Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Salmond’s blueprint launch: a very good week for No
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Salmond’s blueprint launch: a very good week for No
One simple and obvious truth: in order to win a referendum, you need to win the support of more than half the people casting a vote. This may be elementary politics it was something that the proponents of AV nonetheless failed to grasp, or at least, failed to act on (somewhat ironically, given the nature of their cause). A second truth about referendums:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
AV's problem, apart from being aimed at a liberal, cosmopolitan transvestite demographic that turned out to be smaller than they'd hoped, was that they didn't have any coherent selling point at all. They tried fairness and the "can you hear us" thing but failed to establish that AV would provide either.
Not a very satisfactory one though.
I really appreciate your reference to the Australian Republic referendum. It's highly relevant and is rarely talked about. I was there at the time, and while it seemed crazy from afar that a proposition that had 60+% support in the electorate then (and even now) lost a referendum, it nevertheless lost because all the No side had to do was split the Yes vote into "Republic at all costs" and "Not this version of a Republic". They did that by convincing enough of the voters that the specific model being proposed (President elected by parliament rather than directly) was wrong. They also hinted to voters that they'd maybe have another chance to vote on the other model later (a complete lie, but it didn't matter) if they rejected this one.
Whilst at first the SNP didn't fall into the same trap that the Republican movement did of having too specific a model in the referendum question, the white paper has inevitably moved the debate onto the same terms. Voters will now have a whole model of independence to analyse and if they don't like one bit of it - EU, currency or immigration - they'll vote no. Game over.
Relatedly, I read somewhere that referendums in Australia have never won without the backing of both major parties. This makes a lot of sense - given the choice between the status quo and the unknown, most people always chose the status quo. All it takes is one major side in the debate to propose that one choice is the unknown, and the vote is set.
Turning back to Scotland, I remember that when the referendum question was formulated, nationalist websites were trumpeting it as a win for Salmond over Cameron, in that they never wanted 'Devo Max' on the table anyway. This will in hindsight be seen as the biggest mistake Salmond made. If Devo Max (whatever that is) had been in the mix, it would almost certainly win by default. Much like the Australian Republicans, by picking a less popular, but more technically pure, single choice they've stopped voters from picking what they could easily win.
The irony is, of course, that with currency unions, dual passports and common travel areas, what the nationalists are proposing for independence might as well be Devo Max. But if they lose, as I believe they will, Devo Max is not on the table, and it'll be many years before the question is revisited.
Martin
Elsewhere online, I've seen it claimed that the insulation programme had passed the point of diminishing returns. Between this scheme, and its predecessors, most of the properties willing to accept government help that are easy to insulate have been insulated.
The ones that are left fall mostly into two categories, On the one hand, some property owners flatly refuse government help, either because they don't like being reliant on handouts, or because they don't want the disruption.
On the other hand, a lot of modern housing has thin walls, apparently too thin for cavity insulation to do any good. To get the desired energy efficiency savings, they'd basically have to rebuild the wall thicker, which is massively disruptive, and expensive.
Is there anyone here in the building trade who can confirm this?
I hope you bought in a plentiful supply of tin hats and have an expeditious route to multiple bunkers.
Incoming ....
Thoughts go out to the family and friends of those caught up in the Clutha pub tragedy.
Scottish labour MP Jim Murphy was passing in his car at the time and got out to assist with all the other bystanders who formed a human chain helping those trying to get out. So a huge thank you to him and the Glasgow public who were so quick to help.
Thoughts go out to the family and friends of those caught up in the Clutha pub tragedy.
Scottish labour MP Jim Murphy was passing in his car at the time and got out to assist with all the other bystanders who formed a human chain helping those trying to get out. So a huge thank you to him and the Glasgow public who were so quick to help.
+1
I had much the same thoughts. The prospectus seemed to confuse the principles of an independent govt with the SNP manifesto for government.
