Vote Yes to independence to keep Scotland in Europe

Sorry that blogging has been a bit sluggish of late, but I haven't been entirely idle. I have a new article at the International Business Times, on how David Cameron has just blown a hole in Better Together's campaign strategy - seemingly without even noticing.

You can read it HERE.

Political predictions for the year ahead

While I was making the long journey home from the Edinburgh Hogmanay street party (an experience I paid a heavy price for - I got caught in several crushes, and later came down with a bad cold!) I was pleasantly surprised to spot on my mobile that I'd finished third in the 2012 Political Betting prediction competition. I haven't gone through the figures in detail, but I'm guessing the reason might be the gut feeling I had twelve months ago that the Tories were long overdue for a sustained spell of midterm unpopularity.

OK, lightning never strikes twice, but I thought I might as well try my luck again in this year's contest. This time, my feeling is that unless there's a general election (a very big 'if'), 2013 is likely to be a year of minimal change at UK level. Given the uninspiring personalities at the top of the Labour party, it's hard to see how they're going to build a more emphatic lead, but equally there's no particular reason to anticipate a Tory recovery. So in my predictions for what the ICM polls will show, I have all the parties in a relatively narrow range of support, with Labour, the Lib Dems and UKIP ranging fractionally higher than their average over recent months, and the Tories ranging fractionally lower.

Labour high - 42%
Labour low - 39%

Conservative high - 34%
Conservative low - 30%

Liberal Democrat high - 16%
Liberal Democrat low - 13%

UKIP high - 8%
UKIP low - 5%

Labour's biggest lead - 12%
Labour's smallest lead - 5%

As soon as I pressed 'submit', I felt sure that I had been over-generous to the Lib Dems, but I suppose it's possible they may have bottomed out somewhat. I don't expect a significant recovery for them until they bite the bullet and ditch Clegg, though.

Entrants were also asked to predict who will be Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Shadow Chancellor and Culture Secretary on Christmas Day. Assuming there's no general election between now and then, it seems a fairly safe bet that Cameron and Balls will still be in harness (Miliband has even explicitly stated that Balls will remain in his current position until the election). Clegg is much less secure, but the balance of probability is that he will last at least one more year. Maria Miller isn't secure at all as Culture Secretary, but given that it's anyone's guess who would replace her if she was sacked, the 'percentage guess' is that she will still be there as well.

Prime Minister - David Cameron

Deputy Prime Minister - Nick Clegg

Shadow Chancellor - Ed Balls

Culture Secretary - Maria Miller

Now we come to three international predictions - for the post-election leaders of Australia, Italy and Germany. None of these are certainties by any means, but two of them are a bit easier to guess than the other. Pier Luigi Bersani is currently the strong favourite to become the new centre-left Prime Minister of Italy, with just a few weeks to go until polling day. If by any chance Silvio Berlusconi confounds the odds to achieve yet another comeback, I will...well, I was going to say I will emigrate, but as I don't actually live in Italy that probably wouldn't help much.

Angela Merkel is likely, but not certain, to remain Chancellor of Germany, albeit probably with a new coalition partner that is far more palatable to those of us of a left-wing persuasion (either SPD or Greens). However, an SPD/Green majority still remains a genuine possibility, and if only the SPD could overcome their aversion to cooperating with the Left Party at federal level, then Merkel would be in all sorts of trouble, because the polls currently point to a combined parliamentary majority for the SPD, Greens and Left Party.

To my surprise, the toughest prediction turned out to be Australia. I had lazily assumed that Julia Gillard and Labor were toast, but it turns out that they've made a significant recovery in recent months, and are now only a few points behind the Liberal/National coalition. Even more intriguingly, Gillard seems to have built up a clear personal lead over her opponent Tony Abbott. Looking at the dates, the turning-point may well have been Gillard's now-legendary speech in which she branded Abbott a sexist hypocrite. In the end, I still plumped for Abbott as the winner, but without any great confidence, and it goes without saying that I hope I'm wrong (even though Gillard was stupid enough to employ John McTernan).

