Jump to content
Cold?
Local
Radar
Snow?

Scottish Politics 2011-2017


Recommended Posts

Survation data carried out 4th to 7th April. Panel base 4-9th so the same period yet one has yes at 47% and the other 44% without don't knows. Funny The Scotsman decides to only headline the one with the lowest Yes vote. You can't hide the truth from the voters...they are very desperate indeed!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 30.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Scottish-Irish Skier

    8874

  • mountain shadow

    1528

  • skifreak

    1435

  • frogesque

    1306

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

And that ignorant, offensive, rant sums up exactly why the YES campaign failed  

Good god. What a load of boarish spiteful bile from bad losers has been posted during the night. I actually dread to think how Scotland would be run if this is representative of how the yes vote behav

I'm disappointed in the lack of grace shown by some across the net in accepting this No vote. A complete lack of any empathy and understanding as to why fellow Scots didn't vote Yes.   I personally

Posted Images

One of the other big factors, irrespective of the above, is that Labour Party as of today are not the same Labour Party as 10-20 yrs ago, the Labour Party that people in Scotland voted for in droves. Labour have taken a big jump to the Right in political terms and I think that has slowly been filtering through into reduced support in Scotland. People have begun to realise that what you'll get from a Labour Westminster government isn't going to look much different from that of a Tory government so the incentive to vote for Labour to keep the Tories out is much reduced.

 

Yes. Much of Labour's core support comes from 'always voted Labour' groups who have clung on to what does not resemble a Labour party in any shape or form. Part of the reason they don't lose more support to the SNP is the tribal aspect; some just can't vote SNP yet if they don't vote Labour, then who? Tories? Lib Tories? UKIP Tories? 

 

I saw a nice quote recently that went something like this:

 

If you want to know what Labour's policies are, take Tory ones and add a little dash of water.

 

Apt certainly.

 

Interestingly, looking at the combined Regional list and Constituency votes, then the labour average vote is 28.5 in the survation poll. I'm guessing local candidate popularity is holding up the latter but overall party direction is hitting the former.

 

Looking at historical data, that 28.5% is on a par with the low seen just after the 2011 election following which they seemed to get something of a recovery. That's been ebbing again recently and this poll seems to add to that trend. 

 

It looks to me that if Labour want to halt their long term decline in Scotland, they'd be better supporting independence.

 

Some polls are showing 30% of Labour 2011 voters now backing indy with 20%+ common. With many old Labour stalwarts joining Yes Scotland this number is likely to grow. If it is a Yes in September, it will be Labour voters that carry it.

 

On this topic, I mentioned rumours of further Labour figures moving to yes a week or so ago. Here's confirmation:

 

http://www.yesscotland.net/news/former-labour-councillors-join-growing-numbers-moving-yes

 

Two prominent Labour politicians from South Ayrshire are backing Yes after becoming disillusioned with the Westminster system.
 
Gordon McKenzie from Prestwick was the Provost of the local authority for three years from 2003 and John Baillie, a former council leader, have both declared their public support for independence...
 
...In a growing trend of Labour supporters and members moving to Yes, McKenzie and Baillie join party stalwarts Bob Thomson, Carol Fox, John Mulvey, Alex Mosson and Sir Charles Gray in moving to independence.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Survation data carried out 4th to 7th April. Panel base 4-9th so the same period yet one has yes at 47% and the other 44% without don't knows. Funny The Scotsman decides to only headline the one with the lowest Yes vote. You can't hide the truth from the voters...they are very desperate indeed!

 

No surprise there, especially on the day the Scotsman has had to publish an apology regarding their story questioning the credibility of the recent Panelbase poll (the one WoS commissioned).

Link to post
Share on other sites

The main issue think for him is that, while he's worked in Scotland a long time now, he's an Oxford graduate from the South of England and I still think he struggles to 'get' Scotland sometimes. People tend to see things through the prism of their own national identity / politics and when you read his SASS stuff in particular this comes across.

Do explain how his blog is distorted because it's done through English eyes...

