51% of Scots favour independence
In the run up to next year’s elections to the Scottish Parliament the Scotsman newspaper has begun commissioning regular monthly polls from ICM. These will be the first regular Scottish polls since the System Three polls for the Herald petered out in 2003.
51% of respondents told ICM they would favour Scottish independence, with 39% opposed. This is the first time that in 8 years that ICM have recorded a majority in favour of independence.
The full figures for voting intention in the Scottish Parliament are not in the online story, only the seat projections based upon them (I’ll update with the full figures once ICM publish them, or if someone pulls them out of the print copy for me). The Scotsman’s seat projections are for Labour to win 41 seats (down 9) on 30% of the constituency vote and 28% of the list vote, the SNP 37 seats (up 10) on 32% of the constituency vote and 28% of the list vote, the Liberal Democrats 25 seats (up 8 ), Conservatives 17 seats (down 1), the Greens on 5 seats and “others” 4. The SSP is on 4% in both votes and Tommy Sheridan’s Solidarity party is on 1%.
UPDATE: The full voting intention figures are as follows. In the constituency vote CON 14%, LAB 30%, LDEM 15%, SNP 32%, Green 3%, SSP 4%, Solidarity 1%, others 2%. In the regional vote the figures are CON 14%, LAB 28%, LDEM 17%, SNP 28%, Green 6%, SSP 4%, Solidarity 1%.
Filed under: ICM, Scotland, Uncategorized
The results are as follows:
How would you vote in an independence referendum?
Yes - 51%
No - 39%
Don’t Know - 10%
Constituency Vote (%)
SNP 32
Labour 30
Tory 14
LibDem 15
Green 3
SSP 4
Solidarity 1
Others 2
Regional Vote (%)
SNP 28
Labour 28
Tory 14
LibDem 17
Green 6
SSP 4
Solidarity 1
Others 2
The Scotsman’s front page also carries a graphic with the Constituency poll & Indpendence poll.
No sign in this of the big leap in LibDem list support that we saw in a poll last month, so that may well have been a rouge, as this is much closer to the norm.
One effect that we could see from these results however is a more even balance between FPTP and List. At present Labour and Libdem are dominated by FPTP seats while the SNP and Tories are mostly List. If it happens that should be good for the Parliament in general, and might even open up the debate, on replacing additional member with full open list STV.
It’s good to know that we will be getting a regular series again as we will be able to see the trends. John Curtice makes the comment that on this swing Alex salmond might do a Moses and lead the SNP to the Promise land but not get in.
The national swing would not be enough for him to get Gordon ( although he will undoubtedly do better because of his profile, even with the Libdems focusing on him as Alex two seats), but enough for the SNP to win in Aberdeeen and Dundee and so get no list seats, ( Salmond is top of the list).
With luck someone will run meaningfull ( 500+) polls in each of the “List regions” so that we can get an idea of how it is shaping up in other parts of the country.
Given that the SNP and LibDems could make major gains it will be interesting to see the battle where they go head to head.
Like I said last week, it’s really starting to take off with six months to go.
Peter.
Interestingly this means that the two party combinations that would work would be any two of the SNP, Labour and Lib Dems, or a Labour / Conservative coalition.
Any coalition will have to have one of the SNP or Labour involved – so it’s an interesting question to ask which combinations are workable. I can see quite a few.
I make that the following result in the elections:
SNP – 42
Lab – 41
LDm – 19
Con – 17
Gr – 6
SSP – 1
Ind – 4
With 65 seats needed to make a coalition, you’re looking at either SNP/Lab grand coalition or a three-party agreement. I’ll try and get the figures and forecasts up on ForecastUK in the next hour and then some more accurate predictions once I’ve looked at the ICM tables.
Peter O,
I don’t think you can get that result from these figures.
For a start the FPTP split is 73 to 56 so The parties who hold the most FPTP seats have a built in advantage, currently Labour and the LibDems. Like the Tories in much of england the SNP need 10%+ swings to take some of these, and so far there is no sign of that.
