Latest Scottish polls
During the last week or so of the London mayoral election campaign when my attention was elsewhere there were also a couple of Scottish opinion polls, so here’s a catch up:
Westminster election
TNS System Three – CON 17%, LAB 39%, LDEM 10%, SNP 31%
YouGov – CON 17%, LAB 34%, LDEM 14%, SNP 30%
Scottish Parliament
Constituency vote
TNS System Three – CON 12%, LAB 31%, LDEM 11%, SNP 45%
YouGov – CON 13%, LAB 31%, LDEM 15%, SNP 36%
Scottish Opinion – CON 13%, LAB 33%, LDEM 10%, SNP 40%
Regional Vote
TNS System Three – CON 12%, LAB 29%, LDEM 12%, SNP 41%
YouGov – CON 13%, LAB 28%, LDEM 13%, SNP 37%
The YouGov poll has a range of other questions apart from voting intention. As one might expect given the high polling ratings for the SNP, there were positive ratings for the Scottish administration (net approval of plus 25) and Alex Salmond as first minister (net satisfaction of plus 20). In contrast Wendy Alexander had a net score for doing a good job of minus 39. The other two party leaders, Annabel Goldie and Nicol Stephen both had notably high don’t know ratings (39% and 45% respectively), suggesting people are largely unaware of what they are doing. Of those who did express and opinion, Goldie’s ratings were far better than Stephen’s (plus 21, as opposed to minus 1).
The Cameron effect doesn’t seem to be penetrating north of the border. 13% of respondents said they were more likely to vote Conservative with David Cameron as leader…but 14% said they were less likely. Questions like this aren’t perfect, since people may become more positive or negative towards a party because of the actions of the leader or the way he has changed the party, without ascribing the change directly to the leader himself – but the Westminister voting intention figures in the polls back up the finding, showing no significant increase in Tory support in Scotland since the last general election.
YouGov also asked where the blame lay in recent disagreements between Holyrood and Westminster. Respondents were pretty evenly split between thinking the arguments were being deliberated created by Alex Salmond to show London in a bad light and how Scotland would be better off independent (38%) and between blaming the Westminster government for being insensitive to Scotland’s needs (35%). The split was identical when respondents were asked if London was bullying the Scottish exective – 35% agreed, 38% disagreed.
On YouGov’s normal tracker question on how people would vote in a referendum on Scottish independence 59% said they would support the status quo, with 25% saying they would vote for independence. As we’ve discussed here before, different ways of asking this question show markedly different results, and YouGov’s question which specifies that voting no still retains the Scottish Parliament normally results in less support for independence, but compared to previous YouGov/Telegraph polls using the same wording, the balance of opinion is moving away from independence.
Filed under: Scotland
Anthony:
When are the next UK polls? My sense is that support for Labour is in free-fall post May 1 and that their morale has collapsed, but this is anecdotal and it would be interesting to have some data.
It seems to be a pretty long honeymoon for Alec Salmond; perhaps the electorate actually agrees with him. I note the way Brown kept saying ‘British’ in his interviews on Sunday but in Scotland, Wales and NI the nationalist all have some power. Is he saying ‘British’ as the term unravels?
The fact that the Cameron effect hasn’t reached Scotland would seem to add to the idea that much of what the Tories are seeing is protest vote rather than a positive move towards Cameron.
The fact Labour’s support is falling suggests that the lack of popularity is universal, but the view on the solution isn’t so widely agreed.
Jack – In terms of a honeymoon period for Salmond, he’s doing things people support – free long term care, cheaper prescriptions and so on. It’s not clear they can afford them but populist short termism (if they can’t afford them) and a honeymoon period are different things.
I think many people in England find Brown weird but in Scotland he doesn’t seem so odd (apparently). Also people who just want to get rid of Labour have an alternative in Scotland.
Nick – the next one would be Populus tomorrow, but they may have delayed it because of the bank holiday weekend.
Two of the last three significant polls published in the last fortnight show movement very strongly in favour of Independence and the two question referendum, as of today supported by Labour, shows a very even split when polled.
Gordon Brown is not at all popular in Scotland but not quite as unpopular as he is in England.
In my opinion a referendum now would be a close run thing. With a Tory Government in London the Independence option will probably win any referendum
Jack. I don;t think the term ‘British’ has unravelled at all. The polls still suggest a moajority in favour of the union, and the maintainence of a Scottish/English/Wlesh/Irish and British identity…
Brown is saying it because he believes in it. There are certainly few votes there…
I wonder if the 14% who say they’re less likely to vote for Cameron were never going to vote Tory anyway?! Looking at Electoral Calculus’s Scottish prediction, 19-20% is a key tipping point for the Scots Tories, if they can hit that level then the predicted number of seats jumps from 2 to between 5 and 7. They seem to be steady at about 17% so they’re not far off that level. It could be as the election approaches and the Tories looked set for a big win then some people may just vote Tory as they like being on the winning team and that could tip a few more seats blue. Any gains they make will be off Labour and the LD’s. The way the SNP juggernaut is gathering pace there’s now way the Tories will take Angus and Perth and North Perthshire off the Nats, unless something dramatic happens.
The four party system in Scotland will make fascinating polling as I believe in places like Edinburgh South and Ochil, which are relatively marginal but with the Tories in 3rd place, Tory voters will forego their ‘belief’ vote for a ‘tactical’ vote to try and get rid of the Labour MP.
The Scottish Conservatives are pretty much down to their core support now. They get a couple of percentage points more in a secret ballot than they do face-to-face, but except where they are in second place, they arn’t the anti-government option of choice for disaffected Old Labour or New Labour voters unless the ex-New Labour voter is very strongly unionist. Disaffected Old Labour voters (who are much more numerous) are going to prefer the anti-nuclear SNP or (wasted vote in FPTP) Socialists.
That isn’t the fault of Cameron or Goldie. Don’t blame them. It’s because of Thatcher and the availability of the SNP.
To use the expression formerly popular in hospitals, both are doing “as well as can be expected.”
The Scottish Conservatives would quickly rehabilitate themselves after independence. They can take a less Blairite presentational stance than the UK party and at the same time avoid the rabid free marketeer and English Nationalist elements. Party funding from a dying membership would be a bigger problem for them than making progress with the electorate.
If they could rebrand under a new name which distinguished them from the other lot, they could easily find themselves in government in Scotland or at least have a lot of influence on promoting their priorities for legislation by doing deals with the SNP.
No matter how popular DC or the Tories are they are never going to win more than a handful of seats in Scotland at a GE, that’s plain to see.
If Alex S and the Scot Nats continue to poll well and be popular in Scotland that helps the Tories in a GE as it will ensure there are less Labour MPs at Westminster. In seats they cannot win maybe some Tories may vote Scot Nat to drive the Labour MPs out!
It would help the Tories even more, long term, if Scotland went independent but that’s another argument.
On a personal note I have always warmed to Alex Salmond. Although he represents something that doesn’t interest me and I can’t vote for him I have always found him genuine and likeable. It also helps that he has a sense of humour which few politicians seem to have these days.
More so then most polls, the Scottish polls are based upon a hypothetical situation. Whether heads or hearts truly guide the vote we will have to wait for the real thing.
Good luck to my Scottish cousins. Demographics are against you, so take care.
I think the interesting thing here is how well the Labour vote has held up despite all the difficulties of the last year. For sure, it is bad, but it’s not as bad as it is down south, and once the SNP bubble starts to deflate Wendy A will be a strong position than Gordon B is even if the froth comes off the Tory poll rating.
As John Dick remarks the Scottish Tories never like revealing their political affiliations to an opinion pollster but invariably exceed the forecasts at the ensuing election. 17% now may indicate 20% in the polling booth if an election were held today.
In two years time ie when we come to the next UK GE the shine may well be off the SNP but I am doubtful if the Labour party would be the beneficary. Middle class voters could in those circumstamces opt for the Tories or if unconvinced that Mr Cameron is not Mrs Thatcher in disguise vote Liberal Democrat instead.
The difficulty for Scottish opinion pollsters as I see it and indeed Welsh ones too is trying to measure the four party votes on a national scale. I wonder if they would not prosper more by a) increasing the sample base and b)from a) deduce some meaningful regional figures from sub samples. Perhaps Peter Cairns has some thoughts here as he knows more about this than I.
The best hope for the Scottish Tories is to continue to entrench in the south where they are doing relatively well – (had a good result in a council by-election in Dumfries & Galloway on Thursday). Otherwise it will be a slow process of trying to “decontaminate the brand” by, for instance, co-operating with the SNP and waiting on events.
Of course, if we do have a referendum on independence, things may start changing more rapidly. My guess is that the unionists parties will describe it as “settling the independence question for a generation” (in the expectation that they will win) and thus shooting the SNP’s fox.
I think the only way forward for the tories is a conservative-SNP ‘relationship’. Yes SNP! Conservatives would then be free to agressively persue the England and Wales electorate as it does not seem likely that they will ever even win a seat in Scotland again, this will leave Labour fighting political wars on two fronts and hopefully marginalise the Lib Dems. I know this scenario goes against the whole conservative and unionist tradition but we on the centre right need to do some radical thinking if we are really serious about getting into power again and the fact is England is traditionally a centre right country but Scotland and to a large extent Wales are left wing. The Conservatives power base is in England and they need to be able to motivate and galvanise this without thinking about how its playing in Scotland.
Given how low Labour support is at a UK level, it is obvious that getting the Scots to vote Tory is about as difficult as getting Norman Tebbit to join the Scottish Socialist Party.
There is a marked change between the Westminster figures, where Labour has a clear lead over the SNP and the Holyroyd figures where the SNP are disappearing over the hill from Labour. Is this “The Wendy Effect?” Is Alexander’s poor performance at Holyroyd dragging Labour down while for Westminster, Labour is still clear? If this pattern where to continue then could there be a bid to oust Alexander as leader?
I think there is still that element of shame up here, to admit your voting Tory until the day you finally vote, which might be skewing the polls, but to what amount, we’re not exactly sure. My prediction, when election time comes around, it will be higher than 18%, at least better than GE 2005, if the way UK momentum is going for the Tories now remains. With the Labour vote still holding up, it’s sure that the Tories could still struggle even in the few Lab-Con marginals, but that doesn’t mean there won’t be any pleasant surprises for them apart from gaining in South Scotland. Edinburgh South West anyone? A long shot but possibly, in this political climate.
And whoever said the Tories could gain 11 seats is talking nonsense, when the old Tory stamping grounds of the rural North East are now SNP country. The Tories might be looking at 1-3 seat gains in the next elections.
If Scotland ever becomes independent, it would definetely be beneficial if the Scottish Tories, well, stopped calling themselves Tories, in other words have a brand new party name, without the stigma of the past(e.g the Thatcher years), and make a fresh new start, and maybe Scotland will travel more to the right, if they have the right leader at the right time.
Just my thoughts, but Wendy Alexander was a disaster waiting to happen, when she became leader. Ever since she pushed for Section 28, which was about promoting homosexuality in schools, it was greeted with harsh negativity and publicity. Since then, the public haven’t liked her. I’m certain Labour will concede a majority government to the SNP if they keep her in power. But the question is, is there anyone in a better place to replace her? That remains to be seen, and i will watch with interest on the Scottish Labour front.
What does the Tory Party offer Scotland?
Danielle:
“Unionist” relates to Ireland.
I await replies from my two Conservative MSP’s as to their views on independence, not for Scotland, but for the three Unionist parties in the Bavarian manner and also on the points you make. If I get a coherent reply I’ll post it here. I’m quite sure it’s nine years too late now, but that would have been the only thing likely to hold back the drift to independence.
It’s quite possible that Donald Dewar was not too bothered about the probability that devolution would facilitate independence. I remember his answer to a Nationalist who raised the slippery slope argument but opposed Donald’s proposals for a Home Rule Parliament on the grounds that “the good is the enemy of the best.”
That was 50 years ago, following a debate in the Glasgow Academy Debating Society. I couldn’t avoid joining the discussion. The crowd round Donald was blocking the corridor and exit.
Remember too he said later that “Scotland will be independent when people vote for it.” Can you imagine Paxman/Humphries v Blair/Howard getting that admission which was freely given by Donald? The opposite would be an admission is that Britain has no claim to a be considered a democracy.
Waterboarding? Rack and thumbscrews perhaps?
Party independence needs to be effected now anyway. If it isn’t, can you imagine the situation of the three London based parties the day after a referendum favouring independence? That would not only be bad for these parties, bad for democracy, and bad for Scotland, it would even be bad for the SNP!
