THE SNP is starting to win the argument over independence because it is governing well, an SNP minister claimed yesterday.
Mike Russell, the environment minister, was responding to a poll that showed greater backing for independence than for the Union.
The TNS System Three opinion poll found 41 per cent of Scots wanted the SNP government to negotiate an independence settlement, compared to 40 per cent who are opposed to breaking up the UK. Speaking on BBC Scotland's Politics Show, Mr Russell said more people would come round to independence the longer the SNP was in government in Scotland.
He said: "What we have seen in the last 12 months is a steady swing towards the idea of independence.
But as these figures show, even that 41% is 5 or 6 points less than what the idea of Scottish independence was polling for the 6 months prior to last May’s election (when perversely the rise in the SNP vote was accompanied by a fall in those favouring secession).
Which leads onto Salmond’s, conveniently-timed article in the Sunday Times yesterday where he was asked to outline the benefits of independence for Scotland.
Stripping away the flowery rhetoric and the irrelevant political attacks on Labour, we’re left with:
1.It is by becoming independent that nations can maximise their influence in our interdependent world.
For example,
For Scotland, independence would give us a voice and votes in the European Union, where we have many vital interests at stake
It is by no means certain that an independent Scotland would gain automatic entry to the EU, but if it did- with similar sized populations, it would exert roughly the same influence as Slovakia and the Baltic countries and with such a weak presence, would those "vital interests" be better or worse defended than they are now presently in a European Union which is increasingly following policies on regional rather than national basis anyway?
2....also enable us to act on our instincts for internationalism, emulating the success of other small countries, such as Ireland and the Scandinavian nations.
On many issues, such as tackling climate change, developing renewable technology, or ridding our planet of weapons of mass destruction, it is very clear that the Scottish contribution would be more progressive than the response of governments in London, past and present.
Those "instincts for internationalism" mean what exactly? Getting plaudits off the Iranian mullahs? What has the Republic of Ireland actually achieved in the way of climate change? What progress has Denmark made in ridding the world of weapons of mass destruction? In contrast, the UK is a major player on the world stage, a player who's listened to and so, a player who potentially can achieve real results in such areas.
3.When Gordon Brown implies that issues such as avian flu or foot and mouth are capable of only a British solution, the subtext is that he wants to take powers back from Scotland to London as part of the constitutional commission, or review, or working party - a scheme over which Downing Street has clearly asserted total control.
Salmond isn't arguing here surely that Avian flu and foot and mouth respect land borders? Whatever his subliminal motivations, Brown is right on this- such issues are capable only of a British solution.
4.Westminster's unreasonable behaviour now encompasses threatening to withhold council tax benefit, trying to block local income tax, refusing to apply Barnett consequentials properly to prison spending and Olympic regeneration funding in London, and demanding payment from Tayside and Fife constabularies for security at the G8 and St Andrews summits.
OK, finally, the financial argument. Interesting though, that Salmond has concentrated on the negatives of the present situation instead of presenting the economic positives of independence- which are what exactly?
Less income tax? Better pensions? Improved health provision? Alex's strangely silent on those type of questions.
5.Independence also means the maintenance of the social union between Scotland and England, and the other nations of these islands, based on a 21st-century relationship of equality.
The SNP's commitment to the Queen remaining as our shared head of state - just as she is head of state of 15 other Commonwealth countries - symbolises that social union between our nations.
So he’s arguing that separation, with its inevitable bitterness and heartbreak, would actually strengthen the bonds which already exist between the countries of the UK? The SNP's commitment to the Queen remaining as head of Scotland, whilst an intriguing policy for a Celtic nationalist party to hold, would be of little relevance and help in such a scenario.
If you'd like to ask Alex Salmond personally his answer to any of these questions, BBC Scotland is offering you the opportunity here.
12 comments:
"But as these figures show, even that 41% is 5 or 6 points less than what the idea of Scottish independence was polling for the 6 months prior to last May’s election".
That is simply untrue. Either you know that support for independence varies widely according to the phrasing of the question or, if you do not know that, you do not know what you are talking about.
