Ten more years
Posted on
November 16, 2015 by
Rev. Stuart Campbell
Here’s a very quick one from our latest poll:
“From 0 (absolutely no chance) to 10 (a certainty), what do you currently think is the likelihood of Labour winning the 2020 UK general election?”
Above the midpoint (ie people who DON’T think Labour will win): 56%
Below the midpoint (people who DO think they’ll win): 28%
Get ready for Tories until 2025 at least, folks.
Been trying to tell Labour this since the GE, the Tories are going to wheel out the SNP and slap labour right in the pus with them for the next 25 years and the English electorate are going to fall for it.
Hopefully it means that Labour head office will wise up and start calling for and helping with Scottish independence but I very much doubt it.
Question is, what percentage of the party’s own voters?
I hope those who voted NO are happy, of course excepting the Tories. You get what you wish for as they say, sadly its never bloody true for me.
With FPTP in forever land, Labour will simply wither as people realise that there is nothing to vote for to save them, and there is no way to create a replacement … well, hold on, Scotland did!!!
I am sorry to say, I agree, Tory hell for at least 10 years, then perhaps Tory-Lite as Labour implode and stop abstaining, instead, voting with their Tory-Heavy masters.
Apologies if I’ve missed it somewhere, but could you please remind me whether the sample was UK wide, or Scotland only.
Cheers.
It was 18 years of tory hell that finally brought about devolution. I sincerely hope that it won’t take that long again to achieve independence. We have suffered enough.
@Taranaich – Exactly. That’s the real juicy detail!
Re. GE outcomes, I think this is ‘the grand coalition’ in action 🙁
‘We gotta get out of this place’
To be honest, when you look at what is on offer from the party that is having a non stop battle with itself is anyone truly surprised?
Until such times as the Labour M.P.’s get to grips with the simplest of simple facts that they are elected to do the bidding of the electorate and NOT the other way round I’m afraid I can see Labour out of office for a very long time indeed!
I think the idea of BLUE Tories in power until 2025 is an underestimate in my view. 🙂
So we have AT LEAST 10 years of – The SNP should do this, the SNP should do that. No chance of being in power, so they will say if we were in power, we would do it, aww well ……
at least nothing changes on that front!
“Apologies if I’ve missed it somewhere, but could you please remind me whether the sample was UK wide, or Scotland only.”
Scotland.
In 2015 GE moe than half of English voters opted for an extreme right wing party (Con+UKIP). Far right is what England wants and what England wants, UK gets. It will not turn around by 2020. Seems in Scotland, most folks agree.
What is more relevant IMO is will the SNP get an absolute majority in 2021? Because when there is not an SNP majority, Indy is completely off the table. Time is of the essence. Gambling on getting 50+% in IndyRef2 is not the only game in town.
How many Labour voters in Scotland would prefer to live under Tory rule indefinitely rather than in a left leaning independent Scotland? I can’t begin to think of the knots Labour will tie itself into trying to come up with a good reason other than we’re Better Together. If all that appears on the horizon is conservative governments, will it shake them out of their beliefs? Probably not. Even after many promises have already been broken (HMRC) a lot of Labourites will cling to aunty’s apron, even when they’re lied to. Labour is hopeless
I would have liked to see in addition the question ‘What chances are there of Labour winning a controlling number of seats at Holyrood in the election following 2016?’
Tory ba$tardS until 2025. Thats depressing. Scotland will be a barren land by that time and we will be queing for food parcels. who in their right mind could vote for this?
Remember we are sovereign in Scotland but we need the numbers.
walter scott says:
“Better Together”
Good point. My feeling would be that the hard core of Labour politicians etc would put the Union first and literally opt for better together with the Tories.
Stu’s earlier poll probably suggests many of those ordinary voters who still intend to vote Labour might be open to Indy persuasion.
A very odd distribution with that peak at 5.
As Taranaich asks, what are the figures for each party’s supporters?
Is the distribution a superimposition of wildly different curves?
In such a question, 5 tends to be where don’t knows put their answer.
Thanks Stu.
I was going to say that the Scots would say that, wouldn’t they, and the stats would perhaps be markedly different in a UK-wide poll, so not necessarily indicative of a next-election Tory win, but then I also noticed that 56% of Scots are perceptive enough to realise that if they want to be free of Tory rule, Independence is the only way. 🙂
[…] Ten more years […]
And with the ideological split currently running through Labour’s ranks, who would bet on ten years as a minimum?
In the meantime however, what will the Conservatives be doing?
Austerity economics is the tip of the iceberg. Snooper legislation, the ‘British’ bill of rights, all dressed up nicely for the public via the media. Cameron made it quite plain during the latest GE, he only needs to keep folks happy in selected marginals and under the current system the entirety of the UK becomes a Tory playground.
This government, this parliament, doesn’t give a shit about votes in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland for the simple reason it doesn’t need them.
So the question remains for the 28% who voted no, but are not strongly against independence.
How much can you stand to lose in terms of income, democratic empowerment, public services and human rights?
‘Late in 2002 Lady Thatcher came to Hampshire to speak at a dinner. Taking her round at the reception one of the guests asked her what was her greatest achievement. She replied, “Tony Blair and New Labour. We forced our opponents to change their minds.”‘
Labour are much worse than the Tories. The Tories don’t pretend to be anything other than for the so called ‘elite’. With their lies, Labour have done the Tories work in Scotland for them. Labour are the real enemy in Scotland not the Tories. Each time they abstain they prove this over and over. What will it take for people to see Labour as they are and not how they’d like them to be?
I obviously don’t understand things in what would have been an independent Scotland. I would have thought the following would have been the case
HMRC offices close to be rebranded as Scottish Revenue Centres. Either all existing offices/staff are retained or some restructuring would be required.
Banks would have still operated in Scotland, although their Head Office may have moved south. I won’t pretend to understand the currency quandry.
Pensions would/should be honoured by the UK government, either they would have continued paying or agreed a lump sum settlement. New offices/jobs for a Scottish national pensions.
Supermarkets claim they would have left, fair enough if they did close most or all, then i would suspect Aldi/Lidl/local stores or entrepreneurs would have filled that gap.
All of the above assumes that the UK would have let Scotland become independent. But the more I think about it the less likely I think they will ever let Scotland become independent.
Red Tories,Blue Tories,all the same to me.
The reality is that more than half of Scots still don’t care which of them governs,so long as England decides for us.
Tory England wreaks havoc in Scotland, SNP get blamed by BBC/SLab. Super heated south east of England boom rolls along, BBC Scotland attack propaganda sneaks SLab back in, although maybe with a bigger hitter than Kez.
Great.
No doubt Sensible Dave will be along shortly to tell us all that this is a good thing for Scotland and democracy as it will keep the SNP in check FFS!
I hate the Tories and what they do and stand for, but, their strategy and execution is so much closer to GTO than Labour’s. So much so I have to question their (Labour’s) intentions. Is it, to win England, to win the next general Election, or to look after our own. Nothing is clear when incompetence seems to be the forte.
Scotland is caught in the crossfire and it’s time we looked to a GTO approach to our strategy. Outside of cloning Ike Haxton’s Dream Machine and reprogramming it, sharp minds, clear intellects and a cooperative strategy is the way.
We need to work together, harness and maximise our resources, human and other. And the sooner we get on it the sooner we win the game, or contest, or whatever term people prefer to use when we’re talking about extricating ourselves from a union that does not work for Scotland.
(I’m still not sure if it’s a game of complete or incomplete information.)
