Is Alex Salmond Jesus?
Posted on
October 14, 2012 by
Rev. Stuart Campbell
There’s an intriguing story in the Sunday Times today, which quotes the Conservative former Scottish Secretary Michael Forsyth describing the Prime Minister as “Pontius Pilate” and granting the First Minister “a walkover” in respect of the negotiations over the independence referendum, which are apparently to be finally concluded with the signing of an agreement in Edinburgh tomorrow.
We;ve attached the full story below so you can have a wee keek through the Times’ paywall and read it for yourself. But we can’t help wondering: if the PM is Pontius Pilate in this analogy, then who is Alex Salmond?
I find myself in the hitherto unknown position of agreeing with Forsyth. As negotiotations go, Cameron doesn’t APPEAR to have done well out of it. Whether this is because he is incompetent, he’s keen to see the back of us or he’s more up his sleeve in the vein of let’s celebrate a war starting, I honestly don’t know. I’ll leave that decision up to more politically astute observers than me.
I dont see what choice Cameron had giving the mandate the Scots Gov has.While this will be seen by some as a ”walkover’ others will see it as being fair.Now my point would be this,handing the Scots Gov most of it’s demands is a small victory,Westminster and most of the MSP’s have the vast majority of any media outlet voicing their words day in day out.
I for one who supports Scottish Independence would rather that Cameron gave a lot less for the MSM to cover this ‘debate’ fairly.
If Cameron had only given in to the date with a further 2 years to go,with the media behaving as a mature source of facts and balanced opinion,then I for one believe that a majority Yes vote would be the referendums outcome.However,unless Westminster as a whole or ‘Better Together’ capitulate,the Yes campaign had best come up with ways of getting their belief and facts out for Scotlands future across because at the moment,2 years is not a long time to persuade the majority of voters without at least several of the MSM outlets.
I am near praying that the Scots Gov are so damn clever that what I have written above will simply fade due to a ‘cunning plan’ being exercised as we debate this and their White Paper will put all of the No campaign on the back foot that the media shrug and say’Can’t argue with that mate’! One can but dream!
“…if the PM is Pontius Pilate in this analogy, then who is Alex Salmond?”
Well since Dave has given in to Alex’s demands then in Forsyth’s view Dave is Pontius Pilate, Alex represents the Sanhedrin and the UK is Jesus.
I see that the Times are carrying on with the story that the SNP were stopped from putting a devo-max question on the ballot paper. How the SNP were going to get dev-max through a hostile Westminster if that option won is never explained.
I’m still amazed at the ignorance of political journalists in the MSM and their inability to do any research or thinking before printing.
Forsyth ranting again as per the Scotland Bill. Frustrating when you’re out of the loop and so completely impotent.
Both the Scotland Bill and Referendum deal handled quickly and amicably. Both sides clearly in good agreement.
In the meantime, maybe you need to add page describing saintly figures AS has been compared to alongside the dictator/despot bingo.
@DougtheDug …………..runs along the same lines as to why the SNP would not try for a referendum in their first term.When you have a hostile majority of members,whats the point !
One story has Pilate born in Perthshire. Is he the proto Scottish Tory who has just given up on the whole politicking thing?
Of course Forsyth sees the UK as Jesus, saintly, long-suffering and martyred, while an independent Scotland will be Barabbas, bandit, murderer and jammy b*stard, avoiding its just desserts.
Correct me if I am wrong but as far as I’m aware Alex Salmond was not forced to drop anything. He never wanted a second question. Mr Cameron has no more ‘let’ the Scottish Government choose the wording than they have ‘let’ the sun rise this morning. One of the benefits of Holyrood has been that it makes more and more apparent just how out of touch, biased and ill-informed journalists really are. This is bad stuff. It actually looks like the main points have been submitted by a Westminster lackie. The rest they have padded out to cobble a story together. Mr Forsyth somehow tries to give the impression that beer and sandwiches at No10 is a good thing yet the Tories derided as uncouth a Wilson Cabinet for doing just that. At Bute House at least, anything served there is accounted for, even the Tunnocks wafers. This reeks of desperation, poor reporting and an attempt to fill column inches. Another thing, why did they have to go to Arizona to find a psychologist to analyse the wording of a possible question?
In reality, there did not need to be any negotiations at all; the Scottish Government obtained the permission it needed for the referendum in May last year. However, to maintain amicable relations with the UK government and open the door for agreements on what happens after a yes vote, polite negotiations are a must.
Putting aside any political implications of Westminster meddling, legally there’s nothing they can do to interfere. The fact that the independence of Scots Law was preserved in the treaty of union to which Scotland is a joint signatory, and the Scottish parliament can legislate to turn policy into law, then they can do whatever the electorate has given them permission to and there’s sweet FA London can do.
This is why the unionist goal has always been to prevent an SNP majority (leading to a referendum) – both at Westminster level originally and Scottish parliament level since 1999 – because once that happened, it was out of their hands.
Likewise I should note that Westminster can’t actually remove any powers from the Scottish Parliament unless the Scottish electorate give them permission for this.
In effect, Scotland is sovereign and always has been; a lot of people don’t quite understand that. The Scottish Parliament provided a means to express that sovereignty. Scotland can do what it wishes.
The Tories understood that from the beginning. Labour overlooked it in the New Labour honeymoon as they just envisaged Scotland continuing to vote Labour.
Alistair Darling is on BBC1 just now. He looks a little worried…Usual separatists talk by London media, Guardian guy has just said Salmond is a failure!
Watching the Sunday politics show with Andra Neil. Nicola Sturgeon came over very well – she said they were pleased with the outcome of the negotiations. I had to smile at AN and his sneery aside re she was only able to get 1 question on the ballot paper. Alasdair Darling didn’t like being asked where his career would be if Scotland voted Yes. AN’s studio panel discussing it afterwards were so out of touch it was unreal. Admiration for Dave & co’s negotiating skills in restricting it to only one question, Salmond’s sliding popularity, his obvious inability to answer the important questions re Indy, RBS. Dave got it sussed, One clot says, AS has shown himself to be a brilliant opposition leader but with great slogans that never worked over the years and wont work in 2014…. long may they laugh!
