Further evidence that Scotland is more pro-European than the rest of the UK

The supplementary questions in today's YouGov poll add to the substantial body of evidence that Scotland is more enthusiastic about membership of the European Union than the rest of the UK...

Do you think Britain would be better or worse off economically if we left the European Union, or would it make no difference?

Better off -

London 32%
South excluding London 36%
Wales and English Midlands 36%
North of England 37%
Scotland 28%

Worse off -

London 40%
South excluding London 32%
Wales and English Midlands 32%
North of England 30%
Scotland 43%

Do you think Britain would have more or less influence in the world if we left the European Union, or would it make no difference?

More influence -

London 14%
South excluding London 13%
Wales and English Midlands 12%
North of England 15%
Scotland 7%

Less influence -

London 41%
South excluding London 38%
Wales and English Midlands 36%
North of England 38%
Scotland 47%

The main point about these figures is that they reinforce the danger that Scotland could be forced out of the EU against its will if it remains part of the UK. The scenario is straightforward - the rest of the UK votes Tory, we vote against the Tories = we all get the Tories, who then hold an in/out referendum on membership of the EU. The rest of the UK votes to leave the EU, we vote to stay in = we all leave.

From ultra-unionist to separatist - the Tavish Scott story

Willie Rennie has established himself as such a political colossus of late that, by all accounts, primary school children routinely ask their teachers if non-Willies are even allowed to become leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats.  But older readers will know only too well that the Lib Dems are no strangers to Golden Eras such as the one we're currently blessed enough to be living through.  The last few days have provided a poignant reminder that it's a mere two years since the party was presided over by arguably the finest orator of his generation, Tavish "Two Hoots" Scott.  Thrillingly, it appears that the tragic Lost Leader has embarked on something of a political journey since we last heard from him, and has as a result departed decisively from his previous trademark ultra-unionism...sorry, I mean "federalism, but maybe not for a wee while".

Mr Scott put forward the Isle of Man as an example that the Northern Isles could follow.

"The Manx parliament is a good model for Shetland," he said.

"Speaker Roden is a Scot, he's a former young Liberal. He lit the liberal flame in Moray in the 1979 general election.

"But his powers, those of the Tynwald and the powers that the isle has could be copied in Shetland.

"So would the SNP oppose Shetland becoming a Crown Dependency?"

Perhaps a more interesting question is this - why wouldn't the Lib Dems oppose Shetland becoming a Crown Dependency? It would, after all, mean leaving the United Kingdom, and possibly (if the examples of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are anything to go by) the European Union as well. I thought the Lib Dems were supposed to loathe this "separatism" stuff? As I say, a remarkable journey in just two years.

What can explain this rapid change of heart? A few cynical souls have suggested that it's all to do with the fact that Scottish independence is suddenly a serious prospect. Tavish was content enough to see his islands have no autonomy at all as long as they were being ruled direct from London, but similar direct rule from Edinburgh is seemingly too horrific for him to contemplate. If there's any truth in that, it would say something rather profound about the Scottish Lib Dems' attitude to the country they purport to represent - they appear to regard the prospect of governance from Edinburgh in much the same way as the Ulster Unionists of the early 20th Century regarded the prospect of 'Rome Rule' from Dublin.

For my own part, I'm entirely comfortable with the push for much greater Shetlandic autonomy, and to that end maybe the Lib Dems should start by getting their own internal party structures sorted out. Surely the Shetland Liberal Democrats should have been granted special status as a Clegg Dependency long ago?

Canavan would be your choice for Falkirk

Thanks for all your votes in yesterday's poll - by an overwhelming margin you feel that Dennis Canavan, rather than an SNP candidate, should fly the flag for independence in any Falkirk by-election that might occur over the coming months.

Dennis Canavan 90%

An SNP candidate 9%

It looks like being an academic point, however.  Question : what does a disgraced Labour MP who has even less shame than Denis MacShane look like?  Answer : well, he looks quite a bit like Eric Joyce.