I am glad I didn’t have to answer that survey.
As far as I can see
Trouble is that I don’t see any likely candidates for that role, nor do I see that Labour has any place to develop such a person, the councils being such a hotbed of cronyism etc.
Don’t be so sure…when the Management thinks that the ship is sinking, strange things can happen. Cameron has a slender majority, which could disappear in hours. The Lefty, Corbyn, waits in the wings; he may be needed to right the ship.
I even suspect that Corbyn might be aiming at the SNP.
The world is changing fast.
We must also.
We can’t wait for the British ‘left’ to restore balance from the continuous swing towards the right, because it has been destroyed.
Half a dozen Tory chancellor’s have seen us off.
Redistribution etc on a UK level has been made almost illegal.
It would be 2030 before the Corbynites get a throw of the dice, scary…
Any timetable based on unrealistic expectations is bound to result in disappointment, all the more so when what is at stake is as big as Independence. (ref. Indy14). But who can create realistic expectations in todays world and on what basis?
With so much tension in UK and EU politics and finance, foretelling the future up to ten years hence is to gaze into a somewhat hazy crystal ball wearing dark glasses. Add global uncertainties on trade and the dollar, as well as the newly arrived IS factor in mainland Europe, the next few years may well be downright unpredictable.
I can’t help but think that our Independence will not be a stand-alone event, not least because of the EU Referendum, but also because of other factors, like the destabilising effects of overwhelming global debt with its reliance on low interest rates. How the UK fares over the next few years with its near suicidal level of debt, may be critical in deciding how Scotland progresses with Independence. There might be more to it than a swing from No to Yes.
In my opinion if Jeremy Corbyn survives as the leader of labour then the whole landscape will change, his team has watched the Yes Movement and are trying to replicate the concept for “themselves”. But the Yessers were not doing it for “themselves” that is why if we keep going we will get freedom from the Palace of Westminster. Interesting times.
I agree with the less than no chance brigade. The shock is likely to hit on the right rather than the left and shatter the Tory/UKIP continuum. However the Labour Party is so riven between Heirs to Blair and Old Labour they wont be able to take advantage.
What the Scots should do is promote a new English party, the Northern Powerhouse, for proportional representation and “federalism” in England, the North, the Midlands and the South. The fact that it would also be in favour of Scottish Independence would be a by-product, and a bonus.
Instead of asking the population to decide whether they are the working middle class or the working middle class which depends on who first puts up a photo of Alex Salmond, a decision on where you’re from is much easier. And in circumstances where the old parties have shattered a new “constant” will be clutched at.
Kudos to the 16% or so that think Labour have a fighting chance of realistically winning. I’m going to take a wild guess and say that this is the absolute bedrock of Labour support.
I’m not sure which Labour we are talking about for 2020.
Is it the one under Corbyn or the one run by the Labour MPs?
link to caltonjock.com
Unless of course SNP + Green is a majority, since the Scottish Greens also support independence (though bafflingly they oppose devo max)
O/T
Parliament was dissolved on 30 March 2015. On that day members of parliament reverted to being members of the public and lost privileges associated with being members of parliament.
Source: link to parliament.co.uk
The Channel 4 interview took place on 5 April 2015.
When Alistair Carmichael lied he wasn’t Secretary of State for Scotland or a member of parliament, just a private individual standing for election.
No political opponent could contradict what he said and, as such, any court judgement that his lie was “public” or “political” would be a travesty.
I hate to come across as being pessimistic but I don’t think that Labour will EVER get returned to power at all, they’re finished, so stuck with the Tories not for ten years …. but infinitas. Or if the immigration issue in rUK continues, as I’m sure it will, with turmoil in Europe and mayhem in the Middle East Ukip will take even more Labour, Libdem and Tory votes. Tory or Ukip or Tory / Ukip coalition. Take your pick.
If ‘autonomous’ SLab had any brains at all they would bail out NOW and join the Independence Brigade.
David McDowell
He lied when he released the memo. He was then Secretary of State.
@ David McDowell
Parliament was dissolved, but the government was not – it still has to function during the campaign. Carmichael was no longer an MP, but he was still Secretary of State for Scotland. That was explicitly mentioned at the time (I can’t get your link to work, so I can’t check whether it agrees).
O/T
@ boris says at 7:46 pm ……………….
link to caltonjock.com
Thanks for that Boris. Interesting and led to me having a look at some other issues.
Who runs Britain? Another crew to keep our eye on!
link to theeuroprobe.org
link to whorunsbritain.blogs.lincoln.ac.uk
Who owns Scotland?
link to highlandclearances.co.uk
link to independent.co.uk
‘A REGISTER of Scotland’s land will be completed within 10 years to provide a clear picture of who actually owns every acre – and thus set the scene for at least some of that ownership to change.’
Is this still going ahead? Does anyone know?
link to thescottishfarmer.co.uk
@David Mcdowell
Whats on your mind david?…
let me rephrase that.
I’m not too worried about labour it’s the all the unionists in WM no matter what colour.
In the Herald.
Military able to order Crown Estate land grabs even after control devolved to Holyrood
link to archive.is
@ David McDowell
Parliament and Government are two separate institutions.
The Government does not resign when Parliament is dissolved. Government ministers remain in charge of their departments until after the result of the election is known and a new administration is formed.
I think there will be a shift. I don’t think we can be so confident that there will be another 10 yrs of the Tories. This is mainly because osborne’s attempt to create a government surplus will fail. It will actually create a bigger deficit even after all the suffering.
The simple reason for this is down to basic accounting…
ONE ENTITY’S SURPLUS = ANOTHER ENTITY’S DEFICIT.
So a government surplus means a non-govt deficit. All that means is that to expand the economy the private sector as a whole will have to keep borrowing. (Have missed out the overseas sector to keep it simple but we run a trade deficit anyway) When we decide to stop borrowing, (or worse default) the government automatically resorts to deficit spending or the economy goes into free fall.
(When we stop borrowing, the supply of money falls). This is precisely what happened after 2008 and it’s a good thing it did.
This Automatic deficit spending occurs by default due to automatic stabilisers put in place as a safety mechanism to stop economic disaster.
So there are more twists to come and basically George Osborne has absolutely no control over whether we have a govt surplus or a deficit. To say otherwise is pure ignorance.
Anyone wanting to blow the Tories away at a hustings have a Google search of ‘Sectoral Balances’.
I wouldn’t write off entirely the 30% who say ‘never’. An uncle of mine was a cast iron ‘No’ until the Nick Robinson ‘he did not answer the question’ report.
Indeed,..
What England wants – the UK gets.
What Scotland wants – is a better, more democratic future than that.
C’mon you reds…Lololololol
The Channel 4 interview took place on 5 April 2015.
When Alistair Carmichael lied he wasn’t Secretary of State for Scotland or a member of parliament, just a private individual standing for election.
No political opponent could contradict what he said and, as such, any court judgement that his lie was “public” or “political” would be a travesty.
Just a private individual standing for election as a SLibDem unionist.
Here’s Carmichael’s boss? in action, commenting on a unionist blog what the Evening Times considers newsworthy tonight, in precis, shut up and go away YES voters and SNP are-
“Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie said: “Immoral fools with no credible alternative is a powerful condemnation from someone who knows the SNP leadership well.”
@Ian H says: 16 November, 2015 at 5:52 pm:
” … I obviously don’t understand things in what would have been an independent Scotland.
You are right, you obviously don’t understand.