I’ve said this before here and there, but the reaction of the unionists and the MSM, particularly the UK MSM, reminds me of the German film ‘Downfall’. Not implying nazi connotations at all, but simply the ‘end has come but we can’t believe it’ bunker attitude of ‘All is fine, we’re winning, send the next (mythical) army group forward to drive back the Russians and lead us to victory’ when the Russians were at the end of the street. That and big parties every night.
In Glasgow there is a famous negotiation / squaring off tactic called “getting your retaliation in first.”
In Cameron’s case, with respect to the Referendum, AS and the SNP held all the Aces.
Any Referendum, which is by Westminster tradition in the UK only consultory as they consider themselves supreme. There have been been Referenda aplenty, even at least one in Glasgow. They are a large sounding polling. In fact the consultation that the Scottish Government have taken on proposals for the proposed Referendum is another facet on a sounding, albeit restricted to people who will get off their erchies and propose an opinion.
Cameron had no chance to play any card except the “Joker” that is a supreme Court challenge by a Tory backbencher or Larded Lord on the constitutionality of the Referendum. This is a can of Worms that even Cameron could see as a fatal to the NO campaign.
Cameron’s sole response was damage limitation. Ascribe to Salmond what Salmond never wanted anyway, and never said he wanted, a second question. Drill it into the Great Unwashed’s noddles that that was what he really wanted along. Give Salmond everything he wanted and was going to get. Sound as Salmond had be refused a very important point and, Tory backwoodsmen duly assuaged that Cameron has shown these Chippy Jocks who is in charge and claim victory.
Finally, is there any truth in the rumour that Cameron is not allowing an update on the Electoral Register so that the old one will be used thereby disenfranchising the 16 year olds? Now that could well be challenged in the Courts.
Robert Cialdini has been working for the Conservative party for years, author of “Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion”, one of the key principals he discusses in his book is: Reciprocity, or how people tend to return a favor.
@scottish_skier, I think this is a very good point. Do they, (No campaign and media), know something we don’t? If so what do you think it is? As you say they are acting in a manner that suggests they know they are in trouble, but they keep mentioning the opinion polls.
March and Rally for Scottish Independence
Edinburgh – Sat 21st Sept, 2013
http://www.scottish2013.com
The continuation of the bizarre claim that the Scottish government really wanted a second question in the referendum may well help save face for the coalition government. However, it also strongly reinforces the fact that the Scottish government cannot then be blamed for the absence of a second question! After all, they were forced to drop it, weren’t they? Now then, let’s fast-forward over the next six months, when there will be a huge number of unhappy devomax supporters who are looking for someone to blame. Who denied them? Who was it bragging six months ago that they stopped AS from getting “his” second question? Not much evidence of a long-term strategy there, unless of course the actually want rid of us (but just can’t say it out loud)! I think the opinion polls will start to get really interesting next year.
Every time the unionists brag that Alex Salmond hasn’t got his second question, they are also telling everyone that the people of Scotland havn’t got their second question and its the unionists’ fault.
The lazy, and frankly downright cretinous reporting of ‘journalists’ like Allardyce, McDonnell, Gordon et al may be a growing contributory factor to the collapse in circulation as per Stu’s other article. As others have noted, why this manic, monotonous, anguished insistence that Cameron ‘forced’ Salmond to drop a second question? I’m starting to think that these ‘journalists’ really are so dim, so habituated to churning out partial, ill-considered pap at the behest of their paymasters, that they actually, genuinely, haven’t thought through the implications of the devo-max canard.
Still, if the MSM are imbecilic enough to promote the notion that Cameron prevented the inclusion of a devo-max option then it’s all good..
Yes, they (media and unionists) do not appear to have thought about this or how it will look. Salmond does not have to do anything, can just sit in Bute House, while his opponents publicly congratulate themselves on denying the Scottish electorate a choice, (although how credible, realistic a choice it ever was is very debatable). Hopefully, Yes campaign have got endorsements that will be revealed now that a deal is about to be sealed and devo-whatever is finally off the agenda.
Cameron’s strategy is not to expose himself, or the NO campaign to accusations of political interference. This wouldn’t play out well either in Scotland or by international scrutineers. He can afford to be seen to be generous here because he does indeed have a fallback position and it will be the Electoral Commission that will be the fall guy if the “yes” vote wins the day and it becomes necessary for the No’s to challenge the result.
The electoral commission are currently in the middle of a process to change the way in which voter registration is verified and recorded. Transitional arrangements ( ie neither right nor left alone) will exist during the referendum in 2014. This provides an opportunity not only for disenfranchisement and confusion, but for fraudulent manipulation and subsequently of course a basis for challenging the result. A legal challenge to the outcome ( by either the No’s or the Yes’s) will lead to disillusionment and bitterness no doubt but more importantly will mean a long and protracted delay in which the status quo will persist while the lawyers ( not the politicians) make their case, and the courts ( not the voting public) make the decision.
link to electoralcommission.org.uk
I love the way Forsyth contrasts “beer and sandwiches at No10” with “a glass of whisky in Edinburgh” as if we’re supposed to instinctively understand why the former was superior to the latter and recoil in horror at the extent to which politics has gone to the dogs.
bwt Rev, can’t post here on my Android phone – the main text field doesn’t update properly.
I’m not clear whether anyone can stop the younger voters registering. The electoral register is always a work in progress as far as I can see. When I last moved house we signed the missives only a few weeks before the 2007 election. I was moving out of Jack McConnell’s seat into one the SNP had a realistic chance of winning. So I downloaded the forms and got both my vote and my mother’s moved to the new address so we could vote where our votes counted.
When my mother died in 2011, it seems her name was taken off the electoral register automatically when I registered her death. It was already gone when the next regular update form arrived.
So is there some way of refusing to accept the registration of someone who will be over in two years time?
Got the DVD of Downfall sitting on my desk SS, excellent movie depicting life in the Bunker as Hitler’s world fell apart. I agree there seems to be an element of surrealism in the unionist camp at the moment, clearly illustrated by Forsyth’s remark, “When I first got into politics things used to be decided over beer and sandwiches at No. 10. Now it seems to be over a glass of whisky in Edinbugh”. Oh how things have changed. It would appear that we have come along way from Scots going cap in hand to London.
