Banner

By a Newsnet reporter
 
Support for Scottish independence is on the increase according to a survey carried out by pollsters TNS on behalf of the BBC.
 
The survey, conducted between 26th October – 1st November, showed that nearly two thirds of Scots, 61%, now support either full independence for Scotland or the devolution of all powers with the exception of foreign affairs and defence.

The result of the survey of 1020 adults represents a near ten per cent swing away from the status quo since the last comparable poll carried out last year.

Asked whether they supported full independence, 28 per cent were in agreement, up from 22% in 2010.  Those opting for the status quo fell from 32% in 2010 to 29% whilst the number of people choosing devo-max fell from 44% to 33%.

SNP Leader and Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond welcomed the new poll describing it as an “excellent” start to the referendum campaign.

Commenting, Mr Salmond said:

"This is an excellent poll showing a marked increase in support for independence, and 2 out of 3 Scots backing real economic power for Scotland.

"Independence and ‘more powers for the Scottish Parliament’ are now neck and neck as the debate over Scotland's future gets started.  We are only at the start of the referendum campaign but as voters realise the positive benefits of independence, that figure will rise further and faster.

"This is the third poll in a row showing rising support for independence highlighting that the tired arguments of the Westminster-led parties simply aren't working.  The people of Scotland are increasingly seeing through these attempts to talk down their own ability to make a success of
themselves, their communities and their country."

The poll will add to the debate over whether devo-max deserves to be included in the referendum ballot paper.  There is an increasing reluctance amongst Unionist opponents of independence to endorse devo-max as a legitimate alternative.

Speaking on Sunday’s Politics Show on the BBC, BBC Scotland’s political editor Brian Taylor claimed that the option was unlikely to be on the ballot paper unless the Unionist opposition “agitated” for it.


TNS, Fieldwork: 26th October – 1st November 2011, Sample - 1020

Thinking about the future of Scotland, which of these three options would you support the most?:

  • Keep the current arrangement of a Scottish Parliament with its existing powers - 29%
  • Transfer more powers from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament, including tax and welfare but excluding defence and foreign affairs - 33%
  • Full independence for Scotland - 28%
  • Don't know - 10%

IPSOS-Mori, Fieldwork: 18th to 21st November 2010, Sample size - 1,001

Thinking about Scotland's constitutional future, which of the following statements most closely matches your views on this issue?

  • Scotland should remain part of the UK with the same devolved powers as it has at present - 32%
  • Scotland should remain part of the UK with increased powers - 44%
  • Scotland should become a fully independent country, separate from the rest of the UK - 22%
  • Some other view - 1%
  • Don’t know - 1%

Comments  

 
# RJBH 2011-11-07 06:56
More Excellent News from Newsnetscotland .
 
 
# Ken500 2011-11-07 07:02
Brilliant
 
 
# Diabloandco 2011-11-07 07:38
It certainly wasn't reported as a plus for independence on Unreported Scotland.

We had the voice of the droning Sec of State telling us that Scots obviously weren't keen on independence and can someone tell me why there was an Engish part to this survey?
And has oldnat got his hands on it yet to give us all an insight into the results - as in how many were polled , how many were from the BBBC offices,how many were from Labour Central etc.etc.
 
 
# mountaincadre 2011-11-07 07:53
Aye The Deil,i still watch these surveys but over the last few years,"both Scottish elections 07/11" where both so far removed from what i was seeing and hearing that its hard to take them seriouly anymore. I cant take this one seriously either,maybe your right about who there polling.
 
 
# RJBH 2011-11-07 07:48
Carried out on behalf of the BBC.. yet no mention of it on the BBC..I guess News that does not conform to the BBCs idea of being good is put on the back burner.
 
 
# clootie 2011-11-07 07:49
We need people to understand the real financial situation - Moore was giving the too poor speech again + we also had the RBS myth added for good measure.

Perhaps Newsnet good do a summary of bullet points on the true wealth of our nation.

We have a few years to get the story out there and we must all have the facts and figures at our fingertips.

This is not party politics - It is Scotlands future (our childrens future)

Focus!
 
 
# scottish_skier 2011-11-07 07:59
What this says is, for those certain (excluding the don’t knows), if given a 2 Q referendum,

Independence = 31%
FFA = 37%

TOTAL for Independence + FFA = 68%

No change = 32%

It is broadly the same as the MORI result, i.e. 7 in 10 want FFA as a minimum with something like half of that would vote for independence even if FFA was offered.

The question is, if Westminster does not offer FFA (only it can), what would the % be for independence?

They apparentely didn’t ask this, even though it is situation we are currently in.

Last two polls on the straight question (TNS full Scotland and a Comres subset) had the YES ahead of the NO, which would give a majority for independence.

Only a straight Y/N poll gives a straight Y/N answer.
 
 
# scottish_skier 2011-11-07 08:06
Quoting scottish_skier:
What this says is, for those certain (excluding the don’t knows), if given a 2 Q referendum,.


Or, put another way:

Independence Y/N?, Y = 31%
FFA Y/N, Y = 68%

Bad news if you want Scotland's resources under london control....
 
 
# Alba4Eva 2011-11-07 09:13
Quoting scottish_skier:
if Westminster does not offer FFA (only it can)


I disagree, the constitutional question is for the democratic people of Scotland. Government answers do the people and the people hold ultimate power. Scotland will take independence (or FFA) not be given it as some kind of gift!
 
 
# Holebender 2011-11-07 10:22
Disagree. You are right re independence, but FFA requires the active participation of Wastemonster. How could we remain part of the UK with a different relationship if the rest of the UK doesn't accept those changes?

We can take independence, but Wastemonster has to give FFA.
 
 
# Alba4Eva 2011-11-07 12:59
Nah, If FFA is the democratic decision of the Scottish people, there is no chance of Westminster stopping it... in any event, if they tried, full independence would be the outcome.

All this talk of Devo-max still needs to be clarified however. There are no proposals for this currently on the table and whether there would indeed be a Devo-max option of FFA or a Devo-not quite so-max option of a few extra powers ala Calman.

The point is that although Westminster will try to scupper things as much as possible, in reality, they are utterly powerless against the will of a democratic people.

To answer your point, can you see Westminster asking the rest of the UK what they want? Westminster are not going to risk any further division under Devo-max. They are going to want to retain a UK wide defence force and a seat at the UN (These would be the only shared things left).

As far as I am concerned, if the Scottish people decide that we are going to keep all our own money under FFA, then that is our decision and nothing to do with England. Although negotiations on defence etc between the two countries following an FFA outcome will concern both sets of peoples.
 
 
# scottish_skier 2011-11-07 16:24
What I meant is FFA could only occur with the agreement of Westminster whether Scots voted for it or not.

It would be unwise to add it to the ballot if it had not been agreed to. For example, we could vote yes to every Tory politician wearing their underpants on their head when in the commons, but without them agreeing to beforehand, it would be pointless.

FFA on the ballot will not happen unless it has come as an offer from Westminster. I seriously doubt it will and they will gamble on and lose a straight Y/N question.

If the SNP put in an FFA option without agreement from Westminster and Scots said YES to FFA but no to independence, Westminster could just say 'So what; what are you going to do if we offer no more powers? Have a referendum again?'.

Independence does not need Westminster's agreement.
 
 
# oldnat 2011-11-07 17:05
The full figures for the two polls (excluding Don't Knows. 10% of Scots were DK : 22% in England & Wales.) are

“Keep the current arrangement of a Scottish Parliament with its existing powers”
Scotland 31% : England & Wales 31%.

“Transfer more powers from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament, including tax and welfare but excluding defence and foreign affairs”

Scotland 37% : England & Wales 19%.
“Full independence for Scotland”
Scotland 32% : England & Wales 51%.

Those figures seem remarkably suggestive of the differential pattern of opinion that preceded the Velvet Divorce between Slovakia and Czechia.
 
 
# UpSpake 2011-11-07 08:05
All good, all good and heading in the right direction. Moore needs his head examined for spouting this drivel. His utterences are so anti-Scottish he is a disgrace and an affront to both the people and the government of Scotland.
He is an anachronism and he knows it. Holding a post he himself wanted to do away with. A remnant of the colonial mindset of the english establishment that is itself an anachronism to the people of Scotland.
The sooner we consign these people to the dustbin of history, the better.
 
