Quoted for truth #29
Posted on
August 18, 2013 by
Rev. Stuart Campbell
Ben Riley-Smith in the Telegraph, 15 August 2013:
Our emphasis. Don’t ever say you weren’t warned, folks.
The world's most-read Scottish politics website
-
About
Wings Over Scotland is a thing that exists.
-
Recent Posts
- 08-11
- 08-09
- 08-08
- 08-07
- 08-06
- 08-03
- 08-03
- 07-30
- 07-29
- 07-28
- 07-26
- 07-22
- 07-19
- 07-18
- 07-13
- 07-10
- 07-02
- 06-28
- 06-27
- 06-26
A tall tale
Wee Books
Probably a robbery
Transphobia
Life in Bedlam
Video
fekem
sorry but I beginning to get constructively monosyllabic with the DT, the DMs ad the `Hootsmon and the Heralds.
Otherwise life is in Technicolor.
In the linked Telegraph article – “Beyond this, each of the three main Westminster parties has promised to set out a package of extra powers they would devolve. The proposals will form part of their 2015 election manifestos but will be known before the referendum.”
So, Scottish “No” voters, who may prefer devo max, are supposed to buy into the concept of a promise that something, not yet known and definitely not agreed, will be written in future manifestos (that’s all three main Westminster parties) that will not actually be printed in 2014?
Are these the same Scottish voters that currently do not believe what they were told yesterday? In fact, are these the same UK voters who have seen countless printed election manifestos being not worth the paper they were printed on. What planet are these politicos on?
It is interesting. I see McWhirter has a column in the Guardian where he thinks Devo Max, Independence Lite then full independence are the likely outcome if it is a No vote. He seems to be saying we are on a road and the date of independence is the only thing in question not if.
It isn’t a bad article although a bit of culture shock after months of Severin
link to theguardian.com
@H&S, check out the comment by TheUnfortunateTruth, posted in full on Fair comments if you can’t be bothered going back to CiF. Love to know what he’s drinking. 🙂
Stuart
Meths I think. I told him to give the keyboard back to his Mum…but the Mods zapped him shortly afterwards. SpinningHugo’s Northern Ireland nonsense got short shrift too. Unusual for the Guardian to be so swift on a Scottish thread.
Here’s a picture of a skink:
http://bamboozoo.weebly.com/uploads/6/4/5/2/645227/9702707.jpg?394×295
Some skinks, if cornered by prey, face the assailant while simultaneously shifting their nether parts to adopt a similar position – with their backsides resembling their heads, the predator has to work out which is which. A dodgy call for the attacker, when you can’t be sure which end will be left free to bite you.
Happily, the mythical ‘Devo-max/Jam-the-Morra, Honest’ skink has no head.
A similar comment from a former Lord Provost, of Glasgow
When YES loses as it will, its supporters, should no be awarded the consolation prize
of additional powers for Holyrood,that will simply keep the argument open, and continue the slide away from the union.
Losers should lose,the dream consequence of this lose should be a steady erosion of Holyrood’s power,until it can be abolished.
And the previous efficient unitary form of government restored.
Quote by Michael Kelly former Lord Provost of Glasgow.
(Source Munguins Republic).
It will be Devo Minus, more electoral re-jigging and ultimately dissolution of the Scottish Parliament, if Scotland votes No.
If it isn’t on table the table is bare. That has to be the message. Jam tomorrow is no good because tomorrow never comes.
Sorry for going off topic but I just noticed an article in the Telegraph (sorry no link new computer with windows8 “it is utter crap. Bloody apps!”) it is a detailed article and this is a short extract. “Germany has intervened in the debate over how to mark the centenary of the First World War, with a call for Britain not to make its commemorations too celebratory.
The country’s special envoy for the centenary of the conflict, Andreas Meitzner, requested a series of meetings in London earlier this month with his British counterpart, Andrew Murrison, as well as senior officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to hear about the UK’s plans and outline Germany’s position.
There are understood to be some official German concerns that the way Britain marks the centenary could cool relations between the two countries, against a backdrop of possible negotiations over the future of the EU and the UK’s membership of it.”
@TMITJ-
I know we’ve discussed this before, but for the benefit of any new arrivals-
At 10.45, on June 28th, next year, will Glasgow be hosting some form of salute to commemorate this?
link to en.wikipedia.org
Well going by the amount of young Germans I saw this past week with union jacks emblazoned on their clothes, it might be worthwhile reminding Germans how they’re viewed by the people we share this island with…
I re checked the last SSA data I could find on line (2012) and the options for the constitution were as I remembered them from my psephology days (2001 – 2007) and I would like to offer a fuller critique than I did last night.
The options were:
CARD E1
Which of these statements comes closest to your view?