Here’s what I posted over on Scottish Independence site concerning the “agreement” between Westminster and Holyrood.
1) WE wanted control of the WORDING of the question…..We’ve got that!
2) WE wanted control over the TIMING of the referendum…We’ve got that!
3) WE wanted to include 16/17 year olds in the referendum…We’ve got that!
THESE were the MAIN points of the negotiations, as far as I’m aware, and we got them ALL!
We all know that A.S. kept holding out the olive branch for the unionists of a second question but NONE of them were courageous enough to take up that challenge. This second question was NOT a deal breaker for us though. As A.S. has always said right from the get go he would only be campaigning on the FULL INDEPENDENCE question, it would have been up to others to campaign for Devo whatever.
As I’ve already said the unionists were too cowardly to accept THAT challenge. There is, I believe, a very good reason for this. The Bitter camp is actually contreolled from London, and as we all know Cameron has NO plans to devolve ANY more powers to Scotland.
I just have a sneaky feeling about how straight forward this whole “negotiation” has gone. I have said this before but I’ll repeat it here. In public Cameron makes all the usual noises about doing his utmost to “save” the union, but is this REALLY what he wants?
For decades now the “rebellious” Scots have been a constant thorn in the side of Westminster and Cameron knows this. Westminster are currently looking at ways to reduce the number of M.P.’s at Westminster, what better way than to let Scotland go Independent immediately you have achieved the M.P. reductions WITHOUT any haggling, delaying etc in Westminster. Furthermore, by letting Scotland go Independent you REDUCE the number of Labour M.P.’s from Scotland by around 40 or so which by definition reduces Labour’s overall total by around 40.
This means that at every future General Election the Labour party are starting off from a position of MINUS 40 seats as opposed to the Tories and Lib/Dems (if they are still around) starting off from a position of ZERO. This will result in the Labour party having to win OVER 40 more seats than the Tories to get back on a level playing field with the Tories, seat count wise, at Westminster. Meanwhile the Tories on the other hand just need to win the General Elections outright to regain control of Westminster. I think THIS is what Cameron sees as the ULTIMATE prize. A generation or more of UNINTERRUPTED Tory rule at Westminster.
Yes he will be remembered for being the P.M. that lost Scotland from the Union but he will be remembered also for being the Tory P.M. who created a generation plus of uninterrupted Tory rule, something not even his idol Maggie could achieve!
@ Arbroath 1320 – Spot on, I think you have summed the situation perfectly.
@ Arbroath 1320 says:
That is what both Cameron and Miliband want.
Cameron has done the deal?
New boundaries for Westminster and a gift of no more Scottish Labour MPs means that he now has total control over future Westminster elections.
How does he sell that to his swivel eyed Empire Loyalist, Home Counties backwoodsmen? Salmond has the Golden Bridge.
Miliband has already changed tack to accept this and Lamont has dutifully responded.
Labour in Scotland are toast, and rthe only thing to say about that is that they are so naieve they do not realise this. They will be rewarded in English Gold and I hope that it will be honoured, unlike several centuries ago.
Red pill or Blue Pill time for F U K Rump State?
I think the tories are about to ditch Scotland. There seems to be a growing determination to force the issue, whatever the outcome (and there can be only one obvious outcome in the long term). However, I have also wondered about the recent change of direction in Labour. Is there method in the madness? Perhaps it is indeed part of a master strategy to cut Scotland adrift and go whole hog for middle England. One nation = One England? I wonder. Perhaps we have under estimated Milliband the younger? Perhaps not, maybe he just thinks that Scotland can be dealt with at a later date, when Labour return to Westminster, where the real power lies (in their minds). I do agree that senior Scottish Labour politicians are either naive, scared, or have been bribed against arguing the case of universal benefits etc, in spite of massive implications for their crumbling Glasgow fortress. We live in interesting times.
My reading of it was simply down to a poll that came out last year. It showed clearly that when the issue of as second question was put forward,the polling stats shifted quite dramatically. Indy has polled roughly the same since it was put forward, its almost a pretty static three way split with neither side holding the cards. The devo max question suddenly turns it on its head, with an almost 80/20 split in favour of westminster surrendering more powers to Scotland.
Salmond when interviewed could not ignore this, and said that it showed quite clearly that there was a great desire for constitutional change in Scotland. The status quo was not going to be enough. Clearly his preference he said, would be for a single question but the devo max option could not be ignored.
I think from that point on, the unionist camp, the MSM pretty much decided that AS wanted devo-max as some sort of consolation prize for losing indy. When they decided that was the case, they pretty much went out of their way to make sure a single question would be all that was on offer. Hell they have even went as far as saying that no could see the loss of powers from holyrood to westminster they exulted, triumphant before even the first vote would happen.
People with a bit more savvy realised that Salmond had never expressed a preference for two questions. Most with some knowledge of constitutional affairs knew that even if there had have been a second question, it was not in the SNPs power to secure that agreement with the approval of the UK gov. Approval many noted would not be forthcoming. Many people here and elsewhere realised that a second question was something of a trap that AS should avoid, then realised that it was the other way round. It not being there was a trap for the unionist campaign.
By excluding it – by making sure it was not even up for discussion – the No camp pretty much boxed themselves in. Since then we keep hearing how they will talk about the value of the Union…we’re still waiting. But we got was a lot of hoary old bromides about being too poor etc etc. I think they believed the royal wedding, the jubilee and the olympics was to be the positive case. This they believed was to be the nail in the coffin. None of it worked.
It’s two years to polling day. AS got what he wanted out of the deal. Cameron once again forced to play a poor hand badly. The campaign has not even started. I have said here and still maintain that this is the phony war, the real fight is still to come. The problem for the unionist camp, is that they started early and have used all their big guns to little effect. They have also used up their stock of negative stories. Even if they do come up with new ones, its still nothing more than variations of a theme.
The unionists camp one big chance to scupper the poll was back in 2007. There one chance to delay it was to insist on a second question. Now their london wings are pretty much setting about the business of redefining the Union bu hacking down every single pillar that is currently propping it up. It will soon be that the only remnants of Union, universalism, and social justice today will be in Scotland. So the notion that we can ever be “one nation” is frankly absurd. The fact that we are having this referendum shows that it’s never been one nation, nor all that united.