 
# Exile 2011-11-07 08:22
Or just the dustbin?
 
 
# TOHILL 2011-11-07 18:48
Quoting Exile:
Or just the dustbin?

what about a dustbin with a macerator on top
 
 
# Macart 2011-11-07 08:24
Pretty good news at the start of a 2-3 year debate. It means for the first time all concerned parties are starting out fairly even. We've only got this to lose folks. I believe we have the people, the momentum and the drive. This debate is ours and the unionists know it. Two thirds of Scottish voters either want 80% or 100% of our powers back, no ifs buts or maybes.

Now given only the straight choice Y/N, how do you think the 33% devo max will vote? My feeling is they'll go the whole hog and vote for independence. These people are already most of the way there. I would imagine, certainly, the majority of them have more than a passing sympathy for independence and are opting for caution.

Remember, still 2-3 years left to run this debate. I'm sure we'll see polls till we're sick of the sight of them. However, I'll bet the house, we'll also see the devo max vote shrink in favour of independence quite a lot between now and then.

Vote YES!
 
 
# balbeggie 2011-11-07 08:25
We need to keep tabs on what the No camp will spend. We don't want a repeat of the Quebec referendum rules being ignored.

cbc.ca/.../...
 
 
# Saltire Groppenslosh 2011-11-07 10:58
I hear you balbeggie, but you can be sure that £millions will find their way into the "no" campaign. There's very little that can be done about it.

What makes us different from the "no" camp?

1. We've got the vision and can pass that on to people around us.
2. We've got a positive story to tell.
3. Our politicians aren't chasing ermine robes and therefor work for the Scottish people.
4. We've got the cream of the crop of politicians on these islands who are going to bring our vision of an independent Scotland to reality.

The list isn't exhaustive and you could add items ad nauseum if you want.

Add to that, with the big donations so far, we're not so behind in the game anyway.

You can throw any amount of money at a campaign, you could even pay Spielberg to make up commercials with full movie trickery and pay the best actors in the world to act in them but it still comes back to the basic message and the vision for the future. I don't think that our situation is quite the same as Quebec's and I'm pretty certain that as the referendum gets near, the underlying visionary message will be heard loud and clear by the only ones that matter "The Sovereign People of Scotland".

I'm Scottish, not British
 
 
# nchanter 2011-11-07 11:32
Quoting balbeggie:
We need to keep tabs on what the No camp will spend. We don't want a repeat of the Quebec referendum rules being ignored.

cbc.ca/.../...

A misunderstandin g re. the Quebec story. The truth is , the pro independence pulled back when it was realised the native Canadians were ready to reclaim their lands when independence was assured. The financial and political implications sent shock waves through the shareholders.
 
 
# Diabloandco 2011-11-07 08:29
How about this for political comment by a man who is supposed to indulge in"Peace Studies " at some uni south of the border,

a sample from the Coffee House,
"
Tom Gallagher
November 6th, 2011 7:03pmReport this comment


Well-made points. I preferred to enjoy a glorious autumn day in Edinburgh than sit through the duel of Emperor puddin-face and the nervous Lib-Dem envoy for Scotland in London.
Instead of some Scottish Arnold Schwarzanegger being invented or Sir Alex Ferguson being asked to manage the Union relegation side, why not enable ordinary folk with trans-border connections to make their voices heard in the debate on the future.
BBC Scotland in its political coverage reduces the political future to arid constitutional matters. This is manna from Heaven for the SNP which has far more time for this type of political voodoo than it has for rolling up its sleaves to govern the country. Of course, the same will still apply in the event of independence: Scoto-Norwegian, Scoto-Faroese unions, absorbtion of the English North-East, territorial waters disputes etc, these are the issues the SNP came into being to hyperventilate about.
But the toytown BBC on Glasgow's Pacific Quay continues to hold banal debates about referendum questions and trabsferred sovereignty without drawing on the experience "

He goes on to describe the FM in most unacademic ,unflattering terms.
I also thought that a man of his
" stature" should be able to spell and had no idea " dumbing down" had got so far up the academic ladder.
 
 
# Bambi 2011-11-07 09:11
Dr Gallagher's hyperventilatin g into the void at the the avalanche of positive news for the SNP & Scotland is one of the smaller pleasures of the current situation; the loudness of his bleating is a trusty barometer on how well the independence campaign is going.
He's the Unionist mindset in dwarfish miniature, hysterical carping and negativity, without the slightest hint of his alternative vision for Scotland & the Scots.
 
 
# Barontorc 2011-11-07 09:48
Are you sure this guy ain't the uni BNP janny who's found a name badge and masquerades as a prof?
 
 
# Blanco 2011-11-07 10:10
He's one of those Scots who thinks Scotland hates him (for being Catholic) so he hates Scotland back, that is my reading of his position anyway.
 
 
# Dougthedug 2011-11-07 18:36
I have followed the writings of Professor Tom Gallagher, Professor of the Study of Ethnic Conflict and Peace in the Department of Peace Studies in Bradford University, over the years and the only thing to say is that his links to reality are multi-coloured, braided and hung with tassels.
 
 
# Marga B 2011-11-07 08:39
Can't help thinking that while the debate remains in parliament and not in civil society, growth of support for independence will remain slow. Everywhere, it costs people more every day to raise their heads above their porridge.

Are there any other plans?
 
 
# Macart 2011-11-07 08:57
Hi Marga - I agree bringing the debate to the people at close range would be a good idea. The last few years the FM did a kind of ministerial travelling roadshow which looked like quite a good format. I saw him and the team in Stranraer this year. It struck me then that I couldn't think of any government who takes its whole front bench on a summer tour.

Obviously it would be totally wrong to do this every week, when they should be doing their job of running the country. But a steady series of tours featuring one or two ministers including the FM, quite literally at the toon hall level might be a way of engaging the public personally.
 
 
# mountaincadre 2011-11-07 09:07
Agreed Marga and Macart, as i see it its a win win for the SG,there might be some that don't like/want to hear the message but at least its there for them to make there OWN disision about, and that is always good for democracy, something that unionist politions could perhaps remember.
 
 
# McGillicuddy Dreams 2011-11-07 09:22
for my 2 bobs worth may I say that the fearmongering, by our MSM, being instilled between the ears of the BBC brainwashed needs countered. The relationship between us Scots and our English neighbours especially needs recognised for what it is . We are friends. If anyone has ever attended a music/arts/community festival then this is discovered in spades. What we could do with is a cross border festival incororating the peace created through our share in our traditional Borders /Northumberland music. Some of the sweetest and inspiring music ever created. There are artists worldwide who would come home to celebrate such an event.It could run a week or 2 starting in the beautiful Berwick on Tweed and ending in, say Carlisle. It should e stated tha the festival is to counter the MSM BS. recognised throughout both our cultures. BBC would never give it advertising space but what the hey!!
 
 
# Macart 2011-11-07 09:55
Did anyone else notice the separation word slipped into the poll questions? We won't and can't be separated! All we'll be doing is repatriating our parliamentary powers. All social and trade links will remain. Still fear mongering is their way, not ours.
 
 
# oldnat 2011-11-07 17:07
TNS did not include the word "separate".
 
 
# Macart 2011-11-07 21:56
Sorry oldnat I should have specified IPSOS-MORI.

Regards
M
 
 
# Marga B 2011-11-07 13:33
What a nice idea! Town twinning/exchange with an English town might be another one if that's not too daft - anything to get positive publicity. In other words not expecting politicians to do everything.

Demos, attractive events, mock elections, video for the Internet, stall at village fete, local photo competition on "What is Scotland", starting a pro-independence business group (a bit like the companies that are talking up Scottish renewables now), and/or yourselves, if you have a business.

In other words action across the sectors of civil society.

Maybe it's not very Scottish or realistic though!
 
 
# Macart 2011-11-07 13:53
No, I think you're onto something there. What is modern Scotland? Selling, not the tartan tammy image, but certainly a community image. We've been demonised for so long by programmes like the Scheme, people believe that's all that we are. It's partly why so many posters on other sites believe the whole subsidy junkie myth.

Web progs on everything from modern Hi Tech industry to craft and music fairs. A look at our aspirations, perhaps nailing the odd politician for a web spot on progress in tourism, renewables, arts and culture.

If the unionists can put together that onedynamic nation site surely somebody here could do the same...HMMMMM NNS? An expansion into web progs? What do you reckon? Maybe the kernel of an excellent idea by Mcguillicuddy and Marga. An NNS festival even.
 
 
# SaltireAboveAll 2011-11-07 09:26
I know it's early days, but I still find it unbelievable that opnly a third of us Scots want independence. What on earth will it take to wake the other two thirds of Scots up? I jsut don't get how these people think. What exactly is it that they have at present that is so precious to them??? These people are living a pusuing a subservience to a state that wants to keep them on their knees and they accept it. Utterly...utterly...unbelievable!
 
