The Scottish Politics Thread

[Tichtheid]

I'm not sure the electorate will get the chance to vote her out, if she is standing as an SNP candidate at the next election I will eat my hat.

The SNP wouldn't be stupid enough to put her up as a candidate

[Slick]

I'm not sure the electorate will get the chance to vote her out, if she is standing as an SNP candidate at the next election I will eat my hat.

The SNP wouldn't be stupid enough to put her up as a candidate

I assumed she would try as an Independent, not SNP, but obviously I’ve no idea

[clydecloggie]

I'm not sure the electorate will get the chance to vote her out, if she is standing as an SNP candidate at the next election I will eat my hat.

The SNP wouldn't be stupid enough to put her up as a candidate

I assumed she would try as an Independent, not SNP, but obviously I’ve no idea

That's the chat, that she's intending to stand as an independent. I don't know her at all, is she generally known as an MP who goes above and beyond for her constituents? It's the one thing that keeps that Edinburgh Labour guy...wossname...Murray...in his seat.

Since she had the whip removed and was directly asked to resign, I assume the chances of her standing as an SNP candidate are zero.

[tc27]

Nothing to legally stop her sitting as an Independent until 2024 - that's four years of 70k plus expenses and a nice golden goodbye at the very least. At best she may be able to stand again it things have blown over enough.

She's a proper zoomer so its back to hanging saltires from motorway bridges for her after this - not going to see that much money again.

[Biffer]

Nothing to legally stop her sitting as an Independent until 2024 - that's four years of 70k plus expenses and a nice golden goodbye at the very least. At best she may be able to stand again it things have blown over enough.

She's a proper zoomer so its back to hanging saltires from motorway bridges for her after this - not going to see that much money again.

The one thing that can stop her is if the circumstances are in place for a recall vote. It was enabled by the Recall Act 2015, and two MPs have since been unseated through this process - Labour's Fiona Onasanya the Conservatives' Christopher Davies. Both were defeated in the subsequent byelection. If she's suspended from parliament for 14 days, constituents can lodge a petition forcing her to stand down and a byelection to be called, but it needs 10% of the electorate. That would be just over 8,000 people in her seat.

[Northern Lights]

Shameless, thick or both?

I think it would be fair to say she won't earn what she currently does back on civvy street, so that's probably the biggest driver for her toughing it out.

Thing is, if she had done the decent thing straight away then started with the poor me routine she might have found a decent job. Now she will be voted out at the first opportunity and no one will touch he with a bargepole.

I don’t disagree but as has already been pointed out she ain’t the sharpest knife in the drawer, I’m only giving what I believe is the biggest factor in her mind on roughing it out. She has probably also looked at Cummings and reckons if he is still there she will be fine too. Her post-political career will not be at NASA.

[tc27]

Nothing to legally stop her sitting as an Independent until 2024 - that's four years of 70k plus expenses and a nice golden goodbye at the very least. At best she may be able to stand again it things have blown over enough.

She's a proper zoomer so its back to hanging saltires from motorway bridges for her after this - not going to see that much money again.

The one thing that can stop her is if the circumstances are in place for a recall vote. It was enabled by the Recall Act 2015, and two MPs have since been unseated through this process - Labour's Fiona Onasanya the Conservatives' Christopher Davies. Both were defeated in the subsequent byelection. If she's suspended from parliament for 14 days, constituents can lodge a petition forcing her to stand down and a byelection to be called, but it needs 10% of the electorate. That would be just over 8,000 people in her seat.

Fair point I had forgotten about the recall act.

Will be interesting to see what happens.

[Northern Lights]

Am I right in reading the new care home guidelines as a relaxation on visiting etc? When we are currently experiencing a big spike in cases and hospitalisation, is this not just asking for trouble?
I get the loneliness of the residents and the need for visitation but this to me would appear foolhardy.

[tc27]

[Northern Lights]

Massie on our LA's etc as this topic has come up on this thread before. Not sure we need more government tbh, just want it better.