Without rebranding, and independence, there is no hope of a Conservative revival. Ms Goldie is the most responsible and dignified opposition leader we have had in any party in the Scottish parliament and if even she can’t even hold on to the Conservative vote then there is no such thing as a “Cameron Effect” only a Blair/Brown effect.
The many on this site who believe that elections are always lost, never won, should not be surprised.
There is a “grim reaper” effect, however, and that’s the big thing in the Conservative vote and party membership in Scotland. Scotland needs a Centre right party, and the one nation Conservatives of Scotland, still the only party in any part of the UK to win more than half of the popular vote, have been all but destroyed by English Nationalists and Free Market fundamentalists at Westminster.
Wendy Alexander has insulted Professor Sir Kenneth Calman, double crossed the LibDems and Cons, marginalised her own MSP’s and failed to consult her London bosses who cannot possibly support her referendum plan after refusing one on the EU. A consultative referendum like the one the SNP propose, would need SNP co-operation to be added to the parliamentary timetable now, and the electorate are offended by the transparency of the tactical U-turn. It’s not that we don’t know that sort of thing goes on, but there isn’t even an attempt at a credible excuse.
The Greens, she has ignored, so I suppose she’s counting on them to feel slighted by that.
There is now much talk of the relative timing of Sir Kenneth Calman’s report (2009) The Wendy Alexander referendum (2008/9)the Westminster election of a probably Conservative Government (2010?)the Scottish Parliament election (2011)and the SNP’s referendum (2010).
One date not on that list is the 250th anniversary on Sunday 25th January 2009 of the birth of the National Poet.
Expect the Scottish Government to make much of that date.
Expect the referendum bill the following day.
Whittingham:
Section 28 it wasn’t in Scotland (Clause 2b). That’s very much old news now, the hysteria has been seen as OTT and your post says the opposite of what you mean.
A majority government is very unlikely ever for any party. The arithmetic is against it.
Scotland is extremely fortunate with two large parties, two medium size parties and one (formerly two) small parties as well as some independents. The number of possible combinations for coalition or co-operation is much better than in Austria where all that changes after an election is one fewer or one more junior minister from the minor coalition party.
After independence “New” Labour will disappear without trace. “Old” Labour will re-form with the remnants of the SSP, the Conservatives will be rehabilitated and the SNP will have the benefit and burden of being the government and try to maintain cohesion as a pragmatic centre-left party without the gimmicry, panaceas, or spin of New Labour, eventually losing some support to both left and right.
Remember that the SNP are not winning any votes except from the Greens by trickery (Alex Salmond for First Minsiter). The people to blame for independence are in order of importance Thatcher, Blair, Brown, Alexander for what they have done, and McConnel and Steven for what they failed to achieve. The only one of them who understood the situation was Jack McConnel and he did his best but it wasn’t enough.
The SNP can take none of the credit.
I take serious exception to the last sentence on John B Dick’s otherwise thoughtful post. I joined the SNP in 1959 when we were achieving less than 1% in the polls. Myself and many others have been footsoldiers now for nearly 50 years of door knocking, meetings,jumble sales, bingo seesions, raffles, leafletting and electioneering and we now are Scotland’s biggest party. The SNP take all the credit and Scotland is on anninevitable path to Independence. The timescale will dpend very much on those who refuse to see the very big writing on the wall.
There are significant numbers of Scottish Tories in favour of Independence – as therer are in the other so-called “unionist” parties.
Why should the Conservtive Popularity in England automatically transfer into Scotland? The move to greater independence for Scotland has been stimulated by the desire to get away from the dominance by the English. That would now seem to have swung too far the other way in the minds of English voters. In reality both English and Scottish voters want more independence for themselves.
The present set up is unravelling.
John Charlesworth
Exactly
It it is a perfectly normal and reasonable position for Scottish and English people to hold to, with no need for long drawn out rancour on either side.
The bad blood will probably be provided by politicians defending their own interest and setting us against each other.
As has been often stated “When Scotland regains its independence England will be rid of a surly lodger and find itself with friendly neighbour”
3 seats , 4 seats for the Tories in Scotland – ho hum , still it appears that even though i am accused of wearing “rose tinted glasses” it seems that all others are totally blinkered – i stand resolutely by my earlier prediction of 11 to 12 seat gains for the Tories in Scotland.
The thing i can agree with some about is the accuracy of the Scottish POLLS – it’s not as hard as many may think to find a Tory in Scotland – let’s just wait and see !!!
“i stand resolutely by my earlier prediction of 11 to 12 seat gains for the Tories in Scotland.”
Where? List the seats.
Things is Scotland have turned around since these polls with Wendy’s decision to not just call for the SNP government to bring forward it’s plans for a devolution referendum, but the threat to bring forward a labour bill to have an independence referendum in Holyrood.
This seems to have wrong footed everyone with the notable exception of the SNP. We can’t believe our luck. For almost two years Labour have been saying they don’t want the constitutional issue to dominate the agenda and would oppose a referendum, and now they are talking about holding one.
The Tories and LibDems, Labours partners in the Calman Commission to look at devolution are furious, and Labour MSP’s and MP’s are struggling to come to terms with the U-turn.
I think this will dominate the Scottish media for the next two weeks at least and I’d expect to see at least one fresh referendum poll for this weeks Sunday’s.
Given that this is already being used by Cameron against Brown who is having what seems now to be his habitual bad week I wouldn’t be surprised to see the numbers supporting Independence rise, although It could well focus peoples minds and send things the other way.
Either way right now it looks like there will be a Scottish referendum on Independence within the next two years. If so expect to see a renewed pressure for one on the EU possibly from Clegg and calls for an English parliament too.
Peter.
Peter:
I see that at their latest pretendy fight Tweedledum has accused Tweedledee of “losing control” of the Scottish Labour Party. Is that an admission that both of them see leadership of the Westminster party as requiring control, and perhaps the right to have control?
What does Annabel Goldie think of that?
I don’t see how a Labour referendum bill can bring about a vote all that much sooner than the SNP bill. It is bound to be contentious with amendmant after amendment especially on the wording.
The opportunities for the SNP to amend it, delay it or show up Labour as playing a cynical game are so rich they hardly need to try. The aim is to get the SNP to vote against it but that’s avoidable surely.
A lot can happen before the Labour bill gets voted on.
I can’t see the present squabble turning people away from voting for independence, quite the opposite, but if the issue dominates political debate till 2010, I think that might.
Two weeks for it to dominate the news is surely your lowest estimate, not your most likely.
This must be the best news for the SNP since the election.
If Scottish Conservatives gained even four seats, they would rightly regard that as a huge advance and party morale would be transformed. They should be more than satisfied with two.
Conservative support in Scotland has been on an unremitting downward trend for more than half a century. I recognise that sooner or later either the Conservatives must disappear entirely or they turn the corner, but that isn’t gong to happen right now, when the SNP are making all the running.
That would be amazing, and if it was going to happen there would need to be some very obvious reason. As I and others have said on this site they need rebranding as a wholly Scottish entity, and that would be only the start.
As I indicated above, it doesn’t help to have DC mocking GB for not being in “control” of the Scottish branch of his party. Though DC has a long way to go to compete with Lord Tebbit, every remark like that delivers a few more votes to the SNP.
David McEwan Hill
I’m sorry you were offended by my remarks, but I really do think the door-knocking doesn’t have much effect except perhaps on council elections. Otherwise people make their minds up on press, television and radio information, discussions with work colleagues etc and not on the doorstep.
Look at the impact this weeks news has made. That’s much more significant than interrupting peoples TV watching, domestic disputes or when they are trying to get the kids to go to bed.
As I’ve said before, I don’t want independence per se but I’ll vote for it to get better government from a parliament organised on the Founding Principles of Donald Dewar’s enlightenment Home Rule parliament.
Since we agree that independence is now inevitable then let us pray that come it may,as come it will for a’ that.
The jury is still out on the future of the Tory party in Scotland. It may vanish or it may revive and here are a few points in favour of the latter.
1 All modern functioning democracies have a moderate left of centre party and a moderate right of centre party. Currently on the right the Tories are the only game in town.
2 Once the Tories return to power at Westminster which inevitably they will and govern as I think they will more in the tradition of one nation toryism and not Thatcherism then middle class Scots may well drift back to the party.
3 The Canadian Tories were 15 years ago down to just two seats and pronounced dead and buried . They are now back in power.What goes around comes around.
4 If the SNP lose popularity and all governments do it does not follow that the Scottish Labour party will pick up votes. A swing to the right would be a natural turn of events.
5 In the meantime and since the new council electoral system came into force in May 2007 the Scottish Tories have established a reasonable local base in what might be termed favourable territory around which the activists have gathered.
You cannot count them out yet.
John B Dick wrote:
> This must be the best news for the SNP since the election.
You mean better when Salmond got elected? Better than when they went through their first 100 days without loosing a vote in the Scottish Parliament? Better than Wendygate? Better even than the budget triumph?
All this popularity, yet all the SNP has delivered is bog-standard, non-ideological ‘good governance’ (and some smaller gimmicks).
Maybe that’s all they have to do, I certainly cannot see how (barring a major own goal) their popularity could fall as long as the alternatives are the farce that is the London Labour government, Labours angry little helpers or the party of Thatcher.
Have just watched the exchanges in the Scottish Parliament [sic] and must congratulate the Mayor, Mr Salmond, for doing the right thing: sticking to the message in his manifesto! Labour are panicking and, on both sides of Coldstream, the populace can see this.
As an aside, a question for Peter Cairns. BBC HYS recently had a debate [sic] on the future of the Royal Mail. How will an independent Scotland deal with it’s responsibilities regarding universal service?
England has the demographic mass to maintain the concept within it’s borders, whilst Wales and Northern Ireland are small, compact nations. Scotland lacks neither demographics nor compactness, so will services suffer?
[Sorry to end off-topic. Just something that I believe Scots need to address when talking of independence.]
A Scottish mail will presumably be able to so under its own charter which may not even include ‘universal mial’ in the same sense. And I note ‘universal mail’ is a flexible term as even now not all Scottish islands do not get daily delivery. And it’s no worse a problem than a mail service in any small country. And with email etc snail mail is a declining issue. And with EU Scottish mail service could easily be sold to the highest bidder, such as Deutsch Post.
And for those nitpicking on the idea of Scottish nationalism you miss the point–nationalism is an emotional concept first and foremost. Then its a pride in history. Petty economics have nothing to do with it. See the Pacific island states, Andorra, Liechtenstein etc for real pinprick and proud countries.
And, if what’s left of the North Sea oil actually went to its real owners then the mail service would be outstanding…
Ireland, for example, regained independence as a totally financially bankrupt and devastated state–but it had emotion, history and heroes. And a Post Office as the core part of its modern history! This is what I mean; nationalism is a first and foremost a sense of the deep emotional reality of a country. And I think all Scots have that. Financial logic is basically irrelevant. To be honest I believe a free Scotland is just a matter of time. Why? Name what would would happen if any party up there tried to abolish the Scottish Parliament… Look at the majority up there who want, at the very least, more powers for it.
If Scotland becomes more like Ireland it looks like the Scottish Tories will be like the Labour Party in Ireland – a historical relic.
I also note that the Faroe islands are moving towards total independence; I think the Scottish economy is somewhat larger…
And I point to the ‘6 nations’ rugby as to how the vast majority really feel about the ‘UK’; we want our country to win by a zillion miles and have no interest in any other country. This is an example of the blazing emotions generated by our real nationalisms; the rest is a minor historical legal position. If Brown wants to encourage ‘Britishness’ then he should first abolish the 6 nations and the individual nations playing in soccer / football…
FluffyThoughts,
If you want your question to be taken seriously, I suggest you stop being so patronising. Scotland has a parliament and a first minister whether you like it or not.
I think it is a mistake to regard Scotland as monolithic politically. Geographically there are different trends – note the widely differing performances of SNP and Tories in NE and SW Scotland respectively. Also note that the performance of the parties have fluctuated very significantly – compare the continuing rise of the SNP with the recent decline of the LibDems which I forecast to be quite striking at the next Westminster election. This could all change again if circumstances change.
Jack
Who says it is Scotland’s oil? If the world was flat I suppose you could draw a straight out from Hadrian’s wall but it ain’t flat so the boundary could be anywhere. And who exploited the oil? Who were the venture capitalists involved? The oil belongs to the UK-not just one part of it.