As both Labour and the conservatives try to outdo each other in who can be the biggest right wing bastard in the house, the Scottish wings find themselves aping their counterparts – then come forward to talk of union. It’s going to look more hollow as each week passes.
My hope, my dream if you will, is that come the day of the vote – people will think more of what they have to lose if we remain in the union, and what we stand to gain if we leave.
AS as jesus though? No. Gallus – yes. But frankly I’d rather have a gallus leader who believed in Scotland than some dreary little tory jobbie any day.
Luigi
We are of a similar mind as is I think, James Morton.
The only real difference is concerning where, when and how.
Maybe it is just Cameron’s fallback Golden Bridge, well hidden from the Westminster bubble?
Cameron can’t afford to lose the ‘Union’, middle England will never accept Scotland lost to the nation and will give him an absolute kicking in the next general election. Yes there are those who would like to see the back of Scotland tomorrow, but there is massive support for the union as it exists today (minus devolution of course). As someone once told me (a Yorkshire man) about Scotland, little Englanders want to keep the scenery but not the people.
Cameron would want to lose the Scottish MPs overnight but this is weighed against by the amount of monetary and geographical loss that the Crown would suffer as well as the throbbing nuclear headache on the Clyde and the loss of 25% corporation revenue to the Treasury. Quite frankly the rUK would be very bankrupt for years to come without Scotland’s contribution. No country can survive very well economically with 10% of it’s GDP suddenly gone. The loss of landmass and ejection from the G8, no more top table invites and only a minor player in NATO and the EU. rUK will be in a much worse state financially than Greece.
I believe that Cameron is pinning his hopes that the Independence vote will never be more that 30% and that is why he can reject any notion for Devo Max (snigger). He and is ilk have always believed the SNP are, and will continue to be, nothing more than a protest vote by the chippy jocks. He is relying on Labour to fight the unionist cause in Scotland because the Tories have such a small footprint; titles, baubles and ermine as a reward for success.
If it all goes wrong for Cameron in 2014, I think he will be ousted quickly despite his protestations blaming Labour and Ruth Davidson for mucking things up, a constitutional crisis will be declared by the Crown which will result in the dissolution of the Scottish Parliament and the possibility of a military presence in Edinburgh. This will be supported by Scottish Labour who will then be parachuted into the Scottish Parliament as an interim government until the Scottish elections of 2016. SNP will deemed as dangerous extremists and will be banned from taking part in elections and will be forced to disband under the threat of incarceration for its hierarchy.
Yes, all this could be fantasy, but I say it because we should never underestimate the power of the British State and what it can be capable of to protect its interests in wealth, power and self preservation. There is democracy, and then there’s British democracy.
Dcanmore, once the people speak Westminster, the Crown, or whoever will be utterly powerless to stop it. If they’re going to impose martial law and ban the SNP they’d better do it now because after the vote will be too late.
If it all goes wrong for Cameron in 2014, I think he will be ousted quickly despite his protestations blaming Labour and Ruth Davidson for mucking things up, a constitutional crisis will be declared by the Crown which will result in the dissolution of the Scottish Parliament and the possibility of a military presence in Edinburgh. This will be supported by Scottish Labour who will then be parachuted into the Scottish Parliament as an interim government until the Scottish elections of 2016. SNP will deemed as dangerous extremists and will be banned from taking part in elections and will be forced to disband under the threat of incarceration for its hierarchy.
Cant agree at all. Can you imagine a Northern Ireland MK 2, on steroids?
Cameron’s UK would be toast at 10 mins beyond recommended dial time.
Personally, I don’t think Ed’s speech was directed at us. Apart from going all out for one nation tory stuff, I could not help but consider the symbolism in that most of flaggery looked more like St. George’s crosses emerging from a fading union jack. Symbolism is very powerful in politics, even when done subtly. The way he spoke of England as ‘we’ (first person) and Scotland as ‘they’ (third person) makes me confident the strategy is aimed at England primarily. That does not mean those strong unionists in the Scottish Labour party have not got all caught up in it; remember, they love the union.
If you ask me, it looks like Ed wants to make Labour the National Party of England, a sort of SNP for south of the border but in the traditionally attractive (to the English electorate) one nation Tory mould. If this was the case, it would suggest he’s getting shoe in ahead Scotland not sending MPs south in 2015. After all, in the event of a Y vote in Scotland, a party that rallied a shocked England together as Britain finally collapses back to starting point might be quite appealing to the electorate against the one ‘Great British’ nation Tory party that was a major factor in the demise of Britain.
Fun to speculate. Sometimes you are right. I noticed the union jackery by labour over a year ago and was amused to find out at the recent Labour conference what I had wondered about had actually happened.
We shall see. But yes, negotiations between the Tories and the SNP since May 2011 have gone swimmingly. Don’t seem like enemies at each other’s throats. Rather more ‘well, we all knew it would come to this one day, so lets sort it out’. Certainly don’t want it dragging on through the next GE.
In the meantime, if the blue fades more to white in Ed’s union flags, then I’m on to something 😉
Nationalists are happy that they got what they wanted. But I think most unionists are also happy with the result of the negotiations. It looks like we’ll get a single question referendum all overseen by the electoral commission. The franchise should not, of course, be extended to 16-17 year olds, but the result would have to be extraordinarily close for this age group to make a difference. What matters to both unionists and nationalists is that the referendum is seen to be fair. For that reason alone I’m pleased that the nationalists got most of what they wanted. I don’t want to have to endure years of nationalist complaints about how you were robbed or that the referendum was fixed. On the other hand, if you win let’s hope all Scots can come together whether nationalist or unionist.
Is it possible that the Tories are hiding their abandonment of Scotland in plain sight?
I recall an article a wee while ago about Cameron attending the Scottish and Unionist Party meeting in Largs and looking in horror at his shock troops and their zimmer frames (I paraphrase).
