Why no polls?

[Kaz]

If the finances of Scotland are in such a poor state, they are in that state with all the main economic levers being controlled by Westminster. Sturgeon could point this out and ask people to consider how this would in any way amount to an argument in favour of the Union.

[AUFC90]

If the finances of Scotland are in such a poor state, they are in that state with all the main economic levers being controlled by Westminster. Sturgeon could point this out and ask people to consider how this would in any way amount to an argument in favour of the Union.

HB would rather we trusted the Tories to enact policies that benefit the Scottish economy and reverse our deficit. It's never going to happen. London will get richer and the rest will get poorer.

Unionists can bleat about GERS all they like but the fact is that the UK has borrowed lots of cash that has been predominantly used in the south of the country and doesn't benefit Scotland in the slightest. We pay interest this on this. They somehow assume that an independent Scotland will just swallow Westminster's dick and take a straight up population share of the debt when most of it has nothing to with Scotland and didn't benefit Scotland and around 30% is owed to ourselves. Our block grant is looking like it will be getting cut year on year for the foreseeable and HS2 is just around the corner. Another expensive project that barely affects us but we will have to pay our population share of anyway.

Intelligent unionists know that the UK isnt some beloved neighbour stopping Scotland from going down the financial hole but it's the only argument they've got.

[renton]

42 minutes ago, ScotSquid said:

Your second paragraph there highlights the problem. Its widely recognised that the ref was lost because of the economic argument. Which the SNP's garbage White Paper sought to deceive about by choosing a 2 year period it cherry picked. The GERS figures since 2014 just reinforce the disaster indy would be for Scotland financially. 

So how is any new white paper going to address that gap? Convincingly. It can't. Which is why we've had transcendental nationalism from Sturgeon, and a lot of noise around immigration, the direction of moral travel etc. Anything but the economy, which she knows she can't win an argument on versus staying in the UK.

But that being the case, in a putative referendum are people suddenly going to ignore the financial consequences and vote Yes, in the current climate of massive gap in the GERS figures. Not a chance. That's why Nicola Sturgeon doesn't want another referendum.

I don't think the SNP being nose deep in the trough and riddled with sleaze will make much difference, true though that is.

The original argument, or topic at hand was on the nature of the SNP's supposed dissapointment at the polling situation, and why that is the rationale behind Sturgeon not going near another referendum, you then seem to want to move that from polling data to an assertion that an allergy to GERS data is what will ultimately put paid to those ambitions.

In the first instance, my original post makes clear why I think there is probably little to alarm the SNP in current polling. Polling on a hypothetical is never going to give a clear snapshot of contemporary public opinion and the static nature of the polling in the face of both Brexit on one side and GERS on the other seem to bare that out.

On the subject of GERS, my own opinion is that it is, and remains only an estimated indicator of how Scotland performs under the current devolution settlement, not how an independent Scotland's public finances would operate. Particularly how an independent Scotland in the EU would function relative to a Brexited rUK. You can point to the fact that GERS estimates by a variety of methodologies many facets of public spending that cannot be seperated accurately and that in many respects it probably underestimates Scotland in some places where it actually performs well relative to the rUK. You can see that Scotland ends up paying towards projects that affect only the rUK, particularly the South East infrastructure that an independent Scotland would not contribute towards, these kind of "cuts" would infact not impact on your average Scottish tax payer, everything from HS2 and Crossrail, doing up Westminster to the ridiculous defence overspend in this country relative to the forces stationed here and you are looking at £3-4 billion in savings without touching the frontline public services. You could also look at how Scotland taxes it's people and institutions in a holistic manner, designed to raise extra funds in a progressive fashion - the Greens looked at both a LVT to replace council tax and more graded income tax bands which could raise another £1-2 billion. Mcalpine at the Commonweal talked about the inevitable debt negotiations and suggested another £1 billion could be shaved off, as well as another £0.5 billion from simplyfiying the customs and excises systems. How we deal with the remaining oil as prices rise will also impact our deficit in the near term. 