In a crisis, who speaks for Scotland’s cities?
Manchester and London have elected mayors to fight for them, but our local leaders are faceless
Alex Massie
Tuesday October 13 2020, 12.01am, The Times
Share
Save
Who speaks for Glasgow? And who may speak for Edinburgh, Aberdeen or Dundee? You may be forgiven for not knowing because, as a matter of public consciousness, the answer is that nobody speaks for Scotland’s big cities. Or, indeed, its smaller ones.

Whatever else may be said of Andy Burnham, he at least speaks for Manchester. As mayor of the Greater Manchester metropolitan area he is both defender of the region’s prerogatives and promoter of its interests. In this present crisis, he is also a conduit for protest. If Mancunians are unhappy with restrictions imposed upon them by central government, their mayor can take up their cause.

Crucially, like metro mayors across England, Mr Burnham is directly elected. If his name recognition owes something to his past life as a cabinet minister, his legitimacy is the product of the means by which he was elected. The contrast between Manchester and Scotland’s leading cities is acute.

I am supremely confident that only a small minority of residents in each of our big cities could name the leader of their city council. Adam McVey, leader of Edinburgh city council, can walk down Princes Street without fear of recognition. Susan Aitken can stroll Glasgow’s boulevards incognito. The people charged with running Scotland’s cities might as well be faceless, as far as most voters are concerned.

This has consequences. In the first place, it compromises the credibility of local councils. If voters do not know who is making decisions, the authority of those choices is diminished. Power is held — albeit, as we shall see, only in a limited sense — but power that is largely faceless is also power that is largely unaccountable.

Increasingly, local government exists to carry out orders from central government. Every year new mandates are imposed and every year councils’ discretionary income decreases. They have less room to pursue their own initiatives or formulate policy to meet local needs. Scottish local government is a misnomer, offering administration that is neither local nor, often, even government.

This is a choice, and a deliberate one. The weaker local government is, the easier it is for central government to impose upon it. Emasculated councils are no threat to the Scottish government. Deprived of the ability to raise income and unable to formulate policy, you could be forgiven for thinking that there is little point to Scotland’s 32 local councils and we might as well accelerate the trends and abolish them. I am confident that there are plenty of people at St Andrews House and Victoria Quay who would be happy to do just that. We are but a small country, and it would be more efficient to treat Scotland as a single jumbo council area.

But efficiency should not always be confused with better. It is not necessarily the same as improvement and, in the case of local government, Toryism is preferable to Whiggishness.

The record of this SNP administration is one of ever-increasing centralisation. Where that cannot be accomplished directly it is pursued obliquely. You may recall — though perhaps he would prefer it if you did not — John Swinney’s doomed education reforms that would have in large part replaced council control of education, one of the few big responsibilities left to local government, with new education “super regions”. To the extent that they would have been accountable at all, they would have reported to Scottish government ministers, though, as the SQA’s latest fiasco reminds us, this should not be confused with actual accountability.

Like so many other promised reforms — remember how council tax was going to be replaced? — this withered in the face of modest opposition but, in this instance, the aspiration was more significant, more revealing, than the delivery. It was a reminder that central government sees local government as an inconvenience at best and, more frequently, as an obstacle.

So you understand why moves to directly elect provosts may never be countenanced. They might become alternative power bases, from which central government might be challenged or frustrated. That should be considered a feature, not a bug. Central government needs to be challenged, and sometimes it needs frustrating too. You may measure the case against elected provosts by the frequency with which it is heard: it is never heard because there is no good argument against it.

We could go further and revive proper controls in small towns too but this reversion to the old ways is, for now, such an adventurous proposition it is unfair to expect this government to even contemplate it.

Still, Scottish cities need champions and they need real power accountable to the voters that power serves. The role of provost is not only a matter of administration, but also of promotion and cheerleading. A city needs public leadership but Scotland’s cities do not have it. No one, I think, would now suggest abolishing the mayoralties of London or Manchester. There is a lesson there, and a better Scottish government would learn it.

[Biffer]

Massie on our LA's etc as this topic has come up on this thread before. Not sure we need more government tbh, just want it better.

In a crisis, who speaks for Scotland’s cities?
Manchester and London have elected mayors to fight for them, but our local leaders are faceless
Alex Massie
Tuesday October 13 2020, 12.01am, The Times
Share
Save
Who speaks for Glasgow? And who may speak for Edinburgh, Aberdeen or Dundee? You may be forgiven for not knowing because, as a matter of public consciousness, the answer is that nobody speaks for Scotland’s big cities. Or, indeed, its smaller ones.