Whilst it would be ridiculous to imagine that a budget was based merely on annoying the Scots, it might have been a bonus. Would it be possible that attacking universalism, which certainly sits well within the Thatcherite wing of the Tory Party was bigged up merely to move Labour more to the ‘new’ centre of Westminster politics forcing them to adopt policies – to attract middle England – which were likely to make Labour less relevant in Scotland. Making a Conservative return to power a tad easier than it might otherwise have been with Scotland otherwise returning left of centre MPs.
I doubt that – at the General Election in 2016 in the rump UK – anyone there will care whether Cameron broke up the UK or not. The electorate down south will have other things to worry about. You could even see UKIP or whatever it’ll be called by then, doing quite well.
Just a wee aside here folks.
We all know about OUR referendum in 2014.
We all know about the Catalunians fighting for THEIR Independence.
How many know about the Venitians and THEIR fight for Independence?
link to telegraph.co.uk
Dcanmore, in response to your comment I believe that Cameron is pinning his hopes that the Independence vote will never be more that 30% and that is why he can reject any notion for Devo Max (snigger). I hope no one shows Cameron THIS in the Scottish Sun then. 😀
link to thescottishsun.co.uk
Tables have been turned in THIS poll at least! 😀
Yep, it’s fun speculating, although I am sure the coming reality will be even more sensational! You could be right, Skier that DC is banking on a substantial NO victory in 2014. I suspect he has actually considered all scenarios and is trying his best to develop different contingencies for these (as has AS, I am sure). The unionists may have been encouraged by the current 30% level for YES. The recent proposal to commemorate the start of 2014 indicates to me that they think the Olympics has been a huge factor in keeping the drive for Scottish independence at bay. I believe this is a fatal mistake for the following reason: the previous high levels in support for independence occurred when it was still a dream. Now, that suddenly, independence has become a real possibility, some people are hesitating. This explains the huge support for more powers. These people want independence, but are still shocked that it could actually happen in a couple of years. This was not in the script before 2011, and takes time to adjust. The drive for Scottish independence has always been a massive leap forward, followed by a small step back. It takes time (two years)? In 2011, the people jumped forward. In 2012, they have taken a small, temporary step back. The next massive leap will hopefully occur in 2014, then there is no going back. The denial of devomax by the unionists should help to strengthen resolve for more political power more quickly.
@1320
Will be interesting to see the tables for that poll. Yougov are always generally out on their own when it comes to Y/N polling due to various factors since 2007. However, my initial thought would be to say the result show how soft the no vote is. As I’ve said before, it has a core of ~33%, i.e. the non-devo maxers. That is the ‘real’ support the union vote and that’s not even for Westminster rule (5%), but mostly devolved status quo.
The position of Cameron was ALWAYS posited on the assumption that Salmond wanted a “devo-max” question. The Unionists managed to convince themselves of that. It is an assumption that many of us find risible.
It is probably the only time in my life I have agreed with Forsyth. Cameron gave the game away apparently based on a total miscalculation of what his opponent wanted.
Arbroath, many of us were greatly encouraged by the presence and support of Venetians and Cataunians at our Independence Rally in Edinburgh last month. It would be great if we could return the favour and send small YES Scotland contingents to rallies in Barcelona and Venice. I am confident these would be warmly received and provide great publicity. And a great short holiday! Does anyone know if there are any intentions to send small groups in support of these movements? My saltire and I would love to participate in one of these, or at least contribute to someone else attending if I couldn’t make it.
@Tomlin
The Devo Max/Q2 was aimed at Labour. Would they, the supposed ‘party of Devo Max’ support it? Some of their prominent members did. For a brief period following the SNP win I was thinking they might go for it, until I considered the implications.
Devo Max would mean an end to Westminster for the feeble 40 so no way they’d go for it. The SNP knew this and the Tories too. So, put it up there for all to see, talk about it, get the pollsters to ask it and so have it published, make the Scots electorate completely aware of it, then it gets wiped off the table because no unionist party is willing to back it.
The thing about politics is usually that what happens away from the cameras is the most important. FMQs is really just for TV and is not really that important. Away from the media is where the meetings take place to try and convince people to back campaigns. Even what politicians say in public will be very different from what they say and think in private. There must be a lot going on at the moment that is affecting the debate. Almost every interview I see from the No campaign, their speakers look annoyed, pissed off. I am getting a strong impression that there is a real sense of disconnect from what the media are saying and what is actually taking place at the moment. I just think things are happening that are not being reported.
Well done to Moridura who has now put up (on YouTube) the discussions that were on today’s Politics Show. Interesting viewing!
link to moridura.blogspot.co.uk
Muttley
And perhaps they are panicking over what their own polling is telling them
Jesus was Scottish?
I knew it. I knew it!
Just had a look at the interview with Anas Sarwar and Blair Jenkins. Anas Sarwar said something that got me thinking. He said that his vision for Scotland would be very different from Ruth Davidson’s. Well, you would expect that. But if they are fighting a “Better Together” campaign as one unit and have to spell out in detail the ways in which we are better in the union, then they will have to provide detail on what, in their view, Scotland will look like in the event of a NO vote and will also have to indicate what further powers, if any, will come Scotland’s way. If they disagree on what that will look like, it’s going to be hard for them to fight any kind of unified campaign. Could that be another reason for Johann Lamont’s move toward Tory policy?
Have a look at this everyone. From the BBC website:
link to bbc.co.uk
Alistair Darling quoted as saying :
He said: “If you look at the evidence over the last few months that is an argument that we can win, I’m afraid we’ve got a 100 months ahead of us before we actually get into the polling stations.
100 months (@8years ) ehh ? Is this a BBC typo or did anyone actually hear him say this. I knew his abilities as chancellor were limited, but this is a real revelation
I think the MAJOR problem for the NO camp is that they have NO clear idea themselves about what is positive about being in the union. Until such times as they themselves know and understand then we will get NOTHING from them about the reasons why we should remain in the union. They will just keep hammering their mantra of wanting A.S. to spell out in detail what Independence means. Well even I can answer that one. Get yourself a dictionary and look up the word Independence, you’ll find it in the “I” section of the dictionary! All we’ve had out of the NO camp are sound bites about how great the Jubilee was, how great the Olympics were etc. not exactly reasons as to why we should remain part of the union.
