Here is the regional breakdown of the YouGov poll from a couple of days ago on public perceptions of Mrs Thatcher following her death. There won't be any great surprises here, except for those who persist with the absurd belief that the political centre of gravity isn't 'really' all that different in Scotland.
Thinking back to Margaret Thatcher's period as Prime Minister, do you think she was...
LONDON
A good or great Prime Minister 59%
A poor or terrible Prime Minister 23%
SOUTH (EXCLUDING LONDON)
A good or great Prime Minister 57%
A poor or terrible Prime Minister 26%
WALES AND ENGLISH MIDLANDS
A good or great Prime Minister 51%
A poor or terrible Prime Minister 29%
NORTH OF ENGLAND
A good or great Prime Minister 49%
A poor or terrible Prime Minister 35%
SCOTLAND
A good or great Prime Minister 30%
A poor or terrible Prime Minister 44%
Thinking about her period as Prime Minister, do you think Margaret Thatcher left Britain economically better off or worse off?
LONDON
Better off 62%
Worse off 27%
SOUTH (EXCLUDING LONDON)
Better off 50%
Worse off 29%
WALES AND ENGLISH MIDLANDS
Better off 46%
Worse off 37%
NORTH OF ENGLAND
Better off 43%
Worse off 41%
SCOTLAND
Better off 33%
Worse off 46%
A full 33% of the Scottish sample go the whole hog and describe Mrs Thatcher as a "terrible" Prime Minister, which is an extraordinarily high figure at this time of mourning when people are likely to be at their most generous. Scotland is also one of only two parts of the UK where a plurality does not regard Mrs Thatcher as the greatest Prime Minister since 1945 (the other is London, oddly enough). Incidentally, Tom Harris will be aghast to hear that Scotland is also the only part of the UK where Harold Wilson is regarded as a greater Prime Minister than Tony Blair! Gordon Brown is also ranked higher than Blair here, with a full 9% of the Scottish sample regarding him as the best post-war Prime Minister. He fails to attract more than 2% in any other region.
I caught a little bit of the re-run of the Thatcher and the Scots programme last night, and apart from the usual guff about our opposition to Thatcherism being a form of sexism, the bit that leapt out at me was Michael Gove (interviewed before becoming a government minister) earnestly insisting that the notion that the poll tax was "imposed" on Scotland a year early was a myth, because it was George Younger's idea, not Margaret Thatcher's. Erm, just one thing, Michael - when did Scotland elect George Younger as Secretary of State? Was he not, in fact, handpicked by Margaret Thatcher?
Doubtless whenever the East German puppet regime called in Russian support to quell dissent, Michael Gove regarded that as "a German solution to a German problem".
Thursday, April 11, 2013
We are all National Collective
I've got a very soft spot for National Collective, partly because I was a contributor to the site in its early days, but mainly because it's since developed into an all-round class act, which does ingenious things that simply aren't being done anywhere else. So I'm absolutely appalled to see the cowardly attempts to bully the site into silence, and more especially the apologism of the anti-independence 'Better Together' campaign for that bullying. Their passive-aggressive press release on the subject is eerily reminiscent of the one Argyll and Bute Council issued when they tried to ban a nine-year-old girl from publishing a photo-blog. It seems that bullying is absolutely fine just so long as the victim has been criticising the quality of your school dinners - or if you need to keep a multi-millionaire, Tory-supporting, non-Scottish-domiciled donor sweet.
Leaving aside the truth or otherwise of the serious allegations against Ian Taylor (who has in any case removed any doubt as to what an odious individual he is through his own actions over the last couple of days), it has to be said that the list of Better Together donors is a thoroughgoing embarrassment to the entire anti-independence campaign. We now know that they're largely being bankrolled by two fabulously wealthy individuals, neither of whom live in Scotland, and neither of whom have any stake in this country's future. They do, of course, have a stake in a No vote in the sense that it's the only way in which the country they now live in will continue to have access to Scottish natural resources. A cynical person might assume that's what it's all about, but who knows.
Suffice to say that the trademark whines about the residency status of prominent Yes supporters such as Brian Cox and Alan Cumming will ring even more hollow from this moment on. I can only imagine that the No campaign released the list when they did because they knew the hit was coming and wanted to get it over and done with.
Their second-biggest donor, Sussex resident C J Samson, actually wrote a novel recently in which he openly boasted about "really going to town on the SNP" - by which he meant that he portrayed a barking mad alternative history of the Second World War in which the Scottish National Party collaborates with a British Nazi government. Even if we are generous to the man and assume that he honestly believes that the SNP's brand of nationalism in the 1930s and 40s had fascist leanings (in spite of the fact that the SNP were pretty much the only party in Britain that Oswald Mosley never actually represented as an MP), it's rather hard to understand how he thinks they would have furthered the cause of a Scottish quasi-fascist state by collaborating with British fascism. One thing about far-right nationalism is that the nation in question is generally held to be indivisible. Still, I dare say a man who is capable of convincing himself that Alex Salmond is Hitler probably isn't too troubled by such logical quibbles.