As long as an independent Scotland did not declare itself a republic then we would still have the Queen but not as she is in her three country Kingdom of England where she is Queen of England.
In an independent Scotland she would be Queen of Scots and we Scots are legally sovereign – Not the Monarch. Thus there could not be Her Majesty’s Government, Treasury nor Tax, Customs & Excise.
The Banks will not go away and as Scotland would be independent they would be required to maintain Head Offices in Scotland in order to pay Scottish Tax.
Why would any business cut out a large chunk of its customer base? That would include all the Oil & gas industries too? Why would a supermarket give up a whole chunk of business if that business is profitable and if it was already unprofitable they would have closed it years ago. It is what business does. It expands where it makes profit and contracts when it doesn’t.
Pensions, both state and private, are legally a contract between the pension provider and the pensioner and if you contribute you get paid your pension.
The people of Scotland, and not either the crown nor even the UK government, are legally sovereign in Scotland, that means several legally binding things.
One – There cannot be a United Kingdom after the only two signatory Kingdoms of the Treaty of Union part company. It would be like claiming a wife who divorced her husband was independent but the husband was still married. The Treaty of Union is a bipartite agreement between two equally sovereign kingdoms that just happened to end up with their still independent crowns on the same person’s head.
Thus the Treaty of Union was akin to the marriage of those two kingdoms. Westminster is legally the United Kingdom Parliament but only the de facto parliament of England. Much like an abusive marriage where a husband regards his partner, and even their children, as his possessions.
The Status Quo Ante of Scotland ending the Union is a return to the only TWO independent Kingdoms that existed in 1706/7. That is with both kingdom’s crowns upon the one person’s head but both Kingdoms and both Parliaments as independent. What Westminster chooses to do about Wales and N. Ireland is for them to sort out. The point is that before the Union of 1706/7 both were part of the Kingdom of England from 1284 and 1542 respectively.
So you can believe the Westminster codswallop if you wish but facts are facts and there are historic documents to prove it. Namely the Statute of Rhuddlan, The Crown of Ireland Act and the Treaty of Union.
Quite simply Westminster has been spinning propaganda all along. The Statute of Rhuddlan proves Wales was annexed by England in 1284 and the Crown of Ireland Act proves Ireland became part of the Kingdom of England in 1542. There is also the Edinburgh-Northampton Treaty of 1328 that finally sealed the peace of the Scottish wars of independence.
Edward II had refused to give up his claim to over-lordship of Scotland but he was no longer in control. The English king had been deposed by his wife Isabella of France and her lover, Roger Mortimer.
Bruce saw his chance and sent James Douglas to attack the north of England. The English feared that the Scots would take Northumbria and sought terms.
The terms of the Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton were agreed, (and paid for by Scotland). The English finally recognised King Robert I as King of Scots and acknowledged the independence of Scotland. Edward II’s daughter Joan of the Tower would marry the Bruce’s son, David.
In July 1328, the six-year-old Joan was married to the four-year-old David II. and, less than a year later, Robert the Bruce died.
The English have always re-written history to benefit England but, unfortunately for them the documents still exist and can be made to be produced by the International courts.
Nice one Robert,
And if that explanation is added to the sovereignty SIMPLIFICATION that Scotland ‘allows’ itself to be ‘ruled’ whereby England just is (ruled).
Proof, that we stand (fast) by the (real) rights of history.
Okay, I stand corrected. He was Secretary of State.
But being unaware of something is inarguably a matter of personal character. It has nothing to do with politics.
In my previous post I was unaware he was Secretary of State for Scotland. That doesn’t make me a politician.
@ Robert Peffers – *curtseys* – Absolutely your best yet – would you enjoy having these lectures peer re-viewed so that we can really use them well?
Whilst Cameron was pontificating on the Corporate Media today about the need to attack ISIL, GCHQ was using its surveillance capabilities to report Kurdish positions to the Turks.
Kurds have lost twice the numbers to the Turks that they have lost to ISIL.
US bombers supporting the Kurds in Syria, while Britian reporting location of Kurdish units for their NATO ally to bomb.
Cameron publicly claiming to want to bomb ISIL in Syria so opponents of this option look bad, while effectively allied to ISIL.
I am sure the BBC will cover this story very, very soon.
@ David McDowell
I doubt if anyone was disagreeing with your assessment of political vs. personal – I certainly wasn’t. It was merely the justification that needed a bit of tidying up.
If even 1% of voters were ‘blindy
misled’, to ‘remain under the
impression’ that the fmr Sec of State
was an honest character then a crime
(fraud) has been committed.
Toryboy world certainly got their tails up for JC Labour. If hard core toryboy’s stay in control of the UK til 2025, 2030, ah what’s the point, we’re all fcuked north of the border in toryboy world.
Iain Martin ?@iainmartin1 14m14 minutes ago
Dear Labour MPs. You are going to have to remove Corbyn or start a new party. Patriotic duty.
30 retweets 32 likes
Reply Retweet 30
Like 32
More
Iain Martin ?@iainmartin1 16m16 minutes ago
Have tried to resist it, I regret low abuse against Clegg, politeness better. But Corbyn is in a different class. Is he a bit dim? Seriously
Chris Deerin Retweeted
Patrick O’Flynn ?@oflynnmep 19m19 minutes ago
Lab has some proud things in its history. Am baffled it is offering Corbyn to UK public just because some students got excited one summer.
Chris Deerin Retweeted
Kevin Schofield ?@PolhomeEditor 3h3 hours ago
Tonight’s PLP was brutal for @jeremycorbyn. One MP: “I’ve never seen that level of discontent. I’ve never seen the PLP so angry.”
As long as ones house price is untroubled etc
I’m sure I remember Alistair Carfuffle claiming that he was technically not a minister of state at the time of the lie, and that had he been, it would have been a resigning matter.
I wouldn’t write off entirely the 30% who say ‘never’. An uncle of mine was a cast iron ‘No’ until the Nick Robinson ‘he did not answer the question’ report.
same here my workmate who was a staunch no now has changed to dont know after scottish labour vote against trident
he now thinks they are just saying that to get more votes knowing they cant implement such a thing
@David Mc Dowell,
You do realise your last post is the conviction of Carmichael. If you can see the difference ,so can the judges.
UKOK far right use anything and everything to take down JC. Why don’t you just nuke em all torygirl?
link to thetimes.co.uk
Corbynistas won’t protect us from terrorists
Rachel Sylvester
@ Robert Peffers at 9:30pm ”The English have always re-written history to benefit England but, unfortunately for them the documents still exist and can be made to be produced by the International courts.”
Great post Robert. Another for my ‘Robert Peffers’ archive.
It matters not what establishment party is in power since none of them has Scotland’s best interests at heart.Quite the opposite in fact,especially if an apologetic Uncle Jock happens to be Prime Minister.
Sensibledave is right when he says English people don’t care about Scotland’s Independence.
He would be more accurate/honest if he said they don’t care about Scotland full stop,and why would they.They have their own problems.
The same is true of all their MPs also,not to mention the 3 Uncle Jock MPs and the 30% never neverland Scots.
Scotland would suffer whether or not Labour was in UK Gov for eternity.
Well done the Republic of Ireland. So every home nation is going to Euro 2016 apart from Scotland. Bugger. How bad is that? Curse you SNP! Strachan’s Nasty Putdowns.
The second half of the Scottish campaign was utterly dire. I’ll bet a toffee apple that if Scotland start poorly in the World Cup Qualifiers Strachan will walk and we will be back at square one again. The writing is already on the wall after wee Gord said he would stick with pretty much the same squad. That squad of players, and Strachan’s negative tactics, were not good enough to get us third place in a group where third should have been the bare minimum target. A tried and tested and failed group of players should be getting the boot along with that nasty wee bugger.