If the reason to stay in something is solely based on celebratory events, as the NO camp reasoning appears to be, then we should be in for one hell of a year in 2014, 700th anniversary of Bannockburn, the Ryder Cup, the Commonwealth games AND Homecoming 2014! OUR FOUR events trumps your two. na na na na! And you cannae count your “celebration” of the START of WWI as one of your events either so there! 😀
@Arbroath 1320
and the last (hopefully ever) independence march in September 2014….
You know, I honestly have to hand it to Salmond regarding the second question. He has used it to the max in order to get the referendum he really wants (i.e one question YES/NO), but he has also set Labour in Scotland up for a defeat in the next Scottish election.
Consider two scenarios;
Imagine if Labour had not jumped head first into the No campaign, but had instead argued quite reasonably, that whilst they didn’t support independence, they did want a strong second question on proper devo max (everything but defence and foreign affairs). Even before the referendum they would have looked like the smart people’s champions. How erudite they would have seemed, really in touch with the Scottish mood as shown by all polling, and in the event of a YES result, they could have laid partial claim to that, without too much bullshitting, and stated that they now in accordance of the people’s decision would work to create a new Scotland within independence, thereby greatly enhancing there potential of getting elected again, both in England and Scotland. However, as we now know, they haven’t done this, and have instead rather naively jumped into bed with the Tories (can they not see where that is headed – someone will get shafted, and it won’t be the Tories). If there were a NO result, but a YES to devo max, then Labour would really be back in the driving seat in Scotland.
History will show they did none of the above.
The second scenario, is if the referendum goes ahead with just one question, despite ALL polling evidence showing that a large majority of Scots want full powers just short of independence, i.e ‘devo max’, and imagine the nightmare scenario, with a massive NO result. Now, according to what Labour people think, that would be the end of the SNP, they would be seen as failures and Labour would once again be elected to Government.
However, because of one key aspect, even if there is a NO result, the SNP will still come out on top. As I mentioned, all the polling evidence shows a majority want at least devo max, and in the event of a NO result to independence, that desire will not go away, as if by magic. Indeed, I reckon the desire for such a change will become even stronger. So, then we need to consider who will look better in such circumstances – Labour have spent the last two years together with their tory bestest friends screaming that they do not want a second question on devo max, indeed the unionist media and propagandist BBC have been falling over themselves to tell us how Labour and the Tories have prevented Salmond having a second question. So, after a NO vote, due to the utter stupidity of Labour, if there is a NO vote, Labour who prevented the second question will be seen badly, whereas the SNP who really, really tried to allow a second question but were stopped from doing so, will look good. A NO vote will not be the end of the SNP, but it may well be the end of Labour. The people will say, well if we are not getting independence, we want ‘devo max’, but only ONE party will be offering it – the SNP.
Honestly, I have chuckled at the utter stupidity shown by Labour in terms of their strategy over this whole matter. They had a golden opportunity, and due to venomous hatred of the SNP, and for no other good reason, have quite literally blown it.
Just for the record, I do not doubt result will be yes, and partly aided by the lack of another option, but it is sometimes worth reflecting upon how utterly dim Labour have been and still are in this whole matter. YES or NO, Labour will be toast. Dimwits.
Look on the bright side, now that Mr Cameron has kindly opted to take the kudos for denying a third of the electorate their question, its up to Butter Together now to spell out exactly and in great detail their vision for Scotland. If the best they can come up with is well, er………….ehm, eh, uhm, jist whit ye’ve goat only better (honest) an wi a lot more flags, they’ll destroy what little credibility their respective parties retain.
Arbroath 1320
You know, the NO campaign still have not told any of us what the positive case for the union is. My litmus test in such things is to put things the other way around;
If Scotland were independent right now, prospering from oil wealth, how could the unionists persuade me to sign the treaty of union, where by all control of Scottish affairs except some would be handed over to a parliament in the South East of England. I mean seriously what would the sales pitch be?? Getting to wave a union jack???
Seriously, I have not yet hear anybody in the NO campaign tell me what the benefits of having Scottish affairs run by London are – all we’ve heard is union jacks, ‘wee dogs’ and ‘rolls in sausage’. In other words, utter p*sh.
So, here’s my challenge to ANY unionist, imagine Scotland is already independent, sell the union to me.
Dcanmore
‘If it all goes wrong for Cameron in 2014, I think he will be ousted quickly despite his protestations blaming Labour and Ruth Davidson for mucking things up, a constitutional crisis will be declared by the Crown which will result in the dissolution of the Scottish Parliament and the possibility of a military presence in Edinburgh. This will be supported by Scottish Labour who will then be parachuted into the Scottish Parliament as an interim government until the Scottish elections of 2016. SNP will deemed as dangerous extremists and will be banned from taking part in elections and will be forced to disband under the threat of incarceration for its hierarchy.’
There is absolutely no danger of this happening. As James McLaren put it ‘Cant agree at all. Can you imagine a Northern Ireland MK 2, on steroids?’ – This is oh so true. It could end up making NI looking like a kiddies playground.
The British Government for one would be severly condemned from around the world, and the EU could stop all trading with Britain. Plus, if something like this did happen, it would probably kick off again in N. Ireland, as the real-IRA would see it as 2 nations against 1; MI5 would have a nightmare knowing the Scots and Irish could cause real mayhem across England; you would also have a very severly depleted British Army who would also be in Afghanistan and Iraq (so that could be 4 wars); a third of the British Army is Scottish – how would the Scots soldiers feel if they had to occupy their own country, and against their own family and friends (especially if they also harbour nationalistic feelings themselves).
Just can’t see that scenario that you penned playing out, so I wouldn’t worry about it!!
Jeez Muttley, how STUPID am I? 😆
I’ve made the necessary amendment below. 😀
If the reason to stay in something is solely based on celebratory events, as the NO camp reasoning appears to be, then we should be in for one hell of a year in 2014, 700th anniversary of Bannockburn, the Ryder Cup, the Commonwealth games, the 2014 March for Independence AND Homecoming 2014! OUR FIVE events trumps your two. na na na na! And you cannae count your “celebration” of the START of WWI as one of your events either so there!
You know, the NO campaign still have not told any of us what the positive case for the union is.
