Above all else, today is a terribly sad day for Margaret Thatcher's family, her friends, and all those who feel a sense of loss as a result of her passing. I'm beginning to wonder if the former PM's ideological opponents ought to have restricted themselves to offering personal sympathy and condolences on that basis, because even the most generalised of tributes to her political talents and achievements have been cynically leapt upon by some on the right as 'proof' that she was correct all along.
Another potential approach at a moment like this is to single out one or two specific achievements that we do genuinely admire - for example the saving grace of John Major's premiership was the substantial progress towards peace in Northern Ireland. With Mrs Thatcher it's more challenging to do that, but after a long, hard think, here is my short list of the good things that I think she did.
The resolution of the Rhodesia/Zimbabwe crisis in 1980. Many would have expected her to intervene to thwart Mugabe's ascent to power (on anti-communist grounds or whatever), but she correctly allowed the democratic process to run its course.
Standing up for the Falkland islanders' right to self-determination. Whether it was really about that for her is dubious, and the loss of life was utterly horrendous (the equivalent of half the population of the islands), but nevertheless a vitally important principle was affirmed.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement. Again, she probably did this for the wrong reasons - she was seeking security cooperation from Dublin above all else. But nevertheless it was a small signal to the nationalist population that their moderate political representatives could make progress without recourse to bombs or bullets.
Approving a rational HIV awareness campaign. With her social conservative background, many expected her to insist that the government campaign should emphasise sexual abstinence. But she didn't, and probably saved many lives in the process.
Progress towards European unity. This is the most ironic of the lot, but two of the most significant milestones on the road to European integration occurred on Mrs Thatcher's watch - the breaking of the logjam caused by the 'Luxembourg Compromise', and the Single European Act.
Can you think of any others?
Monday, April 8, 2013
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Are you called David?
I've just stumbled across a Twitter campaign that unaccountably has just nine followers at present. Called 'Davids for Indy', it seeks to identify every David in Scotland who will be voting Yes in September 2014. So if your first name, middle name or surname is David, or even if it isn't, go HERE to follow this inspiring campaign as a matter of some urgency.
Surely someone has got to do this for every single name? Once we have a thousand Felicitys for Indy, victory will be assured.
* * *
The BBC's John Sweeney has had a number of highlights to his journalistic career, but I'm not sure his solemnly-delivered 'insight' into the latest North Korean crisis was one of them. It went something like this -
"North Korea is mad. It's sad. It's bad. It's silly. It's all those things at the same time. It's thermonuclear cheese. Our minder sang "My Way" at a karaoke bar. This is crazy. Someone phoned up their mum who said haven't you heard that North Korea has just declared thermonuclear war. Hold on a second. It's like the Wizard of Oz, but with a young fat man instead of an old thin man. What's going to happen? Three words, Lucy. I - Don't - Know. But I don't think there's going to be a nuclear war. That's my feeling."
Cheers, John. That's four minutes of my life I'm never going to get back.
* * *
Brit Nat logic for wasting billions on renewing Trident -
Brit Nat : We need it to protect ourselves against our adversaries. (NOTE : Our 'adversaries' are presumably Iran and North Korea. The former does not possess nuclear weapons, and the latter has a tiny of number of nuclear weapons which it is incapable of firing to anywhere even vaguely close to the UK.)
Sceptic : So does that mean Spain needs its own nuclear weapons to protect itself against Iran and North Korea?
Brit Nat : No of course not. As a member of NATO, Spain is protected by the American nuclear umbrella. Any attack on Spain would be treated as an attack on the United States.
Sceptic : But isn't Britain also in NATO? If Spain doesn't need its own nuclear weapons for protection, why does Britain?
Brit Nat : Er...
Yes, I believe Tom "Admin" Harris is a firm supporter of retaining inhuman weapons of mass destruction on the Clyde.
Surely someone has got to do this for every single name? Once we have a thousand Felicitys for Indy, victory will be assured.
