I've just spotted an article in the Edinburgh Evening News from just over a week ago, about the owner of an escort agency who is facing a potential jail term, but who vehemently denies that his business has anything to do with prostitution. It has the rare distinction of including a quote from Labour MSP Rhoda Grant on the sex industry that I actually agree with -
"Escort agencies call themselves something different but it is well understood what people are really buying. No one pays that amount of money for companionship."
I think that's probably right. I know of no credible evidence that any escort agency truly makes money on the basis of non-sexual companionship. Escorts are certainly able to refuse to have sex with any potential client they don't want to have sex with, but the flipside of that decision is that no payment will occur, because everyone knows the payment is either wholly or predominantly in exchange for sex. The idea that clients are only buying companionship is largely a fiction designed for PR purposes and legal cover.
So 1-0 to Rhoda. Unfortunately she then throws it all away with this piece of mind-bending gibberish -
"What he’s basically saying is these people [disabled and vulnerable men] are lesser human beings and not entitled to or able to find a real relationship. I know plenty of disabled people in loving relationships. To say to certain categories of people that they have to pay for sex or company is discrimination at its very worst."
Dear God. Who exactly is forcing anyone to pay for sex, or denying them the ability to have a sexual relationship by any other means? If there was a law to that effect, and Rhoda was spearheading the fight to repeal that law, I'd be right there in her corner. Unfortunately she's not doing that. The legislation that she's proposing will have absolutely no effect on the ability or otherwise of disabled and vulnerable men to successfully form 'real' relationships. But for those disabled and vulnerable men who fail to form such relationships and then seek consensual paid sex as an alternative, Rhoda's plan is to throw them into jail, and treat sex workers who pocket a considerable amount of cash as 'victims' of disabled and vulnerable men. She regards this, astonishingly, as an 'anti-discrimination' measure.
The other word that leaps out at me is 'entitled'. It's very hard to escape the conclusion that Rhoda is implying that disabled men are literally entitled to a 'real relationship' - which presumably suggests a relationship that is sexual, even if it has many other facets as well. If so, that's extraordinary. After all, the basic premise of those like Rhoda who want to criminalise the purchase of sex is that no-one has an entitlement to sex. That doesn't just refer to the blindingly obvious point that an individual does not have an entitlement to sex if no-one consents to have sex with them - it also means they do not have an entitlement to sex even if someone does consent, but does so in 'the wrong way', ie. in exchange for payment. And yet Rhoda suddenly seems to be going to completely the other extreme and declaring that not only does everyone have a right to sex, but also to a fully-fledged relationship to go along with it. How exactly does she propose to enforce that 'entitlement'?
OK, she doesn't. It's waffle.
A useful analogy is the medical supply of blood. A person might need/want a blood donation, but that does not mean they have any right to demand that others donate blood. If no blood is made available, there is no right to the blood of others, and everyone accepts that. By the same token, disabled or vulnerable people have absolutely no right to sex if others are unwilling to consent to it. But if people are willing to donate blood for whatever reason, would it still be justifiable for the state to ban the process on the grounds that "nobody has the right to others' blood"?
Of course it wouldn't. So why does Rhoda think it's any of of her business to prevent women having consensual sex with disabled men, just because she personally finds their reasons for doing so distasteful? We already know what her response would be - it's that women only need the money because of poverty. So yes, rather than criminalising vulnerable people, let's end poverty. That would mean the number of people prepared to have sex in exchange for money would decrease dramatically, and that would be a good thing. It would constitute an enhancement of freedom, because people would at last be freely choosing their ideal way of life, rather than freely choosing the 'least worst option' available. But it would also mean that the number of people willing to work as cleaners or shelf-stackers would decrease dramatically, for exactly the same reason. Would Rhoda and the Labour party (so wedded to the Blunkett doctrine that even the most menial and unpleasant work is good for the human spirit and somehow "heals the sick") join me in celebrating that enhancement of freedom? I somehow doubt it.
We've arrived at the curious position where Labour still believe in socialism, but only when they talk about sex work.
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Friday, June 21, 2013
Shock as Britain's leading cat forum bans badgers
As you might remember, I recently made a solemn promise to the moderators of a certain Tory-dominated "non-aligned" political website that if they continued deleting posts of mine for no good reason, I would simply repost them here. Regrettably, it's become necessary to make good on that promise for a second time -
Plato : I don't for a second believe in psychics, but having seen Derren Brown in action - I can fully understand why anyone who wasn't certain it was cobblers would be convinced. He's a master of the art of mentalism and if he chose to be a charlatan would no doubt have made an enormous fortune.
That he's also a very accomplished magician and artist just shows what creativity and a top drawer IQ can accomplish - he's a rare beast.
His stage shows are incredible. This is rather fun taster.
Me : "I don't for a second believe in psychics"
Phew. For a moment there I thought you said you don't believe in physics.
Plato : @PB Moderator
Can you confirm if I and another PBer aren't to discuss each others posts?
You said we weren't to do so several days ago, but I seem to be the only one complying with your request.
I'd appreciate a response as either someone is taking the p*** out of the site's rules or I'm getting rocks thrown at me when under the impression that I can't throw them back.
I have no interest in doing so as its very boring for everyone else - but if I choose to do so, I'd like to do it knowing I won't be banned.
Me : "You said we weren't to do so several days ago, but I seem to be the only one complying with your request."
I take it you are aware that the post you have just written (along with umpteen other near-identical ones) means that you are not in fact complying with that request? Perhaps you weren't. You are now.
* * *
After that exchange was deleted, I decided to give the moderation team an opportunity to demonstrate their even-handedness once more, by allowing me to post a badger video in response to Plato's Derren Brown videos. Alas, my seven or so attempts to get the badger video up were met with instant deletion, and I have now been banned from the site. So these are the current PB rules as far as I can discern them -
1) A Tory poster calling an SNP poster a Nazi, a w**ker, a t*at or a member of the Ku Klux Klan = excellent, highly encouraged.
2) An SNP poster using the words "pure comedy gold" = instant lifetime banning.
3) Derren Brown videos/cat videos/reviews of chick flicks = highly relevant to a political betting forum, enriching of discussion.
4) Badger videos = sling your hook, you Jock scum.
Plato : I don't for a second believe in psychics, but having seen Derren Brown in action - I can fully understand why anyone who wasn't certain it was cobblers would be convinced. He's a master of the art of mentalism and if he chose to be a charlatan would no doubt have made an enormous fortune.
That he's also a very accomplished magician and artist just shows what creativity and a top drawer IQ can accomplish - he's a rare beast.
His stage shows are incredible. This is rather fun taster.
Me : "I don't for a second believe in psychics"
Phew. For a moment there I thought you said you don't believe in physics.
Plato : @PB Moderator
Can you confirm if I and another PBer aren't to discuss each others posts?
You said we weren't to do so several days ago, but I seem to be the only one complying with your request.
