The Scottish Politics Thread

[Tichtheid]

I still don't think they can win an Indy vote, the polling would have to be far higher, in the high 60s to 70s to allow for masses of cold feet at the ballot box, the difference between Indy and UK Brexit is the decades of drip feed against the EU, compared to the same time of telling Scots they aren't able to run their own country

No. There were still more votes for Unionst parties. Can't bare to think about the state of politics for the next few years, completely fucking depressing.

Another thought that occurs to me (beyond the rather final "NO" reply), is that unionists should probably be confident in winning a second referendum.

The fact is that there is a huge Brexit shaped elephant in the room, the elephant that was the only way Scotland could remain part of the EU was to remain part of the UK.

Circumstances have changed enormously since the question was put to the Scottish electorate in 2014.

[fishfoodie]

I still don't think they can win an Indy vote, the polling would have to be far higher, in the high 60s to 70s to allow for masses of cold feet at the ballot box, the difference between Indy and UK Brexit is the decades of drip feed against the EU, compared to the same time of telling Scots they aren't able to run their own country

No. There were still more votes for Unionst parties. Can't bare to think about the state of politics for the next few years, completely fucking depressing.

Another thought that occurs to me (beyond the rather final "NO" reply), is that unionists should probably be confident in winning a second referendum.

The fact is that there is a huge Brexit shaped elephant in the room, the elephant that was the only way Scotland could remain part of the EU was to remain part of the UK.

Circumstances have changed enormously since the question was put to the Scottish electorate in 2014.

That's a significant part of the Bumblecunt; immediate Ref argument !

Of course; there's always the possibility, that after the Ref got called, that someone significant in the EU would be asked if it was possible for a newly Independent Scotland to quickly join, both the EU & Euro ..... and they would pause, & say; of course !!


....... and then the Conservative & Unionist Party would collectively experience explosive diarrhea, & shit themselves into non-existence.

[Jock42]

I still don't think they can win an Indy vote, the polling would have to be far higher, in the high 60s to 70s to allow for masses of cold feet at the ballot box, the difference between Indy and UK Brexit is the decades of drip feed against the EU, compared to the same time of telling Scots they aren't able to run their own country

No. There were still more votes for Unionst parties. Can't bare to think about the state of politics for the next few years, completely fucking depressing.

To be fair though, there will be a lot of rhetoric from both sides of the Indy debate, but it's not going to impact on the day to day workings in Holyrood, by that I mean it's not going to be noticeable in Carbost or Lerwick or St Boswells or Kirkcudbright.

Debate is good, but that is depending on the level of it, if it can kept to issues then great.

I think any issue or statement can be attacked as hard as you like, but as soon as the argument becomes personal then the chance for genuine debate is obscured or lost.

I've mentioned before (possibly on the old board) that initially I enjoyed the debate around independence and at one point I was seriously torn about which way to vote. Unfortunately that didn't last long and I'm completely thredders with the issue now.

[Tattie]

I still don't think they can win an Indy vote, the polling would have to be far higher, in the high 60s to 70s to allow for masses of cold feet at the ballot box, the difference between Indy and UK Brexit is the decades of drip feed against the EU, compared to the same time of telling Scots they aren't able to run their own country

No. There were still more votes for Unionst parties. Can't bare to think about the state of politics for the next few years, completely fucking depressing.

I actually think the final number of total votes across both constituency and list was pretty much bang on 50/50, or even very slightly pro Indy if you spilt it along party lines. It’s not as black and white as this though as this was an election and not a referendum. I personally know die-hard, never vote for anyone else, labour voters who are very pro Independence and I’m sure there are SNP and Green voters who are the opposite.

Why is it depressing? A politically engaged population and high election turnouts. I think it’s a fascinating time for politics. Or is it just depressing because your guys aren’t winning?

[Biffer]

Marginally more pro Union in the constituency vote, marginally more pro independence on the list vote.

One of the things that the Union side is worried about is the massive swing towards the Yes camp over the last campaign. If there’s only half the swing there was last time, it’d end up around 60/40 in favour of independence.

[Slick]

I still don't think they can win an Indy vote, the polling would have to be far higher, in the high 60s to 70s to allow for masses of cold feet at the ballot box, the difference between Indy and UK Brexit is the decades of drip feed against the EU, compared to the same time of telling Scots they aren't able to run their own country

No. There were still more votes for Unionst parties. Can't bare to think about the state of politics for the next few years, completely fucking depressing.

I actually think the final number of total votes across both constituency and list was pretty much bang on 50/50, or even very slightly pro Indy if you spilt it along party lines. It’s not as black and white as this though as this was an election and not a referendum. I personally know die-hard, never vote for anyone else, labour voters who are very pro Independence and I’m sure there are SNP and Green voters who are the opposite.

Why is it depressing? A politically engaged population and high election turnouts. I think it’s a fascinating time for politics. Or is it just depressing because your guys aren’t winning?

