James' theory kicks in - because Scott then explicitly ruled out the possibility of supporting a multi-option referendum, while all the time refusing to clarify what his "not instinctively against" comment meant. So how do you give the Scottish people a say on independence, while having your own preferred option on the ballot paper, while not having a multi-option referendum? There is of course no reasonable answer to this, rather like there was no answer to the question "what are the Lib Dems getting in return for your support of the budget?", and Tavish's response was the same on both occasions - an attempt at a disarming smile followed by infuriating obfuscation.
My own best guess is that Tavish is hankering after a single-option referendum on his own preferred policy. He will explain that he is still not 'instinctively against' letting the people decide on independence, but it's not possible for practical reasons, or it's not the right question, or it's not the right time, blah, blah, blah. After all, this would be completely consistent with the Lib Dems' approach to a European referendum, when after being faced with calls for a vote on the constitutional treaty they instead proposed one on continued membership of the EU - on the grounds that this is the "real question people want a say on". The only problem being that opinion polls seem to show that the British people want to stay in the EU but without the constitutional treaty - so it seems rather more likely that the question people would like to answer was being substituted for the one the Lib Dems would much prefer them to answer.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Tavish is preparing the ground to follow a similar strategy - ignore his words, just read his obfuscation.
Over at the Two Doctors blog, James is wondering aloud whether the Lib Dems are preparing the ground to do a deal with the SNP over a multi-option referendum about Scotland's constitutional future. If they were, it would seem like an eminently sensible tactical switch, given that all the indications from the opinions polls are that the Lib Dems' preferred option of greater devolved powers would win out over both independence and the status quo. Such an outcome would also, in my personal view, suit the SNP down to the ground, because the referendum result would not be a straight 'defeat for independence' but rather a victory for Scottish constitutional progress.
In the early days of Tavish Scott's leadership, there also seemed to be reason to suspect this was the direction he was travelling, as he gave his cryptic comment about "not being instinctively against" allowing the people of Scotland to decide their constitutional future. But this is where the problem with James' theory kicks in - because Scott then explicitly ruled out the possibility of supporting a multi-option referendum, while all the time refusing to clarify what his "not instinctively against" comment meant. So how do you give the Scottish people a say on independence, while having your own preferred option on the ballot paper, while not having a multi-option referendum? There is of course no reasonable answer to this, rather like there was no answer to the question "what are the Lib Dems getting in return for your support of the budget?", and Tavish's response was the same on both occasions - an attempt at a disarming smile followed by infuriating obfuscation.
My own best guess is that Tavish is hankering after a single-option referendum on his own preferred policy. He will explain that he is still not 'instinctively against' letting the people decide on independence, but it's not possible for practical reasons, or it's not the right question, or it's not the right time, blah, blah, blah. After all, this would be completely consistent with the Lib Dems' approach to a European referendum, when after being faced with calls for a vote on the constitutional treaty they instead proposed one on continued membership of the EU - on the grounds that this is the "real question people want a say on". The only problem being that opinion polls seem to show that the British people want to stay in the EU but without the constitutional treaty - so it seems rather more likely that the question people would like to answer was being substituted for the one the Lib Dems would much prefer them to answer.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Tavish is preparing the ground to follow a similar strategy - ignore his words, just read his obfuscation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)