Blog Archives

Better Together

NoAs both sides of the political debate continue to argue the pros and cons of an independent Scotland, the following words, written by a gentleman by the name of James Craig, couldn’t have put it more succinctly in favour of the No Campaign, helping those undecided voters to reach an informed decision on the 18th September. He says:-

“You currently jointly own a flat with your friend. You’re a bit fed up of him being stingy with the heating and the interior décor isn’t quite to your tastes. He can be annoying sometimes but overall, you pay your fair share and actually have a pretty good deal (because he pays for Sky Sports). You’ve had the ability to redecorate your bedroom for quite a while and your pal is also happy for you to repaint the living room in the future. Oh, and you’ve lived there for about 400 years.

Someone offers you the opportunity to purchase your own property to allow you full control of the interior design. They insist that you make your decision right now as there won’t be another opportunity to do so again. You must base your decision on the following info:

• You’re not sure what this house looks like (nor does the vendor), but a rough description has been given. It may or may not have windows and access to and from the property is uncertain.
• You’ve no idea how much the house costs, but you are told that regardless it is almost certainly a good investment.
• The housing market crashed a while back and the outlook remains uncertain and increasingly volatile.
• You’ve no idea what your mortgage terms are going to be or if you can afford even the smallest monthly payments, because you are already trillions of pounds in debt. You are assured that this is a minor detail because you can screw your pal over and transfer all of the debt to him if needs be.
• There is a rumour that the house has got a pot of money buried in the back garden. You aren’t sure how much is there, but a few people are absolutely certain that regardless of how much the house costs there will be enough there to pay the mortgage with.
• In buying this house, you’ll lose your Costco card that you share with your current flat mate. You’ve been assured that it will be easy to get one for yourself even though Costco is over-subscribed and with stringent entry conditions that you’re not sure you meet.
• You are repeatedly reminded that your Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Great Grandfather once fended off a burglar from his house with a stick when he lived in Bannockburn and that this is a good reason to buy your own house. The house you are being offered currently has a burglar alarm but this must be uninstalled when you move in even though it is in high crime-rate area.

Finally, your 16-year-old cousin that you’re a bit wary of has been allowed to have a say in your decision.

Would you go ahead and move out of your flat?”

Pretty persuasive argument don’t you think?

Right now I’m staying put and just hoping for a clear majority to save the Union so that we can all just get back to normal and carry on ….. fingers crossed!!!

Advertisements

Eligibility to vote

They really haven’t thought this whole referendum thing through!

Mr Salmond and his cronies in the SNP continue to tell us that Independence is what the people of Scotland want.  But let’s have a look at the population and who actually are “the people of Scotland”.

When the referendum is held in the autumn of 2014, only residents of Scotland will be eligible to vote.  As a result, almost 400,000 living north of the border but born in other parts of the UK will get to take part, while 800,000 Scots living in England, Northern Ireland and Wales will not.   Given that Scotland has a population of just five million, 800,000 is a huge number.

In protest at being disenfranchised, James Wallace, a 23-year-old Dumfries native turned London resident, has launched a petition demanding that expat Scots in other parts of the UK be allowed to participate in the referendum.  Scots ministers say this simply would not be practical.   And, indeed, it’s difficult to imagine how an electoral register of everyone who considered themselves a Scot might be drawn up.   Who, after all, is Scottish? Those born in Scotland? People with Scottish ancestry? Anyone who is partial to Haggis and the Proclaimers?

For James Mitchell, professor of politics at the University of Strathclyde, residency is the only logical definition of Scottishness in terms of political representation. If you want a say over Scotland’s constitutional status he believes you should move back there.  “It would be absurd to allow anyone who claimed to be Scottish a vote,” Mitchell says.

So Mr Salmond, after reducing the voting age to 16, perhaps you should now try winning the hearts and minds of those of us who live in Scotland but come from different parts of the UK and are eligible to vote if you are to stand any chance of realising your dream – you’re not achieving this at the moment sunshine!

Where to find Salmond in deep water

When I started writing this blog I made a semi-conscious decision that I would keep it pretty light-hearted and not enter into too dangerous territory.  For this reason I haven’t thus far written about anything remotely political as this is an area which is always controversial and subjective. 

Today, however, I just can’t help myself when I hear that Scotland’s First Minister, Alex Salmond, has been caught out, yet again, with what he terms a “mistake” but which the opposition  would call “misleading parliament”. 

He had to apologise yesterday for saying that referendum expert Dr Matt Qvortrup had endorsed the SNP government’s plans for a two-question vote on Scotland’s future.  He later corrected his comments, saying he had used information at Holyrood which was “wrong”.  Prof Qvortrup had told the Times that a two-question referendum was untenable.

We don’t have to look too far to find some other “howlers” from the man himself.

