Now here’s an explosive thing to drop at 10 o’clock on a Sunday night.
Click the image to read the full Financial Times story. Did the game just change?
It says something about the baleful influence of the right-wing press (not to mention Tory, UKIP and Labour politicians desperate to seek its favour) that some people in Scotland mention immigration as a reason for voting No.
Of the many scare stories originating south of the border, this one is among the least applicable to Scotland. (But is still perpetuated in the media because no major Scottish newspapers are actually owned here.) Scotland needs immigrants, and without sustained immigration over the next half century, we could be in trouble.
The Scotsman and Herald both carry stories today reporting an Ipsos-MORI poll which found that only 14% of voters considered themselves to be “well-informed” about the referendum debate, and that two-thirds of the electorate had difficulty in discerning whether what they were being told was true or not.
Since this site’s entire reason for existence is to demonstrate that what much of the No campaign and the Scottish media tells people is either distorted, misleading or flat-out untrue, we can’t say those findings surprise us much. But there was an interesting nugget buried in the poll data which the papers didn’t pick up on.
When we commissioned our second Panelbase poll, we asked Edinburgh University’s highly respected Professor of Public Policy, Politics and International Relations, James Mitchell, to give our questions the once-over beforehand to ensure they weren’t unfair or leading. The resulting poll’s neutrality was widely praised.
We thought it might therefore be interesting to get his expert professional opinion on the recent “Better Together” poll by YouGov, and he very kindly obliged.
Yesterday the Labour Party’s representatives in the Scottish Parliament voted against a motion to provide free school meals to all Scottish children in Primary 1 to Primary 3, and to increase childcare funding for two-year-olds. They did so barely 48 hours after angrily demanding that the Scottish Government provide better childcare – an issue which Labour had explicitly tied into the independence debate by using an opinion poll commissioned by the “Better Together” campaign.
Fortunately for Scots, Labour is a totally impotent force in the Scottish Parliament, and its opinions and actions there ultimately count for nothing. Thanks to the SNP’s majority, the motion passed and hungry children living in poverty will get at least one hot, nutritious meal a day, without the stigma of being marked out as poor.
But after the blanket media coverage of Labour’s calls over child welfare, you’d expect that the arithmetic of the vote would merit at least a passing mention when Scotland’s press reported the story. Wouldn’t you?
We were as perplexed as anyone by the bizarre YouGov poll commissioned by “Better Together” and released today, which reveals that the status quo they’re so strenuously campaigning for is the least popular constitutional option among Scots. As there’s no “more powers” option on the referendum ballot paper, and the official No campaign can neither define any such option nor pledge to implement one, it’s hard to understand what they get from asking a three-choice question about a two-choice vote.
Indeed, the survey’s result – 32% “more devolution”, 30% independence, 29% status quo – actually gives a higher Yes figure than some recent two-option polls. So what on Earth can the No camp be thinking?
“Gary Gibbon on Politics”, Channel 4 website, today:
Does he? Is he an idiot or something?
There are now just fewer than nine months to go until the referendum that will decide Scotland’s future. But in those 260 or so days, there will be one that more than any other is likely to shape the outcome, and curiously it’s one in which few people in Scotland will actually be very interested.
The last elections to the European Parliament, in 2009, saw a turnout in Scotland of under 29%, below even the dismal UK figure of 34%. We have no reason to believe this year’s will be massively different, at least not on the northern side of the border.
But the election, which takes place (on 22 May) almost exactly halfway between now and the referendum, will have a huge impact on UK politics, and the corresponding knock-on effect could decide which way Scotland swings in September.
As the No camp and Scottish media cycle diligently through their three favourite scare stories (EU membership-currency-border posts, round and round and over and over), they regularly alight on the one that has the most bearing on normal people’s lives.
That is, that because the current Scottish Government proposes to undertake differing immigration policies to those of the UK after independence, Scotland would “pose an open-border threat” to the rest of the UK, and that therefore you’d need to go through border checks to visit your grandpa in Penrith.
Clearly we haven’t debunked that one in sufficient depth yet, so let’s go.
The Independent is the most English newspaper in Britain. Alone among the nationals, it has neither a Scottish edition nor even a Scottish news section. And for the vast majority of the time, it acts as though Scotland simply doesn’t exist at all. (Or, perhaps, as if Scotland was already independent and therefore none of its business.)
So it’s perhaps not altogether surprising that on the rare occasions it dares venture north of Luton, it invariably makes a gigantic ham-fisted hash of it.
We weren’t going to post today, but we couldn’t let this one just sneak past under the cover of Christmas, because the way the story has evolved this week says so much about how the pro-Union media operates and what we’re up against.
That’s the delightful Fraser Nelson, unfathomably-accented editor of right-wing commentary magazine The Spectator and the living embodiment of our own Sir Jock Finlay-Urquhart-Duncan in his youth. A couple of days ago Mr Nelson wrote the most extraordinary leader column for the magazine, and then things unfolded.
As a civil servant in London in the 1960s, and being part of the establishment, I always accepted the general view that an independent Scotland would not be able to survive on its own without financial help from the London Exchequer.
However, when in 1968 I was able to closely examine the UK’s “books” for myself in an official capacity, I was shocked to find that the position was exactly the opposite: that Scotland contributed far more to the UK economy than its other partners. And this, of course, was all before the oil boom.
I realised that the Treasury would wish to keep this a secret, as it might feed the then-fledgling nationalistic tendencies north of the border. I decided to keep an eye on the situation to see how long it would take for the true facts to emerge, which I felt would only be a short time. However, the machinery of Westminster, aided and abetted by the media, did an excellent job of keeping the myth about “subsidised” Scotland alive.
In fact it took another 30 years before the first chink in their armour appeared.
Wings Over Scotland is a thing that exists.