Whatever else may be said of Andy Burnham, he at least speaks for Manchester. As mayor of the Greater Manchester metropolitan area he is both defender of the region’s prerogatives and promoter of its interests. In this present crisis, he is also a conduit for protest. If Mancunians are unhappy with restrictions imposed upon them by central government, their mayor can take up their cause.

Crucially, like metro mayors across England, Mr Burnham is directly elected. If his name recognition owes something to his past life as a cabinet minister, his legitimacy is the product of the means by which he was elected. The contrast between Manchester and Scotland’s leading cities is acute.

I am supremely confident that only a small minority of residents in each of our big cities could name the leader of their city council. Adam McVey, leader of Edinburgh city council, can walk down Princes Street without fear of recognition. Susan Aitken can stroll Glasgow’s boulevards incognito. The people charged with running Scotland’s cities might as well be faceless, as far as most voters are concerned.

This has consequences. In the first place, it compromises the credibility of local councils. If voters do not know who is making decisions, the authority of those choices is diminished. Power is held — albeit, as we shall see, only in a limited sense — but power that is largely faceless is also power that is largely unaccountable.

Increasingly, local government exists to carry out orders from central government. Every year new mandates are imposed and every year councils’ discretionary income decreases. They have less room to pursue their own initiatives or formulate policy to meet local needs. Scottish local government is a misnomer, offering administration that is neither local nor, often, even government.

This is a choice, and a deliberate one. The weaker local government is, the easier it is for central government to impose upon it. Emasculated councils are no threat to the Scottish government. Deprived of the ability to raise income and unable to formulate policy, you could be forgiven for thinking that there is little point to Scotland’s 32 local councils and we might as well accelerate the trends and abolish them. I am confident that there are plenty of people at St Andrews House and Victoria Quay who would be happy to do just that. We are but a small country, and it would be more efficient to treat Scotland as a single jumbo council area.

But efficiency should not always be confused with better. It is not necessarily the same as improvement and, in the case of local government, Toryism is preferable to Whiggishness.

The record of this SNP administration is one of ever-increasing centralisation. Where that cannot be accomplished directly it is pursued obliquely. You may recall — though perhaps he would prefer it if you did not — John Swinney’s doomed education reforms that would have in large part replaced council control of education, one of the few big responsibilities left to local government, with new education “super regions”. To the extent that they would have been accountable at all, they would have reported to Scottish government ministers, though, as the SQA’s latest fiasco reminds us, this should not be confused with actual accountability.

Like so many other promised reforms — remember how council tax was going to be replaced? — this withered in the face of modest opposition but, in this instance, the aspiration was more significant, more revealing, than the delivery. It was a reminder that central government sees local government as an inconvenience at best and, more frequently, as an obstacle.

So you understand why moves to directly elect provosts may never be countenanced. They might become alternative power bases, from which central government might be challenged or frustrated. That should be considered a feature, not a bug. Central government needs to be challenged, and sometimes it needs frustrating too. You may measure the case against elected provosts by the frequency with which it is heard: it is never heard because there is no good argument against it.

We could go further and revive proper controls in small towns too but this reversion to the old ways is, for now, such an adventurous proposition it is unfair to expect this government to even contemplate it.

Still, Scottish cities need champions and they need real power accountable to the voters that power serves. The role of provost is not only a matter of administration, but also of promotion and cheerleading. A city needs public leadership but Scotland’s cities do not have it. No one, I think, would now suggest abolishing the mayoralties of London or Manchester. There is a lesson there, and a better Scottish government would learn it.

Dangerously close to fundamental Green party policy there.

[Tichtheid]

Dangerously close to fundamental Green party policy there.

Quite, and I tend to agree with having elected heads of city councils, like a mayoral office, but Massie doesn't seem to understand some mayors in England have merely ceremonial roles, whilst others such as Manchester and London have responsibility for the running of the city, but they also have unelected CEOs in these cities, like the ones he names for Edinburgh and Glasgow.

His strawman arguments are pretty boring tbh, it's just any old stick to beat the SNP with as far as he seems to be concerned.