* * *
The BBC's John Sweeney has had a number of highlights to his journalistic career, but I'm not sure his solemnly-delivered 'insight' into the latest North Korean crisis was one of them. It went something like this -
"North Korea is mad. It's sad. It's bad. It's silly. It's all those things at the same time. It's thermonuclear cheese. Our minder sang "My Way" at a karaoke bar. This is crazy. Someone phoned up their mum who said haven't you heard that North Korea has just declared thermonuclear war. Hold on a second. It's like the Wizard of Oz, but with a young fat man instead of an old thin man. What's going to happen? Three words, Lucy. I - Don't - Know. But I don't think there's going to be a nuclear war. That's my feeling."
Cheers, John. That's four minutes of my life I'm never going to get back.
* * *
Brit Nat logic for wasting billions on renewing Trident -
Brit Nat : We need it to protect ourselves against our adversaries. (NOTE : Our 'adversaries' are presumably Iran and North Korea. The former does not possess nuclear weapons, and the latter has a tiny of number of nuclear weapons which it is incapable of firing to anywhere even vaguely close to the UK.)
Sceptic : So does that mean Spain needs its own nuclear weapons to protect itself against Iran and North Korea?
Brit Nat : No of course not. As a member of NATO, Spain is protected by the American nuclear umbrella. Any attack on Spain would be treated as an attack on the United States.
Sceptic : But isn't Britain also in NATO? If Spain doesn't need its own nuclear weapons for protection, why does Britain?
Brit Nat : Er...
Yes, I believe Tom "Admin" Harris is a firm supporter of retaining inhuman weapons of mass destruction on the Clyde.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
More befuddlement on Scotland from the London media - it's the Independent's turn
In 2011, the Scottish Sun came out in support of the SNP, but made clear that they remained firmly opposed to independence. They were probably hoping (and expecting) that the SNP would win, but not well enough to actually bring about an independence referendum. Nevertheless, the day after the election, the paper's editor (or political editor?) was all over the airwaves making plain his satisfaction that the SNP had won a majority, but maintaining his scathing stance on independence. As things stood, therefore, the most likely outcome was that the Sun would back a No vote in 2014, but continue to support the SNP in the 2016 Holyrood election.
In today's Independent, there is for the first time a clear-cut statement from a News International source on the Sun's stance in the referendum -
"We will have a neutral stance."
So in two short years, the Sun have gone from being viscerally anti-independence to a position of studied neutrality. By any standards, this is a considerable bonus for the Yes campaign, which can now look forward to a fair (if not uncritical) hearing in Scotland's biggest-selling paper. And yet, curiously, the Independent seem to think this is "a major blow to the SNP" (not another one, surely!), and a "withdrawal of support for independence by Mr Murdoch" (how can something that didn't exist be "withdrawn"?). Even more bizarrely, they seem to think that this also constitutes a withdrawal of support for the SNP itself, even though the SNP will not be on the ballot paper in the referendum, and even though the NI source doesn't seem to have made any comment whatsoever about the Sun's likely stance in the 2016 Holyrood election.
Answers on a postcard, folks.
There's an even more exotic claim elsewhere in the article -
"The latest opinion poll puts support for independence at 36 per cent, support for Scotland to remain in the Union at 46 per cent, and those undecided at 18 per cent. With a shift away from any radical change widely expected to occur as the referendum gets closer, the "Yes" campaign technically needs to be close to 60 per cent within the next 12 months."
Given that the idea that the Yes campaign needs to reach 60% support (even in polls that fail to exclude don't knows?!) is a rather wild, evidence-free declaration of blind faith, this must surely be a contender for the most inappropriate use of the word "technically" in recorded history. And "widely expected"? Where is it widely expected? In the Kellner/Ashton household, perhaps? Students of the 1995 Quebec referendum (you'd think a pollster of Mr Kellner's stature might be one of those, but apparently not) will be forgiven for having rather different expectations, given that the pro-independence campaign recovered from a seemingly hopeless position to finish in a virtual dead-heat by polling day.
In today's Independent, there is for the first time a clear-cut statement from a News International source on the Sun's stance in the referendum -
"We will have a neutral stance."