Secondly in a 4+ party system with PR every seat and region has an impact and you can have people voting tactically on both votes against different parties in different parts of the country.
It isn’t like the UK with swings from Labour to Tory or vica versa with a bit of tactical voting and the LibDems on the margins. In ever part of the country people will be taking seats of each other.
To add to that it’s still not clear if the Greens, SSP or Solidarity will be putting up FPTP candidates at all and instead stick to the list. That means that in terms of FPTP up to 9% of the vote could be up for grabs and or vote tactically.
Oh and if no one has added it yet the poll suggests we could have turnout below 50% so there must be a lot of double undecideds, “Will I vote and for Who”.
Peter.
Peter C,
I’ve taken the constituency AND regional list figures, worked out the ratio swings and applied them to each seat and then to the regions. That gives the figures I show above, which are far less “guess work” and far more objectively based. Once I get the exact breakdown of the ICM figures I’ll put a full projection up on ForecastUK.
It’s quite, quite fascinating. Lab / LD / Gr would be my gut instinct for how the coalition would work out in practice.
I’m sure that the headline that come from this poll (not unlike the title of this blog entry actually) will stem from the majority of Scots who favour independence… and why not?… it’s an interesting finding.
However, it is also quite interesting that whilst 51 per cent of Scots might be in favour of breaking from London, less than a third of them (32 per cent) are willing to vote for parties with a firm commitment to independence (I’m a little hazy on the point, but did not the SSP dabble with the idea and then row back?). Furthermore, that 32 per cent (in the constituency elections) declines to 28 per cent in the list element of the election, which, I would suggest, means some of the SNP’s support is tactical i.e. some people in Scotland who instinctively support anti-independence parties choose to vote SNP in the constituency vote because they know their side doesn’t stand a good chance. So even saying that a third of Scots strongly equate their voting decision with independence should probably seem over the top.
Anyhow, I suppose from this we can infer a couple of things. Firstly, whilst some people, and maybe even a majority, might be in favour of independence, it probably isn’t their top political priority.
Secondly, we’d be in a whole different ball game if a referendum (rather than a representative election) was ever held on the question of the union. On the one hand, with other political concerns set aside, independence might suddenly seem politically viable. But, on the other side, that 51 per cent might prove to be very “soft”, especially is the idea was critiqued through the prism of other political concerns – especially those which exert a stronger influence on representative voting now i.e. the economic viability of a sovereign Scotland.
Has anyone seen fit to poll the English on Scottish independence? We’d be even more in favour, is my guess. (Even in principle, leaving aside the tempting prospect of deporting half the cabinet as not conducive to the public good.)
The SNP v Independence vote is a bit like europe. In general more than 50% of people supported the tory position on both the EU constitution and the Euro, but it didn’t stop labour beating them three times in a row.
The issue of how a referendum would go is a tricky one, but what is clear is that all of the Unionist parties believe the best strategy is to prevent one ever being held. hardly democratic but probably the most effective strategy.
At present the the strategy seems to be to raise the spectre of Independence to frighten people, or the Wendy Alexander line, that if you vote SNP the parliament will be frozen for four years because the constitutional debate will dominate everything.
I think the notion that the parliament can’t deal with a referendum and everything else is really pretty silly and won’t convince many. The problem for the SNP is that if they seperate Independence from the other issues it up sets their own support.
Peter.
I’d prefer the whole thing to become sensible and iron out the anomalies by having a sensible federal UK like that in many other countries; Australia, USA, Sth Africa, France, Germany to name a few. At the moment the whole issue is riddled with inconsistencies. That way Scotland would be ‘independent’ on internal affairs as would the rest of the UK, so reflecting their national differences and no part of the UK would be aggrieved as all parts would have equal powers. But foreign affairs / defence etc would have a united position reflecting links. Mind you, this could also be a simple stepping stone to Scottish independence…
To answer Peter Cairn’s query – neither the Greens, SSP or Solidarity are currently intending to stand in constituency seats. The main consequence of this will be to aid the SNP, who stand to be the biggest beneficiary of this. By my reckoning this could mean incrasing the lead of the SNP by up to four additional points on the constituency vote, enough to gain several additional first past the post seats from Labour.
