Scottish Independence

[Ad Lib]

Scotland has no say on such matters, it is entirely within the powers of Westminster to "allow" Scotland to leave the Union.

As a matter of law, yes. See also the British North America Act.

I notice that your education at the best Scottish Law school has failed to allow you to answer the other part of my post that your sidekick has also ignored. Lord Glennie thread awaits your highly prized input.

What are you talking about? The franchise judicial review? It was legally the correct judgment because the ECHR (sadly) doesn't encompass, technically, the right to vote in all plebiscites. I'm not sure why you want my opinion on it though? It's not relevant to the outcome of the referendum or anything that any person in the referendum debate should take into account. Especially considering that it was within the gift of the Scottish Government to extend the franchise in this election to cover prisoners but they explicitly chose not to have the provisions facilitate that. Andrew Tickell (PeatWorrier on Twitter) has an excellent blogpost on this from a while back which explores the issue.

[xbl]

So just to be clear, it's the thread that talks about, most recently, the TNS polls. Where as I literally just pointed out both Yes and No have made significant losses and that the net momentum between them is almost static over the space of a year?

If and insofar as you can establish "momentum" in the TNS polls in favour of Yes, it is in respect of playing catch-up from their catastrofuck of a performance between February and August. Support in that poll for Scottish independence is still lower than it was 10 months ago. How is this something to be positive about?

And will you please answer questions 1-4?

1. Do you stand by the assertion that we are "without any equivalent movement the other way"?

2. Do Panelbase and Ipsos Mori count or do they not count?

3. Who is gospel on the polls this week?

4. Are you an idiot?

You want to talk polls, go to the polling thread.

[Ad Lib]

Was the Yes vote in March not about 30%? That's hardly massively down is it?

They didn't conduct a TNS poll in March. There was one which had fieldwork between late March and early April, which put it at 30/51/19 but as you will have seen in my post I said I was talking about the last 10 months, which funnily enough takes us back to FEBRUARY not MARCH. The poll with fieldwork in February (released in March) by TNS put the vote at 33/52/15.

It is no more or less arbitrary to look at the TNS trend as far back as February as it is March. If anything, February is more useful as it gives us a look at a longer trend and the other pollsters which I dug out had earliest available polls further back (i.e. closer to the start of 2012).

What this shows is that the Yes campaign is not in a better position than it was between 10 months and 24 months ago. There is absolutely no way whatsoever that this was part of the Yes campaign's "plan".

[Ad Lib]

You want to talk polls, go to the polling thread.

You were the one that raised the polls on this thread. Your problem. Answer the questions.

[xbl]

Ad lib: The political equivalent of a climate change denier.

[xbl]

You were the one that raised the polls on this thread. Your problem. Answer the questions.

You want to talk polls, go to the polling thread, you morally bankrupt concern troll. Just be glad we aren't discussing the latest Lib Dem claim, that independence will cripple the whisky industry, and the related latest anti scottish climbdown.

[Colkitto]

They didn't conduct a TNS poll in March. There was one which had fieldwork between late March and early April, which put it at 30/51/19 but as you will have seen in my post I said I was talking about the last 10 months, which funnily enough takes us back to FEBRUARY not MARCH. The poll with fieldwork in February (released in March) by TNS put the vote at 33/52/15.

It is no more or less arbitrary to look at the TNS trend as far back as February as it is March. If anything, February is more useful as it gives us a look at a longer trend and the other pollsters which I dug out had earliest available polls further back (i.e. closer to the start of 2012).

What this shows is that the Yes campaign is not in a better position than it was between 10 months and 24 months ago. There is absolutely no way whatsoever that this was part of the Yes campaign's "plan".

We didn't know the Referendum question in February, so unfair to look at polls pre-March 2013

[Ad Lib]

Ad lib: The political equivalent of a climate change denier.

So to be clear, Panelbase, Ipsos Mori and TNS in their polling completely support your assertion that

There is a clear movement from No, to Undecided, and then to Yes, without any equivalent movement the other way

M'kay.

This came up in conversation on Tuesday night. What happens if the unionists don't produce something?