I agree Nick. the Oil belongs to Shell, BP et al, not Scotland or England.
The rules for determining sovereignty over territorial waters are laid down by international law are widely known ad pretty much universally accepted.
You can have a legal debate over who has the right to drill or extract where as determined by national licensing agreements etc., but the issue of who is the rightful government to decide on those agreements is not in doubt.
It may well be shells right to extract the oil and sell it, but it will be Scotland’s right to tax it or restrict it if it is from the seabed in waters under our jurisdiction under international law.
Funny how people always start to raise the old chestnut about ownwership when they think they might lose it.
Peter.
Peter,
You are quite right about International Law rules about territorial water – The boundary runs perpendicular to the coast where the land border meets the sea. At the moment that gives a line running North east from a point north of Berwick towards Stavanger. Of course if Berwick were to be annexed by Scotland, then the boundary would head towards somewhere in Jutland.
This matters massively since, although some 90% of North Sea oil from UK waters is landed in Scotland, the share from Scottish, as opposed to English, territorial waters is much lower. It does not matter that Aberdeen is the closest landing point.
Note also that if the Shetland Islands take a different view to independance and elect to stay “British”, then the amount of “Scottish” oil really does shrink !
As you may guess, I am not in favour of independance for Scotland. However, I do recognise that it is a matter for the heart, and should not be determined by how much North Sea oil comes with the package.
Paul
A humble apology to my Scottish cousins,
Anyways….
John Charlesworth
Why should the Conservtive Popularity in England automatically transfer into Scotland?
Because a minority should never rule the majority…? I thought Apartheid was history…!
RDL
FluffyThoughts,
If you want your question to be taken seriously, I suggest you stop being so patronising. Scotland has a parliament and a first minister whether you like it or not.
RDL,
And – humbly – all my Scots’ cousins: please place everything in context. Cllr. Peter Cairn made a joke about the London Elections. [With his agreement] Everything else is light-hearted, and flavoured with jest!
Anthony, another desist…? Or does analysis still predicate?
Christian Schmidt:
You have nearly written the real referendum question, the one that people will be answering.
“Do you want bog-standard, non-ideological ‘good governance’(and some smaller gimmicks)in an independent Scotland?
or would you prefer the farce that is the London Labour government, Labours angry little helpers or the party of Thatcher?”
Nick Keene:
While I agree with your first point, I don’t see it in my lifetime (I’m 68) except under independence and/or rebranding and separation.
There is no possibility of your second point helping the Conservatives. At present, the SNP is the largest party be one MSP who should now be back from maternity leave. If Labour lost – say – 10 or 20 seats, which is possible, and even if these should all go to either the LibDems or the Conservatives, the SNP would still be the largest party and even more so.
It isn’t FPTP and the arithmetic is different. There are, or at least have been, four if not six potential coalition building parties.
The first target for the Conservatives is to replace the LibDems as a potential coalition partner of one of the two largest parties.
They could do that now or with two or three gains from Labour in coalition with the SNP if they rebranded, became independent of the UK party and exorcised Thatcher. They can’t do it with Labour because Labour would need to be independent of the UK party too and because so many MP’s on both sides of the Westminster parliament would have breakdowns and be in therapy that the parliament would cease to function.
I still rest my case that an independent Scotland is but a matter of time; look at the emotions and arguments generated here. In the c.1960s the pro-SNP were viewed as marginal loonies, now it’s in Government. It’s viewed as serious possibility to restore Scottish independence. Okay, we are the politically and poll fixated but what is here can not be boxed and put away back to the loony fringe.
This is what is with wrong with bendy Wendy’s argument–to agree to a referendum means that, even if lost, it is an issue of historic importance and so will never go away.
If the referendum is lost, the SNP would merely say the poll was a picture at one time we need another. AS they would rightly point to the historic swing from being viewed as idiots to being as serious possibility. And imagine if the referendum was lost, say 49% / 51% but SNP was restored to power… And if the referndum was won due to Scottish Labour support for allowing the referendum…
Even when Wendy loses her job I see times getting more interesting up north…
John B Dick
I am sure it is just my old age but I am not sure I entirely follow the tread of your response to my points 2-5.If you mean that middle class voters impressed by the performance of a Cameron government at Westminster will still refuse to even consider voting Tory at whatever level including Holyrood then your glass is not just half empty it is downright bereft of a single wee drop!!
I don’t actually disagree with many of the other things you say.Certainly they might prosper more if say they formed a separate but allied right of centre party as with the CSU in Bavaria.For the battered Tory party in Scotland it is a continuous process of block building. Almost snail like at times but remember from not holding one FPTP Holyrood seat in 1999 they now have four. With every realistic hope of doing better next time around.
I think it may be a bit of poison chalice if Scotland were to rush into independence. I have to wonder, the new SNP voters, from 2004 to present, who are they really voting for, Salmond or the SNP? Generally, voters don’t evaluate the workings of the party and rather the leader. Under these conditions, we can’t be too trigger-happy with a party that, without Salmond in the early 2000’s, were in the doldrums, lost momentum under Swinney? So, different leader, but same party? But fair enough, Salmond has done a miles better job as leader than the other 3.
I think 2010 is a fine enough date for the referendum, not any earlier, to be able to evaluate SNP’s performance in government better. I can only hope if independence ever does come around, that the SNP will run Scotland well, and not expose some underlying critical weakness that was there all along, perhaps concentrating too much on the event of independence rather than the aftermath and how to run it. It’s a huge task.
Whittingham,
The issue is, wouldn’t it be even more of a poision chalice to vote against independence?
Independence might not make the grass any greener, but at the moment all the alternatives look distinctively brown.
You could make the point for a centre-left social-democratic, confident Scotland, standing up for itself within the Union (i.e. bit like at the moment). But there is nobody to make that argument, the Nats obviously won’t, and the others can’t (at least at the moment).
Nick Keene:
“middle class voters impressed by the performance of a Cameron government at Westminster will still refuse to even consider voting Tory”
That has to be at the Westminster election after the next one. Scottish citizens may not be voting at all.
Would they be impressed by a Cameron government? The mountain Conservatives have to climb is the one identified by Christian “the party of Thatcher” – that’s enough, it really is. It doesn’t help that DC is apeing TB.
There are a lot of issues where the large Westminster parties aim to win over “Middle England” voters. “Middle Scotland” has different values ultimately derived from the different course of the reformation. Sometimes it means that, a policy which is attractive to middle class voters in England is repellent in Scotland.
Some people think that because of these differences Scotland should be a different country.
One Nation Conservatives under Ms Goldie could thrive in the Bavarian system. Free Market fundamentalists and English Nationalists at Westminster impede their progress. There are many in the SNP who might be sympathetic to Conservative policies, in economic matters for example.
If in the SP the Conservatives gain a FPTP seat, it may well be offset by the loss of a list seat unless the share of the vote in the region has gone up significantly. If they did the Bavarian thing, and left off actively opposing independence, they could be in government with no more MSP’s than they have at present.
There is no hope of Conservatives doing significantly better next time around. The SNP is on the way up and the former coalition on the way down. Disaffected Labour voters in Scotland are more likely to defect to the Left than the right, if not to the SNP. Many have defected to the Nationalists already.
Because there is a choice of three, maybe four, parties with the chance of election under PR there is absolutely no need for disaffected Labour voters to face up to voting for “The Party of Thatcher.” If Lab-to-Con swing goes against the grain, there may be very much less inhibition for Lab-to-SNP, especially if the SNP is doing well. That could be the big thing next time, and the Conservatives are just not involved.
Remember that Scottish Labour is Old Labour, not the urban English C2’s, whose natural home is the BNP, and who voted (via the local candidate, of course) for TB as they would on Big Brother or Pop Idol, because they were voting for a winner and perceived John Major and his successors as losers.
Conservatives could get some votes back from LibDems, if the fear of letting in the Labour candidate recedes, but if the votes “lent” to the LibDems in the Constituency were previously accompanied by a Conservative list vote, then it won’t make any difference except to turn a List MSP into a Constituency one, and perhaps lose a LibDem seat for another party
Your conceptual error is to assume that elections are “won.” It follows from that assumption that if the UK government of the day is losing support a FPTP election will appear to show that the alternate government party is gaining favour with the electorate.
It just isn’t like that in the SP election with split votes, six parties and voting against in constituencies.
Whittingham:
“who are they really voting for, Salmond or the SNP?”
Neither.
They are clearly not voting for the SNP because they are not in favour (at least not yet) of independence. Alex Salmond compares well with the current competition in either parliament, but he has been around for a while, and hasn’t, till recently, had the success which he is currently enjoying.
They are voting against New Labour.
Spin, Trident, PFI/PPP, Nuclear Power, University Fees, Dawn Raids, Targets, Foundation Hospitals, Faith Schools, Privatised rail,Donations from business, Post offices.
You can put these in three groups.
Integrity (re: Spin Gimmicry and bribery)
The Brotherhood of Man
Presbyterian Literacy
The SNP are merely a convenient vehicle. They may not know it, but they are voting for the Founding Principles of Donald Dewar’s enlightenment parliament, and the values inscribed on its mace.
SCPO (Scottish Churches Parliamentary Office)
Update with Interview: Wendy Alexander
Interview Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007
She is committed to changing the Labour Party in Scotland, “how we are seen, how we behave, how we conduct our politics, what our policies are”.
So that’s that sorted in one week. What next?
‘Under these conditions, we can’t be too trigger-happy with a party that, without Salmond in the early 2000’s, were in the doldrums, lost momentum under Swinney?’
but I still point out that with history, that was a pause from loony fringe to government. When talking about this issue one must view, at least, the growth from nowhere 30 years ago, to now.
John B Dick
I am not for one moment denying that the road back for the Tories in Scotland is a long one.And nowhere have I ever hinted at the possibility of a majority Tory administration in Holyrood because clearly that is a pipe dream. The difference between you and me is that I think over time it is possible that a revival of sorts can happen and you appear not to believe that.I don’t see the Tories in a coalition during my lifetime but I do see them one day being the ‘Kingmakers’….. I make the following further points:
1 Assuming Cameron wins a 2010 UK election the first time voters will get a chance to vote on its performance may not be until 2015 which will be 25 years after Mrs Thatcher left office. Nobody under 41 will have been a voter when she did so.
2 In building up a base which is what I am talking about it is the number of FPTP seats at Holyrood that matter most regardless of the strange effect this can have on the number of top up seats. Next time around the Tories clearly have legitimate hopes of picking up seats such as Dumfries,Eastwood and Renfrewshire West from Labour and if the SNP has lost popularity they have a shot at places like Perth and Stirling as well.
3 Post-devolution the Tories are no longer seen as quite the ‘English’ party they once were because most Scots are satisfied with the current position and have no wish to become independent.The sting has gone out of the situation.
4 If the North of England can finally succumb to the Tories then I see no reason why the tide cannot advance further right up to the banks of the Forth of Firth if not a little better. It’s all to play for.
“If the North of England can finally succumb to the Tories then I see no reason why the tide cannot advance further right up to the banks of the Forth of Firth if not a little better. It’s all to play for.”
Because in the north of England, there is no real alternative to the Labour Party. North of the Tweed, there is.
RDL,
“Because in the north of England, there is no real alternative to the Labour Party. North of the Tweed, there is.”
Exactly. I know its actually a bit unfair to call the Scottish Tories the party of Thatcher. Annabel Goldie has probably done at least as good as David Cameron, she’s high class and clearly a One Nation conservative. Her problem is that that isn’t good enough.
In England, Cameron simply has to be (much) better than Labour – rather easy at the moment. In Scotland, to start winning votes and seats they also have to be better than the SNP, which they aren’t.
And I would guess even the shine coming off the Salmond government won’t help the Tories much. Note than in England the Tories needed Labour to become really, really toxic before they started to lead in opinion polls.
So with little movement in Scottish opinion polls, in my view the best Tories can hope for in the next general election is to pick up a few seats where the Nats are weak (Border, E Ren, possibly D&G). Obviously if expectations are low enough then even this could be seen as a success…
Nick Keane
Your points:
1 Scotland will be independent by 2015.
I’ve said the Conservatives could have been in coaliton government in the lifetime of this parliament if they had adopted the Bavarian model earlier. Even now it might not be too late to do a deal for the last year especially if they back the referendum. They could even campaign for a “No”
2 Mrs Thatcher said of the last Tory in Dumfries (who had a huge personal vote and had been there a very long time) that he shouldn’t be in the Conservaive party. I think it is fair to say that that view was reciprocated.