Survation data carried out 4th to 7th April. Panel base 4-9th so the same period yet one has yes at 47% and the other 44% without don't knows. Funny The Scotsman decides to only headline the one with the lowest Yes vote. You can't hide the truth from the voters...they are very desperate indeed!

They've covered both and neither are on their front page of the printed edition today?http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-poll-more-undecided-voters-1-3371857
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Do explain how his blog is distorted because it's done through English eyes...They've covered both and neither are on their front page of the printed edition today?http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-poll-more-undecided-voters-1-3371857

Not sure if there's anything in the printed edition, maybe tomorrow. That online story does look pretty balanced/neutral though. November13 will maybe have a better idea but if it was an online version he was looking at earlier then it's not unusual for them to 'change' as the day goes on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do explain how his blog is distorted because it's done through English eyes...They've covered both and neither are on their front page of the printed edition today?http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-poll-more-undecided-voters-1-3371857

I could swear that they only had the Survation one earlier. Have they been moving things around again!
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the other big factors, irrespective of the above, is that Labour Party as of today are not the same Labour Party as 10-20 yrs ago, the Labour Party that people in Scotland voted for in droves. Labour have taken a big jump to the Right in political terms and I think that has slowly been filtering through into reduced support in Scotland. People have begun to realise that what you'll get from a Labour Westminster government isn't going to look much different from that of a Tory government so the incentive to vote for Labour to keep the Tories out is much reduced.

 

That's a very good point about how Labour have moved more & more to the centre in recent years. Ironically, some of the most right-wing Labour MP's at the moment are Scottish e.g. Douglas Alexander, Jim Murphy etc

 

Bish

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a very good point about how Labour have moved more & more to the centre in recent years. Ironically, some of the most right-wing Labour MP's at the moment are Scottish e.g. Douglas Alexander, Jim Murphy etc

 

Bish

 

You mean British (& Scottish). That is how they see themselves. Someone who sees themselves as Scottish first and foremost - and acts in that capacity in their political role - will not survive long in the British Labour party. Look what happened to Dennis Canavan; turfed out.  

 

British Labour are right by a fair margin, not centre, or at least those at the top are. Scottish Labour are caught between a rock and a hard place as a result as the electorate want a Labour of the centre-left yet London calls the shots and it needs to target the Tory vote in swing constituencies in the SE of England. That and fend of the very right UKIP which has been stealing votes from Labour.

 

The SNP are the most centre of the main parties; it's why they are doing well and attract even people not up for full indy (devo maxers mainly). They attract from the modest right, modest left etc.

 

http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010

 

Labour are to the left of UKIP and the Tories, but not by a lot. Like 6k instead of 9k fees etc; slightly watered down. ATOS is theirs, workfare is theirs, they kicked off NHS privatisation in England...

 

Even the unions are starting to give up on Labour due to the latter continuing to move to the right. Up here the STUC is refusing to back them on supporting the union which was a huge blow.

 

I sympathise with the centre and left in the rUK; who to vote for? Even the Libs have gone right-wing orange book. However, only the left in England can do anything about that. Start a new party of the centre left. Where there's a will there's a way. What's happening in Scotland is an example. SNP, starting as a 'fringe party' not even allowed on the BBC, have managed to get a majority with the entire British state and media against them which is quite incredible. Now we have a country-wide YesScotland grass-roots movement of a size not seen in UK politics for decades. Where there's a will there's a way.

 

Anyway, some of us are doing our best to halt the export of people like Alexander and Murphy.Posted Image 

Edited by scottish skier
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some interesting findings from Panelbase in the area of whether people would vote Yes if they thought they'd be better off economically.

 

53 percent very likely or quite likely

 

37 percent quite unlikely or very unlikely

 

10 percent don't knows

 

It's a shame they didn't reverse the question for worse off economically, even here with this question the Panelbase is biased because the question leads the respondent

 

"The Yes campaign are deploying a series of arguments about Scotland's economic strength as an independent country. For example, they point to figures showing that Scotland would be the 14th wealthiest country in terms of economic output per head among the world's developed economies, compared to the UK's 18th place. If the Yes campaign could persuade you that you and your family would be economically better off with Scottish independence, in these circumstances, how likely or unlikely would you be to vote Yes for an independent Scotland in September?"