Your last sentence sums up why it’s depressing

[Tattie]

No. There were still more votes for Unionst parties. Can't bare to think about the state of politics for the next few years, completely fucking depressing.

I actually think the final number of total votes across both constituency and list was pretty much bang on 50/50, or even very slightly pro Indy if you spilt it along party lines. It’s not as black and white as this though as this was an election and not a referendum. I personally know die-hard, never vote for anyone else, labour voters who are very pro Independence and I’m sure there are SNP and Green voters who are the opposite.

Why is it depressing? A politically engaged population and high election turnouts. I think it’s a fascinating time for politics. Or is it just depressing because your guys aren’t winning?

Your last sentence sums up why it’s depressing

Fair enough. Never mind depressed, I’d be fucking suicidal if I lived in England at the moment

[Slick]

I actually think the final number of total votes across both constituency and list was pretty much bang on 50/50, or even very slightly pro Indy if you spilt it along party lines. It’s not as black and white as this though as this was an election and not a referendum. I personally know die-hard, never vote for anyone else, labour voters who are very pro Independence and I’m sure there are SNP and Green voters who are the opposite.

Why is it depressing? A politically engaged population and high election turnouts. I think it’s a fascinating time for politics. Or is it just depressing because your guys aren’t winning?

Your last sentence sums up why it’s depressing

Fair enough. Never mind depressed, I’d be fucking suicidal if I lived in England at the moment

[Jock42]

Or is it just depressing because your guys aren’t winning?

Is this what is meant to pass for political engagement?

[Biffer]

Or is it just depressing because your guys aren’t winning?

Is this what is meant to pass for political engagement?

Well, we were on the receiving end of ‘you lost, get over it’ from the unionist side, so it’s not a surprise that some folks want to give a bit back.

[Jock42]

Or is it just depressing because your guys aren’t winning?

Is this what is meant to pass for political engagement?

Well, we were on the receiving end of ‘you lost, get over it’ from the unionist side, so it’s not a surprise that some folks want to give a bit back.

Is that a yes?

[Biffer]

Is this what is meant to pass for political engagement?

Well, we were on the receiving end of ‘you lost, get over it’ from the unionist side, so it’s not a surprise that some folks want to give a bit back.

Is that a yes?

No, it’s not. I’d rather it didn’t happen. But it’s difficult not to say something when the pro independence side has been asking for engagement on the issue for the last five years and just got ‘no, you lost’ in reply. It seems sometimes engagement is only on the table when the unionists want it.

[Tattie]

Or is it just depressing because your guys aren’t winning?

Is this what is meant to pass for political engagement?

This was my entire comment:

“Why is it depressing? A politically engaged population and high election turnouts. I think it’s a fascinating time for politics. Or is it just depressing because your guys aren’t winning?”

If it’s not the last, slightly tongue in cheek sentence, then why is it depressing?

[Jock42]

"Tongue in cheek"

[Tattie]

"Tongue in cheek"

Fuck me. Ok, if it’s not my last nasty, vindictive sentence then why is it depressing?

[Jock42]

"Tongue in cheek"

Fuck me. Ok, if it’s not my last nasty, vindictive sentence then why is it depressing?

Where have I suggested that it's not that type of bollocks?

[Big D]

I'm more concerned about why pre covid my sons school were having to ask parents for donations to buy books or why IT equipment when getting "fixed" isn't actually getting back to the schools. The council and government will hide behind the PEF budget which is determined by the number of free school meals a school doles out. I know many parents who are struggling but don't qualify for free meals and certainly can't help close that gap. A school a mile down the road gets 8x (20k v 160k) that of my sons school. I know how dire it is because I am on the PTC and see the impact of the lack of funding. Schools, effectively because of families living slightly above free school meals cut off are being left to flounder. It'll be worse now post covid.

It is depressing because there will be no consequence to whether the SNP substantially improve the education of our children or even improve it at all. None.

So long as the pro indy vote is consolidated in one place and the union vote is split were are going to go round in circles. Especially if the remain side wins a referendum again.

[Tichtheid]

Scotland 'has best-funded schools system in the UK'

But England allocates more funding to schools ‘on the basis of social deprivation’, according to report

https://www.tes.com/news/school-funding ... -uk-report

(I haven’t actually read the full article or the report yet)


Schools here in Brighton have lost something close to £11M over the last three years

[Big D]

Scotland 'has best-funded schools system in the UK'

But England allocates more funding to schools ‘on the basis of social deprivation’, according to report

https://www.tes.com/news/school-funding ... -uk-report

(I haven’t actually read the full article or the report yet)


Schools here in Brighton have lost something close to £11M over the last three years

Education is a devolved matter and is dealt with by the Scottish government so I'm not too fussed what happens elsewhere in the UK as I am not one for scrapping devolution. I have said before the "look it is better than in England" doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't be doing better.