Oh yes, indeed. You see, Samson finishes the novel with a propaganda chapter (how ironic) in which he explains that the purpose of the book is to convert "even one person" to the cause he espouses - which is essentially to prevent the modern SNP (you know, that moderate, centre-left, pro-immigration party) from turning Scotland into a one-party state, "perhaps forever".
Let's call a spade a spade - the anti-independence campaign is seemingly content to be financed by a nutter who reckons his donation is part of a heroic struggle against fascism. That's how Alice in Wonderland this has become.
* * *
Talking of donations, if you want to fight back against the No campaign's bully-boy tactics, the simplest way is to make a contribution (large or small) to National Collective's fundraising drive. Click HERE if you'd like to do so.
Leaving aside the truth or otherwise of the serious allegations against Ian Taylor (who has in any case removed any doubt as to what an odious individual he is through his own actions over the last couple of days), it has to be said that the list of Better Together donors is a thoroughgoing embarrassment to the entire anti-independence campaign. We now know that they're largely being bankrolled by two fabulously wealthy individuals, neither of whom live in Scotland, and neither of whom have any stake in this country's future. They do, of course, have a stake in a No vote in the sense that it's the only way in which the country they now live in will continue to have access to Scottish natural resources. A cynical person might assume that's what it's all about, but who knows.
Suffice to say that the trademark whines about the residency status of prominent Yes supporters such as Brian Cox and Alan Cumming will ring even more hollow from this moment on. I can only imagine that the No campaign released the list when they did because they knew the hit was coming and wanted to get it over and done with.
Their second-biggest donor, Sussex resident C J Samson, actually wrote a novel recently in which he openly boasted about "really going to town on the SNP" - by which he meant that he portrayed a barking mad alternative history of the Second World War in which the Scottish National Party collaborates with a British Nazi government. Even if we are generous to the man and assume that he honestly believes that the SNP's brand of nationalism in the 1930s and 40s had fascist leanings (in spite of the fact that the SNP were pretty much the only party in Britain that Oswald Mosley never actually represented as an MP), it's rather hard to understand how he thinks they would have furthered the cause of a Scottish quasi-fascist state by collaborating with British fascism. One thing about far-right nationalism is that the nation in question is generally held to be indivisible. Still, I dare say a man who is capable of convincing himself that Alex Salmond is Hitler probably isn't too troubled by such logical quibbles.
Oh yes, indeed. You see, Samson finishes the novel with a propaganda chapter (how ironic) in which he explains that the purpose of the book is to convert "even one person" to the cause he espouses - which is essentially to prevent the modern SNP (you know, that moderate, centre-left, pro-immigration party) from turning Scotland into a one-party state, "perhaps forever".
Let's call a spade a spade - the anti-independence campaign is seemingly content to be financed by a nutter who reckons his donation is part of a heroic struggle against fascism. That's how Alice in Wonderland this has become.
* * *
Talking of donations, if you want to fight back against the No campaign's bully-boy tactics, the simplest way is to make a contribution (large or small) to National Collective's fundraising drive. Click HERE if you'd like to do so.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Lib Dems' Moore deliberately lies in the Huffington Post - no ifs, no buts, no ambiguity
Michael Moore (aka "the man who gave us votes at 16 by opposing it") furiously spins for Blighty in the US edition of the Huffington Post -
"Scotland is facing an historic decision in 2014: whether to remain as part of the United Kingdom or to leave and go it alone."
Unionistspeak-to-English translation - Scotland is facing an historic decision in 2014: whether it wants to be an independent country...or not.
"Scotland's nationalist First Minister Alex Salmond is in America this week and will seek to persuade Americans that Scots want independence, that it is our destiny and that U.S. relations with Scotland will only improve should it happen. On all counts, I believe that this analysis is flawed."
Well, Scottish relations with the US will actually exist if independence happens, so presumably that would represent an improvement of sorts. On the other points, would it be too cynical of me to suggest that Mr Moore is attempting to set up a straw man, roughly analogous to the following -
"Nick Clegg is in Canberra this week, and will seek to persuade Australians that the people of Britain are positively gagging for majority Lib Dem rule, and that it is his own personal destiny to become President Eternal. I believe his analysis is somewhat flawed."
"As a UK Government Minister, living in Scotland, representing Scottish interests at a UK level..."
People who 'represent Scottish interests' are, as a general rule, elected to do so by the people of Scotland. Conversely, someone handpicked by David Cameron and Nick Clegg is rather more likely to be representing UK interests at a Scottish level. To give Mr Moore his due, he carries out that role diligently.
"Leaving the UK has always been the ambition of Mr Salmond and his Scottish National Party. But polls have always shown that this is not the case for most Scots. Around two-thirds of people in Scotland are always in the 'no' column when asked to express a view on breaking up Britain."