 
# Barontorc 2011-11-07 10:12
The human psyche clings to the known - no-change - the familiar - for safety, and it takes a conscious step-change to leave that condition, the polls merely show this step, for many, has yet to be taken.

What is so very important is that the SNP have stated in their manifesto that the referendum will be two to three years from now, which is to overcome this mind-set and to give confidence and assurance through facts that are truthful and verified.

This is what has completely spooked the unionists. No amount of spin can alter the truth - they can only counter with denigration or blatant untruth and its all being seen as negativity.

The SNP must be ruthlessly vigilant and on full red alert to protect their reputation all the way from here on in.
 
 
# Saltire Groppenslosh 2011-11-07 11:22
I dont trust the polls. I'm waiting for "oldnat" to bring forth the meat and two veg to the table if he can. I think that the pro-independence voting intention is a lot higher because at the moment the "devo-max" thing is muddying the results.

It is simply a name without any substance at the moment and until the other political parties tell the SNP what "FFA or devo-max" stands for by actually formulating it as a political and working economic solution then we will keep a box open on the polling slip for it but that may disappear if no one comes forth with a proposal.

The ball is in the unionists court and the polls mean nothing at the moment.
 
 
# oldnat 2011-11-07 17:13
I've given the detailed figures for each option (excluding DKs) upthread

newsnetscotland.com/.../...

Anyone who doesn't yet know how Slovakian independence came about should read this wiki article

en.wikipedia.org/.../...
 
 
# Marga B 2011-11-07 13:51
Saltire, I don't know if it's so much fear of change, I suspect that for a big minority politics just does not ever come over their horizon.

I remember mentioning the Iraq war to a wee shop-assistant just before it broke out and she had no idea what I was talking about. People who never look at the news or read the papers (can't entirely blame them) - I presume the same applies in Scotland.
 
 
# Wee-Scamp 2011-11-07 09:27
Excellent news? I don't think so. Excellent news would be half a dozen consecutive polls with support for independence at well over 50%.

What this poll tells me is that there is one heck of a lot of work to do and supporters of independence need to get on with it.
 
 
# Jim1320 2011-11-07 10:11
Quoting Wee-Scamp:
Excellent news? I don't think so. Excellent news would be half a dozen consecutive polls with support for independence at well over 50%.

What this poll tells me is that there is one heck of a lot of work to do and supporters of independence need to get on with it.



I would agree - there is a danger that the FFA option is, rightly in my view, seen as a significant incremental step to independence and too much store is set by it as a done deal. I can see the Westminster parties having to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table to put a decent FFA option on the card which is only in Westminster's gift to do. It may be in the end only Independence or the Status Quo and although that might well be deliverable it will take a lot of hard work. The Unionists will play the fear card for all they are worth.

If there is a FFA option the Unionist will most likely campaign for it and it will almost certainly be the favoured choice as anyone wanting independence will also opt for it as a second choice. The status quo will come a distant third.

Complacency would be a mistake.
 
 
# Marga B 2011-11-07 13:54
Indeed - can you really see Labour or Conservatives giving away power? Or more importantly, money? Davidson's selection is a straw in the wind, with the Labour party about to do the same with their "Scottish" leader. (I see Jock is of the same mind, below).

People can be as in favour of something impossible as they like, it won't change hard facts. What would probably happen at the most is the skinny, decaf version.
 
 
# velofello 2011-11-07 09:47
Once people are minded to wards FFA I doubt if they would change back to preferring the Union. And once the detail, of cost and meagre benefit to Scotland , of defense and foreign affairs retained at Westminster, I see FFA converts to Independence.
 
 
# Mad Jock McMad 2011-11-07 09:57
Wee Scamp:

FFA + Independence has been running at 60+% since before 2007.

That the straight independence option is trending upwards and FFA going the opposite way is important to the argument.

With Ruth Davidson in place ( and Westminster's wish for Labour to put their place people Stairheid Rammy Lamont and Davidson in charge)it is clear the Westminster parties have no intention of bringing forward a FFA Bill in any shape or form so the option becomes moot.

The message we need to get out is Westminster has no intention of FFA as an option.
 
 
# dogbite 2011-11-07 19:14
Mad Jock I used to work with the criminal justice sector in Social Work and believe me every and I mean every client I worked with had a Scottish tattoo. They were as some I would call ethnic nationalist who will vote for independence with the majority of civic nationalists. They may not be counted in the polls but they will certainly add a few percentage points to the SNP cause. The other group of youngsters I come across are willing to stand up for Scotland whilst not caring about the politics. Scotland has a lot of independence voters who just want independence nothing less.
 
 
# Blanco 2011-11-07 10:14
Could it be important that the words 'separate from the rest of the UK' were used in the 2010 22% pro-indy poll but not in the 2011 28% pro-indy poll? I believe the wording of any referendum question is vital. (Which is why Ian Davidson bangs on about separatism.)
 
 
# scottish_skier 2011-11-07 10:14
For the 2Q option, i.e. both independence and FFA on the ballot, we have since Nov 2009 to Aug-Oct 2011 MORI/TNS average:

FFA = 69% (+2%)
Status Quo = 31% (-2%)

Those who would say YES to independence even if offered FFA as an alternative:
= 32% (+12%)

This can thus be considered a good poll.

The Y to independence always drops when FFA is on the table, thus it is meaningless for indications in the case of a straight Y/N independence Q.

Straight Y/N currently:
Y = between 39 and 49%
N = 37.5%

Would give (excluding don’t know):

YES = 51.0-56.6%
 
 
# RTP 2011-11-07 10:31
Let none of us forget what Cameron said about Scotland keep posting these words now and again.


Mr Cameron backed the report, telling MPs at Prime Minister’s Questions it warned of “the dangers in investing in Scotland while there’s this uncertainty about the future of the constitution under way.”
 
 
# Holebender 2011-11-07 10:35
It seems to me that the possibility of FFA has raised a lot of people's expectations. When the unionist parties confirm their stupidity by refusing to get behind FFA and the referendum subsequently turns into a straight independence question the majority of those FFA supporters will take the short step to independence rather than the long slide back to status quo. I have always believed that independence would win in any referendum at any time, but I now believe it more strongly than ever.
 
 
# scottish_skier 2011-11-07 12:14
Quoting Holebender:
It seems to me that the possibility of FFA has raised a lot of people's expectations. When the unionist parties confirm their stupidity by refusing to get behind FFA and the referendum subsequently turns into a straight independence question the majority of those FFA supporters will take the short step to independence rather than the long slide back to status quo. I have always believed that independence would win in any referendum at any time, but I now believe it more strongly than ever.


Aye. And you are correct.

There is no FFA and their will be no FFA on the ballot.

Does anyone really think Westminster would agree to a Scotland within the UK which managed all its own revenues, including those from North Sea Oil? A Scotland with a higher GDP per capita, higher standard of living, free higher education, free NHS, better infrastructure etc than the rest of the UK? No chance. Already the Tory rump is shouting and screaming about Scotland’s imaginary ‘freebies’. Imagine what it would be like if the oil cash went to Holyrood; there’d be riots.

The SNP are simply being ‘open’ to FFA as they know fine well this will not be on offer, i.e. Westminster will never agree to it. That way Westminster is seen for what it is; not remotely interested in giving Scots their democratic wish as part of a supposed ‘equal’ union. In due course, when it becomes blindingly obvious that Westminster is not going to offer FFA, the SNP will state this increasingly and that if Scots want the parliamentary powers that 7 in 10 do, then the only option is independence.

We may see some crappy, last minute, uber-calman thrown together in London. This will not contain oil/gas control, with probable other restrictions on energy/seabed ownership. It will be a failure and not end up on the ballot as it’s not FFA, i.e. what the SNP were willing to include.

In the end, Scots will vote for independence.

Ignore the ‘YES’ to independence in any poll involving FFA questions.

People can however smile at the strong rise in support for full independence even if FFA is on offer as a choice in these polls.

It’s going to happen. Relax. Its been there for 300 years and has been on the rise steadily for the last 60 years. Once Scotland got it’s own parliament, independence became inevitable. In 1999, I gave the Union 20 years. It looks like I’ll not be far off.
 
 
# Ard Righ 2011-11-07 17:46
Yeah
 
 
# RTP 2011-11-07 10:40
Sorry O/T.

"Longannet is dead, but there are alternatives"

This is in the Energy News of the P&J written by a certain Brian Wilson he mentions Peterhead but does not say it was Brown who ditched that just how advanced would that have been now.
I can't give you a link I wont pay to see it all.
 