So in two short years, the Sun have gone from being viscerally anti-independence to a position of studied neutrality. By any standards, this is a considerable bonus for the Yes campaign, which can now look forward to a fair (if not uncritical) hearing in Scotland's biggest-selling paper. And yet, curiously, the Independent seem to think this is "a major blow to the SNP" (not another one, surely!), and a "withdrawal of support for independence by Mr Murdoch" (how can something that didn't exist be "withdrawn"?). Even more bizarrely, they seem to think that this also constitutes a withdrawal of support for the SNP itself, even though the SNP will not be on the ballot paper in the referendum, and even though the NI source doesn't seem to have made any comment whatsoever about the Sun's likely stance in the 2016 Holyrood election.
Answers on a postcard, folks.
There's an even more exotic claim elsewhere in the article -
"The latest opinion poll puts support for independence at 36 per cent, support for Scotland to remain in the Union at 46 per cent, and those undecided at 18 per cent. With a shift away from any radical change widely expected to occur as the referendum gets closer, the "Yes" campaign technically needs to be close to 60 per cent within the next 12 months."
Given that the idea that the Yes campaign needs to reach 60% support (even in polls that fail to exclude don't knows?!) is a rather wild, evidence-free declaration of blind faith, this must surely be a contender for the most inappropriate use of the word "technically" in recorded history. And "widely expected"? Where is it widely expected? In the Kellner/Ashton household, perhaps? Students of the 1995 Quebec referendum (you'd think a pollster of Mr Kellner's stature might be one of those, but apparently not) will be forgiven for having rather different expectations, given that the pro-independence campaign recovered from a seemingly hopeless position to finish in a virtual dead-heat by polling day.
Monday, April 1, 2013
Tavish didn't "save our p'lice" - but did he save Rennie's skin?
This seems almost uncannily topical on the day that the merger of Scotland's police forces finally takes effect, but a YouGov survey of leading political strategists and advertising executives has found that Tavish 'Two Hoots' Scott's famous "save our p'lice" TV ad from the 2011 Holyrood election is held in higher regard than most of us realise -
Top five most effective UK Party Political Broadcasts since 1970 (in reverse order) :
5. "Crisis? What crisis?", Conservatives, 1979
4. "24 hours to save the NHS", Labour, 1997
3. "John Cleese explains proportional representation", SDP, 1987
2. "Labour's Tax Bombshell", Conservatives, 1992
1. "Save our p'lice", Scottish Liberal Democrats, 2011
Yes, I'm way ahead of you here. It does appear, to say the least, somewhat bizarre that a component part of a campaign that saw the Lib Dems' representation slashed by more than two-thirds could be considered the greatest party political broadcast of the last four decades. But in his commentary on the poll findings, our old friend Peter Kellner has an explanation (of sorts) -
"The test of the effectiveness of this broadcast is not how many seats the Scottish Liberal Democrats lost, but how many more seats they would have lost without the brilliance of the "save our p'lice" strategy. Former aides to Mr Scott have privately told me that the party had braced itself for the possibility of being left with only two or three seats after the May 2011 election. It's quite probable that Mr Scott's visionary successor would not have been among the successful candidates in that scenario. The broadcast may not have succeeded in saving Scotland's p'lice, it may not even have saved Mr Scott's own leadership, but by saving the skin of the charismatic Willie Rennie, it might just have helped safeguard the Liberal Democrats' long-term future as one of Scotland's top seven political parties.
Anyone who stumbles upon the broadcast on YouTube today might be slightly bemused to discover the awe in which it is still held by experts. But it has to be seen as very much "of its time". The techniques pioneered by the ad have since been copied so extensively by rivals that, two years on, it's all too easy to forget the extraordinary impact they originally had. The unconvincing siren noises at the beginning and the end, Mr Scott's endless pacing up and down in front of a stationary Lothian and Borders police car, his struggle with the wind as he attempts to keep his dome-shaped Lib Dem "save our p'lice" postcard in an upright position, his sing-song voice as he outlines all the things that he doesn't want to happen to his p'lice (counterpointed by the shocking force with which he delivers the instruction "AND NOR SHOULD YOU"), his determined failure to pronounce the letter 'o' in the word "p'lice" - these are all things of genius. But, if anything, the broadcast is even greater than the sum of its parts. If there was such a thing as an 'X Factor' for party political broadcasts, I suspect Tavish Scott and "save our p'lice" would have been 2011's Christmas No. 1, and deservedly so."