Hmmm. This is what is technically known as a "lie", Michael. No ifs, no buts, no ambiguity. There has not been a single poll on independence in the last two decades that has shown anything even close to two-thirds of people in the No column. Indeed, roughly half of polls this year have shown that fewer than 50% of the electorate support Mr Moore's desire for Scotland to remain in the UK. The highest figure for the No side has been 55% with Ipsos-Mori, and the lowest was just 46% with Panelbase.
What Mr Moore apparently thinks is perfectly OK to do is to treat a response of 'Don't Know' as if it was identical to a 'No'. If I was someone who was genuinely undecided about independence, and who was weighing up how to vote with the seriousness that such an important decision deserves, I would be hopping mad at this man's breathtaking arrogance in thinking he can declare on my behalf that I'm simply a 'slow-learning No voter'.
"With huge challenges facing the global economy, it doesn't make sense to most of us to erect market barriers with our largest market and nearest neighbours -- England, Wales and Northern Ireland."
There's a thing called the European Single Market, isn't there? Or did I just dream that?
"With a strong position in Europe, it doesn't make sense either to have to negotiate new entry terms to the European Union, casting doubt over our opt-out from the euro."
As someone brilliantly put it the other day - "if Scotland becomes independent, we'll be thrown out of the European Union and forced to join the euro!" That'll be a neat trick, even by the standards of those beastly Eurocrats.
Of course, if we really want to maintain a "strong position in Europe", it might be best not to remain as part of a country that, if current polls are anything to go by, is fairly likely to leave the EU after an in/out referendum in a few years' time. Just a thought.
"And with emerging security threats -- North Korea, Iran, Syria -- it doesn't make sense to us to split up our Armed Forces and adopt a divided stance on foreign policy."
Another UK government minister who thinks we mustn't become independent just in case North Korea decides to invade Scotland in 2043. Yes, folks, they really think we're that stupid.
"I am part of the overwhelming majority in Scotland who believe we are stronger, safer and better off together within the family of the United Kingdom."
Would that "overwhelming majority" be the same imaginary two-thirds majority you mentioned earlier? Yes, that'll be the one.
"Scots are sceptical of the SNP's assurances that, after independence, everything would either stay the same, or be better."
Would it be horrid of me to point out that Scots are even more sceptical of the unionist parties' claims that everything would be better and somehow totally different to what has gone before if we vote for the no change option in 2014?
* * *
I have a small confession to make. I was at the Glasgow 'Thatcher party' yesterday - for about thirty seconds, by complete accident. My eye was caught by the colourful communist flags and a TV van, so I wandered over to find out what was going on.
* * *
I have a new article at the International Business Times. It was written a couple of weeks ago, in case it doesn't seem entirely topical! You can read it HERE.
"Scotland is facing an historic decision in 2014: whether to remain as part of the United Kingdom or to leave and go it alone."
Unionistspeak-to-English translation - Scotland is facing an historic decision in 2014: whether it wants to be an independent country...or not.
"Scotland's nationalist First Minister Alex Salmond is in America this week and will seek to persuade Americans that Scots want independence, that it is our destiny and that U.S. relations with Scotland will only improve should it happen. On all counts, I believe that this analysis is flawed."
Well, Scottish relations with the US will actually exist if independence happens, so presumably that would represent an improvement of sorts. On the other points, would it be too cynical of me to suggest that Mr Moore is attempting to set up a straw man, roughly analogous to the following -
"Nick Clegg is in Canberra this week, and will seek to persuade Australians that the people of Britain are positively gagging for majority Lib Dem rule, and that it is his own personal destiny to become President Eternal. I believe his analysis is somewhat flawed."
"As a UK Government Minister, living in Scotland, representing Scottish interests at a UK level..."
People who 'represent Scottish interests' are, as a general rule, elected to do so by the people of Scotland. Conversely, someone handpicked by David Cameron and Nick Clegg is rather more likely to be representing UK interests at a Scottish level. To give Mr Moore his due, he carries out that role diligently.
"Leaving the UK has always been the ambition of Mr Salmond and his Scottish National Party. But polls have always shown that this is not the case for most Scots. Around two-thirds of people in Scotland are always in the 'no' column when asked to express a view on breaking up Britain."
Hmmm. This is what is technically known as a "lie", Michael. No ifs, no buts, no ambiguity. There has not been a single poll on independence in the last two decades that has shown anything even close to two-thirds of people in the No column. Indeed, roughly half of polls this year have shown that fewer than 50% of the electorate support Mr Moore's desire for Scotland to remain in the UK. The highest figure for the No side has been 55% with Ipsos-Mori, and the lowest was just 46% with Panelbase.
What Mr Moore apparently thinks is perfectly OK to do is to treat a response of 'Don't Know' as if it was identical to a 'No'. If I was someone who was genuinely undecided about independence, and who was weighing up how to vote with the seriousness that such an important decision deserves, I would be hopping mad at this man's breathtaking arrogance in thinking he can declare on my behalf that I'm simply a 'slow-learning No voter'.