[Northern Lights]

Dangerously close to fundamental Green party policy there.

Quite, and I tend to agree with having elected heads of city councils, like a mayoral office, but Massie doesn't seem to understand some mayors in England have merely ceremonial roles, whilst others such as Manchester and London have responsibility for the running of the city, but they also have unelected CEOs in these cities, like the ones he names for Edinburgh and Glasgow.

His strawman arguments are pretty boring tbh, it's just any old stick to beat the SNP with as far as he seems to be concerned.

So which strawmen do you take exception to out of interest or find boring? Holding the governing party to account with journalism is a widely accepted part of a functioning democracy, i dont see you finding criticism of the tories as particularily boring but i may have missed that. He singles out Manchester and London specifically so I certainly didnt take from his article that he wasnt aware that the majority of England's cities are the same and are lagely ceremonial roles like our Provosts.

I think he has a point regarding the centralisation of powers that has been going on, i am however far from convinced that our local councillors in current form would make things markedly better. I would actually prefer our councillors to not have a party affiliation and to be working together far more, i get the need for parties at a national level, I'm far from convinced they are needed and are indeed an unnecessary distraction when dealing with stuff at local level.

[Tichtheid]

Dangerously close to fundamental Green party policy there.

Quite, and I tend to agree with having elected heads of city councils, like a mayoral office, but Massie doesn't seem to understand some mayors in England have merely ceremonial roles, whilst others such as Manchester and London have responsibility for the running of the city, but they also have unelected CEOs in these cities, like the ones he names for Edinburgh and Glasgow.

His strawman arguments are pretty boring tbh, it's just any old stick to beat the SNP with as far as he seems to be concerned.

So which strawmen do you take exception to out of interest or find boring?

Emasculated councils are no threat to the Scottish government. Deprived of the ability to raise income and unable to formulate policy, you could be forgiven for thinking that there is little point to Scotland’s 32 local councils and we might as well accelerate the trends and abolish them. I am confident that there are plenty of people at St Andrews House and Victoria Quay who would be happy to do just that. We are but a small country, and it would be more efficient to treat Scotland as a single jumbo council area.

He sets this up as policy and then goes on to attack that policy, that is the very definition of a straw man argument.

Holding the governing party to account with journalism is a widely accepted part of a functioning democracy, i dont see you finding criticism of the tories as particularily boring but i may have missed that. He singles out Manchester and London specifically so I certainly didnt take from his article that he wasnt aware that the majority of England's cities are the same and are lagely ceremonial roles like our Provosts.

Holding the governing party to account is certainly the job of a free press, what proportion of the press in Scotland and the wider UK support the independence movement?
Massie's articles that you have posted are far less about holding the government to account and more about attacking the SNP and the idea of independence. as far as I can see, an MO that is repeated across Scotland and the UK, so it's not the same music at all.

Likewise there are far more media outlets that are sympathetic to the Tories than would naturally be against them - it's come to something when the only person holding government ministers to account in the media is Piers bloody Morgan, and they won't go on his show now and haven't done for almost half a year.

[Northern Lights]

Quite, and I tend to agree with having elected heads of city councils, like a mayoral office, but Massie doesn't seem to understand some mayors in England have merely ceremonial roles, whilst others such as Manchester and London have responsibility for the running of the city, but they also have unelected CEOs in these cities, like the ones he names for Edinburgh and Glasgow.

His strawman arguments are pretty boring tbh, it's just any old stick to beat the SNP with as far as he seems to be concerned.

So which strawmen do you take exception to out of interest or find boring?

Emasculated councils are no threat to the Scottish government. Deprived of the ability to raise income and unable to formulate policy, you could be forgiven for thinking that there is little point to Scotland’s 32 local councils and we might as well accelerate the trends and abolish them. I am confident that there are plenty of people at St Andrews House and Victoria Quay who would be happy to do just that. We are but a small country, and it would be more efficient to treat Scotland as a single jumbo council area.

He sets this up as policy and then goes on to attack that policy, that is the very definition of a straw man argument.

Holding the governing party to account with journalism is a widely accepted part of a functioning democracy, i dont see you finding criticism of the tories as particularily boring but i may have missed that. He singles out Manchester and London specifically so I certainly didnt take from his article that he wasnt aware that the majority of England's cities are the same and are lagely ceremonial roles like our Provosts.

