The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


Minding your own business

Posted on April 05, 2012 by

Pretty much every newspaper and media source ran with a particular statistic as their headline from the published conclusions of the UK government's consultation on the independence referendum. More or less everywhere led with the 75% of respondents who wanted a single Yes/No question, which is mildly curious because it's not really news – the stated preference of every party and MSP in the Scottish Parliament, and the Scottish Government itself, is already for a single question.

The Secretary of State for Scotland loudly proclaimed that the consultation had therefore delivered a mandate to get on with the referendum on the UK government's terms, meaning a single question as quickly as possible and no votes for 16/17-year-olds. But the respondents to the consultation actually presented a much more significant demand: a similarly large majority of them – 72% – expressed the view that what they really wanted the UK government to do was butt the hell out altogether and give the Scottish Government the power to get on with it.

For some reason, Moore and the Scottish media weren't so keen to draw attention to that particular finding. But it would appear to mean that the electorate overwhelmingly want the Scottish Parliament – the only body which has an actual democratic mandate to hold a referendum on independence at all – to handle the entire matter without interference from Moore and his coalition colleagues.

We look forward, therefore, to the Scottish Secretary and his chums – having made their point and stated their views – keeping their noses out from now on, waiting for the Scottish Government to conclude its own (far more popular) consultation, and make its own decisions about the number and wording of the questions, the timing of the vote and the extent of the franchise. As democrats, we're sure they'll happily comply with the wishes of the people.

2 to “Minding your own business”

  1. Doug Daniel says:

    Another figure that seems to have been missed (or maybe it hasn't – I've been ill the past few days so I'm not as on top of the news as usual) is that 71% of those who responded to the question on the voting franchise agree with the Scottish Government (and the UK government, apparently) that it should be based on residency, like the Scottish Elections, rather than the Westminster election franchise. Only 4% back the ridiculous idea of letting everyone in the UK vote on it. So, assuming the Scottish Government's consultation backs this up, then hopefully those two particularly pathetic arguments can be put to bed.
     
    Not only that, but it shows opinion is completely divided over votes at 16 (44% for, 47% against – although they still manage to point out that "more" were against it), so it will be very interesting to see what the figure is in the Scottish Government's consultation (i.e. the REAL consultation).
     
    One final observation – responses from the public are as moronic as you might expect. I hope they're better in the real consultation; and true to form, Westminster are excellent at spinning neutral responses to sound like they back their point.
     
    Oh, and the fact that A Boyd Tunnock of the outspokenly unionist Tunnocks (not sure why Salmond continues to offer people caramel wafers with their tea) thinks the referendum needs to be as quick as humanly possible does not hold much sway with me. And I don't need to know how fat he is either ("As a reasonably large employer in Scotland…") I also don't care about members of the public parroting lines they've heard on the news about "the damaging uncertainty" – this adds nothing.
     
    A final point – look at the list of respondents, and look for the political parties. SNP (various branches), Scottish Labour (wow, Jim Sillars' defunct party has been resurrected?) and Scottish Liberal Democrats. No Greens, no SSP, and most importantly, the only Tory response is from the London Scottish Conservative Club.
     
    So the Scottish Tories didn't even respond to their own consultation. Unbelievable.

    Reply
  2. Tony Boaks says:

    There was a far easier way of discrediting the UK consultation. Less than 3000 responses in a country of 5 million is 0.06%. So any figure of 75% is 75% of 0.06% of the population: 0.045%.

    Reply


Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.


  • About

    Wings Over Scotland is a thing that exists.

