The right of Scottish Labour MPs to deny equal marriage rights to English people - is this the elusive 'union dividend'?

A few days ago, someone asked me on PB if I couldn't think of some good points to the constitutional status quo.  "There must be something, surely," he said (or at least that was the gist).  After a bit of thought, I eventually came up with the small number of Olympic football matches that took place at Hampden last year - in all fairness, that's something that probably wouldn't have happened under independence.  But if that's the best I could do, you know I was struggling.

But of course there is something else.  Without the union, several Scottish Labour MPs would never have had the opportunity to vote against marriage equality for gay people in England and Wales, on a bill that has no relevance to Scotland at all.  As Duncan Hothersall would doubtless remind us, that's what this whole union shebang is all about.  Internationalism.  Solidarity.  Inequality (but only for English people).

Naturally the six SNP MPs abstained, as they do on all non-Scottish legislation.  When Pete Wishart pointed out that Labour's Willie Bain (a supporter of the bill) and his colleagues perhaps ought to consider doing the same, this was the rather extraordinary Sir Humphrey-esque response -

"I am grateful for that intervention, but I urge the hon. Gentleman to check clause 10, parts 2 and 3, and schedules 2, 5 and 6. He is sure to find that they apply to his constituents and mine in Scotland."

Doesn't that make you feel proud to be British?

* * *

This was the verdict of comedian Susan Calman on Tuesday night's events -

"Well done Westminster. Now, before I can get married someone else needs to do something. *stares at Holyrood. Coughs. Stares again*"

I have no problem with the latter sentiment, even though it's just a matter of time. But someone really ought to disabuse Ms Calman of the notion that "Westminster" has actually legislated for equal marriage. It may yet do so. But if you want to make swift progress on social reform, as a general rule of thumb it's best not to have bishops and "elected hereditaries" doing the legislating for you.

If anyone has any lingering doubt that the unelected nature of the Lords compromises Britain's credentials as a fully-fledged democracy, take a moment to consider this authoritative opinion from PB's resident legal expert on why the Parliament Act (ensuring the supremacy of the Commons) is so rarely invoked -

"The reason...is because usually the Lords doesn't reject government Bills in principle, but modifies them. It is generally far more convenient for the government to accept Lords amendments and get their Bill through, than to have the whole Bill in limbo for a year for the sake of a one or two clauses."

There you have it. The unelected Lords is a "revising chamber", absolutely - but it's revision by blackmail. That's democracy, UK-style, folks - and people still have the nerve to ask "what is the problem to which independence is the solution?"

* * *

I mentioned Duncan Hothersall earlier - he must be reeling with disbelief at the news that Labour's NEC voted earlier this week to cancel the party's membership of the Socialist International, and to take up observer status instead. Duncan always told us that Labour was nothing if not an international movement - well, it looks like it's nothing. Meanwhile, the SNP of course remains a leading member of the European Free Alliance, a registered European political party that promotes progressive values and democratic self-determination.

* * *

I'm sure most of you will already have seen this, but Wings Over Scotland's RevStu has launched a fund-raising appeal to enable him to run the site as a full-time journalistic endeavour. Full disclosure - I haven't personally got round to donating yet (I'm a bit stretched at the moment!), but I do think this is a great cause, and a fantastic opportunity for supporters of independence to make a real difference. Direct funding of the Yes campaign (and of the SNP) is of course absolutely vital as well, but one thing it can't and won't do is address the horrific imbalance in media coverage of the referendum. RevStu's initiative is a rare chance to do something about that.

Don't get me wrong - I don't concur with every dot and comma that RevStu writes, and indeed I passionately disagree with him on some subjects. Regular readers will recall that I clashed with him on NATO membership and the morality of using nuclear weapons. But that isn't the point. The question facing Scotland over the next 21 months is "Independence - Yes or No?", and there is quite simply no better written-word advocate for the Yes side than RevStu. Anyone who reads the site will have seen comments from people who openly admit that they were hostile to independence or undecided until they discovered Wings - but have since been converted. In a modest way, what RevStu does reminds me of how Thomas Paine engaged the hearts and minds of the apathetic majority in the run-up to the American Declaration of Independence, by encouraging critical thought, and by making people realise that they are far more intelligent than they previously believed. In January, Wings reached an unprecedented audience of 30,000 - can you imagine the potential impact if the site could reach ten times that figure? OK, not all of them would be in Scotland, but even if half of them were that would still constitute roughly 3% of the entire Scottish population.