Holding the governing party to account is certainly the job of a free press, what proportion of the press in Scotland and the wider UK support the independence movement?
Massie's articles that you have posted are far less about holding the government to account and more about attacking the SNP and the idea of independence. as far as I can see, an MO that is repeated across Scotland and the UK, so it's not the same music at all.

Likewise there are far more media outlets that are sympathetic to the Tories than would naturally be against them - it's come to something when the only person holding government ministers to account in the media is Piers bloody Morgan, and they won't go on his show now and haven't done for almost half a year.

The media outlets in Scotland have been muted by the SNP and have been for a while, you seem to take the criticism of the SNP to heart and are much happier attacking the man (in this case Massie) than to actually consider the points he is making and are just far happier to glide over any valid point he makes. The SG are certainly not held to the same scrutiny as Westminster by the media. All the main papers i read will offer balance with having a pro indy commentator and one who would be against, you might just have to consider that they all arent out to get you and they now realise they have to appeal to both sides of the debate to maintain any sort of circulation given half the country is roughly in one camp or another.

The above strawman you find boring, i never said he didnt make them merely which ones bored you or you took exception to. Do you think he has a point that there are plenty of people in the Scottish Govenment and civil service would prefer to do away with the LA's in their current form as it would be easier to administer if it was all centralised in Edinburgh? The trend has certainly been to centralise powers into Edinburgh away from the LA's so there must be a view held that it is more efficient to deliver services this way.

This article isnt even on independence and the merits for or against, do we have to boil everything down to that and can we not consider what the best way of delivering for the people of Scotland in a better way aside from this?

[Tichtheid]

NL, I feel obligated to play Devil's Advocate to counter the relentless wall of cut and pastes, which are all of a similar viewpoint.

What papers have as many pro-Indy articles and editorials as anti? I haven't come across them, so I'll take you at your word and go through them if you tell which ones you are referring to.

Do you think he has a point that there are plenty of people in the Scottish Govenment and civil service would prefer to do away with the LA's in their current form as it would be easier to administer if it was all centralised in Edinburgh?

I don't know, Massie is a professional journalist and he is saying that is the personal opinion of those in government when in fact he just made it up, as per the paragraph I highlighted.

[Biffer]

NL, take a step back and consider for a minute. You’re pro union, adamantly so. You seem to have a very deep dislike of the SNP and many of their supporters. From that viewpoint, do you really think that what you view as balanced, is in fact balanced?

[Northern Lights]

NL, I feel obligated to play Devil's Advocate to counter the relentless wall of cut and pastes, which are all of a similar viewpoint.

What papers have as many pro-Indy articles and editorials as anti? I haven't come across them, so I'll take you at your word and go through them if you tell which ones you are referring to.

Do you think he has a point that there are plenty of people in the Scottish Govenment and civil service would prefer to do away with the LA's in their current form as it would be easier to administer if it was all centralised in Edinburgh?

I don't know, Massie is a professional journalist and he is saying that is the personal opinion of those in government when in fact he just made it up, as per the paragraph I highlighted.

On the papers, I would say the ones out of DC Thompson (P&j and courier) ok they are regional but the most read in those regions have. Alex Bell and Campbell Gunn being the two most notable contributors.

The Times has Kevin Pringle getting a slot every week, not sure if he doesn’t have as much to say as Massie or different contract. Would definitely concede the Times has more anti snp commentators atm but that could well be because they’re in government (this is the Scottish section) the main contributors are usually having a pop at Westminster.

I don’t read enough of the others to form a proper view.

[Jock42]

Don't listen to them mate. We know you're right.

[Northern Lights]

NL, take a step back and consider for a minute. You’re pro union, adamantly so. You seem to have a very deep dislike of the SNP and many of their supporters. From that viewpoint, do you really think that what you view as balanced, is in fact balanced?

I’m pro union because I haven’t been persuaded even slightly that Indy makes any sense other than from an emotional level and all evidence points to it being a very bad idea and I really don’t want a dramatic fall in my and my kids living standards on the back of it to the extent I may well have to leave. I weighed it up seriously before the 2014 vote and came firmly to the conclusion that it was the wrong move for us.

