The Dunkirk pause
Recently we’ve highlighted a few of the more demented arguments made by Unionist politicians and commentators with regard to the independence referendum. But there’s one aspect in particular that we can’t quite get to grips with, so we’re going to throw it out there and see if anyone can enlighten us, especially some of the wilder-eyed carpet-chewers in the “No” camp who we know keep a keen eye on this blog:
“If, as you claim, Alex Salmond desperately wants to get out of holding a referendum on independence because he’ll lose it, why are you helping him?”
Answers on a postcard please.
The reasoning, such as it is, runs along two parallel lines, often simultaneously. Strand one says that Salmond knows he can’t win a straight Yes/No vote, so he genuinely wants a “devo max” option as an all-but-guaranteed consolation prize. The other, only marginally saner, version is that Salmond knows every political party opposes a second question and that there’s no practical way it can happen, so he keeps pushing for it in order that when the Unionists refuse to pass an unconditional Section 30 order, he can either call the whole referendum off and blame them, or allow it to be bogged down in legal action for years to come (achieving much the same effect).
Either way, they say, he gets to campaign in 2016 on a platform of Westminster interfering in Scotland’s affairs, and stays in power – having avoided the disastrous implosion of the SNP that a referendum defeat would supposedly cause – to scheme in his wily and cunning way for a better opportunity in the future.
The only problem with this theory, of course, is that it doesn’t make an atom of sense.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that it was true, though. The solution from the Unionists’ perspective is so simple a slow-witted child could spot it – call his bluff. The UK government should in its own clear interest pass the Section 30 order with no conditions and challenge Salmond to put a second question on the ballot paper.
If it does, suddenly the master tactician is caught like a rat in a trap – he can’t formulate a devo-max option because he’s repeatedly and categorically said he won’t, and also because it’s not within the Scottish Government’s power to dictate terms to the rest of the UK. It doesn’t matter how much of “civic Scotland” he gets to support or draft the definition – if you’re a member of a club you can leave it, but you can’t unilaterally impose changes to its rules to suit yourself.
(Westminster would – absolutely legitimately and properly – say “Well, it’s terribly interesting that you’ve voted to say you want all these powers, but as we’re responsible for the entire UK the only ones we’ll be giving you will be the ones WE think are in the whole country’s best interests, and we’ll do it in our own good time, if ever. Run along now and attend to your airgun laws, little pretendy Parliament.”)
Salmond also can’t call the referendum off in such circumstances, because he has no conceivable grounds to – Westminster has given him everything he asked for, and no legal challenge from anywhere else is possible because the S30 makes the process constitutionally watertight. He’s out of options – all he can do is go ahead with a one-question vote, which the No camp profess to be absolutely certain he’ll lose, and the independence fox is well and truly shot for at least a decade.
So if Unionists think Salmond wants an excuse to back out of the referendum, there’s only one rational course of action – give him the rope and wait for him to either tie himself in knots or hang himself. It’s an absolute no-brainer, which makes it rather hard to figure out why the No camp is instead desperate to be seen imposing conditions and thereby offering him a face-saving way out.
Well, okay – it’s not THAT hard. The reason is that they know full well Salmond doesn’t want two questions, and doesn’t want to throw away the thing he’s worked for his whole life either. He’s starting as the underdog, but he’s spent decades fighting against stacked odds, with incredible success, and fancies his chances of winning while he’s on a roll against the weakest and least credible motley crew of an opposition since Michael Foot’s shambolic 1980s Labour. The Unionists know he’s in with a shout, which is why they, not Salmond, have been bursting a blood vessel trying to stop the referendum from happening since 2007 (indeed, since the 1970s).
Even if Salmond does lose the vote, he knows his party WON’T implode – like other independence campaigners across the world, they’ll simply lick their wounds and redouble their efforts. Nobody’s going to vote for Johann Lamont as First Minister any time before Hell freezes over – seriously, imagine it – and in all likelihood the SNP will win Holyrood again on their record in government, especially as the significant proportion of SNP voters who oppose independence will feel that threat’s been lifted for at least a couple of Parliamentary terms. Honour restored, Salmond would pick up where he left off, perhaps (or perhaps not) to step down with dignity after a year or two and leave the party in the capable hands of Nicola Sturgeon.