*  *  *

I'm relieved to say I've finally put my money where my mouth is, and made a £10 donation to the Wings Over Scotland fundraising appeal.  I was hoping I might be able to cobble together a bit more, but alas (and not to put too fine a point on it) I'm slightly broke at the moment.  With nine days to go, the campaign is about three-quarters of the way to making its target figure (it looks like less than that on the Indiegogo website, but RevStu apparently has an extra few thousand in direct donations that he can add to the fund if needed to swing the balance).  The target isn't purely psychological - if the amount raised falls short, Indiegogo will deduct a 9% rather than a 4% fee.  So your ten pound donation might just make a thousand pounds' worth of difference.

*  *  *

A few days ago, the website comments platform Disqus changed its system without warning, and sent the management and posting community at Political Betting into apoplexy, largely because it's no longer possible to view the discussion on the site in chronological order.  I must admit 'New Disqus' is indeed pretty rubbish, but all the same it's hard not to raise a smile at the gloriously ironic way in which the PB management have been desperately trying to get Disqus to back down.  A kind of 'tag-team' has been organised to harrass the 'DisqusHelp' account on Twitter - "they must listen to us!" has been the cry.  Oddly enough, I can't recall such inspiring enthusiasm for people power on the many occasions when left-wing posters have been arbitrarily banned or treated unjustly on PB itself.  "It's our site, it's our rules, and if you don't like it go elsewhere," has been the response (invariably gaining 798 instant Disqus 'likes' from PB Tories).  Or, in Kafka-esque style, complaints have simply been wiped from existence on the grounds that "talking about the rules is against the rules".  And if the complainant doesn't back down, he's then banned because "continuing to talk about the rules is a banning offence".  And other posters never find out that the banning has occurred, because if anyone ever mentions it, they'll be bann...well, you get the picture.

I left the following comment on PB about an hour ago, and it didn't even appear briefly - it was instantly caught by the moderation trap.  Is there an algorithm that somehow knows?  For the uninitiated, HD2 (aka Brian Corbett) is this guy.

"I see Amanda of DisqusHelp has been getting the HD2 treatment -

HD2 : @PlatoSays @disqushelp Posting has all bust stopped, so ad revenue down. Much as I dislike OGH, that's not fair on him. I can't even 'like'!

Plato : @HD2onPBdotcom It's just dreadful @disqushelp

HD2 : @PlatoSays @disqushelp I've been with hotmail since 1995 or so. I've just been 'upgraded' to Outlook, which is unusable too. Never impose!

Plato : @HD2onPBdotcom @disqushelp Site moderator is now ticking off posters who use Reply or Likes as it makes the site unusable politicalbetting

HD2 : @PlatoSays @disqushelp NEVER impose, always 'OFFER' upgrades = happy customers/users. We choose = happy punters: they impose = anger & riots

DisqusHelp : @HD2onPBdotcom We appreciate the feedback, Brian. We're phasing out Disqus Classic, which is why sites are being switched over. -Amanda

In other words, "f*** off, Brian". I really think Amanda should have gone for a classier, PB-style passive-aggressive response, and said "it's our system, and our rules, and if you don't like them why not set up your own comments platform?". And then of course huffily blocked everyone who had dared to raise a word of protest.

As an aside, I've just realised that I'm still blocked by Plato on Twitter (three years on, is it?), and yet I can still view her profile and read all her tweets! Twitter must have the most rubbish blocking system ever."

Poll : Who should carry the independence banner in a Falkirk by-election?

Without wanting to get into any legally sensitive matters, it seems there is a renewed chance (albeit probably still an outside one) that there will be another Falkirk by-election over the coming months.  Yesterday the PB poster TheUnionDivvie made the intriguing suggestion that Dennis Canavan might stand in such a contest on a 'Labour for Independence' ticket.  It's not hard to see the appeal of that idea, because Canavan would surely walk the election, and the symbolic power of his party description would be like gold dust for the Yes campaign.