Take childcare, the issue is not that the Scottish government would increase subsidies for this, but rather that it would control it. A Scots govt could just as easily abolish the subsidy, but it would be a decision for Holyrood not Westminster.
If Scotland were to become independent then there would be quite a big shake up and realignment of the Scottish parties. Each would have its own manifesto for govt, and more than likely it would be a coalition rather than majority govt.
Quite apart from that, 670 pages is far too long, if it is to be read widely it needed to be a twentieth the size. Concise documents like the US constitution outlining principles are much better founding documents.
Sounds like both those on the spot and the emergency services responded quickly and well.
Suffolk: MP Tim Yeo ‘considering his position’ after losing re-selection vote for next general election
http://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/suffolk_mp_tim_yeo_considering_his_position_after_losing_re_selection_vote_for_next_general_election_1_3059089
All houses built after a certain date (1960s or earlier?) have to have cavity walls, and later this was changed so cavities have to be pre-insulated. Except in Cambourne houses, it seems, although that is a different matter ... (*)
Many older houses have single skin walls, or were built with rather inefficient filled-cavity (where the insulation was already present, but of a low-grade type).
To insulate single skin walls, you have to add a layer of insulation to either the interior or exterior of the wall. Since the layer can be quite thick and the process disruptive, mostly it is done on the exterior. This layer is then rendered or cladded to cover it up.
Since it effects the look of the house dramatically, it is not necessarily possible or popular.
http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Insulation/Wall-insulation
One way of insulating is to blow insulation into the cavity; to do this, they will drill holes in the exterior wall and blow the fibres in; sometimes these are wool-based or a poly foam. There were problems with early forms of blown insulation a couple of decades ago; over time the fibres or foam would drop with gravity until they form a solid mass at the bottom, allowing damp through and meaning there was no insulation above. I assume those problems are now fixed.
Damp can also be a problem with snot on the cavity wall ties - remnants of mortar. In a cavity wall, moisture will creep along the tie, hit the snot, and then be dried by air currents within the cavity. If a cavity is filled, then the moisture *may* be bale to pass through. As ever, blown insulation is a useful tool, but one that should only be applied when it is suitable, and I'm slightly concerned the companies involved may be doing houses that are unsuitable, causing problems in the future,
http://www.askjeff.co.uk/cavity-wall-fill/
I apologise if this has bored anyone. Blame a childhood spent around building and demo sites...
(*) IMHO, all new houses should be tested for heat loss using an infrared camera with the heating full on before it was passed. This should be done by an independent body. Although this may be difficult in summer ...
The SNP's "logical" case is in tatters (EU, NATO, Sterling zone) - but that's not the ground they are fighting on - theirs is the emotive case "Scotland's people are best placed to decide Scotland's future" - to which the Unionists have no effective answer.
I hope " logic"wins the day. I fear it may not.
Lab 2 councillors
SNP 1 councillor
LD 1 councillor
... with the Labour 1st preference votes being 4 times the size of the Lib Dem 1st preference votes.
Let's say the Lib Dem councillor dies. In the by-election the Labour vote declines by 20 points, while the Lib Dem vote remains steady, but despite a 10 point swing from Labour TO the Lib Dems (ie. a very good result for the Lib Dems), the local newspaper the next day headlines with: "Labour Gain from the Lib Dems". That is just silly, because in reality it was a panic, wafer-thin Hold for the Labour Party.
The silver lining is that with all these pseudo "Gains" for SLab in local by-elections, it increases their complacency levels, which were already sky-high.
Not.
If Scots want to spend on childcare, rather than on restructuring and marketing the Clydeside shipbuilders, or tax cuts for the low paid, that would be a decision for Holyrood.
Would the Scottish case for independence fall apart if the Westminster parliament paid for free childcare across the entire UK. Of course not! So why confuse the SNP manifesto with the case for independence?
Not me, but Tim Yeo thinks (or even knows) so.