Although the general consensus was that they will have something there for us

This is just wrong though. The UK Government has released several papers outlining what they believe will happen in the event of a Yes vote. Read the Scotland Analysis papers. They are (combined) considerably longer than the White Paper).

[xbl]

This is just wrong though. The UK Government has released several papers outlining what they believe will happen in the event of a Yes vote. Read the Scotland Analysis papers. They are (combined) considerably longer than the White Paper).

Locusts.

Death of the firstborn.

Rivers blood.

etc. etc.

[Ad Lib]

We didn't know the Referendum question in February, so unfair to look at polls pre-March 2013

The Scottish Government agreed to change the wording of the referendum question on 30th January!

Clicky

ETA: and the TNS poll conducted in February asked....

"Should Scotland be an independent country?"

Where do you think this question comes from?

[wingsoverperthshire]

The "variety of start points" relate to the earliest available point from 2012 in which the relevant company conducted a poll. As for TNS the December poll is within the margin of error of the November poll. It does not change the overall narrative of TNS in the last 10 months according to the data. Any "gains" between September and now for Yes are them playing catch-up from a significant drop in support from its typical polling base of 33-35%. Scottish independence being placed at 27% support of the population is piss poor and is not evidence of a mass swathe of momentum for a Yes vote come polling day.

There is absolutely no way that it was "planned" by the Yes campaign to have the support of barely a quarter of Scots less than nine months from polling day. Only someone suffering from total delusion could believe this.

It was absolutely planned to have a long campaign, and to allow Better Together to play all of their cards. What you have done intentionally is pretend there is an enormous gap between parties. Absorb the undecided equally ( and I think this is perfectly fair as open-minded people are more likely to vote yes imo) and only a small swing is needed, and when Salmond enters the debate it will happen.

[Jamaldo]

So to be clear, Panelbase, Ipsos Mori and TNS in their polling completely support your assertion that

M'kay.

This is just wrong though. The UK Government has released several papers outlining what they believe will happen in the event of a Yes vote. Read the Scotland Analysis papers. They are (combined) considerably longer than the White Paper).

Erm, I'm sorry but that isn't going to cut the mustard. They are suppossed to provide documentation on what will happen to Scotland in the event of a No vote, so their terrible scaremongering about Asda's own brand beans costing an extra fiver and Scotland having an army of about seven people doesn't count.

[Ad Lib]

It was absolutely planned to have a long campaign, and to allow Better Together to play all of their cards.

And where is your evidence that "Better Together have played all their cards"? This is a subjective opinion, and not one that you can prove or disprove on the basis of, well, any set of opinion polls, such is the very marginal changes we have seen over the piece in the last twelve months or so.

What you have done intentionally is pretend there is an enormous gap between parties.

No I haven't. I am simply providing you with figures, a historical comparator, and an explanation for why the polls aren't shifting. Note this isn't the same as saying they won't shift between now and the polling day, or that it won't be much closer than these polls suggest. It simply points out that there has been very little movement in the last year and those suggesting there has been in favour of Yes are looking at things through thistle-tinted spectacles.

Absorb the undecided equally ( and I think this is perfectly fair as open-minded people are more likely to vote yes imo) and only a small swing is needed, and when Salmond enters the debate it will happen.

That's just your opinion. It's not supported by peer-reviewed evidence. Your opinion is not the same as evidence.

[Ad Lib]

Erm, I'm sorry but that isn't going to cut the mustard. They are suppossed to provide documentation on what will happen to Scotland in the event of a No vote, so their terrible scaremongering about Asda's own brand beans costing an extra fiver and Scotland having an army of about seven people doesn't count.

Could we have some evidence of the specifics of the Electoral Commission's request, please? The answer to what happens in the event of a No vote is "nothing in and of itself changes". The No vote in and of itself changes nothing. That is all that the referendum settles. If you want the UK Government to issue a publication as to what will change if Scotland votes no to independence, then their answer will (correctly) either be a blank sheet of paper or "the Scotland Act 2012 will come fully into force".

