Leaving aside for one moment the London media's new-found love affair with a hard-right party (a match made in heaven if ever there was one), what really matters about the English local elections is what they tell us about the likely outcome of the Tory v Labour battle for power in the next general election. And the answer couldn't be much clearer. Here are the BBC's projected national vote shares...
Labour 29%
Conservatives 25%
UKIP 23%
Liberal Democrats 14%
29% is obviously a laughably low share of the vote for a major opposition party seeking a mid-term launch-pad to get back into power. Labour can justifiably use the UKIP surge as an alibi for that vote share, but what they can't use it as an alibi for is their pitiful four-point lead over the Tories at a time in the electoral cycle when they should be miles ahead. The reason UKIP isn't a credible excuse is that polling evidence shows that five times as many UKIP voters come from the Tories as from Labour. In other words, if UKIP hadn't been around, the Conservatives would almost certainly have outpolled Labour in these elections.
But even if we take the raw figures at face value, the BBC's graphics quickly demonstrated why Labour's four-point lead is hopelessly inadequate. At the same stage of the electoral cycle in the 1983-87 parliament, the Labour opposition had a bigger lead of 5% in the local elections - and went on to lose the general election. At the same stage of the electoral cycle in the 1987-92 parliament, the Labour opposition had an even bigger lead of 8% - and went on to lose the general election. The same fate befell the Tory oppositions that held a similar small lead in the mid-term local elections in the 1997-2001 and 2001-05 parliaments. The historical evidence is absolutely unambiguous - the results of these elections point to a Tory victory in 2015.
Having seen that evidence, John Reid bizarrely protested that the BBC hadn't mentioned the 1981 local elections, which he regarded as the most appropriate comparison, because the centre-left vote was split in the early 1980s in the same way that the centre-right vote is split now. There are just a couple of tiny problems with that theory, John -
1) In spite of Labour's huge handicap in 1981, Michael Foot actually won those elections by a margin of 3% - almost exactly the same lead that Labour have managed this year. They went on to a crushing defeat at the general election two years later. Not much comfort there.
2) If the split in the centre-right vote is such a huge opportunity for Labour, why did they so spectacularly fail to take advantage of it in these elections? And given that they failed to take advantage of it in the favourable context of a mid-term poll, why the hell would it be rational to assume that they are much more likely to take advantage of it in the context of a general election when the governance of the country is at stake? Hint - it wouldn't be remotely rational to assume that.
Labour's position isn't hopeless, but given the electoral disaster they have just suffered it seems to me that something fairly dramatic is going to have to happen if they are to win the general election. That something could be internal - either a radical change in policy direction or a change in leader (both are unlikely). Or it could be external - the Tories could shoot themselves in the foot so catastrophically that Labour win by default.
But as things stand, the Yes campaign are fully entitled to shout a simple truth from the rooftops - the Tories are heading for victory at the next election, and if you don't want to be ruled by them, the only alternative is to vote for independence.
* * *
Gerry Hassan also made the valuable point today that UKIP are in favour of the de facto abolition of the Scottish Parliament. After the Tories' acceptance of the principle of devolution, we assumed that the spectre of a right-wing government in London unilaterally scrapping Holyrood (as Mrs Thatcher scrapped the GLC) had vanished, but that may not now be the case. If UKIP start to win MPs, who knows what stance a future UKIP-Tory coalition might take towards Scottish self-government? It may well be that a No vote in next year's referendum would put at risk the long-term future of the devolved parliament.
* * *
There were of course no elections in Scotland yesterday (apart from a couple of by-elections, one of which was won by the Borders Party and the other by an independent), but the SNP's sister parties in Wales and Cornwall had battles to fight. Plaid Cymru had a terrific result in Anglesey, becoming the largest single party by some distance. And Mebyon Kernow had a respectable result in the unitary Cornwall authority, winning a handful of seats - quite an achievement given that they presumably receive next to no coverage in the broadcast media.
Friday, May 3, 2013
Clegg In Seventh Heaven As Libs Lick Lousy Loony
The future of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party was called into question tonight, as it sensationally found itself pipped for seventh place in the South Shields by-election by (and I'm not making this up) the Liberal Democrats.
Chastened Loony candidate Alan "Howling Laud" Hope commented : "I must admit I just didn't see that one coming. Finishing in eighth place is one thing, but to lose to Clegg's mob has always seemed unthinkable - until now. If something like this can happen, then no Loony stronghold can be considered safe at the next general election. Our long-cherished dream of compulsory tracking devices in hairgrips could be fading fast."
Election expert John Curtice went even further, suggesting that the party's humiliating defeat at the hands of a "comedy" candidate marked the final confirmation that "the strange death of Loony England" is well underway.
Meanwhile, the Lib Dems' unexpected seventh place raised hopes that Nick Clegg's party might even save a deposit or two at the general election, possibly somewhere in Cornwall.
The result in full -
Labour 50.4% (-1.6)
UKIP 24.2%% (+24.2)
Conservatives 11.5% (-10.1)
Independent - Khan 5.4% (+5.4)
Independent Socialists 3.0% (+3.0)
BNP 2.9% (-3.6)
Liberal Democrats 1.4% (-12.8%)
Official Monster Raving Loonies 0.8% (+0.8)
Independent - Darwood 0.2% (+0.2)
Swing from Conservatives to UKIP - 17%
Swing from Labour to UKIP - 13%
Swing from Conservatives to Labour - 4%
Swing from Liberal Democrats to UKIP - 19%
Swing from Liberal Democrats to Official Monster Raving Loonies - 7%
Chastened Loony candidate Alan "Howling Laud" Hope commented : "I must admit I just didn't see that one coming. Finishing in eighth place is one thing, but to lose to Clegg's mob has always seemed unthinkable - until now. If something like this can happen, then no Loony stronghold can be considered safe at the next general election. Our long-cherished dream of compulsory tracking devices in hairgrips could be fading fast."
Election expert John Curtice went even further, suggesting that the party's humiliating defeat at the hands of a "comedy" candidate marked the final confirmation that "the strange death of Loony England" is well underway.
Meanwhile, the Lib Dems' unexpected seventh place raised hopes that Nick Clegg's party might even save a deposit or two at the general election, possibly somewhere in Cornwall.