Newsnet Scotland also has a part to play, but Wings is far superior because it treats its readers as grown-ups, and doesn't feed them one-dimensional propaganda. James Mackenzie once said in his (mercifully) inimitable style that "the guy" (RevStu) is "part of the problem, to say the least". Au contraire, monsieur. Whatever else might be said of him, he's part of the solution. Only a part, to be sure, but definitely of the solution. If you agree, you can read the fund-raising appeal in full by clicking HERE.

Of course, every effort to redress the media imbalance always seems to have the shortcoming of being online-only, and this one is no exception. Even in this day and age, there are plenty of Scots who rarely if ever use the internet, and who are therefore unreachable by pro-independence websites. But with time marching on, I suppose we have little option but to restrict ourselves to the art of the possible.

Angus Reid finds 1.5% swing in favour of independence since last month

The Mail are manfully spinning this for all it's worth (yes, they even use the traditional words "huge setback"!), but I'm afraid facts are chiels that winna ding - the first poll on independence using the new referendum question approved by the Electoral Commission shows a straightforward 1.5% swing to the Yes side since last month.

Should Scotland be an independent country?

Yes 32% (-)
No 47% (-3)

That change is within the margin of error, so not too much should be read into it.  However, these figures are strikingly similar to the recent TNS-BMRB poll, which showed a static Yes vote, but a significant number of previous No voters reverting to the 'don't know' camp.

If there has indeed been a recent swing to the Yes side, questions will surely be asked in the No camp as to whether David Cameron's recent speech on the EU is to blame.

Photos on Sunday : Celtic Connections

Before anyone accuses me of stealing the title of this post from Tris, he got the idea from me. Honestly. (I think.)

Yesterday I went to the finale of the Danny Kyle Open Stage, which was a far more enjoyable way to spend a Saturday afternoon than watching Scotland get gubbed at Twickenham for the seventeen billionth time in a row. Hopefully I'm not breaking any 'on-pain-of-death' rules by posting these photos - I didn't hear any warnings about photography not being allowed, and half the audience seemed to be snapping away, so I thought I'd chance my arm.

Anyway, here are five of the six winning acts (the sixth couldn't make it to the venue). In order of appearance, they are - Elliott Morris, Taylor & Leigh, Genesee, Gria, and Graham Low & Jack Kirkpatrick.  They will all now receive a supporting act slot at next year's Celtic Connections.

(Click to enlarge)

What I deduce from these photos is the following -

1) My digital camera is even more rubbish than I thought it was.

2) It might seem marginally less rubbish if I actually remembered that I have a zoom function at some point before I get to the last photo.

I'm a long-term fan of the Irish folk singer Cara Dillon, so the highlight of Celtic Connections for me was seeing her perform live for the first time, and accompanied by the Scottish Symphony Orchestra. I couldn't make up my mind whether I should buy a ticket - because I know all the songs backwards, in a strange way I thought it might make more sense to spend money on an act I was completely unfamiliar with. But I'm so glad I did decide to go - it was the best thing ever. (Well, maybe not quite, but you know what I mean!) When the orchestra upped the volume, she really opened out her voice, and it sounded amazing. I don't have any photos of that, but most of the concert was broadcast on Radio Scotland the other night, so it should still be on the BBC iplayer.

Six Nations prediction

I've been meaning to post this for a few days, and with kick-off only hours away it's probably now or never! Here is my annual Six Nations prediction (which I only ever get round to doing because my sister always presents me with a prediction form for her work)...

