The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

Do you mean if Scotland votes Labour and we end up with the Tories?

wouldn't be the first time. Could see it happening again.

You can see Scotland voting Labour?

We both know that Scotland will primarily vote SNP in May.

And the fact of Scotland voting SNP and not Labour may well cause Scotland to end up with the tories when you could have stopped that happening by voting Labour.

You'll scream and scream and sceam about it if it happens, I'm sure. And yuou'll point the finger of blame at everyone but yourselves.

And yet you can stop it, but will have chosen not to. You'll have made a deliberate choice to get the tories and not something better as a consequence of your voting choice.

<cue the normal Scottish ostrich stuff >

[Comfy Bean]

The SNP have 6 seats. How many do you think they will win in may?

Do you folks know something I don't?

will the SNP take the 59 seats. looks that way from some of the posts on here today. I know it doesn't suit your argument but scotland normally votes Labour in a General Election.

[gary1979666]

The SNP have 6 seats. How many do you think they will win in may?

Do you folks know something I don't?

will the SNP take the 59 seats. looks that way from some of the posts on here today. I know it doesn't suit your argument but scotland normally votes Labour in a General Election.

In 2010 they won 6, but looking at the current polls, they're set to win a lot more from Labour.

For 2014 the election in the UK is going to be close between Labour and the Tories, if the polls are to be believed, so if SNP win 10, 20, 30 seats, then it could make the difference between who wins. It might be a moot point (I think most likely so) and Labour win the most seats and you can sit back and say 'I told you so' to Neil. But then again it might be the Tories with the slight edge - and I thikn the polls gave that a 1 in 6 chance. In fact, think of a vote for the SNP as a game of Russian roulette for getting the Tories.

[eFestivals]

The SNP have 6 seats. How many do you think they will win in may?

The common consensus seems to be more than 20, and anything up-to 50.

If it's 20 seats, that's taking 14 seats from Labour, which stands a good chance of making the difference between labour being the party with most seats or not - which means you;'ll get the tories instead.

Scotland's choice of vote is essentially the decider between whether there'#s a tory or Labour govt.

In a normal election, a Labour win would be guaranteed. Scotland chosing to vote different this time puts the tories in with a very real chance.

will the SNP take the 59 seats. looks that way from some of the posts on here today. I know it doesn't suit your argument but scotland normally votes Labour in a General Election.

Scotland normally votes Labour in a general election and by doing so helps Labour to win now and then.

If Scotland chooses to vote differently, what the resulting outcome will be will be different now and then too.

And of course the difference Scotland will be bringing onto itself by that change is the tories instead of Labour.

It's very simple. You cannot change how others will vote, but you can change the result to a tory win.

If Scotland changes the result to a tory win, Scotland will have chosen the tories for themselves.

Edited January 16, 2015 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

so...are we no longer laughing at the prospect of Scotland voting labour?

I'm struggling to keep up here!

Gary, am I right in saying you think they could?

[eFestivals]

so...are we no longer laughing at the prospect of Scotland voting labour?

eh? The only people I've seen "laughing at the prospect of Scotland voting labour" are Scottish ex-labour voters who are determined to punch themselves in the face by voting SNP and perhaps causing themselves to live under the tories.

Edited January 16, 2015 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

What about your good self though Neil. As long ago as 12.38!?

the only point I'm trying to make is that Scotland "could" return more labour mps than SNP. do you agree?

[eFestivals]

What about your good self though Neil. As long ago as 12.38!?

the only point I'm trying to make is that Scotland "could" return more labour mps than SNP. do you agree?

Oh, I see what you mean.

I want Scotland to vote Labour, but I don't think it will (from the many comments I've read both here and elsewhere).

Yes, Scotland could return more Labour MPs than SNP ones, but it's still exceedingly likely to be fewer Labour MPs than now.

And when the rest of the UK is moving towards Labour and not away from it to get the tories out, Scotland is moving away from Labour and might put the tories in.

This is why Scotland is likely to hold the responsibility for a tory win, if that's what happens. Scotland could choose to stop the tories, 100% guaranteed - but instead would rather risk giving them the win.

Edited January 16, 2015 by eFestivals

[kaosmark2]

The SNP have 6 seats. How many do you think they will win in may?

12-25. I think they'll take most of the Lib Dem seats and a few Labour ones. I think the speculation going on in this thread is ridiculous.

The only thing we can be sure of in the next GE is there won't be a party with a majority.

IMO the best scenario is Labour are the largest party, Clegg loses his seat, Lib dems are 3rd largest and have enough to form a narrow majority coalition with Labour, but it's narrow enough that they can't piss off the 1-5 Green MPs, or the ~15 SNP MPs in regard to UK-wide policy, because all those voting with Tory+UKIP and just a few rebels would tip a vote over the edge.

I don't have the same vitriol for SNP as Neil does. I consider them a centre-right party with as much bullshit, lies, double-standards and hypocrisy as the Lib Dems. I despise both Salmond and Clegg, but I don't think the core of either party are quite as power-hungry. My main issue with the SNP is that I strongly disagree with Scottish independence on an ideological basis. Separatist policy is something I disagree with as a matter of principle.

[kaosmark2]

Yes, Scotland could return more Labour MPs than SNP ones, but it's still exceedingly likely to be fewer Labour MPs than now.

I think they probably will. They'll be shifts, but not shifts in every constituency. My main hope is that the new SNP seats come from the Libs and the Tory.

[eFestivals]

I don't have

the same vitriol for SNP as Neil does.

I don't have vitriol for the SNP, I have vitriol for SNP voters who can't see what the SNP are. I dislike political stupidity, because it allows the rich to walk away with the cash with the blessing of those stupid.

I consider them a centre-right party with as much bullshit, lies, double-standards and hypocrisy as the Lib Dems.

Yep, me too.

Which is fine if someone wishes to vote for snake-oil, but so few of their supporters do.

My main issue with the SNP is that I strongly disagree with Scottish independence on an ideological basis. Separatist policy is something I disagree with as a matter of principle.

I do as a matter of principle, but not something I couldn't support in certain circumstances.

What I couldn't encourage is a population walking blindly to their own doom. If indie is worth voting yourself poorer for, then know that's what you're doing.

[eFestivals]

Someone posted this in the UKIP thread, but it includes an interesting Scottish analysis too.

http://commonslibraryblog.com/2015/01/13/voter-trends-in-2014-and-lessons-for-the-2015-general-election/

If that's right, it's very different to what I'd been thinking, and also what anti-Labour Scots have been saying (which is what has led my thinking to a large degree).

[tolywoly]

Someone posted this in the UKIP thread, but it includes an interesting Scottish analysis too.

http://commonslibraryblog.com/2015/01/13/voter-trends-in-2014-and-lessons-for-the-2015-general-election/

If that's right, it's very different to what I'd been thinking, and also what anti-Labour Scots have been saying (which is what has led my thinking to a large degree).

What differs from your thinking - the fact that Scottish turnout may drop back to its usual level for the General Election?

John Curtis has posted a new blog covering two recent polls.

http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2015/01/reason-labour-smile-little/

It doesn't take much of a swing back for Labour to go from near total wipeout, to only doing very badly, to pretty much the same number if seats as now.

Some interesting numbers towards the bottom. 47% of SNP supporters currently don't know whether voting SNP makes a Tory or Labour government more likely.

And 22% of SNP supporters think the collapse in oil price has weakened the case for independence (46% of voters overall think it). Though the same number of SNP supporters think it's actually strengthened the case. That'll be the hardcore 'independence at any cost' 25% then, who'd probably say the discovery of Beagle 2 on Mars has enhanced the case for indie.

[gary1979666]

I read an interesting article from a guy from Yougov at the weekend about the polling for the GE and how he sees it changing over the next few months, based on previous elections. I know it's just one view and history may not be relevant now, but shows how tight it's going be regardless.

"DAVID CAMERON is on course to lead the largest party after May’s general election — but it could be touch and go whether he can remain prime minister.

This prediction, which I will update at regular intervals over the next 15 weeks, takes account of both recent YouGov polling data and the lessons from history about how public opinion moves in the final stages before general elections.

At present Labour leads the Tories by one point. All 10 of our January polls have found the two parties neck and neck, with Labour on 33% plus or minus one, and the Conservatives on 32%, again plus or minus one.

For shifts in vote share, my starting point is what happened the last time the Conservatives were in power. In each of the four elections from 1983 to 1997 the final four months saw a swing of 2-3 points back from Labour to the Tories.

I assume a similar swing this time. This co

nverts into a Conservative lead of 4 points. It could be more if the Liberal Democrats attract back more votes than I expect of those they have lost to Labour since 2010, and the Tories do better in winning back votes they have lost to Ukip.

As for converting votes into seats, first-time MPs such as those in virtually all the Conservative-held marginals tend to do better than average when they defend their seats.

My overall national vote share implies a swing from Tory to Labour in England and Wales of 2.5 points since 2010. On a uniform swing this would produce 31 Labour gains (in addition to Corby, which Labour captured in a by-election).

My current judgment is that the incumbency bonus is worth about 12 seats to the Tories — seats they will hold on below-average swings.

I have assumed that Lib Dem MPs will also enjoy an incumbency bonus, and hold on to 30 of the 57 seats they won last time. Without this bonus they would struggle to retain 20 seats. As for Ukip, I expect Douglas Carswell to hold Clacton, in Essex, but Mark Reckless, the other Ukip by-election winner, is likely to lose his. Ukip will probably win another four seats but this could change.

As for Scotland, today’s Panelbase survey shows the Scottish National party well ahead of Labour. I predict that its support will subside before polling day but that it will still gain 17 seats, leaving it with a total of 23.

If my predictions are right, the Tories with 293 seats will be the biggest party but 33 short of the 326 needed for an overall majority. If they join forces with the Lib Dems, they get to 323 — still three short but theoretically enough if Sinn Fein, likely to hold its five seats, continues to boycott parliament.

Support from the Democratic Unionists’ eight or nine MPs would allow Cameron to govern fairly comfortably. However, if the Lib Dems back a Labour-led government, and Ed Miliband can do a deal with the SNP and Northern Ireland’s Social Democratic and Labour party, he could have an overall majority of 16.

What this shows is that small differences in seat numbers can have a huge effect. Suppose the result is Conservatives 303 and Labour 267, then a Tory-led government is far more likely.

But if the result is Labour 287 and Conservatives 283, then Cameron will have little choice but to resign as prime minister and in all probability step down as Conservative party leader."

[eFestivals]

What differs from your thinking - the fact that Scottish turnout may drop back to its usual level for the General Election?

John Curtis has posted a new blog covering two recent polls.

http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2015/01/reason-labour-smile-little/

It doesn't take much of a swing back for Labour to go from near total wipeout, to only doing very badly, to pretty much the same number if seats as now.

Some interesting numbers towards the bottom. 47% of SNP supporters currently don't know whether voting SNP makes a Tory or Labour government more likely.

And 22% of SNP supporters think the collapse in oil price has weakened the case for independence (46% of voters overall think it). Though the same number of SNP supporters think it's actually strengthened the case. That'll be the hardcore 'independence at any cost' 25% then, who'd probably say the discovery of Beagle 2 on Mars has enhanced the case for indie.

It takes a big swing to unseat many of those Labour MPs, as they're often hugely ahead.

What differs to mostly to what i'd been thinking was the amount of 'changed Labour voters'. That article puts it at much smaller than I'd been thinking, many nats had been suggesting, and what Curtis has said previously.

And 22% of SNP supporters think the collapse in oil price has weakened the case for independence (46% of voters overall think it). Though the same number of SNP supporters think it's actually strengthened the case. That'll be the hardcore 'independence at any cost' 25% then, who'd probably say the discovery of Beagle 2 on Mars has enhanced the case for indie.

there's 20% or so of Scots who are addicted to indie, and there's little of anything that will change their minds. That part is unsurprising.

What is surprising are the numbers still saying that "oil is a bonus for Scotland" when it's not - not even in Salmond's fantasy version of things (better known as the white paper).

"Even wiith a cautious estimate of oil prices remaining at $113 a barrel, It's clear that Scottish oil and gas could generate three times more than official estimates". Alex Salmond, March 2013.

That's something that's 'clear' only to those who know where the magic money tree is hidden.

[kaosmark2]

As for converting votes into seats, first-time MPs such as those in virtually all the Conservative-held marginals tend to do better than average when they defend their seats.

While that is a trend, I'm going to point out that a fair number of those swings were down to specific cases of anger of expenses claims, in areas that are traditionally hard Labour (never Tory?), such as Dewsbury and Redditch re. Shahid Malik and Jacqui Smith.

Predictions based purely on statistics and trends won't account for situations like that, also, politics is changing and there won't be up-to-date trends to reflect the nature of that change. Statistically, small parties remain small, but while I expect both UKIP and Green to return a single figure number of MPs, their impact on other seats will be noticable, not directly comparable to historical trends related to vote share.

Also, trends regarding specific seats aren't 100% relevant, both because of the change of political landscape, and boundary changes that came into effect pre-2010.

Polls and statistics are informative and helpful, but attempts to translate that into predictions quite as precise as suggested in your post are optimistic and inevitably miss out on factors required to make such a detailed prediction.

[gary1979666]

While that is a trend, I'm going to point out that a fair number of those swings were down to specific cases of anger of expenses claims, in areas that are traditionally hard Labour (never Tory?), such as Dewsbury and Redditch re. Shahid Malik and Jacqui Smith.

Predictions based purely on statistics and trends won't account for situations like that, also, politics is changing and there won't be up-to-date trends to reflect the nature of that change. Statistically, small parties remain small, but while I expect both UKIP and Green to return a single figure number of MPs, their impact on other seats will be noticable, not directly comparable to historical trends related to vote share.

Also, trends regarding specific seats aren't 100% relevant, both because of the change of political landscape, and boundary changes that came into effect pre-2010.

Polls and statistics are informative and helpful, but attempts to translate that into predictions quite as precise as suggested in your post are optimistic and inevitably miss out on factors required to make such a detailed prediction.

Of course and it's just one pollster as well. Saw one on Mail online predicting Labour with more seats. I just thought it was a slightly different take on what could happen in the next few months.

Who nows what could happen on the political landscape. We still have the Boris effect to take into account (not sure if that's a good or bad thing), but if he's standing, then he's going to make an impact. Similarly the TV debates, if they happen.

I guess I posted it in this thread to show that it will be close and Scotland will have a deciding say, face, punch, .... The guy from Yougov isn't going to post a completely out-there prediction, but as you say, lots of other factors at play.

[eFestivals]

I expect both UKIP and Green to return a single figure number of MPs, their impact on other seats will be noticable

UKIP voters will for the main part stick with UKIP. Their disillusionment over-rides other factors.

That affect will be far less pronounced with Green voters. It's clear to see from the comments that each's supporters makes that Green voters can see the lesser evil that is Labour, and will use their vote tactically in many (perhaps 'most') cases.

Essentially, many SNP voters are much like those UKIP voters, where a personal determination to vote for that party (or alternatively, not vote for the 'hated') over-rides the wider effect of how they use their vote.

There's only really one factor that knocks down that SNP and UKIP support, and that's that a larger percentage of those people won't actually go out and vote compared to supporters of other parties. The newly-politicised in Scotland are fading fast as they realise via the oil price that they've supported no less of a con than they view the 'traditional' parties as offering.

[Comfy Bean]

The separatists might argue that splitting the UK is in the UK's best interests, but that can never be the UK's view from the UK's viewpoint.

Godwin's Law alert, but it's worth noting that a large minority thought Hitler was a good idea. It's the idea that's important for whether it's a good idea or not, and not how 'the people' might view that idea.

You are Jim Murphy. Where do I claim my fiver

[Comfy Bean]

Of course and it's just one pollster as well. Saw one on Mail online predicting Labour with more seats. I just thought it was a slightly different take on what could happen in the next few months.

Who nows what could happen on the political landscape. We still have the Boris effect to take into account (not sure if that's a good or bad thing), but if he's standing, then he's going to make an impact. Similarly the TV debates, if they happen.

I guess I posted it in this thread to show that it will be close and Scotland will have a deciding say, face, punch, .... The guy from Yougov isn't going to post a completely out-there prediction, but as you say, lots of other factors at play.

Thought that was quite an interesting article. As I`ve said before I don`t think SNP will get anything like the 40+ seats that the polls are showing. I`m sticking to my prediction a while back that if they can get 3 times the 6 they have then that is massive and anything above 18 is a bonus. It will take time to claw back some of the massive majorities that Labour have taken for granted for decades. I also think that the SNP will win big time in our elections next year. It could be after 2016 when we see Scottish Labour re-born for real.

On the tv debates - I`m siding with the folk who think that Dave has nothing to gain from debating with Farage so he simply won`t do it. Think he`s taking a chance saying it`s because the Greens aren`t there. Can`t one of the broadcasters ( say SKY ) call his bluff and invite them ? Are there rules against someone doing that ? Surely would be a ratings winner. Think Dave will be happy to " gamble " that come the time folk won`t fancy Milliband as PM.

Should the SNP get say 20 seats then look out for the spin to be " disaster for SNP as Jimbo Murphy saves Labour " . As I`ve said, 2016 will be really interesting when the Scottish folks are voting for the Scottish Parliament.

[eFestivals]

You are Jim Murphy. Where do I claim my fiver

when things get tricky for those who voted yes ... look over there, a squirrel.

Edited January 20, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Thought that was quite an interesting article. As I`ve said before I don`t think SNP will get anything like the 40+ seats that the polls are showing.

the polls aren't showing 40+ seats. The polls are showing a big SNP lead, which some are extrapolating to mean 40+ seats.

Whether that's how it'll really turn out, no one knows. There's too little by-constituency data to know what's happening in specific places to see how the seats might pan out.

But one factor which might explain that much higher SNP vote without corresponding seats is how the LibDem vote might hold up (or not).

I also think that the SNP will win big time in our elections next year.

as the saying goes, a year is a long time in politics.

If the latest predictions for a low oil price of 2 to 3 years at least holds true, the get-out that many yes-ers are currently using - that the Salmond price prediction was from 2016 and not for right now - ceases to work and the SNP's huge failing in the indyref stands up for all time.

You know, 'Project Fear' turning into 'Project Fact'.

So the question then becomes: do Scots vote for the party that would have indisputably led iScotland to disaster?

On the tv debates - I`m siding with the folk who think that Dave has nothing to gain from debating with Farage so he simply won`t do it. Think he`s taking a chance saying it`s because the Greens aren`t there. Can`t one of the broadcasters ( say SKY ) call his bluff and invite them ? Are there rules against someone doing that ? Surely would be a ratings winner. Think Dave will be happy to " gamble " that come the time folk won`t fancy Milliband as PM.

there's already an offer of a debate including the Greens, that has been accepted by all parties except the tories. That makes things plain.

It was reported back in the summer that Linton Cosby has instructed Cameron that he can't do the debates as they'll work against him as the incumbent.

[eFestivals]

I've just stumbled upon this....

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0043/00435599.pdf- which is, of course, an official Scottish govt document.

With the current drop in oil prices, nats everywhere are trying to deflect the discussion from Salmond's huge fuck up with his projections in the white paper (where the 'low' estimate used a price-low of $77) which would have quickly bankrupted an iScotland, and instead are concentrating on the lack of oil fund which is ... wait for it ... Westminster's fault.

(note: latest industry projections are that the current low prices will last thru all of 2016, and maybe much longer).

Here's what the Scottish govt themselves said in October 2013 about the lack of oil fund ...

Despite being in a relatively stronger fiscal position than the UK, Scotland has run a net fiscal deficit in 20 of the past 21 years. There has only been one year since 1990 when tax receipts have exceeded total public spending. This suggests that over this period North Sea receipts would have been required to fund public services in Scotland. Therefore if the Scottish Government had wished to establish an oil fund, it would have had to reduce public spending, increase taxation or increase public sector borrowing.

(my bolding)

Is there a majority in Scotland happy to have voted themselves poorer in the past, like they refused to do in September? Nope. So that's the argument on the lack of oil fund put to bed by Scotland itself.

Also interesting there is the "Scotland has run a net fiscal deficit in 20 of the past 21 years" bit, which shows the oil money as a necessity for Scottish public spending and not "a bonus" as Salmond was falsely claiming.

An indy Scotland might have got briefly rich in the 80s, but that would have been drained away already in the years since. But actually, that 80s money would have been really used to pay off the 70s, the 60s, the 50s, the 40s, the 30s, and the 20s (from GERS).

For the Nats, the oil was to be their salvation. Back in the real world there is no mileage in Scottish oil for the indy dream.

(and all that aside, the UK had little need for a oil fund to protect itself from 'the Dutch disease' [look it up] - the reason why other oil-dependent countries have an oil fund - because the oil revenues wouldn't have much exposed the UK to that problem).

Edited January 21, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

PS ... I'm also seeing lots of Scottish accusations of how Westminster is destroying the Scottish oil industry by "taxing them by four times as much as other companies".

(it's not actually 4 times, but lets not condemn nats for over-statements. ).

What that idea misses is that other industries do not get their base product for free. The high tax on profits from the North Sea is because there is no "licence fee" for extraction.

Rather than sell off licences which might have been good or poor value for either of the oil industry or the UK govt, the UK govt instead decided to tax profits at a high rate. This means that North Sea oil companies always live or die on their own basis, which makes investment more likely because there's always a profit there to be made, and the UK always gets a fair share no matter how high the profits might go.

I'm not trying to claim that method is or has been always-perfect, but it has stopped the outrage that would exist if the oil companies had been making massive profits without the UK getting a proportional cut of the profits.

If anything, the error of the UK govt over the years has been in taxing those companies at too-low a rate. The increase that Gideon made in 2011 might look harsh with today's oil prices but at 2011 rates it was about right.

PPS: and if the indy idea is now for lower oil extraction profit taxes, that would impact further into indy Scotland's deficit, making indy even less financially viable at current Scottish public spending rates).

Edited January 21, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

This is a genuine Tory election campaign poster, released in the last few days (as you can see here).....

This is the tories exploiting the view from England for their electoral benefit, exactly in the manner I've been saying that the view* is.

(* obviously not the view of everyone, but enough of a widely-held view that the tories can see the benefit in exploiting it).

Who are the tories patsies in this divide and rule strategy? SNP voters.

Note how a poster like this is likely to increase support in Scotland for the SNP - which is exactly what the tories want to happen, as Scottish people voting SNP is the tories best hope of victory.

Vote SNP, get tory.

It's what Salmond wants too, so do your patriotic duty for Scotland and have the tories rule over you.

Edited January 24, 2015 by eFestivals