I’m anti snp because they’re poor at delivering on the day to day, there is more than enough evidence that’s been discussed here. I’m anti Boris and his goons as well as he is bloody useless.
I haven’t always been, I voted for Salmond and the snp back in ‘07 because Labour were making an unbelievable arse of running things and we needed a change, the same is true of the snp now. Unfortunately I don’t see a Salmond (strong politician not the suspect misogynistic behaviour) waiting in the wings from any other party ready to have a go.

I would much rather the issues were actually discussed without it yet again being about independence. Questioning the snp performance is not me being rabidly pro union, this is our politics thread. Cloggie and others have already been clear they are pro Indy but not a fan of the snp in the current guise.

It does make me smile that what you accuse me of, you don’t see in yourself. Rather than addressing the points raised you go for the poster or the pundit.

So how about we address the issues raised, don’t view through the Indy prism and hold the governing party to account, like you would if the tories or Labour were the governing party

[Tichtheid]

It does make me smile that what you accuse me of, you don’t see in yourself. Rather than addressing the points raised you go for the poster or the pundit.

NL, you did that with every link I put forward when I first joined this forum a few weeks ago.

So, one article per week demonstrates "balance" from the Times?

I don't believe you believe that, you simply can't, surely?

What do you think the overall stance of the Times is regarding Indy, 1 to 5, 1=strongly for, 2 = moderately for, 3=completely neutral, 4= moderately against, 5=strongly against?



I don't read the Press & Journal or Courier, almost the only thing I know about the P&J recently is that it came in for a lot of criticism for their support for Trump's golf course, which of course Salmond supported at first.

[Biffer]

NL, take a step back and consider for a minute. You’re pro union, adamantly so. You seem to have a very deep dislike of the SNP and many of their supporters. From that viewpoint, do you really think that what you view as balanced, is in fact balanced?

I’m pro union because I haven’t been persuaded even slightly that Indy makes any sense other than from an emotional level and all evidence points to it being a very bad idea and I really don’t want a dramatic fall in my and my kids living standards on the back of it to the extent I may well have to leave. I weighed it up seriously before the 2014 vote and came firmly to the conclusion that it was the wrong move for us.

I’m anti snp because they’re poor at delivering on the day to day, there is more than enough evidence that’s been discussed here. I’m anti Boris and his goons as well as he is bloody useless.
I haven’t always been, I voted for Salmond and the snp back in ‘07 because Labour were making an unbelievable arse of running things and we needed a change, the same is true of the snp now. Unfortunately I don’t see a Salmond (strong politician not the suspect misogynistic behaviour) waiting in the wings from any other party ready to have a go.

I would much rather the issues were actually discussed without it yet again being about independence. Questioning the snp performance is not me being rabidly pro union, this is our politics thread. Cloggie and others have already been clear they are pro Indy but not a fan of the snp in the current guise.

It does make me smile that what you accuse me of, you don’t see in yourself. Rather than addressing the points raised you go for the poster or the pundit.

So how about we address the issues raised, don’t view through the Indy prism and hold the governing party to account, like you would if the tories or Labour were the governing party

Ah, the six year old’s if I am so are you argument,

I don’t have that many issues with Massie’s article. Like I say, it’s substantially the Scottish Greens’ fundamental policy on democratic and constitutional principles - in fact it’s their reason for being pro independence ( you probably don’t know that because you haven’t bothered to look into it). And as I’ve highlighted before, I’m more naturally aligned to the Greens than the SNP. But you missed that because you want to rant at SNP supporters, so you lump me in with them.

And before you go off into a thing about the greens being the SNPs pets, I’d just like to check you’re aware that up until last year the Tories had backed SNP budgets more times than the Greens! Did you know that?

[Tichtheid]

.... I’m more naturally aligned to the Greens than the SNP.

I am too these days, though I come to them from a more left than Old Scottish Labour background.

Caroline Lucas is my local MP* and I think she is good, I've voted for her twice.


*the move back home had to be called off last year.

[clydecloggie]

Yes support to 58%

This may be a statistical outlier, but the poll was commissioned by STV so unlikely to have featured a ridiculously loaded question.