I'd appreciate a response as either someone is taking the p*** out of the site's rules or I'm getting rocks thrown at me when under the impression that I can't throw them back.
I have no interest in doing so as its very boring for everyone else - but if I choose to do so, I'd like to do it knowing I won't be banned.
Me : "You said we weren't to do so several days ago, but I seem to be the only one complying with your request."
I take it you are aware that the post you have just written (along with umpteen other near-identical ones) means that you are not in fact complying with that request? Perhaps you weren't. You are now.
* * *
After that exchange was deleted, I decided to give the moderation team an opportunity to demonstrate their even-handedness once more, by allowing me to post a badger video in response to Plato's Derren Brown videos. Alas, my seven or so attempts to get the badger video up were met with instant deletion, and I have now been banned from the site. So these are the current PB rules as far as I can discern them -
1) A Tory poster calling an SNP poster a Nazi, a w**ker, a t*at or a member of the Ku Klux Klan = excellent, highly encouraged.
2) An SNP poster using the words "pure comedy gold" = instant lifetime banning.
3) Derren Brown videos/cat videos/reviews of chick flicks = highly relevant to a political betting forum, enriching of discussion.
4) Badger videos = sling your hook, you Jock scum.
Donside stays onside with the SNP
So as it turned out, Duncan Hothersall's profound sense of gloom about Labour's prospects of winning a by-election in a traditional area of strength was fully justified -
SNP 42.0%
Labour 33.3%
Liberal Democrats 8.3%
Conservatives 7.7%
UKIP 4.8%
Greens 1.7%
National Front 1.0%
Scottish Christian Party 0.9%
SDA 0.1%
I'm old enough (and in fact anyone over the age of about four is old enough) to know that by-elections that are supposed to be routine can easily produce a jaw-dropping "where did that come from?" result on the night. The examples in recent years alone are plentiful - Glasgow East, Dunfermline and West Fife, Glenrothes, Bradford West. So in spite of the bookies' odds, I sat down to watch the result tonight with a certain amount of trepidation. I needn't have worried, though. The idea that this was some kind of moral victory for Labour is laughable. It's almost an iron law in politics - governments shed votes in by-elections, oppositions gain them. Labour in this instance even had the advantage of being a 'double opposition' - they are in opposition both at Westminster and in Holyrood. They were also fighting in territory that they comfortably held at the 2010 UK general election. In a nutshell, this is a by-election they should have been expecting to win with a bit to spare, not aiming to "get the SNP below 50%", as the sainted Ms Dugdale absurdly claimed at the start of proceedings tonight.
The SNP deserve huge credit for avoiding the mistake that Labour themselves have made on so many occasions in defending 'safe seats', by treating the by-election and the constituency with the full respect they deserved. A party that doesn't act like it 'owns' certain votes or is 'entitled' to them is a much more attractive proposition. This is a win that was hard-earned, and all the sweeter for it.
There was also a very interesting tidbit from Stewart Maxwell at the end of the night - apparently the full results of the SNP's canvassing of referendum voting intentions in Donside show Yes on 34% and No on 29%. On the face of it, that flatly contradicts Mark McDonald's supposed "bombshell admission" that most people in the constituency would vote No if the referendum was held now, but perhaps there was a follow-up question to undecided voters asking how they were leaning at present.
Now then. What you're about to read is something that UKIP's "Scottish leader" Lord Monckton actually said tonight on the BBC results programme. This is not a typo.
"UKIP are the most pro-European of all the Scottish parties."
As naturalistic sentences in the English language go, that's right up there with "Hitler was the most pro-Jewish of all the French dictators". Apparently, though, Monckton's appearance on the BBC was a model of sanity and factual accuracy compared to his contribution to the STV coverage just a few minutes earlier, which I sadly missed. Andrea Parma told me that Monckton had followed in Nigel Farage's admirable footsteps by making reference to an epochal "Stirling by-election", which most of us are mysteriously unable to recall. Is this the UKIP equivalent of holocaust denial - "the media are lying to you, resist the drugs, there WAS a Stirling by-election"?
I checked Twitter to see if I could find out what Monckton had actually said about "that night in Stirling", but alas, I couldn't spot any direct reference. What I did find, however, more than made up for it. I'm still struggling to regain my composure.
Kieran Andrews : #scotnight has the beginnings of the Ukip Scottish empire. Lord Monckton interview is extraordinary.
Kirsty Boyle : This dude Monckton is a Barry Humphries character isn't he?
Doug Daniel : Lord Monckton just claimed Alex Salmond was thrown out of the Labour party for being too left wing. Funniest thing ever?
Andy Neil : The interviewer on #scotnight trying to stifle laughter as Lord Monckton makes things up.
Christina McKelvie : Monckton!!! OMG!!!
Magnus Jamieson : Bahahahaha, hilarious from Monckton! Legitimately hilarious! @Radical_Indy "sent from SNP". Literally laughing out loud.
Jonathan Mackie : Hahahahah @stvclaire stunned into silence as Monckton claims Salmond was chucked out of Labour party.
Lallands Peat Worrier : Alex Salmond was thrown out of the Labour party for being too left wing, suggests Monckton. #counterfactualhistory
Andrew Drynan : Is Monckton even on this planet ???
Fraser / Friseal : Bernard Ponsonby’s raised eyebrows said it all about Lord Monckton there.
Sophia Pangloss : *actual fell aff ma settee there...*
Anne Don : Monckton states nationalists are racist, but he is "more Scottish than most Scots".
Rattlecans : They've actually let that Monckton dude on the telly! Whit?
Alasdair Stephen : Lord Monckton just revealed that Alex Salmond was expelled from Labour Party for being too left wing!
Norman McQuade : Can any political anoraks remember if Monckton is firstly earth born and secondly gave the Scotland on Sunday a piece yonks ago?
David Clegg : Did that Lord Monckton interview really happen?!!!!
Cath Ferguson : Yes. Lord Viscount Monckton whatever is apparently "more Scots" than the average Scot. Whatever that's supposed to mean.
Kirsty Boyle : Alex Salmond gave birth to an alien baby before leading the Tories #monckton #UKIPversionoffacts
Joseph MacFarlane : No justice if that Monckton interview doesn't go viral.
Gavin Newlands : Anybody think that Monckton has been on a tour of distilleries on polling day? #heishallucinating
Alan Mackie : After hearing Monckton on #scotnight - have changed my mind. UKIP should be welcomed if only for the entertainment of their comedy madness.
Magnus Jamieson : You cannot make up characters like Monckton. You just cannot. The Universe gifts them to us once a blue moon to reaffirm our humanity.
Jason Rose : Ah, Monckton. Many years ago I interviewed him from his hospital bed about a jigsaw he invented. Mad as a bag of spiders.
Jonny McFarlane : @stvclaire momentarily stunned by total recall special effect claiming Salmond was booted out of #labour for being a socialist!