I havn’t done the calculations, but if they gain three constituencies, it surely isn’t going to mean three extra seats, and they could easily lose a list seat elsewhere without necessarily having a lower share of the poll. If, in current circumstances, they end up in the next SP with a net increase of two, then then it’s congratulations all round.
The chance that in the next three years, the current SNP improvement in the polls will be reversed is far less than the chance that it will be increased. Remember it isn’t a result of what the SNP are doing, its disaffection with the UK Labour government, and your projected Conservative victory is based on an assumption that that will continue. It follows that there will be no Conservative gains from SNP.
3 Independence is even better than the Bavarian model. Ms Goldie may not be around then, but she’s the most widely respected party leader the SP has had ever apart from Donald Dewar, understands how to operate as an opposition party leader against a minority government, and we could do with another two party leaders who have worked out how to do that.
The LibDems should have cracked that one by now since they’ve always claimed to be the premier league players at coalition.
Will the SNP split left and right after independence? Will the Socialists be back? What will happen to the Greens? Will Old Labour be back somewhat modernised? Will the LibDems plod along as before? Will New Labour be gone and forgotten?
I’m only sure about the last two.
I don’t think it is impossible, provided the SNP were to fragment,that there could be a minority Conservative-led government in 2018.
3 It’s not that they are an English party. It’s that they are (like the other two) a London led party. The priorities are those of the London media and focus is on London problems. That’s not what devolution is about.
The other day DC was castigating GB for having lost “control” of the party in Scotland. Careless talk like that delivers a few dozen votes to the SNP every time.
There is a lot of it from both Labour and Conservative, though only Lord Tebbit could use “English” and “Britain” in the same sentence and get it wrong both ways.
Nothing the SNP has done is causing the drift towards independence. I’ve posted a lot of words on this site, but really Christian Schmidt said it all.
3 The impact Conservatives make is related to the number of MSP’s. Look at the difference gaining and then losing a handful of seats made to the effectiveness of the Greens. List or constituency doesn’t make much difference except to the workload.
4 RDL answered this one.
Also,
“Post-devolution the Tories are no longer seen as quite the ‘English’ party they once were because most Scots are satisfied with the current position and have no wish to become independent. The sting has gone out of the situation.”
The desire for independence has little to do with the perception of the Tories as an ‘English’ party. The Tories are seen as such because their rhetoric usually treats England and the UK as synonymous and utterly fails to recognise that politics, like most other aspects of society, is different in Scotland. The fact that discussions of politics in Scotland in the Blogosphere usually end up as debates about when the Tories will reverse their poor results in Scotland, and ignore actual politics in the country, demonstrates this.
RDL
That you think Scottish Tories have no idea about politics or society in their own country shows a breathtaking and dismissive arrogance. What right have you to say that only people who think like you have a monopoly of wisdom? I certainly don’t think that the party I support has all or even most of the answers. ALL parties have blinkered souls and backwoodsmen but most members of the unionist parties care deeply and feel deeply about the issues facing the UK as a whole and Scotland in particular.
That many Tories up here in Scotland prefer to think in terms of what unites Scotland with the rest of the UK instead of what divides us is undeniable and it is a way of thinking which unites them with both Liberal Democrat and Labour supporters.
Scotland independent by 20015 John Dick? In your dreams!
It was not Tories in Scotland that I was talking about. I thought that was self-evident: living in Scotland would obviously give them an insight into Scottish politics!
Nick Keene,
I think what RDL was getting at was the idea that often emerges here that Lab v Tory with the LibDems watching is the norm for the UK and current Scottish situation is an aberration. Thus people keep waiting for the Scottish Tory revival because there is one in England or assume that post Independence the SNP would melt away and Scottish politics would return to “normal”.
Both these things are possible, but by no means inevitable. It is at least as likely that Scotland is diverging and developing a more and more distinct politics.
There is an argument that says that what the SNP has become is not a protest movement but rather a broad church party which by putting “Scotland First” has actually come up with a cross between Labour style social democracy ad one nation conservatism.
If that is true then somewhat ironically while opposing Blair and fighting Labour what the SNP is delivering is actually closer to the third way than New Labour have ever come.
The SNP has moved from being a national movement to being a real nationalist party which is simultaneously pro business while socially progressive. That for most commentators is a contradiction but for me it raises an interesting question.
“Is the right left split between Labour and the Tories actually necessary or is it just a product of our adversarial two party system, Does the ideology drive the contest or the contest drive the ideology?”
Discuss.
Peter.
Peter.
Nick Keene
“most [Scottish voters who are?]members of the unionist parties care deeply and feel deeply about the issues facing the UK as a whole and Scotland in particular.”
Either they have failed, especially over the last 25 years, to inform the London-based leadership of the particular concerns and values of Scotland, or their advice has been ignored. Had this not been so, we almost certainly would not have had devolution and we would not now be headed for independence.
I don’t want independence as such, I just want better government from a purpose designed institution. That comes with independence. The Westminster parliament is a failed and outdated parliament unfit for the 21st century. I argued that point with Donald Dewar 50 years ago and he said it wasn’t as bad as I claimed.
Well it is now.
He also said that his Home Rule parliament would be an opportunity to try out possible solutions. Robin Cook tried some very modest changes and they treated him like a bad smell.
No, I’m not sure about an independent Scotland in 20015, not even about life continuing on the planet. Independence by 2015 is getting more likely by the day and it is none of the SNP’s doing. Christian Schmidt said it all.
John Curtice credits Margaret Thatcher with provoking Devolution. Tony Blair’s legacy will be the break up of the UK.
My guess is that the referendum bill could be published in 9 months and that Labour panic and focus on “Middle England” will cause more misjudgements like last week’s. Three or even two on that scale might be enough.
Their argument(to Scots) against independence, that Scotland will be worse off if independent will, on the way to the UK election, have more impact in England. Scottish voters don’t believe the figures on either side and have long since discounted the arguments.
How many seats does the SNP need to contest to get a PPB in England? How much would that cost?
You don’t think that Labour will give up the negative campaining against the SNP for the UK election do you? The reaction from the Sun and Mail will energise Scottish voters.
This is a Greek tradgedy. One disaster after another for the UK government.
The referendum must come in about 30 months and there will be a UK election before then. Governments often become unpopular in their third term, but the SNP is stronger now than when elected and there just isn’t time for it to go “off.”
There is really nothing likely to happen which would avert or neutralise these issues, nor any others that will damage the SNP. All the SNP have to do is avoid doing something stupid. The surest way to do that is to do as little as possible, preferably nothing at all.
It’s too late now, of course, but do you know why the Conservatives havn’t done the Bavarian thing and re-branded in Scotland? They could have been in government in the UK/English parliament indefinitely after the next election, and in coalition with the SNP right now. It looks as if they will go right up to independence day ” … and Unionist.” What then?
RDL
You should make yourself better understood. Scottish Tories decide all policies at Holyrood level and merely inform ‘London’ of their actions. At UK level only one constituent part does not feed into the party manifesto and that’s Northern Ireland.
I also meant to challenge you on the statement you made that other aspects of society in Scotland are different to England.Not as much as you might think.It’s just shades at best really- nothing radical.Again more unites the two societies than divides us and the glue at the heart of it all are the half million English people who live here in Scotland and double that number of Scots who live down south and that’s not counting spouses and offspring.Long live the Union!!
I have cousins in New Zealand (as do many Scots), without the need for the type of political union Scotland and England have. How many Irish live in the UK? Should Ireland revert back to 1914 because they have relatives there? That’s absurd. I don’t think Scottish Independence (or the independence of any country, for that matter) is about societal similarities or cousins in Crewe.
“Is the right left split between Labour and the Tories actually necessary or is it just a product of our adversarial two party system, Does the ideology drive the contest or the contest drive the ideology?”
The ideology originally drove the contest, but the contest is now driven by the established system. If the contest drove the ideology, there would still be a left/right divide between Labour and the Tories.
Nick,
Would you like me to answer your points or were you just letting-off steam?
is it possible to have a nice graph of the Scottish polls like this one http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/voting-intention for the UK ones? It’s particularly confusing trying to follow the trend in Scotland, with an extra party.
Nick:
“Scottish Tories decide all policies at Holyrood level and merely inform ‘London’ of their actions.”
It’s better to have the right policy than the wrong one but it is also necessary to put it into effect and tell voters what you have done.
Scottish Conservatives need to educate Westminster spokesmen, if needs be using the threat or actuality of embarrassment by public reproof, to refrain from creating a different impression. They must be prevented from doing what DC did recently by castigating GB for not being “in control” of his party. The inference is that DC is in control of Scottish Conservatives. It matters not if this is not in fact the case. It reinforces an existing public perception, and could, over time become accepted in practice as normal if the freedom to operate independently is never exercised.
A brief dispute over a matter of that sort, not involving policy issues, which Ms Goldie clearly won would be an efficient way of communicating to the Scottish public the message your quote.
A less effective way would be for the UK party leader to make it known that he neither knows nor cares what the policy of Scottish Conservatives is, that he is not responsible, but that he has every confidence that the Scottish Party will have the right policy for Scotland based on Conservative principles. That would be a difficult message to get across. There is a lot of catching up to do.
I said above that it is not quite accurate to say that the Scottish Conservatives are perceived as an “English” party. To be seen not to be an “English” party they need to have some policy – any policy about anything – by which they can differentiate themselves, and make it known that such differences are quite natural and reasonable. It should be made clear that this is practical politics derived form Conservative principles and not a form of heresy.
Better still,of course as I have said, is the Bavarian solution.
If Jack MacConnel had gone down that road on, for example, Trident, and PFI he would still be First Minister and we wouldn’t be discussing how and when Scotland will move to independence. Many in the Labour Party would have been more at ease with their consciences and their principles had he done so. He didn’t do it, so we are where we are, on an unstoppable helter-skelter slide to independence.
I would have preferred another course, but Tweedledum and Tweedledee two swords length’s apart enjoy their games so much and have failed us. Scots have the opportunity to escape. Calum MacDonald, my former Labour MP in Western Isles, said to me that independence was a terrible thing to do to the English. So it is, but unlike the English we can climb into the lifeboat, and they are going to drown anyway.
It could so easily have been avoided.
RDL
Whether you want to reply to my last post is entirely a matter for you-I am not bothered one way or the other.Maybe both of us should put a sock in it.
John Dick
I am bewildered by some of your comments. What do you mean when you say that ‘they are going to drown anyway’?
Whatever happened to Calum Macdonald after he lost his seat? I met him when he was on the House of Commons agricultural select committee looking at fish farming with which I was then involved. Once he gave that chip on his shoulder a rest he made a great deal of sense. I liked him.
The situation for the Scottish Tories is a lot easier than that for Scottish Labour. Like the LibDems in Westminster they are unlikely to be in power so their policies rarely come in for scrutiny in the way that Labours would, or indeed Cameron’s will.
In addition they can concentrate on their core support without triangulation and so can concentrate on crime and high taxes being the problem without the difficulty of having to implement policies to deal with them.
Labour were in power on both sides of the border so they were constantly under scrutiny and any difference was looked at in fine detail. That to an extent put them in a lose lose situation. If there was a potential conflict and they “Stood up for Scotland” then “Labour was divided”. If they went along with London then they were “Blair’s poodles”.
They should have protested against the removal of £40m from the budget when free care was introduced but they didn’t. That has been seen very much as a Blair v McConnell thing, but it’s worth noting that although many Labour MSP’s weren’t happy about it by and large Labour MP’s backed it.
That suggests that there are real issues in the Labour party between Scottish MP’s who just don’t like the Scottish parliament and MSP’s who want more freedom. The SNP doesn’t have that issue because we are in no doubt that Westminster is a second choice even for the MP’s we have there.
Peter.
Nick Keene:
I meant that Scotland can take a self-interested and selfish option to get out. England is in a mess and will stay in a mess, probably a bigger mess, whatever we do.
I guess C McD still has the family firm, selling kitchen units and the like. Donald Stewart had the constituency very much on a personal vote and the SNP have it again now. It was never very clear why it should have been so loyally Labour for so long before Donald Stewart. When he got in it was partly due to dirty tricks. The SNP blamed Labour for the modern world, notably David Steel’s Abortion Act and Labour lost out.
Yes I know that doesn’t make sense. That’s Lewis.