If we are indeed moving to the high 50s in support of independence, then the tipping point I speculated about pages and pages ago (or maybe even back on bad old PR) may be upon us - where careful people of sound mind to whom friends and neighbours look for valid advice and opinions shift their stance from No to Yes and it snowballs from there.

[Tichtheid]

Yes support to 58%

This may be a statistical outlier, but the poll was commissioned by STV so unlikely to have featured a ridiculously loaded question.

If we are indeed moving to the high 50s in support of independence, then the tipping point I speculated about pages and pages ago (or maybe even back on bad old PR) may be upon us - where careful people of sound mind to whom friends and neighbours look for valid advice and opinions shift their stance from No to Yes and it snowballs from there.

Full story, and question, here https://news.stv.tv/politics/poll-suppo ... -of-58?top

The bit that really surprises me is that 19% said they were satisfied that Johnson is doing a good job.

[tc27]

Well that's a horrible poll...

I take a degree of comfort in that its bit of a outlier compared to the others and things driving it (Brexit, Boris and the impression Sturgeon is brilliant re Covid) are transient but still.


Also think a S30 is not going to happen within this Parliament which leads Catalan style disorder as Sturgeon wont be able to hold off demands for wildcat referendums if they keep polling this high.

[Biffer]

Is it an outlier? It's consistent with the recent direction of travel.

I don't think it's horrible at all BTW

Brexit isn't transient, it's a permanent change.

[tc27]

Is it an outlier? It's consistent with the recent direction of travel.

I don't think it's horrible at all BTW

Brexit isn't transient, it's a permanent change.

Its an outlier in being 3-5 points higher than other pools if not in showing the recent trend.

When I describe Brexit as transient I mean in so far as the climax of the negotiations and the end of the transition period.

I don't think it's horrible at all BTW

You just lack imagination.

It will be very ugly - not just the campaign itself but the negations that would follow a 'win; for you side would be brutal and leave a real legacy of bitterness (and real and hard national border where non has existed for centuries with two resentful populations on either side).

[tc27]

Interesting below the headline results from the Progress Scotland polling (that showed 53% for 'yes')



Only 5% support the only actual likely viable currency option.

[Tichtheid]

It will be very ugly - not just the campaign itself but the negations that would follow a 'win; for you side would be brutal and leave a real legacy of bitterness (and real and hard national border where non has existed for centuries with two resentful populations on either side).

I tried to find polling from England on the subject, but all I could find was an ancient poll in the Torygraph (Nov 2006) which showed large support for an English parliament, complete independence for England etc

it's paywalled https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews ... shows.html

It would be interesting to find out what "support" Scotland had for independence from within England these days

[Bimbowomxn]

Interesting below the headline results from the Progress Scotland polling (that showed 53% for 'yes')



Only 5% support the only actual likely viable currency option.

I wonder how Scottish economics would have faired if the pandemic had happened post leaving and huge sterling printing with none of it going to Scotland at all, with Scotland “using” the pound.

[clydecloggie]

Interesting below the headline results from the Progress Scotland polling (that showed 53% for 'yes')



Only 5% support the only actual likely viable currency option.

Did they also ask how important the currency question is to making up their minds about independence?

I find it interesting that in today's STV poll, 58% would vote Yes while 55% agree that it would be tough economically.

In 2014, both sides quickly identified the hard No and hard Yes factions, and ignored them from that point onwards - it was all about the 'persuadables', and eventually No won out through Project Fear, with EU membership, the economy and the currency as probably the 3 biggest issues (not necessarily in that order) to make swing voters afraid about. The EU membership thing has backfired spectacularly since then, and I'm wondering if that big bang now echoes in the other two arguments - where people still see the issues around currency and economy but simply don't trust the No side to know what it is talking about because of how wrong it was on EU membership.

I'm also very happy with this poll, obviously

[tc27]

It will be very ugly - not just the campaign itself but the negations that would follow a 'win; for you side would be brutal and leave a real legacy of bitterness (and real and hard national border where non has existed for centuries with two resentful populations on either side).