Having the referendum, then, is almost a no-lose game for the FM. Yet absurdly, to the point of farce, the Unionists genuinely appear to believe that dodging it is his true goal, flatly contradicting everything that’s been known of the SNP leader’s character for the past 30 years. Perhaps we’ve overestimated them again. But if they honestly DO think running away is the best possible result Salmond can achieve, why in the world are they bending over backwards to hold the door open for him?
Indeed. The only explanation I can think off is total group think, that it has never occurred to them once to ask anybody in the real world what they think of the situation. I think this is very good news for the YES camp but very bad for the quality of the debate we are going to get in the next 2 years.
You summed this up very well with your Brer rabbit and the tar baby post. I do believe they have boxed themselves in because they have grossly mis-read Salmonds character as a politician. They are playing the man not the ball, (to use that old phrase again, but it is apt) but its a straw man of their own creation they are attacking. Imagine the scene if you will – Salmond and the snp have formed a 5-a-side football tourney. The Unionists form up their team but decide to play in a seperate pitch against an imaginary side.
None of their attacks land on him, because they bear no resemblance to the man they are smearing, his politics or his record in gorvernment.
They have convinced themselves he wants a second question and anything else is pure sophistry on his part. But this is the strawman they are fighting. They think they already have called his bluff.
Westminster don;t want to give anything to Salmond, even if its the right thing to do. They dont want him to win therefore they want to make the whole process as difficult and tortuous as possible, remember Davidson’s “we choose not to” .
They are trotting out the “doesn’t want a referendum” line as they don’t want it and hope to blame him if it gets blocked. Already the blame is being shifted by them saying “Westminster won’t challenge it in court”, but I would bet a years wages someone will if its seen to prolong the Union and it will be funded by a Westminster proxy.
One of our dismal print or TV journalists really needs to challenge Moore on that extraordinary assertion. It’s like a policeman standing by watching a bank robbery on the grounds that some have-a-go-hero will probably intervene to stop it.
All the unionists have to do is throw doubt,confusion with the aid of main stream media at the Scots Gov.Keep the general electorate slightly off balance and you give them uncertainty.
Most who doubt about taking a step tend to withdraw from taking said step.Of course this is just one of the approaches from the unionists,it’s all just a game of propaganda and politics and they don’t really want to put effort into their roles.We see and hear them(outside of Johann Lamont)and so long as they are able to cast doubt the MSM will use this against Scots Government because they themselves are lazy and comfortable, they all just love their crumbling status quo as to taking that first step towards progress.
That said,they have no policy points to score and are incapable of constructive critisism,this being witnessed in Holyrood,radio etc each day of any given week. Until the media make an effort in controlled,mature debate,the electorate will hear very little of what is really going on.
If after a Yes vote,I see the SNP being the only party that has not ripped whatever credibility the other parties have apart.As the economy worsens we can but hope that sense sinks through many a stubburn and thick political skull and they are the first to take that first step towards progress and accept its outwith the UK.
Fully agree with this; the dependency parties are running scared. We can expect more of the same hysteria (and I expect worse) the closer we come to 2014, and the more it dawns on them that there is a very real chance of a “yes” vote.
I think the FM and his advisors have played a blinder; they have totally wrong footed all the unionist parties. I think they should spend the next 2 years relentlessly pointing out the fact that the REAL choice is between independence and the status quo. Devo-whatever is a dead duck; those in favour of it have no clear policy, since there are too many variants, and even if they DID, they have no realistic prospect of steering such a policy thru Westminster and into use.
It is right for the SG to leave the option open, but I think they should make it crystal clear that they prefer a one question referendum, and potentially set a time limit for the dependency parties to come up with the goods. They should also garner as much support as possible from constitutional experts, and publish the advice widely, supporting their view that they do have authority to hold the referendum even if Westminster refuse to grant the S30 order without preconditions.
Educating the public is key in this regard, as is ensuring the highest possible turnout; as Scottish Skier has argued here and elsewhere, the higher the turnout, the more favourable to the YES camp, since younger and more working class voters will tend to be more in favour of independence.