 

Putting that aside across the polling we see overwhelming No for people over 55, if I was in the Yes campaign this would be a big worry because of all the age groups this age range is the most likely to vote and the least likeliest to change their mind.

 

Of course the Yes have a little advantage in likely turnout so perhaps we might see this evened out but the polling for 55+ is the area the Yes side need to move above all the other categories.

 

Overall we might now be seeing a minimum support level in the polling for the Yes, we've had quite a few polls with the dk's excluded over 40 percent consistently, its now time for the pollsters to push the DK's towards either a vote Yes or No, its very unlikely that all these DK's are totally unsure, they are likely to lean one way.

 

In terms of where the DK's go to, past voting behaviour isn't a great template for this,  we know a section simply won't vote, as for the others you can make several different arguments, in general elections and council, mayoral ones  these normally break for the challenger, research into referenda suggest more breaking for the status quo but much of the research there has been done on national issues and not independence.

 

The Scottish referendum is unique because it's so different from many of the more recent independence referenda in other countries, for that reason its still very difficult to judge exactly where those DK's will move to come election day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick note that 'better off' Q is not a one off.

 

Numbers match the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey quite well. No a little high, Yes a little low but in the right ball park of at best 1/3 for no and well into the 50's for Yes.

 

2011-2013 average on better off (price of a cheap egg and cress sandwich a day) question:

Yes 59%

No 28%

 

It reflects the softness of the No vote and general lack of support for the union - certainly in terms of the status quo. 

 

Clearly a majority are fine in principle with the 'idea' of independence. Only a minority, albeit not an insignificant one, are generally against the idea (relates to natID). Actually going with independence is apparently related to £'s - or is it? 

 

Is it really possible that either side can convince these people utterly that a Yes or No vote guarantees more prosperity? Is this question actually giving people an excuse to say Yes rather than a reason? Given that 2/3 support complete fiscal autonomy I wonder if it is not more the former...

 

As for the over 55's. You succinctly point out why the union is close to ending and why it is inevitable. It is literally dying...

 

Those who remember the post war consensus and the peak of Britishness in Scotland are passing away day by day. The young today are the most 'Scottish' only of any generation ever; over 70% 'Scottish only' in the census.

 

If we stick with current poll figures and imagine a relatively narrow no, then nothing is solved. We are still left in constitutional limbo. With no devo max on offer, we just head towards another indyref at some point soon again. 

 

In many ways this indyref, if not resulting in independence, will essentially guarantee it at some point. Once people firmly decide that they want Scotland to be its own nation again they don't go back. So, in the case of a narrow no, we create nearly half the electorate feeling this with only a minority (as per the 'better off' Q) quite firmly behind the union; the remainder voting No in expectation of maybe devo max or something. Meanwhile, the 'hard' union vote continues to pass away into history. That can only lead in one direction.

 

I'm still of the opinion it will be a comfortable Yes. If not, I will be disappointed but content that I'm young(ish) and will see independence soon enough.

 

Anyway, right now my focus is May - that's the next big event. Going to be a disaster of a month for the pro-union campaign thanks to Farage if the polls are to be believed. The Scots electorate are going to watch >50% of the vote in the rUK (well, namely England) going to English/British national parties of a right-wing variety (Tories / UKIP); parties against Scottish devolution/home rule and very unpopular in Scotland. Nothing the pro-union campaign can do to stop it either.

 

It is both a cause and a symptom in a way. A divergence that fuels more divergence. As 2010 led to 2011, so May 2014 influences September 2014. 

Edited by scottish skier
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree re the Euro elections which will probably have the Tory Europhobes causing more trouble, Farage will do well but  I've yet to see any sign of these protest votes actually being turned into MP's at the GE.