Thre UK elections ago there was a well attended meeting arranged by Christian fundamentalists at which the entire range of social issues of the last century and more came up. Abortion, Divorce, Hanging, an Established Church among them. The Liberal’s position was predictable and accepted in silence. The Conservative, Jamie McGrigor and Calum MacDonald fielded the questions well with some quite smart answers.
The SNP candidate, the divorced Gaelic singer,Anne Lorne Gilles, defended the liberal position. As someone imbued in Gaelic language and culture presenting herself as “one of us” This was too much to take. When I heard members of the audience baying like dogs, I made note of the exits and contemplated the risks of injury and loss of employment should there be violence and I moved to defend the candidate.
Winifred Ewing, in the lobby later, muttered something to me about “Christians and lions” but of course it was the lions that were savaged.
The next evening, at her own election meeting, Anne Lorne Gilles was still visibly shaken by the experience and her political ambitions and prospects were at an end.
My wife and I now live in Rothesay, as do four other white settler escapees from Stornoway. That’s a lot of people. One of them, acting on the advice of his wife’s doctor, left without a house and job to go to.
Re Isle of Lewis
Surely regrettably one knows that, much as I love the scenery / history etc one has to recognise that
* The fundamentalist Presbyterians try to exert their view of life, especially Sundays, onto the total population. AS such the principle behind their behaviour is no better than the Taleban. Please note I am not saying they are Taleban but I am saying that, in principle, their behaviour is no better.
* My GGG father fought this battle in Victoria in Australia 1870s and his view was quite simple– man requires food for the soul, food for the mind and a healthy body. Which is why he argued for Museums and Art Galleries to be open on Sunday afternoons, that healthy pursuits like golf courses and parks should be open on Sundays and that food shops should be open.
* I do not know how another GGG Uncle. Moderator of the Presbyterian Church of Victoria would have viewed it.
I recognise and loathe all fundamentalist religion; and I know the Isle of Lewis is part of it. I have a 2nd house there and will retire there–but I am aware of its problems…
The only thing we miss (apart from Charles Macleod’s Stornoway Black Pudding) is not being there to observe the progress of the decay of the old system. I think much could be learned about social change and group psychology.
Just before we left four years ago, the first passenger plane came in on a Sunday, and there were more people to welcome it than to object. One of the pubs sold Sunday newspapers and we went along for the first couple of weeks.
There is very strong feeling against the old values, and this is age related. Many years ago, the BBC polled people by telephone on the issue of Sunday ferries. YouGov may be interested to know that on that issue EVERYBODY whether they were for or against wanted to answer the questions and have their opinion counted. There was a sharp age split then and by now a substantial majority want to join the 20th C.
I think that PETER CAIRNS’s partisan and on one occasion above his virtual party political broadcast should’nt be allowed on here – especially if i can’t use capital letters – lol
Peter Cairns
“Is the right/left split btween Labour and Tory actually necessary or is it just a product of our adversarial 2 party system? Does the ideology drive the contest or the contest drive the ideology?”
The ideology still drives the contest but markedly less so. For some 70% of our society times have never been better.There are more ‘haves’ than ‘have nots’. Material wealth has blunted the appeal of the traditional left. The decline of deference may have lessened the influence of the old right. And to a great extent we are all capitalists now but within that framework people will still take a very mild left or right view of how we should establish our priorities in spending that greater material wealth. And that different set of priorities will continue to gently drive the contest but within the speed limits now -whereas before it was’nt.
Peter Cairn’s Blog
I have re-read Peter’s four contributions to this page and I cannot identify the one complained of. They are objective and timid by comparison to what is written every day on the Scotsman site.
His contributions are often numerate and always interesting, not least the most recent. His party allegiance is acknowledged, and a frank and thoughtful account of insider opinion in the SNP cannot easily be found elsewhere.
If what is complained of is that he is critical of the two main unionist parties, then I must protest that I claim to be even more negative than Peter and am offended that anyone should think Peter’s contributions are more critical than mine. If that is a common view, I stand corrected, and will try to do better in the future.
For the record, I should say that I am not now and never have been a member of any political party.
Once, subjected to a hard sell from my school friend Donald Dewar, I made a contribution to the Glasgow University Labour Club equivalent to the cost of membership so that I could attend a mainly social meeting. I have spent one evening leafleting for the Liberal Party in a local election in Rutheglen and three days making posters for the challenger candidate (Lab) in Michael Forsyth’s constituency (his introduction of short-term contracts in the NHS had made me redundent, and I had voted by post for another party). I sent a financial contribution equivalent to the cost of Labour party membership to the election campaign of Denis Canavan when he was expelled from the Labour party.
In over half a century of interest in politics, that is the only financial and time support I have ever given to any political party. I may have voted for six or more party’s candidates over that period.
Is Mike Richardson willing to disclose an equivalent account of his partisan involvement?
I make my position clear, and the fact that independence would not be my first choice, so that it cannot be said that I am a party troll, but I do not demur at anything Peter has said.
The problem is surely that we are on an inevitable course to independence; that it could easily have been avoided; that those who oppose independence are in denial; and, worst of all, that Westminster governments of both parties rather than the SNP, are almost wholly responsible.
John B Dick:-
“that it could easily have been avoided;”
Could you explain how please.
One obvious thing they could have done is to adopt the solution I have been advocating here, and let the Scottish branches of the party be independent on the Bavarian model.
You may think that relations between the UK governent and the Scottish Labour parliamentary leader have not been carried out in the most effective way in the last few days, but it does not help the Conservatives in Scotland if DC berates GB for having “lost control” of his party in Scotland. The implication is that DC is “in control” of Conservatives in the Scottish Parliament. The formal position may be different but if I was Annabel Goldie, I would give him a kicking. In private, just the first time.
Scottish Labour/Conservative MP’s/MSP’s should be allowed to lead party policy, and be seen to do so, where the intrests of Scotland are either relatively more important, or entirely different.
One example of the first is EU negotiations for East coast fishermen. The SNP clearly think that they can do better and are staking a lot on being able to deliver. They now have safe seats in the constituencies where fishing is critical for the economy.
Small loss-making rural post offices are important to local communites in sparsely populated areas. Since we are in a Union, UK taxpayers, most of them English, will willingly subsidise highland post offices to give them an equal service to urban areas, won’t they?
No? Then it must be Scotlands oil after all.
The point of a union is that there are swings and roundabouts but we should all be better off by sharing economies of scale. Do they tell us what these economies are? No they don’t, they tell the Scots they are heavily subsidised. Nobody believes it (or the arguments on the other side) because it is all so speculative, but what does Kelvin Mackenzie (whose column isn’t in the Scottish edition)make of it?
Possibly worst of all is the insidious effect of sloppy terminology and ignorance of government ministers, Scots or not, of both UK parties who do not seem to know that Scotland has separate Education, Health and Legal systems. The Church of England is not the established church, and the Moderator of the Church of Scotland is absolutely not in any sense its leader.
Some of the attempts to create a citizenship test have been written by people so ignorant of these things that the end result is such that had they been written by a SNP mole they could hardly give more offence to Scots. Many of the model answers are just wrong.
The press are at fault here too. Often one can read through a newspaper report in full and still not be sure whether it refers to Britain, England, or England and Wales. You may be none the wiser whether the problem is much better or much worse in Scotland.
These are small things individually of no great weight, but they are many.
Legislative solutions are instantly found by the UK parliament for headline catching problems in England, (Dangerous Dogs)because we have a mainly English-based press.
Air guns have become more powerful in recent years and there have been fatalities, some of them of children in Scotland. Gun control is a reserved matter. An initiative of the Scottish Government last week was to gather expert opinion on the reduction of gun crime. Whatever the outcome, it will not be the product of sofa government but of careful expert deliberation and negotiation with interested parties.
If and when, after serious and thorough consideration by one of the Justice committees of the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government asks for legislative change, and this is refused, diluted or described as “picking fights with Westminster” then you can be sure that such support as the Union still has will be further reduced.
Dunblane is in Scotland.
There won’t be any rush to create a school cadet corps in Dunblane or anywhere else in Scotland.
“Scottish Labour/Conservative MP’s/MSP’s should be allowed to lead party policy, and be seen to do so, where the intrests of Scotland are either relatively more important, or entirely different”
Fair enough-but the test must surely be how much of the legislation emerging from “the interests of Scotland” is of the “entirely different” variety.
Surely the more of that, the more the conclusion will be -OK run your own affairs-and raise your own taxes with which to do it.
How much the Scots wish to be “entirely different” I suppose is up to them rather than the English.
Colin
I’m excluding, by the way, the list of things in my posting above where Scottish values and public opinion are at odds with things the Labour and Conservative governments have been doing. I hear that not everyone in England is full of enthusiasism for every last detail of government policy. Whatever government is in power at Westminster, most people are going to be disappointed.
It would be possible to make a case that the SNP happens to have policies which reflect these values and opinions and it could be that they have grown electoral support over a 30 year period for that reason, but when I say that the helter-skelter to independence could have been avoided, I had in mind issues like Post offices, Fishing and Guns where a better knowledge of, and concern for Scotland’s different circumstances might have resolved problems which have either been made worse or ignored.
I don’t think that the “entirely different” is enough to necessarily require independence if the issues had been handled sypathetically, so if independence is the way we are going, its because it’s easier to get than intelligence, imagination and flexibility.
As to taxes, I have no idea (and neither has the SNP)whether we will require more or less taxation in an independent Scotland. The SNP have just asked Professor James Mitchell of Strathhclyde and he says:
“The best that can be said about the figures we get at the moment is that there is a lot of guesswork involved, a lot of political spin and no agreement on them”
That is the first and only statement on the economic case which I have ever heard from either side which a rational person could believe. I think the public knows this and the which is why these arguments are discounted. The historical/cultural only resonate with a tiny minority of romantics who are the fundamentalist fringe of the SNP.
All these things have had some effect of course, but the main thing I think is the growing realisation that the Westminster parliament, its processes and concerns doesn’t work in a way which delivers answers to Scotlands needs. The minor irritations that I mentioned – from E II R onwards are of no consequence in themselves, are important because they are an almost daily reminder of the ignorance of government speech writers and the civil service.
I wouldn’t argue that the Westminster parliament meets England’s needs much better, of course, but Scotland can resile from it.
It could have been otherwise, but it’s now too late to expect change. As the SNP say, “It’s time” to try something else.
John
“I don’t think that the “entirely different” is enough to necessarily require independence”
You may not, but the rest of the UK might.
“As to taxes, I have no idea (and neither has the SNP)whether we will require more or less taxation in an independent Scotland.”
Someone in Scotland had better find the answer – and preferably before the Referendum!
Although It won’t get the same media attention as “How Much”, the issue of “Just How” is probably as important.
I know people in the SNP who are keen on Flat rate taxation, and others Unified tax and benefit and combining tax and national insurance. These are very difficult issues to put across and that’s one reason why the SNP is wary of debating them.
For example combining income tax and NI in one makes a lot of administrative sense but adding 20% basic rate income tax to 11% NI means that the Sun or Express can headline with, ” TAX TO RISE 50% UNDER SNP”……
No one would pay a penny more but it could be a political impossibility to get that across.
In the past I’ve tried at conference to get the tax threshold linked to the minimum wage, so that anyone working full time on the minimum wage pays no income tax. After all if it’s a “minimum” it seems odd to deduct from it.
At current rates that would mean a tax threshold of about £10,000. Given that raising the tax threshold £600 cost about £3bn, increasing it by another £4,000 would cost six times that about £20bn.
Given that income tax brings in about £150bn and 50% of that comes from the top 10% of earners paying for a £10,000 tax threshold would mean an increase in the basic rate to about 25% and probably and increase in the higher rate too, so it’s easy to see why even if it’s fairer people shy away from it.
However with the backlash from the 10% rate still fresh and the LibDems post “Orange Book” moving away from supporting a £10,000 threshold to a 4% cut in the basic rate, maybe it’s time I had another go.
Could it be that Scots would favour a threshold rise that helps the poorest most and cuts tax by the same fixed amount for every tax payer over a basic rate cut that favours those at the top end of the basic rate over those at the bottom?
With the SNP’s main rival Labour should it target Labours core Support earning Under £20,000 while brown has to appeal to potential tory voters in the South earning between £20,000- £40,000?
With a real possibility of a referendum in 2010 I think these deabtes need to be had starting now.
Peter.