The “what are you frightened of” line in relation to giving the S30 order should be used again and again against the unionists; the fact they are unwilling to do so simply confirms that they are (as Thatcher of baleful memory used to say) “frit”.
Remember that it is not only the politicos who are afraid of independence, and losing their sinecures and access to the unionist troughs… many “ordinary” Scots are only to ready to give credence to some of the tosh spouted by the MSM and unionist trolls like Smart, Kelly and Cochrane. They may consider it overdone, but some will have a sneaking suspicion that there must be something to their arguments after decades of having the “too wee, too poor, too stupid” meme forced down their throats at every opportunity.
The positive case for independence is there to be made, and not just by the SNP. The challenge for supporters is to ensure that message gets across.
I believe the Westminster mindset is incapable of accepting that people remain in politics for the long term for a primary reason other than personal ambition (cf all the guff being produced currently about careers ending/flourishing during the reshuffle). It was ever thus but the rise of SPADs, PPE Oxbridgers and in-it-for-life pols has crushed their ability to recognise other motivations. Unionists who by definition are in thrall to Westminster can barely believe Salmond left there for Holyrood, and that he now has any other intent but to hold onto power by whatever means necessary. I’m no hagiograher of Salmond, but a combination of guile and some strongly held priciples seems to be a combination that the Unionists can’t get their heads round, let alone counter.
Here’s how it will go –
The Scottish Government announce the independently verified results of the consultation. This will almost certainly contain some kind of groundswell for further devolved powers and an option on the referendum to that effect.
The Scottish Government rejects that option.
Unionists and MSM go into apoplexy on the SNP’s so called undemocratic approach.
The SNP then stich them up by confirming that the only reason they have opted for no alternate question is that none of the unionist parties want it, but essentially, the Scottish Government has no power to seek further devolved power. This hits it right back at the unionists who either have to then come up with another option or appear equally undemocratic by rejecting that angle.
The Yes campaign can then focus on those who would like change (perhaps at a slower pace) and highlight that their only real option for change is to vote Yes.
Agree with the article and the comments. The major issue, as ever, is the compliant MSM in Scotland which simply distorts the truth by omission or commission. Many of the pro-dependency parties’ spokespeople have been demonstrably shown to have been “economic with the actualite” Yet little if any of this ever sees the light of day, except on blogs such as this one.
I suspect that many voters in Scotland really have NO idea what is actually happening in their councils, or in Holyrood. Those of us here, and elsewhere, are the minority. We will not win this referendum here. Somehow (and I admit I have no idea how) the truth must get out there, spread wide and continuously in the next two years, or I fear that the referendum WILL end up as a marginal NO vote.
This is our best chance in decades to win our freedom again (I know, a bit too “braveheart-ish” but you know what I mean). We really can not afford to loose it, but the enemy has massive resources, and are not afraid to ‘play dirty’.
Soar Alba
I believe that with the return of M.S.P.’s to Holyrood today A.S. will be announcing around 15 new bills, included amongst them will be the REFERENDUM bill. I think ANY response from the “missing” leader of Scottish Labour et al will be fascinating………..NOT! 😆
Recently the unionists seem to be cultivating the “More Posiitive attitude and approach to politics” that the Scottish government has been championing for over a year now.
No doom and gloom allowed for jubilees or Olympics or criticism of the billions in massive overspends to try and make things look better than they are.
Hey we have massive debts, Let’s cheer ourselves up by blowing an unimaginable amount of money on a big party !
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/opinion/interview-gordon-matheson-glasgow-city-council-leader.2012095492
and with one article we can see the new Labour leader in waiting for Scotland :O)
@Kenny Campbell
It’s searing hard-hitting investigative journalism like this, not afraid to ask politicians the difficult questions (e.g. What is your favourite meal? Do you prefer Tuscany or Brussels?), that’s makes the Scottish MSM what it is today.
And I see his favourite film is Tea with Mussolini – I can only assume it’s a remake of the infamous Chris & Colin Weir outrage at Bute House.
Ms Lamont should be worried.
Oooh, I managed to post on Labourhame. Novel.