Nick Anstead is also unclear about the position of the Greens, SSP, Solidarity and some of the Independent members of the Scottish Parliament. All these smaller parties support indepedence for Scotland, meaning that despite the SNP losing some seats in 2003, more MSPs than ever before now support Independence.
With these parties now signed up to campaign together on a referendum on Independence, it won’t be the SNP that delivers Independence for Scotland, it will be the people of Scotland. That’s why the 51% percent support (including 45% of Labour voters) is so significant. Supprt for the union is now a political liability in Scotland.
Professor John Curtis’ analysis that Alex Salmond will not take Gordon is obviously completely inaccurate.
The Lib Dems are in trouble in Gordon and they know it. The Lib Dems have consistently failed to come up with anything new to say or any new policies, like their Labour bedfellows. The voters will not be fooled.
The SNP is the only partly in Scotland which as been putting forward ideas on how to take Scotland forward and they are clearly the party of progress.
Support for Independence is growing every day, the poll shows that 45 per cent of Labour voters support Independence so it is appealing to everyone from all political backgrounds.
I look forward to an SNP government letting the people of Scotland make up their own minds about an Indendent Scotland- something with Labour and the Lib Dems are too scared to do.
If yesterdays poll is anything to go by, I think it will be a positive outcome for an Independent future of progress for Scotland.
Hey Jay,
Thanks for the clarification on the smaller parties. And you are absolutely right on the SSP, now I have trawled through a few more pages of their website. But don’t you think it is interesting that they don’t list independence in the their campaigns section (on the front page of their website) at all? The campaigns they list are: Scrap prescription charges, stop the war, a Scottish service tax, free school meals and international campaigns. I would summise that a significant proportion of people might vote SSP because they share their ideological worldview on a range of issues rather than because they believed it represented the best method of achieve independence.
I also wonder if we should differentiate a belief in independence (the SNP’s position) from a belief in the principle of consent (which some of the other parties seem to adopt).
In the case of the Greens (You can find it herehere), they claim “At the launch of the Independence Convention in Edinburgh this evening Robin Harper MSP, Green Co-convener will set out the Scottish Green Party’s reasons for supporting the Convention. Greens support independence, if or when the people support it [my italics], and see the Convention as a way to promote debate across Scotland.” Amusingly, they then go on to claim that this is the Green’s unique take on independence (have they never heard of the Good Friday Agreement then?).
Now I suppose we can extend this question one stage further. Although they may be more or less willing to establish the mechanism for it (a constitutional convention, followed by a referendum), and more or less vocal about supporting consent, surely there isn’t any party in Scotland (including Labour and the Tories) that doesn’t support the idea that, if a majority of Scots expressed a wish for independence, it would occur? Therefore it might be fairer to see a range of positions – being in favour and strongly advocating full blown independence; speaking loosely in favour of independence, but always strongly caveating it with holding a belief in a consent (this may or may not be accompanied by a willingness to set-up the institutional mechanisms that might lead to independence), and holding a belief in consent as a more abstract concept, but being unwilling to put any such mechanisms in place.
What would be interesting to know is how different voters sit along this spectrum, how their views on this issue interact with those they hold on other matters, and how much of a role it plays in their voting decisions.
Ok, don’t quite know what happened with the html there, so try here for the link to the Greens:
http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/site/id/4908/title/Independence_Convention.html
Although I think the SNP may well be a beneficary of the current turmoil of the SSP and it’s decision to stick to the lists, Some SSP voters will revert to Labour if particularly if they have a local “leftwing” Labour candidate, and a fair amount might just stay at home in the absense of a “real socialist” choice.
Greens might also be inclined to vote for the LibDems as much as the SNP, particularly in places like Edinburgh where they can oust Labour, as a way of best strengthing the move to halt new nuclear power stations.