I did say “necessarily” which leaves open the possibility of doing something for other reasons than necessity. Starting from where we are now, independence does seem inevitable given that the those most opposed to it, the UK political establishment, are the same people who caused the problem in the first place and so are the least likely to remedy the situation. It’s probably gone too far already and fourth term problems of the Government arn’t going to help them.
The UK Conservatives must be tempted by the thought of throwing out of parlament Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling, Michael Martin and up to 50 Labour MP’s home half way through the next parliament and losing four or fewer of their own.
As Peter said, there are differences beginning to show between Labour MP’s and MSP’s in Scotland.
As to tax, I doubt if the answer is knowable. Both sides are costing their most favourable assumptions which will have to be negotiated with the other side. Until these decisions are taken, it’s just one person’s opinion against another’s.
Of course it isn’t four terms. It just seems that way.
Here’s an interesting survey.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2008/05/22110120
John,
That feeling of the Scottish Government doing well and being liked compared to Westminster along with the prospect of a Tory government could well have a real impact in 2010.
A year back the obvious labour strategy would have been “Keep the Tories Out”. But with the polls like this I don’t think that will work. The prospect now is a debate over who will best defend Scotland when there is a Tory government.
Labour will point to Alex Salmond getting on with Annabel Goldie, and try to portray it as the SNP being tartan Tories who will give Cameron an easy ride while Labour defends Scotland.
I suspect the SNP line will be to point to their record in taking on Westminster compared to labours and the Labour record of defending Scotland under Thatcher, i.e. Ravenscraig, closed, the pits closed, unemployment went through the roof, etc. etc.
As with all political campaigns there will be less that 100% ( Okay 50%) accuracy from either side, but you can probably predict the arguments both sides will deploy now.
Another factor will be $135 a barrel or at least over $100 which when we get the next GERS (Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland) figures will almost certainly see a potential Independent Scotland in surplus and the RoUK ( Rest of the UK) with the balance of payments from hell ( suddenly all the UK oil that balances imported oil switches to double the import figure).
All this will play out now over not just the Uk election but potentially also an Independence referendum. I bet Wendy ( and the rest of the Labour party) wish she hadn’t said “Bring it On”.
“That feeling of the Scottish Government doing well and being liked compared to Westminster along with the prospect of a Tory government could well have a real impact in 2010.”
Hasn’t that been the SNP strategy since the day of the devolution referendum, if not before? That’s why they are trying so hard.
That is why I have been saying that independence is going to happen and if you were at top level in the management of the BBC, the OU or the Post Office, you should now be working out how you are going to respond to the new situation.
If you were at the top level of management of the three Unionist parties, you also need to be working out your contingency plan now. The smart answer is the Bavarian solution, especially for the Conservatives and they should have done it before anyway.
I don’t expect SNP losses for Westminster seats, and sitting LibDems where either Conservatives or Labour are in second place are also unlikely to be at risk.
Though Labour will undoubtedly lose many votes, they can well afford to in and around Glasgow. The swings the SNP need if they are to take more than a very few seats from Labour are quite large, and they are by no means always coming from second place. There may be SNP gains from LibDems, but there also could be LibDem gains from Labour.
I think we need to look at the likely outcome for each constituency, and it may be that there won’t be changes in Scotland on anything like the scale expected in England. Alex Salmond will be lucky to get the 20 seats he says are possible. On the other hand, he has been lucky so far – in his opponents.
Peter,
With regard to your question on Left vs Right and adversarial poltics, it may be worth noting the origin of the left/right terminology. This came from France, where the chamber was semi-circular, and so deputies sat according to their groups from left to right.
In a Westminster context this terminology actually makes little sense, since the government always sits on the right.
Of course, it is true that the design of the Westminster chamber is adversarial – but does that really influence differences in policy ?
WHITTINGHAM (Con) wrote :-
“And whoever said the Tories could gain 11 seats is talking nonsense, when the old Tory stamping grounds of the rural North East are now SNP country. The Tories might be looking at 1-3 seat gains in the next elections.”
I wrote that the Tories would win 11 seats – even 12 / reading through some of the gobbledy gook above about how Scotland thinks and what Scotland wants – particuarly from PETER CAIRNS – what planet are most contributors on the Scottish subject from ??
Yes , there is a swing to the Tories in England and Wales – and the North of England – Scotland is still a part of the UK and as such they get see what is happening elsewhere in the UK and the fever is taking them too.
They do not want independence – they are not stupid , the majority of Scots know which side their bread is buttered & will always opt to stay in the UK.
The Labour Party is in free fall nationally and will self destruct within 2 years – they will break up as they did previously , but this time they will be gone for good. The SNP will take their place in Scotland as the extreme left wing party and the Tories will take 2nd place as the moderate centre right party for free thinkers.
Watch this space.
As ever Mike the flaw in your argument/rant is the complete lack of any credible evidence.
The Tory increase in Scotland has been marginal and the swing in Crewe & Nantwich is not that different to Dunfermline where the LibDems won and the Tories were fourth.
When looking beyond the headline votes at all the attitude questions Brown and labour still outscore the Tories almost two to one in Scotland and as to labours collapse, it didn’t happen under Thatcher in Scotland so although i think labours dominance may well be over they aren’t going to disappear.
Peter.
“what planet are most contributors on the Scottish subject from ??”
The planet Scotland.
Mike – the Oracle..
Your confidence as to the results in England has been borne out, but, perhaps sadly, Scotland is different.
Even if one leaves aside their irrational dismissal of Tories as teh party of Thatcher, the reality is that Scotland operates in a four-party system with significant regional variations. Thus the country cannot be treated as a whole, but as a series of regional battlegrounds where different parties vye for dominance.
Historically, Conservative strength lay in the rural areas to the north & south, with only small pockets of support in the central belt. As the party’s support has recovered from its 1997 low, this has been most noticeable in the south, to the point where the party could look at taking a majority of Westminster seats south of the Central belt.
Elsewhere in Scotland the dynamics are very different. The regions with the highest level of Conservative support are Tayside and Grampian, but in both cases the dominant party is the SNP, with LDs also strong. Of the former Tory seats in this region, most are now held by the SNP, with two held by LDs – including Gordon. For so long as the SNP manage to run an administration at Holyrood without major disasters, teh SNP seats are unlikely to be retaken. With teh LDs now in decline, this may open prospects in the seats they are defending, but in the case of Gordon the Tories would have to edge out a strong SNP challenge.
For many unionist voters, the prospect of switching from LD to Tory at the risk of letting the SNP win will likely lead to a very tight three way result.
There are only a handful of seats outside these regions which are possible, still less probable, Tory gains, hence no regular poster with a knowledge of Scotlansd gives credence to your claims of double-digit gains.
Stick with England !
Paul H-J
Mike:
Can you identify 11 Conservative feasable gains?
Can you explain why the swing against the troubled Labour government should be reflected in similar swings in SNP held seats when the SNP is currently popular?
If Scottish Conservatives take two constituencies from Labour, they should regard that as substantial progress; one would be more than satisfactory; none at all, and they should not necessarily assume that they have failed. If they hold on to what they currently have in constituencies, second placings and share of the poll, they should not be disappointed.
Still less favourable outcomes are possible. Eleven gains is not.
Given the discussion about possible Conservative gains here are the ones that I think could be strong possibilities for the Tories if they have a good election:
From Labour:
1) Dumfries and Galloway
2) Eastwood
3) Stirling
From Lib Dems
1) Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles
2) Aberdeenshire W and Kincardine
From SNP
1) Angus
2) Perth and N Perthshire
That would give them eight seats in total – I assume David Mundell will hold DCT.
Viz: the SNP seats. I appreciate that the SNP are doing well at the moment but if, in 2010, people really want a change in govt then these constituencies are likely to fall given how small the SNP majorities are.
In addition to the above there are a number of more far-fetched possibilities which could go the Tory way on a relatively low vote share if there was a even split between the other parties – particularly if the SNP eat into the Labour/Lib Dem vote. These include: Argyll & Bute, Edinburgh South and even Edinburgh SW (Alastair Darling).
North Briton:
The problem with both Stirling and West Aberdeenshire is that the Tories just fell back to third place in the corresponding Scottish parliamentary seats. In particular Stirling, won by Nats from third place, now looks more like a Labour/SNP marginal.
As to:
> if, in 2010, people really want a change in govt then these constituencies are likely to fall given how small the SNP majorities are.
that is so traditional Westminster 2-party thinking – people would vote for Conservatives for no reason other that they are not Labour.
Now you I realise you could even explain the 2007 elections with this – people voted SNP for no reason except that they are not Labour. But from my point of view this policy free approach is far too simplistic, and in the case of Scotland just false.
Just one example, I cannot see how anyone in favour of independence (the far majority of SNP voters) will switch from SNP to Tory in SNP-held seats just to defeat Labour – it doesn’t make any sense.
So lets assume that without a mighty wobble by the Nats, they keep their seats (and probably gain some). This leaves the Tories with just 7 seats in Scotland where they are 2nd and within 20% of Labour or the Liberals (the 5 named by North Briton plus Edinburgh SW and Argyll & Bute). And, as said, in the Scottish equivalent of three of these (A&B, Stirling and W Aber) the Tories just came third, in each case behind the SNP, so its no chance again.
So I cannot really see more than four gains (D&G, East Ren, Edinburgh SW and Berwickshire) at the absolute maximum, and that would still leave them as fourth party in Scotland. Now you can see why, despite the hatred people have for the biggest Scottish unionist party, smart Alex wants to hold an independence referendum after the 2010 election…
Christian Schmidt
NorthBriton,
The kick out Labour factor could have been a factor when it was close in the polls, but would it really come in to play in an SNP Tory seat. Where would the new Tory votes come from?
I suppose some may have deserted the tories in the past when they looked like not forming a government, but by and large that doesn’t happen in close contests. Equally there are probably a lot of others who would vote SNP to keep the Tories out.
I can’t really see LibDems let alone Labour turning to the Tories to kick out Brown they are more likely to vote for anyone who can best beat Labour.
The fact that the current mood is that Labour are finished means that the chances of people turning to the Tories in an effort kick out Labour are greatly lessened.
In addition a major factor might be that for Scots the issue may well be;
“Who will best fight Scotland’s corner if there is going to be a Tory government”. As I have said before that could work in the SNP’s favour.
Christian:
Here are three where two-party thinking isn’t thinking at all.
In Anne Begg’s Aberdeen South the LibDems advanced significantly last time and the majority is very small. If the LibDems can hold their vote, disaffected Labour voters moving to SNP could win it for LibDem.
In Dundee West where the Labour vote fell substantially last time, LibDem and Socialist voters could squeeze for the SNP even if the Labour vote held which it certainly wont.
In Argyll and Bute, where I vote, last time the LibDem, Alan Reid improved his position against the Conservative Challenger, a one-nation MSP. A high profile SNP list MSP took the SP seat last year and they have high hopes of coming from third. I think the SNP could take a share of the vote of all three parties and still only come second. Long held rural LibDem constituencies are content to let national swings pass them by.
I’ll find out about Stirling in a fortnight.
Peter:
There are many in Scotland who would vote for the Looney party if they thought it would put the Tory in 5th place.
In Scotland the GROT (Get Rid Of Them) party has more supporters than any one of the others. How else can you explain the diversity?
I don’t think there are many who aren’t nationalists already who think in such parochial terms as “fighting Scotland’s corner.” The same result will come from a sense of mischief and the feeling that the Tories have failed, and we supported Labour all these years and now they have failed too, but a few more SNP MP’s pour encourager les autres might liven things up. Even if we don’t actually want independence it could be particularly useful with a UK conservative dominated parliament, especially with a near Conservative-free Scotland.
Havn’t we been there before? So what happened last time? Scots voted for Devolution, according to John Curtice. This time?
I’m not convinced that there are many more committed SNP voters than there are LibDems or Conservatives, but the GROTs find the SNP incredibly useful.
I’m sure you don’t mind.
Christian:
Don’t really agree with you.
If you take Aberdeenshire West/Kincardine and Perth/North Perthshire – these are both wealthy rural/commuter seats with very little Labour strength at all. Both are undoubtedly hostile to the current govt, have longstanding Tory traditions and have retained active local Tory parties which continue to return Tory councillors.
These are just the kind of seats that will respond well to Cameron’s brand of Conservatism and are likely to start finding voting Tory acceptable once more. Their priority will be effecting a change of govt. not just voting against Labour.