DH used to get really upset when I linked to the political compass graph of UK party stances. Maybe Tom Harris is more comfortable with Labour’s right-authoritarian stance, i.e. a nice half way house between the Tories and the BNP. I’ve found ed’s recent use of a black/dark background behind the union jack very fitting in this respect.
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/700684/thumbs/r-ED-MILIBAND-large570.jpg
RE the younger vote and working class vote.
The working class vote is in majority for indepenence. The only group that always has a solid majority for no are the over 55/60’s, particularly the wealthy. This group also has the lowest ‘don’t knows’ for obvious reasons.
The young have the highest ‘don’t knows’, because well, many don’t think about politics. However, they tend to yes much more when engaged for they know only a devolved Scotland where ‘British’ things have all but gone.
@Major Bloodnok:
And I see his favourite film is Tea with Mussolini – I can only assume it’s a remake of the infamous Chris & Colin Weir outrage at Bute House.
Just Brilliant! LOL
I believe the Lamentable one was having a few wee thoughts this morning.
Woe! Woe! Woe is me!
Holyrood is reconvened and I have to stand up a rebuke the nasty Mr. Salmond’s government’s plans for the next 12 months. How can I do this without looking stupid. AH! I know what I’ll do I’ll show how stupid that nasty man is and how utterly brilliant I am, that’ll put him in his place!
I’m guilty of having a few beers and posting in an ‘enthusiastic’ manner. Sometimes the next day, i wish i had been more circumspect.
At least i can blame it on the beer.
I remember reading articles on the over representation of psycopaths in politics, and find it frightening that some folk wake up the next day, and think their posts from the day before are great.
Scary stuff.
I should make it clear that i wasn’t meaning anyone on here!
I was meaning some well known folk/bloggers/politicians etc. 🙂
So it seems Mr Moore survived the afternoon of the long knives; the ridiculous pantomime that it is.
I guess nobody was willing take over what is probably the role of being the most unpopular person in Scotland. Managing the Scotland international football team must be like tea with the Reverend by comparison.
Unless that Rev is Stu and you are Mr Moore of course…
Answers on a postcard please.”
Oh very well.
We don’t trust him. At all.
Remember, this is the guy who campaigned on a manifesto promising an “SFT” which would issue “Scottish Futures Bonds”. How many so far?
A 3p “Local” (but centrally set) Income Tax which would replace all the revenue from Council Tax. It wouldn’t, we always knew it, and FOI information now shows that he always knew it. But he continued to say otherwise to the public.
Then there was “We will reduce class sizes.” Which became “We will sign a big complicated agreement with local authorities requesting THEM to reduce class sizes, but only if they want to and subject to this, that and the other.”
With this sort of form, you’ll forgive us if we don’t put much faith in Salmondian protestations that he would not call a 2-question referendum if given the chance.
“With this sort of form, you’ll forgive us if we don’t put much faith in Salmondian protestations that he would not call a 2-question referendum if given the chance.”
And he would be very popular with 70% of the Scots electorate if he did so, which is eyewatering compared to the already impressive 46% the SNP are on for Holyrood and 43% for Westminster in polls. Seems to me they are doing something right.
In contrast, Labour are lucky if they can drum up a tad over 30%. Libs and Tories are of course largely irrelevant; their combined support being the lowest it has ever been in the history of Scotland I understand.
Anyway, it is Dave’s SE Tories that are assisting the Scottish Government with making Scottish independence/its new relationship (aka new loose union) with the rUK go smoothly. After all, they want to win the 2015 GE with a majority. Last thing they want is Scotland leaving in a spectacularly embarrassing (for the UK) sharp exit, which is of course what would happen if they got a majority and Scotland was not gone already. If that happened, they might have to give up their WMDs and stuff…
sm753 says:
‘With this sort of form, you’ll forgive us if we don’t put much faith in Salmondian protestations that he would not call a 2-question referendum if given the chance.’
Is that the royal ‘we’ or is there a gang of you? Answers on a postcard please.
Ah, the amateur numerologist of cybernattery, “scottish skier”. I found your proposal that David William Donald Cameron is secretly plotting the breakup of the UK so hilarious I had to blog about it myself.
So: two replies so far, no attempt to defend Salmond’s record of undeliverable / broken manifesto promises (aka “lies”), and also no attempt to back up this blog owner’s contention that Salmond would definitely not ever, no never, call a 2-question referendum if given the chance.