Top five most effective UK Party Political Broadcasts since 1970 (in reverse order) :
5. "Crisis? What crisis?", Conservatives, 1979
4. "24 hours to save the NHS", Labour, 1997
3. "John Cleese explains proportional representation", SDP, 1987
2. "Labour's Tax Bombshell", Conservatives, 1992
1. "Save our p'lice", Scottish Liberal Democrats, 2011
Yes, I'm way ahead of you here. It does appear, to say the least, somewhat bizarre that a component part of a campaign that saw the Lib Dems' representation slashed by more than two-thirds could be considered the greatest party political broadcast of the last four decades. But in his commentary on the poll findings, our old friend Peter Kellner has an explanation (of sorts) -
"The test of the effectiveness of this broadcast is not how many seats the Scottish Liberal Democrats lost, but how many more seats they would have lost without the brilliance of the "save our p'lice" strategy. Former aides to Mr Scott have privately told me that the party had braced itself for the possibility of being left with only two or three seats after the May 2011 election. It's quite probable that Mr Scott's visionary successor would not have been among the successful candidates in that scenario. The broadcast may not have succeeded in saving Scotland's p'lice, it may not even have saved Mr Scott's own leadership, but by saving the skin of the charismatic Willie Rennie, it might just have helped safeguard the Liberal Democrats' long-term future as one of Scotland's top seven political parties.
Anyone who stumbles upon the broadcast on YouTube today might be slightly bemused to discover the awe in which it is still held by experts. But it has to be seen as very much "of its time". The techniques pioneered by the ad have since been copied so extensively by rivals that, two years on, it's all too easy to forget the extraordinary impact they originally had. The unconvincing siren noises at the beginning and the end, Mr Scott's endless pacing up and down in front of a stationary Lothian and Borders police car, his struggle with the wind as he attempts to keep his dome-shaped Lib Dem "save our p'lice" postcard in an upright position, his sing-song voice as he outlines all the things that he doesn't want to happen to his p'lice (counterpointed by the shocking force with which he delivers the instruction "AND NOR SHOULD YOU"), his determined failure to pronounce the letter 'o' in the word "p'lice" - these are all things of genius. But, if anything, the broadcast is even greater than the sum of its parts. If there was such a thing as an 'X Factor' for party political broadcasts, I suspect Tavish Scott and "save our p'lice" would have been 2011's Christmas No. 1, and deservedly so."
Monday, March 25, 2013
YouGov poll : Scots reject No campaign's wish for key powers to remain at Westminster
YouGov have released the details of an SNP-commissioned poll that primarily inquired into where people think that key decision-making powers should lie.
Which government do you think should be responsible for all tax and spending decisions in Scotland, including tax revenues from oil and gas?
The Scottish Government 52%
The UK Government 35%
Which government do you think would be best at deciding welfare and pensions policy for Scotland?
The Scottish Government 53%
The UK Government 34%
Which government do you think would be best at representing Scotland and Scottish interests in the European Union?
The Scottish Government 50%
The UK Government 39%
The point being of course that if voters feel that all these things should be controlled by the Scottish Government, it would be a touch odd to vote No to independence and ensure that every single one of them remains controlled by London. But perhaps there is a logically consistent way in which people who hold these views could still vote No? The only thing I can think of is that they might feel so strongly that Scotland is too wee and too stupid to control its own defence and non-EU foreign policies that everything else just pales into insignificance. But that seems unlikely. It can't possibly be that they feel they will be economically worse off under independence, because presumably the desire for Scottish control over tax, spending and welfare implies that they think a Scottish government will take those decisions more wisely. That's a pretty big consideration by any standards.
So while there's an outside chance that defence and non-EU foreign affairs may be what is swinging the balance for some, there comes a point where the Yes campaign are entitled to point out that the emperor has no clothes, and that if you actually mean what you say about wanting Scotland to control tax and spending, oil and gas revenues, welfare and pensions, and its own EU representation, it's probably best not to vote No and prevent all those things from happening.