The result in full -
Labour 50.4% (-1.6)
UKIP 24.2%% (+24.2)
Conservatives 11.5% (-10.1)
Independent - Khan 5.4% (+5.4)
Independent Socialists 3.0% (+3.0)
BNP 2.9% (-3.6)
Liberal Democrats 1.4% (-12.8%)
Official Monster Raving Loonies 0.8% (+0.8)
Independent - Darwood 0.2% (+0.2)
Swing from Conservatives to UKIP - 17%
Swing from Labour to UKIP - 13%
Swing from Conservatives to Labour - 4%
Swing from Liberal Democrats to UKIP - 19%
Swing from Liberal Democrats to Official Monster Raving Loonies - 7%
Thursday, May 2, 2013
House of Commons report confirms that Scottish independence would be a force for good in the world - and that Duncan Hothersall is wrong, again
It's rare that a report by Westminster's Foreign Affairs Committee paints such an inspiring picture of the benefits that independence would bring not just to Scotland, but to the wider world as well. Here are just a few of the highlights -
1. The UK might lose its veto-wielding power in the UN Security Council.
This of course would be a GOOD THING. Britain's special perks at the UN are relics of imperialism that ought to have been stripped away decades ago. Countries in the developing world are rightly furious that a nation on the fringes of Europe, with less than 1% of the global population, has the permanent, in-built power to protect its own selfish interests by vetoing resolutions that would otherwise have the full force of international law.
2. The UK might not retain its nuclear weapons, because of the difficulty of moving them from Scotland.
This of course would be a GOOD THING. The fewer countries in the world that have weapons capable of wiping out millions of people within seconds, the less chance there is of human civilisation coming to an end in the near future. On the whole, I'm rather in favour of human civilisation.
This also confirms that Duncan Hothersall is wrong in his claims that the unilateralism of independence supporters is a sham, and that we'd simply be voting to move the weapons elsewhere rather than eliminate them. In fact, if the Commons report is correct, the only meaningful chance any UK citizens will have to eliminate nuclear weapons will be by voting for Scottish independence.
3. Confusingly at variance with highlight no 2, Scotland might be "forced" to continue hosting nuclear weapons for decades if we want the UK's support for our applications to join international organisations.
This is of course a GOOD THING, or at least it is if you read between the lines and spot the implicit recognition that the Trident issue is Scotland's bargaining chip from heaven, which can potentially be used to counter London's immature intransigence on a whole range of other issues as well.
4. A truly independent Scottish foreign policy is a misnomer, because in practice we'd be forced to go along with whatever the UK wanted.
Well, this would probably be a bad thing on the whole, but I can only assume that the committee itself regards it as a GOOD THING. After all, it would mean following in the finest traditions of British foreign policy, which is to do whatever the Americans instruct us to do.
* * *
On a vaguely related theme, this poll from YouGov caught my eye, because it was conducted across seven different European countries...
How serious a threat do you think North Korea poses to your country?
BRITISH VOTERS:
Serious threat 15%
Minor threat/Not a threat 74%
GERMAN VOTERS:
Serious threat 19%
Minor threat/Not a threat 68%
FRENCH VOTERS:
Serious threat 26%
Minor threat/Not a threat 62%
DANISH VOTERS:
Serious threat 4%
Minor threat/Not a threat 90%
SWEDISH VOTERS:
Serious threat 3%
Minor threat/Not a threat 90%
FINNISH VOTERS:
Serious threat 3%
Minor threat/Not a threat 90%
NORWEGIAN VOTERS:
Serious threat 6%
Minor threat/Not a threat 85%
So, unsurprisingly, the majority in all seven countries are wise enough to realise that David Cameron's claims that Europe is under threat from North Korea are a load of old twaddle. But what I find particularly interesting is that the populations of the four small independent nations (none of which have an 'independent nuclear deterrent', and two of which are not even NATO members) feel under considerably LESS threat of nuclear annihilation at the hands of Kim Jong-un than the populations of the three much larger countries (two of which do have an 'independent nuclear deterrent').
Shurely shome mishtake, David?
* * *
I have it on reasonably good authority that a full-scale YouGov poll on referendum voting intentions is on its way. It will be the first such poll by the company this year, and therefore also the first YouGov poll to use - after a fashion - the finalised, Electoral Commission-approved question. I say "after a fashion" because Kellner's mob have by all accounts persisted with their indefensible practice of using a biased preamble to 'explain' the question to their respondents, who they apparently think are too stupid to understand the meaning of the words "Should Scotland be an independent country?".
Rest assured that I have my customary "YouGov credibility in tatters" headline ready to go when the moment arrives.
1. The UK might lose its veto-wielding power in the UN Security Council.
This of course would be a GOOD THING. Britain's special perks at the UN are relics of imperialism that ought to have been stripped away decades ago. Countries in the developing world are rightly furious that a nation on the fringes of Europe, with less than 1% of the global population, has the permanent, in-built power to protect its own selfish interests by vetoing resolutions that would otherwise have the full force of international law.
2. The UK might not retain its nuclear weapons, because of the difficulty of moving them from Scotland.
This of course would be a GOOD THING. The fewer countries in the world that have weapons capable of wiping out millions of people within seconds, the less chance there is of human civilisation coming to an end in the near future. On the whole, I'm rather in favour of human civilisation.
This also confirms that Duncan Hothersall is wrong in his claims that the unilateralism of independence supporters is a sham, and that we'd simply be voting to move the weapons elsewhere rather than eliminate them. In fact, if the Commons report is correct, the only meaningful chance any UK citizens will have to eliminate nuclear weapons will be by voting for Scottish independence.
3. Confusingly at variance with highlight no 2, Scotland might be "forced" to continue hosting nuclear weapons for decades if we want the UK's support for our applications to join international organisations.
This is of course a GOOD THING, or at least it is if you read between the lines and spot the implicit recognition that the Trident issue is Scotland's bargaining chip from heaven, which can potentially be used to counter London's immature intransigence on a whole range of other issues as well.
4. A truly independent Scottish foreign policy is a misnomer, because in practice we'd be forced to go along with whatever the UK wanted.
Well, this would probably be a bad thing on the whole, but I can only assume that the committee itself regards it as a GOOD THING. After all, it would mean following in the finest traditions of British foreign policy, which is to do whatever the Americans instruct us to do.
* * *
On a vaguely related theme, this poll from YouGov caught my eye, because it was conducted across seven different European countries...
How serious a threat do you think North Korea poses to your country?
BRITISH VOTERS:
Serious threat 15%
Minor threat/Not a threat 74%
GERMAN VOTERS:
Serious threat 19%
Minor threat/Not a threat 68%
FRENCH VOTERS:
Serious threat 26%
Minor threat/Not a threat 62%
DANISH VOTERS:
Serious threat 4%
Minor threat/Not a threat 90%
SWEDISH VOTERS:
Serious threat 3%
Minor threat/Not a threat 90%
FINNISH VOTERS:
Serious threat 3%
Minor threat/Not a threat 90%
NORWEGIAN VOTERS:
Serious threat 6%
Minor threat/Not a threat 85%
So, unsurprisingly, the majority in all seven countries are wise enough to realise that David Cameron's claims that Europe is under threat from North Korea are a load of old twaddle. But what I find particularly interesting is that the populations of the four small independent nations (none of which have an 'independent nuclear deterrent', and two of which are not even NATO members) feel under considerably LESS threat of nuclear annihilation at the hands of Kim Jong-un than the populations of the three much larger countries (two of which do have an 'independent nuclear deterrent').
