A poll in the Guardian today shows the two sides level among those certain to vote. The No side has a one point lead among those certain or likely to vote. The fieldwork for the poll was done before the Sunday Times poll so that poll will not have had any influence. The momentum is definitely with Yes at the moment.

 

It was reported a couple months ago that Cameron wanted to spend a lot of time in Scotland in the final two weeks of the campaign. Now his intended visit this week has been canned. His aim to portray himself as "the man who saved the union" has obviously taken a rather large knock.

The No campaign are an absolute shambles. Someone needs to tell Ed and co that writing patronising piles of shite in papers is not how you win this. Also lecturing us from outside of Scotland is not a good idea. Same goes for leaking to rupert that other NATO leaders are 'worried'.

 

It's as if Better Together actually want the Yes campaign to win.

The last week has basically proved that Westminster can't be trusted to cooperate when a general election is even slightly close. No would be miles ahead if a devolution package had been on the table months ago (or preferably on the ballot paper).

If Cameron had allowed Salmond to put Devo Max on the ballot as Salmond wanted then we'd be in a situation with a massive lead for yes on Devo Max and a massive lead for No on indie. The entire debate would basically be dead.

 

Utter stupidity and ego are to blame here. Along with the Tories sheer arrogance on the issue.

The No campaign has been trying to insist that today's announcement has been planned all along. Anyone who believes that presumably also believes in the Tooth Fairy.

If Cameron had allowed Salmond to put Devo Max on the ballot as Salmond wanted then we'd be in a situation with a massive lead for yes on Devo Max and a massive lead for No on indie. The entire debate would basically be dead.

 

Utter stupidity and ego are to blame here. Along with the Tories sheer arrogance on the issue.

Wouldn't hurt for Miliband to remind people of that. There was an opportunity to make Labour the party of devolution, which wouldn't exactly be the hardest sell given the history and the recent talk of greater English devolution as well.

All 3 leaders are now panicking like shit and heading north to lecture us on why we should stay. Brb goin to buy some eggs ready for Cameron.

Not endless rule, no. But only a fool would bet against the SNP winning the next Scottish election if the country votes Yes.

 

Brainless rhetoric is one thing (and you have no idea how hacked off I get with Reeves when she says crap like that) but it's surely preferable to actual, harmful policy. What was the soundbite from that article? Brown is a socialist who pretended to be an economic liberal, Salmond is a liberal pretending to be a socialist.

 

The SNP would probably win the first election just because they'd be the people to trust to sort out any remaining "negotiations" with the rest of the UK, but they wouldn't necessarily win most elections after that. In fact, it's questionable whether they'd even survive in the long run, since if they get independence their whole raison d'etre will have been fulfilled.

 

As for the second paragraph -- my point was it's just not going to fly with the public, because anytime Labour try and say the SNP aren't serious about "fairness", the SNP can respond by flagging up the numerous moronic statements from Labour frontbenchers about how austerity will be continuing if they win the election and the nasty things they've said about welfare, immigration, etc. Any attempts to distance themselves from it would have to involve Labour saying "oh we were lying/just trying to get good headlines then, we don't really mean it", which would not exactly do much to make people put their trust in them.

Edited September 9, 201410 yr by Danny

The last week has basically proved that Westminster can't be trusted to cooperate when a general election is even slightly close. No would be miles ahead if a devolution package had been on the table months ago (or preferably on the ballot paper).

It's a real catch 22, because Westminster co-operating/collaborating to offer this kind of thing perpetuates the 'they're all the same!!' chat.

It's a real catch 22, because Westminster co-operating/collaborating to offer this kind of thing perpetuates the 'they're all the same!!' chat.

This is why I think it's been a real missed opportunity for Labour to put together a proper devolution package for if there's a No vote and a Labour government next year.

 

As for the second paragraph -- my point was it's just not going to fly with the public, because anytime Labour try and say the SNP aren't serious about "fairness", the SNP can respond by flagging up the numerous moronic statements from Labour frontbenchers about how austerity will be continuing if they win the election and the nasty things they've said about welfare, immigration, etc. Any attempts to distance themselves from it would have to involve Labour saying "oh we were lying/just trying to get good headlines then, we don't really mean it", which would not exactly do much to make people put their trust in them.

The response wouldn't necessarily get the same press attention as the accusation, though.

 

Alternatively, just show this picture to everyone on the way to the voting booth.

 

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/4/26/1335449529838/Alex-Salmond-and-Rupert-M-009.jpg

This is why I think it's been a real missed opportunity for Labour to put together a proper devolution package for if there's a No vote and a Labour government next year.

The response wouldn't necessarily get the same press attention as the accusation, though.

 

Alternatively, just show this picture to everyone on the way to the voting booth.

 

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/4/26/1335449529838/Alex-Salmond-and-Rupert-M-009.jpg

Rather than that picture of Ed Miliband proudly holding a copy of The Scum.

 

As for devolution, if Labour have to form a coalition with the Lib Dems, that shouldn't be a problem. It has been the policy of the Lib Dems (and its predecessor parties) for decades. The important thing has to be that power is devolved to English regions rather than a single English parliament. The latter would still be dominated by London.