 

Whatever happens with the referendum I still think its a win for democracy, if you put aside the sometimes acrimonious nature of some of the debate the actual process has been very much applauded by observers from other countries, by process I mean putting through the legislation needed, the wording of the question etc.

 

Your point re the over 55's yes we can see this happening in a similar way to the GOP in the USA, whose core base is slowly shrinking. The interesting finding from that Panelbase is the 37 percent who still said they would be unlikely to vote Yes even with a better economy, perhaps those are more attached to the UK or Britishness,  the emotion side may well be playing out with those just as it does with some of the Yes.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

SS, I said a similar thing to my daughter when we were talking on the way back from the Yes meeting a couple of weeks ago. I firmly believe that Independence for Scotland is inevitable and probably within my lifetime (46 this year). Even if not this time around, it will eventually happen. But I said if that's the case we might as well get on with it now!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone spot the missing person from the EBC website?....

 

The Masters, first-round leaderboard
  • -4: B Haas (US)
  • -3: A Scott (Aus), L Oosthuizen (SA), B Watson (US)
  • -2: K Stadler (US), J Blixt (Swe), G Woodland (US), J Walker (US), KJ Choi (Kor), B Snedeker (US), M Leishman (Aus)
  • Selected others: -1 R McIlroy (NI); +1 L Westwood (Eng); +2 S Garcia (Spa); +4 I Poulter (Eng), J Rose (Eng), P MIckelson (US); +7 L Donald (Eng)
Link to post
Share on other sites

MS, there was a 10-20 minute segment on Stephen Gallacher on Sky. His round was as well documented as anyone apart from Mickelson (American so no bias there).

Last time I checked Gallacher was 38th in the world... Care to tell me where the others are? Mcilroy a mere 29 places higher, Garcia 6th, all the players are top ten or there abouts. If Woods wasn't injured he'd have been in 'selected

others'.

So don't try and create an incredibly tedious link between the BBC reporting the results of Augusta with bias towards Scottish independence... I really thought most people were better than that but alas I'll admit I was wrong on that count

Edited by SW Saltire
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this wasn't a surprise.

 

So, polls show the rUK electorate fine with concept of currency union of some form with iScotland until UK parties 'apparently' rule it out, then the electorate back rUK parties / government and say they are against it.

 

It was predicted on here that the Scottish electorate would do the same thing, i.e. back their own government in response. Seems so.

 

From recent panelbase poll - further findings released (including DK in brackets).

 

If the rest of the UK refuses to enter a currency union with an independent Scotland, Scotland should refuse to take on any share of the UK’s debts.
 
Agree: 68% (54%)
Disagree: 32% (26%)
 
So majority support for plan B then if needs be. And fair enough; if Scotland can't print Sterling out of thin air to pay debts like the rUK, it can't be expected to pay Sterling debt.
 
Figures are about the same for UK electorate against currency union incidentally.
 
Also very bad news for Labour and the Libs on their stance here. Net agree to no debt if no currency union figures across 2011 voters.
 
SNP: +57
Labour: +29
Lib Dem: +3
Conservative: -57
 
So, all but Tory voters sticking two fingers up at the stance of the UK party they vote for. Alexander and Darling - you are complete idiots. Osborne and Balls - if you wan't advice on the Scots, don't ask these two.
 
Currencygate is likely to be the point that people look back and say 'That was the straw'. Ironic as it was so way down the list of Scots priorities.
 
------
 
Also, while the scare story of 'You'll have to pay loads on your bills for your windmills and tidal stuff etc if indy instead of staying in the UK' that the Tories ran with again the other day was firmly trashed by in an in-depth academic study*... here we go again (inc. DK in brackets):
 
Scotland should invest heavily in renewable energy for the future, even if the short-term cost is more expensive than other forms of energy.
 
Agree: 79% (64%)
Disagree: 21% (17%)
 
Anyone get the feeling that UK Parties / unionists actually know nothing about the majority of people in Scotland and how they think? 