"With huge challenges facing the global economy, it doesn't make sense to most of us to erect market barriers with our largest market and nearest neighbours -- England, Wales and Northern Ireland."
There's a thing called the European Single Market, isn't there? Or did I just dream that?
"With a strong position in Europe, it doesn't make sense either to have to negotiate new entry terms to the European Union, casting doubt over our opt-out from the euro."
As someone brilliantly put it the other day - "if Scotland becomes independent, we'll be thrown out of the European Union and forced to join the euro!" That'll be a neat trick, even by the standards of those beastly Eurocrats.
Of course, if we really want to maintain a "strong position in Europe", it might be best not to remain as part of a country that, if current polls are anything to go by, is fairly likely to leave the EU after an in/out referendum in a few years' time. Just a thought.
"And with emerging security threats -- North Korea, Iran, Syria -- it doesn't make sense to us to split up our Armed Forces and adopt a divided stance on foreign policy."
Another UK government minister who thinks we mustn't become independent just in case North Korea decides to invade Scotland in 2043. Yes, folks, they really think we're that stupid.
"I am part of the overwhelming majority in Scotland who believe we are stronger, safer and better off together within the family of the United Kingdom."
Would that "overwhelming majority" be the same imaginary two-thirds majority you mentioned earlier? Yes, that'll be the one.
"Scots are sceptical of the SNP's assurances that, after independence, everything would either stay the same, or be better."
Would it be horrid of me to point out that Scots are even more sceptical of the unionist parties' claims that everything would be better and somehow totally different to what has gone before if we vote for the no change option in 2014?
* * *
I have a small confession to make. I was at the Glasgow 'Thatcher party' yesterday - for about thirty seconds, by complete accident. My eye was caught by the colourful communist flags and a TV van, so I wandered over to find out what was going on.
* * *
I have a new article at the International Business Times. It was written a couple of weeks ago, in case it doesn't seem entirely topical! You can read it HERE.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
TNS-BMRB poll : Decrease in opposition to independence
Doubtless the above headline will be seen as spin, but when we have Magnus Gardham and his ilk perpetually spinning in the opposite direction on behalf of the 'mainstream media', I'm not going to apologise for redressing the balance just slightly. (And the headline does have the virtue of being entirely accurate.) The latest TNS-BMRB poll on independence shows a partial reversal of the movements in the last poll by the same company, which had shown significant increases in both the Yes and the No vote, but with the Yes campaign benefiting slightly more.
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 30% (-3)
No 51% (-1)
That breaks the solid pattern we have seen over recent months of all pollsters showing swings in favour of independence. However, the No lead remains four points lower than in the final TNS-BMRB poll of last year, suggesting that most of the recent pro-Yes swing has proved lasting.
According to Mr Gardham, the Yes campaign will be more disappointed than the No campaign by this poll. In the literal sense that may be true, given that the Yes vote has fallen slightly more than the No vote. On the other hand, the pronouncements of Magnus on this subject might also have just a tad more credibility if he hadn't ludicrously summarised the January TNS-BMRB poll (showing a five-point slump in the No vote and no change in the Yes vote) with the words "support for independence stalls".
You see, on Planet Gardham every poll is a "setback for the SNP".
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 30% (-3)
No 51% (-1)
That breaks the solid pattern we have seen over recent months of all pollsters showing swings in favour of independence. However, the No lead remains four points lower than in the final TNS-BMRB poll of last year, suggesting that most of the recent pro-Yes swing has proved lasting.
According to Mr Gardham, the Yes campaign will be more disappointed than the No campaign by this poll. In the literal sense that may be true, given that the Yes vote has fallen slightly more than the No vote. On the other hand, the pronouncements of Magnus on this subject might also have just a tad more credibility if he hadn't ludicrously summarised the January TNS-BMRB poll (showing a five-point slump in the No vote and no change in the Yes vote) with the words "support for independence stalls".
You see, on Planet Gardham every poll is a "setback for the SNP".
Monday, April 8, 2013
Did Mrs Thatcher do any good things?
Above all else, today is a terribly sad day for Margaret Thatcher's family, her friends, and all those who feel a sense of loss as a result of her passing. I'm beginning to wonder if the former PM's ideological opponents ought to have restricted themselves to offering personal sympathy and condolences on that basis, because even the most generalised of tributes to her political talents and achievements have been cynically leapt upon by some on the right as 'proof' that she was correct all along.
Another potential approach at a moment like this is to single out one or two specific achievements that we do genuinely admire - for example the saving grace of John Major's premiership was the substantial progress towards peace in Northern Ireland. With Mrs Thatcher it's more challenging to do that, but after a long, hard think, here is my short list of the good things that I think she did.
The resolution of the Rhodesia/Zimbabwe crisis in 1980. Many would have expected her to intervene to thwart Mugabe's ascent to power (on anti-communist grounds or whatever), but she correctly allowed the democratic process to run its course.