The predominant factor according to the report summary seems to be teachers are higher paid up here (good) and I guess that the fluctuating class sizes also helps; I know of schools with classes maxes out at 28 or 30/31 and schools with less pupils total than that. It isn't clear how much more funding is there for materials, resources etc, if any?

The Scottish government don't distribute the cash evenly (not suggesting they should btw). In the example I gave just of PEF funding there is a difference of roughly £260 per child (approx. £310 at one school and £50 at the other) and the schools are neighbouring catchments. This is particularly damaging when the school families can't afford to prop up the difference through fund raising.

The SNP manifesto promised a lot towards education, but the reality is that whether they meet them or not Will have no impact next polling day and that is why I find the never ending independence stand off depressing.

[Tattie]

...I have said before the "look it is better than in England" doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't be doing better...

I know this isn’t the point you were trying to make and I, and I’m sure everyone no matter what their political persuasion, would agree 100% that we should be striving to do everything better.

Why though shouldn’t we compare things like the Scottish NHS performance with that of the rest of the UK? Unionists constantly tell us that the SNP are failing education, the NHS etc but according to what metrics? It has to be compared to something, the obvious being parts of similar or sister organisations within the UK. We’re constantly being told that Scotland’s drug deaths are horrific (which they are) compared to x, y and z. but this approach has to work both ways not just when it makes the SG look bad.

[Big D]

...I have said before the "look it is better than in England" doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't be doing better...

I know this isn’t the point you were trying to make and I, and I’m sure everyone no matter what their political persuasion, would agree 100% that we should be striving to do everything better.

Why though shouldn’t we compare things like the Scottish NHS performance with that of the rest of the UK? Unionists constantly tell us that the SNP are failing education, the NHS etc but according to what metrics? It has to be compared to something, the obvious being parts of similar or sister organisations within the UK. We’re constantly being told that Scotland’s drug deaths are horrific (which they are) compared to x, y and z. but this approach has to work both ways not just when it makes the SG look bad.

I try not to make comparisons with other countries where I can help it. I don't think I have on here but happy to be corrected if I'm wrong on that. I think comparisons are often dangerous without knowing the full story behind the facts and figures. Which is why I try to avoid that.

Take the spend per pupil, is that exacerbated by the fact many schools are spread out and have lower numbers? Or is it something more specific? All I know is there are schools that can't afford books and scared to send IT equipment for fixing because they often don't get replaced. On another side rant, I know a school that had sourced laptops at 100 quid a pop cheaper - told no because it want a council supplier.

I think that comparing only with the rUK gives too narrow a picture. If all an independent Scotland wants to be is better than the rUK across some issues then why do we need an independent Scotland? We manage that without being independent. If we want Scotland to be the best it can be, is it acceptable to be better than rUK at something if we are still poor compared to the rest of Europe?

When I am talking about education, I am not using that as a tool to prevent independence talk. I want the SG to be held accountable for what they are responsible for. Within the parameters of the devolved government can they be doing better? My belief is it doesn't matter because people are currently voting primarily on the hope of a referendum. That is what I find depressing about the political landscape.

To be clear, that is a personal feeling, it is completely fine and correct for people to vote for whatever reason they want.

[Tattie]

...I have said before the "look it is better than in England" doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't be doing better...

I know this isn’t the point you were trying to make and I, and I’m sure everyone no matter what their political persuasion, would agree 100% that we should be striving to do everything better.

Why though shouldn’t we compare things like the Scottish NHS performance with that of the rest of the UK? Unionists constantly tell us that the SNP are failing education, the NHS etc but according to what metrics? It has to be compared to something, the obvious being parts of similar or sister organisations within the UK. We’re constantly being told that Scotland’s drug deaths are horrific (which they are) compared to x, y and z. but this approach has to work both ways not just when it makes the SG look bad.

I try not to make comparisons with other countries where I can help it. I don't think I have on here but happy to be corrected if I'm wrong on that. I think comparisons are often dangerous without knowing the full story behind the facts and figures. Which is why I try to avoid that.

Take the spend per pupil, is that exacerbated by the fact many schools are spread out and have lower numbers? Or is it something more specific? All I know is there are schools that can't afford books and scared to send IT equipment for fixing because they often don't get replaced. On another side rant, I know a school that had sourced laptops at 100 quid a pop cheaper - told no because it want a council supplier.

I think that comparing only with the rUK gives too narrow a picture. If all an independent Scotland wants to be is better than the rUK across some issues then why do we need an independent Scotland? We manage that without being independent. If we want Scotland to be the best it can be, is it acceptable to be better than rUK at something if we are still poor compared to the rest of Europe?