As for John Curtis, he wasn’t making an election prediction but a poll projection. If we use very crudly V*(A/P), then you would multiply the Libdem vote in Gordon by the national libdem share at the election divided by the FPTP poll share.
As both are 15%, it says that the LibDem vote will remain the same. On the basis of the SNP vote being 24% in 2003 and a poll figure of 32% now it would go up by 4/3rds. ( Labour would fall to 6/7th’s, the Tories to 7/8th’s).
The actual Gordon result were and would give.
LibDem= 10,963 (*1) =10,963.
Labour = 2,973 (*6/7)=2,548
Conservative= 6,892 (*7/8)= 6,030
SNP= 6,501 (*4/3)= 8,668.
SSP= 780 (*2/3)= 520.
That cuts a 4,000 majority to 2,300. so on the basis of the polls Dr Curtis is right.
Personally like I said given the choice between Radcliff and Salmond I think Alex can win, but as tactically he probably appeals more to the 3,000 Labour voters than the 7,000 Tories. It will probably be whether the local tory vote that decides it.
Would they rather oust a LibDem and get alex as MSP, or Stop the SNP from having it’s leader in the Parliament.
As to a federal UK, It would have four parts, one under 2 million, one of three million, one of five million and one of 50 million, and that wouldn’t work. The whole UK only doing foreign affairs and defence, means it runs in to big problems with things like trade where the EU already has primacy in negotiations.
If we look at the two Scottish Parliament Elections, the first was during kosovo, the Second Iraq. I could see the Union surviving the first with a bit of trouble, but the idea that Scotland would have gone along with Invading Iraq because a Uk parliamnet had backed it but the vast majority of Scots opposed it is just daft.
As a solution it’s a “Chocolate Fireguard”, it looks the business and works fine, till the fire gets lit….
Peter.
Nick – a glib questions over economic viability of Scotland is nothing more than traditional Unionist scaremongering.
No reason with their natural resources and educated people why sovereign Scotland wouldn’t be at least as successful as Ireland, denmark, Norway or England.
Rest of your posts present reasonablt balanced view – your mention of economics just didn’t fit in.
Hi Derek,
I certainly wasn’t trying to be glib in mentioning economics, and indeed wasn’t personally posing the question over the economic viability of a future independent Scotland (that is quite a seperate and very involved discussion).
Rather I was thinking about the distinction between hard and soft nationalism. I’m sure there are people who believe unequivically in the “rightness” of Scottish independence as a moral, cultural or self-deterministic article of faith (I would think they would tend to vote SNP). In contrast, there seem to be people who view independence as an effective political strategy for achieving other ends (a Socialist Republic, a greener Scotland, or whatever else). In other words, they aren’t really nationalists, in the pure sense of the word. For this reason, that support will always be subject to external critique – to persaude those people, you don’t have to prove the case for indepedence in isolation, but rather that it will aid the other causes that they support.
It strikes me that such support will always be fragile and subject to counterattack. Rightly or wrongly, any such discussion will focus on the economic viability of an independent Scotland, and doubtless both sides will weigh in heavily, seeking to convince soft nationalists that their meta-causes are better served by casting their vote in a particular way in an independence referendum. I don’t regard that as a moral or economic statement in one direction or the other; simply a statement of political fact.
As an aside, it is certainly the case that Norway and Ireland offer persausive examples of successful and rich small nations, which were previously part of larger political units. However, in both cases it should be observed that their independence was never won through utilising an economic benefit argument, but instead appeals to ethnic / cultural nationalism and, in the case of Ireland, a developed view that the “occupying” state (the inverted commas, BTW, are not necesserily because I disagree, but because I’m trying to be subjective about this) was deeply oppressive.
Kind regards, Nick
Nick Anstead,
Your last comments were spot on. How rare to find someone articulating the reality so succinctly. There is a growing consensus in political circles that Holyrood needs greater powers, and an influential political class interested in bringing that about for various reasons.
This is not the same as having thousands on the streets demanding freedom and democracy and immediate independence.
The good news for nationalists is that gradualism/devolution has not dented the appeal of independence or of the SNP. I believe the Scots voted to be Scottish in the 1997 referendum.