Weekend 1

Wales to beat Ireland by less than 10 points
England to beat Scotland by 10-19 points
France to beat Italy by 10-19 points

Weekend 2

Scotland to beat Italy by less than 10 points
France to beat Wales by less than 10 points
Ireland to beat England by less than 10 points

Weekend 3

Wales to beat Italy by 10-19 points
England to beat France by less than 10 points
Ireland to beat Scotland by less than 10 points

Weekend 4

Wales to beat Scotland by less than 10 points
France to beat Ireland by less than 10 points
England to beat Italy by 20+ points

Weekend 5

Ireland to beat Italy by 10-19 points
Wales to beat England by less than 10 points
France to beat Scotland by 10-19 points

As ever, I feel I've been far too optimistic in awarding Scotland even one narrow win (and Scott Johnson scares the living daylights out of me). Elsewhere, I've been guided by the fact that Ireland have a much better home record against England than against France. Here is how the final table would look -

France - 4 Wins
Wales - 4 Wins
England - 3 Wins
Ireland - 3 Wins
Scotland - 1 Win
Italy - 0 Wins

What's in a question?

It's not often that I spontaneously burst out laughing when I'm travelling alone on a bus, but that's what happened yesterday when I was browsing the internet on my mobile phone, and came across the following sentence on a major media website -

"The Scottish Government agrees to change the independence referendum question, after fears that it might lead people to vote Yes."

Quite right too. Heaven forbid that people should do anything other than vote No!

I was intrigued to see the reasoning in the Electoral Commission's report, and I must say I'm not entirely reassured. In fact, I'm seething with anger on one particular point -

"There is a risk that the Scottish Government will not accept our assessment of the question and will not amend the question that it includes in the Referendum Bill. Not accepting our advice will cause controversy in the public domain...

We anticipate a high media profile and will have a suitable handling plan in place."

Did that "handling plan" include leaking in advance to the unionist press in London? Call me cynical, but I suspect it might have done somehow. Frankly, a body like the Electoral Commission shouldn't even be thinking in terms of "risk" when considering the possibility that the government might reject its advice. That's not a risk, it's a natural part of the process when you have only an advisory role, and you certainly have no business setting up "handling plans" in an attempt to head off that "risk".

In broader terms, I'm at least partly reassured that the EC didn't do what I strongly suspected they might have done, ie. 'tested' the proposed question by asking people to answer it, compared the results to two or three more unionist-oriented questions, and then plumped for the one that conveniently produced the most 'middling outcome'. However, I'm a bit startled by what they seem to have done instead, which was basically to ask people if the proposed question seemed a bit biased to them, and then take those answers at face value. Were those responses spontaneous, or were they influenced by the concerted and high-profile unionist campaign to brand the question as biased? We'll never know, but the risk that it was the latter is obvious, and that means this process cannot be regarded as entirely satisfactory.

I had naively thought that 'testing' might involve a more sophisticated approach of posing the proposed referendum question, and then asking people for the reasoning behind their answer, to see if any confusion or misdirection was evident. Instead the EC seems to have set the general public up as the experts on polling psychology, which is a bit peculiar to say the least. One question that sprung to my mind is this - were the people who claimed the proposed question was leading more likely to be Yes voters or No voters? From the vague language used in the report, the answer appears (unsurprisingly) to be that they were more likely to be No voters, and yet as far as I can see no breakdown is provided for those figures. That doesn't strike me as being good enough.

I partly agree with Marcia that the referendum question will be irrelevant, because by the time of the ballot people will be well aware of what they are voting on, and won't pay much attention to the exact wording when they enter the polling booth. But where it might make a difference is on the psychology of the campaign, which will be driven by the results of opinion polls. Respondents to those polls may not have such well-developed views, and may therefore be more susceptible to influence from a unionist-flavoured question. However, in all honesty the new question is so similar to the old one that any impact on the polls is likely to be minimal.

By the way, now that there is no doubt whatever on the wording of the question, can we expect Peter Kellner and YouGov to use it for their polls - plain, simple and unadorned? I suspect that may be too much to ask, but hope springs eternal.

(Note : I dearly wanted to call this post "That's a great question, Mr. Chairman" as a tribute to James Murdoch, but it probably would have been a bit too obscure.)