[xbl]

Could we have some evidence of the specifics of the Electoral Commission's request, please? The answer to what happens in the event of a No vote is "nothing in and of itself changes". The No vote in and of itself changes nothing. That is all that the referendum settles. If you want the UK Government to issue a publication as to what will change if Scotland votes no to independence, then their answer will (correctly) either be a blank sheet of paper or "the Scotland Act 2012 will come fully into force".

Goalposts shifted.

[Ad Lib]

Goalposts shifted.

On the contrary, I'm asking where the Electoral Commission placed the goalposts. This is material to the issue.

I want to see the evidence both that the Electoral Commission asked the UK Government to set out what "will happen" in the event of a No vote and the precise remit of what they meant by "will happen".

Because the answer is "nothing" or "the Scotland Act 2012 will come fully into force". The suggestion the UK Government haven't made that much clear is false.

[xbl]

You're a disgrace, you know that? Alistair Carmichael must be very proud of you.

[I'm Brian]

This is just wrong though. The UK Government has released several papers outlining what they believe will happen in the event of a Yes vote. Read the Scotland Analysis papers. They are (combined) considerably longer than the White Paper).

OK. But where are the documents containing the information about what will happen in the event of a No vote. This is after all what better together are campaigning for.

[strichener]

As a matter of law, yes. See also the British North America Act.

What are you talking about? The franchise judicial review? It was legally the correct judgment because the ECHR (sadly) doesn't encompass, technically, the right to vote in all plebiscites. I'm not sure why you want my opinion on it though? It's not relevant to the outcome of the referendum or anything that any person in the referendum debate should take into account. Especially considering that it was within the gift of the Scottish Government to extend the franchise in this election to cover prisoners but they explicitly chose not to have the provisions facilitate that. Andrew Tickell (PeatWorrier on Twitter) has an excellent blogpost on this from a while back which explores the issue.

It isn't just about the ECHR though, so stop trying to deflect.

The claim was that it would be contrary to EU law. To which Lord Glennie responded:

I therefore reject the petitioners' argument based upon incompatibility with EU law. I have considered whether I should make a reference in this case for a preliminary ruling by the European Court of Justice. Had the matter turned on the point discussed in paragraph [94] above, I might have done so. But it does not. I have rejected the petitioners' EU law argument on the basis that even taking the most benevolent view of the material put before the court there is no direct link between the independence referendum and any decision as to future membership or citizenship of the EU. That seems to me to be clear. I do not consider that there is any doubt about the matter. In those circumstances, where the matter is acte clair, not only does the court not have to refer it but it should not refer it. I have therefore decided not to make a reference.

The preceeding paragaphs don't really agree with the conclusions of Prof. Crawford in respect to the position of Scotland after a Yes vote.

[Ad Lib]

It isn't just about the ECHR though, so stop trying to deflect.

The claim was that it would be contrary to EU law. To which Lord Glennie responded:

The preceeding paragaphs don't really agree with the conclusions of Prof. Crawford in respect to the position of Scotland after a Yes vote.

I've dealt with this in the dedicated thread, but briefly:

He said there is no "direct link" between "the independence referendum" and "any decision as to future membership or citizenship of the EU". In respect of which he is absolutely correct.

This is not inconsistent with Prof Crawford's position in the Scotland Analysis paper. They are answering two different questions.

Prof Crawford was answering the question what would happen to the relationship between the people of Scotland and the EU if Scotland became independent from the rest of the UK. This is irrelevant whether it is achieved by referendum or by armed rebellion. The referendum does not itself interfere with the rights and relationship between Scotland and the EU. The actual transitioning of Scotland from being governed by the laws of the UK into being governed by its own without being subordinate to the UK legal order does.

Lord Glennie is simply saying that the referendum vote itself, or for that matter a Yes vote in it, does not in and of itself change the citizenship of any individual, either as a matter of domestic law or EU law. To quote him directly from para 92:

In short, therefore, I accept the respondent's argument that, by enacting the Franchise Act, the Scottish Parliament is not exercising competence in the sphere of nationality. It is not purporting to make a decision about EU membership or EU citizenship. The process which it is putting in place by the independence referendum is not a process which will have any direct impact on the question of EU membership or EU citizenship. The point may arise in the future where decisions are taken which might affect those questions. But that time has not yet come.