The poll also asked whether David Cameron should reverse his apparent decision to run away from a televised debate on independence with Alex Salmond...
First Minister Alex Salmond has called for a head-to-head television debate with the Prime Minister David Cameron during the referendum campaign on Scottish independence, but it has been reported that Mr Cameron will refuse to take part in such a debate. Do you think that David Cameron should or should not take part in a TV debate with Alex Salmond?
Should take part 67%
Should not take part 19%
* * *
Congratulations to Eve Muirhead, Anna Sloan, Vicki Adams, Claire Hamilton and alternate Lauren Gray for winning the world curling championship for Scotland yesterday, after an incredibly tight game against Sweden that was decided by the final stone. I seem to recall that when Hammy McMillan's rink won the world men's curling championship in 1999, and again when Jackie Lockhart's rink won the 2002 women's title, BBC Scotland hurriedly snapped up a highlights package from Canadian television. It would be nice if they could do so again this time and bring the event to a wider audience, because after all Scotland don't become world champions in team sports every day of the week. Assuming that doesn't happen, though, the entire final is currently available to watch for free at the TSN website. If you don't want to watch the whole thing, be sure to scroll through to the end to see the Olympic-style medal ceremony, complete with the raising of flags and Flower of Scotland being played in the team's honour. Best enjoy that spectacle while we can, because of course if Muirhead and co win Olympic gold in Sochi next year (as they will presumably now be slight favourites to do), it'll be the Union Jack and God Save the Queen!
Mind you, if that does happen it might just turn out to be the last Olympic gold for Great Britain ever, in any sport. Now there's a tantalising thought...
* * *
Yesterday was something of a landmark for this blog, as it received its second-highest number of visitors in its five-year history. (The outright highest number occurred on a freakish day in the spring of 2011 when one of my posts went viral on Twitter.) Thanks to everyone for dropping by on a very cold Sunday!
Which government do you think should be responsible for all tax and spending decisions in Scotland, including tax revenues from oil and gas?
The Scottish Government 52%
The UK Government 35%
Which government do you think would be best at deciding welfare and pensions policy for Scotland?
The Scottish Government 53%
The UK Government 34%
Which government do you think would be best at representing Scotland and Scottish interests in the European Union?
The Scottish Government 50%
The UK Government 39%
The point being of course that if voters feel that all these things should be controlled by the Scottish Government, it would be a touch odd to vote No to independence and ensure that every single one of them remains controlled by London. But perhaps there is a logically consistent way in which people who hold these views could still vote No? The only thing I can think of is that they might feel so strongly that Scotland is too wee and too stupid to control its own defence and non-EU foreign policies that everything else just pales into insignificance. But that seems unlikely. It can't possibly be that they feel they will be economically worse off under independence, because presumably the desire for Scottish control over tax, spending and welfare implies that they think a Scottish government will take those decisions more wisely. That's a pretty big consideration by any standards.
So while there's an outside chance that defence and non-EU foreign affairs may be what is swinging the balance for some, there comes a point where the Yes campaign are entitled to point out that the emperor has no clothes, and that if you actually mean what you say about wanting Scotland to control tax and spending, oil and gas revenues, welfare and pensions, and its own EU representation, it's probably best not to vote No and prevent all those things from happening.
The poll also asked whether David Cameron should reverse his apparent decision to run away from a televised debate on independence with Alex Salmond...
First Minister Alex Salmond has called for a head-to-head television debate with the Prime Minister David Cameron during the referendum campaign on Scottish independence, but it has been reported that Mr Cameron will refuse to take part in such a debate. Do you think that David Cameron should or should not take part in a TV debate with Alex Salmond?
Should take part 67%
Should not take part 19%
* * *
Congratulations to Eve Muirhead, Anna Sloan, Vicki Adams, Claire Hamilton and alternate Lauren Gray for winning the world curling championship for Scotland yesterday, after an incredibly tight game against Sweden that was decided by the final stone. I seem to recall that when Hammy McMillan's rink won the world men's curling championship in 1999, and again when Jackie Lockhart's rink won the 2002 women's title, BBC Scotland hurriedly snapped up a highlights package from Canadian television. It would be nice if they could do so again this time and bring the event to a wider audience, because after all Scotland don't become world champions in team sports every day of the week. Assuming that doesn't happen, though, the entire final is currently available to watch for free at the TSN website. If you don't want to watch the whole thing, be sure to scroll through to the end to see the Olympic-style medal ceremony, complete with the raising of flags and Flower of Scotland being played in the team's honour. Best enjoy that spectacle while we can, because of course if Muirhead and co win Olympic gold in Sochi next year (as they will presumably now be slight favourites to do), it'll be the Union Jack and God Save the Queen!