The figures for this formulation of the question are:
04/04/08
41 40 n/a 19
01/12/07
40 44 n/a 16
23/08/07
35 50 n/a 15
30/04/07
35 55 n/a 10
20/04/07
33 50 n/a 17
I'd say that a fair summary of that is that near enough a third more people now say they would vote "yes" to the question that will actually be in the referendum than said they would last year.
How would you summarise it?
Take a look at what you quoted:
But as these figures show, even that 41% is 5 or 6 points less than what the idea of Scottish independence was polling for the 6 months prior to last May’s election
Important timescale is that we're talking prior to last year's election.
Back to UK Polling Report:
"Independence - straight choice
YouGov:(1) Do you support or oppose Scotland becoming a country independent from the rest of the United Kingdom?
ICM: Would you approve or disapprove of Scotland becoming an independent country?
TNS System 3: (1) Do you support or oppose Scotland becoming a country independent from the rest of the UK?"
Pretty unambigous the choice there; here's the relevant figures from the relevant time period:
(first figure is pro-independence)
YouGov/the Sun (1) 04/04/08 34 51 15
YouGov/Channel 4 (1) 08/01/07 40 44 16
ICM/Sunday Telegraph (1) 23/11/06 52 35 13
YouGov/SNP (1) 03/04/06 46 39 15
TNS System Three (1) 07/04/05 46 39
That 52% is out of synch, but the other two relevant surveys showed a steady 46% pro independence.
"...a steady 46% pro independence"
On differently worded questions.
The relevant wording on the two polls I’m refering to:
YouGov:(1) Do you support or oppose Scotland becoming a country independent from the rest of the United Kingdom?
46% voted “yes”
TNS System 3: (1) Do you support or oppose Scotland becoming a country independent from the rest of the UK?
46 % voted “yes”
And the wording on the most recent poll, also from TNS System 3.
“I AGREE that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state”
41% voted “yes”
(1) It is likely Scotland would gain entry to the EU, at the same time at rUK - after all there would be two perfectly formed successor states (maybe more if the English jettison Wales and Northern Ireland). There is plenty of legal expert opinion on that front - the considered opinion of Lord Mackenzie Stuart, being a most excellent example. You do realise that Mr Borg, in the example you quoted, admitted when pressed that he didn't know what the situation would be? There is nothing, in legal terms and in European law, to suggest Scotland would face any legal barriers to joining the EU, should it determine that that is where it wishes to go. The only hurdles to overcome would be political. It is extremely likely that Scotland would not have to go through the lengthy application process that Cyprus or any other new member applicant would have to.
You make the well worn argument that only the big and powerful UK can protect Scotland's interests in the UK. It's just a shame that the evidence isn't there to support that hypothesis. Indeed the issues regarding the EU for Scotland and England are different and rarely accord in unison. This is the major source of our problems. Fisheries, status for the Highlands and Islands, agriculture are all vitally important to Scotland's economy. They are not important to the UK or its economy. All have a major European dimension. As a result if concerns are not raised in the EU forum, because of more pressing concerns that affect a larger section of the population – then they will be marginalised.
Slovenia population 2m, currently holds the rotating EU presidency and has a direct and powerful input into EU policy formation. And these smaller countries – of which there are a multitude in the EU, act as an effective counterweight to the much larger entities. Sure Scotland would rank mid in the EU in terms of seniority, but for some of us in Scotland rank and status are not everything. Having an opinion, self-respect, a get-up-and-go and a desire to take responsibility for the things that affect us in all spheres are far more important.
(2) Tell me, what exactly has the UK done in terms of climate change? Accepted there is a problem? Yes sure, done much about it? Not really. What has the UK done with regards to nuclear disarmament? What is being said that Scotland should be enabled to have a distinctive opinion of its own on these matters, instead of having some other entity speak for it. In terms of climate change and renewable energy Scotland has a massive contribution to make, and it is highly unlikely that will be represented fairly or amplified effectively by the United Kingdom. Other small nations seem to be able to do this with greater benefit for their people than Scotland can – Norway, Iceland, New Zealand, Singapore. What are they doing right, that Scotland is doing wrong?