 
At the beginning of 2013 five academics from different UK universities
published a paper on the prospects for renewable energy in the context of the
debate about Scottish independence (Toke et al 2013). The conclusion was that
it would likely be rather more expensive to reach the Scottish Government’s
renewable energy targets in the case of an independent Scotland as opposed
to Scotland remaining within the Union. Since the paper was published,
there have been significant developments in UK electricity policy, and as a
result we now wish to adjust our conclusions with respect to the prospects for
renewables in the case of Scottish independence, or ‘devo plus’ circumstances,
where Scotland has an independently managed and financed electricity system.
In short, we now suggest that with a UK nuclear new build programme going
ahead, an independent Scottish electricity system could deliver the Scottish
renewable electricity target at lower electricity prices for the consumer than
if this was achieved as part of the continued union of the electricity system
between Scotland and the rest of the UK.
 
 Posted Image
 
 
Edited by scottish skier
Link to post
Share on other sites

Scotland should invest heavily in renewable energy for the future, even if the short-term cost is more expensive than other forms of energy. Agree: 79% (64%)Disagree: 21% (17%)

Awesome.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome.

This is very laudable but people often say the same thing when asked to pay higher taxes for better services. I'm not against renewable energy but its very unreliable, especially wind power. You still have to have the capacity to keep the lights on when that option isn't available, aswell as this I think wind turbines ruin the landscape and effect wildlife near them.

 

Out at sea I think they're less of a problem but apparently these are more expensive to run, how much are the public going to be expected to pay up? just what is fair and what is likely to lead to even more fuel poverty?

 

The choice to pay more is really the preserve of those who can afford it, I suspect if energy bills rocket those polls will look very different.

Edited by nick sussex
Link to post
Share on other sites

 renewable energy but its very unreliable, especially wind power.

 

Posted Image

 

Posted Image

 

Aye it's rubbish. Total waste of time. No chance of Scotland being on fully target to be 100% renewables for domestic use by 2020. I mean look at the above, total failure!

 

It's not like Scotland's exports are hitting new highs of ~30% of power generated now.

 

Nor is there are big expansion of new pumped hydro storage in the pipeline for wind peak shaving.

 

And there's no plans for something like Northconnect to tap into Norway's huge pumped storage hydro and export to Europe.

 

http://www.northconnect.no/

 

Posted Image

 

I read in the paper the other day about the lights being at risk of going out in the country. I thought 'Eh - which country?'

 

EDIT, re bills, see above report. It is UK government energy policy that threatens to put Scots bills up by building more Dounreays. 

 

I also might ask how, in a country that exports 30% of it's electrical power and 90% of its oil and gas, are people living in fuel poverty / unable to heat their homes etc?

Edited by scottish skier
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

How much more of the Scottish countryside will be ruined to get to those targets? And what will the costs be? It's all very well putting up graphs to show the increase in renewables but how much are Scottish people going to have to pay?

 

I often get frustrated with the system in France but it does have some benefits, over here we pay a monthly charge for how many kilowatts we can have on at the same time, go over this and the power goes off! It forces you to think about whats on, it can get expensive to have more than 12 kilowatts usage at any one time.

 

It's strange in a way because you could say they're forcing people to use less and so lowering their profits but it certainly is a way of putting a check on usage.

Edited by nick sussex
Link to post
Share on other sites

What's unattractive about windmills?

 

I think they're nice. Drive past the Soutra one each day and it's great to see the wind powering Scotland. An effectively limitless resource as per tidal and hydro for which Scotland is perfect too.

 

Much prefer that to glow in the dark and heinously expensive nuclear with fukushima potential. Check out Dounreay - thanks for that UK. Far away from London as possible and you can see why.

 

The main move is offshore now BTW, e.g. world's third largest going ahead in the Moray firth.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-26645997

 

If you live in Scotland you can complain about windmills and add to the minority who are against them.

 

Typically it's NIMBY Tories that complain.

 

Posted ImagePosted Image

 

And please see above report I posted Nick. It's UK energy policy that is going to cost Scotland if it stays in the union. Westminster has grossly mismanaged energy policy from oil to power. No strategy on anything for decades now and hence the worries about the lights going out with massively expensive nuclear planned to try and prevent that.