Oh well at least when Sevco get promoted to the premier league, for the first time in their history, the Scottish manager will have more players to pick from other than just Celtic ones. I’m so happy about the prospect of this that I actually feel like break dancing.
‘…by 2012 4 million children in Britain were going without at least two everyday necessities,up from 2 million in 1999…until 2008 New Labour had been seriously relaxed about financial regulation and also about the wealth of the super rich…they did nothing to narrow the range of inequalities in incomes and wealth overall…
Part of that wealth grab had been achieved by the group of New Labour government ministers who had become so rich during and after holding office. They were replaced by a coalition government,stuffed full of even richer multi millionaire ministers ‘ ( Dorling 2015 ‘Injustice’)
A depressing scenario but it is not inevitable that Scotland colludes with such distorted politics, it is imperative that we keep voting for our party of independence.
galamcennalath says:
16 November, 2015 at 5:18 pm
“What is more relevant IMO is will the SNP get an absolute majority in 2021? Because when there is not an SNP majority, Indy is completely off the table.”
—–
We should be concentrating on 2016 first.
Hopefully we will be looking at a second referendum by 2021
But there is always the option of playing the system if we have the right circumstances.
Perhaps they should have done it this time.
Alex Salmond or a major SNP figure quits to set up the ‘Independence Party’, standing only for the list vote. Yes we have ‘RISE’, but that just seems like a rebranding of the SSP.
For something like this to be effective you need big names with a chance of getting at least 15% of the vote.
To be honest, I can see this happening anyway if enough people start to get impatient.
The SNP splitting into a gradualist Devo max party, and an independence first party.
Carbuncle was a minister when he lied but not an MP. See below extract from rules.
What happens to the Government when Parliament is dissolved?
Parliament and Government are two separate institutions.
The Government does not resign when Parliament is dissolved. Government ministers remain in charge of their departments until after the result of the election is known and a new administration is formed.
The Prime Minister is appointed by the Sovereign. Ministers are appointed by the Sovereign on the advice of the Prime Minister. These appointments are independent of the role of MP. Ministers retain their ministerial titles after dissolution, but those who were MPs can no longer use the MP suffix.
The Cabinet Manual sets out the main laws, rules and conventions affecting the conduct and operation of government.
Read more about Parliament: Parliament and Government
GOV.UK: How government works (external site)
GOV.UK: The Cabinet Manual (external site)
if you have tears, prepare to shed some
link to blogs.new.spectator.co.uk
One of the biggest liars the BBC ever invented says stuff-
When asked by Lynn Barber whether he was ‘shocked’ by the way the BBC ‘rubbish Jeremy Corbyn’, Robinson replied ‘yes’:
‘Yes. Oddly, although I was off work, I did drop a note to a few people after his first weekend saying this is really interesting and we owe it to the audience to sound as if we’re interested.’
To sound as if the BBC is interested. He was certainly interested in Alex Salmond. Do any of these spivy toryboys even know what truth actually means though.
BBC r4 said goodbye to super unionist man Jim Naughty and the rest is toryboy world UKOK history.
BBC’s gonna getcha YESers.
Watched Eleanor Bradford, Gordon Brown and his wife Sarah get a lovely puff from BBC vote SLab Scotland teatime tv news tonight. It was really weally lovely, Gordon looked young and handsome, Sarah looked like a regal queen in her finery, Bradford sounded grovelsome and obsequious, so you can tell Nick Robinson’s in charge now.
@ Ananurhing at 10.29
He was a minister when he lied, but not when he admitted it. As part of his admission he said that if he had still been a minister right then, he would have had to resign (but only from his ministerial post, not as an MP). His words could also have meant that if he had been forced to admit it while still a minister, he’d have resigned, even if he hadn’t been an MP at the time.
Even his apology/admission was slippery!
@mr obycyek
Strachan’s negative tactics? We scored 4 against Poland and 3 against the World Champions Germany. The Georgia game done us.
Poland have a world class player. Germany have a few. Ireland like us don’t have any and we took care of them. It was the group of death.
Great article from Derek Bateman. Just about sums up the situation.
‘Bateman: SNP would do better by ignoring pressure to respond to Labour jibes.’
…. By incompetence and corruption Labour are now in the kind of shambles that might mean a Tory government for 20 years. At what point do we stand up to being bullied by them and stop paying them off?
…. To argue that there is no option but to commit to restore all losses is as ludicrous as it is dishonest. There is no way Scotland can continue to do little more than ameliorate Westminster cuts as they are lined up to hit in wave after wave.
…. Is devolved democracy really reduced to being the binmen of Britain, clearing up the Unionists’ shit?
…. a desperate last throw of the dice to make impact before next May? Could it be more transparent? Are we really expected to believe that the same people who cheered supermarkets warning of higher prices on the shelf or applauded banks threatening to leave or stomped in delight when a Tory Chancellor said it was his currency not Scotland’s…are we really expected to believe they now put poverty at the forefront of all policy options?
….. Is that why Unionists still delight in reminding us of the oil price when thousands have lost their income?
…..We need to remind them that we are in this mess because they worked their scrawny behinds off to save a Britain in which the Tories can operate like rapacious robber barons.
Is there no price we won’t pay? If Labour believed in social justice why did they – and why do they – still put Union before all else?
…. As the new darling of the Scottish Right, Adam Tomkins, said: put your money where your mouth is. The Tories will brutalise the low paid and you socialists in Scotland can cough up to pay the bill, losing the SNP votes. That is the way our country is governed and now Labour are yet again aiding and abetting their political soul mates…because their real enemy is the SNP, not the Tories, and they will use the poor of Scotland as a weapon against them.
…. We are already reduced to a society where people need help from foodbanks to eat. How low can we get before there really is a fightback? The first challenge is to stop these cuts going ahead, not opening up divisions in Scotland. Making it known you plan to cover the losses in advance makes it easier for Osborne.
…. Maybe they can agree on the areas where the cuts will be made or even a tax rise. Then they can confront the Tories together. But do you think that’s likely? I don’t, because I don’t think Labour are serious and I don’t think their costings, if there ever are any, will stand up to scrutiny. As I say, this isn’t an anti-poverty social justice issue, it is a rescue-Labour-from-electoral-disaster issue.
link to newsnet.scot
Robert P, I don’t appreciate the condescending tone or the long diatribe where you eloquently provide lots of history but yet again never clearly state what the sovereign people of Scotland can do to achieve independence. I keep reading your posts expecting you to commit to something but i still haven’t seen it. Maybe it occurred before i started reading the articles on this website.
The articles and content on this website are invaluable for the cause of independence but for the uninformed and those who would like to know more, some of the intellectual content can be very daunting. Keeping facts simple and in plain language would help everyone and not intimidate new readers.
I’ll continue reading the articles but I won’t be reading any more comments or making my own.
Its not always easy to put into words the myriad of thoughts running through my head and to be accused of not understanding what is going on because of the way you interpreted what i wrote. I don’t have the time or inclination to debate. Don’t bother responding because i promise you I won’t be reading it.
I must say I am surprised that only 19% of Scots gave Labour 0 out of ten for winning the next election.
Given the state of the English (and Welsh) PLP v’s their leader (and membership), how do they feel that this situation is actually salvageable any time soon?