Italian Prime Minister - Pier Luigi Bersani

German Chancellor - Angela Merkel

Australian Prime Minister - Tony Abbott

The most murderously difficult part of the prediction contest is always estimating the net gains and losses for each party in the May local elections. I had a look at the 2009 seat totals to see if I could make a rough guess as to what might happen if the projected vote shares this year were roughly the same as in May 2012, and this is what I came up with -

Conservatives down 414

Labour up 605

Liberal Democrats down 196

UKIP up 5

Labour's gains look far too high, but the Lib Dems are surely going to take a pounding, and those lost seats have to go somewhere. In all honesty, though, to make anything more than a wild guess you'd need a mathematics PhD, detailed ward-by-ward statistics that aren't easily traceable on the internet, and seven months of peace and quiet in a spacious office, with soothing whale noises playing in the background.

Angus Reid subsample : SNP in joint lead for Westminster

As long-term readers will know, I regard Angus Reid's Scottish subsamples as being of slightly more interest than those of other pollsters, because the relative stability of the figures over time suggest they have been properly weighted. The latest poll shows the SNP drawing level with Labour -

SNP 36% (+1)
Labour 36% (-5)
Conservatives 13% (+2)
Liberal Democrats 6% (+1)

My eye was also caught last night by ICM's final poll of 2012, because hidden away was a 'school report' section for leading politicians, which gave Alex Salmond a grade of D+, level with Nigel Farage and George Osborne, ahead of Nick Clegg on D, but behind David Cameron and Ed Miliband on C-. Now, you might assume the only reasonable way of comparing Salmond to London politicians would be to compare his rating among Scottish respondents to the rating of the others among all UK respondents. But oh no, ICM are entirely relaxed about the ability of respondents in Birmingham or Plymouth to meaningfully rate Salmond based on the fair, balanced and comprehensive reporting of him that they are exposed to via the London-based media.

Unsurprisingly, Salmond's rating in the Scottish subsample is higher than in any other UK region (except Wales, interestingly). If we compare his Scottish rating to the UK-wide rating of other public figures, we find that the quality of his work in 2012 is rated more highly than everyone other than the Queen, and David Cameron (who he is level with).

The Queen 12.0 (B+)
Alex Salmond 6.9 (C-)
David Cameron 6.9 (C-)
Ed Miliband 6.6 (C-)
The European Union generally 6.0 (D+)
The coalition government generally 6.0 (D+)
George Osborne 6.0 (D+)
Nigel Farage 5.6 (D+)
Nick Clegg 5.3 (D)

The other way of making a fair comparison is to look at the figures from Scottish respondents only. That produces similar results, except of course that coalition politicians are rated quite a bit lower, and Ed Miliband a bit higher.

The Queen 11.7 (B+)
Alex Salmond 6.9 (C-)
Ed Miliband 6.9 (C-)
The European Union generally 6.8 (C-)
David Cameron 5.9 (D+)
The coalition government generally 5.4 (D)
Nigel Farage 5.3 (D)
George Osborne 5.2 (D)
Nick Clegg 4.5 (D)

UPDATE : And I also missed the latest TNS-BMRB independence poll, which I suppose should be the headline story, but I can't be bothered changing the whole post now. The lead for the No side has fallen by five points, which the Scotsman are bizarrely reporting as a blow for the Yes side!

Yes 28% (-)
No 48% (-5)

That is broadly in line with Angus Reid's figures from a few days ago, which showed Yes 32%, No 50% - hardly an insurmountable deficit with the best part of two years to go.

Quote of the year, and it's still only week two

This is a two-and-a-half-day-old quote from Tory MP Andrew Bridgen, arguing for a hefty increase in MPs' salaries in order to attract the best 'talent'. As you read this, try very hard to remember that MPs already earn more than 95% of the population.

"A man or a woman who's very capable, doing very well in their profession, whatever that may be, with a family, are they going to be willing to take that pay cut, look their children in the eye when it's Christmas, say you can't have what you normally have because Mummy or Daddy wants to be an MP."