Standing up for the Falkland islanders' right to self-determination. Whether it was really about that for her is dubious, and the loss of life was utterly horrendous (the equivalent of half the population of the islands), but nevertheless a vitally important principle was affirmed.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement. Again, she probably did this for the wrong reasons - she was seeking security cooperation from Dublin above all else. But nevertheless it was a small signal to the nationalist population that their moderate political representatives could make progress without recourse to bombs or bullets.
Approving a rational HIV awareness campaign. With her social conservative background, many expected her to insist that the government campaign should emphasise sexual abstinence. But she didn't, and probably saved many lives in the process.
Progress towards European unity. This is the most ironic of the lot, but two of the most significant milestones on the road to European integration occurred on Mrs Thatcher's watch - the breaking of the logjam caused by the 'Luxembourg Compromise', and the Single European Act.
Can you think of any others?
Another potential approach at a moment like this is to single out one or two specific achievements that we do genuinely admire - for example the saving grace of John Major's premiership was the substantial progress towards peace in Northern Ireland. With Mrs Thatcher it's more challenging to do that, but after a long, hard think, here is my short list of the good things that I think she did.
The resolution of the Rhodesia/Zimbabwe crisis in 1980. Many would have expected her to intervene to thwart Mugabe's ascent to power (on anti-communist grounds or whatever), but she correctly allowed the democratic process to run its course.
Standing up for the Falkland islanders' right to self-determination. Whether it was really about that for her is dubious, and the loss of life was utterly horrendous (the equivalent of half the population of the islands), but nevertheless a vitally important principle was affirmed.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement. Again, she probably did this for the wrong reasons - she was seeking security cooperation from Dublin above all else. But nevertheless it was a small signal to the nationalist population that their moderate political representatives could make progress without recourse to bombs or bullets.
Approving a rational HIV awareness campaign. With her social conservative background, many expected her to insist that the government campaign should emphasise sexual abstinence. But she didn't, and probably saved many lives in the process.
Progress towards European unity. This is the most ironic of the lot, but two of the most significant milestones on the road to European integration occurred on Mrs Thatcher's watch - the breaking of the logjam caused by the 'Luxembourg Compromise', and the Single European Act.
Can you think of any others?
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Are you called David?
I've just stumbled across a Twitter campaign that unaccountably has just nine followers at present. Called 'Davids for Indy', it seeks to identify every David in Scotland who will be voting Yes in September 2014. So if your first name, middle name or surname is David, or even if it isn't, go HERE to follow this inspiring campaign as a matter of some urgency.
Surely someone has got to do this for every single name? Once we have a thousand Felicitys for Indy, victory will be assured.
* * *
The BBC's John Sweeney has had a number of highlights to his journalistic career, but I'm not sure his solemnly-delivered 'insight' into the latest North Korean crisis was one of them. It went something like this -
"North Korea is mad. It's sad. It's bad. It's silly. It's all those things at the same time. It's thermonuclear cheese. Our minder sang "My Way" at a karaoke bar. This is crazy. Someone phoned up their mum who said haven't you heard that North Korea has just declared thermonuclear war. Hold on a second. It's like the Wizard of Oz, but with a young fat man instead of an old thin man. What's going to happen? Three words, Lucy. I - Don't - Know. But I don't think there's going to be a nuclear war. That's my feeling."
Cheers, John. That's four minutes of my life I'm never going to get back.
* * *
Brit Nat logic for wasting billions on renewing Trident -
Brit Nat : We need it to protect ourselves against our adversaries. (NOTE : Our 'adversaries' are presumably Iran and North Korea. The former does not possess nuclear weapons, and the latter has a tiny of number of nuclear weapons which it is incapable of firing to anywhere even vaguely close to the UK.)
Sceptic : So does that mean Spain needs its own nuclear weapons to protect itself against Iran and North Korea?
Brit Nat : No of course not. As a member of NATO, Spain is protected by the American nuclear umbrella. Any attack on Spain would be treated as an attack on the United States.
Sceptic : But isn't Britain also in NATO? If Spain doesn't need its own nuclear weapons for protection, why does Britain?
Brit Nat : Er...
Yes, I believe Tom "Admin" Harris is a firm supporter of retaining inhuman weapons of mass destruction on the Clyde.
Surely someone has got to do this for every single name? Once we have a thousand Felicitys for Indy, victory will be assured.
* * *
The BBC's John Sweeney has had a number of highlights to his journalistic career, but I'm not sure his solemnly-delivered 'insight' into the latest North Korean crisis was one of them. It went something like this -
"North Korea is mad. It's sad. It's bad. It's silly. It's all those things at the same time. It's thermonuclear cheese. Our minder sang "My Way" at a karaoke bar. This is crazy. Someone phoned up their mum who said haven't you heard that North Korea has just declared thermonuclear war. Hold on a second. It's like the Wizard of Oz, but with a young fat man instead of an old thin man. What's going to happen? Three words, Lucy. I - Don't - Know. But I don't think there's going to be a nuclear war. That's my feeling."