As for “we”, having been accused of being (simultaneously) Murdo Fraser and George Foulkes, I’ll use whatever pronoun I like.
I’m honoured you found my simple comments on a site interesting enough to blog (sage? LOL Na, just a poll geek). I had a look at your blog. It seems very few read people read it. I had no idea it even existed even though I do read around extensively, including material from both sides. You maybe need to promote it more; add it to your sig where you can etc or something.
Remember this?
http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/uk/scottish-independence-peter-cruddas-tape-reveals-pm-was-advised-to-be-seen-to-be-pro-union-1-2209162
Oops. Dave and AS get on just fine; respective leaders of respective national parties. Google images of them together if you want to see how often they meet and the friendly nature of such meetings. After all, the enemy of your enemy is your friend as they say.
If when the Tories took the most seats in 2010 you didn’t think ‘Oh, the SNP will do well next year if the Tories lead a coalition’ and then, when Nick strolled out into the rose garden with Dave, you didn’t think ‘Fuck me, the SNP could take a majority’ then you’ve no idea about Scottish politics at all.
Tories can’t win 2015 and keep Scotland. Sorry. They knew this would happen fine well back in 1997 and said so, just omitting that it would be their return to power that would accelerate things to completion. Just as it did last year.
Sit back and enjoy the show.
“With this sort of form, you’ll forgive us if we don’t put much faith in Salmondian protestations that he would not call a 2-question referendum if given the chance.”
So you’re scared that the Scottish people would ask for powers you don’t want to give them? Righto. In which case, why not just say so?
Er, somebody said:
“it’s not within the Scottish Government’s power to dictate terms to the rest of the UK. It doesn’t matter how much of “civic Scotland” he gets to support or draft the definition – if you’re a member of a club you can leave it, but you can’t unilaterally impose changes to its rules to suit yourself.”
Now who was that?
S_S
I’m so glad you can read so much into Google images. I prefer to look at what people say and do. Having met DC, I can guarantee you he has no intention of being the PM on whose watch the country was broken up.
The day when I accept the SNP as a “national” party will be the day when Beelzebub goes skating to his office.
“Er, somebody said:
“it’s not within the Scottish Government’s power to dictate terms to the rest of the UK. It doesn’t matter how much of “civic Scotland” he gets to support or draft the definition – if you’re a member of a club you can leave it, but you can’t unilaterally impose changes to its rules to suit yourself.””
Yes. And?
He’s good at PR is Dave – just like Tony. Dave does/did(?) have a romantic hope that things could be different, but he’s at the mercy of his party. Also, while he may have roots in Scotland, he proudly calls himself an Englishman…
Devo max would be great for the Tories – no Scottish MPs in Westminster and a union saved. However, they’d need to ask the rest of the UK to vote for that. Difficult to sell to the rUK, particularly the Tory heartlands…. And how would Wales/NI react?
Devo max would be terrible for Labour – No Scottish MPs in Westminster. Difficult to sell to the rUK, particularly the Tory heartlands… And how would Wales/NI react?
If anyone thinks Scotland will live with the status quo under a Tory majority in Westminster they are truly off their rocker. Only reason it’s a little up in the air right now is because we have a coalition.
Only two outcomes possible. Devo max under UK Labour or independence with the Tories in power in the rUK. It seems the former ain’t going to happen, so were left with the latter.
This is my opinion.
sm – Feel free to post as many of my comments as you like on your blog. Get the message out and all that.
I’ll leave this as is so as to not clog up Rev Stu’s excellent blog with perpetual restating of the obvious.
Who’s dictating terms to the rest of the U.K.?
All we are saying is it’s OUR referendum, SCOTLAND’S referendum and as such it is up to US to make the decision as to whether we stay or we go. No one else has the rights to make this decision, only we can make this decision and only we WILL make this decision in 2014.
The sooner Westminster realises this the better.
The sooner Westminster STOPS trying to impose THEIR own sets of rules on OUR referendum the better.
Unfortunately this battle will continue because Westminster is set in the old ways of the “Empire.” Until Westminster wakens up and smells the coffee we will continue to come up against this Empirisation mentality.