Hmmm. Perhaps as Christmas morning draws to a close in the households of MPs, there should be a Generation Game-style conveyor belt scene.

"Well you've had your real presents, Jack and Jenny, but just for fun, let's take a peek at what you COULD have had if only Daddy hadn't sacrificed himself on the altar of public service...

A bottle of Heidsieck Monopole 1907 Champagne!

Garçon à la Pipe by Pablo Picasso!

Five minutes of high tea with Tony Blair!

An Haute Joaillerie diamond-studded watch!

A Gurkha Black Dragon cigar in a camel bone chest!

Japan!

The 35.56 carat Wittelsbach-Graff Diamond!

A PrestigeHD Supreme Rose TV made of hand-sewn alligator skin!

The services of Geoff Hoon!

Ooooh, didn't you do BADLY?"

How can society be so beastly to these children? Treble MPs' salaries now!

"Disenfranchise" Neil Kinnock? How very dare we?

In spite of my best efforts (and several re-readings), I'm not sure I entirely understand the point being made by the Ian Stewart article republished by Wings Over Scotland. There are a couple of possibilities. The first is that the entire UK electorate should have a vote in the Scottish independence referendum - a straightforward repudiation of the principle of democratic self-determination. The second possible interpretation is that the referendum franchise should be extended to several million people beyond the territory of Scotland, but that this would be limited to those with Scottish heritage. However, references to "the Kinnocks of South Wales" suggest that the definition of Scottish heritage would be, to say the least, rather broad. This does seem to have a great deal in common with the school of thought favoured by my delightful Tory chums at PB, who repeatedly tell me that I can't possibly be Scottish because my surname is Kelly, and if you go back a few generations my ancestors are all Irish or French-Canadian.

So perhaps if Mr Stewart gets his way, Neil Kinnock will have a vote on Scottish independence, and I won't.

Let me just run a few points of fact past Mr Stewart -

1) Scots who move to another part of the UK are not permitted to vote in Scottish elections to the House of Commons.

2) Scots who move to another part of the UK are not permitted to vote in Scottish Parliament elections.

3) Scots who lived in another part of the UK were not permitted to vote in the devolution referendum in 1997.

4) Scots, and indeed all British citizens, who have been out of the UK for more than 15 years, are not permitted to vote in any UK elections or referendums at all.

I make no comment on the rightness or wrongness of these rules. I merely note that they were all either set in place by a Labour government, or upheld by a Labour government over a long period of time. So if Mr Stewart has a problem with the franchise for the independence referendum, perhaps he should start by considering the broader framework of UK electoral rules with which that franchise is logically consistent.

Oh, and on a point of pedantry, Mr Stewart's claim that French voters in London have their own seat in the National Assembly is not true. In fact, the whole of the UK is part of a single mega-constituency covering ten countries of Northern Europe. And you thought Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey was bad...

Happy New Year

Just a very quick note to wish you all a happy new year - a year which for superstitious reasons I will exclusively be referring to as "this year", rather than using some arbitrary number that even the Pope recognises has no basis whatever in historical fact. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. Furthermore, please note that it's still 2005 in Ethiopia.

Although the referendum is still the best part of two years away, we'll also have to get used to calling it "next year's independence referendum"!

* * *

Best tweet of the year so far, from Mark Graham -

"Fear & doubt! What about Eastenders? You hate England! Predict the future now! Couldnae, wouldnae, shouldnae! #TweetLikeAUnionist #indyref"

Nuclear democracy

On a number of occasions I've made the point that Britain is, at best, a semi-democracy, due to the House of Lords being unelected. Some people react incredulously to that notion, and insist that the power of the Lords is merely to revise and delay - the Commons will always ultimately decide.

But the truth of that statement hangs by one extraordinarily slender thread - namely the Parliament Act, which allows the Commons to overrule the Lords by a cumbersome procedure. Indeed, it's no exaggeration to say that the Parliament Act literally is British democracy - strip it away, and the unelected chamber has unfettered power to thwart the will of the electorate.