(3) Precisely. Salmond isn't arguing that Avian Flu and FMD respect land borders. That is what Brown is doing in saying that there can only be "British solutions" to these problems. That is arguing that somehow the solutions to these problems can only be contained within land boundaries. Solutions to these problems are much more global than that. That is what is being challenged.
(4) It is in Salmond's interest to highlight the negatives of the current position, simply because that is what he wants to change. There are plenty of economic positives of independence. The main one for me being that Scotland would be responsible for its own pensions, taxation and spending instead of being infantalised by not having such responsibility. Responsibility is vitally important. That infantisation is coupled with the belief that Scotland is somehow economically sub-prime, subsidised and a Zimbabwean basket-case when it comes to deficits and debts. Now tell me, if you believe that is true (and the Unionist parties most earnestly do) then how has the Union been good for our economic health?
(5) Skipping by the hyperbole, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why incorporating political union is a prerequisite to maintain the "bonds" between those who live in these islands. So you see, far from causing separation, independence has nothing to do with separation.
As a very much internationalist nationalist, true bonds between peoples can and should be defined above politics. Those superficial bonds between people than can only be defined and maintained by politics alone (the logical extrapolation of your argument) are not really "bonds" at all and are not bonds worth having. The bonds between the people of the United Kingdom, most certainly fall into the former category and not the latter.
Re O'Neill's last post: are you being willfully obtuse? If you take the last form of the question you refer to (now supported by 41%), support is up a third. If you look at any other wording, and compare that 41%, you are not comparing like with like. The other forms of the question always get a higher degree of support.
41% for this formulation of the question is astonishingly and historically high.
Re O'Neill's last post: are you being willfully obtuse?
Is that a polite way of saying I'm thick??!!
Quite possibly I am, but even so:
"Do you support or oppose Scotland becoming a country independent from the rest of the United Kingdom? "
...seems a pretty unambiguous question to me. What interpretation would you put on it?
Absolutely not thick - but unfamiliar with important aspects to things that led you to a substantially misleading analysis of the figures. In short, if you ask (to exaggerate to make the point) "Should the ancient Scottish nation be free again of the English yoke and take its rightful place amongst the independent countries of the world?" you'll get a substantially more positive response than if you ask "Should Scotland be a separate state cut off from the rest of the United Kingdom?" So if you get an increasingly high response to the second form of the question, it's irrelevant to say that previous answers to the first form were higher. You need to compare like with like.
And as regards your question, my point is you can only analyse a trend, not a single result. Separate out each form of the question (because the responses vary) and look at any developong trend. With this form of the question (and it's the one that would be in the referendum) the trend is clearly upwards, and markedly so.
This is the reply to "anonymous
April 18, 2008 9:46 PM"
Rather than boring you with a 1000 word reply, I’ve broken my answer down into point form.
1)EU
a)Borg (nor anyone else) knows for certain what the position would be. There is obviously no precedent which covers this possibility; no one knows until the situation arises, so I think my opinion “that is by no means certain that an independent Scotland would gain automatic entry to the EU” is closer to the reality than your opinion.
b)“The only hurdles to overcome would be political.”
It was interesting to see the reaction of eight of the EU states to Kosovo’s seccession- what would the reaction of countries like Spain, Slovakia, Romania, Greece, Cyprus be to your request?
c)“You make the well worn argument that only the big and powerful UK can protect Scotland's interests in the UK..”
I also state that I feel the EU is moving towards delivering policies, aid etc on a regional rather than national basis..in which case your independence is of no or little import on that question.
d)”And these smaller countries – of which there are a multitude in the EU, act as an effective counterweight to the much larger entities. “
Malta and Cyprus will also be given presidency of the EU, I believe, that doesn’t mean that they will have any greater input into the EU’s policies and future direction. And those smaller countries have to act together to provide an effective counterweight to the UK, France, Germany, Spain and Poland. On most issues they don’t and it’s the big players who on almost all matters of real importance which call the shots.
(2) In the area of climate change, developing renewable technology, or ridding our planet of weapons of mass destruction would more meaningful change be achieved by Scotland working on its own or by Scottish politicians attempting to influence the UK’s direction in these areas?
3)Salmond isn't arguing that Avian Flu and FMD respect land borders. That is what Brown is doing in saying that there can only be "British solutions" to these problems. That is arguing that somehow the solutions to these problems can only be contained within land boundaries.
