Scots to be offered radical new deal in bid to save the union

[muriel_volestrangler]

Last edited Sat Sep 6, 2014, 05:22 PM - Edit history (1)

The people of Scotland will be offered the chance to devise a federal future for their own country before next year's general election under radical plans aimed at derailing the surge towards full-blown independence.

Amid growing nervousness among unionists about the prospect of a yes vote on 18 September, an announcement is expected within days on plans to allow people from all parts of Scottish society to decide how to finish the job of devolving powers from London to Holyrood.

A senior government minister close to the Better Together campaign told the Observer: "Watch this space. You can expect something in the next few days." It is understood that there have been intensive cross-party talks in recent days to finalise the plans.

The senior minister made clear that the new Scottish conference or convention, to be established after a no vote, would involve all parts of Scottish society, not just politicians. It would aim to complete its work in time for the three main Westminster parties to commit to implementing its recommendations in the first Queen's speech of a new parliament. Alex Salmond's SNP would be invited to take part.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/06/scots-radical-new-deal-save-the-union

And Rupert Murdoch seems to be gloating over a poll about to come out showing "everything up for grabs", which he bizarrely thinks is a good opportunity for 'libertarians and far left'.

Update: poll, for the Sunday Times, shows Yes 51%, No 49%, among decided voters.

[non sociopath skin]

1. I hope not, but that may well be too little too late.

Last edited Sun Sep 7, 2014, 05:20 AM - Edit history (1)

Interesting to ponder that Thatcher and Blair's final legacy might be the end of the United Kingdom.

The Skin

[oldironside]

2. Unnecessary panic from No.

It's a Yougov poll which is highly unreliable and open to manipulation.

They use a self selecting group - people have to actively register and the Yes camp have been encouraging their supporters to sign up for months. Yougov shows a 22% swing to Yes in the last few weeks.

The Panelbase poll for the SNP published today shows no swing at all. Things are as they were pre-second debate.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Panelbase is a similar form of polling

It remains quite strange that YouGov have shown this sharp narrowing in the race while Panelbase haven’t. The difference is not just an outlying poll – while one single poll could be a freak result, YouGov has shown a consistent narrowing in the face over three polls. It’s not down to any methodological change – this poll was conducted using exactly the same methodology as YouGov’s previous poll. The only recent change in methods was four polls ago, introducing weighting by place of birth, and both YouGov and Panelbase introduced that at about the same time. Things like a differential willingness to respond to polls (people who support a campaign on the up being more likely to click on the email) should affect both Panelbase and YouGov the same – they are both online companies using a panel based system. One possibility is simply that the different trends are down to the same reasons behind the previous differences between Panelbase and YouGov. Both use weighting by Holyrood recalled vote as a core weighting variable, but YouGov also break out a proportion of people who voted SNP in 2011 but Labour in 2010. Perhaps if those people – people’s whose loyalty at Holywood and Westminster is divided between the SNP and Labour – had previously been more NO, but have moved towards YES this month, and are more represented in YouGov’s sample? It’s a possible contributory factor, but such things are rarely so neatly explained. We shall have to wait and see what sort of trend TNS and Survation show in the week.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8958

[oldironside]

4. The polls later in the week...

... will indeed let us know something closer to reality. However, don't forget that Yougov were 15% wide of the mark in the AV referendum. As Private Eye puts it "AnyResultYouWantGuv".

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. AV was a low turnout, though (42%)

which would always make predictions harder; everyone seems to agree that the Scottish turnout will be high.

[oldironside]

6. But I've heard it argued ...

... that Yougov's methodology is best suited to low turnouts because they are really only sampling the politically motivated. When people who don't usually vote come in, particularly on a single issue like this, they rely on their weighting system.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. TNS-BRMB - No leads by 1 point among 16+, tie for those certain to vote

Last edited Tue Sep 9, 2014, 12:11 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/09/08/it-really-is-squeaky-bum-time-tns-have-the-gap-down-to-just-one-percent/



and that appears to be a phone poll: http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/09/08/at-last-a-non-internet-scottish-indyref-poll/

(correction: it's actually a face-to-face poll: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8961 )

[oldironside]

17. Survation for the Daily Record...

Last edited Wed Sep 10, 2014, 02:55 PM - Edit history (1)

... gives No a six point lead. Basically the same as two months ago.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/independence-referendum-exclusive-daily-record-4196976

This is the company that is friendliest for the Yes campaign, and it fails to show the surge we've all been hearing about. In fact, the only poll that has shown the Yes surge was YouGov.