There again if the Westminster gang and their hand puppets actually produced the EVIDENCE we all keep asking for then we could certainly clear up a lot of the mutual mistrust. Of course we all know that no evidence will ever be forthcoming because there is NO evidence that Scotland is better off inside the union. You just need to look no further than the economic disaster currently under the management of Osborne. Let’s not forget eithet that the”leader” of the Bitter camp, had he become Chancellor would have been making cuts “even deeper and harder than Margaret Thatcher!”
Now, for me the choice is clear.
1) Should Scotland remain part of an ever increasingly failing Westminster government.
2) Would Scotland have faired any better under Darling and his harsher economic cuts.
3) Would Scotland fair better as an Independent country.
Gordon Beelezubub on a night out.
Photo failed
to load.
O/T
Did anyone else here receive an e.mail today from Alisdair Darling urging then to join the Better Together campaign and spouting a load of pish about AS? 🙂
I’m curious as to where they got my details…..
must be something to do with my membership of both the SNP and the Yes Scotland campaign that swung it…..
What was sm753 trying to say? – I can’t be bothered to read his posts.
scottish_skier Ooh you are awful but I like it .
The labour hierarchy must be doing summersaults at the thought of Dave and A.S working things out between them on the quiet .
If your scenario comes to pass , I will be the first in line to buy you a bottle of bubbly .
I would just like to thank you , Arbroath and Mad Jock McMad for keeping me sane with your posts for the last week or so .
I doubt if Arbroath,s dark room would have helped me as much all your posts have .
Always glad to help Silvertay! 😆
“Yes. And?”
Oh, I thought you’d made a pretty good case that it is not legitimate for the devolved Scottish administration to propose a second question, given the implications for the rest of the UK.
I agree. Not sure about a few of your other posters, though.
Anyhoo, must dash. A full day of educating and indoctrinating the youth of Scotland awaits me tomorrow.
Oh God, they’re all back. Just heard the first tedious “tearing apart the union” speech from Ruth Davidson and whiny complaining of Johann Lamont. It’s been such a nice summer without them. I’d forgotten how monumentally boring politicians are.
“Oh, I thought you’d made a pretty good case that it is not legitimate for the devolved Scottish administration to propose a second question, given the implications for the rest of the UK.”
That’s exactly what I did, yes. What’s your point?
Yeah Jeannie, I watched some of the speeches today from Holyrood.
I am about to say something that I STILL can’t believe I am going to say. Out of the three “leaders” I thought that Willie Rennie’s speech was the best. Jeez did I just say that!
Nice to see that the Lamentable one was up to her usual LOW standards.
Wahey must have hit a nerve on BBC blog , put a reply posted it on newsnet with a link asking how long it would be up for and by the time I got back it had dissapeared
Her standards are indeed low. Is it just me or does she remind anyone else of Desperate Dan? I think it’s the chin that does it.
Sorryu Jeannie, Desperate Dan has standards, the Lamentable one has absolutely NO standards! 😆
Jeannie
I always think of Barney Rubble or Murdo Macleod when I see herself.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9519779/Campaign-to-stop-Alex-Salmond-breaking-up-the-UK-attracts-mass-influx-of-funding-and-support.html
sm 753
Out of the SNP manifesto pledges that were promised, they did not manage to achieve every single one. I cannot think of any government ever that has. The SNP certainly managed far better than most. Regarding class sizes, they again certainly improved things but agreed, they did not hit their desired target across the board.
Here is a BBC news report from the time.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-13093382
Can you give me any other examples of Governments that had anywhere near this success rate?
Any Council Tax replacement would probably need cross party support. There is no magic bullet local tax system that is fair for everyone. If there was I am sure someone would have come up with a universally liked and fair system. If anyone ever manages it then that would be a feet indeed. At least the SNP tried before being ridiculed by Labour, Tories and Lib Dems for even having the temerity of trying.