SNP 42.0%
Labour 33.3%
Liberal Democrats 8.3%
Conservatives 7.7%
UKIP 4.8%
Greens 1.7%
National Front 1.0%
Scottish Christian Party 0.9%
SDA 0.1%
I'm old enough (and in fact anyone over the age of about four is old enough) to know that by-elections that are supposed to be routine can easily produce a jaw-dropping "where did that come from?" result on the night. The examples in recent years alone are plentiful - Glasgow East, Dunfermline and West Fife, Glenrothes, Bradford West. So in spite of the bookies' odds, I sat down to watch the result tonight with a certain amount of trepidation. I needn't have worried, though. The idea that this was some kind of moral victory for Labour is laughable. It's almost an iron law in politics - governments shed votes in by-elections, oppositions gain them. Labour in this instance even had the advantage of being a 'double opposition' - they are in opposition both at Westminster and in Holyrood. They were also fighting in territory that they comfortably held at the 2010 UK general election. In a nutshell, this is a by-election they should have been expecting to win with a bit to spare, not aiming to "get the SNP below 50%", as the sainted Ms Dugdale absurdly claimed at the start of proceedings tonight.
The SNP deserve huge credit for avoiding the mistake that Labour themselves have made on so many occasions in defending 'safe seats', by treating the by-election and the constituency with the full respect they deserved. A party that doesn't act like it 'owns' certain votes or is 'entitled' to them is a much more attractive proposition. This is a win that was hard-earned, and all the sweeter for it.
There was also a very interesting tidbit from Stewart Maxwell at the end of the night - apparently the full results of the SNP's canvassing of referendum voting intentions in Donside show Yes on 34% and No on 29%. On the face of it, that flatly contradicts Mark McDonald's supposed "bombshell admission" that most people in the constituency would vote No if the referendum was held now, but perhaps there was a follow-up question to undecided voters asking how they were leaning at present.
Now then. What you're about to read is something that UKIP's "Scottish leader" Lord Monckton actually said tonight on the BBC results programme. This is not a typo.
"UKIP are the most pro-European of all the Scottish parties."
As naturalistic sentences in the English language go, that's right up there with "Hitler was the most pro-Jewish of all the French dictators". Apparently, though, Monckton's appearance on the BBC was a model of sanity and factual accuracy compared to his contribution to the STV coverage just a few minutes earlier, which I sadly missed. Andrea Parma told me that Monckton had followed in Nigel Farage's admirable footsteps by making reference to an epochal "Stirling by-election", which most of us are mysteriously unable to recall. Is this the UKIP equivalent of holocaust denial - "the media are lying to you, resist the drugs, there WAS a Stirling by-election"?
I checked Twitter to see if I could find out what Monckton had actually said about "that night in Stirling", but alas, I couldn't spot any direct reference. What I did find, however, more than made up for it. I'm still struggling to regain my composure.
Kieran Andrews : #scotnight has the beginnings of the Ukip Scottish empire. Lord Monckton interview is extraordinary.
Kirsty Boyle : This dude Monckton is a Barry Humphries character isn't he?
Doug Daniel : Lord Monckton just claimed Alex Salmond was thrown out of the Labour party for being too left wing. Funniest thing ever?
Andy Neil : The interviewer on #scotnight trying to stifle laughter as Lord Monckton makes things up.
Christina McKelvie : Monckton!!! OMG!!!
Magnus Jamieson : Bahahahaha, hilarious from Monckton! Legitimately hilarious! @Radical_Indy "sent from SNP". Literally laughing out loud.
Jonathan Mackie : Hahahahah @stvclaire stunned into silence as Monckton claims Salmond was chucked out of Labour party.
Lallands Peat Worrier : Alex Salmond was thrown out of the Labour party for being too left wing, suggests Monckton. #counterfactualhistory
Andrew Drynan : Is Monckton even on this planet ???
Fraser / Friseal : Bernard Ponsonby’s raised eyebrows said it all about Lord Monckton there.
Sophia Pangloss : *actual fell aff ma settee there...*
Anne Don : Monckton states nationalists are racist, but he is "more Scottish than most Scots".
Rattlecans : They've actually let that Monckton dude on the telly! Whit?
Alasdair Stephen : Lord Monckton just revealed that Alex Salmond was expelled from Labour Party for being too left wing!
Norman McQuade : Can any political anoraks remember if Monckton is firstly earth born and secondly gave the Scotland on Sunday a piece yonks ago?
David Clegg : Did that Lord Monckton interview really happen?!!!!
Cath Ferguson : Yes. Lord Viscount Monckton whatever is apparently "more Scots" than the average Scot. Whatever that's supposed to mean.
Kirsty Boyle : Alex Salmond gave birth to an alien baby before leading the Tories #monckton #UKIPversionoffacts
Joseph MacFarlane : No justice if that Monckton interview doesn't go viral.
Gavin Newlands : Anybody think that Monckton has been on a tour of distilleries on polling day? #heishallucinating
Alan Mackie : After hearing Monckton on #scotnight - have changed my mind. UKIP should be welcomed if only for the entertainment of their comedy madness.
Magnus Jamieson : You cannot make up characters like Monckton. You just cannot. The Universe gifts them to us once a blue moon to reaffirm our humanity.
Jason Rose : Ah, Monckton. Many years ago I interviewed him from his hospital bed about a jigsaw he invented. Mad as a bag of spiders.
Jonny McFarlane : @stvclaire momentarily stunned by total recall special effect claiming Salmond was booted out of #labour for being a socialist!
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Wipe away those tears, folks - but yes, this might just be the last ever edition of the Daily Duncan
One good thing I would have said about controversial Labour activist Duncan Hothersall until a few short hours ago was that he didn't seem to be one of those people (naming no names, but James Mackenzie) who huffily march off with their ball at the first sign of anyone daring to disagree with them. Even after a fair number of sharp exchanges, Duncan still followed me on Twitter, and I still followed him. Refreshingly mature, I might (almost) have said.
Alas, it turns out that even a man of Duncan's renowned tolerance and saintly political ecumenicism has his breaking-point. At the end of the following exchange, I noticed all of a sudden that not only was Duncan no longer following me, but I was no longer following him. As I hadn't unfollowed him, that could only mean one thing - he had gone the whole hog and blocked me altogether. Take a look for yourself and see if you can decide which particular example of my vile Cybernat hate-speech may have tipped the balance, and made such a drastic step unavoidable.
On the whole, I'm sure Duncan will have very few regrets about blocking someone with alternative political views who is uncivil enough to actually answer back now and again. The only minor downside I can see for him is that he might find me slightly less accommodating the next time he curtly demands that I spare his blushes by removing a comment from this blog.
For my own part, I dare say I'll come to terms with this blow eventually. Call me paranoid, though, but I can't help feeling that it significantly increases the risk of me being blackballed at my hard-earned #Twinner initiation ceremony next year. I'll just have to hope they show some mercy, and break the bad news before inviting me to press my tongue against the underside of the Sacred Gerbil.
* * *
The SNP : @markmcdsnp will stand up against Labour/Tory council plans to close Bramble Brae and Middleton Park schools.