Shurely shome mishtake, David?
* * *
I have it on reasonably good authority that a full-scale YouGov poll on referendum voting intentions is on its way. It will be the first such poll by the company this year, and therefore also the first YouGov poll to use - after a fashion - the finalised, Electoral Commission-approved question. I say "after a fashion" because Kellner's mob have by all accounts persisted with their indefensible practice of using a biased preamble to 'explain' the question to their respondents, who they apparently think are too stupid to understand the meaning of the words "Should Scotland be an independent country?".
Rest assured that I have my customary "YouGov credibility in tatters" headline ready to go when the moment arrives.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Here's why Labour are probably going to lose the next UK general election
Until recently, I tended to go along with the conventional wisdom that the balance of probability points to a Conservative defeat at the next UK general election - not because Labour have in any sense got their act together, but simply because the Tories are starting from such a low base and have the electoral system loaded against them. That didn't mean we couldn't make the argument that a vote for independence is a vote against Tory rule, but it did mean we would probably have to get across the slightly more sophisticated point that the Tories are the natural party of government in the UK, and that Labour's spells in office only come about when they tack to the right and adopt Tory policies.
But my view of the likely general election outcome is evolving rapidly. Just take a look at the latest GB-wide ComRes poll -
Labour 38%
Conservatives 32%
UKIP 13%
Liberal Democrats 9%
Given the almost-inevitable unpopularity of Westminster governments in mid-term, a mere six-point Labour lead at this stage has "Tory victory in 2015" written all over it. But in fact Labour's position is even weaker than it appears, and the reason is that a large chunk of the UKIP vote will drift back to the mainstream parties by the time of the general election. Some of it will drift back to Labour, but the lion's share will naturally be going to the Tories. To get at the true underlying state of play, what we really need is a polling question that excludes UKIP from the equation, and YouGov helpfully provided one last week -
If you had to choose, which of the following options would be best for Britain?
A majority Conservative government 29%
A majority Labour government 29%
A coalition between Labour and the Liberal Democrats 13%
A coalition between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats 9%
Even if those figures are combined, a Labour-led government of some description is only favoured by a wafer-thin margin of 42% to 38%. That is an utterly hopeless position for Labour to be in at this stage of the electoral cycle. You won't be surprised to hear that the figures in Scotland are radically different - we prefer a Labour-led government to a Tory-led government by an overwhelming margin of 57% to 21%. Well, we can prefer that to our little hearts' content, but it won't make a blind bit of difference unless we take control of our own destiny at the independence referendum.
I'd suggest the real challenge for the Yes campaign will be to convey to voters just how weak Labour's true position is, if the party's poor showing in the polls continues to be disguised by the UKIP surge.
* * *
Many thanks to the 155 people who voted for this blog in last week's WoS poll. Scot Goes Pop finished eighth on the "which is your favourite Scottish political site?" question, and tenth on the "which Scottish political sites do you visit at least once a week?" question. It wasn't that far away from being better still on the latter question, because just fourteen votes separated sixth and tenth place. But I'm more than happy to finish in the top ten on both questions, mainly because it gives me a long-overdue excuse to update the tagline in the masthead! The previous wording of "voted one of the UK's top 100 political blogs" referred to the most recent Total Politics Awards, which took place way back in September 2011.
You might remember that I ran a similar poll last year, and RevStu has provided some analysis of the changes in voting patterns since that poll. It's worth pointing out that the comparison isn't an exact one - my poll was restricted to blogs (hence the exclusion of Newsnet Scotland, which is a news website like the Scotsman rather than a blog), but on the other hand included a smattering of non-Scottish sites. It also had a smaller 'electorate', which may well explain the apparent contraction in the number of sites that are read by over 50% of voters - it could be that last year's voters were more likely to be among the hard core who read a large number of blogs. I'm also slightly sceptical about the apparent sharp drop in popularity of both Better Nation and A Burdz Eye View - again, that could simply reflect the profile of the Wings readership. Admittedly, there doesn't seem to be the same buzz about Better Nation that there once was, but A Burdz Eye View appears to be going as strong as ever.
Last but not least, warm congratulations to this blog's oldest friend Tris, who had an absolutely fantastic result - Munguin's Republic finished fifth on the 'overall favourite' question, and eighth on the 'most-read' question.
* * *
If you happen to have a few pounds burning a hole in your pocket, why not make a donation to the National Collective fundraising drive? It has just four more days to run, and they're getting tantalisingly close to their target figure (reaching that figure will save them hundreds of pounds in fees).
But my view of the likely general election outcome is evolving rapidly. Just take a look at the latest GB-wide ComRes poll -
Labour 38%
Conservatives 32%
UKIP 13%
Liberal Democrats 9%
Given the almost-inevitable unpopularity of Westminster governments in mid-term, a mere six-point Labour lead at this stage has "Tory victory in 2015" written all over it. But in fact Labour's position is even weaker than it appears, and the reason is that a large chunk of the UKIP vote will drift back to the mainstream parties by the time of the general election. Some of it will drift back to Labour, but the lion's share will naturally be going to the Tories. To get at the true underlying state of play, what we really need is a polling question that excludes UKIP from the equation, and YouGov helpfully provided one last week -
If you had to choose, which of the following options would be best for Britain?
A majority Conservative government 29%
A majority Labour government 29%
A coalition between Labour and the Liberal Democrats 13%
A coalition between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats 9%
Even if those figures are combined, a Labour-led government of some description is only favoured by a wafer-thin margin of 42% to 38%. That is an utterly hopeless position for Labour to be in at this stage of the electoral cycle. You won't be surprised to hear that the figures in Scotland are radically different - we prefer a Labour-led government to a Tory-led government by an overwhelming margin of 57% to 21%. Well, we can prefer that to our little hearts' content, but it won't make a blind bit of difference unless we take control of our own destiny at the independence referendum.
I'd suggest the real challenge for the Yes campaign will be to convey to voters just how weak Labour's true position is, if the party's poor showing in the polls continues to be disguised by the UKIP surge.
* * *
Many thanks to the 155 people who voted for this blog in last week's WoS poll. Scot Goes Pop finished eighth on the "which is your favourite Scottish political site?" question, and tenth on the "which Scottish political sites do you visit at least once a week?" question. It wasn't that far away from being better still on the latter question, because just fourteen votes separated sixth and tenth place. But I'm more than happy to finish in the top ten on both questions, mainly because it gives me a long-overdue excuse to update the tagline in the masthead! The previous wording of "voted one of the UK's top 100 political blogs" referred to the most recent Total Politics Awards, which took place way back in September 2011.