I’m less certain sufficient numbers would do so when confronted by well-funded propaganda and genuine economic uncertainty.
As an active SNP member, sometimes get frustrated by the economic debate as it seems to be conducted between, “It will be all roses” and ” The dead will go unburied in the streets”.
In general terms I doubt if the majority of Scots will be convinced by either, and will plump for something in the middle.
In this respect i’d like to see my own party change tack. Labour says “Divorce is always difficult and painful”, well if that is the case then why do people do it.
I don’t have exact figures, but as I recall the most common form of divorce is where a women asks for a seperation when there is no other person involved. In addition the woman most often ends up at least initially worse off, and even no better off after a substantial length of time.
However ask them five years later even after the hardship if it was the right thing to do, most say yes, because they got there lives back and were free to live it as they liked.
I am not sure if it would work, but I just feel that comparing Independence to leaving home for University, buying your first house, getting married or starting a family would would strike a cord with more people.
These are all big life changing decisions which have risks and which sometimes require sacrifice and always real effort, but in the fullness of time few of us ever regret them.
Even divorce with all it’s problems is something that most people look back on as the right thing to have done.
As to whether you could convince the public with that message is another question.
Peter.
It is always difficult making assumptions about peoples’ voting intentions without evidence, but it is probably wrong to assume that SSP supporters will turn to Labour in constituency ballots. When the party chose not to contest the seat held by John McAllion (for Labour) in 2003, he lost to the SNP. There could, of course, be regional differences in the way things will break down, but on the whole, a strong SSP vote in 2003 was more problematic for the SNP than it was for Labour. There is also no chance of there being “left-wing” Labour candidates to attract left voters: who would these candidates be?
It is my belief that the SSP should not be written off. The problems caused by Tommy Sheridan’s “resignation” and subsequent court case have to a large extent been negated by the fallout from the trial. The SSP was definitely in the electoral doldrums at the start of the year, but the three opinon polls published since Tommy Sheridan announced his intention to leave the SSP and form a new vehicle for his ego have seen the SSP average 5% for the list vote. This is a decent platform from which to build for the Holrood elections, and the political paralysis that the party suffered over the past 18 months is now history. The political landscape also seems conducive to an improved vote for the left (notwthstanding the spoiling effect of Solidarity). Not standing for the constituency seats may also enhance the SSP vote in the list competition. It will be a struggle for the SSP, but it is certainly far from impossible for the party to retain the majority of it’s MSPs.
David,
I’d pretty much agree with you, my point was that some in the SNP believe that almost all of the SSP vote will come to the SNP , and I think that is way too optimistic.
How it actually pans out I am not sure, but the SNP isn’t going to get it all.
Odd though, is the reason for not standing FPTP.
It was my understanding that votes accumulated in the FPTP vote still had an impact on the final list.
If two parties score the same list % but one didn’t stand any FPTP candidates then votes for the losing FPTP candidates still count for working out list rankings.
It may be that for the SSP, Greens, and Solidarity the FPTP reward isn’t worth the effort, but it is certainly worth it for everyone else.
The problem for the SNP is that a real breakthrough depends on real FPTP in roads in labours West central Scotland Heartlands, and even with a majority of FPTP green and SSP votes that still looks beyond us.
Peter.
[...] Undoubtedly the big talking point among Scottish bloggers this week has been The Scotsman’s new monthly opinion poll. Anthony Wells points out that these will be the first regular Scottish opinion polls we’ve had for a while and judging by all the comment it’s produced it’s been much-needed. [...]
Peter, the FPP contests only have an effect on the regional vote if you win a constituency. The formula for calculating the regional election is number of regional votes/(number of seats won +1) The party with the highest vote after the calculations gets the first seat and has its figure recalculated with the bottom figure increased by one (as they won a seat). Votes for losing candidates in constituencies don’t count for anything.
David,
Thanks for that, I looked up the d’hondt formula, and you are spot on. I think I managed to mix up the methods for AV for the Parliamnet and STV for councils.