Mind you, if that does happen it might just turn out to be the last Olympic gold for Great Britain ever, in any sport. Now there's a tantalising thought...
* * *
Yesterday was something of a landmark for this blog, as it received its second-highest number of visitors in its five-year history. (The outright highest number occurred on a freakish day in the spring of 2011 when one of my posts went viral on Twitter.) Thanks to everyone for dropping by on a very cold Sunday!
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Panelbase shows yet another swing in favour of independence - plus a huge SNP lead for Holyrood
I seem to be saying this quite a lot recently, but the latest poll on independence voting intentions shows a swing to the Yes campaign. Better still, it also marks the No side's lowest lead in any poll this year.
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 36% (+2)
No 46% (-1)
Strictly speaking the figures cannot be considered directly comparable to the previous poll by Panelbase, because the real referendum question is now being used. But in a sense that's good news - poll after poll is reaffirming that, at the very least, the new Electoral Commission-approved question is not helping the No side. All the pollsters who have given a verdict so far this year are now unanimous in showing a small swing to Yes in their most recent poll - Panelbase had previously been the odd one out on that score.
If the news from this poll is moderately encouraging on the referendum question, it's positively wonderful on the question of voting intention for the Scottish Parliament -
Constituency vote :
SNP 47% (+2)
Labour 30% (-3)
Conservatives 12% (-1)
Liberal Democrats 5% (-)
Regional list vote :
SNP 45% (+1)
Labour 25% (-6)
Conservatives 12% (-)
Greens 8% (+2)
Liberal Democrats 5% (-)
Which leaves only one question to be answered. Can anything stop the Willie Rennie For First Minister bandwagon?
* * *
For anyone feeling depressed about the state of Scottish sport after events at Hampden, it might be of some consolation to know that Scotland have reached the final of the world women's curling championship tomorrow. I've just watched a recording of the semi-final against Canada, and I had a sick feeling in my stomach over the last thirty minutes as the game seemed to be slipping away. But not for the first time, Eve Muirhead saved the day with a special final shot.
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 36% (+2)
No 46% (-1)
Strictly speaking the figures cannot be considered directly comparable to the previous poll by Panelbase, because the real referendum question is now being used. But in a sense that's good news - poll after poll is reaffirming that, at the very least, the new Electoral Commission-approved question is not helping the No side. All the pollsters who have given a verdict so far this year are now unanimous in showing a small swing to Yes in their most recent poll - Panelbase had previously been the odd one out on that score.
If the news from this poll is moderately encouraging on the referendum question, it's positively wonderful on the question of voting intention for the Scottish Parliament -
Constituency vote :
SNP 47% (+2)
Labour 30% (-3)
Conservatives 12% (-1)
Liberal Democrats 5% (-)
Regional list vote :
SNP 45% (+1)
Labour 25% (-6)
Conservatives 12% (-)
Greens 8% (+2)
Liberal Democrats 5% (-)
Which leaves only one question to be answered. Can anything stop the Willie Rennie For First Minister bandwagon?
* * *
For anyone feeling depressed about the state of Scottish sport after events at Hampden, it might be of some consolation to know that Scotland have reached the final of the world women's curling championship tomorrow. I've just watched a recording of the semi-final against Canada, and I had a sick feeling in my stomach over the last thirty minutes as the game seemed to be slipping away. But not for the first time, Eve Muirhead saved the day with a special final shot.
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Spot the howlers (it's not hard)
I took issue with a Guardian piece a few hours ago, but that one looks positively well-informed compared to this frankly laughable effort by Alex Stevenson in politics.co.uk. I appreciate that the London media has some way to go in getting their befuddled heads around the Scottish political scene, but all the same, you'd think the deputy editor of an online news outlet might just know how to do a Google search.