I would dispute that’s what Brown is implying, I’d say that he’s saying a UK-wide policy is needed on this, but I don’t have the full SNP policy on this, is their policy on this an “internationalist” one or a purely Scottish one?
4)”That infantisation is coupled with the belief that Scotland is somehow economically sub-prime, subsidised and a Zimbabwean basket-case when it comes to deficits and debts.”
Scotland is quite clearly not a basket-case and anyone, Unionist or otherwise, who says so is being silly. However Scotland (along with Wales, Northern Ireland, huge swathes of Northern England and Cornwall) clearly has basic economic structural weaknesses (eg over-reliance on the public sector) that will have to be addressed sooner or later, whatever her future constitutional status. Now, the question is how those are addressed, or actually the question is how they are addressed in such a way so as to cause as least short-term pain as possible. Would an independent Scotland have the financial resources to required to achieve that solution? One/five/ten year after independence would the average punter in the street be better or worse off? Those are the questions Mr Salmond avoids and instead relies on his negative appraisal of the present situation.
5)”So you see, far from causing separation, independence has nothing to do with separation.”
Can you point me to some examples in the world where such a scenario has resulted in the two separated peoples becoming closer because that’s what Salmond is claiming would be the case in the event of Scotland breaking away?
“The bonds between the people of the United Kingdom, most certainly fall into the former category and not the latter.”
So you believe that the only bonds we the English, Irish, Scots and Welsh have in common are political?
This is the reply to anonymous April 19, 2008 11:23 AM:
With this form of the question (and it's the one that would be in the referendum) the trend is clearly upwards, and markedly so
In your initial post the first set of the figures you supplied was dated 20/04/07.
Was that the first time that this question with this exact wording was asked?
"So you believe that the only bonds we the English, Irish, Scots and Welsh have in common are political?"
I'm not the original poster, but the other "bonds" you invite us to consider are not "bonds" at all. They are common values or characteristics, which with the (southern) Irish, or the Norwegians, or the French or the Danish as well as the English or Welsh or northerm Irish. We are, all of us, European democrats. That fact means that we are likely to share values and choose voulntarily to pursue similar ends and assist each other in doing so. It doesn't mean we need, or should, be part of the same state. So, yes, the only "bond" is indeed political.
"Can you point me to some examples in the world where such a scenario has resulted in the two separated peoples becoming closer because that’s what Salmond is claiming would be the case in the event of Scotland breaking away?"
Tes, I can (but "breaking away"? Please.) I take it you mean "closer" in the sense of "having a better relationship", not in the tautological sense of being closely united. And in that case, Norway and Sweden have a much better and more sustainable relationship since their separation 90 years or so ago than they did during their union. The Scandinavian countries are an inspiring example of how the relationship between the British countries could be.
Anonymous,
I'm not the original poster, but the other "bonds" you invite us to consider are not "bonds" at all. They are common values or characteristics, which with the (southern) Irish, or the Norwegians, or the French or the Danish as well as the English or Welsh or northerm Irish.
Actually I was thinking more of social, cultural, economic and yes, political bonds rather than the civic values I think you're alluding to. Small personal example, I was born in NI, but my ancestors originally came from Yorkshire and I have family living today in Scotland- social bonds.
I enjoy travelling in France and on mainland Europe but their culture is not mine- my football team, my music and literary favourites are all British-cultural bonds.
Economically, I pay into the UK tax system, I've worked throughout the UK and I hope to enjoy a UK pension someday- economic bonds.
And in that case, Norway and Sweden have a much better and more sustainable relationship since their separation 90 years or so ago than they did during their unio
I took Salmond as meaning the peoples' as opposed to the state's relationship, and really it is the human factor which will be paramount for most people. I don't know what the inter-Scandinavian relationship was before the break-up in 1905, but I do know today that anti-Norwegian racism exists in Sweden, anti-Swedish racism exists in Denmark. Would it have been any better or worse if there hadn't been a separation? I don't know, but I do think Salmond is wrong to claim, as I think he is doing, that relationships on the ground would be better in the event of Scottish independence
Post a Comment