You might remember that I ran a similar poll last year, and RevStu has provided some analysis of the changes in voting patterns since that poll. It's worth pointing out that the comparison isn't an exact one - my poll was restricted to blogs (hence the exclusion of Newsnet Scotland, which is a news website like the Scotsman rather than a blog), but on the other hand included a smattering of non-Scottish sites. It also had a smaller 'electorate', which may well explain the apparent contraction in the number of sites that are read by over 50% of voters - it could be that last year's voters were more likely to be among the hard core who read a large number of blogs. I'm also slightly sceptical about the apparent sharp drop in popularity of both Better Nation and A Burdz Eye View - again, that could simply reflect the profile of the Wings readership. Admittedly, there doesn't seem to be the same buzz about Better Nation that there once was, but A Burdz Eye View appears to be going as strong as ever.
Last but not least, warm congratulations to this blog's oldest friend Tris, who had an absolutely fantastic result - Munguin's Republic finished fifth on the 'overall favourite' question, and eighth on the 'most-read' question.
* * *
If you happen to have a few pounds burning a hole in your pocket, why not make a donation to the National Collective fundraising drive? It has just four more days to run, and they're getting tantalisingly close to their target figure (reaching that figure will save them hundreds of pounds in fees).
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Don't these bleedin' Jocks have a sense of humour?
One of the great taboos on Have I Got News For You is audience interaction. It just doesn't happen - the audience are there to be heard (laughing and applauding) and not seen. So for this decades-long convention to be abruptly broken last night, there must have been some very special comic imperative at play, right? Well, yes. It was apparently utterly essential to conduct a straw poll to determine whether the London audience thought that the Scots (who everyone knew were watching, naturally, this being a 'national British programme' and everything) should "bugger off" or not. In case you're wondering, the overwhelming verdict was that we should, indeed, "bugger off".
Curiously, guest host Ray Winstone later made a joke about an anti-Pakistani comment by a politician, who he described as a "prat". The audience roared with laughter, congratulating themselves with no apparent trace of irony on their politically correct, tolerant sense of humour. This of course comes hot on the heels of the notorious recent Question Time incident, when an audience member suggested that "we should dump our nuclear waste in Scotland and then give them independence", prompting hysterical giggles from the programme's English host, English panel and the rest of the English audience. Clearly this sparkling (and immaculately non-racist) Jock-bashing wit is not restricted to actual comedy programmes on our "national British" television networks.
So what actually lies behind all this thinly-disguised loathing and rage? It seems to be a confusing mixture of a belief in the London media's fantasy that Scotland is "subsidised by hard-working English taxpayers", and anger at the fact that Scotland is inexplicably considering walking away from all those (ahem) "subsidies". You'd think the latter point would provoke delight and relief, but no, instead the message is something along the lines of "yeah, bugger off back to us with your tail between your legs, so we can subsidise you some more and hate you for it". Alternatively, the muddled thinking may possibly indicate that on some unconscious level they do in fact suspect that the Scots probably aren't getting the better end of the deal.
And before we hear the predictable squeals of "don't these bleedin' Jocks have a sense of humour", let me make a constructive suggestion. How about a comedy programme shown throughout the UK, with an all-Scottish panel, in which the Scottish host asks the all-Scottish audience - "If the English ask for the nukes after independence, who thinks we should just tell them to bugger off? Who thinks we should do the world a favour by holding onto Trident, disarming unilaterally and not offering a penny in compensation to the London Treasury? Sounds fair to me, yeah guys?"
Let's see if all that can happen without acres of column-inches being devoted by the London media to a solemn discussion of the dark tide of anti-Englishness in Scotland - and, naturally, its all-important relationship to Braveheart.
Curiously, guest host Ray Winstone later made a joke about an anti-Pakistani comment by a politician, who he described as a "prat". The audience roared with laughter, congratulating themselves with no apparent trace of irony on their politically correct, tolerant sense of humour. This of course comes hot on the heels of the notorious recent Question Time incident, when an audience member suggested that "we should dump our nuclear waste in Scotland and then give them independence", prompting hysterical giggles from the programme's English host, English panel and the rest of the English audience. Clearly this sparkling (and immaculately non-racist) Jock-bashing wit is not restricted to actual comedy programmes on our "national British" television networks.
So what actually lies behind all this thinly-disguised loathing and rage? It seems to be a confusing mixture of a belief in the London media's fantasy that Scotland is "subsidised by hard-working English taxpayers", and anger at the fact that Scotland is inexplicably considering walking away from all those (ahem) "subsidies". You'd think the latter point would provoke delight and relief, but no, instead the message is something along the lines of "yeah, bugger off back to us with your tail between your legs, so we can subsidise you some more and hate you for it". Alternatively, the muddled thinking may possibly indicate that on some unconscious level they do in fact suspect that the Scots probably aren't getting the better end of the deal.
And before we hear the predictable squeals of "don't these bleedin' Jocks have a sense of humour", let me make a constructive suggestion. How about a comedy programme shown throughout the UK, with an all-Scottish panel, in which the Scottish host asks the all-Scottish audience - "If the English ask for the nukes after independence, who thinks we should just tell them to bugger off? Who thinks we should do the world a favour by holding onto Trident, disarming unilaterally and not offering a penny in compensation to the London Treasury? Sounds fair to me, yeah guys?"
Let's see if all that can happen without acres of column-inches being devoted by the London media to a solemn discussion of the dark tide of anti-Englishness in Scotland - and, naturally, its all-important relationship to Braveheart.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Notes on a non-scandal
In the latest scare story about Scotland's currency that has been concocted by the No campaign (and of course in this respect the UK Treasury is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the No campaign), there's one particular bit that leaves me in gales of laughter. It's the apparent belief that Scots will somehow be 'scared' into voting No by London's threat to take away our banknotes. For starters, as the SNP have pointed out, no-one with an ounce of sense is going to take the threat seriously - if it's feasible for Scotland to have its own banknotes as part of the UK, it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that it suddenly wouldn't be feasible as an independent country. But on a more fundamental level, even if it was true that our banknotes are under threat, who exactly is going to be deterred from voting Yes for that specific reason? Here's how different sections of the electorate are likely to react -
Group 1 - People who actually care about Scottish 'national prestige' and distinctiveness. These people would almost certainly see the demise of the banknotes as regrettable. But by definition they will also care about the far more meaningful trappings of statehood that would come with independence, and will regard them as infinitely more important than the trivial issue of banknotes. Who in their right mind among this group will think that the design of banknotes is more important than whether Scotland has its own representation at the EU and UN?