The post-season race review is up:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/2013-season-review-racing.html
I suspect the betting review will be more interesting, as it was a bit of a weird year in that regard.
They will be very lucky if there are no fatalities. I hope they are very, very, lucky.
Oh, and happy St Andrew's Day.
Cthulu not Cluthu and thought WTF!
This from Fraser Nelson in the Telegraph tells you what really happens in Scotland, the bewilderment and amazed look on Carmichaels face as he begged teh presenter to help him was unbelievable.
“It was way after the watershed but there was still something indecent about the way Scottish Television broadcast coverage of a man being eaten alive on Wednesday night. It was supposed to be a debate, between the SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon and Alistair Carmichael, the Scotland Secretary.
Instead, viewers saw a genteel Liberal Democrat being disembowelled by a ferocious and merciless nationalist. She seemed to quite enjoy it. This gruesome spectacle was only beamed into Scottish households – a shame, because David Cameron really ought to have seen it. It would have shown just how much trouble the Union is in.
When it was Sturgeon’s turn to cross-examine the Secretary of State, it was as if her political career had been a preparation for that one, sadistic moment. Carmichael looked stunned, as if he’d expected a fireside chat and found himself in a boxing ring.
Three times, he pleaded for the debate chairman to intervene and save him from Sturgeon’s blows. He was shown no mercy. It was a pitiful spectacle – and yet Carmichael’s bewildered, slapped face is the one that Cameron’s Government is presenting to Scots as the face of the Union.”
Can't reply to your reply BTW, just off to see a sick relative in st Ives, which turns out to be over 5 hours away. We need an HS3!
Jim Murphy is a political opponent but this morning I have to say I admire him hugely, indeed going as far as to call him a hero. Along with many ordinary Glaswegians who witnessed the crash, he ran towards the Clutha Vaults and knowing there could be an explosion, went into the partially collapsed building as far as he could get in and helped others pull survivors out and assist them until the emergency services took over. When Jim was interviewed, he was clearly in a state of shock. He would almost certainly have known people in the bar.
Glasgow has its problems but this morning I am happy to confirm my pride at being a Glaswegian by birth and pay tribute to the ordinary men and women who rose to the challenge last night and put the rescue of others before their own safety.
On thread, clearly the commentariat considered the White Paper launch a disaster for the SNP and their chums in the YES camp. I am not so sure ordinary Scots see it like that. Salmond bats away the Spanish PM as talking nonsense. We know that is absurd. I am far from certain many of my fellow Scots will think that. Eck is going to fight the Referendum on a campaign of heart-strings and domestic bribes. He is also posturing that the No camp contains anti-Scots. Sadly too many will agree with him. The subtext is becoming Scotland = nice, England = nasty. That will play to far too many Scots. I still believe he can win though hope he doesn't.
That's an interesting point about Australian referendums: that they fail if only one party is in favour. Presumably, in what's close to a two-party system, what's happening is that the doubts sown by the anti's creates more crossovers from the pro-government than are attracted the other way. With only one major and one minor party in favour in Scotland, and one major and two medium ones opposed, that is not a happy precedent for the nationalists.
I also agree about your final point. If No wins, and particularly if it's a fairly comfortable win - into double figures, for example - not only will it be 15-20 years before independence is revisited as an option but it'll be at least a decade before any alternative to the status quo is considered.
Sounds like Murphy did indeed perform heroically.
It's also amazing to this non-engineer/technician that these things do not happen more often.
If That's really the case why not just do it now? They have the powers to do so.
If Yes lose in Scotland, that'll be that for the time being just as it was in 1979 even though Yes actually won the vote. At the following general election, the SNP took a thumping and devolution went onto the backburner for a decade. If No wins, I'd expect constitutional fatigue to set in should people start looking for an alternative solution. The public, and other political parties, might just argue that making more effective use of the powers Holyrood already has should be the Scottish government's priority.