R.L. there is a very good reason for this.
They don’t have ANY clue as to why we’re better off in the union other the the fact that THEY are better off in the union but of course they can’t say that, it might just put one or two of us off voting NO in 2014 hence all we get is as Macart says er………….ehm, eh, uhm and so on and so on and so on……
So, here’s my challenge to ANY unionist, imagine Scotland is already independent, sell the union to me.
O.K. how about this?
For sale!
One country consisting of four constituent parts.
Numerous previous owners All careful! (ish)
Financially stable (ish) possibly at some point in the future, date yet to be determined.
Defence stable (ish) possibly at some point in the future, date yet to be determined.
Owner of numerous nuclear weapons. (Needs U.S. say say to fire unfortunately as they hold ALL the launch codes.)
Always ready to help out a friend in need, in particular U.S.A.
Currently member of top table at U.N.
Current member of top table at E.U.
Current member of G8
Current member of G7
Current member of G20
Not member of Euro
Currently going through process of reducing police numbers (except in the Northern part of the U.K. where they have some obscure reason to want to keep the police number high!)
Currently going through process of privatising N.H.S. (except in the Northern part of the U.K. where they have some obscure reason to keep the N.H.S. nationalised!)
Current E Bay starting price 99p
@ Arbroath
I’d wish them luck explaining their position, but I’d just be tellin’ fibs. 🙂
Would that be wee white fibs or dirty big black fibs Macart? 😆
@ R Louis – Where can I order my ‘Sell me the Union’ T-shirt? Brilliant!
@Arbroath 1320
No worries Arbroath, when there is so much to look forward to its easy to miss one out. I forgot one as well. The 2014 European parliament elections, after Lamont’s “I am a Tory, get me out of here” performance a few weeks ago it could well be more interesting than normal….
When you think about it Muttley, 2014 is going to be a VERY busy year. I just hope we are all SOBER enough in the Autumn to actually go out and vote. I’d hate to think we lost because we had been celebrating throughout the year and forgot all about the LITTLE matter of voting in the referendum. 😆
Huge Arb, absobloodylutely huge. 😀
Lo and behold I’ve found it! 😀
I’ve found the NO camp’s POSITIVE case FOR the union.
link to facebook.com
I’ve also come across this wee gem. It’s is an 8 minute segment from a debate being held in Glasgow University. I don’t know when it happened but the speaker is, in my view, brilliant, particularly at his opposition put downs! 😀
link to youtube.com
Felix Baumgartner falls 23 miles to earth and lands on his feet. Must have been taking lessons from Big Eck!
Arbroath 1320
The speaker is Duncan Hamilton (a former SNP MSP) more info about him here:
link to en.wikipedia.org
And this from the Torygraph:
link to telegraph.co.uk
I have watched several of these debates from Glasgow University, he always does very well. haven’t heard much from him since he decided to follow a path as a lawyer, but he did make some very good comments earlier this year in response to some negative nonsense story from the ‘yae canny dae it’ bunch. Sadly missed in politics.
Do not take your eye off the Electoral Commission.
I have been noticing every unionist politician is going to great lengths to INSIST that the Electoral Commission is used.
This was most conspicuous throughout Ian Davidson’s “Separation” Committee chiff-chaff at their briefing meeting by Michael Moore. Raised several times by the number 1 knuckle-dragger and his side-kicks.
It was raised several times again by Anas Sarwar during his petulant go at Blair Jenkins on Izzy Fraser’s show today.
It is a CENTRAL issue for these guys – why so? Keep eyes wide open!
“It is a CENTRAL issue for these guys – why so?”
So they can pretend to have secured something from the negotiations. The Electoral Commission can only ADVISE on the question – ultimately the decision is the Scottish Parliament’s.
They keep going on and on about using the Electoral Commission but hasn’t Alex Salmond agreed way back in the mists of time that the Electoral Commission would be used?
If I’m right about this then you really need to question the sanity of the unionists as to why they keep going on and on and on about using the Electoral Commission.
It may have been posted aleady but spotted this on NNS a balanced view on the Independence Referendum from PressTV
@ silver19
We are now entering the most crucial phase of the referendum – convincing the unconvinced. We have to take the greatest care (imo) about the arguments and, more importantly, the sources we use. I haven’t watched your suggested documentary and it may well be balanced. However, that is not the point; it comes from a source which is tainted and which may well taint our own cause. There is no need to give our opponents ammunition.
link to en.wikipedia.org
Press TV is a 24-hour English language news network owned by the state-owned media corporation Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB). Its headquarters are located in Tehran, Iran.
link to guardian.co.uk
There are plenty of sources of material we can use that don’t open us up to the sort of smears we all know our opponents are capable of.
Rev,
I can’t begin to imagine the furore if the Scottish Parliament were to ignore the EC’s advice!
“I can’t begin to imagine the furore if the Scottish Parliament were to ignore the EC’s advice!”
The EC isn’t going to advise that the question is unacceptable. It’s plainly perfectly clear and nobody’s going to misunderstand what they’re voting for. The EC will either say it’s fine, or that it’s basically fine but they’d prefer the “Do you agree” bit taken out. At that point the SNP will say “We’ve listened to your advice but politely disagree and will put it to a vote of the Parliament”, and that’ll be that.
(That said, I don’t think it’s entirely outwith the bounds of possibility that they’ll agree to remove the first three words. It may well depend on how polling’s going. If Salmond thinks the couple of percent extra the wording might deliver could be crucial, he’ll brazen it out.)
Prof Curtice generally talked some sense on Call Kaye this morning.
Put the yes at 37% (close to my 4 in 10) and the core no on about the same.
Summed up as 3rd indy / 3rd major powers devo max / 3rd union status quo.
Noted that SSAS suggests 65% Y if it looks good economically, i.e. the soft ‘no’ I was talking about.
Not a lot of love for the union in Scotland.
Skier
He also talked a lot of scaremongering guff about people being put off a Sterling arrangement by potential future Euro disasters, without also pointing out that we will be much better position to alter course to avoid any such problems. We will only ‘use the pound’ while it suits us.