Rather than that picture of Ed Miliband proudly holding a copy of The Scum.

Holding up a picture of a special edition paper backing the national team isn't quite in the same league as posing proudly next to Voldemort.

All 3 leaders are now panicking like shit and heading north to lecture us on why we should stay. Brb goin to buy some eggs ready for Cameron.

 

 

They should be panicking. The campaign has been rubbish. As for "lecturing" another word is "putting forward properly the case that hasn't been put forward so far". We had a Scottish politician "lecturing" the rest of the UK for a decade and a half about how safe the UK was in his hands, and an end to bust and boom economics. Oops! The last time I looked Gordon brown was a Scottish politician, elected by the people of Scotland. When things went tits up though the UK didn't blame Scotland, they blamed the PARTY.

Rather than that picture of Ed Miliband proudly holding a copy of The Scum.

 

As for devolution, if Labour have to form a coalition with the Lib Dems, that shouldn't be a problem. It has been the policy of the Lib Dems (and its predecessor parties) for decades. The important thing has to be that power is devolved to English regions rather than a single English parliament. The latter would still be dominated by London.

Or if there's a majority for, you know, the party that created the Scottish Parliament.

 

They should be panicking. The campaign has been rubbish. As for "lecturing" another word is "putting forward properly the case that hasn't been put forward so far". We had a Scottish politician "lecturing" the rest of the UK for a decade and a half about how safe the UK was in his hands, and an end to bust and boom economics. Oops! The last time I looked Gordon brown was a Scottish politician, elected by the people of Scotland. When things went tits up though the UK didn't blame Scotland, they blamed the PARTY.

...who happens to be quite popular in Scotland and might actually make the difference in the next week (and, ironically, save Cameron's skin in the process).

That'd probably be because it was Mr Blair who chose him and you're responsible for that mess :)

 

Also, there are only 59 seats from Scotland so we alone cannot elect a government. If we could we wouldn't have f***ing Tories in power right now would we. They only have 1.7% of our seats.

 

No lecturing is the right word. Westminster politicians that we didn't elect, want or even like heading north to tell us that we need to stay part of the UK without offering anything but a promise of more powers that makes even the most fanciful of Salmonds promises look like a sure thing is a lecture. They are offering nothing new but are pretending they care now because their arrogance has meant that up until now they have dismissed the SNP as irrelevant.

 

I do agree with you about one thing. The No campaign has been rubbish.

Rather than that picture of Ed Miliband proudly holding a copy of The Scum.

 

As for devolution, if Labour have to form a coalition with the Lib Dems, that shouldn't be a problem. It has been the policy of the Lib Dems (and its predecessor parties) for decades. The important thing has to be that power is devolved to English regions rather than a single English parliament. The latter would still be dominated by London.

 

Yup. I saw that tool John Redwood on Newsnight last night saying there should be just one parliament for the whole of England. I honestly think that would go down like a cup of cold sick in the North, who do not want to be dominated by south-easterners even more than they are now (frankly I think there's some people in the North who might even wish that Scotland offered to take us with them if they go independent).

Edited September 10, 201410 yr by Danny

If the North cared that much about separate devolution they'd have voted for it.

If the North cared that much about separate devolution they'd have voted for it.

 

It was never offered. That pathetic thing 10 years ago was basically just a merger of all the local councils' pathetic powers ("pay for a whole load of new politicians and don't get anything new in return!" was never going to be a good sales pitch), not the control over public services and perhaps even borrowing/taxation powers we're talking about now.

 

Plus, since that vote, I suspect resentment has grown at both Scotland for "getting a better deal", and at the SouthEast/London for becoming ever more dominant at the North's expense.

Edited September 10, 201410 yr by Danny

It was never offered. That pathetic thing 10 years ago was basically just a merger of all the local councils' pathetic powers ("pay for a whole load of new politicians and don't get anything new in return!" was never going to be a good sales pitch), not the control over public services and perhaps even borrowing/taxation powers we're talking about now.

 

Plus, since that vote, I suspect resentment has grown at both Scotland for "getting a better deal", and at the SouthEast/London for becoming ever more dominant at the North's expense.

There were many flaws on the proposals but "a whole load of new politicians" was not one of them. One layer of local government would have been abolished so it would have meant fewer politicians. It should be noted that we already have fewer elected politicians compared with the population than other European countries.

It was never offered. That pathetic thing 10 years ago was basically just a merger of all the local councils' pathetic powers ("pay for a whole load of new politicians and don't get anything new in return!" was never going to be a good sales pitch), not the control over public services and perhaps even borrowing/taxation powers we're talking about now.

Even Scotland didn't have that then, so it's not especially realistic to expect a North Eastern Assembly would (and I doubt an English Parliament would have proper borrowing/taxation in any case, although frankly it's a ludicrous idea to go to the expense of setting one up just to get around the piffling West Lothian question). In any case, it's about baby steps. Generally if an area's keen on devolution it'll have the sense to take the first step and go from there. I'd much rather just have powers devolved more to local councils with some national restrictions on what they can and can't legislate on (so for example, no Section 28 as there still is in Kent).

 

In practice I don't think resentment towards the South East will have grown that much in the last ten years, given it's been pretty high ever since the 80s.