Cheers, John. That's four minutes of my life I'm never going to get back.
* * *
Brit Nat logic for wasting billions on renewing Trident -
Brit Nat : We need it to protect ourselves against our adversaries. (NOTE : Our 'adversaries' are presumably Iran and North Korea. The former does not possess nuclear weapons, and the latter has a tiny of number of nuclear weapons which it is incapable of firing to anywhere even vaguely close to the UK.)
Sceptic : So does that mean Spain needs its own nuclear weapons to protect itself against Iran and North Korea?
Brit Nat : No of course not. As a member of NATO, Spain is protected by the American nuclear umbrella. Any attack on Spain would be treated as an attack on the United States.
Sceptic : But isn't Britain also in NATO? If Spain doesn't need its own nuclear weapons for protection, why does Britain?
Brit Nat : Er...
Yes, I believe Tom "Admin" Harris is a firm supporter of retaining inhuman weapons of mass destruction on the Clyde.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
More befuddlement on Scotland from the London media - it's the Independent's turn
In 2011, the Scottish Sun came out in support of the SNP, but made clear that they remained firmly opposed to independence. They were probably hoping (and expecting) that the SNP would win, but not well enough to actually bring about an independence referendum. Nevertheless, the day after the election, the paper's editor (or political editor?) was all over the airwaves making plain his satisfaction that the SNP had won a majority, but maintaining his scathing stance on independence. As things stood, therefore, the most likely outcome was that the Sun would back a No vote in 2014, but continue to support the SNP in the 2016 Holyrood election.
In today's Independent, there is for the first time a clear-cut statement from a News International source on the Sun's stance in the referendum -
"We will have a neutral stance."
So in two short years, the Sun have gone from being viscerally anti-independence to a position of studied neutrality. By any standards, this is a considerable bonus for the Yes campaign, which can now look forward to a fair (if not uncritical) hearing in Scotland's biggest-selling paper. And yet, curiously, the Independent seem to think this is "a major blow to the SNP" (not another one, surely!), and a "withdrawal of support for independence by Mr Murdoch" (how can something that didn't exist be "withdrawn"?). Even more bizarrely, they seem to think that this also constitutes a withdrawal of support for the SNP itself, even though the SNP will not be on the ballot paper in the referendum, and even though the NI source doesn't seem to have made any comment whatsoever about the Sun's likely stance in the 2016 Holyrood election.
Answers on a postcard, folks.
There's an even more exotic claim elsewhere in the article -
"The latest opinion poll puts support for independence at 36 per cent, support for Scotland to remain in the Union at 46 per cent, and those undecided at 18 per cent. With a shift away from any radical change widely expected to occur as the referendum gets closer, the "Yes" campaign technically needs to be close to 60 per cent within the next 12 months."
Given that the idea that the Yes campaign needs to reach 60% support (even in polls that fail to exclude don't knows?!) is a rather wild, evidence-free declaration of blind faith, this must surely be a contender for the most inappropriate use of the word "technically" in recorded history. And "widely expected"? Where is it widely expected? In the Kellner/Ashton household, perhaps? Students of the 1995 Quebec referendum (you'd think a pollster of Mr Kellner's stature might be one of those, but apparently not) will be forgiven for having rather different expectations, given that the pro-independence campaign recovered from a seemingly hopeless position to finish in a virtual dead-heat by polling day.
In today's Independent, there is for the first time a clear-cut statement from a News International source on the Sun's stance in the referendum -
"We will have a neutral stance."
So in two short years, the Sun have gone from being viscerally anti-independence to a position of studied neutrality. By any standards, this is a considerable bonus for the Yes campaign, which can now look forward to a fair (if not uncritical) hearing in Scotland's biggest-selling paper. And yet, curiously, the Independent seem to think this is "a major blow to the SNP" (not another one, surely!), and a "withdrawal of support for independence by Mr Murdoch" (how can something that didn't exist be "withdrawn"?). Even more bizarrely, they seem to think that this also constitutes a withdrawal of support for the SNP itself, even though the SNP will not be on the ballot paper in the referendum, and even though the NI source doesn't seem to have made any comment whatsoever about the Sun's likely stance in the 2016 Holyrood election.
Answers on a postcard, folks.
There's an even more exotic claim elsewhere in the article -
"The latest opinion poll puts support for independence at 36 per cent, support for Scotland to remain in the Union at 46 per cent, and those undecided at 18 per cent. With a shift away from any radical change widely expected to occur as the referendum gets closer, the "Yes" campaign technically needs to be close to 60 per cent within the next 12 months."
Given that the idea that the Yes campaign needs to reach 60% support (even in polls that fail to exclude don't knows?!) is a rather wild, evidence-free declaration of blind faith, this must surely be a contender for the most inappropriate use of the word "technically" in recorded history. And "widely expected"? Where is it widely expected? In the Kellner/Ashton household, perhaps? Students of the 1995 Quebec referendum (you'd think a pollster of Mr Kellner's stature might be one of those, but apparently not) will be forgiven for having rather different expectations, given that the pro-independence campaign recovered from a seemingly hopeless position to finish in a virtual dead-heat by polling day.