When I am talking about education, I am not using that as a tool to prevent independence talk. I want the SG to be held accountable for what they are responsible for. Within the parameters of the devolved government can they be doing better? My belief is it doesn't matter because people are currently voting primarily on the hope of a referendum. That is what I find depressing about the political landscape.

To be clear, that is a personal feeling, it is completely fine and correct for people to vote for whatever reason they want.

At the moment rUK is all we can realistic compare to as it’s not a level playing field to compare us with e.g. similar sized independent European countries with full fiscal powers.

[Biffer]

Detailed analysis of the list votes seems to be showing that Independent Greeen Voice, a party with no manifesto or online presence, took votes that, if they had been cast for the Scottish Greens, would have resulted in two more Green MSPs, one in Glasgow (taken from the Conservatives) and one in South of Scotland (taken by Labour).

Independent Green Voice is an obvious far right spoiler group, which has former BNP activists and an alleged Holocaust denier within their ranks. It seems the electoral commission has failed somewhat in their duties here.

In Glasgow the Scottish Greens were 914 votes away from a second seat. IGV got 2210. In South of Scotland, they were 115 votes away from a second seat. IGV got 1690.

[Slick]

I have some sympathy for Scottish political hacks having to come up with new stuff every day when there is only one thing to write about, but though this from Kenny Farquharson was quite good:

After months covering the Holyrood election campaign I am done with the politics of unquestioning belief. Specifically, I am done with muscular unionism and muscular nationalism. I have come to realise that hard and unyielding certainty is not for me.

By nature I am suspicious of enthusiasts: the faraway gleam in the eye, the visceral hatred of opponents, the comforting simplicity. Doubters are more my thing, people open to the liberating possibility that what they thought yesterday might not be what they think tomorrow.

Which is why I was so happy to see a particular question being asked in a YouGov opinion poll commissioned by The Times and published this week. It was the first time this particular question had been asked in this particular way and the result is, in my view, a milestone moment in Scottish politics.

It offers us an opportunity to turn down the volume on those who shout the loudest at both extremes of the Scottish constitutional question. Instead we can turn up the volume on those in the middle, the soft yesses and the soft noes who will determine the nation’s future. They are a quiet and untapped force in Scottish politics, and their time is now. Forget hard unionism and hard nationalism — let’s hear it for the Softies.

I’m a big Softy. Everybody says so. One of my favourite novels is Graham Greene’s Monsignor Quixote, in which a priest and a communist mayor travel together through rural Spain in a battered Seat 600. Each is troubled by the certainties of his particular belief system. “It’s odd,” ponders the mayor at one point, “how sharing a sense of doubt can bring men together perhaps even more than sharing a faith. The believer will fight another believer over a shade of difference; the doubter fights only with himself.’’

Blessed are the Softies. They are an alternative to a binary Scotland in which one half of the population has to lose. The Softies hold the key to a new consensus where, in the absence of a convincing majority for any one option, we look for the highest common denominator. The Softies’ watchwords are compromise and consent. And this is their moment.

This week’s YouGov opinion poll asked Scots their views on independence in the same way they were asked about devolution in the 1997 referendum. To recap, in 1997 Scots were asked two questions: should there be a Scottish parliament and, if so, should it have tax-raising powers?

Somewhat counterintuitively, asking two questions meant there were three possible outcomes: no change, a powerful Scottish parliament, and a less powerful Scottish parliament. When the votes were counted Scots had said yes to both questions and went for the most powerful option available at that time.

This should be the model for any new referendum on Scotland’s future, rather than a repeat of 2014’s simplistic, reductive, winner-takes-all approach in which the only answer is yes or no.

The new wording in our poll this week was drawn up at my suggestion and in consultation with senior academics and pollsters. The first question was this: “Do you want to change the powers of self-government in Scotland?” The second question was: “If there is to be change which would you prefer?” The options were “independence” or “increased powers for the Scottish parliament”.

This format allows three possible outcomes: no change, independence or more powerful devolution.

The result was fascinating. On the first question, 52 per cent said yes, they wanted change, with 26 per cent opposed. A further 22 per cent didn’t know or would not vote.

On the second question, 36 per cent chose independence and 42 per cent preferred more powerful devolution. This time there were 23 per cent who were unsure or would not vote.

Digging deeper into the detail, of those who voted SNP in the last general election 22 per cent chose more devolution over independence. That is more than one in five SNP voters. One in four Labour voters chose independence, but most chose more powers. Tories and Lib Dems were overwhelmingly in favour of a stronger Holyrood within the UK.

What this shows is that Softies who back the SNP, in conjunction with Softies in the unionist camp who reject the status quo, are a formidable force when they get together. They are the new power in the land. Soft power, if you will.

Of course there is work to do, as shown by the high number of don’t-knows. What does devo max actually mean? Just as we need more detail about how Scottish independence would work in a post-Brexit world, with new answers on currency and borders, so there needs to be an agreed position on home rule within the UK.