The unionist elites and media are bound to try and spin this as containing one major victory, i.e. only having one question, even tho the SG and Alex Salmond repeatedly said that was what they wanted. The Electoral Commission thing is another red-herring to try and save their blushes for having been bested by the SG on every major element.
The EC can only advise, and will never be able to face down the SG if it were to come to any dispute given the mandate the SG enjoys. Even the MSM this morning were hard pushed to paint this as anything other than a climb down for Cameron and his mates.
It was interesting that whilst leafing through a copy of the Times in England this morning in a waiting room, there was absolutely no mention of the issue, or Cameron’s trip to see Eck, or the talks; the thing is for most people down here, it just isn’t something that really registers at all. That might change closer to 2014, but for the present, most “ordinary” voters in England outside the Westminster / media bubble aren’t even seeing much coverage of the issue, never mind being presented with the information.
“It was interesting that whilst leafing through a copy of the Times in England this morning in a waiting room, there was absolutely no mention of the issue, or Cameron’s trip to see Eck, or the talks; the thing is for most people down here, it just isn’t something that really registers at all. That might change closer to 2014, but for the present, most “ordinary” voters in England outside the Westminster / media bubble aren’t even seeing much coverage of the issue, never mind being presented with the information.”
This is entirely correct. It barely registers on England’s radar at all, which is of course why the BBC can get away with telling flat-out lies about it when it does get covered: nobody knows the truth, because almost nobody cares enough to find out.
Rev
It’s interesting watching the process.
I’d like to see a question that both the independistas an the devo-whatevers would be happy to vote for. Anyone think of one?
I think the current headlines over the referendum deal are best summed up in the eyes of the electorate as:
“Unionist Parties Celebrate Thwarting Democratic Will of Scottish Electorate”
Which is not really something they should be celebrating really, what with a referendum offering the same powers they think they’ve just thwarted (plus a couple more) being held in 2014.
@Andrew. Curtice is not exactly ‘independent’, however he got some facts in that I generally agree with alongside a few silly stories. As an academic, he’s quite aware that it’s not looking great for the union although he won’t shout that loudly.
I think it’s simple to seewho is in charge here. Cameron is coming to Edinburgh. IN what other country in the world does the boss, leader, heid-Honcho have to run around at the beck and call of some minor local of little significance?
I might have believed Cameron had been masterful and had bossed the negotiations if Salmond was now being Summoned to London, but with things the ither way around, well, Edward longshanks he aint.
As for Devomax being oot the windae, Cameron has played exactly into the hands of the SNP/Scottish Government. All they have to do now is say things like “You wanted more powers for Scotland, the only way you’ll get them is Independence.” Or “We were willing to listen, but the UK Government said you can’t have your Devo option.” There will be more of those in the middle ground now saying YES than there are saying no.
Bit of an own goal that.
This is from a comment by David Torrance in the Guardian (also on Newsnet Scotland):
“In fact, the whole negotiation process – publicly and privately – has been surprisingly courteous, not least in the usually toxic context of Scottish politics. Bruce Crawford, who handled most of the talks until Nicola Sturgeon took over a few weeks ago, was genuinely liked and respected by his UK government counterparts. The deputy first minister has also impressed London with her constructive attitude.
Ironically, this process demonstrates just how well the Scottish and UK governments can work together.”
I think that the submission of Cameron over this whole episode will see the majority, in my view, of Devo Max supporters crossing over, in time, to the YES camp. The Devo Max supporters are the same as the YES supporters, they DON’T want the status quo. Therefore they left with a straight choice between the status quo, which no one wants, and full Independence. Whilst full Independence goes further than what they actually wanted they will, I’m sure vote for it because in doing so they will get what they want, more powers for Holyrood, PLUS a wee bit more on top.
I think S.S. is absolutely correct in his assessment, Summed up as 3rd indy / 3rd major powers devo max / 3rd union status quo. Now the second question is no more then we will, I have no doubt, start to see the 3rd Indy figure start to rise and by the time of the referendum in 2014 this figure WILL be around the 65% – 70%.
The Bitter Together camp have, in my view, been well and truly shafted by Cameron here. This is evident from comments about yesterday’s Sunday politics programme where, I believe, ALL the unionists were dour and down in the mouth. They have now realised that the mountain they have to climb has just got 10 times bigger and they don’t have the strength to climb all the way to the top. I think this might have been best shown by the four numpties ,three “journalists” and Andrew Neil. NONE of them seemed to have the slightest idea about what has just happened to the referendum campaign.
I think Cameron can afford to be intensely relaxed about this whole process. If Scots are too ‘frit’ to vote Yes, he gets to ‘keep’ us, and can enter the GE in 2015 as the man who saved the UK. If Scots vote Yes, Cameron get can get shot of dozens of deadweight Labour MPs, and present himself to the South East as the man who got rid of the subsidy junkie whingers.
That’s why he’s saying ‘meh’ to what is going on at the moment..
Alistair Darling seems to realize that the game is up, if his interview demeanor and body language last night were anything to go by. In tying their colours so strongly to the NO mast, the Scottish Labour and Unionist Party are now well and truly shafted. Where do they go from here? The sad thing is that neither they, or their MSM poodles have quiet cottoned on yet. DC and AS must be having a quiet chuckle to themselves on this historic day.
The Conservatives and the SNP definitely have Labour by the balls. The Conservatives know historically that they are the dominant political force in England, particularly in the south-east where elections are decided. Therefore, they know that in the last four decades Labour has had to move to the right to try and gain support of Conservative support. However, Labour in Scotland saw what happened to the Conservatives here in the 1980s and tried to resist the rightwards move. That has now changed as the SNP established themselves, first as the main opposition at Holyrood, and now as the governing party. Labour, in their tribal loathing of the SNP, now have nowhere to go but to the right, as they unite with the Conservatives, both to win at Westminster and win the referendum. However, Labour in Scotland can’t square the circle because to get into power in London and win the referendum, they are going to have to spectacularly piss off their core support, the elements in their party who support independence, and last but not least, progressive opinion in Scotland, whose support they need to return to power in Edinburgh. In short they appear to be fucked….
Well that’s it folks.
The deed has been done!
link to facebook.com
@Arbroath
Zero bids and due for relisting at best, I think. 😉