I genuinely don’t know if the media have communicated this situation clearly in Scotland where the above survey was taken. From what I have seen the Tory side of the corporate Media seems to have been covering it – maybe I am not seeing the Scottish version?
Former Salmond adviser says current case for Scots independence ‘is dead’
The irony is the last section of the BBC article is called “Propaganda Machine”
Onwards, do you really think “the SNP splitting into a gradualist Devo max party, and an independence first party” is a desirable or likely outcome?
I actually regard talk like that as a form of treason and trolling mixed together and can only wonder at your motives.
You’re talking here about the dissolution of the whole movement as if it was a question of whether to have scrambled or fried eggs for breakfast.
If that sort of fragmentation happens, Wings, Yes, the SNP, everything, is finished.
You say “we have RISE” — who has RISE? RISE will be lucky to keep one single deposit. Unfathomable tripe. Nobody has RISE because nobody wants RISE. It’s a total non-starter of a party led by a crude Marxist with about as much charisma as a used condom.
David Russell at 7.47pm …….. The Greens aren’t reliable supporters of independence , many of them don’t support Independence.
He must have another plan then,maybe one with our own currency.
The ins and out of whether Carmicheal was still an MP or not are irrelevant as is the nature of his disclosure of the memo. Those are not being considered by the electoral court.
What is being considered is whether his lie about not having anything to do with it was designed to help his re-election. That’s where it’s the hight of folly to insist on any lie as being political as if there was any meaningful distinction then a political lie is the kind that would break electoral law.
There’s a lot of misdirection being thrown about. Just remember the original punt by his defenders was that the memo was an attack on Sturgeon who wasn’t standing against him so didn’t actually count. He’s fallen back to claiming he actually believed it to be true so it wasn’t really a lie. Remember also that the reason the judges asked for more information is because they accepted the plaintifs contention and, perhaps, set a precedent that lying about your own character in order to get elected breaks electoral law.
I doubt if Corbyn will last five years as Labour leader, if Labour continues to poll poorly by early 2018 there will be moves against him and his shadow cabinet: “he had his chance, the party gave him over two years and we’re still … ” enter probably Chukka or Yvette as a quick shoo-in.
Labour MPs are terminally split 80/20 against Corbyn, too many careerists and empty suits see him as a barrier rather than a leader. Poll ratings in a couple of years will give the right excuse for a leadership challenge or a vote of no confidence.
Westminster politics is not about the principled leader bringing his righteous and moral troops to govern a country on the back of an enlightened vote. It’s a parliament and establishment built from empire, a grasp of power, how to get it and how to retain it.
Corbyn, even though he could be the most caring and principled politician in parliament, doesn’t have enough allies on the Left of the party to allow him to survive as leader or carry him into office. Too many in Labour think like Tories these days.
Onwards at 10.53
The time has never been better than as quickly as possible for another referendum. By 2021 austerity will have become the norm and accepted,the unionists will have had six years to demonise the SNP and its leadership with Nicola as comprehensively undermined as Alex Salmond was long before then and the youthful vigour of our new young support will have been destroyed.
We win the May election and we prepare for a referendum as soon as possible thereafter, because if we do almost wipe out the Labour Party the dynamic with throw the remnants of it to us and the independence battle will be between Scotland and the Tories (and its faltering press).
The Quebecois waited too long
@ Ian H 11:16 – please, please do not take offence at Robert, he’s like that with everyone, myself included. Our expression allows him to hone in and elucidate.
posts at 11.23 and 11.32
The fragmentation of the anti establishment vote among RISE,the Greens and Solidarity will result on the list in putting Labour and Tory MSPs in
The Greens are indeed unreliable on the independence question as it is far from unanimous among them and splitting of the radical left vote will marginalise them (as usual).
It has to be SNP1 and SNP2 and if the main players in RISE had any sense or strategic vision they would know that too.
@ Ian H says at 11:16 pm ”I’ll continue reading the articles but I won’t be reading any more comments or making my own.”
Ian it would be REAL shame if you decided not to comment on here because of this. I get a bit of flack at times, and that includes from Robert, but to be honest it’s like water off a ducks back. I (we) just accept that although most of us are united in one common cause we all have our personal differences / points of view. The different points of view I feel make people really think, generate debate and lead to more profound analysis. We often disagree with each other but get over it and move on. EVERYONES contribution is invaluable on here including YOURS.
Angra Mainyu says:
16 November, 2015 at 11:23 pm
Onwards, do you really think “the SNP splitting into a gradualist Devo max party, and an independence first party” is a desirable or likely outcome?
———
No I don’t, but I can see there could be the possibility of a branch-off, if enough people could get impatient for a second referendum.
The Alex Bell article the unionists are gleefully pleasuring themselves over shows the reason why. I think it’s pretty obvious that Nicola doesn’t want a second referendum in the next few years until circumstances improve.
link to bbc.co.uk
His opinion was possibly meant to trigger a debate, but it was an idiotic way to go about it – handing a few selective quotes to unionists to use out of context in the run up to a Holyrood election. Perhaps there is more to the story and there is a reason he is an ‘ex-advisor’. I don’t know.
That said – there is a valid point there. The 2014 economic case has changed in that it is harder to win a referendum with a low oil price than it is with a high oil price.
Either we wait till the oil price recovers. Or we wait until further improvements in the onshore economy outweigh any losses in the offshore economy.
Personally, I accept a case for independence that admits there will be short term challenges to overcome for the prize of a more democratic country and the opportunity for far higher growth rates.
Of course, there are also big savings to be made in doing things differently from the start, so a direct ‘now and then’ comparison is silly. But the unionists will only focus on the oil price if another referendum was held in the short term.
It’s obvious even on here there are different viewpoints – with people split over accepting the limited Scotland bill, or rejecting it entirely in favour of a second referendum.
Personally I would accept it as a temporary measure, (assuming the framework is acceptable), and see the SNP campaign for further devolved tax powers to be put to a referendum as the next step. Corporation tax, land tax, broadcasting etc.
That changes the landscape, and hopefully gets us in a position where people see the logic of upgrading to full independence.
Or makes it easier if voters see the Tories refusing reasonable powers that Scots have given a direct mandate for.
The worst scenario I can see would be rejecting the Scotland bill, ending up with nothing, then seeing support for independence start to slip along with the chances of winning another majority.
I don’t like an ‘All or Nothing’ approach.
Angra Mainyu
Onwards wants to push a devo max referendum. I could not disagree more and having read post after post pushing this gradualist stuff in the wake of devo max being extinguished in the commons I am struggling to understand where he is coming from.
Could something be less ‘on the table’.
100% of the Scottish electorate could vote for devo max and we would not get control of broadcasting. That is as close to an incontrovertible fact as I can get right now.
If we were all immortals, like in Highlander I would be prepared to go down Onwards’ route but do we really want to be discussing Scottish Independence in a car park under Madison Square Gardens in 500 years time?
@Tam Jardine,
If we had a referendum on more powers, broadcasting would obviously be in there. Everyone here wants independence, it’s just the best way to get there that is debatable.
I do see the attraction of a referendum for more powers as the next step, because:
1. I don’t see a second indyref likely in the next 2 or 3 years.
2. It could help to win a majority next year.
3. It gives a direct mandate from the Scottish people.
4. If rejected, it makes winning a 2nd indyref easier – as they can’t credibly offer more powers as a last minute bribe.
However if independence shoots up in the polls, then I would say go for it. We just aren’t seeing a majority yet, even in the current circumstances in the aftermath of another Tory government.