But is it really feasible?  Could Canavan combine constituency duties with his role at Yes Scotland?  Should someone with such a key role in a cross-party campaign group be re-entering the party political fray?  And would a proud party like the SNP be prepared to stand aside in his favour?

That's the subject of today's poll.  If by any chance there is a Falkirk by-election, should the independence banner be carried by an SNP candidate, or by Dennis Canavan?  You can find the voting form at the top of the sidebar.

Yet another poll shows a swing in favour of independence

Cornish sex memoirist, "Thatcherite outlaw" and all-round Brit Nat extraordinaire Sean Thomas (aka "international thriller writer Tom Knox") gleefully brandished the latest TNS-BMRB poll on independence earlier today, apparently blissfully unaware that it follows the pattern of several other polls so far this year in showing a swing to the Yes side.  I'm grateful to him, because otherwise I might have overlooked the poll's existence.

There will be a referendum on Scottish Independence in the autumn of 2014.  If this referendum were to be held tomorrow, how would you vote in response to the question: Should Scotland be an independent country?

Yes 33% (+5)

No 52% (+4)

At first glance the dramatic fall in the number of Don't Knows might look slightly odd, given that other polls of late have shown the complete opposite happening, but it can be fairly easily explained by the fact that this is the first time TNS-BMRB have used the actual proposed referendum question, rather than the long-obsolete question that might have been asked had the Scottish Government been forced to make do with a consultative referendum.  I'm still not mad-keen on the unnecessary use of a preamble to the question, although the wording looks neutral enough.

The numerate among you (which is probably all of you, unless Duncan Hothersall is making one of his occasional visits) will immediately spot that, although support for both the Yes and No sides has increased, the slightly lower increase for No means that there has been a modest net swing to Yes - of 0.5% to be exact.  Bearing in mind that the previous TNS-BMRB poll showed a 5% drop in the No lead, this means there has been a full 3% swing to Yes since the company's final poll of 2012.

Even more promising news comes from the other question that TNS-BMRB posed, which speaks volumes about one of the No campaign's Achilles heels - the fact that it will be compulsory for Scotland to have nuclear weapons on its soil if we reject independence.

The UK Government plans to replace the existing Trident nuclear weapons with a new system, at a cost of £65 billion.  Do you support or oppose the UK Government buying a new nuclear weapons system to replace Trident?

Oppose 60%

Support 14%

Neither 17%

The Falklands referendum was a massive missed opportunity, but the result must be respected

It's something of a red-letter day when I find myself agreeing with any part of a ranting by Mr Nile Gardiner, director of the 'Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom' (yuck), so I thought I ought to make a note of the occasion for posterity.  Of course he's right for all the wrong reasons - it's part of his ongoing paranoid obsession with the Obama administration's supposed betrayal of America's 'greatest and most noble ally Great Britain'.  But all the same, when he says that it's outrageous for the US to airily wave away a legitimate exercise in democratic self-determination by the Falkland Islanders, I think he's pretty much spot-on.

As far as sovereignty is concerned, there really is no point in the US urging the UK and Argentina to negotiate, because those countries have nothing to negotiate about.  If the UK's constitutional relationship with the Falklands is ever to change, that is a matter for negotiation between the islanders and the UK.  And if the Falklands are ever going to have any sort of constitutional relationship with Argentina, that is a matter for negotiation between the islanders and Argentina.  It's a grotesque irony that the Argentinian government witters on about "colonialism" while demanding a solution that is the absolute epitome of the colonial mindset - two powers negotiating for territorial control, entirely over the heads of those whose lives will be directly affected by any change.  I've said this many times before, but it's worth reiterating - the current residents of the Falklands and their ancestors are the only stable population the islands have ever had.  They satisfy all the criteria for national self-determination.  We in the Scottish national movement may find their enthusiasm for all things British somewhat quaint, but if our belief in our own country's right to self-determination means anything at all, it has to extend to the Falklands as well.