I have some initial thoughts on this, but being a Softy I am open to changing my mind. We need to talk it through. The final blueprint, with a cross-party commitment to legislate, would be more than some might want and not as much as others might like. Yet it would be a way forward that a generous majority could live with.

A hardline approach will lead to nothing but division and rancour. Hardness is the politics of the past. The future belongs to the Softies.

This is something I could go with but I'd like a guaranteed independence vote after, say, 10 years.

Get as many powers as possible and actually start building the capacity and institutions that we would need.

[inactionman]

I have some sympathy for Scottish political hacks having to come up with new stuff every day when there is only one thing to write about, but though this from Kenny Farquharson was quite good:

After months covering the Holyrood election campaign I am done with the politics of unquestioning belief. Specifically, I am done with muscular unionism and muscular nationalism. I have come to realise that hard and unyielding certainty is not for me.

By nature I am suspicious of enthusiasts: the faraway gleam in the eye, the visceral hatred of opponents, the comforting simplicity. Doubters are more my thing, people open to the liberating possibility that what they thought yesterday might not be what they think tomorrow.

Which is why I was so happy to see a particular question being asked in a YouGov opinion poll commissioned by The Times and published this week. It was the first time this particular question had been asked in this particular way and the result is, in my view, a milestone moment in Scottish politics.

It offers us an opportunity to turn down the volume on those who shout the loudest at both extremes of the Scottish constitutional question. Instead we can turn up the volume on those in the middle, the soft yesses and the soft noes who will determine the nation’s future. They are a quiet and untapped force in Scottish politics, and their time is now. Forget hard unionism and hard nationalism — let’s hear it for the Softies.

I’m a big Softy. Everybody says so. One of my favourite novels is Graham Greene’s Monsignor Quixote, in which a priest and a communist mayor travel together through rural Spain in a battered Seat 600. Each is troubled by the certainties of his particular belief system. “It’s odd,” ponders the mayor at one point, “how sharing a sense of doubt can bring men together perhaps even more than sharing a faith. The believer will fight another believer over a shade of difference; the doubter fights only with himself.’’

Blessed are the Softies. They are an alternative to a binary Scotland in which one half of the population has to lose. The Softies hold the key to a new consensus where, in the absence of a convincing majority for any one option, we look for the highest common denominator. The Softies’ watchwords are compromise and consent. And this is their moment.

This week’s YouGov opinion poll asked Scots their views on independence in the same way they were asked about devolution in the 1997 referendum. To recap, in 1997 Scots were asked two questions: should there be a Scottish parliament and, if so, should it have tax-raising powers?

Somewhat counterintuitively, asking two questions meant there were three possible outcomes: no change, a powerful Scottish parliament, and a less powerful Scottish parliament. When the votes were counted Scots had said yes to both questions and went for the most powerful option available at that time.

This should be the model for any new referendum on Scotland’s future, rather than a repeat of 2014’s simplistic, reductive, winner-takes-all approach in which the only answer is yes or no.

The new wording in our poll this week was drawn up at my suggestion and in consultation with senior academics and pollsters. The first question was this: “Do you want to change the powers of self-government in Scotland?” The second question was: “If there is to be change which would you prefer?” The options were “independence” or “increased powers for the Scottish parliament”.

This format allows three possible outcomes: no change, independence or more powerful devolution.

The result was fascinating. On the first question, 52 per cent said yes, they wanted change, with 26 per cent opposed. A further 22 per cent didn’t know or would not vote.

On the second question, 36 per cent chose independence and 42 per cent preferred more powerful devolution. This time there were 23 per cent who were unsure or would not vote.

Digging deeper into the detail, of those who voted SNP in the last general election 22 per cent chose more devolution over independence. That is more than one in five SNP voters. One in four Labour voters chose independence, but most chose more powers. Tories and Lib Dems were overwhelmingly in favour of a stronger Holyrood within the UK.

What this shows is that Softies who back the SNP, in conjunction with Softies in the unionist camp who reject the status quo, are a formidable force when they get together. They are the new power in the land. Soft power, if you will.

Of course there is work to do, as shown by the high number of don’t-knows. What does devo max actually mean? Just as we need more detail about how Scottish independence would work in a post-Brexit world, with new answers on currency and borders, so there needs to be an agreed position on home rule within the UK.

I have some initial thoughts on this, but being a Softy I am open to changing my mind. We need to talk it through. The final blueprint, with a cross-party commitment to legislate, would be more than some might want and not as much as others might like. Yet it would be a way forward that a generous majority could live with.

A hardline approach will lead to nothing but division and rancour. Hardness is the politics of the past. The future belongs to the Softies.

This is something I could go with but I'd like a guaranteed independence vote after, say, 10 years.

Get as many powers as possible and actually start building the capacity and institutions that we would need.