 

The report is academic and completely unbiased:

 

Delivering Renewable Energy Under Devolution (DREUD) is a project funded by the ESRC in the 2011-2013 period conducted by Cardiff University, University of Birmingham, Queens University Belfast and Robert Gordon University. 

 

Edited by scottish skier
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What's unattractive about windmills?

 

I think they're nice. Drive past the Soutra one each day and it's great to see the wind powering Scotland.

 

Much prefer that to glow in the dark and heinously expensive nuclear with fukushima potential.

 

The main move is offshore now BTW, e.g. world's thrid largest going ahead in the Moray firth.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-26645997

 

If you live in Scotland you can complain about windmills and add to the minority who are against them.

 

Typically it's NIMBY Tories that complain.

Its a personal preference, I don't like them and think they're a blot on the landscape. The majority of the Scottish public live in the cities so don't have to suffer them, those who own the land they're on make a nice profit whilst those in nearby villages have no choice.

 

Good to see though that more will be put out at sea and not further deployed to ruin the Highlands! Thankfully in this part of France theres no sign of them, we can go for weeks here with very little wind, the developers wouldn't even be able to skew their data as they have done in so many instances in the UK to justify ruining the beautiful countryside here.

Edited by nick sussex
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's horses for courses Nick.

 

Scotland is suited to wind; windiest place in Europe as per maps. It's also largely empty with big expanses of wild upland / moorlands where it blaws a hoolie all the time.

 

There are lots of measures in place to protect the most scenic areas and the ultimate goal is offshore where the wind is far more constant. That is now well underway. Also tidal developing fast; the Pentland firth potential is massive; could power half of Scotland.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-25800448

 

The good thing is that onshore turbines can be easily dismantled in the future and cause no pollution. You don't even need to take the foundations out if you didn't want to; nature will reclaim a lump of stone soon enough.

 

As offshore develops, so onshore can be reduced in the long term. 

 

I can understand in the much more densely populated parts of Europe that building turbines in what few rural beauty spots remain can be controversial.

 

Let Scotland help power these areas. It can do so whilst still retaining it's wild natural beauty.

 

You just need to make some compromise and really that comes down right now to (expensive) nuclear or (much less expensive) nature.

 

EDIT

 

Oh and I am from the Highlands and still have a family home there (my parents never sold it when they had to leave under Thatcher) and now living in the rural borders close to quite a few wind farms. I genuinely don't dislike them because, as noted, they're clean / green. They are also relatively few and far between with vast areas with none if you don't like the sight of them.

Edited by scottish skier
Link to post
Share on other sites

One aspect of onshore wind power is that the discriminatory grid access regime in place means that to be viable wind farms in the Highlands need to be large and the absurd regulatory regime makes small community wind farms or turbines where the power would predominantly be used locally unviable.

Access to the grid across the UK is charged on the basis of distance from London, with producers in the SE of England subsidised by the rest of the UK and Northern Scotland hit the most severely. Grid access charges take no account of where the power is to be used.

When the last Labour government 'reformed' the electricity market, one 'problem' for them was that electricity was considerably cheaper in Scotland where we had the two regional vertically integrated power companies, Scottish Power and Hydro Electric. As a result the Scottish companies were sliced up into several layers to reduce vertical integration, cross subsidy between the layers is not permitted and as a result of the grid access regime in place Scottish consumers went from the cheapest electricity in the UK to the most expensive!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So I see that a currency union is a possibility after all....

 

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond is due to make a major speech in Glasgow on Tuesday.

 

According to the Herald newspaper, Mr Hammond said in an interview ahead of the speech that, in the event of a "Yes" vote: "You can't go into any negotiation with things that are non-negotiable".

 

Asked whether any issue would be treated in isolation, Mr Hammond was quoted as responding: "No. It's all in. There will be nothing non-negotiable. Everything will be on the table."

 

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27024682)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...