Or you could just stick to playing the man. Far easier.
This might just be media reporting, though. On my saints<->sinners MP line, he's nearer the sinners than the saints.
He's also been in parliament for a few decades, a minister or shadow minister for many, and I cannot really remember anything he has done aside from have an affair. I look at his track record, and it seems very uninspiring.
As for green issues, I would probably class myself as a pragmatic cynical sceptic believer: there is a problem, some people are exaggerating the scale of the problem, some of the proposed solutions are barmy, people are making a great deal of money from it, and yet we should try to do what we realistically can. Which probably makes me hated by everyone.
Hence I don't mind my local large-scale windfarm, but actively campaign against ones in wilderness areas. I'm a Not-In-Somebody-Else's-Backyard. (NISEB).
HS3 (nominally a west country line) will probably be speed and capacity increases to the existing GWML. Brunel's vision might make large-scale upgrades possible. That, and the fact there are other under-utilised routes. The upcoming electrification should make a difference to both speed and capacity.
A big problem is the sea wall between Dawlish and Teignmouth, which is under an ever-present threat from the sea.
Edit: oh, and best wishes for your relative. And try to enjoy St Ives, it's a lovely town.
Thus, whatever happens next September, the way this country is governed is about to get very different. That is very exciting.
Because they are on fixed pocket money from London , so would need to cut other things and the resulting benefits of extra tax, NI etc would go to London. Hence the need for independence so that they can use our money for what we want rather than it being used on what London wants , ie illegal wars , trident , etc
The most surprising and damaging events were when the school kid and university dummy elections showed a strong No vote.
The lack of support from the rest of Europe such as Spain has left the SNP appearing isolated.
The business community has stayed quiet but is clearly against the proposal which adds to the worries for local people. How many factories will move south if they vote Yes.
Cameron has played the election very well and kept the southern Tories under control.
The Commonwealth Games is a double edged sword for the SNP. It is likely to go well and take the focus away from the referendum debate. While the Scots want to win medals, even more they want to show they are good hosts. This means a big welcome for the many English visitors.
One spanish turnip with internal problems saying we need to negotiate , hardly news
There have been some business people come out for Yes , very few for NO and most being sensible and minding their own business
Cameron is hiding so he can say it was that dumpling Darling that lost the union
Last one is bollocks , Scots always welcome English people and the games will not distract at all from the referendum which is not against the English, it is for Scotland to run its own affairs.
malcolm
Relieved and pleased to see you alive and kicking this morning.
But wouldn't the SNP be better spending Trident savings on a new air traffic control system rather than childcare for all?
It's your party's job to persuade the Scottish people your veiw is correct, not to impose that view on them by refusing to accept their decision. I fear you may have picked up a bad habit from the EU.
Thoughts indeed to the people of Glasgow. Let's not single out Jim Murphy; sounds like there were many who did the right thing in a crisis and well done to them.
Finally on Yeo, clearly issues over his interests and lack of recent consitutency work, but his position on the environment is closer to the 2010 manifesto than most Tories. The Turnip Taliban of Suffolk won't lose this seat, but it's yet another example of the Tories caring more about purity than swing voters and we know how that will always turn out.
He will need to get people who did not vote SNP to vote for independence, no shit Sherlock - there are many people outside SNP who either support independence or are undecided
Better Together - so far they have little to say other than negativity of how poor and stupid Scottish people are and have few people on the ground. Reality is YES meetings are well attended , lots of people on the ground , example last week outside Waverly station , one person from BT handing out leaflets , fifteen from YES
The whole childcare policy shows an aspiration to improve the country , compare that with unionists bedroom tax and using it to evict poor and disabled from their homes. Blaming the poor for all the ills of the country is really going down well.
Can either you or David give me any policy from BT that will improve life for Scottish people after a NO vote , clue new Trident missiles do not count as a benefit.
Relieved and pleased to see you alive and kicking this morning.