The SNP : @markmcdsnp said: "There is no educational justification whatever for the council's closure plans."
The SNP : @markmcdsnp said: "An SNP win on Thursday is vital if these excellent schools are to be saved"
The SNP : @markmcdsnp: “The closure plans are wrong on educational grounds, and must be opposed for the sake of the children"
Duncan Hothersall : SNP incredibly jumpy on #Donside. What's going on? Pre-poll nerves or opinion poll worries?
Scottish Labour : The track record of @markmcdsnp - as an MSP, Mark voted to cut £2 million from Aberdeen College cutting thousands of student places.
Scottish Labour : The track record of @markmcdsnp - as an MSP, Mark voted against a solution to stop Bedroom Tax evictions across Scotland #donside
Duncan Hothersall : The other parties are relentlessly attacking the SNP, says the SNP, in between relentless attacks on the other parties. :-)
Me : Scottish Labour do look a bit jumpy, though, Duncan. Just judging by their tweets. Bad private polls?
Duncan Hothersall : SNP are defending a 7,000 majority. Not jumpy to attack that.
Me : But Labour hold the equivalent seat(s) at Westminster, don't they? Shouldn't they at least have a 50/50 chance?
Duncan Hothersall : Even for you that's pathetic.
Me : Explain?
Duncan Hothersall : Well, you habitually pick fights on basis of feeble arguments, but this one takes the biscuit. Any clearer?
Me : "Picking a fight"? Who is the aggression coming from in this exchange? Why is my argument "feeble"?
Duncan Hothersall : Off you trot.
Me : I'll take that as a "no, I can't explain why I don't expect Labour to win in area of traditional strength".
Duncan Hothersall : Other than pointing out a 7,000 majority for the SNP. Making this not an area of current Labour strength.
Me : "Current" excludes the 2010 general election, which elected the UK government that currently rules over us?
Duncan Hothersall : If this were a Westminster by-election that might make sense, but it isn't, so it doesn't. Enough daft laddie nonsense from you.
Me : So you agree that Donside is an area of current Labour strength in Westminster terms? Shouldn't they be doing better?
Duncan Hothersall : You do know this isn't a Westminster by-election, yes? People vote differently in different types of election, yes? Basic stuff.
Me : As far as I can see, voters barely make that distinction at all in by-elections. Why do you expect Labour to lose?
Duncan Hothersall : Evidence of that assertion?
Me : It's an observation. Glasgow East didn't feel much like a Westminster contest, but it was. Only difference is UK-wide coverage.
Duncan Hothersall : So you have no evidence. You think the electorate are too stupid to know what sort of representative they are choosing? I don't.
Me : You think people are stupid enough to believe a great many things, Duncan, so why start underestimating them now?
Duncan Hothersall : (no reply, blocked me)
Alas, it turns out that even a man of Duncan's renowned tolerance and saintly political ecumenicism has his breaking-point. At the end of the following exchange, I noticed all of a sudden that not only was Duncan no longer following me, but I was no longer following him. As I hadn't unfollowed him, that could only mean one thing - he had gone the whole hog and blocked me altogether. Take a look for yourself and see if you can decide which particular example of my vile Cybernat hate-speech may have tipped the balance, and made such a drastic step unavoidable.
On the whole, I'm sure Duncan will have very few regrets about blocking someone with alternative political views who is uncivil enough to actually answer back now and again. The only minor downside I can see for him is that he might find me slightly less accommodating the next time he curtly demands that I spare his blushes by removing a comment from this blog.
For my own part, I dare say I'll come to terms with this blow eventually. Call me paranoid, though, but I can't help feeling that it significantly increases the risk of me being blackballed at my hard-earned #Twinner initiation ceremony next year. I'll just have to hope they show some mercy, and break the bad news before inviting me to press my tongue against the underside of the Sacred Gerbil.
* * *
The SNP : @markmcdsnp will stand up against Labour/Tory council plans to close Bramble Brae and Middleton Park schools.
The SNP : @markmcdsnp said: "There is no educational justification whatever for the council's closure plans."
The SNP : @markmcdsnp said: "An SNP win on Thursday is vital if these excellent schools are to be saved"
The SNP : @markmcdsnp: “The closure plans are wrong on educational grounds, and must be opposed for the sake of the children"
Duncan Hothersall : SNP incredibly jumpy on #Donside. What's going on? Pre-poll nerves or opinion poll worries?
Scottish Labour : The track record of @markmcdsnp - as an MSP, Mark voted to cut £2 million from Aberdeen College cutting thousands of student places.
Scottish Labour : The track record of @markmcdsnp - as an MSP, Mark voted against a solution to stop Bedroom Tax evictions across Scotland #donside
Duncan Hothersall : The other parties are relentlessly attacking the SNP, says the SNP, in between relentless attacks on the other parties. :-)
Me : Scottish Labour do look a bit jumpy, though, Duncan. Just judging by their tweets. Bad private polls?
Duncan Hothersall : SNP are defending a 7,000 majority. Not jumpy to attack that.
Me : But Labour hold the equivalent seat(s) at Westminster, don't they? Shouldn't they at least have a 50/50 chance?
Duncan Hothersall : Even for you that's pathetic.
Me : Explain?
Duncan Hothersall : Well, you habitually pick fights on basis of feeble arguments, but this one takes the biscuit. Any clearer?
Me : "Picking a fight"? Who is the aggression coming from in this exchange? Why is my argument "feeble"?
Duncan Hothersall : Off you trot.
Me : I'll take that as a "no, I can't explain why I don't expect Labour to win in area of traditional strength".
Duncan Hothersall : Other than pointing out a 7,000 majority for the SNP. Making this not an area of current Labour strength.
Me : "Current" excludes the 2010 general election, which elected the UK government that currently rules over us?
Duncan Hothersall : If this were a Westminster by-election that might make sense, but it isn't, so it doesn't. Enough daft laddie nonsense from you.
Me : So you agree that Donside is an area of current Labour strength in Westminster terms? Shouldn't they be doing better?
Duncan Hothersall : You do know this isn't a Westminster by-election, yes? People vote differently in different types of election, yes? Basic stuff.
Me : As far as I can see, voters barely make that distinction at all in by-elections. Why do you expect Labour to lose?
Duncan Hothersall : Evidence of that assertion?
Me : It's an observation. Glasgow East didn't feel much like a Westminster contest, but it was. Only difference is UK-wide coverage.
Duncan Hothersall : So you have no evidence. You think the electorate are too stupid to know what sort of representative they are choosing? I don't.
Me : You think people are stupid enough to believe a great many things, Duncan, so why start underestimating them now?