Group 2 - People who don't give a monkey's about Scottish 'national prestige' and distinctiveness. These people will only be persuaded to vote for independence if they believe that it will improve their lives and the lives of their families, and make the world around them a better and safer place. Who in their right mind among this group will think that the design of banknotes is more important than the question of whether we should get inhuman weapons of mass destruction off our shores, or whether we should put an end to London's monstrous welfare "reforms"?
Group 3 - There isn't a third group.
* * *
What terribly sad news about Brian Adam - arguably the most genuinely likeable guy in the whole parliament.
Group 1 - People who actually care about Scottish 'national prestige' and distinctiveness. These people would almost certainly see the demise of the banknotes as regrettable. But by definition they will also care about the far more meaningful trappings of statehood that would come with independence, and will regard them as infinitely more important than the trivial issue of banknotes. Who in their right mind among this group will think that the design of banknotes is more important than whether Scotland has its own representation at the EU and UN?
Group 2 - People who don't give a monkey's about Scottish 'national prestige' and distinctiveness. These people will only be persuaded to vote for independence if they believe that it will improve their lives and the lives of their families, and make the world around them a better and safer place. Who in their right mind among this group will think that the design of banknotes is more important than the question of whether we should get inhuman weapons of mass destruction off our shores, or whether we should put an end to London's monstrous welfare "reforms"?
Group 3 - There isn't a third group.
* * *
What terribly sad news about Brian Adam - arguably the most genuinely likeable guy in the whole parliament.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Now that the daffodils are back, it's time to vote for a blog that is fighting for the things that really matter
My fellow citizens, these are uniquely dangerous times that we live in.
Lord Fraser wants to call in the RAF to bomb Glasgow Airport. The Treasury wants to rip out the soul of this nation by taking away our banknotes. Richard Baker still wants to be a government minister.
These are just three of the unpredictable and growing menaces that threaten our survival.
As the great lady once said, this is no time to go wobbly.
Scotland MUST retain its independent blogging deterrent.
Conventional forces such as Better Nation and A Burdz Eye View are all very well, but what this country really needs is a blogging weapons system that can annihilate whole cities with its mind-numbingly detailed coverage of the Eurovision Song Contest.
Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
If so...
Vote liberty.
Vote oxygen.
Vote for a blog that is tough on Tavish, and tough on the causes of Tavish.
Vote Scot Goes Pop in the WoS favourite blog poll.
Thankyou. May God bless you, and may God bless the United Yetts o' Muckhart.
(DISCLAIMER: Just like Trident, voting for this deterrent is no guarantee that it will actually work. On the plus side, this one won't cost you £25 billion.)
Lord Fraser wants to call in the RAF to bomb Glasgow Airport. The Treasury wants to rip out the soul of this nation by taking away our banknotes. Richard Baker still wants to be a government minister.
These are just three of the unpredictable and growing menaces that threaten our survival.
As the great lady once said, this is no time to go wobbly.
Scotland MUST retain its independent blogging deterrent.
Conventional forces such as Better Nation and A Burdz Eye View are all very well, but what this country really needs is a blogging weapons system that can annihilate whole cities with its mind-numbingly detailed coverage of the Eurovision Song Contest.
Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
If so...
Vote liberty.
Vote oxygen.
Vote for a blog that is tough on Tavish, and tough on the causes of Tavish.
Vote Scot Goes Pop in the WoS favourite blog poll.
Thankyou. May God bless you, and may God bless the United Yetts o' Muckhart.
(DISCLAIMER: Just like Trident, voting for this deterrent is no guarantee that it will actually work. On the plus side, this one won't cost you £25 billion.)
Monday, April 22, 2013
Poll : Which Presiding Officer has been best?
Bit of a random one, this, but I've been thinking about how the reputation of Commons Speakers at Westminster has so rarely matched up to my own assessment. For example, Betty Boothroyd was treated by all sides with something approaching adulation, but I thought she was a fairly poor Speaker in a lot of ways. She had a very "macho" attitude (odd for the first woman to hold the position), and on one occasion reacted to an attempt to shout down Simon Hughes with the words "oh spit it out, man, there isn't going to be quiet". Her rulings were hopelessly inconsistent, and often seemed to be based more on what mood she was in than on the parliamentary rulebook. And that's before we even come on to her meltdown during Michael Mates' resignation statement.
So that's the (very roundabout) inspiration for today's poll. Holyrood has now had four Presiding Officers - which do you think has been the best? The voting form can be found at the top of the sidebar.
UPDATE : Apologies, but I've had to abandon the poll. There was some kind of technical fault - to begin with votes weren't being recorded at all, and then once they were recorded they started disappearing again! For what it's worth, George Reid appeared to be the most popular Presiding Officer, with Lord "just call me Sir David" Steel firmly in bottom place.
So that's the (very roundabout) inspiration for today's poll. Holyrood has now had four Presiding Officers - which do you think has been the best? The voting form can be found at the top of the sidebar.
UPDATE : Apologies, but I've had to abandon the poll. There was some kind of technical fault - to begin with votes weren't being recorded at all, and then once they were recorded they started disappearing again! For what it's worth, George Reid appeared to be the most popular Presiding Officer, with Lord "just call me Sir David" Steel firmly in bottom place.
Friday, April 19, 2013
Warning : Jock-bashing buffoon ahead
I've long suspected that the editor of the blogs section of the Telegraph website is running some kind of internal contest to see which writer can demonstrate the greatest lack of knowledge and self-awareness in a single post about Scotland, with bonus points for cramming in the greatest number of cretinously offensive Jock-bashing comments. As of this moment, a chap called Jake Wallis Simons seems assured of the grand prize (five minutes alone with the urn?), but this being the Telegraph we of course can't be completely sure. Sit back and marvel...
"The first rule of referendums is that the question should be neutral."
God, what do they teach kids in Brit Nat fundamentalist schools these days? No, Jake, the first rule of referendums is that you rig the franchise so that a Yes vote is really a No. I know it sounds complicated, but don't worry - I'll send George Cunningham around to explain it to you.
"Somehow, Alex Salmond seems to have managed to circumvent this in the case of the Scottish referendum in 2014. The question is "Should Scotland be an independent country?" rather than something like "Should Scotland leave the United Kingdom?", or "Should Scotland split like a sulky teenager from Great Britain, thereby making itself terminally weaker, even smaller than it is already, and immeasurably more parochial and irrelevant?""
Yes, folks, you read that right - "Should Scotland be an independent country?" is considered 'biased' on Planet Jake (that's in Hampshire, in case you're wondering), whereas "Should Scotland split like a sulky teenager from Great Britain, thereby making itself terminally weaker, even smaller than it is already, and immeasurably more parochial and irrelevant?" is considered immaculately 'neutral'. Now I have a feeling I know what your objection is going to be here. Even though this is about as funny as a below-par episode of My Family, the guy must at least think that he's joking, right?