As for your Referendum question. A single question is favoured by the YES and NO campaigns alike. There is however a significant body of the electorate that neither want the status quo or straight Independence, instead they prefer a form of Devo powers. Once we have the results of the Independently analysed consultation, more information will be available to give other interested parties time to reconsider their position. If Salmond was the dictator that many of his opponents made him out to be we would have had the Referendum by now, heck if they hadn’t opposed it in the last Parliament then that question would have been answered by the electorate some time ago. But the opposition wanted a neverendum instead as it suited their agenda better.
In business when you have a product or services to offer, you must do good targeted market research to understand how your product or services might benefit others. You must draw up your business plan. A straw poll down the high Street on a warm sunny afternoon might be enough to sell the odd ice cream. Alex Salmond is not offering ice cream and neither is the No campaign. The research has to match the product. A decision on this scale must not be undertaken without looking at all the possibilities from as many different angles as possible. Rushing into this will make one side all to disappointed with the final outcome.
We only have to win once, I would like to win concisely this time around. I would like to vote Yes to Independence in the autumn of 2014.
That telegraph article is funny, almost 50,000 it states early on then the person running it says 45000….Tory statisticians at it again….
There aren’t 50000 tories in Scotland so they must be accepting funding from the RUMPuk
sm753. Anyhoo, must dash. A full day of educating and indoctrinating the youth of Scotland awaits me tomorrow.
Good luck with that. A word of advice… avoid those either planning to go to or already at university. Also those who are trying to find work, have some form of disability, notably those currently reliant on welfare in these two cases. Oh, and also those struggling on low wages too.
Best target the ones from rich families, those at expensive private schools etc; a very small group, but easy enough to locate. Well actually, you probably don’t need to bother with these now that I think about it.
I did not realise that the O.O Still had 45,000 members in Scotland .
I thought that they were going the same way as the dinosaurs and the dodo bird .
Maybe they are buying them in ,just like the Dundee councilor did to boost his twitter account .
45,000. How many from Scotland?
The report did say requests were sent out to 200,000 Scottish homes where Conservatives were thought to live. How do they know that ? There wasn’t confirmation that the 45,000 replies all came from Scotland.
Adrian B
“Out of the SNP manifesto pledges that were promised, they did not manage to achieve every single one.”
They failed to achieve “Scottish Futures Bonds” because they lied about their legality.
They failed to achieve LIT because they lied about the numbers.
They failed to achieve on class sizes because they failed to admit that they were actually going to hand over the job to councils, without having any way of enforcing the “pledge”. That’s pretty close to a lie, too.
Hmm. There’s a trend here, wonder what it is.
“Hmm. There’s a trend here, wonder what it is.”
Ooh, I know this one. Is it you confusing what turned out to be unachievable goals for a minority government with deliberate lying?
sm753
“They failed to achieve “Scottish Futures Bonds” because they lied about their legality.” Err right then;
http://www.financialriskstoday.com/scotland_bonds.php;
“In a joint ministerial statement, the Treasury and Scotland Office confirmed that powers will be introduced to allow the government to include bond issuance to the way Scottish ministers can borrow without the need for primary legislation.”
What happened there then? Why were the powers not devolved?
“They failed to achieve LIT because they lied about the numbers.”
Actually the Lib Dems supported this at the time, although there was some policy differences. The Scottish Parliament narrowly backed the principle in 1997, but questions remained as to how the two proposals could be practicably reconciled. John Swinney is still working on this, so LIT may still see the light of day. It has not been abandoned. Sometimes good policy takes time to formulate.
“They failed to achieve on class sizes because they failed to admit that they were actually going to hand over the job to councils, without having any way of enforcing the “pledge”. That’s pretty close to a lie, too.”
That’s miles off being pretty close to a lie, often policies require councils to work with central Government in changes to policy. The fact that most councils that did not wish to participate were Labour run again says much on their mindset.
Strange then that we have Ruth Davidson making calls for a reversal in a third runway only a few days ago.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviation/9515925/Now-Scottish-Tories-call-for-a-third-runway-at-Heathrow.html
Will this Conservative manifesto pledge turn out to be a lie as Senior members call for a third runway at Heathrow to be built?
AB
“What happened there then? Why were the powers not devolved?”
The point is that in 2007 the powers had not been devolved.
Yet the SNP issued a manifesto saying that their “SFT” was going to issue “Scottish Futures Bonds”.