Duncan Hothersall : (no reply, blocked me)
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Dubious legality and unpardonable folly
I agree with the general consensus that Road to Referendum has been an excellent series that has hopefully presaged the broadcast media upping their game in covering the referendum. However, there was a factual howler in the final episode last night that really troubled me. Iain Macwhirter's narration suggested that one reason the SNP had struggled in the 1999 Holyrood election was that Alex Salmond found himself completely out of step with public opinion over "the United Nations bombing of Serbia". In reality of course, not only was the bombing of Serbia categorically not a United Nations operation, it wasn't even authorised by the UN. That is precisely what Mr Salmond was getting at when he described the unilateral action by NATO as being of "dubious legality". There was never even the slightest chance of UN authorisation, because of the veto powers of both Russia and China on the Security Council.
Leaving aside the factual error, did Salmond's stance on Kosovo really cost the SNP the 1999 election? Hardly. In fact, it may even have gained them a few votes, because a substantial minority of the electorate were opposed to the war, and it's reasonable to suppose that those people may have been more passionate about the subject than the majority who were willing to give Blair and Clinton the benefit of the doubt. No, Macwhirter himself put his finger on the real explanation for the election result - there was sufficient goodwill at that time towards Donald Dewar and Tony Blair that it was Labour's election to lose. And they didn't do anything to lose it. If the SNP made any kind of tactical misstep, it was the Penny for Scotland campaign rather than anything to do with Kosovo.
* * *
You've got to hand it to the "UK" Independence Party - they really are a class act. Having launched their Aberdeen Donside by-election campaign in the entirely logical location of a pub 125 miles away in Edinburgh, they went on to send a letter to the deceased MSP they want to replace, requesting his vote. Now they've given us a potted history lesson on how the SNP ceased to be an "anti-English" party after winning a by-election in Stirling that never in fact took place, but which Nigel Farage is quite sure he once read about in a book.
In the highly unlikely event that UKIP do win tomorrow, presumably their chap will turn up at the Welsh Assembly and demand to be sworn in.
Leaving aside the factual error, did Salmond's stance on Kosovo really cost the SNP the 1999 election? Hardly. In fact, it may even have gained them a few votes, because a substantial minority of the electorate were opposed to the war, and it's reasonable to suppose that those people may have been more passionate about the subject than the majority who were willing to give Blair and Clinton the benefit of the doubt. No, Macwhirter himself put his finger on the real explanation for the election result - there was sufficient goodwill at that time towards Donald Dewar and Tony Blair that it was Labour's election to lose. And they didn't do anything to lose it. If the SNP made any kind of tactical misstep, it was the Penny for Scotland campaign rather than anything to do with Kosovo.
* * *
You've got to hand it to the "UK" Independence Party - they really are a class act. Having launched their Aberdeen Donside by-election campaign in the entirely logical location of a pub 125 miles away in Edinburgh, they went on to send a letter to the deceased MSP they want to replace, requesting his vote. Now they've given us a potted history lesson on how the SNP ceased to be an "anti-English" party after winning a by-election in Stirling that never in fact took place, but which Nigel Farage is quite sure he once read about in a book.
In the highly unlikely event that UKIP do win tomorrow, presumably their chap will turn up at the Welsh Assembly and demand to be sworn in.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
A value judgement
Kenny Farquharson on Twitter -
"What politicians like to describe as "Scottish values" are shared by tens of millions of English, Welsh and N Irish people."
So why do we keep voting overwhelmingly against the Tories, and ending up either with Tory governments elected by the rest of the UK, or with Labour governments that have had to tack so far to the right to appeal to Middle England that they are indistinguishable from Tory governments? Some people won't like to hear this, but if we measure values according to the governments and policies that people actually vote for, then "Scottish values" are probably shared more by the Nordic countries than they are by the south of England.
But I'll give you Wales, Kenny. Welsh and Scottish values are indeed very similar, as are the values held across large parts of northern England, and some pockets further south. But those areas just aren't strong enough in terms of population to swing the balance.
"What politicians like to describe as "Scottish values" are shared by tens of millions of English, Welsh and N Irish people."
So why do we keep voting overwhelmingly against the Tories, and ending up either with Tory governments elected by the rest of the UK, or with Labour governments that have had to tack so far to the right to appeal to Middle England that they are indistinguishable from Tory governments? Some people won't like to hear this, but if we measure values according to the governments and policies that people actually vote for, then "Scottish values" are probably shared more by the Nordic countries than they are by the south of England.
But I'll give you Wales, Kenny. Welsh and Scottish values are indeed very similar, as are the values held across large parts of northern England, and some pockets further south. But those areas just aren't strong enough in terms of population to swing the balance.
Friday, June 14, 2013
Question Time DNA
Yesterday afternoon, our old friend Duncan Hothersall launched a half-hearted defence of the ludicrously unbalanced choice of panel for the Edinburgh edition of Question Time by querying whether it was really true that the show was intended as an independence referendum special. People keep calling it that, but where's the evidence, he asked. Well, I only saw the last twenty minutes or so of the programme, but from the way David Dimbleby was talking it was fairly clear that a full five-sixths of the show had been devoted to the referendum. It seems to me that if you walk like a duck five-sixths of the time, and quack like a duck five-sixths of the time, you must at the very least have a fair amount of duck DNA, and the composition of the panel should therefore have been duck-oriented.
"The Question Time panel is chosen carefully across the series and the Green party has appeared on the programme twice in the last four months. The Scottish Greens will be invited to appear on the programme in a future edition recorded in Scotland."
Is it just me, or do you get the distinct impression that they're not even aware that "the Green party" they're referring to is the Green Party of England and Wales, which is entirely separate from the Scottish Green Party? That's hardly a pedantic distinction either, given the Scottish Greens' participation in the Yes campaign. So it seems a primary rationale for the obscene under-representation of the pro-independence side last night was to avoid at all costs the appalling danger of giving slightly too much prominence to the Green Party of England and Wales "across the series".
Bonkers. Utterly bonkers. Who exactly is it that's being "parochial" here?
I'll be interested to see the earlier part of the programme to find out whether Angus Robertson and Lesley Riddoch attempted to raise the issue of bias, and if so whether they were allowed to talk about it at any length. Certainly when Nick Griffin was on the show the entire debate seemed to revolve around whether the producers had been right to allow him a platform, so I see no reason why a similar discussion shouldn't have been permitted this time given the huge level of concern expressed. What particularly troubles me about the Question Time production team is their macho attitude - we saw it before in their arrogant reply to the criticisms of the notorious Glasgow edition of the programme in 2010. It's as if their default response to negative feedback from Scotland is not to pause for reflection, but instead to pat themselves on the back and bizarrely treat the criticisms as proof that they must be getting it right at "UK level". Scotland is terribly parochial, don't-cha-know, so if the Jocks don't like what we're doing we must be pretty much on the right track.