"Scotland will decide whether to end three centuries of union with Britain in its independence referendum on September 18th 2014."
How in heaven's name can we 'be in union with' a geographical entity that we are an integral part of, let alone end such a union?
"The decision to choose September is unlikely to prove decisive as the 'no' campaign opposing independence has a substantial lead in current polls."
Really? You wouldn't be implying that the current opinion poll lead of 13-21% is already "decisive" with a full eighteen months to go, would you Alex? Yes, right enough, constitutional referendums are notorious for seeing very little movement in opinion over the course of a long campaign. For example, the No campaign in the 1975 Common Market referendum maintained its early comfortable lead - that's why Britain is not currently a member of the European Union. And as predicted by the early polls, the Yes campaign swept to an easy victory in the 2004 referendum on an Assembly for the Northeast of England - that's why Alan Milburn is now the wildly popular First Minister of the Northeast.
Oh wait...
"But the Scottish Nationalist Party governing north of the border will hope it can persuade Scottish voters."
'Scottish Nationalist Party'? Did this shadowy organisation come about as the result of a Judean People's Front-style split from the better-known Scottish National Party?
""We will be able to stand on our own two feet, but we will not stand alone, we will have a partnership of equals," Salmond told SMPs earlier."
What are 'SMPs'? Members of the Scottish Machinal Party, perhaps?
Meanwhile, Tim Montgomerie at Conservative Home seems to think that Alistair Darling is going to scare the people of Scotland into voting No by telling them they'll "lose access to the NHS" under independence. Hmmm. That'll take some doing, given that NHS Scotland has been an entirely separate entity since its foundation in 1948, and is already controlled by the SNP government in Edinburgh.
"Scotland will decide whether to end three centuries of union with Britain in its independence referendum on September 18th 2014."
How in heaven's name can we 'be in union with' a geographical entity that we are an integral part of, let alone end such a union?
"The decision to choose September is unlikely to prove decisive as the 'no' campaign opposing independence has a substantial lead in current polls."
Really? You wouldn't be implying that the current opinion poll lead of 13-21% is already "decisive" with a full eighteen months to go, would you Alex? Yes, right enough, constitutional referendums are notorious for seeing very little movement in opinion over the course of a long campaign. For example, the No campaign in the 1975 Common Market referendum maintained its early comfortable lead - that's why Britain is not currently a member of the European Union. And as predicted by the early polls, the Yes campaign swept to an easy victory in the 2004 referendum on an Assembly for the Northeast of England - that's why Alan Milburn is now the wildly popular First Minister of the Northeast.
Oh wait...
"But the Scottish Nationalist Party governing north of the border will hope it can persuade Scottish voters."
'Scottish Nationalist Party'? Did this shadowy organisation come about as the result of a Judean People's Front-style split from the better-known Scottish National Party?
""We will be able to stand on our own two feet, but we will not stand alone, we will have a partnership of equals," Salmond told SMPs earlier."
What are 'SMPs'? Members of the Scottish Machinal Party, perhaps?
Meanwhile, Tim Montgomerie at Conservative Home seems to think that Alistair Darling is going to scare the people of Scotland into voting No by telling them they'll "lose access to the NHS" under independence. Hmmm. That'll take some doing, given that NHS Scotland has been an entirely separate entity since its foundation in 1948, and is already controlled by the SNP government in Edinburgh.
Friday, March 22, 2013
More terminological inexactitude from the Guardian
This is an excellent example of how the London media persistently misrepresent the state of play shown by polls on independence, while maintaining a veneer of plausibility -
"But opposition leaders said Salmond knew that independence was unpopular: a series of opinion polls has consistently shown that about a third of Scots back independence, with support for remaining in the UK commanding majority support."
I have no problem with the claim that "about a third" of Scots back independence. That is indeed what recent polls have "consistently" shown - but only if the substantial number of don't knows and won't says are included in the calculation. The problem is that the only way the second part of the claim (that support for remaining in the UK commands majority support) can be said to be "consistently" true is by doing the complete opposite, and excluding the don't knows from the calculation. With don't knows included, the position suddenly looks a good deal less consistent. Here is the percentage No vote in each of the opinion polls this year...