I'm in broad agreement with a lot of the article above - I've always been a bit confused by many of the nationalists' position around independence, it's quite a nuclear option for a country which, frankly, doesn't actually suffer to any great degree through union.

Why is why I'm interested in the comment I've highlighted - why would another independence referendum be required? It's not really a logical thing to keep asking just by default.

I suppose I'm just surprised how transfixed some Scottish politicians are on it, and I'm not sure it's helpful to keep stoking it.

(part of my worry is that the independence vote might be reached due to a 'bad day at office' - where it should be a considered, long term decision I worry it'll be driven by immediate term issues, and by constantly repeating it we're just waiting for that spike in support, however fleeting).

[Paddington Bear]

Devo Max that doesn't kill off independence strikes me as a non-starter.

[Glaston]

I have some sympathy for Scottish political hacks having to come up with new stuff every day when there is only one thing to write about, but though this from Kenny Farquharson was quite good:

After months covering the Holyrood election campaign I am done with the politics of unquestioning belief. Specifically, I am done with muscular unionism and muscular nationalism. I have come to realise that hard and unyielding certainty is not for me.

By nature I am suspicious of enthusiasts: the faraway gleam in the eye, the visceral hatred of opponents, the comforting simplicity. Doubters are more my thing, people open to the liberating possibility that what they thought yesterday might not be what they think tomorrow.

Which is why I was so happy to see a particular question being asked in a YouGov opinion poll commissioned by The Times and published this week. It was the first time this particular question had been asked in this particular way and the result is, in my view, a milestone moment in Scottish politics.

It offers us an opportunity to turn down the volume on those who shout the loudest at both extremes of the Scottish constitutional question. Instead we can turn up the volume on those in the middle, the soft yesses and the soft noes who will determine the nation’s future. They are a quiet and untapped force in Scottish politics, and their time is now. Forget hard unionism and hard nationalism — let’s hear it for the Softies.

I’m a big Softy. Everybody says so. One of my favourite novels is Graham Greene’s Monsignor Quixote, in which a priest and a communist mayor travel together through rural Spain in a battered Seat 600. Each is troubled by the certainties of his particular belief system. “It’s odd,” ponders the mayor at one point, “how sharing a sense of doubt can bring men together perhaps even more than sharing a faith. The believer will fight another believer over a shade of difference; the doubter fights only with himself.’’

Blessed are the Softies. They are an alternative to a binary Scotland in which one half of the population has to lose. The Softies hold the key to a new consensus where, in the absence of a convincing majority for any one option, we look for the highest common denominator. The Softies’ watchwords are compromise and consent. And this is their moment.

This week’s YouGov opinion poll asked Scots their views on independence in the same way they were asked about devolution in the 1997 referendum. To recap, in 1997 Scots were asked two questions: should there be a Scottish parliament and, if so, should it have tax-raising powers?

Somewhat counterintuitively, asking two questions meant there were three possible outcomes: no change, a powerful Scottish parliament, and a less powerful Scottish parliament. When the votes were counted Scots had said yes to both questions and went for the most powerful option available at that time.

This should be the model for any new referendum on Scotland’s future, rather than a repeat of 2014’s simplistic, reductive, winner-takes-all approach in which the only answer is yes or no.

The new wording in our poll this week was drawn up at my suggestion and in consultation with senior academics and pollsters. The first question was this: “Do you want to change the powers of self-government in Scotland?” The second question was: “If there is to be change which would you prefer?” The options were “independence” or “increased powers for the Scottish parliament”.

This format allows three possible outcomes: no change, independence or more powerful devolution.

The result was fascinating. On the first question, 52 per cent said yes, they wanted change, with 26 per cent opposed. A further 22 per cent didn’t know or would not vote.

On the second question, 36 per cent chose independence and 42 per cent preferred more powerful devolution. This time there were 23 per cent who were unsure or would not vote.

Digging deeper into the detail, of those who voted SNP in the last general election 22 per cent chose more devolution over independence. That is more than one in five SNP voters. One in four Labour voters chose independence, but most chose more powers. Tories and Lib Dems were overwhelmingly in favour of a stronger Holyrood within the UK.

What this shows is that Softies who back the SNP, in conjunction with Softies in the unionist camp who reject the status quo, are a formidable force when they get together. They are the new power in the land. Soft power, if you will.

Of course there is work to do, as shown by the high number of don’t-knows. What does devo max actually mean? Just as we need more detail about how Scottish independence would work in a post-Brexit world, with new answers on currency and borders, so there needs to be an agreed position on home rule within the UK.

I have some initial thoughts on this, but being a Softy I am open to changing my mind. We need to talk it through. The final blueprint, with a cross-party commitment to legislate, would be more than some might want and not as much as others might like. Yet it would be a way forward that a generous majority could live with.

A hardline approach will lead to nothing but division and rancour. Hardness is the politics of the past. The future belongs to the Softies.