 
# Arbroath1320 2011-11-07 10:42
Just so that everyone is clear. The Tories believe, wholeheartedly in the "respect" agenda.........NOT!

Quote:
Am Buidheann Dubh.

THE NEW LEADER OF THE TORY FACTION IN SCOTLAND says she is in favour of plans for "her boss" in Westminster to seize control of the timing of the independence referendum.

Ruth Davidson, speaking in her first press conference since winning the leadership vote, said she would back the controversial move if Alex Salmond continues to refuse to bring the referendum forward.

"Who the f*** do these people think they are, to SEIZE control, and ride roughshod over manifest pledges of Scotland's democratically elected Government"



This is a quote from Am Buidheann Dubh who is a "friend" on my partner's facebook page.

I think he says it all really.
 
 
# Macart 2011-11-07 11:14
Well you know they'll try. But it'll be the biggest own goal in electoral history. :0)
 
 
# EdinScot 2011-11-07 11:05
With the Independence referendum visible on the horizon, its time to hold our nerve and steel ourselves for the Unionist msm onslaught that'll be winging our way big time. They will try every dirty trick in the book and then some as their arguments for staying in the Union are getting trounced and taken apart by Independence supporters and the SNP. We must continue to counter their untruths. Their smears on Scotland will go down like a lead balloon with the general public and they will lose support to their cause.

As for these polls, im also sceptical about them as they were way off the mark in the predictions in 2007 and especially 2011. I also cannot trust organisations like the BBC to conduct polls in a climate where they are currently looking to do down the SNP and Independence by skewing the news against them on a daily basis. They will fight tooth and nail to save their Union so it crosses my mind that the Unionist camp may skew the polls even more against us the nearer we get to the day of the referendum. Its a sad day when democracy breaks down but i think that the stakes are that high for them that its a price they think is worth paying to save their own skins. What isnt in doubt is a clear majority of the public in Scotland want far greater powers than what we have currently. Interesting times.
 
 
# jafurn 2011-11-07 11:17
I think the polls should be ignored. Any 'good' poll (positive towards Independence) will be downplayed and spun whilst any 'bad' polls (negative for Independence) will be writ large over the msm. The bbc cannot be trusted to conduct any polls as it is evident that they are totally biased in this.
I keep seeing (I know I said ignore the polls) a consistent 25/33% of 'don't knows'.
I would think that the people who are anti Independence will most likely remain so and anyone who is for Independence will definately remain so. The task is to reach the undecided and that task will only be helped by the likes of londonistas,msm and politicians like we see from the unionist side of the question who have nothing to offer Scotland other than more of the same.
There is all to play for and our positive message will surely have more sway than the negativity and fear from the unionists.
 
 
# Mac 2011-11-07 11:07
It is best practice with such polls to compare 'apples' with 'apples'.

On that basis you can see that voters are changing their minds. There is a significant shift towards independence in comparison to the status quo.

As ever a majority of Scots want significantly increased and new powers for the Scottish parliament. The current status quo and Calman denies them that.

On that both the LibDems and Labour are missing big trick - DevoMax may offer a return to popularity in Scotland.

The race must surely be on between the LibDems and Labour to define what DevoMax is, propose it and then put it to the voters.
 
 
# mountaincadre 2011-11-07 11:35
Mac, devo max is the catch 22 of british politics, it can NEVER be allowed to happen. There is the fact that west minister could'nt afford to let us control our own purse strings but also within a coulpe of years all the dirty little secrets and lies would come out and people would jump for Independance quick smart. But and here is the thing that really gives the unionists a heart attack, it would mean that there would have to be an English parliment and a truely federal Britain, remember these people want to keep control not loose it to not just one parliment but two or three. No Mac as i see it they'll huff and buff until the referendum making more and more assinine statements but there only real option is try and destroy Scottish Nationalism or except Scottish Independance, i think that you don't need to be a brain surgen to realise that the first is'nt going to happen. For a taste of the mess the unionist parties are in you only have to look at the front page of the scotsman today,unionists demanding what will devo-max mean,"the people need to know if they are to vote for this" you could'nt make this up,turkeys/voting/xmas.
 
 
# daveniz 2011-11-07 11:23
the thing I've notice about the bbc are they are pushing devo max not because its what the people of Scotland want its because it is the only option that will allow the bbc to survive! I also heard the bbc spouting that they are a benefit of the union now if you think charging people a stealth tax with the tv license and jailing them or fine them all because people can't afford to pay for whatever reason like being unemployed then that's more a reason to be independent the devo max is a bbc agenda and there maybe a poll from tns but what I'd ask is first where were they asked? also are there more than one poll from tns it could be and wouldn't put it past the bbc they chose the poll that suited more to there agenda I think this was a selected poll to make independance look like its in 3rd place and remember the bbc are a benefit of the union so straight away they have shown they are biased and unlikely to tell the true picture of independance. I also keep hearing from the bbc that noone wants independance and have unionists on the programme to remind us now if that was the case why are they so against a referendum and also noone can actually make claims to that affect because at the end of the day how do you know what everyone is thinking! I don't trust poll as its in line with the bbcs agenda! if you don't beleive me watch every convo about independance on bbc revert to devo max and the word independance (unionist and bbc word separatist) shut down like It's a dirty word!
 
 
# ButeHouse 2011-11-07 11:25
Michael Moore used the phrase 'rigged' referendum several times on the Politics Show yesterday which Alex ignored as he delivered a somewhat bland though positive version of his message.

I think that terms like rigged have to be challenged in the way that Nicola chastised Gray for talking down Scotland during FMQs last week.

Yes we need to remain positive but equally we must at least show unionists that their intemperate language will no longer go unchallenged. This is especially important during TV interviews which are now the best way of getting the Nationalist message across i.e. by-passing a hostile BBC and written press.

We wouldn't jump every time the carrot of unionist stupidity is offered, only enough to keep their barking closer to the truth.
 
 
# macdoc 2011-11-07 11:35
Call me a pessimist but until the polls show the independence option as >50% then its not a positive poll. If the poll is accurate we need to conivnce andother 23% of the electorate to change there mind. My fear is that too many people still hold a a strong British identity and will be impossible to convert. Together with the media propaganda this will make the battle very difficult to win. Sometimes I feel so ashamed of being Scottish when I read newspaper comments, politcial debates before the elections and listening to unionist politicians. Its very hard not to use the T word.
 
 
# Saltire Groppenslosh 2011-11-07 11:36
I have great regard for all the posters here. I may not agree with you all 100% of the time (or vice versa), but hey - "it's a broad church" as they say.

I was particularly impressed by this wee post ;-


# Macart 2011-11-07 09:55
Did anyone else notice the separation word slipped into the poll questions? We won't and can't be separated! All we'll be doing is repatriating our parliamentary powers. All social and trade links will remain. Still fear mongering is their way, not ours.


What impresses me most is the choice of words that we may do well to promote. " All we'll be doing is repatriating our parliamentary powers."

In my humble opinion it is the choice of words that will win the day and dont forget, the unionists are trying to think up more gory words for independence every day.

We have to carry the people of Scotland with us. We might be convinced but not everybody else is at the moment and our tone should be one similar to the sentiment expressed in "macart's" post.

Absolutely brill.
 
 
# Macart 2011-11-07 12:11
Mucho Obrigado! I try. I believe, like many, in being a good neighbour. The whole fear and loathing thing, I leave to Westminster.

Cheers! :0)
 
 
# Ard Righ 2011-11-07 18:03
"In my humble opinion it is the choice of words that will win the day and dont forget, the unionists are trying to think up more gory words for independence every day."

To become a country again.

To reinstate independence.

To take a stand.

To declare independence.

To win independence back.

To re-repatriate the parliaments powers.
 
 
# cokynutjoe 2011-11-07 12:08
I thought the BBC were skint! yet here they are spending license payers cash on an opinion poll on Scottish independence.
Beware Greeks bearing gifts.
 
 
# cjmjr 2011-11-07 12:22
Allthough David Carmeron has insulted Scotland and her people, the Labour Party's Scottish Westminster MP's have done much worse by not even commenting on his statement I can only conclude that they are in aggreement with him and that they view Scotland and her peoples in the same light.
This is the story the SNP must take to the people of Scotland,on one hand the First Minister is trying to bring investment much needed investment to one of the poorer parts of the UK yet our PM and the Labour Scottish MSP's try to put invester off by stupid attacks like we have seen over the last number of weeks
 
 
# scottish_skier 2011-11-07 12:25
Poll Q's:

Thinking about the future of Scotland, which of these three options would you support the most?