But wouldn't the SNP be better spending Trident savings on a new air traffic control system rather than childcare for all?
Avery , that is in poor taste , at least 6 dead and not for making jokes about old chap.
The FSB found 75% of SME businessmen will vote No. I have not met one who will actually vote Yes or would admit to it.
As for my home town.
"The Yes Scotland campaign has been dealt a blow after thousands of schoolchildren voted no in a mock referendum exactly one year before the official vote.
In total, 11,653 secondary school pupils in Aberdeenshire took part in the vote on Wednesday. A total of 8718 voted against an independent Scotland with 2847 voting for independence, with a turnout of 79.9%.
The results mean that 75.3% of school children do not support the notion of independence. Only Carronhill School in Stonehaven, voted in favour of independence by eight votes to five."
Mind you would not be surprised if Michael Moore was a YES man
The way the SNP try to portray anyone who's against the as being "UN - Scottish" shows how they feel threatened.
I can't see it happening for Scotland, although if in this case if there was a "No for now but ask us again in 10 years after we see what happens with the Euro and British EU membership and stuff" I think that would be the sensible one for them to vote for.
Strange also that Aberdeenshire have not shown any breakdown by age range, would be interesting.
On business I am sceptical of any anecdotal evidence, but would expect that business would just get on with running their businesses.
Who knows in the long run what will be best for business, however it is for ordinary people to decide and I am sure few of them will be swayed by what way business is voting. Obviously businesses will always be wary of change and uncertainty but as quite a few have said it could be a great opportunity for them.
This is an interesting debate and it seems a shame when particular posters resort to swearing to make their point. One could suggest it masks a weakness of argument over a strength.
Where are the corresponding arguments from the Better Together unionists. So far we have not seen one policy from them they keep saying there will be more powers, which is a pretty pathetic statement.
"The reason put forward [for the focus on childcare in the launch event] is that people care about bread-and-butter issues like health and education (and childcare). Indeed they do but Holyrood already has substantial powers in these areas. Debates over policy in these areas is the stuff of general elections, not referendums."
Whilst it was not pleasant to watch it was exactly what he deserved , given he campaigned for SoS to be scrapped and then grabs the job and starts rubbishing Scotland at every opportunity. Hoist with his own petard
I can only hope he continues to rattle YES in the same way going forward.
The SNP majoring on the policy commitments rather than the detail at the White Paper launch shows that they are not at all confident that they have good answers to the questions of process and transition. The No campaign should be looking for more questions like the ones about currency and EU membership. There are no doubt others lurking in the 670 page White Paper.
The decision on whether autonomous spending policies should be spent subsidising childcare rather than many other worthy causes such as rural development, improving education or rebuilding Scotlands manufacturing base is a different issue to whether Scotland should have the dependence on these issues. A Yes campaign that took a wider view and wanted Scots whose view of Independence was different to a high spending SNP government would be more likely to win over voters. The issue of financial autonomy is quite a different one to how the money should be spent.
DH is right, a campaign for AV that had UKIP on board, rather than one that was led by luvvies whose explicit point was to make a Conservative government much harder, would have had a better chance. A Yes campaign that reached out to SLAB, LD and Scottish Tory voters would be a very different one. By tying the Yes Campaign so tightly to a SNP manifesto these voters are being pushed into the No Campaign.
I remain in the Yes camp myself, were I to have a vote myself, but would want a Scotland with its own currencyand different EU position.
"Oh, and happy St Andrew's Day."
Thank you.
And may I cordially extend my warm felicitations to the Scottish diaspora of PB and hope they enjoy our saints day.