The news is grim, I'm afraid.
"His initial draft of the question, "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?" was so laughably biased that the electoral watchdog wasted no time in ruling that the "Do you agree that…" was a step too far."
Actually, the electoral watchdog "wasted" quite a bit of time in considering that matter, Jake - they were at it for bloody months. And can I just gently point out to you here that the Electoral Commission didn't "rule" on anything - they had the power only to advise. It was the Scottish Government that freely chose to change the question to the extraordinarily similar one that the Electoral Commission recommended instead.
"Thus, by setting up a straw man to take the flak, Mr Salmond managed to slip a still-dodgy question under the radar, and gave himself an in-built psychological advantage when it comes to capturing floating votes."
Tell me, Jake, do you have the slightest shred of evidence that the Electoral Commission lied through their teeth when they stated that the new referendum question was their own invention, and that Alex Salmond instead secretly suggested it and somehow compelled them to consider it? Or is it not rather more likely that they were telling the truth, and that they simply devised a question that, after extensive testing, was considered superior and more neutral to the Brit Nat-flavoured questions that you would have preferred - even if you had been generously willing to excise the 'sulky teenager' bit?
I fear the answer to that question may not seem as obvious to a recreational unionist from Winchester as it does to the rest of us.
"The wording of the question is also revealing in another way: it demonstrates that the primary motivation for Scots to vote to leave the United Kingdom is a romanticised sense of national pride rather than anything sensible or – heaven forbid – rational."
Best take that up with the UK government-appointed Electoral Commission that devised the question, Jake. But the amusing thing is that we all know that if the wording of the referendum question had been used to set out what we wanted independence for, and what the SNP plan to use the powers of independence to achieve in terms of social policy, our Jake and his ilk would have had a conniption fit. "Salmond tries to confuse voters with labyrinthine question! We demand a simple question that sets out the choice in straightforward terms!" That's what you've got, mate, but if you'd much rather have a question about who should control North Sea Oil revenues and getting Trident off Scottish soil, be sure to let us know. I'm not convinced you'd be entirely happy with the end result, though.
"Because, as the blogosphere has noticed, the fact is that when Salmond talks of independence, what he really means is the satisfaction of nationalist lust and very little else. Will the Queen remain head of state? Yup."
You mean in exactly the same way that she's currently the head of state of the independent nations of Canada, Australia, the Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Barbados, Jamaica, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, the Bahamas, Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Lucia, Belize and Tuvalu? That's right, Jake. Yup.
"Will sterling remain as the common currency? Yup."
As it did in Ireland and Australia after independence? That's right, Jake. Yup.
"Will dual citizenship be maintained?"
On much the same voluntary basis as it is maintained in Northern Ireland? Which doesn't appear to have led you to the conclusion that the NI unionists' desire to remain in the UK is "the satisfaction of unionist lust and nothing else"? That's right, Jake. Yup.
"Will British embassies still represent the Scots?"
In an identical way to how Irish embassies represent Northern Ireland-born British citizens who voluntarily choose to take up their right to dual citizenship? That's right, Jake. Yup.
"Will Scotland continue to be a member of the EU on British terms?"
Er...nope. Although I'd be interested to know if even you have a clue what you actually mean by "continue to be a member of the EU on British terms", because I must admit I haven't got a scooby.
"Yup, yup, yup, yup, yup and yup."
Well, before you get too carried away with all this yuppitiness, indulge me for a moment as I ask a few questions of my own. Would independence get inhuman weapons of mass destruction off Scottish soil? Yup. Would independence result in the UK government's disgraceful welfare policies being reversed? Yup. Would independence mean we could opt out of London's illegal wars in future? Yup. Would independence enable Scotland to be represented in the EU for the very first time, rather than being 'represented' by David Cameron and William Hague as we are now? Yup. Would independence give us access to our own natural resources? Yup. Would we, in a nutshell, be ruled by a government we actually chose? Yup, yup, yup.
Nothing much to see there, I must admit. The emergence of this Scottish nationalist nonsense is a bit baffling, isn't it, Jake? But I dare say it can all be explained away by the existence of haggis, or something.
"The first rule of referendums is that the question should be neutral."
God, what do they teach kids in Brit Nat fundamentalist schools these days? No, Jake, the first rule of referendums is that you rig the franchise so that a Yes vote is really a No. I know it sounds complicated, but don't worry - I'll send George Cunningham around to explain it to you.
"Somehow, Alex Salmond seems to have managed to circumvent this in the case of the Scottish referendum in 2014. The question is "Should Scotland be an independent country?" rather than something like "Should Scotland leave the United Kingdom?", or "Should Scotland split like a sulky teenager from Great Britain, thereby making itself terminally weaker, even smaller than it is already, and immeasurably more parochial and irrelevant?""
Yes, folks, you read that right - "Should Scotland be an independent country?" is considered 'biased' on Planet Jake (that's in Hampshire, in case you're wondering), whereas "Should Scotland split like a sulky teenager from Great Britain, thereby making itself terminally weaker, even smaller than it is already, and immeasurably more parochial and irrelevant?" is considered immaculately 'neutral'. Now I have a feeling I know what your objection is going to be here. Even though this is about as funny as a below-par episode of My Family, the guy must at least think that he's joking, right?
The news is grim, I'm afraid.
"His initial draft of the question, "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?" was so laughably biased that the electoral watchdog wasted no time in ruling that the "Do you agree that…" was a step too far."
Actually, the electoral watchdog "wasted" quite a bit of time in considering that matter, Jake - they were at it for bloody months. And can I just gently point out to you here that the Electoral Commission didn't "rule" on anything - they had the power only to advise. It was the Scottish Government that freely chose to change the question to the extraordinarily similar one that the Electoral Commission recommended instead.
"Thus, by setting up a straw man to take the flak, Mr Salmond managed to slip a still-dodgy question under the radar, and gave himself an in-built psychological advantage when it comes to capturing floating votes."
Tell me, Jake, do you have the slightest shred of evidence that the Electoral Commission lied through their teeth when they stated that the new referendum question was their own invention, and that Alex Salmond instead secretly suggested it and somehow compelled them to consider it? Or is it not rather more likely that they were telling the truth, and that they simply devised a question that, after extensive testing, was considered superior and more neutral to the Brit Nat-flavoured questions that you would have preferred - even if you had been generously willing to excise the 'sulky teenager' bit?
I fear the answer to that question may not seem as obvious to a recreational unionist from Winchester as it does to the rest of us.