They were told that they did not have the powers to do this, in public, many times. The reply was something like “er, cough, joint local authority bonds, maybe, possibly”.
The manifesto was a lie – they promised to do something which they could not legally do. Nothing to do with only getting a minority.
As for LIT, we KNOW they lied about the numbers because we have seen the documents released under FOI. Oh look, here’s one:
http://nat-mythbusting.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/nat-lies-on-lit-confirmed.html
No, you don’t KNOW that. You’ve failed to prove your assertion. You’ve proved, not quite conclusively but certainly strongly, that they were WRONG. That isn’t even nearly the same as proving that they LIED. Parties of opposition do not have access to full government figures.
sm753
Again more nonsense from you yet again.
“The point is that in 2007 the powers had not been devolved.”
You are adding weight to my point. If you agree that Westminster did not pass the powers to allow this to happen. Then cough, cough, splutter you start looking a little daft suggesting that a Devolved Government didn’t get the powers that were later agreed by Westminster to facilitate said policies.
My answer to this is an easy solution, you have just raised my point. Thankyou
“As for LIT, we KNOW they lied about the numbers because we have seen the documents released under FOI.”
What is that document? Is it a recipe or an invoice that you show as proof? The claimed £400 million shortfall was clearly costed by way of the £400 million in Council Tax benefit. Des Brown, the Labour Secretary of State for Scotland claimed at the time that the UK Government would likely withhold the £400 million if the Scottish Government implemented the proposals. Not at all vindictive towards the Scottish people or it’s Government then Des?
If you claim to be working in academia are to be believed, then you had better up your game. Your lack of anything evidence based and the flimsy construction of your arguments are easily knocked down. You wouldn’t get a pass on a school project for your efforts. Some good replies to your efforts non the less.
I wondered why you called me AB, you do the same in your blog. ‘The Aberdonian’ is not me. I only go by the name ‘Adrian B’ online.
Adrian, your claims of lies is a bit OTT and slanderous, youve yet to show me evidence of lies, maybe your lying?
come on Adrian, politicians have for centuries in all countrys and political backgrounds have always made mistakes, misjudgements, statements that they regret, Labour is no exception, I remember John McFall campaigning iin Clydebank when I was a young serviceman, I asked him directly in public Labours policy on 4 Trident boats, he said Labour is committed to 4 Trident to replace Polaris, next day in Westminster, Labour policy on Trident 3 boats! 20 odd years later and they still cant define a policy on replacing Trident! As for Alex Salmond, ofcourse there has been adjustments to intended policys, Nato is another example, its largely beyond our control, I knew SNP would have to rethink its policy on Nato, itll get worse when they realize the UK doesnt even own the trident delivery system, its a shared nato asset, hold onto your seat Adrian its going to be a bumpy ride! Maybe now you feel lied to by the Govt, about Trident! What about the greatest fib, Tony Blair and WMD. If supposed lies by AS concerns you on such trivial matters yet you remain silent on greater matters.
“Adrian, your claims of lies is a bit OTT and slanderous, youve yet to show me evidence of lies, maybe your lying?”
I think you meant to direct this at sm753 as I only used the word ‘lie’ as part of a quote from remarks made by sm753.
All human beings can make misjudgements, errors and mistakes, politicians are no different to the rest of us. You use your own judgement from your own knowledge, understanding, life experiences and feelings of people to form opinions.
Nato – not the deal breaker that many would suppose – the real issue for me here is the nukes – which are an American weapon rather than being European or British. We have no say on these abominations that do not fit into a modern defence umbrella. What they do give is lots of money to the USA for their existence. The USA uses them as part of their defence, not to defend our interests but instead American security interests. Huge waste of money, humanity suffers for their very existence.
Tony Blair & WMDs – Well Blair was just in Bush’s pocket, whatever happened Blair tried to sell the lie to the public. But we were not the ones that got bombed. War used to be good for re-election. I doubt that we will see Blair brought to book sadly, but there are some that seem to think it may well be possible. Only time will tell.
Adrian B says: “I think you meant to direct this at sm753 as I only used the word ‘lie’ as part of a quote from remarks made by sm753.”
Yes, I think Bill missed that you were actually quoting sm753, not making the statement yourself.