That said, this was an imperfect referendum.  As I pointed out in June, a one-dimensional question asking if the islanders wanted to retain their antiquated status as a UK overseas territory was a massive missed opportunity.  Instead, they should have been asked how they wanted their relationship with the UK to be modernised, thus removing the colonial label that provides cover for Argentina's own imperial designs on the territory.  The other shortcoming was that newcomers to the islands apparently had to satisfy a seven-year residency requirement to be eligible to take part, which must have had the effect of suppressing the No vote.  Quite what the point of that was I don't know - a referendum result that hadn't looked quite so North Korean in character might actually have earned more respect around the world.

Result:

Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?

Yes 1513 (99.8%)
No 3 (0.2%)

Ashcroft poll : SNP hold clear lead in Lib Dem-held seats

The latest Ashcroft vanity-fest megapoll is out, and perhaps of most interest to us are the figures for Lib Dem-held seats in Scotland, and for Labour v SNP battleground seats.  Hold onto your hats for the first set...

Liberal Democrat held seats in Scotland :

SNP 31%
Labour 26%
Liberal Democrats 20%
Conservatives 16%

It's worth reinforcing that these figures refer to Westminster voting intention, and that the sample size for these seats alone was a whopping 1,151 - more than enough to be scientifically credible.  So we could well be seeing the SNP coming from third (or even fourth) place to take seats from the Lib Dems, just as we did in the Holyrood election two years ago.  On the seat-by-seat breakdown in the poll, the SNP would make six gains from the Lib Dems, including former leader Menzies Campbell's seat of NE Fife.  The Lib Dems would be left with just two seats in Scotland - and it would probably be one if it wasn't for Charles Kennedy's personal popularity.

Labour v SNP battleground seats :

Labour 46%
SNP 35%
Conservatives 11%
Liberal Democrats 4%

Most of these seats are Labour-held at present, so this looks like a no change position to me, with both parties holding what they currently have (in the SNP's case Dundee East and Na h-Eileanan an Iar).  Most of the follow-up questions in these seats are worthless because they ignore the SNP's existence, although the one that doesn't is worth mentioning -

Which party do you think most understands your part of the country?

SNP 38%
Labour 32%
Conservatives 6%
Liberal Democrats 2%

Is Scotland even more anti-Tory than we realised?

YouGov have provided some timely food for thought for those who still delude themselves that the political centre of gravity in Scotland isn't fundamentally different to the rest of the UK...

Percentage of electorate who will definitely NOT consider voting for the Conservative Party at the next general election :

London 43%
South excluding London 38%
Wales and English Midlands 37%
North of England 49%
Scotland 61%

Percentage of electorate who will definitely NOT consider voting for the Conservative Party if they imagine that "all four parties" have a chance of winning in the local area (the "fourth" is UKIP) :

London 44%
South excluding London 42%
Wales and English Midlands 33%
North of England 47%
Scotland 84%

So in contrast to all other GB regions where it makes little difference whether all the parties have a chance, in Scotland that consideration makes over half the people who would otherwise consider voting Tory change their minds.  In other words, the Tory brand may be even more toxic in Scotland than we thought - a significant number of Tory votes may be from tactical voters who would run a mile from the party if the playing-field was level.

This is, basically, a very anti-Tory country that we live in.  And yet, if we don't vote for independence next year, we can expect to carry on being ruled by Tories two-thirds of the time - a point that needs to be driven home again, and again, and again.

Moving in the right direction

My latest article for the International Business Times is now up, on the subject of an encouraging few weeks for the Yes campaign, and how two of the No side's favourite scare stories have bitten the dust.  You can read it HERE.

What's an anti-nuclear country to do?

I gather from a newspaper report today that the UK government has decreed (in its usual self-effacing manner) that an independent Scotland would be 'banned' from possessing nuclear weapons.  So let's recap on what we now know -

1) Nuclear weapons will be forbidden in an independent Scotland.

2) Nuclear weapons will be compulsory in a non-independent Scotland.

So what on earth is an anti-nuclear weapons country like Scotland supposed to do in its forthcoming referendum on independence?  I think I speak on behalf of all of us in begging the (admittedly brilliant) UK government strategists to stop torturing us with these impossible dilemmas.