Having said that, there may well be only a few constituencies where the combined Green/SSP vote is more than the current majority, though that may have an impact on the final result.
Peter
Does anyone have any campaign information on the specific seats in which they live ie what the various party are doing? I live in West Renfrewshire and very unusually all the Parties are doing something though i think Labour and the Conservatives maybe a wee bit more so than the SNP and LD’s, but cant be sure. Probably because it will be three way Labour/Conservative/SNP marginal next year rather than the usual moderately safe bet for Labour. I had heard the LD’s were not being overly active in Gordon – stupid of them if thats true.
Re above about who the SSP supporters might chose for FPTP seats. When SSP voters have been asked recently who their second choice was a good chunk – about two-thirds gave the SNP as their second preference. This is from recent canvassing by SNP members in the North-East. Very few gave the LIB Dems and none gave the Tories that I can see.
there are no ssp voters in north east fife – thats just the locals cleaning ladies passing through on their way back to cowdenbeath.
Roger,
Fife North East 2003 Holyrood result,
SSP 1,366 votes (4.66%). These may well go mostly to the SNP, but not to the second place Tories , so the LibDems should be pretty safe.
A great result for the SNP would be second, a great result for Labour, keeping the vote over 2,000.
Peter.
Actually across Fife, on current polls Labour could lose two seats to the SNP with the help of some tactical voting.
I think the SNP should hold Perth from the Tories, as Brian Monteith won’t be standing this time.
Peter.
Sorry Brian monteith was stirling, Not Perth.
On current polls no less than four ( possibly five) labour SNP seats in the Fife region will come down to with 1,000 votes.
Peter.
I hear the latest poll shows a strong Labour recovery.
David,
Which polls…..
Peter.
David,
According to the Sunday Herald, Labour is 8 points ahead on FPTP in a “leaked” TNS System three poll.
TNS system three also had them well ahead in September, but that is at odds with both YouGov’s last poll, and ICM for the Scotsman.
I was polled a few days ago on a YouGov poll on Scotland, and we should see the next Scotsman ICM poll in a week or so , so the picture may become clearer as to whether Labour is widening the gap or as with the UK different methods by different polsters are giving different results.
Given that it looks good for Labour and it’s been leaked, I think we can guess who has commissioned it.
Peter.
David – it certainly doesn’t! I’ll do a proper post later if I get the chance. The precise dates aren’t given, but if it was done in October the poll was conducted either prior, or roughly the same time as the most recent ICM and Scottish Opinion polls suggesting that the difference is the differing methodologies, not a sudden recovery.
Comparing it to the previous TNS poll there is no obvious Labour recovery. Labour are up 2 points on TNS’s last poll, but so are the SNP so the lead remains static. On the regional vote Labour are up 2 on last month, but the SNP up 6 – from a 1 point Labour lead last time there is now a 3 point SNP lead.
I don’t think there’s a trend, just that System Three polls are producing figures more favourable to Labour (though obviously, it’s entirely possible that TNS are the ones who are right and ICM, YouGov and Scottish Opinion are wrong).
Anthony,
This is from the TNS, website on the methodology of there polls in Scotland,
“The poll was conducted through our Omnibus, Scottish Opinion Survey. For this survey, a sample of constituencies is selected to be representative of Scotland geographically and by party of current first- vote MSP. Within each constituency, a quota sampling method is used for respondent selection.”
Given that Labour with less than 40% of the overall vote got over 60% of the FPTP MSP’s could the use of “party by current first-vote MSP” be pushing up their figures for Labour?
Peter.
That won’t be a problem – it just means that if 60% of people live in a constituency with a Labour MSPs then 60% of the constituencies samples were drawn from were constituencies that have a Labour MSP.
We know how exactly how many Labour MSPs there are, exactly which constituency MSP represents each seat and what the electorate is in each seat, so there is no room for any error on that front.
Anthony,
But if the Labour vote in seats with a Labour MSP is above the national average, and you sample a disproportionate number of labour seats ( 63% on 38% of the vote) then surely chances are that you will be more likely to get an above average vote.