1 Scotland should become independent, separate from the
UK and the European Union
2 Scotland should become independent, separate from the UK
but part of theEuropean Union
3 Scotland should remain part of the UK, with its own elected parliament which has some taxation powers
4 Scotland should remain part of the UK, with its own elected parliament which has no taxation powers
5 Scotland should remain part of the UK without an elected parliament
8 (Don’t know)
9 (Refusal)
[Options 6 and 7 don’t exist, in case you are wondering (as I did)]
So where to start with what is wrong with these questions. Well let’s start with the most obvious, the use of the word ‘separate’. That word even back in the early naughties was known to connote a degree of isolation way above and beyond the normal levels associated with independence as enjoyed by nation states, especially between western democracies where there is usually a high level of mutual cooperation.
That is, of course, why unionists have fully embraced the term. Indeed their enthusiasm for it and their desire to emphasise that negative association, has, if anything made it even more of a bogey word since the days when I looked at this. Then, I was unable to find directly comparable data sets, but I did find examples of questions where that was the essential difference and which were contemporaneous enough to conclude that the use of the word ‘separate’ accounted for at least a 5% reduction in apparent support for independence. It is probably, thanks to the intervening 10 years of unionist efforts, more demonised now, IMO (word associated meaning is not a constant). Judging by the remarks of some, they would be happy if it were now synonymous with pariah state status (think; North Korea or Albania).
Indeed, it is now so toxic that I very much doubt whether any Electoral Commission could sanction its use in an independence question.
Unionists still use it habitually at every opportunity even though Westminster has been forced to ban it from official reports to save themselves further embarrassment.
Next, a more subtle, but much more important issue.
The inclusion of Europe in the two ‘yes’ options (in the EU and out of the EU).
So what’s the problem? They are including both options.
Well the problem is this, what about those who have not made up their mind about Europe?
This may be because they are still wrestling with the issue or, more likely, that they feel they do not have sufficient information to decide.
Which box do they tick?
They may feel they are leaning enough in one direction on Europe to pick one of the two options, even if they remain a little uncomfortable doing so, or they may well feel that they are not ready to specify a position on Europe.
Bear in mind, this survey is face to face which has its own characteristics. You can easily imagine a respondent bemoaning the lack of a “Would you vote yes whether Scotland stays in Europe or leaves it?” type option only to be told that only the options available on the survey are open to them, the resulting animosity sending them to the Refusal or DK box.
Also bear in mind, that while most here are de facto, highly motivated by the constitutional issue, this is simply not true for the vast majority of the electorate. In particular there is a large swathe who are only slightly in favour of independence and it really does not take much at all to make them think “Och I don’t know about Europe, I’ll just go with the status quo just now.”.
This is not just based on conjecture. To reminisce again on my psephologising past:
Between the start of Devolution and 2007 there were approx 20 polls I was able to find where the basic format of the question was Independence yes or no? – No Europe, no ‘separate’. Those averaged (neglecting DKs) 54% for Yes, 46% for No, They did not deviate much from that. These were, of course, effectively ‘buried’, not just from the Scottish public, but from the (then new) MSPs. Typically, they were fed the Independence in Europe figure, which was much lower. [Aside: BTW DKs back then typically ran at only about 10%].
Specifically, in two surveys for the Scotsman (ICM) in Jan 1999 and again in Jan 2000, there was the intriguing situation where in regard to the governance of Scotland, respondents were asked both the straight y/n to independence question and later presented with the independence in Europe option. That is the same respondents in the same survey at the same time.
In answer to the straight Yes or No to independence question, the respondents of the two polls averaged 53% Yes (DKs ignored) whereas for the subsequent ‘independent from the UK but still in the EU option’ option that apparent support for independence fell to the 20-30% range. OK, there was no ‘independence outside the EU’ option in those polls, but other polls suggested support for that was even much less, down around the 10% area. In other words, the level of support for independence was significantly higher than the total you would get for adding in the EU or out of the EU subsets.
Including Europe in the questions is demonstrably something which lowers apparent support for independence because, IMV, it alienates those who are undecided on Europe.
AIRC from reading briefing minutes at the time MSPs were only fed the independence in Europe result (and told it was current support for independence without mentioning Europe) whereas the straight y/n result was never imparted to them.
Other quibbles include the positioning of the question in the SSSA survey. e.g. in 2012 it was Q 461 and immediately followed a section on Gaelic, the subliminal message of which seemed to be ‘are you happy with the idea that hairy-kneed nationalists might force-feed your children Gaelic?” and before questions which invited them to consider what an independent Scotland could be like.
Now I think it is only fair to say that, at the time the ‘independence in Europe’ question was formulated, this was the SNP question of choice. A big mistake by the SNP.
Since then, they dropped the ‘in Europe’ option and more recently have taken the tack that we would simply continue as a part of Europe. Something, which, unless the EU sets a completely new precedent, is a reasonable stance as fart as it goes.
But what they should have done, not least because it is the democratic thing to do, is they should have announced a post-independence referendum on Europe which would be held something like between 5 and 10 years after independence so the people of Scotland would be able to choose.