So that's a closing of the dreaded gap by about £6.5 billion per annum, and ultimately how sustainable the remaining deficit in the short term would be based on how the rating agencies marked Scotland up. Of course, it's a true point that the deficit we have relative to the rUK is the responsibility of Westminster, ultimately. As such we can enver expect it to get better under their umbrella. Nor can we expect the final devolution settlement as envisaged by Smith to give Holyrood the power to close it either. Indeed, the underlying issue affects the whole UK - we import too much, export too little and successive UK goverments have sought to hide that fact by selling off assets, year after year, in the name of the free market. Brexit is unlikely to help that situation. Taking steps to improve productivity, to increase wages across the board alongside a more progressive tax system will go along way to increasing the tax base that will ultimately close the existing deficit.

The white paper was a mistake, and I hope they avoid that approach next time out, it read too much like a line itemised manifesto for a government term, not the treatise for self government. Sticking to pound sterling was of course a hostage to fortune, any currency option comes with risks, and next time out they'd be as well taking the hit on a new currency altogether. Referencing GERS in any aspect was a mistake as ultimately it could be used against them. If anything, Brexit and Trump have shown the power of more simple, emotive messaging. The bottom line of GERS could be used to good effect in this case: It'll never get better under Westminster, it'll only get worse - only control over our own desitny, our own governance will allow us to make the choices that can close those gaps. It's like being stranded on a sand bar with the tide coming in, the longer you wait to wade to the beach, the smaller the dry land around you, and the deeper the water between you and the beach. There is no point waiting until you are up to your neck in it.

Independence is about giving yourselves the right to choose.

Sturgeon is currently playing out the necessary pantomime where she turns over every rock in search of a solution that allows Scotland to maintain both Unions. By doing so she allows herself the option of presenting Indy as the last best hope, the final option. She forces the opposition parties to assume a position on each Union, she cast herself as reasonable, measured and invites Westminster to veto the desired wishes of the Scottish people. There is little chat around Indyref2, in my opinion, primarily becuase she wants it to be the last thing she has to bring up, she obviously wishes to avoid a referendum she'd lose but it's also to her advantage to play for time anyway, as noted above. Brexit would kill Indy for much longer than another failed referendum for sure - and that's something she'll be aware of.

[sophia]

50 minutes ago, renton said:

It'll never get better under Westminster, it'll only get worse - only control over our own desitny, our own governance will allow us to make the choices

 

 why would anybody not want us to make the best decisions for us?

I wish Fide was here to add some humourous colour 

[renton]

13 minutes ago, sophia said:

 why would anybody not want us to make the best decisions for us?

I wish Fide was here to add some humourous colour 

I think No Man's Sky broke him, and broke him good. Alas.

[ayrmad]

17 hours ago, Kaz said:

If the finances of Scotland are in such a poor state, they are in that state with all the main economic levers being controlled by Westminster. Sturgeon could point this out and ask people to consider how this would in any way amount to an argument in favour of the Union.

I actually don't understand why YES/SNP haven't battered on about this and the GERS figures being produced by Westminster on behalf of Westminster remorselessly, it appears to me that they prefer to proffer the impression that they are powerful when they really aren't.

I'm not at all convinced that it's the best course of action to try and change governance for the better when you're trying to project a false image that you are responsible for a lot of that governance, that positions fine for those that educate themselves about it all but these elections/referendums results appear to be getting carried by a large chunk of voters who know next to f**k all and as such aren't really going to appreciate this.

Perhaps I'm just not bright enough to get their reason for not hammering these positions home at every opportunity.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

18 hours ago, Kaz said:

If the finances of Scotland are in such a poor state, they are in that state with all the main economic levers being controlled by Westminster. Sturgeon could point this out and ask people to consider how this would in any way amount to an argument in favour of the Union.

During Indyref 1 the pattern was fairly solidly established

Good Economic News: Shows that Scotland is strong enough to make it on it's own/Shows that Scotland is thriving in the union *

Bad Economic News: Shows that Scotland is suffering in the union/Shows that Scotland is too weak to make it on it's own *

* Delete according to prejudice

 

 

 

[ScotSquid]

Now there's a poll. Just confirms what we already know . Indyref2 is a dead duck. No way that's happening this Parliament. 

[mjw]

HB[emoji1]

Why not use your old account for making predictions?

[ayrmad]

1 minute ago, mjw said:

HB

Why not use your old account for making predictions?

It died of embarrassment.

[renton]

1 hour ago, ScotSquid said:

Now there's a poll. Just confirms what we already know . Indyref2 is a dead duck. No way that's happening this Parliament. 