Onwards & Tam,
There is no logical, natural, or necessary disjoint here — on the devo-max versus full independence question, your positions are not mutually exclusive. It’s a false dichotomy. It might seem otherwise but that’s down to you guys wanting to win debating points.
You should bury this argument for the good of us all. I’ve watched political parties and causes implode over crap like this.
And as I’ve said before, I support both positions and see devo-max as a stepping stone to independence. I get the point that westminster could never be trusted again to deliver devo-max since they ripped us off with the Vow, but on that basis you’ve no reason to believe they are any more likely to deliver independence.
Events are greater than the plans of man. We need to be patient. We need to trust the SNP. And we need to let things develop. There is no alternative, it’s either that or oblivion.
Mmm, result of 2016 Devo-Max referendum in Scotland: YES 68%, NO 32%.
Westminster (Dowsing Street junior postroom spokesperson): “Very interesting result of the referendum in Scotland we will of course take this fully into account when we consider setting up a Constitutional Commission in our next term of office. We would expect it to sit for oooh, 10 or 20 years and come to its conclusions at which time next time we are in office we might consider its findings. Or our grandkids might.”
@yesindyref2
Sure that might happen. It’s just a lot harder to get away with it politically when there is a specific mandate, rather than 56 MP elected on a general principle of ‘standing up for Scotland.’
What is the current situation? Limited devolution likely where Scotland enters a slow relative decline, or NOTHING AT ALL if rejected.
I’m leaning towards taking it, and seeing it as a springboard.
Income tax devolution is useless, but it will be soon seen as unstable. The pressure will be to add powers rather than give them up, or see independence as far preferable.
@Angra Mainyu
“Events are greater than the plans of man. We need to be patient.”
Agreed. A lot can change in a short time.
Personally I see a huge threat for the SNP in this Syria situation.
Syria is not Iraq, and there could be a huge misjudgement in the public mood by taking an anti-war line if there is a vote on air strikes, and if NATO and British troops eventually go in. ISIS is hated by the average person.
Any major terrorist attack in the UK could well see us leaving the EU to put a lid on immigration. Would that help the chances of independence ?
In a couple of years, we could be tied to an UK outside Europe, in full ‘support our troops’ mode, part of a NATO war. Bodies coming home in solemn street parades, Union jackery everywhere, Big launch party for QE aircraft carrier. Rule Britannia etc etc. Would that help the chances of indyref 2 ?
@ Dcanmore
totally correct Dcanmore whats more Corybn is an establishment plant they know by putting in a “leftie socialist” right out the 1970s that the elderly voting population of England will reject it totally ushering in an other 20 plus year Tory reign until they are so hated, then the Labour party will wheel out another Tony Blair mark 2 and it will be time for the caring face of the establishment who rip you off with a big smile and a sorry but we need to fix the mess left by the Tories,where as the Tories just rip you off right in your face and mock you while doing it.
Its Foot all over again ,why is it when ever you get a “socialist leftie” in England its some deranged hippie and more like a liberal than a socialist but then that is the picture they want to make socialism,its quite ingenuous for a bunch of fascists.
Red Tory/Blue Tory there is no difference or maybe they should be called Westminster Tories.
Ian H, the good news is now you have read one Robert Peffers post, you do not have to read any more. They all basically say the same thing.
Angra Mainyu
I fail to see where the false dichotomy is. One position is wrong and has been proven to be wrong. It is as simple as that.
And by not leaning on that proof, not leveraging that proof- instead in saying: “right- this time lets really tell Westminster what we want them to give us- this time they HAVE to listen” we would undermine our whole position.
How can you say that the Scottish people want a referendum on Devo-Max without conceding that A it is Westminster’s decision to make and B Westminster has not specifically blocked devo-max already.
Onwards
I don’t get your points 1 to 4 at all.
1. I fail to see whether you not seeing another referendum for the next 2 or 3 years has any relevance. I don’t either- in fact I would rather not have a referendum just for the sake of weakening the SNP’s position and reinforcing the UK governments position.
2. SNP will win a majority next year on current polling- changing their position on this could help but we can’t know how it would play- you think people who would otherwise not have voted for the SNP would turn to them when they are offering another referendum in the next term. Other folk will switch off because we are being asked to trust a party on something undeliverable.
3. The SNP already have that with a direct majority in Holyrood and Westminster. Ah- we need another mandate…?
4. Of course last minute bribes will be used in a second indyref- why would they not be? You don’t think they can be because….
There is no need to alter the substance of Scotland’s Independence arguments. They are watertight and incontestable. The problem was, and remains, the Unionist media being in full command of the agenda, where the positive case for Independence was trivialised, and gaping vacuum in the positive case for the Union being glossed over.
We don’t need more winning arguments. We have got them. We don’t need another SNP majority at Holyrood. We have got one. We don’t need another SNP majority at Westminster. We have got one. Point of fact, the biggest fear I have in such achievements is the risk these are high water marks from which we can only fall back. Yet, with everything combined, it is not enough to win our Independence. Where do we get stronger?
What we do not have is ANY meaningful control of, or answer to, the Unionist propaganda beamed into our Livingrooms on an hourly basis.
Until that is addressed, Labour, and the other Unionists, know full well that they don’t have to try very hard controlling Scotland. The BBC and media will do it for them. It will also do it much more effectively than their amateurish shambling ever could.
Tam,
In essence you are saying we need to press for full independence because we tried pressing for devo-max and they ripped us off. Corollary to that, anyone who disagrees is a fool or something.
The problem is you have it back to front. We pressed for independence last year. We tried your approach; we don’t need to guess how it might go. There isn’t one good reason to think that another referendum on independence would go differently next time.
The Vow, as much as it was an highly effective political device, a deception of the lowest order, didn’t truly have any formal, well-defined, essence to it.
A campaign for devo-max/FFA would be guaranteed to win, on the other hand. If it was defined clearly and concisely, leaving no room for interpretation, you could make it near impossible for them to fail to deliver.
The big question in all of this is ‘what if anything will the SNP press for, and when?’
When countering unionist lies about the constitution…
Mr Peffers’ explanation of historical inaccuracies cannot be simplified into bullet points.
There must be a narrative, showing links between important events.
The reader may have to re-read to understand the flow, eg royal marriages, names of treaties etc.
Any repetition or convolution is nessecary to create a focus, to let the reader know what the ‘point of view’ is.
Shakespeare wrote a good Scottish play, and like many other plays, it has absolutely brutal establishment power struggles as a backdrop to a marriage coup or political scandal. Top entertainment.
Not much has changed in 500 years, the same ‘landed’ families, and the new rich (in the old mould) still rule the roost.
We should let people know who benefitted (and still benefit) from other’s misfortune.
@Early Ball
Poland scored the exact same amount of goals against us and Germany scored five to our three. In those four matches we took a total of two points from a possible twelve. Ireland despite having no world class players took four points from those world champions while we took zero. In the game away to Poland Strachan made substitutions late in the game when we were 2-1 up that invited them onto us and they ended up scoring. That is an example of negative tactics. In the game away to the Republic we were set up not to lose when Wee Gord should have had the team starting on the offensive. If we had won that game in Ireland we would have inflicted a massive psychological blow on them. Instead we only got a draw. Later on when we blew it in Georgia we actually gave the Irish and the Poles a massive shot in the arm. Some players, staff and pundits for those countries all admitted that in subsequent interviews.