"The wording of the question is also revealing in another way: it demonstrates that the primary motivation for Scots to vote to leave the United Kingdom is a romanticised sense of national pride rather than anything sensible or – heaven forbid – rational."
Best take that up with the UK government-appointed Electoral Commission that devised the question, Jake. But the amusing thing is that we all know that if the wording of the referendum question had been used to set out what we wanted independence for, and what the SNP plan to use the powers of independence to achieve in terms of social policy, our Jake and his ilk would have had a conniption fit. "Salmond tries to confuse voters with labyrinthine question! We demand a simple question that sets out the choice in straightforward terms!" That's what you've got, mate, but if you'd much rather have a question about who should control North Sea Oil revenues and getting Trident off Scottish soil, be sure to let us know. I'm not convinced you'd be entirely happy with the end result, though.
"Because, as the blogosphere has noticed, the fact is that when Salmond talks of independence, what he really means is the satisfaction of nationalist lust and very little else. Will the Queen remain head of state? Yup."
You mean in exactly the same way that she's currently the head of state of the independent nations of Canada, Australia, the Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Barbados, Jamaica, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, the Bahamas, Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Lucia, Belize and Tuvalu? That's right, Jake. Yup.
"Will sterling remain as the common currency? Yup."
As it did in Ireland and Australia after independence? That's right, Jake. Yup.
"Will dual citizenship be maintained?"
On much the same voluntary basis as it is maintained in Northern Ireland? Which doesn't appear to have led you to the conclusion that the NI unionists' desire to remain in the UK is "the satisfaction of unionist lust and nothing else"? That's right, Jake. Yup.
"Will British embassies still represent the Scots?"
In an identical way to how Irish embassies represent Northern Ireland-born British citizens who voluntarily choose to take up their right to dual citizenship? That's right, Jake. Yup.
"Will Scotland continue to be a member of the EU on British terms?"
Er...nope. Although I'd be interested to know if even you have a clue what you actually mean by "continue to be a member of the EU on British terms", because I must admit I haven't got a scooby.
"Yup, yup, yup, yup, yup and yup."
Well, before you get too carried away with all this yuppitiness, indulge me for a moment as I ask a few questions of my own. Would independence get inhuman weapons of mass destruction off Scottish soil? Yup. Would independence result in the UK government's disgraceful welfare policies being reversed? Yup. Would independence mean we could opt out of London's illegal wars in future? Yup. Would independence enable Scotland to be represented in the EU for the very first time, rather than being 'represented' by David Cameron and William Hague as we are now? Yup. Would independence give us access to our own natural resources? Yup. Would we, in a nutshell, be ruled by a government we actually chose? Yup, yup, yup.
Nothing much to see there, I must admit. The emergence of this Scottish nationalist nonsense is a bit baffling, isn't it, Jake? But I dare say it can all be explained away by the existence of haggis, or something.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
If any "prominent pollsters" from Ipsos-Mori happen to be passing by, feel free to be amused by this one as well...
Well, it's been far too long since I last offended Craig Gallagher's sensibilities by reposting one of my exchanges from Political Betting. "The Screaming Eagles" is the most prominent of the site's notorious group of Tory moderators who have endlessly harassed left-wing contributors by deleting posts at random, and issuing bannings which they then innocently pretend to have been caused by a "technical fault" - that is if their Plan A of burying all evidence of the bannings has failed. I was also once sent an extraordinary (and credible) piece of information about this individual that profoundly shocked me, but unfortunately it was on condition that I didn't make it public. Frankly, if his claim in the following exchange has any truth in it, then I think "prominent pollsters" at Ipsos-Mori ought to be choosing their chortle-mates with a touch more care.
Me : AlanBrooke -
"it was the same when the Nats bigged up all they were going to do post 2011 elections"
You'd better hope that isn't a precedent, Alan, because as you know the SNP secured a historic triumph in the May 2012 local elections. Their first ever win in the popular vote, and only their second win in terms of seats. A bigger increase in their share of the vote than any other party, and a bigger increase in number of seats than any other party.
But I'm sure you haven't conveniently forgotten about that.
AlanBrooke : Yeah. yeah jimbo
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Sterling as wee wifie might say.
Me : You really should tell her to stop singing the 1997 Scottish Tory anthem - if it didn't help Michael Forsyth then it's unlikely to be much use now.
And "Nein zur Tartan Steuern!" has probably had its day as well.
But I salute your wife's political and marital fortitude.
TheScreamingEagles : I'm really disappointed in you Mr Brooke.
You missed a golden opportunity to reference Arthur Donaldson into that.
Me : Alan, you seem to be in pain. Perhaps a trip to a therapist might be in order, so you can construct a comforting new national identity that can flourish without depending on keeping another country captive.
I take some pride in being one of the few posters here who has never voted for a party that once boasted the future leader of the British Union of Fascists as a prominent MP.
TheScreamingEagles : You mean Arthur Donaldson, that former future leader of British Fascism, I thought he'd be associated with the yes side?
Me : No, Oswald Mosley. I've yet to hear from you about how you feel towards the man who was a prominent Conservative MP. And perhaps we should have a chat about Lord Halifax some time...
(NOTE : Posted before you edited your comment to make it even more peculiar.)
TheScreamingEagles : Like Mr Mosley, Mr Donaldson was interned.
To be honest, people who were MPs/Leaders of political parties before my father was born, I really don't think is going to swing the independence vote one way or the other.
And on that note, I'm off to see one of Scotland's finest actors at the cinema, Mr Gerard Butler, in Olympus Has Fallen.
Me : And unlike Mr Donaldson, Mr Mosley was interned on some kind of rational basis - ie. he was, actually, a fascist, rather than a threat to the British state because he supported democratic self-determination for the Scottish nation.
TheScreamingEagles : The report I'm reading says
"Donaldson, who had been thrown out of the SNP in 1940 because of his extreme nationalist views"
Me : What is of considerably more interest is WHERE are you reading that 'report'?
TheScreamingEagles : Here (from November 2005)
Me : "Here." I note you couldn't actually bring yourself to use the words "in the Sunday Times". Moving on...
TheScreamingEagles : It's from the national archives.
Me : TSE, a word of advice for future reference - if you want to reach a consensus with SNP supporters (or anyone with an ounce of common sense) on what constitutes historical fact, it's probably best not to pray in aid an article in a Brit Nat rag that carries the headline "SNP boss planned Nazi Scotland".
TheScreamingEagles : James I would have thought you'd have learnt your lesson the last time you wrongly automatically dismissed something published in the Times/Sunday Times.
Clearly not.
Me : Not only have I not learned a lesson from it, I don't even recall it. It wouldn't be a figment of your imagination, by any chance?