I'm not sure it shows much, presently, in terms of the overall support for Indy. It's within MoE for their last poll, so we'll need another one later to try and confirm if there is a genuine drop. That's not actually the interesting part of that poll anyway - what's more interesting is the supplementary questions around whether people think Scotland should have another referendum before Brexit, on whether Scotland should try and stay part of the EU. On the 2nd Indyref question it's fairly stark: 37/50 against, while on the "try and remain part of the UK after the rest leaves" it's pretty much a dead heat: 42/41 in favour (with only 22% thinking it's realistic for Scotland to achieve that within the UK). In other words, support for Sturgeon's drive to keep Scotland in the EU  is roughly double that of the number of people who think that's achievable within the UK, while still being against a 2nd IndyRef before Brexit by 37/50... that's some really joined up thinking from the Scottish electorate.

The 2nd Indyref question is interesting, as it's asked in a different (probably more realistic way). Previously, panelbase had shown support for another referendum in 5 years, so it doesn't directly contradict that result as it asks a different question. However it does suggest a different flavour to people's views.

Of course, asking people whether their should be another IndyRef does not directly impact how they'd vote if their was, and that's pretty much unchanged. As polls go, there is not much to make the SNP happy, although as it is, the realistic impact of Brexit has not been felt, and the whole thing is hypothetical. It'll be interesting to see the SNP proposals for "options within the UK" in the next few weeks.

Ultimately, whether or not an IndyRef occurs will be the result of a political calculation: Does Brexit kill support for Scottish independence? If the answer is yes, then they have no choice but to go for it prior to that event.

 

 

[renton]

The age thing is still there as well, basically younger voters are in favour of Scottish independence, another referendum and/or staying in after the rUK leaves. Once you get above the 50 years old bracket, opinions reverse massively.

[John Lambies Doos]

The age thing is still there as well, basically younger voters are in favour of Scottish independence, another referendum and/or staying in after the rUK leaves. Once you get above the 50 years old bracket, opinions reverse massively.

That's because they are referendumed out. I said many moons ago the next referendum will be 2022 and will pass. Until that point we will be continually referred to as a nation of shitebags

[renton]

In terms of the Scottish parliament vote, SNP and Tories both up 1 point to 64 and 32 respectively. Labour down 7, with the other 5 points going to the Greens!

[glasgow-sheep]

4 minutes ago, renton said:

In terms of the Scottish parliament vote, SNP and Tories both up 1 point to 64 and 32 respectively. Labour down 7, with the other 5 points going to the Greens!

I think you mean seat rather than points.

Scottish parliament voting intention (const.): SNP: 48% (-4) CON: 25% (+4) LAB: 15% (-1) LDEM: 6% (+1) (YouGov / 24 - 29 Nov) Chgs. w/ Aug.

Scottish parl' voting intention (regional): SNP: 39% (-6) CON: 24% (+4) LAB: 14% (-1) GRN: 11% (+2) LDEM: 6% (-) UKIP: 4% (+2) (via YouGov)

 

Labour Party 10% behind the Tories in Scotland, fecking hell

[renton]

4 minutes ago, glasgow-sheep said:

I think you mean seat rather than points.

Scottish parliament voting intention (const.): SNP: 48% (-4) CON: 25% (+4) LAB: 15% (-1) LDEM: 6% (+1) (YouGov / 24 - 29 Nov) Chgs. w/ Aug.

Scottish parl' voting intention (regional): SNP: 39% (-6) CON: 24% (+4) LAB: 14% (-1) GRN: 11% (+2) LDEM: 6% (-) UKIP: 4% (+2) (via YouGov)

 

Labour Party 10% behind the Tories in Scotland, fecking hell

Correct, seats not points. That swing from SNP to Tories....

[John Lambies Doos]

It's a NI situation now. Nationalists vs Unionists

[RedRob72]

Times reporting it's own poll (prior to National Survey results), at 56% pro-union 44% pro-independence.
Expect the NS poll to be hugely swayed by the number of separatist participants however.

[Peppino Impastato]

And the times poll is also hugely skewed towards unionists.   I don't know anybody who believes the polls now, they are obviously trying to frame a narrative.   There's only one poll that matters and our side say bring it on, we're confident,  it's you that's shitting your pants.

[Loondave1]

The beginning of the end.The tears will flow when all the zoomers that rushed to join the SNP realise that they have been sold a pup. A one trick party with a trick they can't perform.As they say on here."Pleasing" "Not enjoying the journey" "Tick tock".