    Stats: 6,990 Posts, 1,253,014 Comments

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

    • Dan on Faces In Sand: “CC says: “People love to moan about Land Rover stuff, possibly with justification, but whenever anything’s gone wrong they’ve always…” Oct 23, 16:18
    • Northcode on Faces In Sand: “It’s easy to mistake a list of social, economic or cultural problems for proof of colonisation, but that isn’t how…” Oct 23, 16:15
    • Dan on Faces In Sand: “Chuckle at site prick Main complaining that I counted coal in the resources list. https://wingsoverscotland.com/return-of-the-fear/#comment-2778087 A day later site prick…” Oct 23, 15:48
    • Dan on Faces In Sand: “Yawn at CC’s no credible plan bs… If it’s a credible enough strategy for the UK to be run with,…” Oct 23, 15:42
    • Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: ““Much of it was faulty” An oft-repeated statement, but I have yet to identify what it means. My best guess…” Oct 23, 14:39
    • Spartan 117 on Faces In Sand: “To be honest I’m not sure many people *need* it explained to them, because the facts are blatantly obvious to…” Oct 23, 14:32
    • Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: ““Half or more of the population living in or close to poverty levels” Ah Alf, as an academic you’ll understand…” Oct 23, 14:22
    • Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: “What you write is all true, Northy, but where’s the fun in being all grown up when we can be…” Oct 23, 14:11
    • James Che on Faces In Sand: “North code, Regards Scotlands Constitutional position in a modern democracy it is to realise there is no requirement for Scotland…” Oct 23, 13:15
    • factchecker on Faces In Sand: “I know there is not an equal union. It would be both stupid and undemocratic. More importantly, nobody has been…” Oct 23, 13:09
    • James Che on Faces In Sand: “North Code. Again appreciate your response and keeping the debate polite and clean, They are not actually my own personal…” Oct 23, 12:37
    • Captain Caveman on Faces In Sand: ““Independence would bring political responsibility closer to voters, strengthen democratic legitimacy and allow Scotland to adapt its institutions over time…” Oct 23, 11:24
    • Northcode on Faces In Sand: “James, I haven’t replied to you. My earlier comment was a general observation about the modern independence argument, not a…” Oct 23, 11:10
    • James Che on Faces In Sand: “Alf Baird, I suspect that the non – treaty of union issue and Colonisation issue will merge, for they become…” Oct 23, 10:53
    • Lorncal on Faces In Sand: “MaryB: they also infected people already in hospitals by placing them in wards with uninfected patients. I remember the huge…” Oct 23, 10:48
    • James Che on Faces In Sand: “North code. Thank you for your reply, I will answer your points one by one if I may. Firstly, We…” Oct 23, 10:43
    • Alf Baird on Faces In Sand: ““A convincing case for independence doesn’t need the colonial frame” How else can we explain to Scots: – the ‘union’…” Oct 23, 10:20
    • James Chey on Faces In Sand: “Fact checker. You are entirely correct in stating that there is no equal union, What you omitted by default through…” Oct 23, 10:10
    • Northcode on Faces In Sand: “I’ve been thinking about why the “Scotland is a colony” argument is actually counter-productive. A convincing case for independence doesn’t…” Oct 23, 09:43
    • James Che on Faces In Sand: “North code, Did not have time to respond fully to you yesterday, Which and what Sovereignty works nowadays and where…” Oct 23, 09:14
    • Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: “Humza Yousaf has a new book out – just in time for Christmas – although it’s inconceivable that could ever…” Oct 23, 08:35
    • Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: “Robin McAlpine claims Jackdaw will add 35 million tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere that wouldn’t otherwise have got…” Oct 22, 21:02
    • Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: “Good post, Lorncal. As I’ve often observed, we should never underestimate the popularity of a government policy that enables people…” Oct 22, 20:32
    • Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh on Faces In Sand: “Steven Bartlett (Diary of a CEO) extensive interview with VZ on 16 Oct 2026 www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x9dkYIRb58” Oct 22, 20:24
    • Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: “Excellent questions, Confused. Well worth repetition. How come you’re an EXPERT ON INTERNATIONAL LAW? How come you’re an EXPERT LEVEL…” Oct 22, 20:10
    • Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: “@Geri 1:04 I absolutely love your posts and so I’d like to help you out. Teach yourself what 24/7 actually…” Oct 22, 19:52
    • Lorncal on Faces In Sand: “H McH: it was noted post WW II that few people in any of the affected countries expressed pre war…” Oct 22, 18:47
    • agentx on Faces In Sand: “• Ultimate Competence: Under UN General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV), the UNGA established the specific criteria for what constitutes a…” Oct 22, 18:10
    • Aidan on Faces In Sand: ““You could be on 100K a year for some place with a nice wine cellar” – I am thanks (more),…” Oct 22, 17:34
    • Dan on Faces In Sand: “AIDan says: “Modern cars are more complex and aren’t always designed well, and come with the risk of very difficult…” Oct 22, 17:29
  • A tall tale



↑ Top