That would have:
Acknowledged the sovereignty of the Scottish people.
Deferred distracting posturing on Europe by adherents of both sides in all parties and deferred voter alienation.
Not tied the hands of post-independence negotiators for a new EU deal (in fact concentrated the minds of EU negotiators wonderfully).
Allowed the electorate time to assess deliverance and efficacy of any new EU-Scotland arrangement.
Possibly above all, saved themselves so much grief from a hostile unionist media who would be very hard put to attack a policy so evidently democratic.
I say this a a Europhile myself, I am in favour of remaining in the EU, it has been a force for good in the world and in the UK even if most are not aware of its achievements because of ‘Johnny-foreigner’ propaganda.
Also, there is nothing at all wrong with any particular party taking a specific stance on EU membership, in fact they would be required to do so by a hostile media. However there is no necessity for a party to insist on its view rather than defer to plebiscite on matters which are ultra party political such as the EU.
They should do the right thing and, in this instance, save themselves a whole lot of grief by doing so.
Big mistake.
It demonstrates how partisan the media and our unionist politicians are that they cannot fight their corner on truth but have to spin their comment to “win” for their side.
The only way to combat this is to gently and politely tell our friends and colleagues to read Wings over Scotland. if they read it for a day to two they will be change their opinion
Despite everybodys efforts I do think the Yes campaign will lose but it is so important we mobilise our maximum vote.
The labour party is now the greatest barrier to Scotlands aspirations.
They lost their way they decided the needed to win the middle England vote
If this is the same Prof Jim Gallagher of Bradford University, he’s got a lot to do to make me think he is not a swivel-eyed tube given his outpourings in Scottish Review. Even the logic of the situation is beyond his absurd spinning capability. The stark reality of voting NO means you’ll get less than nothing back, so it’s actually ‘status quo minus’!
We know the promises of the continued devolution of powers to Holyrood in the event of a NO vote is bull, so what will be the actual consequences of a NO vote?
Top of the list of outcomes is further Westminster-actioned cuts, into the foreseeable future, regardless of the party in power there (Labour, or the Conservatives) – no crystal ball needed.
And there will be we already know, a re-jigging of the Barnett formula leading to a substantial reduction in the block grant, further divesting Scotland of the monies needed to maintain existing services.
This will mean an end to prescriptions free at the point of service.
The end of at-home services for the elderly.
The end of free tuition for university students.
The end of free bus passes for the over-sixties.
The Unionist parties will argue a no vote gives them a mandate to implement the following:
The repatriation of devolved powers back to Westminster to neuter Nationalist power (curtailing “SNP mischief-making”) to put an end to the Scottish Question once and for all.
A vote NO will mean the effective end of a Scottish Parliament worth the name, stripped of power and its diminution to a wee pretendy parliament (thus proving Billy Connolly right after all).
Scottish representation in the Westminster Parliament will be reduced to the already scheduled fifty (50) MPs initially, and will continue to decline as Scotland’s population continues to comprise a smaller and smaller portion of the greater English state.
Per the publication of the UK Government’s legal opinion* earlier this year, scotching the theory of “states within a state”, there will be concerted and coordinated efforts to dissolve the instruments and protocols of Scotland’s status as a country within the UK, and to recast it in the public’s mind as just other northern region of Britain.
*Westminster has given this learned opinion the imprimatur of THE official reference to be consulted when dealing with matters Scottish.
Precedent gives cause for concern that if we remain part of the UK (AKA Greater England – see the legal opinion), and ever again become uppity, Westminster may retaliate with a policy of managed decline of this northern region’s economy a la Geoffrey Howe et Liverpool during the Thatcher regime.
A NO vote risks an inevitable and inexorable descent of our culture into obscurity and obsolescence. Our legal system, unique education system, and our NHS, of necessity dismissed and rejected as incongruous anachronisms, predicated on the once-held delusion of our uniqueness as a people and a country.
The unacceptable risk is that the country we love will be permanently subsumed as a neglected and reviled low-opportunity Celtic backwater of a Greater England. Again, the legal opinion from No.10 gives this scenario menacing credibility.
These are the outcomes that reasonably might follow a NO vote in 2014 and it will well serve Scots to remember it.
Christian Wright
I agree and furthermore an instrument for doing this is already under evaluation by Labour.
They will take powers from Holyrood, presumably those not already taken or slated for repatriation to Mother England’s Parliament, and divvie it out to the Scottish regions.
Glasgow Council, Edinburgh Trams Inc, Aberdeen Byepass (etc), thus ensuring that the people of Scotland get the worst of both Worlds; a corrupt remote Westminster Parliament undepinned by corrupt and inept powerful regigged “local” councils. They see that as a win:win with no democratic representation between to argue Scotland’s corner.
If vote rates in elections are low, wait until they scunner us entirely of democracy deprive us of any hope.
That scenario would take much more than a generation to even challenge and attempt to roll back.