The bird is the word
As we’ve previously noted, it’s always nice to know that the mainstream media in both Scotland and the UK is keeping an eye on our humble little site. We noticed some strangely familiar statistics popping up in Graham Spiers’ piece on Craig Levein in yesterday’s Sunday Herald, for example.
But today we’re pleased to see the press picking up on a facet of the latest sample of Scottish opinion in a Social Attitudes Survey which we raised during the last one, way back in December 2011 – namely the Scottish electorate’s bizarre confusion over the meaning of independence.
Most of today’s papers report the headline finding of 32% support for a Yes vote in the 2014 referendum, but this time around they’ve also managed to point out the thing we observed last year: if you rephrase the question, asking voters if they think Holyrood rather than Westminster should control every aspect of Scottish government – in other words, that Scotland should be independent – the proportion in favour leaps dramatically upwards. In this case, it shoots by more than a third to 43%, more than twice the number (21%) who support the status quo and considerably more than those in favour of so-called “devo-max” (29%).
With the two surveys producing near-identical results, the only rational conclusion it’s possible to draw is that the i-word itself is the problem. The people of Scotland, it turns out, actually DO want independence more than any other constitutional arrangement, so long as you don’t actually call it that. As the survey itself notes with pleasing understatement, “Evidently there is something of a puzzle to be unravelled here.”
Meanwhile, we have a tip for news and cutting-edge-analysis fans: if you want to see what’s going to be in the Scottish press tomorrow, next week, next month and next year, just keep reading Wings Over Scotland and then wait a while.
I’ve noticed this the more I talk about it to friends and others. You bring up “independence” and people, for whatever reason, naturally think of being seen as a foreigner and the whole process being a gigantic hassle full of strife. But if you simply ask if they think all Scottish affairs should be run in Scotland by people living in Scotland, they nearly always say yes. It’s something that simple that might swing many of the current ‘don’t knows’.
The people of Scotland, it turns out, actually DO want independence more than any other constitutional arrangement, so long as you don’t actually call it that.
Aye. That’s why it most likely won’t be called that come the day, but that is what it will be.
Clearly the referendum question should be changed to: “Do you agree that Scotland should run its own affairs?”
The challenge then seems to be to get people to understand that running your own affairs from your own parliament, elected by you, in your own capital city, which is what the Scottish people appear to want, is in fact independence, which they appear NOT to want.
Simples.
Of course this indicates that the SNP’s much derided ‘don’t frighten the horses’ strategy is the correct one. It’s also why some of the brighter Unionists adopt a hectoring tone when anything less than Nat fundamentalism is espoused – ‘Hae yer referendum right noo, ye royalty-pandering, pound-retaining, social-unionising bag o’ wind’. They know they haven’t anything else to fight inexorable gradualism.
Pah, pah, pah ooo mow mow, pah pah ooo mow mow
Every time I hear a unionist sneer ‘Pfff, that’s not independence’ I want to run over and give them a big hug.
Q. When is Independence NOT Independence?
A. When it is defined by the Bitter Together camp.
Just a wee quickie.
Looks like “Scottish Labour” are in a wee bit of trouble methinks.
link to newsnetscotland.com
I would love it if we could find out what exactly it is that these 11%, who want independence but don’t want independence, actually think independence is, if it’s not all our powers being transferred to Holyrood. You really have to wonder about some people.
“Iain says:
Of course this indicates that the SNP’s much derided ‘don’t frighten the horses’ strategy is the correct one.”
It never ceases to amaze me how people with no discernible success in getting elected continue to tell the SNP how to win a vote, without the slightest hint of irony. I would love to think that if we presented independence as being an instant socialist republican utopia we’d get 70% voting in favour of it, but for some reason I remain unconvinced that this strategy would work.
I’m fully in favour of the Greens and socialists telling their own audiences that their goals can best be achieved under independence, but let’s not forget who’s strategy got us to the point we’re currently at in the first place. The return of sovereignty to Scotland has been a marathon, and no marathon runner won a race by sprinting off when the finishing line is still out of sight. Let’s not throw caution to the wind with two years left to go.
Slowly slowly catchee monkey.
I notice that the BBC link to their article is titled “New research suggest that 32% of people support Scottish independence with 43% backing more powers for Holyrood.”.
The “more powers” should be “all powers” acording to the question asked.
Guess its a bit like saying Mrs hubbards empty cupboard is “less full”.
Weasel words.
Oh well, if it reassures the fearties:
Do you agree that Scotland should have full-blown, no strings attached, mega- Devo-max administered by the Holyrood government?
I’m thinking some one at the BBC has cottoned on to the fact that “devolution of ALL powers” to Scotland = Independence and as such we CAN NOT permit such headlines to viewed by the gullible public. Therefore instead of ALL powers we get the “more powers” garbage.
Following is the link to the ‘Scottish Independence’ part of the BSA report, for what it’s worth:
link to bsa-29.natcen.ac.uk
I often get the sense that Independence is equated to SNP in the minds of many people I talk to. And that brings out the donkey-heeled tribalism. They may agree with the idea but are dead against the brand.
The Better Together crowd are projected in the media as a cross party, non-aligned group. In the same way that the Calman Commission was presented as such. Then the Pro-Scotland campaign is pigeon holed as SNP ‘dominated’.
This also goes with the drip-drip message that an Independent Scotland will be SNP dominated. It is not in the interests of the unionist party’s to engage in the inevitable outcome of a pluralist political landscape of an Indpendent Scotland. That is, in my mind, why we will not see a Labour policy for an Independent Scotland anytime soon.
I bet Labour have post independence plans, but Jim Murphy will be sitting tight on them. If they do not have plans, that is playing very fast and loose with Scotland’s future. Hence I suspect the unionist parties do have plans for a new Scotland, they are political animals, not idiots.
There’s only ONE reason as to why an Independent Scotland would be dominated by the S.N.P. and that is because of the total lack of a viable opposition. It is easily seen why this apparition can be envisaged. You need look no further than the present Holyrood set up. You have the S.N.P. in government but yet, in my view, there is NO viable opposition party who can, or will stand up and argue their points in a reasoned debate. The only thing we get coming from what laughing passes as opposition in Holyrood is accusation, lies, deceit and innuendo.
Until such times as a balanced, viable opposition party is prepared to step up to the plate then unfortunately I don’t see much changing within Holyrood. Post Independence would be the BEST time for any of these parties to step up.