So, as far as I can see there was no surge. It was just shoddy polling from YouGov (no surprise there) and Salmond flapping his big mouth in an attempt to get some traction.

The real proof of the pudding is in the bookies odds. At the time of writing, out of the 22 companies giving odds, 15 show No shortening, 1 shows it drifting, the others show no change. As for Yes, 14 show the odds drifting, one shortening, the rest no change.

The basic odds are roughly Yes 2/1, No 1/3.

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/referendum-outcome

Given the disparity in the odds I wouldn't bet against the bookies.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. TNS - a face-to-face poll - went from an 8 point No lead to a tie

So, no, it's not just YouGov.

"The real proof of the pudding is in the bookies odds."

No. The proof is the actual result. The bookies are doing what they need to to make money - their current collective judgement looks like No to win.

[oldironside]

19. "No. The proof is the actual result."

We won't know the real result for over a week, so until then we've got the polls and the bookies odds. Maybe you're more interested in listening to Salmond's BS. The reliable polls are stable. TNS can be taken with a pinch of salt due to the incredibly high level of don't knows.

Anyone with any understandng of how odds work would realise that No is so far ahead it would take an earthquake (which is patently not happening) for Yes to win.

So I'll just treat your arrogant slap down with the contempt it deserves.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. Arrogant? What did I write that was 'arrogant'?

Just because I'm not joining in with your disparaging of YouGov, that doesn't make me 'arrogant'. I was pointing out that TNS had a significant change too, which your post had ignored.

If you want 'arrogant', I refer you to "Anyone with any understandng of how odds work would realise that No is so far ahead it would take an earthquake (which is patently not happening) for Yes to win."

[bluemarkers]

7. late to this

is there a reliable source that might show both sides of this story....

or just tell me which side Murdoch is on... that will explain everything

[Anarcho-Socialist]

8. He's pro-SNP and pro-independence

'The Sun' in Scotland backed the SNP in last Scottish Parliament elections.

Murdoch backs Scottish independence for the following reasons:

1. An independent Scotland under the SNP will cut corporation tax by 3% with a view of lowering it further
2. The SNP's economic model post-independence is based on a low tax low-regulation economy, based on the Irish model (which imploded in 2008-9)
3. Scottish "business friendly" policies will encourage a 'race to the bottom' with England and Wales, likely leading to a competitive lowering of taxes on big business
4. Scottish independence will remove 50-60 Labour MPs from the Westminster Parliament. This will make British elections far more favourable for the Conservatives. It would be the equivalent of the Democratic Party losing 10% of its House seats and still trying to gain control of the House.
5. With a favourable electoral environment for Conservatives in England and Wales, with SNP cosying up with big business in Scotland, Murdoch will have Britain where he wants it.

[bluemarkers]

10. o.m.g.

this is truly awful!

I've been loosely following what has been happening with UKIP, (they are trying to dismantle NIH too?!) but honestly don't have a grip on the deeper meaning at all on the referendum. What an awful spot for those who really want an independent Scotland based on historical reasons.

Thank you so much

[LeftishBrit]

11. Isn't it great...

to have the chances of the UK's continued existence resting in the hands of someone who has never been a citizen of any part of it, let alone elected to any sort of office?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

9. Rupert Murdoch thinks it's an opportunity for Rupert Murdoch

The SNP's pro-corporate model and Murdoch's fury at Westminster for not covering his arse over phone hacking and Leverson, explains the Murdoch-Salmond "bromance"

[mackerel]

13. Yeah but Murdoch won't live forever...Scotland on the other hand...

[fedsron2us]

14. If the Scots vote Yes

I am afraid it is going to be disgruntled Scottish Labour voters not Murdoch or the Scottish Nationalists 'wot won it'.

The campaign to defend the Union has been pretty dismal.