Curious, then, to witness the Telegraph's reaction to suggestions that the government may use the Parliament Act to ensure the elected chamber has the final say on gay marriage. Apparently the Parliament Act is a "nuclear option" that is only intended to be used in "exceptional circumstances". Really? That's a bit bloody convenient for the conservative elite of this country, isn't it? The moment the government tries to "enforce" democracy, it's subject to dark mutterings that it's doing so far too often and not selectively enough.

Sorry, guys, but democracy is not supposed to be a special once-a-decade treat. Time to choose - is Britain a democracy, or isn't it? If it is, then by definition the Parliament Act is not a "nuclear option", but an indispensable tool that ought to be used just as often as necessary. And the Lords, not the Commons, decides by its actions how often that is.

It's extraordinary to recall that one of Michael Forsyth's objections to devolution in the 1990s was that the Scottish Parliament's decisions would not be subject to "revision" by unelected Lords. That complaint sounded funny at the time, but it sounds positively unhinged now.

* * *

I also have a new article in the UK edition of the International Business Times, about the significance of welfare reform to the debate on independence. You can read it HERE.

The imperial delusion lives on

The SNP's Angus MacNeil and Labour's George Foulkes found some rare common ground a few days ago in condemning the Queen's 'silent' participation in a cabinet meeting, on the grounds that it breached a "vital separation of powers". Personally, I'm all for stunts like this - anything that undermines the ludicrous mythology of a monarchy that is "above politics" can only be a good thing, and means that the debate about the sort of Head of State we want in future will at least be marginally more clear-sighted. In a democracy, people who wield power are held accountable for their actions - or at least that's the theory. I look forward to Prince Charles being subjected to a long-overdue Paxman sneerfest one of these days.

No, what took my breath away was not the Queen's cabinet appearance, but the naming of a part of Antarctica in her honour. We know all about the extent to which individual Tory politicians lack self-awareness, but this is the clearest example yet of an institutional self-awareness problem on the part of the entire Tory/Lib Dem government. This is an administration that wants the world to believe that its upholding of British sovereignty in the Falkland Islands is not about imperialism, but self-determination. As I've said many times, that's a perfectly defensible position, because the Falklands are not an empty land - they contain thousands of people who want to retain the constitutional link with the UK, and who are the only stable population the islands have ever had.

But to ride roughshod over Argentina's Antarctic claim - which is no more or less legitimate than Britain's, because Antarctica really is an empty land - will send a powerful signal to the whole world that Britain's actions in the South Atlantic are in reality driven by the old, unreconstructed imperial impulse. Just how moronically insensitive can they get? Why not rename somewhere in the UK after the Queen? Or why not give her a beach in Pitcairn, if for some reason it really had to be an overseas "possession"? Oh no, that's not good enough for imperialist Tory governments - nothing but a continent will do for their monarch.

Yup, it's true - Cameron thinks he's Benjamin Disraeli. With a bit of luck, that delusion might just be taking a slight knock in 2014.

* * *

I feel slightly queasy. I can't stand Piers Morgan - but he's currently running rings round the American gun lobby quite brilliantly, and speaking vital truths to his adopted country in the unapologetic way they need to be spoken.

All the same, though - Piers Morgan. It's a bit like discovering that Political Betting's Plato is my local SNP candidate.

And on that downright disturbing note, I'll wish you all a very happy Christmas!

In wake of Newtown, Baker goes sinister

Question : If you were an American libertarian blogger who had spent almost every waking moment over the last decade advancing the fantastical notion that a gun free-for-all has made your country safer, how do you think you would react to this latest horrific gun massacre in Connecticut? Would you a) take a step back and quietly reflect on whether you might, after all, have been missing something, or b) boast about how right you've been all along, and then make a blood-curdling threat about what you and like-minded folk will do if anyone tries to take your guns away?

Long-term readers of this blog who can remember Mr Kevin Baker will probably be able to guess the answer. Here are his latest constructive musings on his favourite topic -

"Newtown, Connecticut is not Dunblane, Scotland"

This is true. There are two key differences between Newtown and Dunblane -

1) Only 18 people died in Dunblane. 27 died in Newtown.