The SNP have at least tried to put forward a positive picture of what could be done in an independent Scotland. The NO campaign to date are bereft of ideas or policies , their only gambit is to say we are too stupid and too poor to be independent, they will need to up their game big style. Given that they hate each other so much and will not appear at the same meetings it is hard for them to have a joined up message.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/29/thinktank-bbc-smoking-big-tobacco
'It’s uncomfortably close to one of the SNP’s less attractive habits: equating support for the SNP with support for independence with Scottishness itself'
Isn't that precisely what you're doing (in a somewhat mangled way)? There are Yes supporters of all parties and none, there are people who want Devo Max but don't trust Westminster to deliver it if there's a No, and there are people who are thinking 'F*** it, anything for a change'. I'll give credit to some of the Unionists on here that they at least recognise that it's going to be Labour Yes, No and Don't Know supporters who'll probably swing it either way.
Comparisons are invidious, and making one with the AV referendum particularly & lazily so. Even coinciding with assembly and local election the turnout for AV was only 42%; I'll take a bet anytime that the Indy referendum will be at least 50% higher. I'm happy to be corrected, but I seem to recall the level of voter engagement, and attempts to engage the voter, being spectacularly meagre and confused for AV. By contrast, 10 months out from the Indy referendum there are meetings, events and tv, radio, public, school, business & uni debates happening on an almost daily basis.
A common meme, usually delivered with an implied sneer, is that Scottish politics are narrow & parochial (which politics aren't local?), though I'd prefer to see them as more communitarian and cohesive. Whichever the case the childcare proposal certainly has resonance, and voters are smart enough to realise that such policies are directly connected to having complete economic control so we can pay for them ourselves, rather than robbing Peter to pay Paul out of the fixed pocket money distributed by Westminster.
As it happens, I believe the Yes campaign would be capable of getting a majority supportive of the SNP's vision for Scotland (and you're right to say that no part of the No campaign has yet expressed an alternative vision with any energy), but that it would only get a positive vote if it had neutralised the process questions by the time of the vote. So far it has failed miserably to do that. And pretending that some points are unarguable when they are either transparently arguable or in some cases an uphill struggle to make the case for those points is harming the Independence cause, not helping it.
Away with that Papist idolatry!
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/30/labour-election-success-economic-credibility-election
"Rather than squandering the proceeds of a fire-sale of the Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Bank on indiscriminate tax cuts, as the Conservative party is advocating, Labour should promise that half the proceeds will be used immediately to pay down the national debt.
The remaining revenues from the bank's sale should be invested in a National Growth Fund designed to radically upgrade Britain's economic capacity: modernising infrastructure; investing in science, innovation, and industrial policy; boosting direct strategic investment by government in growth sectors, especially in regions outside the south-east; transforming the stock of intermediate skills through genuinely world-class apprenticeships. This is a more comprehensive approach than merely creating a National Investment Bank. The initial sale of 6% of the government's stake in Lloyds raised £3.2bn for the exchequer: the potential is enormous. A National Growth Fund should be the centrepiece of Labour's alternative autumn statement."
A State Investment Fund is a great idea, mind.
I suspect I've known him far longer than you. I'm not convinced I'd want him anywhere nearer to power than he already is.
Well that's an interesting way to define being Scottish - only SNP voters count.
"In the spirit of my free Presbyterian ancestors:
Away with that Papist idolatry!"
..........................................
Bless you my son ....
Proffers bejewelled and gloved hand to kiss ....
More to the point who the hell has time to watch 21 hours of TV a week, let alone specifically 21 hours of BBC?
You need to be very careful about the mandate - Norway has a good approach, with a maximum of 3.5% (IIRC) being allowed to be spent each year - otherwise it just becomes a piggy bank than politicians raid at will. Focusing it on economic capacity is a sensible idea, provided that it gets an acceptable above inflation yield on investments: it needs to become self-financing (or at least have that potential) in due course.
The other risk, in my mind, is using it like FSI in France as an instrument of economic protection. If it wants to operate like OTPP in Canada (although that is technically private rather than state) or Temasek then that is more acceptable in that it is just an investor in private companies. FSI comes with too many strings attached.