Monday, April 1, 2013
Tavish didn't "save our p'lice" - but did he save Rennie's skin?
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."
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."
Monday, March 25, 2013
YouGov poll : Scots reject No campaign's wish for key powers to remain at Westminster
YouGov have released the details of an SNP-commissioned poll that primarily inquired into where people think that key decision-making powers should lie.
Which government do you think should be responsible for all tax and spending decisions in Scotland, including tax revenues from oil and gas?
The Scottish Government 52%
The UK Government 35%
Which government do you think would be best at deciding welfare and pensions policy for Scotland?
The Scottish Government 53%
The UK Government 34%
Which government do you think would be best at representing Scotland and Scottish interests in the European Union?
The Scottish Government 50%
The UK Government 39%
The point being of course that if voters feel that all these things should be controlled by the Scottish Government, it would be a touch odd to vote No to independence and ensure that every single one of them remains controlled by London. But perhaps there is a logically consistent way in which people who hold these views could still vote No? The only thing I can think of is that they might feel so strongly that Scotland is too wee and too stupid to control its own defence and non-EU foreign policies that everything else just pales into insignificance. But that seems unlikely. It can't possibly be that they feel they will be economically worse off under independence, because presumably the desire for Scottish control over tax, spending and welfare implies that they think a Scottish government will take those decisions more wisely. That's a pretty big consideration by any standards.
So while there's an outside chance that defence and non-EU foreign affairs may be what is swinging the balance for some, there comes a point where the Yes campaign are entitled to point out that the emperor has no clothes, and that if you actually mean what you say about wanting Scotland to control tax and spending, oil and gas revenues, welfare and pensions, and its own EU representation, it's probably best not to vote No and prevent all those things from happening.
The poll also asked whether David Cameron should reverse his apparent decision to run away from a televised debate on independence with Alex Salmond...
First Minister Alex Salmond has called for a head-to-head television debate with the Prime Minister David Cameron during the referendum campaign on Scottish independence, but it has been reported that Mr Cameron will refuse to take part in such a debate. Do you think that David Cameron should or should not take part in a TV debate with Alex Salmond?
Should take part 67%
Should not take part 19%
* * *
Congratulations to Eve Muirhead, Anna Sloan, Vicki Adams, Claire Hamilton and alternate Lauren Gray for winning the world curling championship for Scotland yesterday, after an incredibly tight game against Sweden that was decided by the final stone. I seem to recall that when Hammy McMillan's rink won the world men's curling championship in 1999, and again when Jackie Lockhart's rink won the 2002 women's title, BBC Scotland hurriedly snapped up a highlights package from Canadian television. It would be nice if they could do so again this time and bring the event to a wider audience, because after all Scotland don't become world champions in team sports every day of the week. Assuming that doesn't happen, though, the entire final is currently available to watch for free at the TSN website. If you don't want to watch the whole thing, be sure to scroll through to the end to see the Olympic-style medal ceremony, complete with the raising of flags and Flower of Scotland being played in the team's honour. Best enjoy that spectacle while we can, because of course if Muirhead and co win Olympic gold in Sochi next year (as they will presumably now be slight favourites to do), it'll be the Union Jack and God Save the Queen!
Mind you, if that does happen it might just turn out to be the last Olympic gold for Great Britain ever, in any sport. Now there's a tantalising thought...
* * *
Yesterday was something of a landmark for this blog, as it received its second-highest number of visitors in its five-year history. (The outright highest number occurred on a freakish day in the spring of 2011 when one of my posts went viral on Twitter.) Thanks to everyone for dropping by on a very cold Sunday!
Which government do you think should be responsible for all tax and spending decisions in Scotland, including tax revenues from oil and gas?
The Scottish Government 52%
The UK Government 35%
Which government do you think would be best at deciding welfare and pensions policy for Scotland?
The Scottish Government 53%
The UK Government 34%
Which government do you think would be best at representing Scotland and Scottish interests in the European Union?
The Scottish Government 50%
The UK Government 39%
The point being of course that if voters feel that all these things should be controlled by the Scottish Government, it would be a touch odd to vote No to independence and ensure that every single one of them remains controlled by London. But perhaps there is a logically consistent way in which people who hold these views could still vote No? The only thing I can think of is that they might feel so strongly that Scotland is too wee and too stupid to control its own defence and non-EU foreign policies that everything else just pales into insignificance. But that seems unlikely. It can't possibly be that they feel they will be economically worse off under independence, because presumably the desire for Scottish control over tax, spending and welfare implies that they think a Scottish government will take those decisions more wisely. That's a pretty big consideration by any standards.
So while there's an outside chance that defence and non-EU foreign affairs may be what is swinging the balance for some, there comes a point where the Yes campaign are entitled to point out that the emperor has no clothes, and that if you actually mean what you say about wanting Scotland to control tax and spending, oil and gas revenues, welfare and pensions, and its own EU representation, it's probably best not to vote No and prevent all those things from happening.