2) Lessons were actually learned after Dunblane. When even President Obama is so cowed by the gun lobby that he authorises his press secretary to make the extraordinary observation that "today is not the day to have a debate about gun control" (when is, for pity's sake?) it seems highly probable that the equivalent lessons will not be learned as a result of Newtown, and consequently these entirely avoidable tragedies will continue to happen - perhaps with increasing frequency, as gun control laws are perversely loosened in some parts of the US.

"Yes, 27 people and one creature are dead, eighteen of those dead people are small children - first-graders. Yes, it's horrible, senseless, inexplicable.

And no, the guns were not at fault."

No, the guns were not at fault. They were all too effective. Just how 'inexplicable' is it that a man with a gun was able to kill far more people in a short space of time than he ever would have managed with his bare hands, or with the proverbial cricket bat?

"Let me just say again for the record:

I won't license.

I won't register.

I won't turn them in.

If you want to make me and several million other law-abiding, tax-paying citizens into felons, beware what you wish for. You may get it."

That does sound disturbingly like code for: "If we don't get our own way, we'll create a bloodbath, and then blame it on everybody but ourselves". True enough, the guns won't be entirely to blame for that either - the other key factors will be the sense of victimhood on the part of the perpetrators, and their failure to take responsibility for their own choices and actions. Those are the typical hallmarks of most 'senseless, inexplicable' massacres.

It should be remembered that the process of turning a "law-abiding citizen" into a felon is a remarkably simple one - it consists of that citizen making a conscious decision to no longer obey the law.

Why the Northern Ireland demographic shift does matter

Ten years ago, the results of the Northern Ireland census were greeted with a not inconsiderable amount of unionist gloating. All the expectations had been that there would be evidence of a significant demographic shift towards Catholics, heralding the potential for the ultimate irony - a Catholic majority in a Frankenstein statelet created with the sole intent of entrenching Protestant dominance over as wide a geographical area as possible (including two counties that were Catholic-majority even in 1921). But those expectations were confounded, and the 2001 census showed the Protestant population maintaining a substantial numerical advantage.

The story this time, however, could hardly be more different. The Protestant population has shrunk 5% to a 48% share, with the Catholic population's share now just 3% behind at 45%. A similar "swing" in another ten years' time would comfortably tip the balance. And yet, curiously, the unionist reaction is that it "doesn't matter". Why? Because polling evidence supposedly shows that even a majority of Catholics want Northern Ireland to remain subject to London rule. Yet this begs the obvious question - why the gloating last time round if the demographics quite literally don't matter?

There are a couple of explanations. Firstly, it's not all about the constitution for unionists. In their heart of hearts, they must know that these figures make a Sinn Féin First Minister an all-but-inevitable outcome in the medium term (barring some kind of improbable political realignment). Under the power-sharing arrangements such a development shouldn't be regarded as important, because the First Minister and his deputy are equals in all but name - their legal powers are literally identical. But the reality is that the symbolism would be unbearable for a great many.

Perhaps more to the point, though, is that polling on constitutional preferences needs to be taken with an even larger dose of salt in Northern Ireland than in Scotland. There is an extraordinary level of community cohesion in votes cast for NI political parties, and it seems highly likely that much of that cohesion would transfer to a constitutional referendum, if one is ever held. The only scenario in which that might not be the case would be if the SDLP changed its constitutional stance. But the chances are that both Sinn Féin and the SDLP would campaign for a united Ireland, and that most of the nationalist vote would prove to be solidly behind them. It's called the nationalist vote for a good reason.

All these grounds for optimism make it all the more baffling that Sinn Féin were content to place the sole power to determine when or if a referendum should take place in the hands of...the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Surely if the consent principle so beloved of unionists (known to the rest of us as self-determination) is to mean anything, there has to be an automatic trigger by which the electorate can actually express its consent, without requiring permission from the quasi-colonial overlord?