It was interesting that when the SNP looked serious in 2007 the SSP and Greens were wiped out (almost) and the Tories and LibDems were squeezed.
I think in 2010 with the Tories looking serious we may see the same happen to the LibDems and maybe even the SNP in these sort of seats.
Time will tell, of course.
North Briton:
If your conclusion is dependent on your comparison it is unsound because the reasons for the Green and Socialist parties losing seats were non-recurring, specific to 2007, and not related to the rising popularity of the SNP.
Someone in one of the two Socialist parties had committed perjury, but we didn’t know who.
“Alex Salmond for First Minister” unfairly damaged the Greens and won’t be allowed next time.
The SNP wern’t rising in popularity so much as they have since the election. An inept Labour campaign was losing support and some party had to pick up the votes.
Not the Conservatives (the Party of Thatcher) and not the LibDems (Labour’s angry little helpers) so what’s left?
Given these circumstances, the SNP should take a quiet moment off from congratulating themselves on their success to ask if they should in fact have done a lot better.
Peter?
I got a reply to-day from one of my Conservative MSP’s
“In answer to your questions, we are not preparing to operate in an independent Scotland because recent polls show that the majority of voters in Scotland do not want Scotland to be independent.
The Scottish Conservatives are the staunchest supporters of the Union and that is why we do not plan to adopt independence for tactical reasons. The SNP wants to break-up Britain. Scottish Labour is not fit for purpose and is not fit for opposition in the Scottish Parliament. At Westminster, if Gordon Brown cannot be trusted to stand up for Scotland, then how can he be trusted to stand up for Britain?
Thankfully, for all the millions of Scots who believe in a strong and prosperous Scotland within a strong and prosperous United Kingdom, Conservatives north and south of the border will not let them down.
Finally I am not aware of any discussions within the Conservative party of organising on the Bavarian model.”
It’s about time they did discuss it, in my view.
The first point draws attention to separate poll issue. It’s some time since people are were asked “Do you think independence will happen within ….. years.”
Those who expect it will happen soon are far more numerous than those that actually want it. Maybe there are some pessimists among the SNP too.
“In answer to your questions, we are not preparing to operate in an independent Scotland”
Does that mean that if Scots vote “Yes” in 2010, the Scottish Tories will disband?
There’s a vote winner for the SNP.
Peter.
John B Dick
Not sure I agree. Surely the reason the SNP and Greens did so well in 2003 was because the SNP, under Swinney, did not look a realistic alternative to Labour, so the voters cast around and had a bit of fun. Under Salmond that changed and the anti-Labour voters (or at least a good chunk of them) coalesced around the SNP to get Labour out. The Tories and LibDems held on to their core vote and that was about it – the SSP and Greens don’t really have a core vote so they got squashed.
For the General Election the Tories under Cameron will certainly seem credible in way that the party under Howard and Hague did not. This is bound to resonate in some traditional Tory-voting parts of Scotland such as the two constituencies I highlighted. I suspect that the animosity many Scots felt towards the Tory party is quietly, and unnoticed, fading now as Thatcher becomes an evermore distant memory – and this trend may spring a few surprises in 2010.
The left has left and it may be some time before it is back. Look no further than the obvious for the reason.
Greens are elected entirely on list votes. “AS for FM” is somthing Greens would have voted for in the parliament. We do not elect a president, but this trick worked.
I grant you that DC may seem a better prospect than recent Conservative leaders, but he’s not that much better. Most of the class-based protestant respectable one-nation Conservative voters that formerly returned many Conservative MP’s in Scottish seats are dead.
The rest do not think they have left the Conservative party. They think the Conservative party has left them.
If the party appeared to be identified with the values of the Kirk, integrity, modesty, courtesy, Christian Charity, the brotherhood of man, a duty to serve the community, then they might be interested.
These people are repelled by the idea of rationing health care, or quality health care, through privatisation. Prior to 1947, their parents and grandparents gave generously, willingly and even sacrificially to provide health services for the poor. That is why the Scottish NHS has more money to-day under the Barnett formula. The Presbyterian imperative of education for all is unquestioned. Above all, these better off people took seriously and maybe even literally, the text in Matthew 25:34-46.
As it is, Westminster Conservatives are identified with Oxbridge debating games, selfishness, greed, stinginess to those who have served the country in war, attempting to bribe voters with their own money,English Nationalism and rabid free-market fundamentalism.
It’s not DC. It’s the Conservative party that is unpopular. He does himself no good by apeing Blair’s image. That superficiality of style over substance is a turn off for the kind of people who used to vote Conservative in Scotland. It may appeal to some, but not the people you refer to.
That is, I think, the biggest flaw in your analysis. You mention three Conservative and two SNP leaders as if their personalities were the only thing that mattered. During the entire period, politics was dominated by the leader of yet another party whose success has persuaded the chattering classes to accept this view.
It may be relevant for the southern urban English C2’s who voted for Thatcher. These are people with little education, beer bellies, genital rings and tattoos (the men have them too) whose interests are television soaps sport and reality shows. They vote as they would on pop idol or big brother: for a strong personality, Thatcher or Blair, but not Major. Their natural home is the BNP, but they don’t vote for losers.
The boring respectable middle-class Edinburgh burgher, Church of Scotland elder and golf or bowling club member who was once the core of Conservative support no longer identifies with the Westminster party, but he respects Annabel Goldie and most of her team. They are the remnant of a different Conservative party which is now forgotten in England.
Another reason why Conservatives should do the Bavarian thing.
Peter Cairns:
I have looked up the Act of Union as I said, and though I am no lawyer it looks a though it would have to be repealed before Scotland could become independence. Here’s the first clause:
“I. That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof and forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain”
It’s the words ‘forever after’ that suggests that repealing the whole Act would be necessary. As an aside, that would also mean that a Catholic could ascend the throne. Incidentally, what’s the SNP position on the monarchy? In the event of independence would we still have the same monarch, as we did before the Union, or would you get rid of Her Maj as well?
Sorry. In the first para I meant ‘independent’ of course.
Pete,
Sort of, so what… The treaty can say what it likes but if Scotland votes for independence the UK will just have to live with it unless it wants to do a Serbia.
On the Monarchy, the Queen ( and her successors) will remain head of state until the people of Scotland decide to change it, which is exactly the situation in the UK.
Peter.
Existing statute can be amended as well as repealed, plus single clauses of Acts can be repealed. There is also implied repeal – if a subsequent law contradicts an existing law, the later law takes precedence (though there is case law suggesting this may not be the case with major parts of the constitution).
Article 1 of the Act of Union has, of course, been superceded anyway, since the Kingdom was not forever after known as Great-Britain. Articles V, XIII and X to XV of the Act were repealed in 1867, Clauses VI and VII were partially repealed in 1948, and so on… the Act can and has been chopped and changed.
The bar on catholics acceeding to the throne is separately enshrined in the Act of Settlement 1700.
Well apart from a couple of exceptions above – i seem to be the only one who sees a Tory comeback on a big scale in Scotland by 2010.
Yes i was correct with England and Wales (as mentioned above) which was finally proved after many derisory comments towrds me. Those voices have now receded – it is interesting that now i have forecast a big Tory comeback in Scotland a new batch of “non believers” have appeared.
The SNP has reached it’s maximum support in Scotland – Labour are doomed in Scotland as they are in the rest of the UK , BY 2010 the 2 main parties will be the SNP & the Conservative Unionists – what is left of the broken Labour party and the Liberals will pick up the remaining votes.
Because of the current Labour government and the SNP the Scots have been unfairly split on the subject of independence – the anti independence group know that the only way to stop this train before it’s too late for Scotland is to turn to the only party that truly believes in a united United Kingdom.
That will make Scotland a real 2 party state with the left leaning pro independence group with the SNP and the anti independence voting Tory – wait and see – cut and paste PETER !!
Oh incidently PETER CAIRNS – if i was in the SNP right now i would be dreading a Tory government in Westminster – because they will be in power for a long long time (maybe even as long as the last one) – so any chance of Scottish independence will well and truly be put on the back burner !!
Which means that sensible Scots can rest easy in their beds for a long time in the knowledge that their countries name won’t be changed from the Kingdom of Scotland to The Peoples Republic of Scotland .
I agree with Mike Richardson that the Tory vote in Scotland is likely to be up at the next Westminster election but this will be a sideshow to the real event in Scotland.
It has been my experience that a majority of Scots favour independence “in principle” and regard their primary loyalty as being to Scotland, not the UK.
The most profound objection made by the element of that majority who did not intend to vote for independence was great concern that Scotland would not be economically viable, and that, among other issues, they would be damaging the prospects of their children if they voted for independence.
The confirmation in yesterday’s BBC Scotland investigation (ridiculously not shown in England) that there is at least as much oil left in the North Sea as has already been extracted together with its greatly increased value is going to shatter the union.
With the credibility of the SNP much boosted by their performance at Holyrood, I strongly suggest that the SNP may well win over half the Scottish seats at the next Westminster election (under FPTP this requires about 40% of the vote for the SNP).
Mike,
Problem is that your prediction for the UK was and still is fundamentally wrong.
You made a prediction on the basis of what you thought would happen and indeed wanted to happen and it didn’t. what transpired is that something else happened that gave the same result.
It’s like betting on a horse you think will win because it’s fastest and it winning because the other three horses ahead of it all fall at the last fence. You still win the bet but by luck not judgement.
It had too parts the headline votes and the underlying hypothesis. The figure is close but the reason all wrong.
Your contention has always been that the British people would see through the policies of the left and turn back to the Tories and Thatcherite policies.
That hasn’t happened. Instead people have tired of labour and have decided to switch not because the Tories offer the radical alternative that you advocated, but because Cameron is offering the same middle ground policies as Blair in a similar way, and that by triangulating for a decade labour now offer nothing different.
It’s a bit like someone saying it will rain this weekend when you have a BBQ. If it rains he was right, but if his reasoning was that BBQ’s make it rain they were talking rubbish, and quite frankly most of your diatribes about Labour and the British seeing the light have been just that.
Anthony,
Where did you learn all that about statutes and treaties? I thought you had a life.
Peter.
Mike:
“now i have forecast a big Tory comeback in Scotland”
This forecast is based on reasoning that there is a Tory comeback in England, no sign of it happening in Scotland now, so it must be due to happen in the near future.
The rest of us think that the reason why it has not happened yet in Scotland is because there is no surge in enthusiasm for Conservative policies in Scotland, or even in England; elections are lost, not won; Labour is doing badly and some other party has to benefit.
In different parts of Scotland all three opposition parties stand to benefit,(though the LibDem gains will be offset by losses elsewhere).
“The SNP has reached it’s maximum support in Scotland”
There is some truth in this, but not the simplistic way you mean it. Not only is there no sudden damascene conversion of thousands of voters to Conservative values and policies in England, there is likewise no reason why the SNP’s well rehearsed arguments for independence should, equally suddenly, and at the same time as the supposed Conservative surge in England, have become more persuasive than in the last 20, 30,…50 years.
There is no surge in support for the SNP or for Independence.
There is undeniably a collapse in Labour support and even on FPTP, though regionally) two parties to choose from both of which are less repellent to the former Labour voter than “The party of Thatcher.” There is also an as yet slight, but steadily increasing consolidation of SNP support as the new SNP Government demonstrates that it can deliver – in Christian Schmidt’s words – “bog-standard, non-ideological ‘good governance’ (and some smaller gimmicks).”
It’s such a refreshing change. Especially since it’s been lacking in the last 20 years and, so far as Scottish issues and sensibilities are concerned, 50, (to my knowledge) probably 300 years.
If the SNP manage to keep it up – and it won’t be for lack of trying – and if we continue with an unreformed disgrace of a parliament in Westminster sooner or later support for the SNP will firm up and independence is inevitable.
If you don’t want that, then reform of the FPTP tradition-bound, and confrontational UK parliament with its Stalinist control of MP’s by party leaders; secrecy and the abuse of patronage and the Royal prerogative by the PM, is exactly what you need.
The model of the Scottish Parliament and its Founding Principles shows you how to do it as Donald Dewar told me it would more than half a century ago.
40% – 60% of the sort of MP’s who sit down to pee would help too.
That would have provided the better governance Scotland has missed out on. England hasn’t been well served either of course, but Scotland can just walk away from the problem, we even have that better parliament already there. The English will have to take on the much more difficult task of fixing the mess that is left.
We’ve got a modern functional new one, England is stuck with the old broken one.
It’s too late now to prevent independence. It could have been otherwise.