Where is the progress that some in the Scottish media keeps talking about? At the start of the campaign Scotland looked a half decent team playing with real purpose. In the second half of the campaign Scotland looked utterly hopeless at times and it was clear to me that Strachan and his backroom staff did not know how to turn it around. Football is very simple but you get people like Strachan who tries to overthink it and make it complicated.
The group of death you say? My arse. Iceland had a tougher group than Scotland and look how well they did. Scotland only had to finish third to have a crack at the play offs and we blew it.
You could almost write the script for the 2020 general election.
Jeremy Corbin and John MacDonnell’s spending plans will be put under intense scrutiny from the Tories and the media.
It will simply be project fear re-incarnated from 2015 in England as the electorate in the south of England are warned about higher taxes, the loss of their jobs, the threat to security etc, etc.
Angra Mainyu says:
“A campaign for devo-max/FFA would be guaranteed to win”
True, but what then?
Even with a democratic mandate in Scotland, even if the package is precisely defined, WM will not deliver it.
They might fudge some new commission and give a few more devolution crumbs after umpteen years.
Look at it from a WM perspective. Why would they allow Scotland Home Rule within the UK, when there is absolutely nothing in it for rUK?
The Establishment has much to lose. Oil revenues, yes, but also issues of status and control. What if Scotland makes a better job of running itself internally? What do they do when rUK citizens want things to be done, like they are in Scotland?
DevoMax is a distraction from the only way out of this mess. My concern is we waste valuable years on a quest for DM which seems guaranteed to achieve nothing.
There is an inescapable reality often quoted – we take independence, we need to be given the hand down of DevoMax.
Angra Mainyu
We pressed for independence last year and with 45% of the vote were close to reaching our goal. A miss is as good as a mile as they say.
From last September until last Monday we pressed for the “extensive new powers” or devo-max or federalism or home rule. Returning 95% of MPs to Westminster on that ticket in May we were miles away, far further away from devo-max.
In fact, Devo-max is now further away than ever. How long will it be before the Scotland Bill is implemented in full? APD- the only meaningful lever as far as I can tell is going to be, what 2018?
Just imagine how much appetite the English MPs have for further devolution to Scotland. The whole thing has been booted into the long grass- almost Calmanesque.
I don’t think people that disagree with me are idiots. I think ignoring how Westminster ‘listened’ to the representatives of the people of Scotland during the passage of the Scotland Bill is pretty crazy.
I think expecting a devo-max referendum (which would have to be agreed by Westminster and would be completely non-binding) to then sail through another Smith style commission, through parliament, through the lords and back through parliament leaving us with a shiny new constitutional settlement that is fit for purpose is to ignore everything we have learnt in the last year is crazy.
The message people were taking to the streets, to workplaces, town halls and pubs during the long indyref campaign still applies.
The message needs tweaked, built around a written constitution and we need to ditch the currency union plan. And instead of 250,000 copies we need an updated wee blue book through every door in Scotland a month before the vote.
The euro ref will be upon us a year before we receive APD… I think this is a time for hollowing out the unionists at Holyrood, agreeing a proposed constitution and crowd-funding WBB2. That is my take on it anyway.
@galamcennalath
Couldn’t agree more, but there are more practical barriers to a devo max referendum.
Devo anything, as you rightly point out, is in the ‘gift’ of central government. By right they have a direct say on whether there is even a referendum to be had on the issue and by right, such a referendum would/should include the rest of the UKs electorate were it even granted. Quite simply, not only do they represent the establishment, but the interests of the 55 odd million other souls on these islands. Scots could arbitrarily hold referendums till the cows came home on devolution, but the representation of the rest of the electorate in these islands could simply say no way Jose and they’d be perfectly within their rights to do so.
The whole point of the UK parliament is shared governance within a unitary state construct. Devolved powers are in the gift of that construct and seein’ as how that construct carries a MASSIVE ‘in house’ democratic deficit in favour of the establishment view…
The Scottish electorate already mandated 56 MPs in May to carry forward their wish to table FFA as an option in the Scotland Bill debates. This they duly did and the motion was unsurprisingly crushed for all the obvious reasons.
The only referendum which Scots can hold as their own, as is their inalienable right, is that of independence yes or no.
The weighted average chance of winning based on those responses is 37%. Y’know, for info.
“The weighted average chance of winning based on those responses is 37%. Y’know, for info.”
Well, that’s the mean score of people’s OPINIONS, yes. Not their chances of winning.
Tam Jardine says:
17 November, 2015 at 12:34 pm
From last September until last Monday we pressed for the “extensive new powers” or devo-max or federalism or home rule. Returning 95% of MPs to Westminster on that ticket in May we were miles away, far further away from devo-max.
In fact, Devo-max is now further away than ever. How long will it be before the Scotland Bill is implemented in full? APD- the only meaningful lever as far as I can tell is going to be, what 2018?
—-
Scots didn’t vote Westminster MP’s specifically for Devo-Max. Can’t anyone remember Nicola on the TV debates? They were elected mostly on an anti-austerity, pro-Scottish agenda. And in a FPTP system, 50% of the vote isn’t a mandate for further devolution.
And independence still doesn’t have a majority in the polls even after the Tories were elected again. Even after our steel industry is closing down. Even after HMRC ‘better together’ jobs are being lost. Even after wind power subsidies have been withdrawn and Longannet is closing because of grid connection charges. Even after MP’s made a mockery of the vow, helped by the vagueness of the wording.
The fact remains that low oil prices make a second referendum harder to win in the short term, together with a possible backlash if it comes too soon.
And without a specific mandate for what devolved powers Scotland wants, the Tories can insist that the 55% want little change.
The Scotland Bill won’t be implemented in full until 2017/2018 so that gives time to improve it.
The way I see it is – What gives a better platform when we do have a second referendum ?
1. No change if the Scotland bill is rejected. A re-run of the last referendum, but with lower oil prices.
2. Flawed devolution with the current Scotland bill.
3. Enhanced devolution from a position of further powers, if endorsed in a devolution referendum.
I understand a referendum for federalism could be rejected out of hand, as it would involve major changes / referendums in England/Wales also.
But a referendum to upgrade the Scotland bill with ‘reasonable’ extra powers would be much harder to reject if the Scottish people voted for it.
Corporation tax would be hard to avoid if Northern Ireland is getting it. National Insurance is effectively another income tax. More control over energy policy and broadcasting in Scotland. Land taxation powers. Powers to introduce further taxes. Minimum wage.
If the SNP put together a reasonable Devo-Plus package that might actually get some cross party support.
It would be very hard for Labour to stand with the Tories again.
The whole point is to change the landscape and build the importance of Holyrood in people’s lives, together with an improved Scottish broadcasting network less focused on London.
So independence becomes a closer step.
Onward
I don’t want to repeat myself and don’t want to keep battering my head against a brick wall. If you choose to believe that Devo Max or even Devo Plus is a remote possibility then I cannot stop you.
If you choose to believe that Westminster will agree to a referendum and support devolution of most if not all taxes, all levers of power, control over welfare, energy and broadcasting against their own interests, reducing the power of their own parliament in the process and reducing the Westminster budget significantly I cannot stop you.
I feel despondant reading your posts- its why I’m getting snippy. If indy supporters aren’t getting this what chance have we got with the general public? Did you watch Parliament Live on the 9th?
You say: “Scots didn’t vote Westminster MP’s specifically for Devo-Max. Can’t anyone remember Nicola on the TV debates? They were elected mostly on an anti-austerity, pro-Scottish agenda. And in a FPTP system, 50% of the vote isn’t a mandate for further devolution.”