1. Keep the current arrangement of a Scottish Parliament with its existing powers?

2. Transfer more powers from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament, including tax and welfare but excluding defence and foreign affairs?

3. Full independence for Scotland?

This was not a poll on independence, but 'in an ideal world'....

FFA = non existent.
 
 
# Arraniki 2011-11-07 12:41
How many angels can we get on the head of a pin?

Let's subsume 'FFA', 'devo max' and anything else into the one straightforward question.
With Independence you get the lot!

Do you want Independence for Scotland (which includes FFA and everything else).

Y or N?
 
 
# moujick11 2011-11-07 12:46
Slightly o/t but I'm surprised that naebody has mentioned this as yet; mair money for the kitty!

dailymail.co.uk/.../...
 
 
# src19 2011-11-07 12:49
NNS covered the story here :-
newsnetscotland.com/.../...
 
 
# moujick11 2011-11-07 12:59
oops!
 
 
# Islegard 2011-11-07 13:01
O/T Are the BBC and ITV only making programs with the word "British" in it these days? Also presenters seem to be payed by how many times during a program they can say "British". Some appear to be unable to complete a sentence unless it has the word in it.
 
 
# Ard Righ 2011-11-07 18:13
Thats because in political England, British means English.

In order of priority the Cymry (Welsh) have the greatest claim to the title British along with the Cornish, then Scots have the second largest claim to the title British, yes it is true if you know your history. the English have no claim, the only claim is to Germanic. Celts that have been subsumed by the cultural vacuum of England and define themselves as English is another reason British is used by more "regional" presenters on the BBC. There is of course more to it than that, yet the knotwork of Celtic culture can be unravelled.
 
 
# chicmac 2011-11-07 13:05
It will come as no surprise to those of us who were in Independence First, that the around 20 polls post devolution which asked the simple question (Independence Yes or No) averaged a 54% v 46% prediction in favour of independence. These polls (apart from the last two or three) were 'buried' by the MSM.

Changing the question to include some other factor like Europe, or some spurious descriptor like separation or by making it a vote for negotiations rather than independence or including more options to vote for like FFA will all drop the apparent support for independence.

I believe a straight independence versus status quo choice would result in independence.

However, and this is my warning,

The straight independence versus status quo choice is almost certainly no longer an option.

The nearest it will conceivably get will be Independence versus Calman 2 (or some other 'increased powers' ticket).

Now we all know that any alleged increased powers ticket will more likely, if it wins, manifest itself as less powers than the status quo after the referendum.

However, during the referendum campaign it will be lied about and hyped by the Us and their Lackey press to being tantamount to FFA. Guaranteed.

What I think should be done about this, is that the FM should make it abundantly clear, ASAP and certainly before the referendum campaign begins proper, that his previous reassurance that the SNP would accept the result was 'binding for a generation' only applied to a straight Independence versus Status Quo option.

After all, with so many pro-independence supporters seeing FFA (or something which purports to being anything like it) as just another stepping stone towards independence i.e. a final proof that Scotland is not 'too wee, too poor and too stupid' to go independent, a result for that cannot sensibly be considered 'the settled will' of the people.

It is also debatable whether, given the lies in the past exposed by FoI and the ongoing distortions by the Us and MSM, it is valid to concede a generational deferment even if a straight Independence v Status Quo option does go through. For example there would be absolutely no gasp of astonishment if after the referendum, some key hyped issue by the Us and the MSM turned out to be yet more lies.

So any commitment to deferment on even that option should be provisoed on the basis that no such shenanigans come to light after the referendum.

I know most of the above has probably already been considered by many and shoved in the 'needless to say' category, but I beg to differ.

It does need to said and spelled out and soon.
 
 
# Pete The Jakey 2011-11-07 13:54
I personally am all for separation ;D
 
 
# chicmac 2011-11-07 14:36
That is kind of the point. It is highly subjective. To some it simply means separation of the legislature but to others it might mean border controls, passports issued, cessation of trade with the RUK, no more Coronation St, rebuilding The Wall, etc. etc. etc. with all shades of opinion in between the two extremes.

It therefore has no place in any question which would be ratified by an Electoral Commission (even the UK one) and certainly not by the UN.
 
 
# Pete The Jakey 2011-11-07 14:44
You misunderstand, I wasn't meaning separation in a legislature way I was meaning in a full on way, all I was saying is I wouldn't exactly be devastated if such a thing happened.
 
 
# chicmac 2011-11-07 14:46
No, I suspected you meant that.
 
 
# Jediirnbru 2011-11-07 14:03
Sorry OT

Quite an interesting read from Wikipedia founder on the BBBC. He highlights what the BBBC already do in relation to NNS

bbc.co.uk/.../...

Developments in hardware meant governments could "filter certain pages instead of blocking whole websites", he said.

"We see that as a serious problem."
 
 
# RTP 2011-11-07 14:25
I suppose all who post on here are SNP voters in that case we are now being classed as rascist by a certain Lab McGovern MP according to a clip I heard on STV news anyone else know anything about this.
 
 
# chiefy1724 2011-11-07 14:49
From: The Retiral Speech of one Elmer Fudd

"You will be attacked. You will be smeared. You will be lied about. You will be threatened.

It is no consolation to know that any journalist or commentator who gives you a fair hearing will suffer the same.

This is the poison some have brought into our politics and it is vile. "

Hmmmm......
 
 
# Ard Righ 2011-11-07 18:22
Best not to assume that, many are all for independence and see te SNP as a vehicle to chive this, yet post independence the political landscape would change remarkably , more movements could take place that could change politics as we know it. How about the elders coordinating the engineers to make best use of our resources?
 
 
# tilly 2011-11-07 19:06
The Courier has the story.

www.thecourier.co.uk/
 
 
# tilly 2011-11-07 19:08
Sorry, replied to the wrong comment.

The Courier has the story.

www.thecourier.co.uk/
 
 
# cardrossian 2011-11-07 14:41
I notice in talking about any future independence referendum the Tories under their new leader, and the Lib Dems under their half baked apology for a politician called Moore are dropping big hints that any referendum might be 'rigged'.

This is obviously turning out to be a coalition plot, and must be rebutted at every opportunity. Why is the SNP not coming out fighting? If they are allowed to continue with this insinuous hinting of the word rig every time they open their mouths the public will come to believe it.

Come on bloggers! Hit back at every opportunity!
 
 
# rob4i 2011-11-07 14:41
Never EVER trust a Unionist media and press with polls on Independence!

The simple thing is, in this modern internet age the people of Scotland are wising up to the political facts and ignoring the Unionist fiction of the past decades.

Scotland is on its way and none of the self serving duplicitous Unionists can do anything about it, because if they could do anything to persuade the Scottish electorate to vote for continued domination from Westminster, then Scotland would truly be finished as a country!!
 
 
# chicmac 2011-11-07 14:56
By illustration (OK not independence per se but the nearest thing we've had), take a look at the following graph showing poll results in the months up to the Devolution Referendum.

i51.photobucket.com/.../...

Note that the last points are the actual results. Compare to the last two polls in the final days of the campaign.

The Yes vote was predicted to be just over 60% the actual result was 74%

The Yes to tax varying powers was predicted by the polls to be about 46%,to fail, the actual result was 63.5%

In both cases the 'error' was massively outside statistical expectations.

The Tories called for a polls to result discrepancy inquiry in one GE where the difference was far less.
 
 
# EdinScot 2011-11-07 19:41
Good point chicmac. Very useful in keeping this in mind for the biggest fight of our lives, Independence for our nation. I remember in election campaigns in the past few years the msm reporting that the SNP were clearly in front of Labour with a 17 point lead only to be hauled back and Labour to surge ahead in the final week. It proved to not be the case and in one instance the SNP got in as a minority Government in 2007. So i take the Unionists polls with a large pinch of salt, why wouldnt they aid and abet their own side, they do it day in day out to subvert democracy. With everything to lose, i believe they wont think twice about trying it on a scale we've never seen before.

A year out from the 2011 Holyrood election, the msm regualry repeated the mantra that Labour was a shoe in. Their reasoning and agenda is simple. Demoralise the Nationalists and brainwash the wider public at the same time. Look what happened! The Scottish electorate gave them the knock out blow and then some. Therein lies their danger.
 
 
# chicmac 2011-11-08 12:15
I should also have pointed out that the last two polls before the referendum were also well out of kilter with the previous long term trend. Much lower, again well outwith statistical expectation though not as much as with the actual results which were significantly more than all poll results.