The idea that it must be saved so the Labour Party is guaranteed a majority in the UK Parliament in 2015 is probably the poorest argument of all for maintaining the Union. Understandably quite a few on the left in Scotland are fed up with just being treated as lobby fodder for a PLP that thinks it might struggle to win enough seats in the rest of the UK to gain a majority in the House of Commons. Moreover Scots are tired of vacuous promises that are never fulfilled In the 1979 Referendum they were denied a Scottish assembly even though 51.6 percent of those who voted wanted it. Instead they got 18 years of Thatcherite government which saw Scotland's economy decimated. Now I am pretty sure that a majority want full fiscal autonomy (ie control of Scotlands tax and spending by a Scottish Parliament) even if some balk at the idea of full independence. The fact that the Tories may actually be closer to offering this option than Labour tells you all need to know about the current dismal state of the Labour party at Westminster.

To be honest if the ballot was the other way round and Scotland was already an independent country how many people could seriously argue the case for a Union with the UK Westminster system as it presently operates.

Anyway from the demographics breakdown of the polls that it is only older voters in the 65 plus age group that are really propping up the No figures. It seems pretty certain that the Scottish Nationalists are not going to give up their campaign even if they lose this poll (which it should be noted is only an indicative ballot with no binding legal powers). They will be back in 5-10 years having another go and the grim reaper will probably have moved the balance in their favour by then all other things being equal. Salmond is really using this campaign to get the Devo Max option that was denied him on the ballot paper in the first place and it seems his tactics are working.

It looks like major constitutional changes are on the way for the UK whatever happens on September 18

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. Good point about the demographics

By now, I'm just hoping for a 'no' vote because the arguing and bureaucracy involved in a split would exclude everything else from British politics for 2 years or more.

[fedsron2us]

16. Agree 100% on the latter point

Nearly all the governments tax and spending systems are geared around a UK view of the population

The Scotland Act of 2012 has started to change that situation with its creation of the Scottish Rate of Income Tax among other things

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_Act_2012
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/news/scottish-rate.htm

This has already begun the process whereby Scottish taxpayers will be differentiated from those of the rest of the UK. At the moment only the power to levy the special rates of Income Tax has been devolved to the Scottish government. The actual administration and collection of the tax would still be carried out by HMRC on behalf of the UK Treasury. Clearly the Nationalist government in Edinburgh want to control that process as well so they have begun the process of creating their own Revenue Scotland

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Government/Finance/scottishapproach/revenuescotland

To me it is clear that the SNP want to go down the road of independence by stages. First they have got the Scottish Parliament and some legislative powers. Now they are seeking to gain control not only of the setting of fiscal and spending policy but more importantly they want to create a machinery of government separate from the UK civil service to administer it. Once that process is complete they will have built the political infrastructure required to run a modern state so it would then be relatively short hop to total independence.

To be honest I can only see this going one way in the future if Westminster drags its feet too long and too hard. It would be better for the politicians in London to come up with a radical restructuring of the whole UK political system along federal lines with dare I say it a written constitution. Such a process would at least offer the opportunity to spike Salmond's plans in advance. Unfortunately, I can not see any of the established Westminster parties being bold enough to go down that route, They appear to prefer to see chunks of the UK lopped off so long a they can maintain the political status quo maintained in what remains. It is particularly sad that the Labour party which should be championing reform is way behind the game on this matter. As I said above they seem more interested in gerrymandering any solution to ensure they can guarantee a Labour majority in any UK assembly rather than coming up with a any real plan for autonomy for the UK regions. Ironically since the Tories have more representation in the Scottish Parliament than they have Scottish MPs in Westminster they may actually be happier to grant the Scottish government more powers particularly if it can be offset by reducing or removing Scottish MPs voting rights in Westminster

[Matilda]

21. If Murdoch's for Independence, then I'd instinctively be against it.

He's virtual ruler of Australia at the moment, and it's become an ugly, racist society, with an ever-widening gap between haves and have-nots. He's an evil man.

On the other hand, I'm descended from Scots who supported Bonnie Prince Charlie against the English, so I'm sure that somewhere, they're cheering on the Yes vote.