In 2009 his comment in a Spanish television interview that “sterling is sinking like a stone” is indefensible from a UK government minister and could have had serious repercussions on Scottish jobs.

In 2010 during a live television debate he conceded that the perpetrator of the Dunblane massacre would have been treated differently to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi by the Scottish Government had he survived.  Mr Salmond admitted Thomas Hamilton would never have been freed on compassionate grounds had he lived and later contracted terminal cancer.  Political opponents called for an apology and the US families of the Lockerbie victims said the remarks were “astounding”.

The First Minister has a habit of grandstanding and he will say anything to please an audience. 

On this latest debacle, Mr Fraser, the deputy Tory leader, said: “It speaks volumes about this government that, when it comes to their flagship policy of an independence referendum, they mislead, manipulate and manufacture evidence in support of their stance and they browbeat and bully those who dare to take a contrary view.”

The First Minister wants to put two propositions on the ballot paper, one that would mean Scotland becoming an independent country and the other that would preserve the Union with England, albeit with Holyrood being handed all tax powers.

Confusingly, Mr Salmond wants Scots to vote ‘yes’ to both questions. This could give him the consolation prize of more financial powers if he cannot convince people to back full separation.

But the Liberal Democrats questioned what would happen if a majority of Scots did as he wished and supported both propositions, despite their contradictory positions on the Union.

The First Minister’s senior special adviser responded that Scotland would become independent, even if more people backed the second question advocating extra powers but remaining part of the UK.

The astonishing admission appears to confirm concerns expressed by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, that Mr Salmond will attempt to bamboozle Scots into backing independence.

But what do the people of Scotland really want? 

The vast majority of opinion polls conducted post 2006 show support levels for independence at between 20% and 40%.  Despite the large number conducted on the issue, it is difficult to gauge definitively Scottish public opinion on independence because of the often widely varying results.  Poll results often differ wildly depending on the wording of the question, with the terms such as “breakup” and “separation” often provoking a negative response.  For example, an opinion poll published by The Scotsman newspaper in November 2006 revealed that a “Majority of Scots now favour independence”.  However, a poll conducted by Channel 4 only two months later reported that “The figure in support of Scottish independence had seemingly dropped”.  A third poll by The Daily Telegraph claimed that a significant proportion of Britons would accept the breakup of the United Kingdom.  Research conducted in early 2007 revealed a rise in support for nationalist parties across the UK amongst younger voters.  A notable comparison made was that in 1981 55% of respondents claimed to be ‘Very proud’ of Britain whereas in 2007 that number had dropped to 45%.  In a poll in 2007 commissioned by The Scotsman newspaper it said support for Scottish independence was at a 10 year low with only 21% of people in support for it.  Conversely, a 2008 opinion poll commissioned by the Sunday Herald newspaper, showed that support for independence was 41%.  When polls give three options, including an option for greater devolution or a new federal settlement but stopping short of independence, support for independence significantly declines.  In a poll by The Times, published in April 2007, given a choice between independence, the status quo, or greater powers for the Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom, the last option had majority support.

Polls show a consistent support for a referendum, including amongst those who support the continuation of the union.  Most opinion polls performed have a figure of in-principle support for a referendum around 70–75%.  In March 2009,  The Sunday Times published the results of a YouGov survey on Scottish support for independence (mirroring the earlier 2007 poll).  Support for a referendum in principle was found to have fallen to 57% of respondents, with 53% of respondents stating they would vote against independence and 33% stating they would support independence. The Times reported that the fall in support for independence was likely linked to economic recession.

In August 2009, a YouGov survey with the Daily Mail asking if Scottish voters would support independence found that 28% would vote Yes, 57% would vote No, 11% did not know and 5% would not vote.

Another YouGov poll in October 2010 showed 34% saying Yes, and 50% not in favour of independence, with the other 16% not sure how they would vote.

A December 2010 face-to-face poll by TNS-BMRB showed 40% supporting independence, 44% opposing, and 16% unsure.

In June 2011, after the SNP majority election win, a poll by TNS-BMRB, with a 1,022 sample, showed independence support up 6% from 18 months previously, with 37% favouring independence in a potential referendum, with 45% against the proposal, and 18% not sure. The poll indicated 46% of people in Glasgow, and 51% of people under 24 supporting independence.

In August 2011, according to a TNS-BMRB/Herald poll, support for independence overtook opposition to independence for the first time since 2008, with 39% of voters saying they would vote yes, 38% saying they would vote no and the remainder of 23% was undecided or refused to say. This poll was the first one out of a series of ten conducted which all showed support for independence greater than outright opposition and as such was celebrated by the SNP as a positive sign that they may be able to reach the 50% mark.

Confused?  You should be … guess we’ll just have to wait and see what happens ….. but remember this … theoretical opinion polls only tell half the story. What matters is who actually turns out to vote.

%d bloggers like this: