SCOT goes POP!

Kilclooney's baloney

2012-01-27T06:46:00.004Z

I've just caught up with the extraordinary letter to the Scotsman a couple of weeks ago from Lord Kilclooney (former Deputy Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party), suggesting that Scotland should be subject to an Irish-style "partition" if the majority of the country votes Yes to independence, but a specific area votes No.

"Northern Ireland remained within the UK as was the desire of most people in that part of Ireland. Should there ever be a majority in Scotland for independence it should not be binding on all the people of Scotland.

If, say, Strathclyde or the Lowlands prefer to remain in the UK then that decision should be honoured by a partition of Scotland."

Hmmm. Well, what leaps out at me straight away is that there were two counties of Northern Ireland itself, Fermanagh and Tyrone, that had nationalist majorities at the time of partition in the early 1920s. The desire of "most people in that part of Ireland" to leave the United Kingdom was flagrantly ignored, in the interests of keeping the minority unionist population of those two counties snugly inside their beloved bunker statelet.

So in line with the intriguing new 'Kilclooney Doctrine', it must surely be long past time to right that historic wrong? Given the beliefs he set out in his letter, the noble lord can surely have no objection to the counties of Fermanagh, Tyrone, Armagh and Derry (the latter two now having nationalist majorities as well) exercising the right to decide their own constitutional future individually, without the requirement for any 'permission' from the unionist majority in Northern Ireland as a whole?

Oh wait - I think I'm hearing objections. How mysterious.

In truth, of course, Kilclooney is guilty of a very obvious logical fallacy. If, for example, South Ayrshire was to vote No to independence in the referendum, that is not the same thing as saying that they would prefer to leave Scotland in the event of independence. There is simply no Scottish equivalent of the regionally-based "if Ireland isn't in the UK, we're not Irish at all" phenomenon. If such a thing existed, it would have to be taken seriously by all of us who believe in self-determination - but it doesn't. We'd have noticed by now.

All the same, it would still be highly entertaining to hear Lord Kilclooney's convoluted explanation for why individual counties of Scotland have the right to choose their own constitutional future, but individual counties of Northern Ireland do not. No less entertaining has been the general hysteria and intemperate language from the NI unionist ranks in response to the events of the last few weeks. My message to them would be this - Northern Ireland has the right to self-determination every bit as much as Scotland does. But that is not the same thing as a right to demand that others stick around to provide you with an identity.

The Lib Dem message to Scotland : stop being so 'difficult'

2012-01-26T04:53:00.009Z

I really should know better by now, but given the special occasion, I thought I might as well pop round to PB yesterday to put up some kind of defence of the nationalist position against the inevitable onslaught. It turned into yet another four-hour epic. It's hard to choose the 'highlight', but perhaps I'd marginally give the nod to this exchange with Liberal Democrat poster MrsB, who innocently claims that she supports votes at 16, but that it's simply impossible to implement (yes, really!).

MrsB : James I have said this before and I will say it again now. The legal age for voting in the UK (which Scotland is still part of) is 18.

I support voting at 16. Currently it is not legally possible.

It might be possible to get votes at 16 through at Westminster before the referendum but I really really doubt it.

Therefore the issue of whether 16 or 17 year olds should get a vote in the referendum is a non-starter.

Without that change to the legislation actually running such a referendum which had any credibility would be impossible. There would be no electoral roll for the 16 year olds, though some 17 year olds would be on it because their 18th birthday would fall during the year. How would you ensure that all 16 year olds got the vote fairly? And don't say "use the school rolls" because I am pretty sure that would not be allowed under Data Protection legislation. It wouldn't be comprehensive anyway.

Like I say, I am in favour of the principle of voting at 16. However, when it comes to the referendum I don't see how it is possible to make it happen.

Me : MrsB, a simple question : do you support or oppose Michael Moore's proposal to ban 16 and 17 year olds from voting in the referendum? If you support it, please don't insult our intelligence by pretending that your support for votes at 16 is meaningful.

I'm reminded of Mo Mowlam's wry reply to her Tory counterpart : "I welcome his support for the Good Friday Agreement. I now look forward to that support extending to the actual contents of the Agreement."

MrsB : Under current UK law 16 and 17 year olds cannot vote in ANY elections. Why should they be entitled to vote in just the one referendum in one part of the UK? That is not correct.

Were there to be a piece of legislation lowering the voting age to 16 it would apply to all elections and referenda and would be fair. But we are not going to get that.

So yes, I do support Michael Moore's position. But it would be better if he made more of the point about the legal voting age and so that it would be more difficult for Nats to depict him as someone trying to find an excuse for stopping people voting for independence.

Me : "Why should they be entitled to vote in just the one referendum in one part of the UK?"

MrsB, as has been pointed out to you several times, the SNP are in favour of giving 16 and 17 year olds the vote for ALL elections - just as the Lib Dems are supposed to be. The difference is that they are trying to implement their own policy, whereas the Lib Dems are moving heaven and earth to block theirs - just as they are doing on enhanced powers for the Scottish Parliament.

Bizarre. Just bizarre.

"But it would be better if he made more of the point about the legal voting age and so that it would be more difficult for Nats to depict him as someone trying to find an excuse for stopping people voting for independence."

It would never be difficult for us to make that 'depiction', because that's exactly what he's doing, and even the dogs on the street know it.

MrsB : FFS James, stop distorting things.

This is very simple.

If there was a way to get the voting age changed to 16 for all elections before the referendum is held then 16 year olds could vote in it.

There isn't. So they won't be able to.

Answer this for me: if the voting age is not lowered from 18 before the referendum, do you think 16 year olds would be able to vote in the referendum?

And stop being silly about who is trying to manipulate what. The unionists are indeed pushing it - but they are amateurs beside Salmond. Both sides are at it, so stop pretending the SNP are whiter than white.

Me : Oh, come off it, Mrs B. This is the argument of mock-liberals down the centuries - of course we want Africans to govern themselves (or whatever), but it's too soon, they're not ready, there are immense practical difficulties...come to think of it, you're sounding just like Sir Humphrey.

Time to make up your mind whether you really believe in all those radical Lib Dem policies, or if it's just words.

"if the voting age is not lowered from 18 before the referendum, do you think 16 year olds would be able to vote in the referendum?"

If the Scottish Parliament legislates to lower the voting age for the referendum, then your question is a nonsense. Get out of the "Westminster is God" mindset.

MrsB : Dear James

Being this difficult even with people who basically agree with you but just take account of inconvenient reality, suggests that you are not going to be able to win many people over to the same side of the argument as you.

Can I suggest you make sure you are not involved in the independence campaign?

Love Mrs B

Me : MrsB, if you "basically agree" with me, stop supporting Michael Moore's plan to ban young adults from voting. If you do support that plan (and you've already confirmed that you do) then you do not "basically agree" with me - you in fact disagree with me.

Can I respectfully suggest that you do not take part in Lib Dem campaigning at the next GE? After all, not all voters (of any age) are looking for a passive-aggressive mother figure who tells them that by disagreeing with her they are simply being "difficult". We don't want your party's poll ratings going down any further, now, do we?

Love,

James

* * *

Nobody does comedy quite like Malcolm Rifkind. Not content with claiming that the proposed referendum question (which even Ruth Davidson accepted was fair and clear) is somehow biased, he then suggested that his own preferred wording of "do you want to leave the United Kingdom after 300 years?" was not remotely "emotive". Tell you what, Malcolm, why not chuck in "cast adrift without food, warmth or shelter" to make it even less emotive?

* * *

If you're looking for a soothing time-out from the nationalist v unionist War of the Worlds, I can highly recommend a listen to Darcy DaSilva's performance at Celtic Connections on Saturday. I particularly liked her rendition of Blackbird, the middle song of the three.

More evidence of the London media's selective attention-span on independence polling

2012-01-24T02:15:00.003Z

I'm not really in the strongest position to criticise anyone for talking too much about tiny polling subsamples, although I'm sure Anthony Wells would haul the Guardian over the coals for earnestly reporting the Scottish findings of their independence polling as if the figures were meaningful. What really gets my goat, though, is these words...

"The Scotland-only results necessarily rely on a much smaller sample, but are in line with the findings of other recent polls in suggesting that Salmond has a mountain to climb.

A recent YouGov survey of Scottish voters for Channel 4 news pointed to a 61%-39% referendum defeat for independence."

Two points - a) they're not really in line even with the YouGov poll, which showed the Yes vote nine points higher, and b) they're certainly not in line with the full-scale ICM poll published just one day earlier which showed the Yes vote a mere three points behind the No vote. So why mention the YouGov figures as an example of "other recent polls" but not ICM? It's hard not to see this as yet further affirmation of my theory that the London media have settled in advance on a narrative of "polls show little appetite for independence", and will turn a deaf ear to each and every piece of contrary evidence.

Oh, and a last thought - given that the referendum will be held in more than two-and-a-half years' time, and not next Wednesday, is it really reasonable to characterise the challenge of getting from 39% to 50% as a "mountain to climb"?

Explanatory note for deceased archbishops : why a disarming joke about haggis probably doesn't make Alex Salmond a fascist

2012-01-22T07:54:00.006Z

It tells you all you need to know about Archbishop Cranmer's rambling attempt last week to paint Alex Salmond as an "evil" anti-English "racist" that the one and only scrap of 'evidence' he could come up with is this piece of throwaway whimsy from three years ago -

"ALEX Salmond has waded into the haggis wars after claims our national dish was invented in England.

The First Minister spoke out following the discovery of an English haggis recipe from 1615.

He said: "I don't mind the English claiming haggis as their own, as long as they leave us our country.

"But haggis is our institution and we will defend it to the last.

"This haggis grab is akin to a land grab and it's a sign of its culinary success now as a swanky dish.""

In all apparent seriousness, Cranmer asks what the reaction would have been had Nick Griffin suggested that Asians were making a "land grab" on "our country". Hmmm. I think I can spot where you may be going slightly astray here, "Your Grace" (yawn), and it can be explained in four remarkably short words : it was a joke. A rather disarming joke at that, evoking and poking fun at a stereotype-rich fantasy world in which Scot Nats are obsessed with defending the honour of shortbread, haggis and the Bay City Rollers, and routinely accuse the dastardly English of "land grabs". What's even more amusing is that it probably would never even have occurred to Salmond that anyone would be daft enough, or have a sufficiently prejudiced and fossilised perception of Scottish national identity, to take a single word of what he said remotely seriously. And let's face it, the First Minister doesn't exactly do deadpan, so it's not as if the clues are hard to spot.

Lesson of the day : never underestimate the daftness, prejudice, and fossilisation of deceased Church of England archbishops. Many thanks, "Your Grace" (yawn). Seriously, I once saw secret filming of Nick Griffin pointing to the white skin on his arm and saying "that is my identity". Anyone who can't discern the difference between that repulsive worldview and a light-hearted joke about haggis needs some knots in their head untangled as a matter of some urgency.

So what separates Alex Salmond's attitude to "the English" from Nick Griffin's attitude to Asians? How many centuries have you got? To be getting on with, let's confine ourselves to just one topical example - namely, that the SNP want eligibility to vote in the independence referendum to be determined solely by residence. Scots, English, Welsh, Irish, Polish, Pakistanis, etc, etc, all voting as equal citizens to decide the future of the country where they live. Not exactly a proposition that Nick Griffin would jump at. Compare it also to the rather desperate efforts of some unionist politicians to base the referendum franchise on Scottish "birth-right".

My own question to Cranmer is the usual one that applies whenever the "bigotry" card is played by unionists - could you please spell out in precise terms how it would be possible to argue for Scottish statehood without people like you lazily portraying it as racism? Is it as simple as excising all references to haggis from the Salmond Joke Book, or are you seriously claiming that it is literally impossible to be a Scottish nationalist without also being an 'evil racist'? If it's the latter, given that you are a British nationalist who is considerably less complimentary about continental Europeans than Alex Salmond is about our neighbours and friends in England, what precisely is this magical difference between Scottish and British nationalism that makes one deplorable in all circumstances and the other the Stuff of the Divine?

* * *

If you thought nothing could top the Cranmer piece, try this barking mad claim from Biased BBC that the Today programme is biased in favour of Scottish independence -

"Some wonderful fantasy talk about "Scottish Oil", of course, and not a mention that Scotland has stunningly high levels of Sovietised Statism that is only possible care of the huge taxes that flow from south of the border care of the Barnett Formula."

Let me get this straight - a failure to point out that oil that we all know exists does not in fact exist, or that oil that we all know is in Scottish waters is not in fact in Scottish waters, and a failure to remind listeners that Scotland has a "Soviet" public sector, represents 'pro-independence propaganda'? Righty-ho. Personally, I think David Dimbleby showed absurd pro-SNP bias by merely telling Nicola Sturgeon that she was forbidden to talk about Scottish issues on a Glasgow edition of Question Time - he really should have tasered her or something.

In other news, the Daily Mail today unveiled its campaign for Martin Schulz to be the first President of the United States of Europe.

Six shamelessly trivial reasons to vote for independence

2012-01-20T05:48:00.004Z

Most of us who support independence do so for weighty reasons - a belief in a more equal society, a detestation of the presence of inhuman weapons on this country's soil, a desire for a more dynamic economy. But I'm sure we can all think of some shamelessly trivial reasons that complement the more important ones beautifully. Here are my top six...

1) Scotland will have its own entry in the Eurovision Song Contest (naturally that was always going to be top).

2) When Eve Muirhead and co win the curling gold medal at the Pyeongchang Olympics in 2018, it'll be for Scotland, not Great Britain. Alas, we'll just have to accept that the 2014 gold will be for GB (perhaps Cameron's desire for an earlier referendum does have some merit after all).

3) We'll have a national Olympic association that actually supports and works with other Scottish sporting bodies, rather than undermining their very existence at every turn.

4) An immense strain will be lifted from countless TV sports presenters and commentators, who will no longer have to wearily go through the motions of pretending that they're speaking to a UK audience rather than an English one. (OK, they'll have to wait for Wales and NI to follow the Scottish example before that really happens, but it'll at least get the poor lambs one-third of the way there.)

5) The inevitable attempts to rig the TV leaders' debates at the next Westminster general election will still be an outrage, but won't actually matter.

6) It's a losing battle to try to convince several billion people all round the world that not all citizens of the UK are "English". If we can't move the perception closer to the facts, perhaps it would be simpler to move the facts closer to the perception?

Feel free to chip in with any other suggestions!

Michael Ignatieff's A-Z guide on how to lose votes and alienate people

2012-01-19T06:29:00.016Z

If unionists are looking for advice on how to prevail in the independence referendum, they might do well to be wary of taking it from the man responsible for the Canadian Liberal Party's idiotically tribal decision to renege on a 2008 coalition deal with the NDP and Bloc Québécois that would have turfed the Tories out of office. That man then led his party to a catastrophic meltdown in last year's federal election, costing them even official opposition status, and leaving the Tories in majority control for the first time in a generation. And yet Michael Ignatieff seemingly has no embarrassment in penning a Financial Times article that lectures Scotland in holier-than-thou fashion on the "lessons" it must take from him. It boils down to two points - a) don't have a referendum, and b) if you must have a referendum, vote 'No'. Yup, if you thought Alan Cochrane lacked subtlety, nuance and all sense of perspective in his approach to this topic, you ain't seen nothing yet.

"In our 1980 referendum on Quebec, the result was a clear cut victory for Canada."

I really would caution you not to think of the forthcoming referendum as one that will produce "victory" for either "Britain" or "Scotland", Michael. If the choice is framed in that way, there can only be one winner.

And "our" referendum in 1980? It was a Quebec referendum, Michael, and you are not from Quebec, nor were you a Quebec resident in 1980. Perhaps before going any further you should start by clarifying whether you actually believe in the well-understood (and legally-enshrined) principle of the SELF-determination of peoples, and if not, why not?

"We learnt the strongest argument for leaving countries as they are turns out to be that most people don’t want to choose between different parts of their identity."

Unless this is to be a one-way dialogue (admittedly that's almost certainly what you have in mind), perhaps you should be open to learning a few lessons about just how far the SNP has moved in terms of respecting the British sense of identity in Scotland, and how that identity will not be imperilled by independence any more than Scottishness is imperilled by union. If you cannot even conceive of British identity existing independently of dry constitutional structures, you're guilty of precisely the one-dimensional thinking you accuse Scottish "secessionists" (yes, really!) of.

"The issue is whether Scots feel they can only assert their Scottishness by parting with the Unionist part of their soul."

Which bears out my previous points. Conveniently, the choice is not between "Scottishness" and "Britishness", because only by pretending that the terms "Britishness" (an identity) and "Unionism" (an adherence to a constitutional structure) are interchangeable can you claim that the alternative to Scottishness is somehow threatened by independence. Well, two can play at that silly game - why not frame the choice as between "Britishness" and "Scottish sovereigntism"? In that case, only a Yes vote to independence would allow people to keep both "identities", whereas a No vote would jettison one part of people's "soul".

Yes, Michael, linguistic conjuring tricks do tend to produce exactly the answer you want. Another valuable "lesson" learned.

"So the independence side is campaigning for a ballot question that allows Scots to have it both ways. “Devo max” is the ungainly option: full self-government with fiscal powers within a sovereign UK whose parliament would retain jurisdiction only over foreign affairs. This would give Scotland a future in Europe looking like that of Wallonia, Catalonia or the Basque country.

Scottish patriots such as Neal Ascherson favour this package but the question is why it has to be put to a referendum at all. It could be negotiated with Westminister between now and 2014, avoiding the existential moment of truth altogether."

You'll be relieved to hear there's a very simple answer to your question, Michael - it has to be put to a referendum because otherwise Westminster won't budge an inch. Curious, isn't it, that it's the pro-independence side that has been far more imaginative in exploring potential solutions to how Scotland's multiple identities might be accommodated by means of innovative constitutional structures, whereas the side you're busy being a cheerleader for is still stuck in the bunker mentality of "resisting appeasement" and "drawing lines in the sand".

"And our Supreme Court adds another lesson about democracy itself: if the Scots vote to go, they can’t just walk out the door. They will have to negotiate, not dictate, the terms of divorce with the British government. Issues include the division of the debt, the nature of the border, the division of North Sea revenues, the future of the currency, the disposal of UK assets in Scotland and so on. It will be as messy and protracted as divorces usually are. And possibly as tragic too."

This may be a startling discovery for you, Michael, but I doubt if there's a single person in the SNP who thinks that Scotland wouldn't have to sit down and negotiate an independence settlement after a Yes vote. However, if you believe that the very principle of independence would then somehow be conditional on the UK side playing ball in those negotiations, you have a very curious definition of the word "democracy", with which you started that observation.

As for the use of the word "tragic", I must confess I laughed out loud at that point. For the last time that word was used in quite such a hysterically inappropriate way, I think we'd have to go all the way back to Donald Findlay's (deadly serious) reaction when the Estonian football team failed to turn up for an international match against Scotland in 1996 : "Let's put this tragic situation behind us, and get on with our lives".

* * *

James Mackenzie once innocently asked me on Twitter "why so confrontational?", but I'm pretty sure even I would have thought twice about the headline "Screw you, Floella Benjamin". I obviously sympathise with the underlying sentiment (ie. that it was wrong of her to vote against delay of the Welfare Reform Bill in the House of Lords), but the use of language does somewhat undermine James' notion that Better Nation is an oasis of constructive discourse in a desert of blogging "mentalism".

Publish or be damned, UK government warned over referendum

2012-01-18T05:58:00.002Z

The title of this post is of course just a minor modification of the headline on a Scotsman article that claims Alex Salmond is "under mounting pressure to publish the SNP administration’s legal advice over holding an independence referendum". The article features this contribution from Margaret Curran -

"The legal competence of proceeding with a referendum is highly significant and reflects what a number of experts have said, so if the SNP holds differing legal advice, they should publish it today. Refusing to do so fuels suspicion."

That's an intriguing point of view, Margaret. Why not direct it at the UK government who also hold legal advice that differs from that offered by a number of experts, and have also "suspiciously" refused to publish it "today" or any other day?

There's also this from Murdo Fraser -

"If Alex Salmond is confident that he has strong legal opinion backing up his case, then he should be prepared to publish that advice, so that it can be subjected to proper scrutiny."

That's an intriguing point of view, Murdo. Why not direct it at YOUR OWN Tory-led government at Westminster - ie. if they are confident that they have strong legal opinion to back up their case, why aren't they prepared to publish that advice, so that it can be subjected to proper scrutiny?

We're now in the extraordinary position where parts of the media are playing along with the unionists' little game of pretending that their new 'out of thin air' legal advice somehow represents the equivalent of a preliminary finding of the Supreme Court, leaving the burden of proof entirely on the Scottish Government. The reality of course is that the two contradictory sets of legal advice have exactly the same standing - either could be right, either could be wrong, neither will be published according to convention, and neither constitute the ruling of a court. For Jim Wallace to claim that the Scottish Government are acting against the 'rule of law' by seeking to legislate in good faith and in conformity with their own legal advice is a shameful, cynical new low in this grotesque 'undead' period of an otherwise largely constructive political career. If his legal opinion - note the word opinion, it's not a "ruling" - is that the Scottish government's advice is in error, then when the time comes he has legal redress open to him in his role as Advocate-General. As has been pointed out even by Political Betting's resident self-appointed legal expert Richard Howell, he would in political terms be crazy to seek to use that redress, but if he wants to make Alex Salmond's day, that's a matter for him.

* * *

Wikipedia's blackout to protest against SOPA is in principle a very good idea - but the fact that they've also blacked out the "Learn more" page explaining why they are protesting against SOPA does rather defeat the purpose somewhat!

* * *

I freely confess I know next to nothing about Martin Schulz, the newly-elected socialist President of the European Parliament. But this claim in the Daily Mail does lead me to suspect that their damning account of his career to date may not be the most shining example of that paper's legendary dedication to objectivity and factual accuracy -

"The ‘election’ which is a stitch up between the largest groups – the Socialists and the Liberals – was agreed two years ago, before today’s election and he had formed his cabinet six months ago."

Er, no. In point of fact the Liberals are the third-largest group. The agreement two years ago was between the Socialists and the largest group in the parliament, the right-of-centre EPP.

YouGov poll : SNP retain lead in Westminster voting intentions

2012-01-17T05:57:00.004Z

Although it's the headline figures on independence and Devo Max that have caught most attention, one extraordinary finding from last night's Channel 4 News/YouGov poll shouldn't be overlooked - that the SNP still lead Labour in Westminster voting intentions. The percentage changes listed below may be slightly surprising, but bear in mind that they relate to the last YouGov poll of Westminster voting intentions way back in August, when the SNP were still very much enjoying their initial honeymoon period.

SNP 37% (-5)
Labour 35% (+2)
Conservatives 16% (+1)
Liberal Democrats 7% (+1)

To put these numbers in perspective, YouGov were showing a sixteen-point lead for Labour over the SNP in Westminster voting intentions during the very week of the SNP's Holyrood landslide last year.

On the referendum questions, 'No' leads 'Yes' by 61%-39% on full independence. The difference with ICM's figures can probably be mostly (and perhaps entirely) explained by methodology, because the fieldwork dates overlap to some extent. In fact, from memory 39% looks pretty high for 'Yes' by YouGov standards, although that's perhaps due to 'don't knows' being excluded from the headline figures.

As you'd expect, good news on the Devo Max question - 58% say 'Yes', 42% say 'No', again with don't knows excluded. So on this poll, the clear preference of the electorate is for the one option the UK government wants to legislate to ban from being on the ballot paper. Good luck with that one, guys - especially in the light of the following...

Regardless of how you would vote, do you think the referendum should...

Be a straight choice over independence - 43%
Include a third option to extend the powers of the Scottish parliament - 46%

The question on the timing of the referendum can perhaps be seen as marginally more favourable to the UK government's stance, with 38% thinking it should be held earlier than 2014, and 37% thinking it should be held in 2014 or 2015. But if the UK government are trying to credibly claim that it's self-evident that they "need" to interfere to have the matter settled earlier than the SNP want, they'd require overwhelming backing on the issue of the date, not a dead heat.

Time to call another Lib Dem bluff?

2012-01-16T02:29:00.013Z

As any of you who occasionally read the Guardian's editorials will know, that paper loathes the idea of Scottish nationhood with as much of a passion as the right-wing London press. But because they have to keep up the facade of opposing independence from a 'progressive' and 'reasonable' standpoint, they do however use logic that is even more tortuous and sanctimonious than you'd find at the Times or the Telegraph. It looks suspiciously to me that for their latest weighty "contribution to the debate", they had a truly epic brainstorming session in which they tried to identify just one Good Guy in this whole sorry process, a Man With No Agenda, a Fearless And Objective Seeker After Truth And Probity in the conduct of the referendum. In short, an untainted unionist champion they could get behind without embarrassment, and without any danger of a titter from the assembled crowd.

And the man they came up with, ladies and gentlemen, is...Willie Rennie.

Moving swiftly on, they also seem to be taking their cue from the Lib Dems by having a synthetic bee in their bonnet about the supposedly insurmountable problem of 'working out who has won' if there is a dual Yes vote in a two-question referendum. Sigh. Let's try this for size - in 1997, there was a referendum with two separate questions. Just like the proposal being floated at the moment, the result of the second question would have been irrelevant had the first question gone one particular way - it wouldn't have mattered that 99.73% of the population wanted "the Scottish Parliament to have tax-varying powers" if 52.34% of the population had just voted that there shouldn't be a Scottish Parliament in the first place. It may seem amazing to senior Lib Dems and to the writers of Guardian editorials, but the electorate really didn't seem to struggle with that concept. That's probably because people make conditional/contingent decisions all the time in their daily lives - for instance, we'll go to Glencoe for our day out tomorrow, but we obviously won't be going anywhere if it's pouring with rain. What is so difficult about this? The public will know that in voting on Devo Max, they're voting on what should happen if Scotland stays in the United Kingdom. If they've just voted that Scotland should leave the United Kingdom, then plainly the question falls.

It's also worth making the point that, while the Lib Dems did raise some objections to the two-question referendum in 1997, they specifically did not do so on the basis of the confusion that might be caused by a "contradictory result". This is a bogus objection - they know it, we know it. However, as the "calling of bluffs" seems to be in vogue at the moment, we could always take them at their word - because, after all, this is a remarkably simple 'problem' to solve...

Option 1 : Put in bold capital letters on the ballot paper that "QUESTION 2 WILL BE VOID IF A MAJORITY VOTE YES TO QUESTION 1".

Option 2 : Separate the ballot into two distinct rounds, à la French run-off votes. If there is a No to independence in the first round, a Devo Max referendum automatically follows a week or a fortnight later. If there is a Yes to independence, the second round isn't required and therefore isn't held. No confusion, no "contradictory mandates". (The beauty of this of course is that the legislation for a Devo Max referendum would already be set in stone before the first round, meaning that London wouldn't be able to use a No to independence as an excuse to kick the constitutional issue into the long grass.)

So then what would be the next Lib Dem excuse? It seems we're already hearing the outlines of it - that Devo Max would have an effect on the whole UK, and therefore the whole UK must have a say. Oh-kaaaay - I trust you're going to have a convincing explanation for why that WASN'T the case for devolution in 1997? It seems that whenever the Lib Dems aren't busy shooting themselves in the foot, past history is doing it for them.

As I suggested in a previous post, if the SNP keep pressing the case for a Devo Max question, this is close to being a win/win position for them - either they'll get it, or the narrative will have been firmly established in the public mind that "Devo Max has been blocked by London". In the latter circumstance, the logic in favour of Devo Max supporters plumping for independence as the next-best option becomes irresistible.

PS. A small additional hint for the Guardian - Joan McAlpine categorically did NOT say that all "objections and doubts" about the SNP's plans were "anti-Scottish". Her characterisation applied only to those who abuse their positions of power at Westminster to thwart the sovereign authority of the Scottish people. If there are objections and doubts from opposition parties, let them be raised, debated and voted upon in the appropriate place - the Scottish Parliament.

PPS. A light has gone out in the political world - Tom Harris is seemingly no longer the Shadow Minister for Conducting a Review Into the Uses of Modern Technology. I fear for this review now, I really do - unless of course Richard Baker steps into the breach. As for Tom himself, I might almost feel sorry for him if this was an isolated incident - as he points out, the Downfall meme is so well-established that it shouldn't necessarily be assumed that the person in the video's sights is being called a Nazi. (What I took from the video was more Tom's extraordinary continued level of bitterness at the idea of lottery winners doing what they like with their own money.) However, Tom's pushed his luck many times in the past, not least with his bare-faced lie that a "Nationalist banner" had called for the end of "English rule". So in a sense the law of averages has finally caught up with him, and over the piece it's hard to pretend that he hasn't got what he deserved.

And I must admit there is something deliciously ironic about a Downfall spoof proving to be Tom's...downfall. Doubtless the next (and most apt ever) spoof in the long series is being prepared even as we speak - and I just hope that whoever has taken on the responsibility does Admin justice.

Cameron's blunder in numbers : dramatic ICM poll puts independence just three points behind

2012-01-15T06:26:00.008Z

If there was any lingering doubt that the UK government's brazen interference in an exercise in Scottish self-determination was going to have any other effect but to bolster support for full independence, these figures will remove it -

Do you approve or disapprove of Scotland becoming independent?

Approve 40%
Disapprove 43%

Would Scotland be better or worse off if independent?

Better off 38%
Worse off 41%

The sample size was 501, which is not ideal, but high enough to be statistically credible.

On both questions, this is what the Americans would call a 'statistical tie', because the lead is within the margin of error. With delicious irony, the poll was commissioned by the Telegraph, one of the bastions of the London media myth that "poll after poll shows that Scotland has no interest in independence". All the same, you have to admire the sheer imaginative breadth of their attempts today to convince both themselves and their readers that this poll is anything other than a devastating blow to their cherished belief-system -

"Today's poll provides a series of setbacks for Mr Salmond, who favours a "three question" referendum in which Scots are offered the choice of full independence, the status quo, or a "devolution max" option in which all powers other than foreign policy and defence are handed to the parliament in Edinburgh.

Offered this precise choice by ICM, more Scots go for the status quo (37 per cent) than the other two options, both of which win 26 per cent support."

Er, no. The proposal for including Devo Max on the ballot paper is not for a "first past the post" question with three options, allowing one option to win even though it is opposed by a clear majority. There would instead be a dedicated Yes/No question on Devo Max, in which virtually all independence supporters could naturally be expected to vote Yes. On these figures, therefore, Devo Max would be handsomely approved, by a margin of 52% to 37%. Even if a small number of independence supporters quixotically voted No, we'd still be talking in the region of a 50-40 split.

"Most Scots admit their nation would be worse off after independence (41 per cent) than better off (38 per cent)"

Given the relentless pumping of the establishment/media myth that Scotland is subsidised (ironically exemplified by the smuggling of the word 'admit' into that very sentence!), the unionist side have got serious problems if all they've got to show for their decades of effort is a mere four out of ten Scots accepting "the truth"...

* * *

Housekeeping Note : The mysterious problem with the font in the comments section still hasn't resolved itself, so for the time being I'm going to switch to a pop-up form. If anyone has difficulties loading it, let me know by email (see "Profile/Contact" in the sidebar) and I'll switch back again.

Devo Maxers for Indy?

2012-01-14T02:05:00.005Z

After I posted my planned submission to the UK government's consultation on an independence referendum, a commenter pointed out that Westminster can hardly be trusted to accurately summarise the results of consultations, in the light of the Spartacus Report. I don't necessarily think that's an argument against taking part, but it's certainly an argument in favour of making sure that submissions are as watertight and as immune to misrepresentation as humanly possible. Having since sent my submission off, the one thing that does bug me slightly is my response to Question 8, asking about the question or questions to be posed in the referendum. I think in retrospect that before making the point that it should be exclusively a matter for the Scottish Parliament to decide upon, I should have first spelt out in crystal-clear fashion that it was my own personal view that there should be an additional devo max question. After the jiggery-pokery identified by Spartacus, it's not too hard to imagine the people who simply say it should be up to the Scottish Parliament being defined as part of "the 74% (or whatever) of respondents who expressed no interest in a second question", which would then grotesquely be used as a justification for Westminster legislating to ban the Scottish Parliament from adding a second question! So just a cautionary thought for anyone planning to make their own submission (which I would still urge you to do).

This particular subject is vitally important, because if by any chance we do end up with a single-question referendum as a result of Westminster interference, there's a massive opportunity for the SNP if they can win the 'battle of perceptions'. Potential devo max supporters who come to realise that it was Cameron and Osborne who denied them the chance to have a say on their preferred option may well be more likely than they otherwise would have been to plump for full independence in a two-way forced choice. Who knows, we might even see a "Devo Maxers for Indy" campaign!

* * *

I haven't yet followed the practice of other bloggers by putting a "things people have said about me" section in the sidebar, but if I ever do I'm going to give pride of place to the following 'testimonial' from the ever-delightful CyberYoonYoonist 'Moniker of Monza', and put it under the heading "Yet Another Reason Why I Support Independence" :

"You're a typical Brit, a product of the Empire. You can call yourself Scottish if you wish but you aren't."

* * *

Staying on the subject of the nutters over at PB, they of course overwhelmingly have a fawning attitude towards the US as a "beacon of freedom" (translation : hard-right conservatism). So it suddenly dawned on me that if Richard Nabavi ever has another bash at his rather desperate line of argument that the SNP want "children" to take part in the independence referendum, it'll be easy enough to direct him to the many examples of US states that allow "children" (ie. 17-year-olds) to vote in presidential primary elections. If it's a good enough way to choose the holder of the most powerful office on this planet, I'd say it's good enough for the decision on independence.

* * *

The other night on Question Time, Douglas Alexander trotted out the line that independence would "make the English foreigners", which presumably is going to be one of the 'appeals to the heart' during the referendum campaign. But for the answer to that charge we need look no further than the title of one of the great UK offices of state, the 'Foreign and Commonwealth Office'. By the UK government's own definition, therefore, Commonwealth countries (of which an independent Scotland will be one) are not "foreign" to each other, as they indicate by having High Commissions in each other's capitals, as opposed to embassies.

In any case, Ireland is not even a Commonwealth country. When Douglas visits Dublin and looks around at people, does he really only see "Johnny Foreigner" staring back at him? What a narrow (if I may say so) view of the world...

Cut the Lib Dems, and they bleed unionist red, not the federalist rainbow

2012-01-13T04:08:00.002Z

On Radio 4 the other night, Professor James Mitchell summed up his view of how events are likely to unfold rather succinctly - if devo max is on the ballot paper in pretty much any form it will win, but if not it's anyone's guess at this stage as to whether independence or the status quo will prevail in a forced choice. We might quibble about his near-certainty that devo max would defeat independence in a three-way choice, but there's no denying there's more than a grain of truth in his assessment, and all the parties will surely have made a similar calculation. Which makes the battle over whether there should be a devo max question essentially one founded on games theory. The SNP seemingly believe that it's rational to seize the overwhelming likelihood of substantial new powers for Holyrood, even if it means lessening their chances of securing the ultimate prize in the near future - because it would also dramatically reduce their risk of coming away with nothing. The Tories and Labour have reached the opposite view - the thought of genuine Scottish self-government is plainly so horrific to them that they believe it's rational to risk everything in order to have a chance of maintaining their precious line in the sand.

But the Lib Dems? Unlike the Tories and Labour, Devo Max is indistinguishable from what they claim to believe in. So how on earth are we to explain their seemingly irrational decision to turn down the golden chance to use the referendum to fight for the very constitutional settlement they supposedly want, instead infinitely preferring to join a united front with the Tories and Labour to save a status quo they're supposedly opposed to? Remember - just a few days ago, Nick Clegg informed us that he is "not a unionist", and that supporters of both the status quo and independence are "extremists". And yet how quick he is to want to reduce the choice to one only between those two "extremes", and equally quick to decide which one of those extremes he passionately wants to win. Curious.

Perhaps the response from the Lib Dems might be that if independence is defeated in a straight yes/no vote, they can then go on to argue the case for substantial new powers. Don't make me laugh. A No vote would be hungrily seized upon by the London establishment as an excuse to close down all movement on the constitution for a generation, just as happened after 1979. We know it, and the Lib Dems know it as well. No, there's only one explanation for the way in which they are moving heaven and earth to sabotage their own constitutional policy - namely that the Lib Dems (or more specifically the party leadership) are, in spite of Clegg and Moore's protestations, every bit as much an instinctive, "gut" unionist party as the Tories and Labour are. Cut them, and they bleed unionist red, not the federalist rainbow.

* * *

Is Ruth Davidson channelling Martin Kettle, or is it the other way round? She made this extraordinary claim in the Scottish Parliament yesterday -

"Every opinion poll ever published shows the people of Scotland agree with me - Scotland is better off in Britain."

Every opinion poll ever published? The only question that needs to be asked here is whether she knows she's lying or just hasn't bothered to do even the most basic homework (ie. whether she's making the schoolgirl error of taking the London media mythology as read). Forget the poll from just last September showing a plurality in favour of independence - how about the legendary multi-option poll in the run-up to the 1992 election, that showed support for independence at 50%, with devolution and the (then) status quo trailing way behind in the twenties? And there have been umpteen polls showing a pro-independence plurality since then.

But if by any chance she knows all this, then clearly we're in for the 'Big Lie' school of political campaigning over the next couple of years.

Citizens for Love, and other thoughts of ardour

2012-01-12T04:43:00.006Z

A few miscellaneous thoughts on the momentous events of the last few days...

I see that Johann Lamont has taken a leaf out of the 'Scotland for Marriage' strategy book by campaigning to 'save' something that her opponents are actually in favour of, ie. devolution. Of course in a very pedantic sense the logic of 'Save Devolution' can be justified, because independence would mean that the Scottish Parliament was no longer a devolved body. But 99.999% of the public would interpret Lamont's slogan as meaning that there must be some threat of the Tories abolishing the Scottish Parliament and reimposing direct rule from London, which by extension would lead people to wonder why on earth Lamont, Curran and Miliband are busy cosying up to Cameron at the moment. So I'm not sure it's such a winner, but if by any chance it gains any traction, the pro-independence side shouldn't be too proud to learn from it, and rebrand themselves as "Citizens for Love" or something of the kind.

* * *

I watched part of The Daily Politics yesterday for the first time in an eternity, and it really brought home to me how the London broadcasters are going to have to urgently rethink how they handle discussion about Scottish independence in the run-up to the referendum. OK, it sounded like they'd had Bruce Crawford on before I switched on, but nevertheless it's hard to justify the cosy four-way chat almost exclusively from a unionist perspective that unfolded between Andrew Neil, Damien Green, Douglas Alexander and Nick Robinson. At one point an email was read out from a viewer, who pointed out that the British people would be up in arms if the European Parliament told them that proposals for a UK referendum on EU membership were illegal, and that the terms of any referendum would instead have to be determined by the European Parliament. Andrew Neil instantly cut in to haughtily insist "that isn't the point, actually", because no-one in London was trying to stop a referendum. Cue nods of approval from his highly objective panel of guests - but no, Andrew. It's you that wasn't listening. The viewer was not talking about a referendum being blocked altogether, but about the terms of the vote being externally-imposed. In that sense it could hardly have been a more pertinent analogy, because there's absolutely no way the British people (far less the London tabloid press) would put up with such interference in an exercise in national self-determination. Neil would almost certainly have been set straight had there been a pro-independence voice on the panel - but there wasn't.

* * *

There was an article in the Guardian yesterday from Martin Kettle, which seeks to gloat about the 'setback' Alex Salmond has recently suffered (I must have missed that bit). As you'd expect, it's riddled with logical holes and factual inaccuracies, starting with the invention of a party called the 'Scottish Nationalist Party' (although we can probably blame the sub-editor for that one).

"And he [Salmond] backs away on popular UK issue after popular issue – the crown, the pound, the British army, the BBC and the NHS among them. Anything, in short, rather than a simple yes/no on separation."

Tell me, Martin, in exactly what sense have the SNP "backed away" on the NHS? When have they ever suggested that it would be abolished in an independent Scotland? Would it be too cynical of me to suggest that you tacked that on because you were struggling to think of a fifth example of a "UK institution" the SNP are in favour of retaining, and thought no-one would notice that you had ceased to make sense? The reason that the SNP have never had any difficulty in supporting the NHS (indeed they support its founding principles to a far greater extent than the three London parties do at the moment) is that it's not an institution that is tied in any way to the United Kingdom's existence as a nation state. The "national" in the title is really shorthand for "public" or "state-administered", not for "British". If it does refer to a nation, that nation can only really be Scotland, because since devolution the four health systems in the UK have diverged so comprehensively as to make any suggestion that we are talking about a UK-wide institution utterly risible. And while there may have been more conformity before devolution, even then the Scottish NHS was administered by the Scottish Office, not the Department of Health.

As for the crown, that's also a red herring, because a) the SNP have been broadly in favour of retaining the monarchy for as long as I can remember, and b) the crown was a Scottish institution long before it was a UK one in any case. Queen Anne was the monarch of Scotland every bit as much the day before the Act of Union took effect in 1707 as she was the day after.

"All polls show that Scotland is not pro-independence."

Really, Martin? All polls? Did I dream the TNS poll in September that showed a narrow plurality in favour of independence? The London media do seem to be terribly fond of this "polls show Scotland is not ready for independence" meme - it's as if they've decided in advance that's going to be the narrative, and their brains filter out all inconvenient contrary information.

* * *

Has anyone else noticed that when London politicians talk about their commitment to the United Kingdom, they use language of devotion, ardour and passion that most Scottish nationalists would never dream of using about Scotland? Cameron referring to "the country I love" always reminds me of Edward VIII declaring in his abdication broadcast that Wallis Simpson is "the woman I love" - although that might just be because both men pronounce the word "love" in the same way.

It's probably a sign of just how synthetic the sentiment is, and in any case someone has to compensate for the fact that no real people in London, Birmingham or Manchester would ever dream of talking about "loving the United Kingdom". Some of them might "love" Britain, but most of them would probably regard England and Britain as interchangeable terms in any case.

* * *

What with this flurry of activity relating to Scotland, my New Year's Resolution to keep away from PB lasted all of nine days (pretty good by my standards). Richard Nabavi, runner-up in the Poster of the Year poll (how?) has been prattling on in this broken record fashion : "What are they moaning about now? Isn't London giving the SNP exactly what they want? What is the problem?" When I pointed out to him a list of ways in which London are in fact proposing to block the SNP's plans, for instance by denying the right of young adults to vote, he sneeringly replied that the SNP surely would have realised that "no-one" would ever take seriously the "demand" that "children" should have a vote. Hmmm. I wonder how 'amused' he will be by the suggestion in today's Scotsman that there may indeed be room for a compromise on this topic - but only because Labour are pondering the possibility of backing the SNP's proposal for giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote!

* * *

Apologies for the problem with the font in the comments section. I think it's a fault with Blogger, because I experimented with switching to a pop-up form and that resolved the issue. I might make that a permanent change if it hasn't cleared itself up after a few days.

The first skirmish in the independence battle : winning the consultation numbers game

2012-01-11T08:49:00.024Z

It goes without saying that Michael Moore's consultation exercise is a farce - to the extent that the outcome is not already pre-determined, it will not be greatly informed by the submissions. However, given the PR difficulty of holding a consultation and then completely ignoring the findings, it may make some small difference at the margins. So in my view it's vitally important that as many individuals as possible take part in the consultation (click HERE to do so), and in particular that they emphasise repeatedly in their answers to the questions that the UK government should have no role other than to sit back and respect the Scottish Parliament's right to decide on the nature and timing of an independence referendum.

Here is the first draft of my own submission. I'd be interested in hearing any suggestions for improvements before I send it off!

1. What are your views on using the order making power provided in the Scotland Act 1998
to allow the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a legal referendum in an Act of the
Scottish Parliament?

First of all, the premise of this question is incorrect, because it assumes that the UK government's legal advice represents the final word on the matter, whereas of course it is just one opinion among many, no more or less valid/interesting than any of the others, and certainly no more objective in its source. The Scottish Government have clearly received advice that they already have the power to legislate for an advisory referendum, and the election pledge to hold a referendum that attained such an overwhelming mandate last May was founded on that advice, not on any intention to seek 'clarification' or 'assistance' from the UK government or its law officers. Nevertheless, if the UK government is sincere in both its own view that there is a legal problem and its claim that it has no wish to interfere in the referendum process, then clearly the most sensible way forward would be to use the order making power (or some other means) to unambiguously grant the Scottish Parliament powers over a referendum without any conditions whatsoever, whether regarding the date of a poll, the question(s) to be asked, the regulatory body to be put in charge, or the minimum age for electors. Only this unconditional approach would complement rather than interfere with the Scottish Government's plans, and would be respectful of its mandate to implement those plans.

2. What are your views on the UK Parliament legislating to deliver a referendum on
independence?

It should not. It would be wholly wrong in the current circumstances for Westminster to seek to directly deliver an independence referendum. In the pre-devolution period it would of course have been appropriate for it to legislate for such a referendum (because no other institution could), and many of us argued that it should. It refused to do so. Now that there is a Scottish Parliament in place perfectly able to deal with these matters for itself, and especially given that the current parliament clearly intends to do so within three years, it would be absurd and offensive for Westminster to suddenly decide in quasi-colonial fashion that it can do the job better.

3. What are your views on whether the Scotland Bill should be used either to:
i) give the Scottish Parliament the power to legislate for a referendum; or
ii) directly deliver a referendum?

As explained above, it would be wrong for Westminster to seek to directly deliver an independence referendum, so it makes no difference whether the proposal is that this should be done by means of the Scotland Bill.

On sub-question i) my views are as explained earlier : the premise is incorrect, but there is nevertheless no harm in the UK government seeking to unambiguously transfer legislative powers over the holding of a referendum to the Scottish Parliament (by means of the Scotland Bill or other means), as long as it does so without setting any conditions.

4. What are your views on the oversight arrangements for a referendum on Scottish
independence?

My personal view is that the body in charge should be a distinctively Scottish one, mandated to act by the Scottish Parliament. There are clear dangers that a predominantly non-Scottish body such as the Electoral Commission will unwittingly bring subtle pro-union biases to the table, and would not be able to administer the poll in an even-handed manner. However, from the point of view of this consultation, the only thing the UK Government should be concerning itself with is that the Scottish Parliament is the appropriate institution to legislate on oversight arrangements. Once it accepts that principle (as it surely must do if it means what it says about not interfering) then it would of course be open to the individual parties represented in the UK Government to argue on the floor of the Scottish Parliament for whichever oversight arrangements they think are most suitable, and to seek to prevail in a democratic parliamentary vote.

5. Do you think the Electoral Commission should have a role in overseeing a referendum on
Scottish independence?

My personal view is no, for the reasons explained above. However, this should exclusively be a matter for the Scottish Parliament to decide upon, and the UK Government should not be concerning itself with it one way or the other. It seems likely that if allowed to proceed without interference from Westminster, the Scottish Parliament would indeed consider the potential role of the Electoral Commission with the seriousness it deserves, and then decide the matter by democratic parliamentary vote.

6. What are your views on which people should be entitled to vote in a Scottish
independence referendum?

My personal view is that the local government/Holyrood franchise should be used, but extended to give young adults of 16 and 17 years of age the right to vote. However, I am deeply concerned that by posing this question in its consultation, the UK government is suggesting that it has a role to play in this matter. The Scottish Parliament is plainly the institution that should decide upon the franchise of any referendum it holds, and the UK government should not interfere in that process. It is of course open to the individual parties represented within the UK Government to make the case on the floor of the Scottish Parliament for a franchise that excludes young adults, and to then seek to prevail in a democratic parliamentary vote.

7. What are your views on the timing of a referendum?

My view is that the Scottish Government are wise to seek to hold the referendum in 2014, because this will allow the Scottish people a suitable period of time to properly consider the momentous decision before them. However, once again, I am troubled that by asking this question in its consultation, the UK government is implying that it has a role to play in determining the date. It should have no such role. If it is as respectful of the Scottish Government's mandate as it claims, it should simply accept that the date is exclusively a matter for the Scottish Parliament to decide upon.

8. What are your views on the question or questions to be asked in a referendum?

It should be open to the Scottish Parliament to ask whichever questions it wishes. This is the Scottish people's referendum, not anyone else's. For the UK government to seek to find a way (as it appears minded to do) of legally blocking a second question on 'devolution max' when there is ample opinion poll evidence that this is an option that attracts widespread public support, would not merely be disrespectful of the Scottish Parliament's mandate to act, but even more importantly would also be a deeply cynical assault on the democratic aspirations of the Scottish people.

9. What are your views on the draft section 30 Order?

As stated previously, my view is that it would only be appropriate for the UK government to use the order making mechanism if there were no conditions placed on the powers being 'granted' to the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, the following words that clearly impose such conditions should be deleted -

"(2) The date of the poll at the referendum must not be the date of the poll at any other referendum held under
provision made by the Parliament.
(3) The date of the poll at the referendum must be no later than ***"

"There must be only one ballot paper at the referendum, and the ballot paper must give the voter a choice
between only two responses."

"(5) The persons entitled to vote in the referendum must be the persons who would be entitled to vote in an
election for membership of the Parliament—
(a) if one were held on the date of the poll at the referendum, or
(b) if one were held on that date but alterations made in a register of electors after a particular date were
disregarded."

"(6) The referendum and arrangements in connection with it must be in accordance with Part 7 of the Political
Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (referendums) as if the referendum were within section 101(2) of
that Act, subject to any modifications specified in subordinate legislation."

UPDATE : Thanks to Tris for his helpful suggestions, which can be read below. Another point that it's since occurred to me would be well worth making relates to the UK government's stated objectives of a "fair, legal and decisive" referendum. The 'legal' point may be one thing, but the fact that the government are implicitly suggesting that fairness and decisiveness can only be ensured by means of Westminster 'supervision' calls into question their own stated faith in devolution. The challenge should be made to them to demonstrate their authentic commitment to devolution by pursuing their supposed objectives through the unconditional transfer of the relevant powers, and by simply trusting the Scottish Parliament to make the right decisions - as they are content to do on the administration of local government elections, criminal justice, health, education, and countless other matters of vital importance to people's lives. Do the UK government see the Scottish Parliament as a grown-up legislature capable of making grown-up decisions, or don't they?

I've therefore added these words to my submission -

"In conclusion, I'd like to touch on the UK government's stated objectives in launching this intervention, namely to secure a 'fair, legal and decisive' referendum. It is surely self-evident that these objectives are qualitatively different from each other. The pretext for this consultation is the UK government's legal advice that the Scottish Parliament is currently unable to hold a legal referendum. But to the best of my knowledge the UK government are not in possession of equivalent advice stating that the Scottish Parliament is intrinsically incapable of administering a fair and decisive referendum.

The UK government has repeatedly professed its faith in devolution, implying that this constitutional arrangement is superior both to independence and direct rule from London. But the very essence of devolution is surely that the 'national' parliament is content that worthy objectives such as 'fairness' are not imperilled by simply trusting the 'sub-national' legislature to make responsible decisions without supervision or guidance from 'above'. Given that the UK government correctly accepts that legislating for a referendum is appropriately the province of the Scottish Parliament and not Westminster, the aforementioned principle must logically apply in this instance. I would therefore urge the UK government to act in comformity with its stated commitment to the principle of devolution, by not seeking to stand in the way of the Scottish Parliament's efforts to achieve 'fairness' and 'decisiveness' by its own chosen means."

David Cameron wants it, the readers of the Daily Mail demand it - it's time for Scotland to GROW UP

2012-01-09T03:08:00.009Z

I've been slightly curious as to why the media seem to assume we should treat the UK government's legal advice on an independence referendum as intrinsically superior to the Scottish government's advice (perhaps they've mistaken Dominic Grieve for a Supreme Court judge), but the plot thickens - if the Independent is to be believed, it appears that the two sets of advice are in fact virtually identical...

"The Prime Minister will publish legal advice that concludes the SNP administration in Edinburgh can hold a binding referendum only with the British Government's permission. He will say he is prepared to give his backing to a vote only as long as it is held by the summer of 2013.

Mr Salmond wants to hold the referendum in the autumn of 2014 to capitalise on the patriotic buzz caused by the Commonwealth Games and the Ryder Cup, both of which will be held in Scotland that summer.

A spokesman for Mr Salmond insisted he was not prepared to enter into deals. Mr Cameron says he will back a vote only if it is held next year. He is set to publish legal advice stating that Scotland can carry out a binding referendum only with the backing of the UK Government."

Is that it? All these dark mutterings about new legal advice, and all it amounts to is that the Scottish Parliament can only hold a consultative referendum, rather than a binding one? Er, I think we've known that since at least 1998, but thanks all the same.

This detail is also rather amusing -

"Ministers in Mr Cameron's Coalition hope that an earlier vote would enable campaigning for a referendum to take place in the afterglow of the Queen's diamond jubilee celebrations and the London 2012 Olympic Games."

Ah, you mean like holding the Royal Wedding a few days before the Scottish Parliament election last year successfully headed off an SNP landslide? Yes, these wizard schemes never fail. At least Prince William and Kate Middleton were reasonably popular in Scotland - after the BOA's antics over the last few years, and the way that the Olympics have robbed Scotland of vital investment, I'm not so sure the same can be said of "Team GB". But by all means let's see what the Olympic 'afterglow' looks like in practice.

* * *

There's no entertainment known to man quite like perusing the readers' comments on a Mail article relating to Scottish independence. Here are my favourites from yesterday -

"...some facts for our Scottish friends: You vote for Labour in droves, Labour ruined the country, now that the country is ruined you want to leave it because you are disatisfied, you continue to vote for Labour. You are sure to soar as an independent nation as you demonstrate great logical thinking skills. I will give you an analogy to highlight my point. What you are doing is the equivalent of letting an oil company drill on your land, then becoming disatisfied with the natural disaster on your land, then arguing in favour of allowing oil companies to drill on people's property at the same time as saying you need to move due to the natural disaster....then when arriving at your new property asserting that you will allow an oil company to drill because you think it is a good thing you are in favour of."

I've seen some cracking analogies in my time, but it has to be said - that one is an absolute belter. The only thing that could make it even better would be an explanatory diagram.

"As someone born in England but studying in Scotland, I support the prime minister's decision. Salmon wants to bide his time so that he can play petty politics to drum up support for Scottish independence. Salmon thinks he is above 300 years of history. Above the world's greatest union. He is not."

I'm confused - when did Alex Salmond ever claim to be 'above' the Swiss Confederation? Bloody arrogant of him if he did.

"This reminds me of the kid that ran away from home and never made it to the end of the road. Why cant we give them a taste of what it will be like without us and stop all funding as of now. They wont last long and they'll soon change their minds....Let them experience the real world without England to cover for them, they will soon come crawling back with their tail between their legs, begging us to take them back."

Oh, absolutely. After all, the people of Ireland famously refer to independence from London as 'the Historic Error', so why should it be any different for Scotland? Let's get this nonsense out of our system ONCE AND FOR ALL.

"You will have no MP's in our English parliment. No reprisentation at all. Nil. Nada. Zip. Still want you own show??"

Yeah, Scotland, you're really not thinking this one through, are you? If you were independent, you wouldn't have the Union Jack anymore. None of it. Not even a dash of red. Still want to go? No, I don't think you understand - YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE YOUR OWN FLAG. You see, you wouldn't be part of the UK anymore, so you wouldn't be allowed to have ours. Not quite so sure now, are you, sonny? Yeah, you see, all this talk of independence is all very well, but when you actually start thinking through the ramifications...what? You still want to go? Dear me, you don't seem to be understanding my words. Let's try this. If you were independent, you wouldn't have the Tory cabinet anymore. None of them. Not even Eric Pickles. Are you MAD?

Questions to which the answer is helpfully contained within the question

2012-01-08T02:22:00.001Z

From Scotland on Sunday -

"Tory peer and former lord advocate Lord Fraser of Carmyllie said: “For many, there is a view that if you were born in Scotland but were working in Brighton, then why the hell shouldn’t you have a vote in a [Scottish independence] referendum?”"

Answer : Because you live in Brighton.

In a similar vein, it might be asked : If you were born in Hemel Hempstead but are living in Brighton, then why the hell shouldn't you have a vote on who should be the MP for Hemel Hempstead?

Answer : Because you live in...well, you get the idea.

In any case, the unionists in the House of Lords are leading themselves up a cul-de-sac with this wheeze. At some point, the penny will drop that if eligibility to vote in the independence referendum is determined by place of birth rather than residence, then hundreds of thousands of Scottish residents who would otherwise be disproportionately likely to vote No will be stripped of their right to vote.

What's rather more interesting is the suggestion in the Mail that Cameron may be pressing ahead with the idea of legislating to force Alex Salmond to hold the referendum earlier than planned. If true, it'll certainly make queries about 'broken election pledges' rather easier to deal with in future...

"Why didn't you stick to your promises?"

"Because you made them illegal, David."

Careful, Nick : automatic recourse to 'moderation' might just lead you to Calamity

2012-01-07T05:14:00.005Z

I just happened to stumble across an excellent blogpost the other day detailing the most common logical fallacies. The examples used to illustrate each fallacy all relate to the bogus arguments deployed by proponents of a legal ban on sex work and/or pornography, but it was a very timely find given Nick Clegg's bizarre attempt to paint the huge number of people who believe in either independence or the status quo as 'extremists' -

"Mr Clegg said the Lib Dems vision of Home Rule represented the views of the Scottish people and argued that those who were for independence, or keeping the current constitutional settlement, were extremists.

“All the evidence suggests that is the mainstream of opinion and the extremists are those who either think that we need to yank Scotland out of the United Kingdom tomorrow, or those who say there should be no further change at all,” Mr Clegg said."

One of the fallacies explained in the blogpost is "Middle ground: the belief that the truth must be somewhere in the middle". Off the top of my head, here's an example...

Proposition 1 - Nick Clegg should be sentenced to thirty years' hard labour for fraudulently securing votes on the promise that the Liberal Democrats would vote against an increase in tuition fees.

Proposition 2 - Nick Clegg should be spared jail for fraudulently securing votes on the promise that the Liberal Democrats would vote against an increase in tuition fees, but should certainly be expected to resign forthwith.

Proposition 3 - Nick Clegg should be forgiven for fradulently securing votes on the promise that the Liberal Democrats would vote against an increase in tuition fees, and allowed to remain as Lib Dem leader for now.

In this instance, hard labour and forgiveness are clearly the 'extreme' options, which leaves resignation as the only moderate, reasonable, sensible course of action. And as Clegg is apparently keen to pray in aid the relative popularity of each constitutional option, it should also be noted that calls for his resignation represent 'mainstream opinion' in Scotland. Open and shut case, methinks - anyone who doesn't think Nick Clegg should resign immediately is clearly an extremist on a par with Nick Griffin.

Incidentally, I was intrigued to see in the Scotsman article that Clegg defines himself (rather like Ken Macintosh) as a 'devolutionist, not a unionist'. But at the Political Innovation conference just over a year ago, I clearly remember Caron Lindsay repeatedly insisting that the Lib Dems are a 'federalist, not a unionist' party. Whatever happened to that? Federalism and devolution are qualitatively very different concepts - albeit both very much unionist ones in the literal sense of the word.

Dragon-fire and moon-howlers

2012-01-06T03:26:00.006Z

This blog is in severe danger of turning into @Admin4TheYoonYoon Tweet-Watch, but here goes anyway...

Tom Harris : Comment 22 under Michael Kelly's Scotsman article really makes you feel positive about Nats: "GTF back to Ireland"

Joan McAlpine : Poison is endemic on internet. I get plenty of it from unionists whether Lab, Con or Lib Dem.

Tom Harris : Yes, Joan - the biggest problem is with unionists' comments on newspaper sites...Good grief.

Well, as it happens, Tom, I'm in a rather good position to comment on this subject, because I'm a Nationalist whose name is Kelly (for good measure my middle name is Michael) and I have been repeatedly and 'robustly' informed by a delightful unionist poster over a period of months that I cannot possibly be a Scot, on the grounds that my ancestry is Irish/American/French-Canadian. The 'name' of the poster in question is Moniker of Monza, and he posts at Political Betting. There are dozens of his ilk at that site, and elsewhere online. So don't try telling me there isn't a massive 'CyberYoonYoonist' problem.

Oh, and the fact that I don't know the real names of any of those CYYs brings me neatly onto this -

Tom Harris : Calling all Nat moon-howlers: You want to be another "Braveheart"? Well "brave" doesn't equate to writing poison under a pseudonym.

A sentiment with which I can just spot the one minor problem, Tom - namely, why have you posted your 'less constructive' Labour Hame pieces under the pseudonym 'Admin'? Or at least that was your practice until the leadership campaign was safely lost. Is 'bravery' a quality that only Nats should ever be expected to aspire to?

To turn to the Michael Kelly article itself...well, perhaps the best way of summing it up is that it bears an uncanny similarity to the irate letters Norman Hogg used to write to Scotland on Sunday circa 1995, and even in those days it was like entering a time-warp. Exhibit A -

"He [Salmond] remembers taking Mrs Thatcher on, while the rest of us recall that it was the SNP that started the Thatcher era. By bringing down the Callaghan government in 1979, the SNP forced a general election at the time most propitious to the Tories, and thereafter they ruled the UK for the next 18 years."

My money's on 2543 (for the year that Labour will finally dispense with that particular chip on their shoulder). But let's run through the actual sequence of events yet again for Kelly's benefit. The facts are these - the SNP propped up an extraordinarily unpopular Labour government for years in the late 1970s, and did so because they believed that Callaghan was acting in good faith on Home Rule. But after Scotland voted Yes to devolution in March 1979, Callaghan refused to honour that mandate. So what exactly was the SNP supposed to do - carry on propping up a lame duck government in exchange for absolutely nothing? It's true that they didn't achieve anything by bringing the government down, but neither would they have achieved anything by taking the alternative course - there would still have been no Scottish Assembly, and Mrs Thatcher's rise to power would in all probability have been delayed by only a matter of weeks (five months at the absolute outside). The idea that Labour could have overturned a 20+ point deficit if only they'd been given an extra few weeks is risible in the extreme.

Besides which, it wasn't the SNP that brought Mrs Thatcher to power. It was the people of the UK who did so by voting for her in a general election. The most sacred belief of unionists like Michael Kelly is that the will of the people of the whole UK must hold sway in Scotland - this is known as 'maturity'. Callaghan's defeat in a vote of no confidence (in which Labour folk-hero Gerry Fitt's abstention was just as decisive as the SNP's votes, let's not forget) merely facilitated and mildly accelerated the process of the UK electorate choosing a government that was more to their taste. So why isn't Kelly able to celebrate that? Isn't the fact that he feels unable to do so (especially after thirty-three years, for heaven's sake!) a rather strong indication that he is on the wrong side of the constitutional debate?

"And he [Salmond] is trying his best to fix both the timing and wording of the referendum question – the former on the grounds that he promised it would be held late in this parliament: a promise for which there is as little evidence as for a dragon’s fiery breath."

You mean, apart from the footage from the leaders' debates, and from several high-profile interviews? If both I and Hugh Henry imagined all that, then clearly we both believe in dragons.

"However, the Thatcher stopper deserves credit for being so honest in the assessment of his role. It is further to his credit that he kept quiet about his heroics for so many years, allowing us to believe that it was Tony Blair and New Labour that finally lanced the Tory boil."

Please don't try to change the subject, Michael - Alex Salmond was talking about his role in the downfall of Thatcher in 1990, not the Tory government in 1997. And if we're being strictly accurate, she was actually brought down by fellow Tories. Indeed, there's more than a grain of truth in the old joke that the Tories won the 1992 election because they'd succeeded in doing what Labour had tried and failed to do for over a decade - remove Margaret Thatcher from office.

* * *

I must say I disagree with Subrosa on her call for an entirely new national anthem to replace Flower of Scotland. It seems to me there's a disconnect between the people and elites (including the SNP elite) on this subject - the people have already made their choice of anthem, but the elite simply can't leave it alone. My guess is that if a new song was commissioned, it would be a repeat of what happened in Russia following the collapse of communism - the public wouldn't take the new anthem to their hearts, and we'd have to revert to the old one again after a few years.

It's true, though, that the use of Flower of Scotland at sporting events needs a bit of imagination - it should be played fast, and definitely not by a pipe band.

Elgin has more in common with Southend-on-Sea than with Yetts o' Muckhart : FACT

2012-01-05T02:51:00.004Z

Just a very quick query for our old friend @Admin4TheYoonYoon. I'm struggling to reconcile the logic of these two recent tweets -

"But the point of my original comment was that to win *in the UK* we need to win the support of former Thatcher voters."

"Indeed. But since Scotland and England aren't that different, the Union is a good idea."

Righty-ho. So if Scotland and England aren't that different, why do Labour need Thatcher voters to win in the UK, but not in Scotland? Indeed, given that Admin endlessly scoffs at the notion that Scotland might, in some specific ways, have more in common with Scandinavia than with the south of England, could he explain why social democratic parties certainly wouldn't need the support of Thatcherites to win in a hypothetical Scandinavian political union, but do in the British political union?

Tom's final pearl of wisdom for the evening was this -

"Glaswegians have more in common with Manchester, Newcastle and Liverpool than they do with Edinburgh or Aberdeen."

No need to back that up, Tom, the assertion will do fine. Actually, in the light of Labour Hame's side-splitting spoof New Year's message from Alex Salmond ("Wha's like us? Absolutely no-one"), perhaps someone should pen an @Admin4TheYoonYoon message in which he explains that not only does Scotland have more in common with England in every conceivable area of policy or culture than with any other nation on earth, but that every individual town or village in Scotland has more in common with a hamlet in Shropshire than with any other location in Scotland itself.

Vote for Ron?

2012-01-03T00:22:00.002Z

In theory I have the right to vote in the forthcoming US presidential primaries, although it remains to be seen whether I'll actually be able to exercise that right, because on previous occasions my requests for a ballot paper have only met with a 70-75% success rate. However, assuming I do get the opportunity, I'll be in the novel position of deciding who to vote for in the Republican primary - there's absolutely no point in participating in the Democratic ballot, because for better or worse it's a foregone conclusion that Barack Obama will be the candidate. So here's the dilemma : how do I go about deciding who is the least worst of all the extreme right-wing candidates vying for the presumptuous post of Global Emperor? Or should I even be trying to decide that? Should I instead vote for the most extreme candidate of the lot, to maximise Obama's chances of being re-elected?

Before my New Year's Resolution to stop posting at PB, I explained my dilemma over there. The poster Edmund of Tokyo had some very solid practical advice - I should plump for Rick Perry, because he has the dual attributes of being fundamentally unelectable, but also not the sort of chap who would blow up the world in the unlikely event that he is elected. This is a persuasive argument, but I'm actually coming round to the peculiar idea that I might vote for Ron Paul instead. I say 'peculiar' because in many ways he stands for all the things I most detest - abolition of what little there is of a welfare state in the US, completely unfettered gun ownership rights, etc, etc. But the beauty of a Paul candidacy would be the long-overdue airing of certain issues that will otherwise remain buried, ie. does the US have any right to maintain a global empire in the 21st Century? Is it really OK for it to carry out extra-judicial killings on other countries' sovereign territory? Should it stop and question its uncritical support for Israel once in a while?

And if the calamity happened and Paul actually was elected President, one point of reassurance is that he would have a relatively free hand to pursue his constructive agenda in the foreign policy sphere, but to some extent might be hampered by Congress in his attempts to leave the poor to starve.

All of this may be totally academic, of course, because if Mitt Romney wins the Iowa Caucuses today (Tuesday), the momentum behind him would probably be unstoppable, and the contest would be over before it really started.

NOTE : 'Vote for Ron' is slang for voting for no-one, or for 'none of the above' (RON stands for 're-open nominations').

That's one New Year's Resolution sorted out...

2011-12-31T03:09:00.009Z

Like most people, I tend to fail miserably at keeping my New Year's Resolutions (with the notable exception of 2009, when I made two very bold ones and somehow managed to fulfil them both, albeit it took me until September). But I certainly don't have to look very far for a task to set myself in 2012, and that's to keep as far away from PoliticalBetting.com as humanly possible. I drifted back there just before Christmas for the first time in a good few months, and you might have thought that the long break would have meant that I wasn't quite as much of a marked man as before - but not a bit of it. No, all I have to do is turn up and mention the word 'Scotland' or 'independence', and the usual suspects descend on me like a pack of wolves, just like I've never been away. On Thursday I was accused of bigotry for making the blindingly obvious point that it would be profoundly foolish and grossly insensitive of David Cameron to break the decades-long convention of only appointing Scottish MPs to the post of Secretary of State for Scotland. When I clarified for the benefit of the poster in question that "Scottish MP" was shorthand for "MP representing a Scottish constituency", and not for "anyone who isn't English", I was effectively told that it wasn't up to me to decide what I meant!

And then of course there was the annual farce that is the Poster of the Year poll. Don't get me wrong, David Herdson is without doubt an infinitely worthier winner than last year's (albeit I certainly haven't forgotten his pompous and spectacularly ill-judged intervention in an exchange involving me during the summer), but the fact that the only two out-and-out left-wing posters involved in the poll finished last and second-last respectively tells its own story. The under-performance of the superb left-wing/Nationalist poster Mick Pork in the newcomers' poll was also very striking.

I was also somewhat startled to learn from Poster of the Year runner-up Richard Nabavi that "even James Kelly awarded me one star, in a rare show of cross-party generosity" (this was sarcasm, for the avoidance of doubt). The problem was that I hadn't actually revealed to anyone how I voted, and as Richard's information was accurate, I naturally drew the obvious conclusion that my vote had been selectively leaked by the site proprietors. After I complained about this, it transpired that there was an innocent (albeit much less obvious) explanation, but for my trouble I was then subjected to a torrent of inane drivel about my "paranoia" and "MI5 surveillance". And just to make the day complete, I once again had to put up with the site's resident bore "Neil", who paradoxically spends virtually all of his time telling everyone else how boring they are.

But the final straw came last night when I tried to respond to this truly jaw-dropping post by regular poster HD2 -

"An interesting point is why a site with such high average IQ posters (compared to many internet blogs) and which is run by a Liberal LD has such a perceived preponderance of right-of-centre posters!

Particularly as over the majority of the time the site has been running the UK has been under Socialist management, and at no time under Conservative, Libertarian, (sane?) management.....

Is it because we 'righties' have more time (team tim clearly have more than any of us, though) or is it simply that, as I strongly suspect:
a) intelligent people are in favour of individualism, not collectivism, which makes them 'right', not 'left' politically
b) the ACTUAL centre-ground of politics is well to the right of (eg) Cameron, so those on the Left perceive anyone to the right of (eg) Brown as being 'right-wing', when they are merely 'centrist'"

When I attempted to inject a tiny bit of sanity by pointing out that a rather simpler and more plausible explanation was a snowball effect (ie. a site with overwhelmingly right-wing posters tends to attract even more right-wing posters, and repel left-wing posters), my comment was swiftly deleted. Which eloquently illustrates another possible explanation for the dearth of left-wing posters at PB - a rather less-than-even-handed approach by the editors and moderators.

* * *

And that pretty much brings to a close another year of posts at Scot Goes Pop. See you in 2012 - always assuming I make it back in one piece from the Edinburgh street-party, which I'm going to for the first time!

Brazen : Westminster considers legislating to force the SNP to break its election pledges

2011-12-24T05:54:00.004Z

I trust if the plan being touted in today's Scotsman ever sees the light of day, we'll hear no more from the unionist parties about "broken SNP promises" - because what is being suggested is that Westminster could literally legislate to force Alex Salmond to break his word on the timing of the independence referendum. It beggars belief - first they move heaven and earth to prevent a referendum being held in 2010 as planned by the SNP, and call that an SNP broken promise on the grounds that Salmond didn't go through the motions of putting a doomed bill to the vote. This time, after a dramatic mood-swing, they're pondering a clause in the Scotland Bill to force the referendum to be held earlier than was pledged. Well, we can accuse them of many things, but certainly not of consistency.

One intriguing point here is that if they do attempt to do this through the Scotland Bill, they'd still need legislative consent for the bill as a whole from Holyrood. They didn't show much sign of making the necessary compromises to get that consent before this latest revelation, and heaven only knows how much ground they'd have to give to get the new wheeze through.

* * *

I've just received an early Christmas present in my inbox -

"Jimmy, you are my long-awaited man!

Greetings my dear! I am a beautiful woman from Russia and I dream to meet you.

I am very energetic but within reasonable limits. But still there is a lack of one person in my life.

That is why I am here. I am waiting for my special man to come to my life. Doors to my soul are open for him. Look at my pictures...I will be waiting for you."

I'm so glad she gave me fair warning about only being energetic "within reasonable limits" - I'd have been bound to do something rash like enter her for the London Marathon otherwise.

* * *

If you enjoy voting in online polls, you might be interested to know that the superb Nationalist posters Mick Pork and TheUnionDivvie are among five people in the running for Political Betting's "Best Newcomer" of 2011. Naturally, given the nature of the site, it's a bit of an uphill struggle for them to get votes, so I thought a small plug might be in order! You can find the voting form here.

* * *

Last but not least, a very happy Christmas to you all!

Admin : Probing the psyche

2011-12-21T01:59:00.003Z

Where does he find the time? No sooner has Admin been appointed by Johann Lamont to the vital role of Shadow Minister for Conducting a Review Into the Use of Modern Technology (looks like he'll be rivalling Wendy Alexander's old status as 'Minister for Everything'), than he's back at the Labour Hame grindstone, churning out yet more public-spirited citizen journalism. In his latest article, he poses the thought-provoking question -

"Does it matter that a prominent nationalist website doesn’t consider accuracy as important?"

Thought-provoking, I mean, in the sense that it provoked a few other questions to creep into my own thoughts. For example -

1. Does it matter that a right-wing politician joined a left-wing political party solely for the purposes of career advancement?

2. Given his stated concern about the supposed lack of journalistic standards at Newsnet Scotland, does it also concern him that his repeated use of the term "NewsNat Scotland" would have fallen foul of the Better Nation moderation rules had he submitted his piece as a comment there, let alone that it would have precluded the article's use in virtually any other serious publication?

3. What is the significance of his repeated use of the spelling "Yoonyoonist" when characterising the speech patterns of nationalists, given that it is a perfectly natural phonetic rendering of how anyone would pronounce the word? (Unless of course "Un-yun-ist" is preferred in the Harris household.) Could it, by any chance, betray his extraordinarily authoritarian mindset, ie. that he is incapable of seeing people who diverge from his own views as 'mature'? That his brain automatically converts their speech into 'baby-talk', and the only response he can imagine is to try to patronise them into submission? In a nutshell, does he have a deep subconscious need for others to see him as a father figure who they look to for guidance and chastisement? And should we fear for his well-being now that his own party have comprehensively rejected him for the father role, instead preferring him for the (admittedly mega) technology review role?

4. Does he have no sense of shame about going into apoplexy over hair-splitting examples of the "inaccuracy" of others, given that it's only a matter of weeks since he lied through his teeth that a nationalist banner outside the Royal Concert Hall had read "End English Rule", and given that we all know he'd never have half-heartedly acknowledged that gross inaccuracy unless he'd been supplied with incontrovertible photographic evidence? What conclusions are we entitled to draw about a politician who does lack such an appropriate sense of shame?

Mr Popular

2011-12-19T05:29:00.000Z

Nobody does unintentional comedy quite like the Guardian these days...

"The least well-known Scottish leader in its history, Lamont defeated another lesser-known backbencher, Ken McIntosh, and popular Westminster backbencher Tom Harris, the MP for Glasgow South, to win. McIntosh won 40.3% and Harris 7.95% of the vote."

Call me peculiar, but I always thought elections were a rather good test of popularity. So let's recap : Tom Harris is "popular", but he's just taken a gubbing at the hands of "the least well-known Scottish Labour leader in history" and "another lesser-known backbencher". Heaven only knows what would have happened to him if he'd been unpopular.

Ah well. Scottish Labour's gain is the blogosphere's loss. Or something like that.

And I really do think the Guardian are grossly overstating the scale of the challenge facing Johann Lamont as leader. Surely it's high time the press picked up on the inspiring message of hope and renewal that Labour's electoral college has just decisively delivered, ie. "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Scottish Labour persevere with their highly successful core vote strategy

2011-12-17T16:58:00.000Z

Well, it would be massively over-the-top on this occasion to repeat what I said about the Tories a few weeks ago. Labour haven't made a historic error - not that choosing Johann Lamont wasn't an error, but it's hard to pretend that the alternative would have been much better. There was no-one on the ballot paper who could have matched Alex Salmond's charisma (and that includes Admin, in spite of his own high opinion of himself), and neither was there anyone who really "got it" about where Labour have been going wrong. Macintosh perhaps came closest with his idea of dropping the word 'unionist' from the party lexicon, but I doubt there would have been much in the way of substance to complement the change of language.

And the same problem holds true of Lamont. OK, no-one can accuse her of concealing the fact that she's going to continue to conspire with the Tories to obstruct the Scottish people's aspirations for a more powerful parliament, but on non-constitutional matters she actually talked the talk today. For instance -

"Our one test will be what is in the interest of the people of Scotland, not what's in the interest of ourselves."

"I will reach out to people across Scotland who maybe never thought of themselves to be Labour..."

Now, does anyone think for a moment she's the person to do that? She has "core vote strategy leader" written all over her - and that strategy certainly worked a treat back in May.