Angus Reid subsample : SNP retake the lead in Westminster voting intention

A very quick post because I'm in a mad rush. Here are the latest Scottish figures for Westminster voting intention from Angus Reid -

SNP 39% (+3)
Labour 35% (-1)
Conservatives 18% (+5)
Liberal Democrats 5% (-1)

As previously noted, AR's subsamples have more credibility than those of other pollsters, because they seem to be properly weighted and are therefore more stable over time.

Electoral Commission's reputation for impartiality in tatters as its opinion is leaked to unionist rag

If anyone needed a reminder of why so many of us wanted a Scottish rather than a London body to have oversight of the independence referendum, this is surely it. As a nation, the minimum we were entitled to expect was that we would hear the Electoral Commission's opinion (and it is merely an opinion, not a 'decision') on the proposed referendum question from the body itself, not from a unionist rag in London spouting the usual drivel about a "devastating blow" to Alex Salmond. (Incidentally, just how many more of these daily "devastating blows" can the poor man take from the London press? Presumably by now his body must already have been hacked into a thousand little pieces.)

As we apparently now have to regard the London Times as spokesperson for the scrupulously impartial Electoral Commission, it seems that the alternative question being suggested is "Should Scotland be an independent country?", on the grounds of its greater "simplicity". Which is somewhat ironic, given that much of the unionist press were screaming for a question that was considerably longer and more complex than the Scottish Government's proposal, preferably incorporating catchy words such as "separation" and "divorce".

Ah well, better a sinner that repenteth, and all that...

Panelbase : SNP in commanding lead for the Scottish Parliament

Many thanks to Marcia on the previous thread for alerting me to the fact that the Panelbase poll I mentioned also had voting intention figures for Holyrood. I was oblivious to the fact because it was published in the Sunday Times, and I don't pay the Murdoch levy...

Constituency ballot

SNP 45%
Labour 33%
Conservatives 13%
Liberal Democrats 5%

Regional list ballot

SNP 44%
Labour 31%
Conservatives 12%
Greens 6%
Liberal Democrats 5%

Needless to say, on those figures the SNP would be enjoying another landslide on the scale of their 2011 triumph. So all that and the Yes vote within striking distance on the referendum question as well. Long may the supposed "Scomnishambles" continue!

Panelbase poll : Support for independence remains within touching distance

The latest Panelbase poll on independence is out, and although it shows an increase in the No lead, it's still more favourable for the Yes side than other recent polls.

Yes 34% (-3)
No 47% (+2)

So with the recent TNS-BMRB poll showing a five-point drop in the No lead, and this poll showing a five-point increase, there's clearly no consensus among pollsters on the trend over recent weeks. What there is, however, is a convergence on the raw figures - in the polls we've seen so far this year, Angus Reid showed an 18-point No lead, TNS-BMRB showed a 20-point No lead, and now Panelbase is showing a 13-point No lead. Clearly that type of lead is far from insurmountable with 21 months still to go until polling day. (The Tories had better hope so, because they need a very similar kind of turnaround to win the next UK general election, and yet mysteriously you won't hear the London media calling that one a lost cause!)

Talking of the media, that's one area where we don't need to seek any type of convergence. No, the one thing we've always been able to rely upon is that, in the media's eyes, each and every poll on independence represents a "devastating blow" to the Yes side, regardless of the actual figures. For example, the Sunday Times claims today that the Panelbase poll shows that support for "secession" has "slumped". (Really? A three-point drop is a "slump"?) OK, fair enough, this poll does show an increase in the No lead, so we must allow the unionist media their brief moment of gloating. But surely they must be fair-minded enough to report a poll that shows the exact opposite in a somewhat different way?

Er, no. The verdict of the Scotsman and the Herald on the recent TNS-BMRB poll showing a five-point decrease in the No lead was not that the No vote had "slumped", but that the Yes vote had "stalled".

It gets to the point where all you can do is laugh.

Vote Yes to independence to keep Scotland in Europe

Sorry that blogging has been a bit sluggish of late, but I haven't been entirely idle. I have a new article at the International Business Times, on how David Cameron has just blown a hole in Better Together's campaign strategy - seemingly without even noticing.

You can read it HERE.