Hmmm. Wouldn't it be better to at least go through the basic process of working out whether your detractors' logic has some validity? As noted above, this was to all intents and purposes an independence referendum special, which in normal circumstances would entail parity of representation between the two sides of the debate. If for some reason there wasn't to be exact parity, where should the balance have fallen? 55% of the members of the elected Scottish Parliament are pro-independence. 51% of the list vote in the most recent opinion poll went to pro-independence parties. Two of the five parties represented at Holyrood are pro-independence. Therefore, if there were to be five representatives of political parties on the show, it seems clear that the correct number of pro-independence politicians was either two or three. How the producers could conclude that a 4-1 split in favour of the anti-independence side was appropriate is beyond me, particularly as they had to bus in two English-based politicians (representing essentially English parties) to achieve that imbalance.
The case for the defence from the producers seems to be that the programme had to be "of interest" to non-Scottish viewers, which necessitated the bringing in of box office names like Farage and Galloway. Clearly that argument is fatuous beyond words, but even if we take it at face value, why should that be inconsistent with a balanced panel? For instance, if we had to have a firebrand socialist with box office credentials, why couldn't it have been pro-independence Tommy Sheridan rather than anti-independence George Galloway? Or how about Margo MacDonald - wouldn't she have been just as good a watch in Finchley as in Fintry?
One last specific point - the producers' excuse for excluding the Greens does not inspire a huge amount of confidence that they in any sense "get it" about the distinctiveness of the Scottish political system...
"The Question Time panel is chosen carefully across the series and the Green party has appeared on the programme twice in the last four months. The Scottish Greens will be invited to appear on the programme in a future edition recorded in Scotland."
Is it just me, or do you get the distinct impression that they're not even aware that "the Green party" they're referring to is the Green Party of England and Wales, which is entirely separate from the Scottish Green Party? That's hardly a pedantic distinction either, given the Scottish Greens' participation in the Yes campaign. So it seems a primary rationale for the obscene under-representation of the pro-independence side last night was to avoid at all costs the appalling danger of giving slightly too much prominence to the Green Party of England and Wales "across the series".
Bonkers. Utterly bonkers. Who exactly is it that's being "parochial" here?
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
The No campaign. You can't join it. Nobody speaks for it. Does it exist?
I really must resist the temptation to repost every single exchange I have with a certain controversial Labour activist on Twitter, but I feel that this one is very, very close to representing the pinnacle of the unique Hothersall art-form. If you don't have time to read through the whole thing, it goes something like this. Duncan thinks that the Conservative Home Secretary Theresa May does not speak for the No campaign, because she's an English Tory and only Scottish parties are officially part of the No campaign. He doesn't need to have a view on whether she would be welcome to formally join the campaign, because it's not actually possible for her to join. Well, OK, of course she can "join" - there's that big "join" button on the campaign's website, after all - but that doesn't mean she'd have really joined, she'd just be a sort of No campaign "fan". He categorically wouldn't encourage non-Scottish parties to get involved in the campaign because it's supposed to be "made in Scotland", but that doesn't mean there is any inconsistency in his failure to attack the campaign's reliance on large donations from outwith Scotland, because when he said he wouldn't encourage non-Scottish parties to get involved that obviously didn't mean he was discouraging them from getting involved. And please note that the fact he is neither encouraging nor discouraging them to do such a thing does NOT mean that he doesn't have an opinion either way. Incidentally, another reason Theresa May doesn't speak for the No campaign is that the referendum isn't about the current UK government, it's only about future governments. But even though Theresa May has every chance of being a member of one of those future governments, that still doesn't mean she can speak for the No campaign, because while the referendum may be about future governments, it isn't about the members of those future governments. That would be silly.
Me : So what's your own view, Duncan? Do you embrace Theresa May as a representative of your own campaign, or not?
Duncan Hothersall : Of course not. From the moment the Section 30 order was passed the referendum became nothing to do with the UK government.
Me : But isn't she also a leading member of the Conservative party, your comrades in arms?
Duncan Hothersall : #Bettertogether is a campaign involving Scottish Labour, the Scottish Liberal Democrats and the Scottish Conservative Party.
Me : So English politicians can't speak on behalf of those parties? What sort of 'better together' is that?
Duncan Hothersall : Of course they can speak on behalf of their parties. But you can't pretend they speak on behalf of the No campaign.
Me : This is hurting my head, Duncan. Would you listen to yourself?
Duncan Hothersall : Theresa May does not speak on behalf of the No campaign. How hard can that be to grasp?
Me : Would you welcome her if she "joined" the No campaign?
Duncan Hothersall : In what sense could she?
Me : What on earth do you mean? Do you exclude on the grounds of race, or something?
Duncan Hothersall : What? Ludicrous leap after ludicrous leap. I asked how could she join the No campaign. Do you have an answer?
Me : To the best of my knowledge she is eligible to "join". Are you saying that's wrong? If so, on what basis is she barred?
Duncan Hothersall : How? It's a simple question. I'm not barring anyone from anything. How could she join the No campaign?
Me : By joining! There is a "join" option on the website, for pity's sake! Are you saying she's barred, or not? If she is, why?
Duncan Hothersall : Oh you mean as a supporter? Well of course. But that wouldn't mean she then spoke on its behalf, which was my point!
Me : Ah, so you're saying people who join have not really "joined"? They're just a sort of fan club? Another sham exposed.
Duncan Hothersall : No. I'm saying supporters aren't spokespeople for the campaign. It's not hard to understand.
Me : You've spent the last twenty minutes asking how May could join the No campaign. You seem to think there's a distinction.
Duncan Hothersall : You asked "Do you embrace Theresa May as a representative of your own campaign, or not?" and I answered very clearly.
Me : I then asked if you would welcome her if she joined the No campaign. You didn't seem to think she could. Why?
Duncan Hothersall : "You didn't seem to think she could." Evidence for this assertion? I asked how she could, I didn't say she couldn't.
Me : All right, so why did you ask, when the "join" option is prominently displayed on the website?
Duncan Hothersall : I'm not particularly familiar with the website.
Me : I'm appalled.
Dun Garbhan : Last week you declared Indy had nothing to do with Cameron and were proved wrong, as usual.
Duncan Hothersall : Proved wrong? It's an opinion. One shared by Alex Salmond until very recently ("a referendum made in Scotland").
Me : So why do you accept donations from outwith Scotland?
Duncan Hothersall : Me? I have never accepted a donation in my life. Why are you addressing me as if I am a spokesperson for BT?
Me : So this logic means that "Cybernats" are irrelevant to the SNP and the Yes campaign?
Duncan Hothersall : Sorry, which logic is this now? The fact that Theresa May isn't a spokesperson for the No campaign? Have we finally agreed that?
Me : The logic that you are not a representative of the No campaign. Wouldn't be pretending not to understand, would you, Duncan?
Duncan Hothersall : Of course I am not a representative of the No campaign. Did you seriously think I was?
Me : So "Cybernats" do not speak for the SNP or the Yes campaign. Correct?
Duncan Hothersall : Of course they don't. Who has ever claimed they do?
Me : Good. After all the obfuscation, an historic admission. It will be recalled.
Duncan Hothersall : (responding to another tweeter) That is a ludicrously broken piece of logic.