This is something I could go with but I'd like a guaranteed independence vote after, say, 10 years.

Get as many powers as possible and actually start building the capacity and institutions that we would need.

All hopefully paid for by a specific Scotland Tax for Indie and not paid for by the rest of the UK.

[Slick]

This, not so great

Scotland has the poorest performing education system in the UK but has a premier healthcare sector, according to an analysis of national prosperity.

The nation falls just below the UK average in all areas ranked in the UK Prosperity Index, the study by the Legatum Institute found.

The think tank has analysed institutional, economic and social wellbeing across the UK’s 379 local authorities. Scotland’s education is ranked 15th out of 15 metropolitan areas “with particularly poor primary and secondary outcomes”.

Scotland is ranked fifth overall for health, with the best healthcare system in the UK, but it is pulled down the prosperity ranking by high rates of smoking, drinking and drug abuse.

Scotland’s rural areas have low crime rates and good air quality, and the nation is ranked first in the UK for its healthcare systems with over 90 per cent of accident and emergency attendances being treated, admitted or transferred within four hours.

Scotland’s investment prospects are “the weakest in the UK [and] prosperity in Scotland is also being undermined by weak local governance with councils struggling to deliver key government services”. Scotland’s councils have low rates of tax collection and slow planning processes.

It found the Scottish islands are, on average, more prosperous than rural Scotland and the central belt, while rural areas tend to be safer, more inclusive and healthier. Orkney has the best health in Scotland and the lowest rate of depression in the UK, with a prevalence of just 3.4 per cent.

East Renfrewshire and East Dunbartonshire buck the general trend in Scotland with excellent education, the institute found.

The two local authorities came top of The Times Scotland school league table, published yesterday, with five schools between them in the top ten.

There are 21 homicides per 100,000 population in Glasgow, compared with the UK average of 11.

Crime, especially violent crime, is worse in the central belt with 11 knife crimes per 10,000 people and 5 per 100,000 in rural parts.

Glasgow has some of the highest rates of knife crime, domestic abuse and homicides, consistently ranking in the bottom 30 local authorities in the UK for all three indicators.

Scotland ranks poorly for “social capital” with 140 looked after children per 10,000, nearly twice the UK average.

Scotland’s investment environment has “deteriorated in every area over the past decade, as fewer firms demand new capital and financing services decline”. Business loans available average around £2,800 per head which is much lower than the £4,500 UK average.

Scotland has poor living conditions with no local authority in the top 100, and the highest accidental death rate in the UK at 43 per 100,000 people compared with 25 per 100,000 across the UK. However, it has relatively low rates of poverty and comparatively good housing.

A Scottish government spokesman said: “Since the start of the pandemic we’ve done everything in our power to protect livelihoods and businesses.”

That's pretty much how it feels to be perfectly honest.

[I like neeps]

Didn't Scotland used to have a world leading schooling system too??

[Big D]

This, not so great

Scotland has the poorest performing education system in the UK but has a premier healthcare sector, according to an analysis of national prosperity.

The nation falls just below the UK average in all areas ranked in the UK Prosperity Index, the study by the Legatum Institute found.

The think tank has analysed institutional, economic and social wellbeing across the UK’s 379 local authorities. Scotland’s education is ranked 15th out of 15 metropolitan areas “with particularly poor primary and secondary outcomes”.

Scotland is ranked fifth overall for health, with the best healthcare system in the UK, but it is pulled down the prosperity ranking by high rates of smoking, drinking and drug abuse.

Scotland’s rural areas have low crime rates and good air quality, and the nation is ranked first in the UK for its healthcare systems with over 90 per cent of accident and emergency attendances being treated, admitted or transferred within four hours.

Scotland’s investment prospects are “the weakest in the UK [and] prosperity in Scotland is also being undermined by weak local governance with councils struggling to deliver key government services”. Scotland’s councils have low rates of tax collection and slow planning processes.

It found the Scottish islands are, on average, more prosperous than rural Scotland and the central belt, while rural areas tend to be safer, more inclusive and healthier. Orkney has the best health in Scotland and the lowest rate of depression in the UK, with a prevalence of just 3.4 per cent.

East Renfrewshire and East Dunbartonshire buck the general trend in Scotland with excellent education, the institute found.

The two local authorities came top of The Times Scotland school league table, published yesterday, with five schools between them in the top ten.

There are 21 homicides per 100,000 population in Glasgow, compared with the UK average of 11.

Crime, especially violent crime, is worse in the central belt with 11 knife crimes per 10,000 people and 5 per 100,000 in rural parts.

Glasgow has some of the highest rates of knife crime, domestic abuse and homicides, consistently ranking in the bottom 30 local authorities in the UK for all three indicators.

Scotland ranks poorly for “social capital” with 140 looked after children per 10,000, nearly twice the UK average.