Tom Robinson:
I have no reason the believe that the economic argument (on either side) is as salient as you imagine.
It is an argument against independence used in Scotland by the Unionist parties, which causes them a consistency problem England. It may be accepted as fact in England, but Scots know that the data is unreliable, those who promote the economic argument (on either side) partisan and either stupid or disingenuous and that the truth is unknowable. I therefore doubt if new economic evidence pointing in favour of independence will have much effect, either on voter opinion or on party rhetoric.
If the truth is unknowable, and dependent on a host of assumptions as to how things will be divided, still more dodgy data isn’t going to make much difference.
When people say that they are concerned that an independent Scotland would not be viable, they don’t necessarily mean that they are sure that it would be. They are certain there are risks,and they are risk-averse.
That isn’t going to change just because the risk is now perceived to be of being slightly better off, it is still a risk to be taken on inadequate, incomplete and unreliable information. Only of there was a high probability of being a lot better off, or a lot worse off would that influence the risk-averse person.
The SNP will not win over half the seats in Scotland. In some seats they are in 4th place and could double their vote and still not even come second. It is clear that Labour will lose many votes, but in Glasgow their majorities are so huge it will make no difference.
For the same reason that I argued with Mike that there will be no massive Conservative gains, there will be only a modest increase in SNP seats: there is a choice of three parties for the dissatisfied ex-Labour voter. Labour losses will be dispersed, and break differently in different regions.
LibDem support may fall in Scotland because they have been seen as too close to Labour in the SP, but in the places where they are not far behind Labour and the SNP a poor third or fourth, they could easily gain a as many seats as they lose to the SNP elsewhere.
Sean Fear has shown how rural LibDem (and Con) seats in SW England are less vulnerable to national swings than others with larger majorities elsewhere, and many of the existing LiDem constituencies are similar.
The SNP vote will be up, that’s certain, but where they are already in third or fourth place, and where the Labour majority is large, or where there is a sitting LibDem in a highland rural constituency or a Conservative challenger in the South there will be no SNP gain in seats. Their 14 target seats is the upper limit.
Maybe after five years of Conservative government encouraging English nationalsts, too confused or stupid to see the difference between England and Britain, and doing foolish things like forcing “clean” nuclear power on Scotland, then the SNP could win half the seats in Scotland, but not now. Independence could not be far away if the SNP had a majority of the Scottish MP’s – but we may be independent before 2015 anyway.
John,
I pretty much agree with most of what you say with one exception.
Although as I’ve said before I am not that comfortable with oil dominating the debate I think the fact that Labour is unpopular coupled with higher fuel prices and increased Government revenues from the North sea might marginally boost the SNP as the choice of the protesting ex Labour voter.
Like the 10p tax ban It has the capacity to upset Labour supporters more than the government suspects.
Peter.
John B Dick:
‘less repellent to the former Labour voter than “The party of Thatcher.”’
While I accept that this is not necessarily your own view, I wonder if you or anyone else could explain something that has baffled me for many years – to whit, the visceral hatred that Margaret Thatcher’s name seems to evoke in some people.
She did quite a lot for working people, such as allowing council tenants to buy their own homes; giving the opportunity for even those with little spare capital to buy shares in the once-nationalised industries, and so on.
I know that the hard line on the miners’ strike was unpopular with some, but the pits were at the time uneconomic, and the alternative to standing up to the unions was either a 3-day week (as under Ted Heath) or another Winter of Discontent (as under Callaghan). Surely both of these were in recent memory when she stood up to the miners?
Am I missing something?
Anthony: I haven’t read the Act of Settlement, but the Act of Union also still includes a clause about Catholics (or anyone marrying a Catholic) being barred from the succession despite it’s many amendments. I thought that as Independence for Scotland contradicts Clause I (i.e. the main one) of the Act, that it would have to be repealed. As I say, I’m no lawyer, so am open to correction.
Peter Cairns: Certainly Scotland could just go ahead, but surely the UK government would still be bound by the Act, and would therefore have to object to things like Scotland’s separate membership of the EU and the UN. Would the EU rather lose Scotland or the rest of the UK? I’m just curious, not trying to start a row. How many countries would recognise Scotland if the Act of Union were not repealed?
Pete,
Your missing quite a lot.
A lot of working people bought there homes, but not the poorest. The better off bought the better homes at a discount, while those on lower incomes often in homes that no one would want to buy were left behind.
Now given that they had paid rent all those years some kind of discount was merited but given that you could get a discount after only 3 years tenancy and that it started at a third, and quickly reached 60% a lot of the poorest with long tenancies still couldn’t buy while better off people with short tenancies could.
It was popular but it wasn’t exactly fair.
In addition Council receipts were less than the outstanding debt so as houses were lost the debt burden on the remaining tenants rose as did rents, meaning that those who couldn’t buy could kind themselves with a higher percentage of their income going in housing costs that better off people who had bought.
The follow on was a lot more people in the private market while the rules on debt made building social housing a non starter. So the private sector took the lead role in housing building to the market not for need. Those at the bottom went increasingly unprovided for while everyone else saw demand outsrip supply and prices climb.
I am not saying that RTB lead to what’s happening today but it is a factor.
It’s a bit like getting mugged by three skint yobs for thirty quid, at the end of the incident more people are better off, they’ve got one of your tenners each, but it doesn’t make up for getting your head kicked in.
Another thing is the English system of being able to choose your school. That has been popular with those who have the means to drive their kids there every morning, but for the single mum with no car who need to be on the till at Tescos by 9.30 It’s the local school no matter how bad.
We also have the nonsense of kids in buses driving past each other at tax payers expense as the past schools close to their homes to go to the other side of town. Like RTB ( right to buy) the costs aren’t principally borne by the beneficiaries.
Privatisation is another one. For a start selling something everyone has already paid for to those with money is hardly fair.
By all means give everyone a share and let them keep them or sell them, like the building societies did, but a lot of people had an issue with having to buy something they already owned.
Again those who benefited were those who had money and when the utilities went private the poorest who hadn’t the money to buy shares soon found they were getting the worst tariffs.
As to the miners and a three day week that’s just swallowing the TINA ( there is no alternative) line.
It’s like people who say if it wasn’t for the US we would all be speaking German. Wrong, if it hadn’t happened as it did it would have been different, but we can’t say that it would have been any particular outcome. Germany managed the decline of it’s coal mining industry in a slower less damaging way than Thatcher.
Again we closed the loss making pits, but the tax payer picked up the redundancy and benefits check for a generation and we left whole communities as basket cases for years. We also then launched the “Dash for Gas” which 20 years on has made us as vulnerable to Putin as Scargill.
I am not saying that everything that Thatcher did was bad, but much of it was for political advantage more than national benefit. although like most leaders she probably saw them as one and the same. Equally in retrospect the execution was poor, with most economist now believing that we could have achieved the same with unemployment peaking at 2m and lower interest rates, inflation and shallower recession.
What Scots have stuck with is a sense that they got a poor deal and from that they have focused not on the benefits but the unfairness of Thatcherism. One of the most popular sketches of the time was the Spitting Image one where Thatcher referred to Scotland as “The Testing Ground”. It was popular because for many it struck a cord.
Where Scotland fits in this is that up here we had a perception that we got a disproportionate amount of the pain, more heavy industry closed and lower incomes meant homes and shares weren’t bought as much, while getting fewer of the benefits. Add that to the fact that the Tories had so few MP’s and we developed a strong felling that these things were “Good done for us” but “Bad done to us”.
You can argue whether that is fair or merited on the part of Scots and the Tories, but as is appropriate for a polling site that largely deals with public perception, few would disagree with the fact that it is in part how many Scots see it.
As to the treaty issue, The Uk would just bin it. Treaties are in the end just bits of paper that people abide by when it suits them. Once it’s no longer in their interest to abide by them then simply ignore them.
Regardless of what the Treaty of Union says if the UK thought that Scotland in the EU was a good idea it would back it. Equally if it wanted an excuse to make trouble it could wheel it out.
We get this kind of legalistic argument all the time usually to scare people about independence, but in the event real politick will take over.
It’s like UK ministers saying an Independent Scotland might not be able to defend itself because Britain might not sell it weapons or give it it’s share of UK assets. The fact is everybody knows there would be a line of manufactures only to happy to have Scotland buy their stuff and UK ministers and companies would be fighting to beat the head of the line.
Peter.
John B Dick:
You highlight the following as being Tory voters in England:
“It may be relevant for the southern urban English C2’s who voted for Thatcher. These are people with little education, beer bellies, genital rings and tattoos (the men have them too) whose interests are television soaps sport and reality shows. They vote as they would on pop idol or big brother: for a strong personality, Thatcher or Blair, but not Major. Their natural home is the BNP, but they don’t vote for losers.”
I think this description is rather pejorative, if you don’t mind my saying so. But you go on to suggest, I think, that it is the lack of such voters in Scotland that explain why the Tories don’t do well. I suggest that, in fact, there are probably just as many C2s in Scotland as England, and the problem for the Tories is that they have swung behind the SNP who are effective at appealing to their grievances.
Peter Cairns:
Thanks for the lucid new perspective on several points I had never really been clear about. I’m still not convinced that it’s rational for Mrs Thatcher to be the target of raw hate, when we have had several PMs who have been at least as unpopular, but not hated to the same extent. Still the fact is that quite a lot of people do feel that way, and the electorate as a whole have longer memories than politicians usually give them credit for.
This being so, I would have to agree with those who say that a Tory recovery in Scotland will probably be limited in extent. It will be interesting to see if the SNP are the main beneficiary of anti-Labour sentiment, or whether the Liberals will do better than most people seem to expect.
NorthBritain:
I didn’t say all Tory voters were like that, but without these people Margaret Thatcher would never have become prime minister. They voted for Tony Blair (or though that they did because they don’t all live in his constituency. They didn’t vote for John Major (wimp, underpants)and won’t vote for Gordon Brown (ditherer).
I would in all seriousness urge on any SNP or EU politician that it would be a worthwhile use of parliamentary expenses to observe this sector of the population and hear their views. I can tell you where to go.
In Corralejo there is a bar called the Talk of the Town where you can, from the street, look down into a semi basement just as you would as if observing animals in a zoo and see English tourists, drinking their beer in pints and paying for it in pounds while they watch neighbours, play pub quizzes and watch football.
There are C2’s in Scotland, “urban” many of them are not, and they never supported Margaret Thatcher’s government. Many of them have deserted Labour for the SNP. There may be fewer of such voters in Scotland but it is not they who have deserted the Conservatives but the middle class.
If you think the SNP is effective at appealing to their greivances, then perhaps you should ask why, and why Conservatives are not. I do not myself think that the SNP is notably effective in this or that Scottish urban C2’s have any specific greivances that are not shared by rural middle class, and if there are any such it is not obvious to me that the SNP are either making a greater effort or are more successful in adressing these greivances.
Peter’s latest posting gives you an indication of why Scotland did not support the last Conservative governments, but that is not the issue. The West of Scotland working class have not withdrawn support from the Conservatives, others have.
Scotland is the only part of the UK, and the Conservatives the only party of which it can be said to have ever garnered more than 50% of the popular vote in a general election.
It is the dominance of free market fundamentalists and English nationalists within the party which has destroyed the Conservative party in Scotland by promoting values that were repellent to the decent respectable middle-class one-nation Conservatives who saw it as their duty to vote for and – more important -work for the party, as a service to the community and not for what they could get out of it.
I knew one man, a widower in a large house, who had a housekeeper with three underemployed adult sons living at home in a council house. He received an unlooked-for benefit in the poll tax while his housekeeper’s family paid more and, though a lifetime Conservative,felt ashamed to have voted for them.
What Peter says is fair enough as far as it goes, but, fundamentally it is not about issues, it is about values, Conservative values of the past, not the present. “The problem for the (Scottish) Tories” is the Conservative party, not the C2 voters they never had. There are indeed those who have a “visceral hatred that Margaret Thatcher’s name seems to evoke.” None have more justification than the few loyal members of the party in Scotland.
That is why they should re-brand and adopt the Bavarian model. The parliament of an independent Scotland needs them to represent a section of the electorate that no-one else will and PR will secure them their due place.
Pete Banks:
“Would the EU rather lose Scotland or the rest of the UK?”
I know what the few EU citizens of six or more countries whom I know personally think.
Is there some way we can find out about what a few more of them think?
The EU may not limited options if a roUK government wishes to leave the EU.