Angus Reid, January - 50% - NOT A MAJORITY
TNS-BMRB, January - 48% - NOT A MAJORITY
Panelbase, January - 47% - NOT A MAJORITY
Angus Reid, February - 47% - NOT A MAJORITY
Ipsos-Mori, February - 55% - MAJORITY
TNS-BMRB, March - 52% - MAJORITY
So, far from the polls "consistently" showing a majority in favour of remaining within the UK, in fact only a third of the polls published this year do so. The Guardian have a choice - either they exclude don't knows, in which case the average support for Yes in recent months has been somewhat higher than a third, or else they include don't knows, in which case there is no clear majority for No. But they really can't have their cake and eat it.
"But opposition leaders said Salmond knew that independence was unpopular: a series of opinion polls has consistently shown that about a third of Scots back independence, with support for remaining in the UK commanding majority support."
I have no problem with the claim that "about a third" of Scots back independence. That is indeed what recent polls have "consistently" shown - but only if the substantial number of don't knows and won't says are included in the calculation. The problem is that the only way the second part of the claim (that support for remaining in the UK commands majority support) can be said to be "consistently" true is by doing the complete opposite, and excluding the don't knows from the calculation. With don't knows included, the position suddenly looks a good deal less consistent. Here is the percentage No vote in each of the opinion polls this year...
Angus Reid, January - 50% - NOT A MAJORITY
TNS-BMRB, January - 48% - NOT A MAJORITY
Panelbase, January - 47% - NOT A MAJORITY
Angus Reid, February - 47% - NOT A MAJORITY
Ipsos-Mori, February - 55% - MAJORITY
TNS-BMRB, March - 52% - MAJORITY
So, far from the polls "consistently" showing a majority in favour of remaining within the UK, in fact only a third of the polls published this year do so. The Guardian have a choice - either they exclude don't knows, in which case the average support for Yes in recent months has been somewhat higher than a third, or else they include don't knows, in which case there is no clear majority for No. But they really can't have their cake and eat it.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
It's a date
So there it is. We'll either remember Thursday, 18th September 2014 as one of the best days of our lives, or...we'll spend a wee while trying to forget it ever happened. Let's make sure it's the former.
Of course it's pure speculation what difference - if any - the date will make, but for my money it may not be a bad idea that Salmond has gone slightly earlier than predicted. If you want to make a case based on hope, it's probably best not to do so deep into October when the weather is likely to be miserable. OK, it could well be miserable in mid-September as well, but my recollection of the devolution referendum in 1997 (held just one week earlier on September 11th) is that it was a beautiful, warm, summery day. So you never know.
Incidentally, the independence referendum will be held on the seventeenth anniversary of the Welsh devolution referendum - which the Yes campaign won by 50.3% by 49.7%. Not that I believe in that kind of omen, but we'd settle for that. (We'd also settle for 70.7% to 29.3%, of course.)
Of course it's pure speculation what difference - if any - the date will make, but for my money it may not be a bad idea that Salmond has gone slightly earlier than predicted. If you want to make a case based on hope, it's probably best not to do so deep into October when the weather is likely to be miserable. OK, it could well be miserable in mid-September as well, but my recollection of the devolution referendum in 1997 (held just one week earlier on September 11th) is that it was a beautiful, warm, summery day. So you never know.
Incidentally, the independence referendum will be held on the seventeenth anniversary of the Welsh devolution referendum - which the Yes campaign won by 50.3% by 49.7%. Not that I believe in that kind of omen, but we'd settle for that. (We'd also settle for 70.7% to 29.3%, of course.)
Even the Daily Mail has noticed that Scotland is fundamentally different
Apologies if this has already been widely mentioned elsewhere, but courtesy of the PB poster Tim I've just spotted the hilarious contrast between the front pages of today's Scottish and English editions of the Daily Mail.
Scottish cover
English cover
I honestly thought the English cover was a spoof at first.
Scottish cover
English cover
I honestly thought the English cover was a spoof at first.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)