I remember the message- lets send SNP MPs to Westminster in numbers to hold Westminster’s feet to the fire and make them honour the vow for extensive new powers.
Also- in FPTP turnout, majority, percentages are all irrelevant.
The only thing that counts is number of MPs or rather how many votes in the chamber. Under FPTP 56 out of 59 is almost as strong a mandate as one can envisage.
If that mandate for extensive, further powers is completely powerless it means that we are completely powerless. What makes you think that a devolution referendum with a maybe 80% yes vote would have an unstoppable mandate at Westminster when 56 out of 59 MPs returned have been totally, almost perfectly ignored?
Go back and watch the debate from the 9th November then come back here and tell me that parliament will one day grant devolution of broadcasting, energy, welfare, taxation. And they will have to because the Scottish people voted for it.
Onwards says:
“a referendum to upgrade the Scotland bill with ‘reasonable’ extra powers would be much harder to reject if the Scottish people voted for it.”
“If the SNP put together a reasonable Devo-Plus package that might actually get some cross party support. It would be very hard for Labour to stand with the Tories again.
“an improved Scottish broadcasting network less focused on London.”
… all I can say is that you clearly have greater faith in Westminster’s idea of democracy and the Tories’ sense of being reasonable than I could ever have.
I think the last two years have made it crystal clear what we can expect from WM and Tories of every colour, very little at best, with open hostility and abuse at worst.
The majority of the English working class vote Tory. Scotland is irrelevant to Westminster GE. Scotland gets policies from who ever the rest the UK votes for generally, since 1928. Only the SNP can protect Scotland from Westminster disasterous economic, social and foreign policies. That is why Scotland is more productive than the rest of the UK.
@Tam Jardine
The problem is that they say they HAVE honoured the vow for extensive new powers. The problem was that the vow was kept deliberately vague just so they could pull this stunt.
I disagree that 55 SNP MP’s gave a clear mandate for Devo-Max. They were elected for all sorts of reasons under FPTP.
And anyway, we could only influence that if we held the balance of power. It would have been a better outcome if we had 30 MPs with the balance of power, than 56 MPs with a Tory majority.
So without a specific mandate we will be ignored and called ungrateful grievance merchants.
This is about taking back the agenda in the short term.
I want independence, but have to accept the harsh truth that we just had a referendum and we lost. Why would we win it anytime soon with lower oil prices that the unionists will bang on and on about as if that is the main issue. ?
If we did get a specific mandate for more powers, not even the extent of Devo-Max or FFA or federalism.. Just a few more taxes and partial control over energy and broadcasting. Enough to make the Scotland bill worthwhile in the meantime.
Now, if that was rejected then the Scottish people who do want more devolution have a genuine grievance that makes it more likely they will support independence.
“If we did get a specific mandate for more powers, not even the extent of Devo-Max or FFA or federalism.. Just a few more taxes and partial control over energy and broadcasting.”
Calm down Che- are you sure you are no aiming too high? FFS.
Your tactic in the midst of this great period of upheaval in Scotland political landscape when we finally have a majority in Holyrood AND a vast majority of Scottish MPs in Westminster is to aim so low that Westminster might just give us something.
So if they refuse it might wake up a few folk up to independence. And if we aim low enough that they give us partial control of energy policy, what then?
I’m done – enjoy your evening.
@ Tam Jardine.
So what is your grand plan to make independence more winnable ?
This article predicts 10 more years of the Tories. They are basically laughing in our faces, and we still don’t have a majority for independence.
The harsh reality is that too many Scots are simply pussies.
And now we have lower oil prices which doesn’t exactly help.
Should we just wait it out in the hope that everyone suddenly grows a pair?
Or should we attempt to at least do something in the meantime to move us closer to the goal ?
Reject the new Scotland Bill at Holyrood.
Nicola needs to address the country and lay out the reasons for this.
Hollow out slab, tories and lib dems in May. Then councils the year after.
After May we need to unite the indy parties – big yearly or biannual conference to hammer out currency issue and develop a written constitution. Develop Yes 2 structure from this.
Campaign hard to remain in Europe but prepare for snap indyref if England drags us out (a distinct possibility).
As for Wingers, instead of 250,000 copies we need an updated wee blue book through every single door in Scotland a month before the next referendum. This will need funded.
Also, we need to all apply for jobs that come up in the BBC and the rest of the MSM.
Galamcennalath,
“Look at it from a WM perspective. Why would they allow Scotland Home Rule within the UK, when there is absolutely nothing in it for rUK?”
Because they run the risk of us opting for full independence, obviously. And they’d still have a say in some matters such as defence and foreign policy (if only for a few years).
Tam Jardine,
Please try and read carefully. I find it laborious to type as well as re-read points that have already been made.
1) Everything you say about the failure to implement the Vow is usable as a pretext for having another referendum — it is most likely the very first reason that the SNP will cite when they declare another referendum is on the way, as I expect they will.
I do not know how to make the above point clearer but again: it is because they ripped us off on the Vow that we want another referendum. Got that? Good, we can move on…
2) you have repeatedly referred to the General Election and implied that the scale of the SNP victory dictates that Westminster should have in some way thrown out all its Smith Commission plans and handed The SNP Devo-Max on a plate. This is verifiably illogical and factually incorrect. It’s worth remembering that the SNP were fully engaged in the Smith Commission.
But, the SNP manifesto for the General Election didn’t include the term Devo-Max once, to my knowledge. The emphasis was on being “Stronger for Scotland”, a deliberately vague commitment. Had they said “A Vote for us is a vote for a referendum on Devo-Max”, we would probably be anticipating winning a referendum on Devo-Max right now instead of going over this junk. Westminster couldn’t resist such a move because then we really would be into “taking” independence. The SNP couldn’t put that on the manifesto because, as I said, they were engaged in Smith and it would have looked silly.
I would like to know what is meant by “take” given the SNP and presumably the majority of Scottish people are committed to the democratic process and rule of law, but I will understand if you find answering that difficult. My personal view is that sometimes taking is justifiable in certain circumstances but we haven’t reached that stage yet.
It pains me to admit it, but one way or another we do need to respect the fact that a high proportion of us are not convinced by the Independence case just yet. It’s a bit like free speech; I detest their viewpoint and reject their reasons, nevertheless they are entitled to have them and as long as they do we need to accommodate them.
“Why would they allow Scotland Home Rule within the UK, when there is absolutely nothing in it for rUK?”
That has always been the relationship, England to Scotland, pre and post 1707.
It’s all business orientated and motivated.
Would you rather own the shop next door to ensure it doesn’t sell the same goods as you, and you earned great profit from its rent and goods, plus ground valuation, or that it was a competitor in private hands?
Scotland only.
Ergo pointless.
But I do agree with 10 more years regardless, actually, that might be optimistic.
Angra Mainyu
I also am frustrated going over old ground. You argue well for something that will never happen and even with a specific referendum on Devomax (which I concede we have not had) would, even with a specific, strong mandate never be granted.
If you want to use that mandate (as Onwards does) to prove Westminster will not listen to the wishes of the Scottish people, I would argue we are already there.
I can foresee Westminster doing a repeat of what we just experienced. Delay, obstruct, filibuster… eventually reaching a watered down settlement against our own interests many years down the line.
If it something they want to do, like bombing Syria, Westminster can be dynamic. If it is a course contrary to their best interests they are masters at not delivering.
I am fully aware of the difficulties in continuing on the path to independence but I see going down the route you propose as a blind alley.
There is more in your post than I can address at this time. Cheers for now