If you did two UK samples of 2,000 one only in labour seats and the other only in Tory seats then, you would expect each party to fair better than average in the poll conducted in seats they hold, and worse than average in the one they didn’t,
Or ( and it’s probably the case) an I missing something. I am tempted to ask you tdo a methodolgy post, but the last time I made a request we ended up with the Iraq death toll one, although I have to say it was a very good discussion.
Peter.
Peter – only 38% of voters voted Labour, but 63% of voters are people who live in Labour seats. Therefore, in a perfectly representative sample, 63% of people interviewed should be people who live in Labour seats. Obviously not all the people interviewed in those seats should be Labour voters, but if with decent sampling they won’t be.
In a perfectly representative poll of Great Britain, 36% of those respondents who voted would have voted Labour…but over 50% of the respondents would live in an area with a Labour MP. The two requirements are not contradictory at all.
Anthony,
Ok your right am wrong, I hope your happy now , I am off to sulk……
Peter.
The Principle of Consent: “if or when the people support it”
(Consenting Adults in private [polling booths])
About the time of the referendum campaign, Donald Dewar and Alex Salmond issued a joint statement to the effect that “Scotland will be independant when people vote for it.” On one level Britain could not claim to be a democracy if it were otherwise, but there are many recent and current UK ministers from whom Humphries and Paxman could not extract such an admission statement without the use of the rack or thumbscrews.
Half a century ago, when I was at school with Donald Dewar, I observed his response to the slippery slope argument against devolution. It was not put as a [Conservative and] Unionist fear, but a Nationalist the-good-is-the-enemy-of-the-best one.
I am certain that Donald’s first aim for the Home Rule parliament was the better governance of Scotland, and the second was that it should be a model for Westminster to copy. It will also hugely facilitate the transition to independance “if or when the people support it” … “when people vote for it.”
There is a presumption in law that you intend the natural consequences of of your actions. Many people think that the natural consequence of devolution will be independence. If that is the outcome, I will be convinced that it was part of Donald’s plan. for I know of no evidence to suggest that it was not.
Peter O’s figures are only the starting point in any speculation about the composition of the next Government.
On what conceivable terms could the SNP join with the Conservatives, the most pro-union party? How could Labour be in government in Scotland with the help of the Conservatives, while Tweedledum and Tweddledee slog it out in their ritual battles two sword’s length’s apart in FPTP Westminster? Neither would it be easy for the Conservatives. Nor could the SNP and Labour work together, with so much antagonism at local level.
On the face of it, Scotland is fortunate in having two large, and two medium sized parties in a list system. Unfortunately, since neither of the large parties would dare to work with the Conservatives if there were any other option possible, the only change likely at any election is that we will have one fewer or one more ScotLibDem junior minister. As things stand, the LibDems are permanently in government, if necessary with the assistance of the Greens, and can choose their preferred partner (currently Labour) possibly even if that is not the largest party.
The Conservative party could change all that and much more with a tactical focus on “the principle of consent.” They do not even need to embrace independance either immediately or openly.
Conservatives could then be part of a Scottish Government with the SNP, and after a successful independance campaign, might reasonably expect to be the natural party of government in England for many years ahead.
I do not know to what extent Unionism is regarded as a fundamental principle in the former Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party. As I understand it, the term “Unionism” does not relate to any of the several streams of political thought that have come together in the modern Conservative Party, but rather to 19thC Ireland, and the term has little resonance in 21stC Scotland.
If Unionism is some kind of a principle in the sense that Clause 4 was to the Labour party, then they will just have to choose between their principles and putting Gordon Brown out of a job.
Sometimes it is hard to live by your principles.
The idea of “when the people vote for it” is also enshrined in the Downing Street Declaration. Ther UK government doesn’t support a united ireland but conceeded that in the event of a “Yes Vote” for unification in the North it would accept and abide by the decision.
The UK government really doesn’t have choice but to accept a “yes” vote, that’s why so much effort goes in to trying to prevent the vote taking place.
Peter.