Me : Do you think it's a mistake to ban "non-Scottish" parties from Better Together, Duncan? Where's the togetherness?
Duncan Hothersall : Nobody's "banned". BT is a campaign set up by 3 Scottish parties which includes individuals from all parties and none.
Me : So would you encourage non-Scottish parties to get involved? All hands on pump, and all that?
Duncan Hothersall : No, I wouldn't.
Me : Why not?
Duncan Hothersall : Because the campaign is doing fine as it is.
Dun Garbhan : (responding to earlier comment) It flies in the face of reality. Fact - Cameron, UK Ministers, Treasury, MoD, DWP et al are all promoting NO.
Duncan Hothersall : And in my opinion it's none of their business.
Me : So would you agree it's not the business of donors outwith Scotland to bankroll the No campaign?
Duncan Hothersall : I'd prefer it if campaigning was state funded. Neither side should be reliant on private donors.
Me : But as there are private donors, would you discourage non-Scottish donations just as you've discouraged non-Scottish parties?
Duncan Hothersall : No, and I haven't "discouraged" non-Scottish parties. I merely answered your question.
Me : So you're neutral on whether non-Scottish parties should get involved? Do you have an opinion on anything?
Duncan Hothersall : Yes. I think you're wasting my time, and you know damn well Theresa May isn't a spokesperson for the NO campaign.
Me : Duncan, I've indulged your logical gymnastics, but in the real world everyone knows the UK government speaks for No.
Duncan Hothersall : "In the real world everyone knows" = "I can't justify it but this is what I want to be true".
Me : Your entire campaign is about the UK government continuing to rule Scotland - and yet they don't (and can't) "represent" you?
Duncan Hothersall : No, it isn't, and you know it. #indyref is about Scotland in the UK, not about the current UK government.
Me : I didn't say "the current" UK government - I said "the UK government". Next excuse?
Duncan Hothersall : You said the current UK government speaks for BT. #indyref is about future governments, not current governments.
Me : So on that basis would you accept that Theresa May might be representing you, but you don't know it yet?
Duncan Hothersall : Stop being silly. #indyref is about constitutional decisions, not individuals currently in power.
Me : Stop moving the goalposts. You said it was about "future governments". Theresa May might be in a future government, yes?
Duncan Hothersall : It's not about the members of future governments. Stop playing the daft laddie.
Me : So it's only about future governments collectively? But wouldn't May be bound by collective responsibility, as per tradition?
Duncan Hothersall : (no reply)
Duncan's zealotry in insisting that absolutely nobody at all is empowered to speak on behalf of the No campaign (not its own members, not the UK government, not Ed Miliband, not even Dunc himself) calls to mind that old Rory Bremner gag about Gerry Adams -
"I demand that the British government withdraw all troops from the north of Ireland without delay. I demand that the DUP ceases its provocative language. I demand that the RUC stop its harassment of the nationalist community."
"And should the IRA disarm, Mr Adams?"
"Well, it's not for me to tell the IRA what to do!"
* * *
Duncan Hothersall : Special #YesScot debating rule number 253: Alex Salmond doesn't represent Yes; but Theresa May represents No if its convenient.Me : So what's your own view, Duncan? Do you embrace Theresa May as a representative of your own campaign, or not?
Duncan Hothersall : Of course not. From the moment the Section 30 order was passed the referendum became nothing to do with the UK government.
Me : But isn't she also a leading member of the Conservative party, your comrades in arms?
Duncan Hothersall : #Bettertogether is a campaign involving Scottish Labour, the Scottish Liberal Democrats and the Scottish Conservative Party.
Me : So English politicians can't speak on behalf of those parties? What sort of 'better together' is that?
Duncan Hothersall : Of course they can speak on behalf of their parties. But you can't pretend they speak on behalf of the No campaign.
Me : This is hurting my head, Duncan. Would you listen to yourself?
Duncan Hothersall : Theresa May does not speak on behalf of the No campaign. How hard can that be to grasp?
Me : Would you welcome her if she "joined" the No campaign?
Duncan Hothersall : In what sense could she?
Me : What on earth do you mean? Do you exclude on the grounds of race, or something?
Duncan Hothersall : What? Ludicrous leap after ludicrous leap. I asked how could she join the No campaign. Do you have an answer?
Me : To the best of my knowledge she is eligible to "join". Are you saying that's wrong? If so, on what basis is she barred?
Duncan Hothersall : How? It's a simple question. I'm not barring anyone from anything. How could she join the No campaign?
Me : By joining! There is a "join" option on the website, for pity's sake! Are you saying she's barred, or not? If she is, why?
Duncan Hothersall : Oh you mean as a supporter? Well of course. But that wouldn't mean she then spoke on its behalf, which was my point!
Me : Ah, so you're saying people who join have not really "joined"? They're just a sort of fan club? Another sham exposed.
Duncan Hothersall : No. I'm saying supporters aren't spokespeople for the campaign. It's not hard to understand.
Me : You've spent the last twenty minutes asking how May could join the No campaign. You seem to think there's a distinction.
Duncan Hothersall : You asked "Do you embrace Theresa May as a representative of your own campaign, or not?" and I answered very clearly.
Me : I then asked if you would welcome her if she joined the No campaign. You didn't seem to think she could. Why?
Duncan Hothersall : "You didn't seem to think she could." Evidence for this assertion? I asked how she could, I didn't say she couldn't.
Me : All right, so why did you ask, when the "join" option is prominently displayed on the website?
Duncan Hothersall : I'm not particularly familiar with the website.
Me : I'm appalled.
Dun Garbhan : Last week you declared Indy had nothing to do with Cameron and were proved wrong, as usual.
Duncan Hothersall : Proved wrong? It's an opinion. One shared by Alex Salmond until very recently ("a referendum made in Scotland").
Me : So why do you accept donations from outwith Scotland?
Duncan Hothersall : Me? I have never accepted a donation in my life. Why are you addressing me as if I am a spokesperson for BT?
Me : So this logic means that "Cybernats" are irrelevant to the SNP and the Yes campaign?
Duncan Hothersall : Sorry, which logic is this now? The fact that Theresa May isn't a spokesperson for the No campaign? Have we finally agreed that?
Me : The logic that you are not a representative of the No campaign. Wouldn't be pretending not to understand, would you, Duncan?
Duncan Hothersall : Of course I am not a representative of the No campaign. Did you seriously think I was?
Me : So "Cybernats" do not speak for the SNP or the Yes campaign. Correct?
Duncan Hothersall : Of course they don't. Who has ever claimed they do?
Me : Good. After all the obfuscation, an historic admission. It will be recalled.
Duncan Hothersall : (responding to another tweeter) That is a ludicrously broken piece of logic.
Me : Do you think it's a mistake to ban "non-Scottish" parties from Better Together, Duncan? Where's the togetherness?
Duncan Hothersall : Nobody's "banned". BT is a campaign set up by 3 Scottish parties which includes individuals from all parties and none.
Me : So would you encourage non-Scottish parties to get involved? All hands on pump, and all that?
