Labour vote falls 4% in Rutherglen South by-election - Labour councillor describes it as "amazing result"

This was the rather startling verdict of Labour councillor Davie McLachlan on yesterday's Rutherglen South by-election -

"Amazing result and body blow to the nats. The downfall begins"

"Massive defeat for SNP #RutherglenSouth Labours @GedK polled almost double SNP vote. Roll on 2014 #indyref and put this matter to bed."

Now based on these extraordinarily grandiose claims, you're probably thinking that - at the very least - Labour's vote must have increased in the by-election, and that they must have enjoyed a swing from the SNP? If so, you'd be wrong. Here is the actual result -

Labour 39.9% (-4)
Liberal Democrats 29.5% (+4.7)
SNP 21% (-2.9)
Conservatives 3.8% (-1.1)

Swing from Labour to Liberal Democrats : 4.35%
Swing from Labour to SNP : 0.55%

So in spite of the fact that the ward was last contested during the SNP's historic triumph in the local elections of May 2012, Labour have in fact suffered a further (albeit modest) swing to the Nationalists. I dare say that's the kind of "body blow" and "massive defeat" that most of us could just about cope with - again and again and again. As Councillor McLachlan says, roll on the independence referendum, and let's put remote-control rule from London to bed.

There's no doubt about it, though - the true moral victors in this election were the Liberal Democrats, albeit in a pocket of traditional (relative) strength for them.

Another tragic example of the 'empowering' effect of owning guns for self-defence

Unconfirmed media reports this morning are suggesting an unimaginable human tragedy - that legendary South African athlete Oscar Pistorius shot his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp dead after mistaking her for an intruder.

If this turns out to be true, I await with baited breath Mr Kevin Baker's latest convoluted explanation of how, contrary to appearances, having a boyfriend who possessed guns for defensive purposes made Ms Steenkamp's life safer.

Ipsos-Mori becomes third pollster this year to show a swing in favour of independence

Here are the latest Ipsos-Mori findings on independence, which make highly encouraging reading for the Yes campaign -

Should Scotland be an independent country?

Yes 34% (+4)
No 55% (-3)

In theory the percentage changes should be treated with caution, because the question has of course changed since the last Ipsos-Mori poll. But I thought the new Electoral Commission-approved question was supposed to be "yet another catastrophe for Salmond", oh wise London media? Apparently not.

Ipsos-Mori now joins Angus Reid and TNS-BMRB as pollsters that have shown a swing to the Yes side this year. The odd one out is Panelbase, which showed a swing in the other direction - although ironically the No lead is still smaller with Panelbase than anyone else. What we really need now to complete the picture is a new poll from YouGov, which is traditionally among the most favourable pollsters for No (arguably because Mr Kellner insists on "clarifying" what the referendum question "really means" before inviting his respondents to answer it).

Elsewhere in the Ipsos-Mori poll, there's no comfort for the anti-independence side on Holyrood voting intention either -

Constituency vote :

SNP 43% (+3)
Labour 35% (-)
Conservatives 13% (-)
Liberal Democrats 7% (-1)
Others 2% (-2)

For reasons lost in the mists of time, Ipsos-Mori do not seem to ask for voting intentions on the regional list. However, there are personal satisfaction ratings for various politicians...

Nicola Sturgeon (SNP, Deputy First Minister) +17
Alex Salmond (SNP, First Minister) +7
Alistair Darling (Labour, figurehead of anti-independence campaign) +1
David Cameron (Conservative, UK Prime Minister) -40

The difference between Sturgeon and Salmond is arguably slightly misleading, as 50% of the electorate are satisfied with them both - it's the dissatisfaction rating that drags Salmond's figure down a bit more.

My campaign to be Pope starts here

I was surprised and delighted to discover on the BBC website a couple of hours ago that I am fully eligible to be elected Pope next month. It seems that there are no boring requirements about having to be an ordained priest, or a Bishop, or a Cardinal, and you don't even have to attend Mass every week (which is just as well, because I haven't been to church since the Easter Vigil last year). Being a baptised male Catholic is quite sufficient - which, frighteningly, makes me a more important Catholic than Cristina Odone.

Well, clearly this is the type of exciting opportunity that I simply can't afford to pass up. Not only would I become leader of the world's biggest religion, I would also be a Head of State, an absolute monarch, and I would get to see my head on stamps and coins and so on. So for any members of the College of Cardinals who may be passing by (hello Keith), here is my hastily-assembled mini-manifesto for my forthcoming tenure as Supreme Pontiff.

1) Immediately upon being elected, I will renounce my papal infallibility. This will head off the risk of any further embarrassing additions to Catholic dogma along the lines of Pius XII's bizarre insistence that the Virgin Mary was bodily lifted up into heaven at the end of her life.

2) I will authorise the ordination of both female and married priests. Let's face it guys, it's going to happen one day anyway, so instead of being dragged into it kicking and screaming in 700 years' time, let's just get it over with and have a sandwich.