So tell me, TSE, what was the nature of the "extreme nationalist views" that led to Donaldson being thrown out of the SNP in 1940? (That golden year when Britain was the junior partner to the US in World War II...)
TheScreamingEagles : Please don't take this as proof that I read your blog, but at the time, a prominent pollster emailed me this, because they thought I'd be amused at it.
"UPDATE : Ipsos-Mori have been in touch, and have asked me to correct this post, which originally stated -
'There is also a question on voting intention for the independence referendum. Caution should be exercised here, because from the little I've seen of the report in the Times, it looks very much like this is yet another example of a unionist newspaper commissioning a pollster to ask a question that bears little resemblance to the actual proposed referendum question. However, for what it's worth, here are the figures...'"
Me : I ought to tell you what a prominent PB poster once emailed to me, because he knew I'd be shocked by it, but alas I'm sworn to secrecy.
I was contacted by Ipsos-Mori and asked to make a correction, and I did so immediately. You may be "amused" by such professionalism, as may your prominent pollster chum, but if I may say so I'm content for my actions to stand comparison to your antics as moderator of this blog.
Let's see if you've got the guts to leave this post up.
(For what it's worth, the guy who contacted me at the time was called Christopher McLean, and billed himself as a "Senior Research Executive" of something called "Ipsos MORI Scotland".)
* * *
Talking of pollsters, Angus Reid have published their latest UK-wide opinion poll of voting intentions for Westminster. As ever, the figures from the Scottish subsample are of more interest than those from other companies, because they seem to be properly weighted -
Labour 38% (+3)
SNP 37% (-2)
Conservatives 14% (-4)
Liberal Democrats 6% (+1)
Although that represents a small boost for Labour, it nevertheless leaves the SNP - in Angus Reid's own words - "practically tied" with Labour for Westmister voting intention, which would represent a massive 10.5% swing from Labour to SNP since the last general election.
Me : AlanBrooke -
"it was the same when the Nats bigged up all they were going to do post 2011 elections"
You'd better hope that isn't a precedent, Alan, because as you know the SNP secured a historic triumph in the May 2012 local elections. Their first ever win in the popular vote, and only their second win in terms of seats. A bigger increase in their share of the vote than any other party, and a bigger increase in number of seats than any other party.
But I'm sure you haven't conveniently forgotten about that.
AlanBrooke : Yeah. yeah jimbo
Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Sterling as wee wifie might say.
Me : You really should tell her to stop singing the 1997 Scottish Tory anthem - if it didn't help Michael Forsyth then it's unlikely to be much use now.
And "Nein zur Tartan Steuern!" has probably had its day as well.
But I salute your wife's political and marital fortitude.
TheScreamingEagles : I'm really disappointed in you Mr Brooke.
You missed a golden opportunity to reference Arthur Donaldson into that.
Me : Alan, you seem to be in pain. Perhaps a trip to a therapist might be in order, so you can construct a comforting new national identity that can flourish without depending on keeping another country captive.
I take some pride in being one of the few posters here who has never voted for a party that once boasted the future leader of the British Union of Fascists as a prominent MP.
TheScreamingEagles : You mean Arthur Donaldson, that former future leader of British Fascism, I thought he'd be associated with the yes side?
Me : No, Oswald Mosley. I've yet to hear from you about how you feel towards the man who was a prominent Conservative MP. And perhaps we should have a chat about Lord Halifax some time...
(NOTE : Posted before you edited your comment to make it even more peculiar.)
TheScreamingEagles : Like Mr Mosley, Mr Donaldson was interned.
To be honest, people who were MPs/Leaders of political parties before my father was born, I really don't think is going to swing the independence vote one way or the other.
And on that note, I'm off to see one of Scotland's finest actors at the cinema, Mr Gerard Butler, in Olympus Has Fallen.
Me : And unlike Mr Donaldson, Mr Mosley was interned on some kind of rational basis - ie. he was, actually, a fascist, rather than a threat to the British state because he supported democratic self-determination for the Scottish nation.
TheScreamingEagles : The report I'm reading says
"Donaldson, who had been thrown out of the SNP in 1940 because of his extreme nationalist views"
Me : What is of considerably more interest is WHERE are you reading that 'report'?
TheScreamingEagles : Here (from November 2005)
Me : "Here." I note you couldn't actually bring yourself to use the words "in the Sunday Times". Moving on...
TheScreamingEagles : It's from the national archives.
Me : TSE, a word of advice for future reference - if you want to reach a consensus with SNP supporters (or anyone with an ounce of common sense) on what constitutes historical fact, it's probably best not to pray in aid an article in a Brit Nat rag that carries the headline "SNP boss planned Nazi Scotland".
TheScreamingEagles : James I would have thought you'd have learnt your lesson the last time you wrongly automatically dismissed something published in the Times/Sunday Times.
Clearly not.
Me : Not only have I not learned a lesson from it, I don't even recall it. It wouldn't be a figment of your imagination, by any chance?
So tell me, TSE, what was the nature of the "extreme nationalist views" that led to Donaldson being thrown out of the SNP in 1940? (That golden year when Britain was the junior partner to the US in World War II...)
TheScreamingEagles : Please don't take this as proof that I read your blog, but at the time, a prominent pollster emailed me this, because they thought I'd be amused at it.
"UPDATE : Ipsos-Mori have been in touch, and have asked me to correct this post, which originally stated -
'There is also a question on voting intention for the independence referendum. Caution should be exercised here, because from the little I've seen of the report in the Times, it looks very much like this is yet another example of a unionist newspaper commissioning a pollster to ask a question that bears little resemblance to the actual proposed referendum question. However, for what it's worth, here are the figures...'"
Me : I ought to tell you what a prominent PB poster once emailed to me, because he knew I'd be shocked by it, but alas I'm sworn to secrecy.
I was contacted by Ipsos-Mori and asked to make a correction, and I did so immediately. You may be "amused" by such professionalism, as may your prominent pollster chum, but if I may say so I'm content for my actions to stand comparison to your antics as moderator of this blog.
Let's see if you've got the guts to leave this post up.
(For what it's worth, the guy who contacted me at the time was called Christopher McLean, and billed himself as a "Senior Research Executive" of something called "Ipsos MORI Scotland".)
* * *
Talking of pollsters, Angus Reid have published their latest UK-wide opinion poll of voting intentions for Westminster. As ever, the figures from the Scottish subsample are of more interest than those from other companies, because they seem to be properly weighted -
Labour 38% (+3)
SNP 37% (-2)
Conservatives 14% (-4)
Liberal Democrats 6% (+1)
Although that represents a small boost for Labour, it nevertheless leaves the SNP - in Angus Reid's own words - "practically tied" with Labour for Westmister voting intention, which would represent a massive 10.5% swing from Labour to SNP since the last general election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)