Duncan Hothersall : No, I wouldn't.
Me : Why not?
Duncan Hothersall : Because the campaign is doing fine as it is.
Dun Garbhan : (responding to earlier comment) It flies in the face of reality. Fact - Cameron, UK Ministers, Treasury, MoD, DWP et al are all promoting NO.
Duncan Hothersall : And in my opinion it's none of their business.
Me : So would you agree it's not the business of donors outwith Scotland to bankroll the No campaign?
Duncan Hothersall : I'd prefer it if campaigning was state funded. Neither side should be reliant on private donors.
Me : But as there are private donors, would you discourage non-Scottish donations just as you've discouraged non-Scottish parties?
Duncan Hothersall : No, and I haven't "discouraged" non-Scottish parties. I merely answered your question.
Me : So you're neutral on whether non-Scottish parties should get involved? Do you have an opinion on anything?
Duncan Hothersall : Yes. I think you're wasting my time, and you know damn well Theresa May isn't a spokesperson for the NO campaign.
Me : Duncan, I've indulged your logical gymnastics, but in the real world everyone knows the UK government speaks for No.
Duncan Hothersall : "In the real world everyone knows" = "I can't justify it but this is what I want to be true".
Me : Your entire campaign is about the UK government continuing to rule Scotland - and yet they don't (and can't) "represent" you?
Duncan Hothersall : No, it isn't, and you know it. #indyref is about Scotland in the UK, not about the current UK government.
Me : I didn't say "the current" UK government - I said "the UK government". Next excuse?
Duncan Hothersall : You said the current UK government speaks for BT. #indyref is about future governments, not current governments.
Me : So on that basis would you accept that Theresa May might be representing you, but you don't know it yet?
Duncan Hothersall : Stop being silly. #indyref is about constitutional decisions, not individuals currently in power.
Me : Stop moving the goalposts. You said it was about "future governments". Theresa May might be in a future government, yes?
Duncan Hothersall : It's not about the members of future governments. Stop playing the daft laddie.
Me : So it's only about future governments collectively? But wouldn't May be bound by collective responsibility, as per tradition?
Duncan Hothersall : (no reply)
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
ICM poll : Unprecedented surge for the SNP and Plaid?
The Guardian have released the details of the new GB-wide ICM poll on Westminster voting intentions. Let me say from the outset that I'm a tad sceptical about the astonishingly high combined figure for the SNP and Plaid Cymru, and I do slightly wonder if someone at the Guardian made the error of subtracting the Green vote from the combined vote for 'others', and assuming that what was left could only be the nationalist vote. The fact that the BNP (which had 4% in the last poll) is seemingly on zero is particularly suspicious. However, until we hear otherwise, we must assume that the following figures are accurate -
Labour 36% (+2)
Conservatives 29% (+1)
UKIP 12% (-6)
Liberal Democrats 12% (+1)
SNP / Plaid Cymru 8% (+5)
Greens 2% (+2)
I can't check the historical data at the moment because the ICM website is playing up, but a nationalist vote of 8% must be some kind of record. To put it in perspective, Scotland and Wales have a combined 14% share of the GB population, which would suggest that more than 55% of the electorate in those countries currently support the SNP or Plaid. OK, that's the kind of freakish result that can occasionally happen when you're relying on very small Scottish and Welsh samples, and shouldn't be taken at face value. All the same, it would be very unlikely to happen if the nationalists weren't at least doing reasonably well.
On the broader picture, at this stage in mid-term an opposition party heading for victory should have a comfortable double-digit lead. Labour's slender seven-point advantage does nothing to change my view that the most likely outcome of the next general election is a Tory victory.
UPDATE : The above figures are now confirmed - the SNP are on 7%, comprising a whopping 55% of the Scottish subsample. Plaid Cymru are on 1% (16% in Wales), while the BNP have indeed slumped to zero.
UPDATE : The above figures are now confirmed - the SNP are on 7%, comprising a whopping 55% of the Scottish subsample. Plaid Cymru are on 1% (16% in Wales), while the BNP have indeed slumped to zero.
Monday, June 10, 2013
The love boomerang
I read a few days ago that the No campaign's latest wheeze is to recruit supporters in the rest of the UK to "lovebomb" Scottish friends and relatives. On the face of it, this does seem to be an acknowledgement that there just aren't enough passionate No supporters within Scotland itself to go round, and it also sounds about as promising a strategy as the Guardian's idea of getting readers to write to Ohio voters to instruct them to vote for John Kerry as President. But we mustn't get too cynical yet. Let's think through how it might work in practice...
Dear Natalie,
You may not remember me, but I'm Felicity, your fifth cousin (twice removed) from Wisborough Green. That's right, we met about sixteen years ago when your side of the family got locked out of Jeremy's wedding reception, and your uncle screamed abuse at us through the door for the next two hours. Hope there's no hard feelings, old girl, it was a rum affair anyway, and who wants to listen to Atmosphere by Russ Abbot on a constant loop just to drown out the ramblings of a foul-mouthed Glaswegian?
Now you're probably wondering why I'm contacting you again after all this time. Well, it's quite simple. I want to tell you just how much I love, value and appreciate the contribution that you and all those other great Scottish people make to our United Kingdom. To be honest, I'm not quite sure why I'm telling you this now. Maybe it's got something with this "independence" nonsense I've been hearing about recently? OK, we both know it's not going to come to anything, but it just set me thinking about how diminished I'd feel without you guys. No more blue in the flag. No more skirl of the pipes to welcome visitors to Britain. No more of those non-Conservative Scottish MPs at Westmin...OK, some evils must be endured for the greater good.
So that's pretty much what I wanted to say. I know you're sensible enough to vote against this "independence" malarkey anyway, but if by any chance you ever find yourself feeling slightly neglected up there, you just write to your cousin Felicity and she'll give you a damn good talking to about just how much we need you.
Yours in memory of the Raj,
Felicity
* * *
Hi Felicity,
I think you might be getting me confused with someone else. I was definitely at Jeremy's wedding reception, although I do remember you pouring tequila down my dress when I said I was going to open the door and let our Mancunian cousins in. But never mind about that. I can't deny I was really excited to hear about how much you value our place in the United Kingdom, and I was wondering if you could clarify the following points for me -
1) Do you value us enough to house Trident somewhere near Wisborough Green if we ask for it to be removed from Scotland?
2) Do you value us enough to let us make our own decisions on welfare policy?
3) Do you value us enough to give us an opt out from London's illegal wars in future?
4) Do you value us enough to give us access to our own natural resources?
When I read your letter, I could sense the selfless love dripping from every word, so I feel sure that you will be able to answer all four of these questions in the affirmative. I must admit I had been thinking of voting Yes to independence, but if you can confirm that you value us enough to make these sacrifices, you may just have a convert on your hands.
I eagerly await your response.
Cheers,
Natalie
* * *
Dear Natalie,
Did I mention how much I love kilts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)