Yet sentimentally, I support the No vote - I've seen a number of television reports saying how bad division would be for England, but I can't see little Scotland faring very well either. I can see it's a matter of national pride, but economically and politically, I'm not sure it would be good, but I don't know enough about the fine points to really understand. But if it's so close, it seems that afterwards, one-half of the country is going to be very unhappy, and somewhere further along, there'd have to be another vote.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

25. Bonnie Prince Charlie wasn't against the English

He considered himself the legitimate King of all Great Britain and King of Ireland, not King of Scots.

Pedantically, the rebellion was a dynastic one (with religious and linguistic overtones) not a national one. The government armies he fought were predominantly Lowland Scots.

[Matilda]

30. True, Butcher Cumberland fought with the Scottish Lowlanders

against the Highlanders.

But the Highlanders were against the Hanoverian interlopers, as they saw it, who were supported by the hated English.

Edit: Factual correction

[steve2470]

22. OT question: Wales and England....

If Scotland gains its independence, is there any chance Wales would mount such an effort ? Thanks for your patience.

Steve

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. They haven't been so keen on it, on the whole

They have, on the whole, lagged behind Scotland in the support for devolved powers. But those have been increasing a little for Wales, so I expect they will look for a bit more after this. Full independence doesn't seem that likely in the near future, however. They didn't have a history as one definite country with one king, or a parliament, unlike Scotland - they had several kings with small areas, of whom one was often recognised as the most powerful, but it was generally fluid. So there's no "go back to the old system" feeling. They're also smaller, and don't have oil - they are almost certainly net financial beneficiaries of being in the UK; they'd be one of the smaller EU countries by population (just bigger than Lithuania).

[geardaddy]

28. There was a parliament in Machynlleth

but it only served as the governing body for Gwynedd.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

26. The answer is no

The Senadd would certainly would like more powers but there is little appetite for breaking from Britain.

The fact that Welsh Labour is a meaningful centre-left party of social democrats and democratic socialists (unlike much of Scottish Labour) means that that Welsh working class people don't look to nationalism for answers.

[geardaddy]

27. FWIW the correct spelling is "Senedd"

I do agree, though. It seems unlikely that the Welsh will achieve or want independence any time soon or at all.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

29. Good catch! n/t

[mackerel]

24. John Oliver begs Scotland not to go...lol

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/15/john-oliver-scotland-last-week-tonight_n_5821950.html

[Ken Burch]

31. Actually, Cameron may not be ABLE to offer that deal after all.

He's had a lot of backlash from his MP's, and he could well be dumped as leader if he's seen as too soft on this.

[T_i_B]

32. A lot of promises were made by the "No" camp.

Cameron has to deliver. Otherwise this issue will raise its head even more aggressively then before.

[non sociopath skin]

33. From this morning's statement, Cameron sees to be looking to use the "No" vote to his own ends ...

... by seeking some variation on the "English Parliament" idea - which the Kippers also favour.

The Skin

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. I think a system of "only English MPs vote on this" looks more like what he'll want

partly because UKIP is pushing an English parliament, and he needs to have an alternative. It does raise a problem if there is a situation of a government with a UK majority but English minority, of course. But I don't see any simple but fair solution.

[T_i_B]

35. I have seen calls for a UK constitutonal convention.

Last edited Fri Sep 19, 2014, 05:08 PM - Edit history (1)

I can see merit in that idea, although I also think it's a tacit admission that the constitutional reforms of the Blair era haven't really worked.

However, the state of the main political parties is the greater concern IMHO. They are all too centralised, and therefore much too remote from the electorate they are supposed to serve. That in turn leads to many of the problems that the "Yes" campaign were raising.

I don't think phaffing about with the constitution is necessarily the way to sort that problem out.

[LeftishBrit]

36. I agree about the over-centralisation...

which leads to the problems you mention; and also to disproportionate power for the party leadership.

I sometimes think it would be a good idea to have separate elections for the Prime Minister and MPs, so as to increase MPs' independence and their incentive to represent their own constituents. However, I suppose it could be argued that (a) the current standoff between President and Congress in the USA is not an encouraging example; and (b) it might lead the Tory lunatic fringe MPs (Cash, Redwood, Dorries, etc.) to flourish even more than they do already.