I tried to find polling from England on the subject, but all I could find was an ancient poll in the Torygraph (Nov 2006) which showed large support for an English parliament, complete independence for England etc

it's paywalled https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews ... shows.html

It would be interesting to find out what "support" Scotland had for independence from within England these days

Anecdotally I find most people are apathetic which I think is a big problem (and I also think they are not thinking through the consequences).

[tc27]

Interesting below the headline results from the Progress Scotland polling (that showed 53% for 'yes')



Only 5% support the only actual likely viable currency option.

I wonder how Scottish economics would have faired if the pandemic had happened post leaving and huge sterling printing with none of it going to Scotland at all, with Scotland “using” the pound.

Quickly run out of cash reserves and borrowing ability so would be forced into the emergency launch of a new currency the government would be able to print to try and meet the extra-ordinary costs of furlough and other measures.

In short if 'Yes' had won in 2014 people in Scotland would be gubbed.

[Paddington Bear]

I don't think there'll be much appetite for compromise from England in the event of a 'Yes' vote.

[Tichtheid]

Anecdotally I find most people are apathetic which I think is a big problem (and I also think they are not thinking through the consequences).

For me, anecdotally as well, I've found either apathy or antagonism, along the lines of, "Good Riddance", which makes me question the idea of indy leaving two resentful populations on either side of a border.

[Tichtheid]

Interesting below the headline results from the Progress Scotland polling (that showed 53% for 'yes')



Only 5% support the only actual likely viable currency option.

I wonder how Scottish economics would have faired if the pandemic had happened post leaving and huge sterling printing with none of it going to Scotland at all, with Scotland “using” the pound.

Quickly run out of cash reserves and borrowing ability so would be forced into the emergency launch of a new currency the government would be able to print to try and meet the extra-ordinary costs of furlough and other measures.

In short if 'Yes' had won in 2014 people in Scotland would be gubbed.

If Yes had won in the 70s Scotland would be absolutely fine, well no worse off than any country in the world - this is as valid a hypothetical as using 2014

[clydecloggie]

I don't think there'll be much appetite for compromise from England in the event of a 'Yes' vote.

Unfortunately I agree. As Brexit has shown, England is more than happy to act against its own interests purely out of spite.

And also, the North of England would be most hit by Scottish independence and to the decision makers, the North barely matters. I don't think, other than the loss of face and the Union, London et al. would be too sad to see Scotland go or suffer too many ill effects from it.

[tc27]

Interesting below the headline results from the Progress Scotland polling (that showed 53% for 'yes')



Only 5% support the only actual likely viable currency option.

Did they also ask how important the currency question is to making up their minds about independence?

I find it interesting that in today's STV poll, 58% would vote Yes while 55% agree that it would be tough economically.

In 2014, both sides quickly identified the hard No and hard Yes factions, and ignored them from that point onwards - it was all about the 'persuadables', and eventually No won out through Project Fear, with EU membership, the economy and the currency as probably the 3 biggest issues (not necessarily in that order) to make swing voters afraid about. The EU membership thing has backfired spectacularly since then, and I'm wondering if that big bang now echoes in the other two arguments - where people still see the issues around currency and economy but simply don't trust the No side to know what it is talking about because of how wrong it was on EU membership.

I'm also very happy with this poll, obviously

EU membership was only identified as the most important issue by 15% of 'No voters.

Likewise post 2016 polling on independence aside from a few blips largely static.

Whats changed is the perceived superior personnel/administrative performance of Sturgeon/Scotgov on CV19 and Boris Johnson.

Currency and economics is largely not being talked about at the moment because despite being in permanent campaign mode the nationalists (quite rationally) do not want to talk about it/ Likewise the fact that EU membership is arguably at least a decade away from Independent is also not really mentioned. Both of these may come back into focus if there is another referendum.

Finally the EC has made it fairly clear a future referendum will not be on a 'yes/no' question.

[tc27]

Anecdotally I find most people are apathetic which I think is a big problem (and I also think they are not thinking through the consequences).

For me, anecdotally as well, I've found either apathy or antagonism, along the lines of, "Good Riddance", which makes me question the idea of indy leaving two resentful populations on either side of a border.

I think if it happens attitudes down South will harden fast - perhaps not resentful afterwards but will expect the government to negotiate the best possible outcome for the rest of UK rather than compromise.