3) Cardinals will no longer be appointed, but instead elected by Catholic congregations. If Cardinals get to elect Popes, it's only fair that we little people get to elect the Cardinals. This would also of course end the destructive feedback loop of conservative Popes appointing conservative Cardinals, who then go on to elect yet another conservative Pope. Now, I'm guessing that the objection to this idea will be that the feedback loop constitutes "the will of God", but just hang on a cotton-pickin' minute here. When Catholics receive the Sacrament of Confirmation, they have the wisdom and understanding of the Holy Spirit bestowed upon them. So it's high time that we trusted the Holy Spirit to do his job, and allowed him to guide the electoral choices of rank-and-file Catholics. It may well turn out after the first batch of elections that the Holy Spirit has rather more liberal views than we previously suspected, but so be it.

4) Elections for Cardinals will naturally be conducted by Single Transferable Vote.

5) The ban on contraception will be lifted, thus extending the life expectancy of millions in the developing world, and putting an end to one of the most ludicrous pieces of Catholic doctrine. As things stand, if you make the human decision to use contraception, you are thwarting God's will that a new life should commence, but if you make the equally human decision not to have sex in the first place, you are apparently embodying God's will that a new life should not commence. There are intelligent badgers in Drumnadrochit who can see the slight flaw in that logic.

6) Masturbation and 'impure thoughts' will no longer be a sin, making life considerably less confusing and miserable for hundreds of millions of teenagers.

7) Divorce and gay marriage will both be authorised.

8) More young people will somehow be persuaded to go to church. I freely admit that I have no idea how I will actually achieve this, and a judge-led inquiry may be needed to come up with suggestions. However, I solemnly pledge that whatever approach is taken, it will be more sophisticated than the traditional one of "let's have more guitars".

9) The Vatican City will enter the Eurovision Song Contest.

Now, obviously this manifesto has the shortcoming of having been dreamt up over the last ten minutes (for some reason I'd never previously considered what I would do if elected Pope), so if anyone has any constructive suggestions, I'd be very happy to tweak it.

I-I-I-I wouldn't change a thi-ing

From the BBC -

Writing before the launch of the Westminster government's document, Mr Cameron pledged that his government would put the "facts" about Scottish independence to the public.

He said: "As one of Scotland's two governments, the UK government has a duty to help inform people with hard facts."

Great. Well, let's get cracking with this hard fact - Scotland has just one government of its own. The clue is in the now legally-recognised title "The Scottish Government". Scotland is part of the UK, which has its own government - but that's a different point. The European Commission is also a de facto government in all but name - what credibility do you think José Manuel Barroso would have if he came to Edinburgh and said "speaking on behalf of one of Scotland's three governments..."?

"So we'll be providing expert-based analysis to explain Scotland's place within the UK and how it might change with separation - and our first paper is published tomorrow."

Yes, David, do explain to us how Scotland's "place within the UK" might "change" after independence. Could be interesting.

"We don't shy away from putting facts and evidence before the Scottish people. This must not be a leap in the dark, but a decision made in the light of day."

Ah, so you're finally going to tell us about this Top Secret Devo Plus plan that you may or may not be kind enough to implement if we vote No? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. Facts and evidence to inform the electorate's choice are great up to a point, but you can have way too much of a good thing.

"Our ancestors explored the world together and our grandfathers went into battle together as do our kith and kin today - and this leaves deep, unbreakable bonds between the peoples of these islands."

Empire nostalgia may or may not be the most promising argument against independence in the second decade of the 21st Century. And "kith and kin"? Perhaps not the most fortunate choice of phrase, given how widely-associated it is with the armed forces' reluctance to fight their racist "kith and kin" in Rhodesia in 1965.

"I have no time for those who say there is no way Scotland could go it alone," he said.

Does that include British Prime Ministers who sneer that "if you had an independent Scotland, you wouldn't be flying planes, you'd be flying...by the seat of your pants!!!!"? I presume it must do, and I trust Mr Cameron has slapped himself down pretty firmly for that one.

He pointed out that Scotland had its own government and parliament in Edinburgh, with power over areas such as health and education.

"Scots can take all of these decisions and more to meet the specific needs of Scotland," Mr Cameron said.

And more? Well, let's consider the decisions Scots can't take to meet the specific needs of Scotland. We can't choose to stay out of London's illegal wars. We can't get inhuman weapons of mass destruction off the Clyde. We can't represent ourselves in Europe (we're "represented" by Cameron and Hague instead). We can't set our own policy on welfare payments. We can't set our own immigration policy. We can't frame our own laws on abortion and gun control. We can't tear up the unequal extradition treaty with the US. We can't decide our own broadcasting and energy policies.

We know from polling evidence that Scots want to take all these decisions for themselves. And oddly enough, the majority of them could - in theory - be taken by Scots within the context of the UK, if only Westminster would devolve those powers to us. But it seems the computer says no. Presumably we should draw the obvious conclusion in next year's referendum? For Scots to take decisions to meet the specific needs of Scotland, in most cases independence will be required.

Unless, of course, we hear about that Top Secret Devo Plus plan before the referendum. But that would be silly.

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.)