If these were betting trends, the police would have interviewed people.
 
 
# GrassyKnollington 2011-11-07 15:10
o/t but I enjoyed some of these musings on "the way forward" from Lib Dem blogger Caron Lindsay and felt it would be greedy no to share a few....

Quote:
I have heard it said in a few places in recent months that we're being a bit too hard on the SNP Government. Often that comes from SNP activists who have notoriously thin skins when it comes to their Great Leader being criticised,


Quote:
The SNP were reasonably competent in their first term, but they've lost their way a bit since they won again in May, making some very strange judgement calls.


Quote:
The papers don't necessarily devote a lot of attention to the positive stuff they have been doing. Mike has devoted a whole load of time to changing the way the Crown Estate works, making sure local communities get some benefits as well as getting the Scotland Bill, which gives a huge anount of power to Holyrood, through. Okay, it's not as far as we would like to go, but it was developed through consensus and it's as far as we can go at the moment.


Quote:
The SNP can paint a very romantic vision of independence, but if they get it, then what? And will the dream match up to the reality, or will it be one of those "be careful what you wish for, you might get it" scenarios?


Quote:
When a Government gets a thumping endorsement in an election, it's a dangerous time for that Government. There's a temptation to get a bit big for its boots, to take liberties. The SNP are doing that in spades, talking up disputes with Westminster when it should be working together. This UK Government is a darned sight more respectful of the Scottish Government than the last one was, but the SNP aren't for returning the compliment.


carons-musings.blogspot.com/.../...
 
 
# pa_broon74 2011-11-07 15:35
Just proves how out of touch they are.
 
 
# chicmac 2011-11-07 15:39
Thanks for that. Was needing a good laugh.
 
 
# Training Day 2011-11-07 15:43
Come on Grassy, tell me you made this up?
 
 
# GrassyKnollington 2011-11-07 15:45
How dare you people mock our Lib Dem overlords.
 
 
# pa_broon74 2011-11-07 15:52
I thought my blog was full of crap... It seems new depths are plumbed elsewhere by Caron and her musings.

"The SNP were reasonably competent in their first term, but they've lost their way a bit since they won again in May, making some very strange judgement calls."

Not that I think they have lost their way, its still better than losing most of your seats.
 
 
# call me dave 2011-11-07 15:49
O/T but maybe not.

Ms Lamont speaks but what does she mean because I for one don't understand the message.

Is she speaking of a dialogue within the Labour party or is she speaking to the Scottish people when she said this part!.


"We shall seek debate without division or rancour."



-----------------------------------------
She added that the party's task was not to "find a narrative" or to "define our offer", but to rediscover "our story of a party created out of a vision for a fair society, sustained by our aspiration to serve all of Scotland".

Johann Lamont
Leadership candidate
Ms Lamont said: "I shall expect the co-operation and consistency of all our elected members wherever they sit respecting each other and recognising the role of members, the trade unions our co-operators and all those who call themselves Labour.

"We shall seek debate without division or rancour."


--------------------------------------
Where were all of our Scottish MSP's and UK labour MP's when 'Call me Dave' insulted Scotland on the lawn of the White House and again last week when we weren't worth investing in.

Sileeeeeencceee ee !!

That's what needs to change ALL Scottish MSP's need to get on Cameron's case whenever he comes out with his denigrating remarks,

No it's outright independence and no FFA!

I cant wait another generation for it to happen.
 
 
# Islegard 2011-11-07 15:54
Actually that isn't right there wasn't silence. They joined in! Scottish Labour gave there support to not investing in Scotland.
 
 
# brusque 2011-11-07 16:16
Quoting Islegard:
Actually that isn't right there wasn't silence. They joined in! Scottish Labour gave there support to not investing in Scotland.


Each must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, and which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your convictions is to be an unqualified and inexcusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let man label you as they may. If you alone of all the nation shall decide one way, and that way be the right way according to your convictions of the right, you have done your duty by yourself and by your country- hold up your head! You have nothing to be ashamed of.”
Mark Twain

A clever, clever man Mark Twain! he could have been talking about Eck.
 
 
# Wee-Scamp 2011-11-07 16:25
According to the STV site Lamont has already announced plans "to include non-MSPs in her shadow cabinet after senior party figures such as Andy Kerr, Tom McCabe and David Whitton lost their seats in the Holyrood election"

I find that truly bizarre.
 
 
# Islegard 2011-11-07 17:19
Anti-democratic Labour at its best! Broon did that had his cabinet filed with unelected individuals who couldn't be held accountable as they weren't democratically elected by anyone.
 
 
# Arbroath1320 2011-11-07 18:04
How the hell can she do that?

The shadow cabinet can only be made up of M.S.P.'s surely!

It will be interesting to see if she actually achieves this. What will A.S., and the rest of Holyrood, make of this possible new shadow cabinet?
 
 
# Marga B 2011-11-07 19:33
Shades of Joyce McMillan's idea of "the party's over for majority rule" (Scotsman article) i.e. never mind democracy we know better ...
 
 
# Ard Righ 2011-11-07 18:24
Fantastic quote

[You may have noticed that quite a lot of your posts on this thread have disappeared, due to fairly serious breaches of the moderation guidelines. Any more like that and you will be going back to having your comments pre-moderated. NNS Moderation Team]
 
 
# sneckedagain 2011-11-07 16:38
It has suddenly occurred that real FFA would give Scotland all the oil money - so they are backing away from that
The oil is the biggest reason for us to be indpendenct and the biggest reason why London is blocking it.
 
 
# scottish_skier 2011-11-07 16:44
Quoting sneckedagain:
It has suddenly occurred that real FFA would give Scotland all the oil money - so they are backing away from that
The oil is the biggest reason for us to be indpendenct and the biggest reason why London is blocking it.


Aye, Canary warf taxes would go to London so oil and gas revenues should go to Scotland. Only fair. 100's of 1000's of Scots are employed in the industy making up the majority of the workforce; it is Scotland's oil and industry.

Westminster would never agree to this. FFA is fantasy. They might offer something less in desperation, but on oil/gas they will never give in; think what might happen to that AAA rating....
 
 
# Islegard 2011-11-07 17:22
I totally disagree oil is not the main reason to be independent thats ridiculous. How many of the independent free nations on Earth have oil? They are also prosperous without oil. Are you serious? If there was no oil you wouldn't want to be free and have control of your own country?
 
 
# scottish_skier 2011-11-07 18:03
Quoting Islegard:
I totally disagree oil is not the main reason to be independent


I agree with you. However, the main reason Scotland is not independent right now is it's oil, and renewables potential to an extent now. The former is very important to Westminster as it helps maintain the UK credit rating.

Countries have gone to war over lesser matters. In fact a 'war' of words and dirty tactics began in May for all to see.
 
 
# drumalban 2011-11-07 17:43
Among the various discussions of further transfer of powers (up to "devo-max), has anyone mentioned the power to grant citizenship or right of domicile? As it stands, foreign born residents of Scotland are assumed by the UK Home Office to be subject to English Common Law in matters of appeal despite their residency within the jurisdiction of Scots Law. So a fellow of Thai origin living in Shetland was made to travel to Newcastle in order to have his case heard; an actual recent case and one of many over decade. It's high time that Scottish courts were deemed capable of dealing with appeals from Scottish residents wherever they were born.
 
 
# sneckedagain 2011-11-07 17:49
Islegard

When did I say anything of the sort? I joined the SNP and stood in elections for it before anybody had heard of the oil.
It is nevertheless the strongest and most obvious argument why we should be free and the most powerful reason why this is being resisted by London
 
 
# Islegard 2011-11-07 17:59
Ok fair enough! I agree it is a big issue. Sometimes it seems to take on the appearnce of being the only reason. The danger is people get too hung up thinking without we would be better off controlled by London.
 
 
# sneckedagain 2011-11-07 17:50
FFA is a trap dug by the unionists which Alex Salmond has gently assisted them into falling into themselves.
 
 
# Edulis 2011-11-07 18:05
Nobody has yet mentioned the interview on Politics Scotland with Henry McLeish yesterday. Henry is an advocate for Devomax and his opinion is that Scots will vote for Independence if the Devomax option is not on the ballot paper. That suggests we should play hard ball and do as Alex says. Leave the Unionists to make a fool of themselves.
 
 
# TOHILL 2011-11-07 18:40
Scotland should remain part of the UK with increased powers - 44%

what the f!!!!!
Obviously just awakening from a long hibernation I would imagine ??
 