The poll also asked whether David Cameron should reverse his apparent decision to run away from a televised debate on independence with Alex Salmond...
First Minister Alex Salmond has called for a head-to-head television debate with the Prime Minister David Cameron during the referendum campaign on Scottish independence, but it has been reported that Mr Cameron will refuse to take part in such a debate. Do you think that David Cameron should or should not take part in a TV debate with Alex Salmond?
Should take part 67%
Should not take part 19%
* * *
Congratulations to Eve Muirhead, Anna Sloan, Vicki Adams, Claire Hamilton and alternate Lauren Gray for winning the world curling championship for Scotland yesterday, after an incredibly tight game against Sweden that was decided by the final stone. I seem to recall that when Hammy McMillan's rink won the world men's curling championship in 1999, and again when Jackie Lockhart's rink won the 2002 women's title, BBC Scotland hurriedly snapped up a highlights package from Canadian television. It would be nice if they could do so again this time and bring the event to a wider audience, because after all Scotland don't become world champions in team sports every day of the week. Assuming that doesn't happen, though, the entire final is currently available to watch for free at the TSN website. If you don't want to watch the whole thing, be sure to scroll through to the end to see the Olympic-style medal ceremony, complete with the raising of flags and Flower of Scotland being played in the team's honour. Best enjoy that spectacle while we can, because of course if Muirhead and co win Olympic gold in Sochi next year (as they will presumably now be slight favourites to do), it'll be the Union Jack and God Save the Queen!
Mind you, if that does happen it might just turn out to be the last Olympic gold for Great Britain ever, in any sport. Now there's a tantalising thought...
* * *
Yesterday was something of a landmark for this blog, as it received its second-highest number of visitors in its five-year history. (The outright highest number occurred on a freakish day in the spring of 2011 when one of my posts went viral on Twitter.) Thanks to everyone for dropping by on a very cold Sunday!
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Panelbase shows yet another swing in favour of independence - plus a huge SNP lead for Holyrood
I seem to be saying this quite a lot recently, but the latest poll on independence voting intentions shows a swing to the Yes campaign. Better still, it also marks the No side's lowest lead in any poll this year.
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 36% (+2)
No 46% (-1)
Strictly speaking the figures cannot be considered directly comparable to the previous poll by Panelbase, because the real referendum question is now being used. But in a sense that's good news - poll after poll is reaffirming that, at the very least, the new Electoral Commission-approved question is not helping the No side. All the pollsters who have given a verdict so far this year are now unanimous in showing a small swing to Yes in their most recent poll - Panelbase had previously been the odd one out on that score.
If the news from this poll is moderately encouraging on the referendum question, it's positively wonderful on the question of voting intention for the Scottish Parliament -
Constituency vote :
SNP 47% (+2)
Labour 30% (-3)
Conservatives 12% (-1)
Liberal Democrats 5% (-)
Regional list vote :
SNP 45% (+1)
Labour 25% (-6)
Conservatives 12% (-)
Greens 8% (+2)
Liberal Democrats 5% (-)
Which leaves only one question to be answered. Can anything stop the Willie Rennie For First Minister bandwagon?
* * *
For anyone feeling depressed about the state of Scottish sport after events at Hampden, it might be of some consolation to know that Scotland have reached the final of the world women's curling championship tomorrow. I've just watched a recording of the semi-final against Canada, and I had a sick feeling in my stomach over the last thirty minutes as the game seemed to be slipping away. But not for the first time, Eve Muirhead saved the day with a special final shot.
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 36% (+2)
No 46% (-1)
Strictly speaking the figures cannot be considered directly comparable to the previous poll by Panelbase, because the real referendum question is now being used. But in a sense that's good news - poll after poll is reaffirming that, at the very least, the new Electoral Commission-approved question is not helping the No side. All the pollsters who have given a verdict so far this year are now unanimous in showing a small swing to Yes in their most recent poll - Panelbase had previously been the odd one out on that score.
If the news from this poll is moderately encouraging on the referendum question, it's positively wonderful on the question of voting intention for the Scottish Parliament -
Constituency vote :
SNP 47% (+2)
Labour 30% (-3)
Conservatives 12% (-1)
Liberal Democrats 5% (-)
Regional list vote :
SNP 45% (+1)
Labour 25% (-6)
Conservatives 12% (-)
Greens 8% (+2)
Liberal Democrats 5% (-)
Which leaves only one question to be answered. Can anything stop the Willie Rennie For First Minister bandwagon?
* * *
For anyone feeling depressed about the state of Scottish sport after events at Hampden, it might be of some consolation to know that Scotland have reached the final of the world women's curling championship tomorrow. I've just watched a recording of the semi-final against Canada, and I had a sick feeling in my stomach over the last thirty minutes as the game seemed to be slipping away. But not for the first time, Eve Muirhead saved the day with a special final shot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)