Scotland’s investment environment has “deteriorated in every area over the past decade, as fewer firms demand new capital and financing services decline”. Business loans available average around £2,800 per head which is much lower than the £4,500 UK average.

Scotland has poor living conditions with no local authority in the top 100, and the highest accidental death rate in the UK at 43 per 100,000 people compared with 25 per 100,000 across the UK. However, it has relatively low rates of poverty and comparatively good housing.

A Scottish government spokesman said: “Since the start of the pandemic we’ve done everything in our power to protect livelihoods and businesses.”

That's pretty much how it feels to be perfectly honest.

I am sure some of those stats could be debated and without knowing the detail I think comparisons aren't particularly helpful ( but Tattie did say the rUK is all we have to compare to) there is a wider point that I was making earlier in this thread.

It doesn't matter whether Scotland was last in every category. The outcome at the elections would still see the SNP as the party with most seats.

If, and it is a big if, those stats are true then given we already pay more tax and the SG have the ability to raise it then questions need to be asked. But they wont be, if it is true of course.

[Tichtheid]

*Grits teeth*

Sometimes "Glasgow's miles better" really is the case


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... pFHt3XA3NI

[Slick]

*Grits teeth*

Sometimes "Glasgow's miles better" really is the case


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... pFHt3XA3NI

While it’s a nice story, it would be good to have a bit of background

[Biffer]

First Minister's constituency on the day the Scottish Parliament was being sworn in. Deliberate timing by the Home Office, but it's backfired badly on them.

[Tichtheid]

First Minister's constituency on the day the Scottish Parliament was being sworn in. Deliberate timing by the Home Office, but it's backfired badly on them.

This and the Times article rubbishing Scottish education is, well I was going to say it's the start, but it's not, it's been going on a long time.

I expect it to be ramped up in the next couple of years.

[dpedin]

First Minister's constituency on the day the Scottish Parliament was being sworn in. Deliberate timing by the Home Office, but it's backfired badly on them.

Moral of the story ... don't mess with the Weegies! I thought the Tories would have known this by now?

[Dogbert]

First Minister's constituency on the day the Scottish Parliament was being sworn in. Deliberate timing by the Home Office, but it's backfired badly on them.

Moral of the story ... don't mess with the Weegies! I thought the Tories would have known this by now?

The moral of this story is that the current Westminster Government don't give two f**ks what happens in Scotland

Whether these two men should be deported or not is pretty immaterial, the law will eventually take its course - here timing is everything , to action this in an area currently in the middle of a spike of Covid cases , in a neighbourhood with a large Muslim community , at the start of Eid , shows effectively how Scots are viewed
Then to not have anyone in the Home Office for any member of the Scottish parliament to speak to , either the FM/Justice secretary / leader of the Scottish Labour party , who is also one the the areas MSP's shows the contempt that the parliament in Scotland is held
Although the Home Office had no problems providing spokesmen available for press briefings

Actually the optics work pretty well South of the border , Conservative Government thwarted by mob rule , pushes Dodgy Dave and the Greensil scandal down the pecking order

The depressing part is looking at the comments section on the Scotsman and the Herald - the talk of "real Scots" or "Indigenous Scots" or bringing up " 29 men of Asian descent charged with sexual exploitation / abuse of 13 year old girl in Yorkshire."-just makes me boak

Proud to be Scottish - Aye right

[tc27]

to action this in an area currently in the middle of a spike of Covid cases , in a neighbourhood with a large Muslim community , at the start of Eid , shows effectively how Scots are viewed

Good to see its not about the rights and wrongs of the men being deported but obviously yet more evidence that Scots are hard done by. A real reach here I think.

[Paddington Bear]

First Minister's constituency on the day the Scottish Parliament was being sworn in. Deliberate timing by the Home Office, but it's backfired badly on them.

Seems a stretch to say the Home Office were sat around working out how to embarrass Sturgeon and landed upon 'attempt to deport people in an area where immigration enforcement is unpopular and botch it'.

[Tichtheid]

There is an alteration of a well-know rule of thumb which goes, "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".

I'm prepared to believe the Home Office and the Secretary of State bungled the timing of this, that they had no information about how it would be received in that community, that they did not think that the police would distance themselves from their actions, saying that they were there to police the demonstration and not enforce the actions of the immigration enforcement officers.
That they have IMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT displayed proudly on the side of their vans is another stoke of "genius", I'm told this was at the insistence of the Home Secretary.

However, there are a lot of coincidences in the timing and also in where it took place, and I think they are worthy of consideration.

[Paddington Bear]

I'd go for Occam's Razor - their job is immigration enforcement, they became aware people were in the country illegally and went and enforced immigration.
Certainly you'd think in neighbourhoods like Pollokshields and equivalents in London/Bristol etc they might go for a slightly more low key approach but I really don't think there's much more to this story than 'immigration enforcement attempted to do the job they're instructed to do'.