 
# Nautilus 2011-11-07 18:48
We have to be evangelical about converting those espousing FFA to support full independence. Anything less is anathema to me and many others.

With FFA, the polluting nuclear subs will remain on the Clyde along with their cousins sporting their illegal Trident missiles. We would be first in line of attack if we squared up to Iran or any other potential adversary with the capacity for delivery.

All the wealth from our natural resources (oil, gas, wind and gold) would continue to flow down to London’s coffers, further enriching them and impoverishing us, so increasing the North – South prosperity divide. Furthermore, letting Wastemonster get their hands on it to keep on bailing out the City and building domes, sports palaces and M25s would exhaust them by 2025 (well, maybe not the wind).

With defence retained by London, we would continue to be dragged into unnecessary and illegal wars, wasteful both of lives and treasure with the sole purpose of trying to make an arrogant government of a minnow nation look good on the world stage. We will be landed with the airbases, the support for which will be quickly removed and transferred down south where the votes are as soon as the conflict is over.

Emigration will continue with our brightest and best leaving to join the fleshpots of the south east or other lands where the living is easier.

We will continue to see negative propaganda re-Scotland, persuading any inward investment to be put into the Home Counties where infrastructure (paid for by us) is best and proximity to the continent is easy.

Worst of all, we will have a government voted in by an electorate which is totally alien to the aspirations of egalitarian Scots – a government that virtually force feeds taxpayer money down the throats of private profit-making companies to do the jobs that should be the responsibility of the State.

The Unionists are on a hiding to nothing. They have yet to give us a cogent positive reason to remain in the Union. Make us happy – tell us how good it will be to remain!

No. Scots are more self-confident now. The too wee, too thick argument does not hold water. We have a government here that makes that down south look stupid and corrupt. We are fed up being depressed by the negative campaigning from down there and it just will not work any more.
 
 
# Clarinda 2011-11-07 19:00
If Mrs Lamont is intending to incorporate non-MSPs as reported by Wee Scamp at 16:25 to replicate the GOATS (Government Of All the Talents) setup by Gordon Brown - would that not be Those Without Intellectual Talents?
 
 
# Flora Macoo 2011-11-07 19:31
Only my second post here after being a long-time lurker.

There's no doubt we're up against it - if what we've seen recently is indicative of the negativity we're in for then it's going to be a bumpy ride!

To counteract the MSM and the EBC how about a billboard campaign? Advertising at football grounds - particularly these annoying electronic ones? I'd be happy to contribute. Why can't I buy a Newsnet Scotland car window sticker that'll maybe register with the guy behind me next time I'm stuck in traffic?

I honestly think that people just have to be given the opportunity to see the other side of the argument and they'll convert in their droves.

BTW is anyone else worried about the prospect of subliminal advertising being used? I am. Wouldn't put it past them. They'll stop at nothing to keep their cash cow.
 
 
# exel 2011-11-07 19:32
Jim1320 2011-11-07 10:11
“I would agree - there is a danger that the FFA option is, rightly in my view, seen as a significant incremental step to independence and too much store is set by it as a done deal. I can see the Westminster parties having to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table to put a decent FFA option on the card which is only in Westminster's gift to do. It may be in the end only Independence or the Status Quo and although that might well be deliverable it will take a lot of hard work. The Unionists will play the fear card for all they are worth.”

I so wish that the “kid on” advocates of Independence would give up trying to tell us that FFA is a step in the right direction.

FFA is simply increasing the number of devolved powers, which would only be achieved by negotiation with Westminster. If the SNP truly want Independence, there should only be one question. Do the people of Scotland wish to secede, leave the union, separate or any other word you wish to use.
 
 
# Edna Caine 2011-11-07 20:05
Quoting exel:
If the SNP truly want Independence, there should only be one question. Do the people of Scotland wish to secede, leave the union, separate or any other word you wish to use.




"any other word", please.
 
 
# Scottish republic 2011-11-07 20:04
From the New Statesman:

Quote:
Enough of the Scottish subsidy myth  

Scotland pays its way in the Union - it's time the London commentariat acknowledged that.
Scotland subsidy

SNP supprters at the party's conference. Photo: Getty Images

The notion that Scottish public services are subsidised by English taxpayers has become so commonplace in UK politics that not even David Dimbleby, the supposedly neutral presenter of BBC Question Time, thinks twice about repeating it. During an exchange on a recent show with Liberal Democrat Jo Swinson about her decision to vote as a Scottish MP to impose tuition fees on English students, Dimbleby said, "You voted for England to have fees, whereas Scotland, as we know, with the amount of money that comes from England, doesn't need to have them."
 
This view is based on the discrepancy between levels of public spending per head of the population in Scotland and England. According to the Treasury's latest Public Expenditure Statistics, Scots gets an average of £10,212 spent on them every year by the UK government, compared with around £8,588 -- £1,624 less -- for people in England.

In line with narrative of the Scottish welfare subsidy, the extra cash allows Scotland to provide its students with free higher education, its elderly with free personal care and concessionary travel, and its sick with free prescription medication, while their English equivalents are forced to go without.
 
This so-called "Union dividend" is also used by many London-based journalists and politicians -- many of whom would describe themselves as social democrats -- who argue that current levels of public expenditure in Scotland would be unsustainable were it to break away and become an independent country.
 
Yet, if the London commentariat took the time to examine the figures a little more closely, they would discover what a large number people north of the border are already know: not only does Scotland more than pay its way in the Union, but its overall fiscal position would actually be stronger as a fully sovereign nation.
 
Lets tackle the subsidy charge first. Scots represent 8.4 per cent of the UK's total population, but they generate 9.4 per cent of its annual revenues in tax - equivalent to £1,000 extra per person. The remaining £624 is easily accounted for by decades of UK government under-spending in Scotland on defence and on other items which are not routinely broken down by region, such as foreign office services.
 
Second, there's the claim that Scotland's "bloated" welfare state could not be sustained outside the Union. This is nonsense. Including its per capita share of revenues from North Sea oil and gas production, Scotland's public expenditure probably does not exceed the OECD average and is almost certainly lower than that of the Scandinavian social democracies. The fact that the Treasury cynically refuses to class those revenues as part of Scotland's overall annual economic output inflates the level of public sector expenditure as a proportion of GDP relative to that of the private sector.
 
Finally, one of the most common -- and least well-considered -- claims made by supporters of the Union is that the 2008 global financial meltdown shattered the economic case for independence. How, they argue, would the economy of tiny, independent Scotland have been able to cope with the burden of debt needed to rescue its financial sector from collapse? It wouldn't, of course, but according to George Walker, professor of financial regulation and policy at the University of Glasgow, Scotland would only have had to take on a proportion of the total cost of the bail-out based on the subsidiaries and business operations of HBOS and RBS in Scotland. This would probably amount to no more than 5 per cent.
 
For the sake of argument, nationalists might also wish to note that Scotland's 2009 - 2010 deficit was, at 6.8 per cent of GDP, a full 3 per cent lower than England's, and that the likely defence expenditure of an independent Scotland would, at around $1.8bn per year in line with Nordic average, be roughly £1bn less than what the UK currently spends on its behalf.
 
But why should Unionists let the economic facts ruin the image they have built up of Scotland as a nation of selfish, indulged welfare "mendicants"?The subsidy myth is too politically useful to be simply abandoned. Of course, if they ever do come to terms with the reality that Scotland could survive on its own - and even prosper - it will probably be too late anyway.








That IS our current economic argument
 
 
# Glenbuchat 2011-11-07 20:21
I do think that the pro independence lobby are getting a little over excited following a poll which shows less than a third of the Scottish electorate support indepemdence. Surely, before you get completely carried away, it is time for a reality check:

1) Over two thirds do not support independence.

2) Devo Max, FFA, Independence Lite (I Cannot Believe It's Not Independence)wi ll not be defined or proposed by any of the opposition parties in the Scottish Parliament. There are no grounds for it being offered as an option in any referendum.

3) The constitution is still a matter entirely reserved to Westminster. There is a general political acceptance that the Scots voted to support a referendum in this years election but any attempt to fiddle with either the straight yes/no question or the definition of the qualifying electorate will almost certainly lead to a legal challenge. The Supreme Court may well conclude that any such referendum is ultra vires. Westminster would then step in and hold a single question referendum.

4) Independence is by no means inevitable and the route towards any referendum is neither simple or clear cut.
 
 
# Fungus 2011-11-07 20:43
Quoting Glenbuchat:
3) The constitution is still a matter entirely reserved to Westminster. There is a general political acceptance that the Scots voted to support a referendum in this years election but any attempt to fiddle with either the straight yes/no question or the definition of the qualifying electorate will almost certainly lead to a legal challenge. The Supreme Court may well conclude that any such referendum is ultra vires. Westminster would then step in and hold a single question referendum.


I heard Ruth Davidson parroting Cameron by threatening exactly that on the radio today. However I think they would be treading on extremely thin ice if they tried that one on. The SNP government is the SNP government because the people of Scotland overwhelmingly made them so in the full knowledge that a referendum on independence would be held by the government towards the end of it's term. If no-mandate Cameron interfered in that process, 'Supreme' Court or no, I think there would be good reason to take Britain to the UN.

As a small aside, I actually am pleased that the lassie has won the Tory election. She can give kick boxing lessons to MSPs, or for that matter MPs who threaten her with a doing.
 
 
# GrassyKnollington 2011-11-07 21:05
Glenbuchat wroteQuote:
2) Devo Max, FFA, Independence Lite (I Cannot Believe It's Not Independence)wi ll not be defined or proposed by any of the opposition parties in the Scottish Parliament.


Quite true. They can't propose and define it any more than the SNP can.

Only their Westminster colleagues can do so. Do you think they will?
 
 
# Glenbuchat 2011-11-07 21:11
No, not as long as they maintain an ounce of sanity.

It is an idea only supported by a very small number of unionists who, mistakenly, beleieve that the SNP can be stymied by "just a bit more" and some catious nationalists who, equally mistakenly, think that Scots will walk blindly towards independence by offering "a little bit less".
 
 
# exel 2011-11-07 22:22
Glenbuchat 2011-11-07 21:11
“It is an idea only supported by a very small number of unionists who, mistakenly, beleieve that the SNP can be stymied by "just a bit more" and some catious nationalists who, equally mistakenly, think that Scots will walk blindly towards independence by offering "a little bit less".”

The SNP have run out of excuses for not having a referendum. Now the plan is let the unionists suggest more devolution powers, but they are not playing the stupid game.

When will the SNP start believing their own mantra “the Scottish people are not stupid!! The con from the party conference did not work, get on with what you claim the Scottish people gave you a mandate to do.
 
 
# Aplinal 2011-11-07 22:34
Quote:
The SNP have run out of excuses for not having a referendum.


There are no excuses. First the economy was and is the first priority in the first half of the parliament - it's in the manifesto.

Second the referendum will be held when the SNP stated it would be held - in the second half of the parliament.

I know it's unusual that a political party tries to deliver their manifesto promises, but that's what the SNP have stated they will do, and that appears to be what they are trying to do - economy first, referendum later. What "excuse" are you referring to?
Quote:
get on with what you claim the Scottish people gave you a mandate to do.


Read the manifesto - it's all there in black and white. That IS what the Scottish people gave the SNP a mandate to do.
 
 
# Glenbuchat 2011-11-07 22:43
And where was Devo Max in the manifesto? Where was the proposal to run a referendum with no involvement of the Electoral Commission? Where was extending the franchise to anyone enrolled in a nursery school?

And, while I am tempted by cynicism, is Devo Max an option which appeals to Mr Salmond because he knows it cannot be delivered and can be exploited to create tension between Scotland and the rest of the UK?
 
 
# Aplinal 2011-11-07 22:51
No I don't think so. Devo-max is a Unionist idea, that - it seems - a significant number of Scots are attracted to. Personally I want independence full stop, but should I deny the right of my fellow Scots to express a different vision? I don't think so.

The SNP will NOT be campaigning on Devo-max. They will campaign for Independence, which is why the unionists have to come up with what it will mean in practice. When people see what the offer actually is - assuming the unionists deliver one - then they can make up their minds.

As far as I understand, although the question is not yet set, the referendum will ask Scots if they want Independence. A majority to this question would make any other question obsolete.

If you answer yes, you can also answer whether you want FULL independence, or a form of FFA.

As for the involvement of the Electoral Commission, it has nothing to do with them. Self-determination is for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people. The UK went to war in the Balkans over this 'principle' so why not let it run its course back home?
 
 
# exel 2011-11-07 22:59
Aplinal 2011-11-07 22:51
"No I don't think so. Devo-max is a Unionist idea, that - it seems - a significant number of Scots are attracted to. Personally I want independence full stop, but should I deny the right of my fellow Scots to express a different vision? I don't think so."

No one has a mandate for dev-max. Whatever it is?
 
 
# exel 2011-11-07 22:54
Aplinal 2011-11-07 22:34
“There are no excuses. First the economy was and is the first priority in the first half of the parliament - it's in the manifesto.”
“Second the referendum will be held when the SNP stated it would be held - in the second half of the parliament.”

The manifesto did not say we will not give you the details until the second half of the parliament.

The second half for the referendum only came to the fore when they got over the surprise of getting a majority.
 
 
# pa_broon74 2011-11-07 23:22
Rubbish.

AS and NS said repeatedly during interviews in the run up to the election that the ref would be in the second half of the parliament.

bbc.co.uk/.../...

On the BBC, a report dated 4th May 2011:

"If victorious at the polls on Thursday, Mr Salmond will seek to bring the referendum plan back in the second half of the next parliament - saying Westminster's Scotland Bill on more powers for Holyrood needs to be dealt with first."
 
 
# exel 2011-11-07 23:35
Quoting pa_broon74:
Rubbish.

On the BBC, a report dated 4th May 2011:

"If victorious at the polls on Thursday, Mr Salmond will seek to bring the referendum plan back in the second half of the next parliament - saying Westminster's Scotland Bill on more powers for Holyrood needs to be dealt with first."


This was not Mr Salmond saying those words, it is a report and from the BBC (MSM).
 
 
# pa_broon74 2011-11-08 00:11
No.

You're not getting away with that.

It was the BBC reporting what AS said. You can't have your cake and eat it.
 
 
# derek 2011-11-07 23:41
Why are the unionist so keen to have the referendum now? if they want Independence shouldn't they say so.

I guess their hiding something about the future?
 
 
# Glenbuchat 2011-11-07 23:51
I suspect that those of a unionist bent are hiding nothing. However, the sooner that a simple in/out referendum is held the sooner we will have confirmation that most Scots prefer being politically British.

Years of waiting for confirmation as to when and precisely how the question will be put becomes rather tedious.
 
 
# derek 2011-11-07 23:55
I wouldn't be so sure? with all this deficit hanging around, things can only get worse? and with 400Bn still in the pipe line Scotland is of course the dependable state that London rely's on.
 
 
# Jacko 2011-11-08 01:31
Glenbuchat - You do realise of course that every plebiscite, to date, put to the Scottish people has met with a majority in favour of further devolution of powers?

It is for this very reason that the unionist parties were committed to voting down a referendum last parliament.

Why the urgency from them now? *sniff sniff* ..... smell that? It's called panic!
 
 
# tartanfever 2011-11-07 23:47
The manifesto did not say we will not give you the details until the second half of the parliament.



Blimey, double negatives always make me confused... so ..erm..when did they say the would give the details of the referendum then, exel ?
 
 
# exel 2011-11-07 23:54
Quoting tartanfever:
Blimey, double negatives always make me confused... so ..erm..when did they say the would give the details of the referendum then, exel ?


They did not and they have not. When will they?
 
 
# tartanfever 2011-11-08 00:02
I'm sure when they are ready to they will. Be patient old chum -it's a virtue apparently...
 
 
# exel 2011-11-08 11:46
tartanfever 2011-11-08 00:02
I'm sure when they are ready to they will. Be patient old chum -it's a virtue apparently...

I thought the people of Scotland were sovereign. Apparently only once every five years, the rest of the time the unicameral parliament are in charge.
 
 
# Arbroath1320 2011-11-08 02:01
O'T sorry.

Yet another reason for Scotland to be Independent as soon as possible.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15619461

To paraphrase the Wastemonster committee.

"Yes you can have your new train set but it must also connect to Leeds and Manchester, don't worry about those rebellious Scots, they're too wee too poor and too stupid to understand what you are doing."
 
 
# Aucheorn 2011-11-08 09:16
How are they going to pay for it.

Their credit rating's going to change a bit in a few years.
 
 
# mealer 2011-11-08 11:15
Am I right in thinking,accord ing to this poll, 52% of English people want Scotland to be independent?Surely that will make it difficult for Cameron to galvanise cross-party support for his campaign to keep Scotland under London rule.
 

You must be logged-in in order to post a comment.

Banner

Donate to Newsnet Scotland

Banner

Latest Comments