Implications of Scottish Independence

[Rolfe]

See this?

https://twitter.com/calumrkerr/status/477078682302169090

I've organised it.

There are a dozen or two really top-notch speakers willing to come to any village hall, just email them and ask.

We've raised our own money in Yes Borders through a crowd-funder (helped along by being pushed on Wings), and the word is, if it costs less than £100, just do it and claim the money back later. So I booked the hall.

Once the speakers had agreed, I emailed the basics to someone in our group who was good at eye-catching leaflets, and he designed and printed these. A group of seven of us have distributed 1000 leaflets within about a four-mile radius of the village, and posters are going up on the lamp posts.

I've sent an ad in to the local newspaper to publicise it. Someone else is lending a digital projector for Ivan's money-talk, and yet another bod is sourcing a screen and a portable microphone. And we're set. Did I mention there are less than 1500 people in the village? Bustling metropolis it is not. But here we are.

Nobody doing this is a politician, and some of them aren't connected with any political party. Nobody is even being directed, other than general indications from the volunteer one rung above them in the supply chain that if anyone feels like doing something, support will be offered. (My friend in the next street is planning a series of women-only coffee mornings to discuss the referendum, in the same hall, over the summer.)

People are doing this on their own initiative all over the country, on the Yes side. The most popular speakers ("How the hell did you get Ivan McKee??" - "I just asked.") are out five evenings a week and driving hundreds of miles, covering their own expenses.

The meetings (well some of them) are also being filmed, by a group who also raised the crowdfunding to do it. So we can point people to the speeches even if they can't go to the meetings.



I don't think many people outside Scotland have a clue what is going on here. Even within Scotland, the only way you'll know is through our leaflets and lamp-post posters, because the TV and newspapers sure as hell aren't going to tell you.

Meanwhile on the No side Holyrood and Westminster politicians are being ordered up to Scotland to do a stint, to provide some appearance of boots on the ground. Jim Murphy is going round in a bus with blacked-out windows, possibly to conceal the fact that he's taking the "support" with him to each stop - photos from half a dozen places show him posing with the same group of people at every town.

"No Borders" bought their alleged "grass-roots" from a PR company in London.

Soapy Sam will protest that the masses and masses of people quietly determined to vote No just don't want to bother their backsides doing anything about it. And to some extent he's right of course. But the summer is just beginning. There are three months to go. With this disparity of activity, is anyone really safe predicting a No majority?

Rolfe.

 

[angrysoba]

Meanwhile on the No side Holyrood and Westminster politicians are being ordered up to Scotland to do a stint, to provide some appearance of boots on the ground. Jim Murphy is going round in a bus with blacked-out windows, possibly to conceal the fact that he's taking the "support" with him to each stop - photos from half a dozen places show him posing with the same group of people at every town.

That's quite funny! Do you have any links/photos?

 

[Ian Osborne]

You might be best off asking Campbell himself for an explanation: it's his own choice of title.

Unless he clarifies things, it's certainly hard to figure out why he chooses to use that moniker. Maybe he's an ordained minister (though I'm inclined to doubt that....), or maybe he likes to think of himself as some sort of "preacher man" (perhaps he got the idea from the Dan Ashworth character in "Nathan Barley").

But I don't remember Robin Day or Evelyn Waugh or James Cook self-styling themselves "Reverend" or any other similar honorific though. Just sayin.........

Stuart says he's an ordained minister, but is personally an atheist and doesn't say which church he's ordained into. I suspect it's one of those online, anyone-can-do-it 'churches' such as the Universal Life Church.

 

[Rolfe]

Stuart says he's an ordained minister, but is personally an atheist and doesn't say which church he's ordained into. I suspect it's one of those online, anyone-can-do-it 'churches' such as the Universal Life Church.

I suspect you might be right. He also said something about using the "Rev" title to distinguish himself from someone else of the same name - a murderer or something. (I guess Robert Black is doing the same thing, but he really is a university professor.) I never heard of a Stuart Campbell who was a murderer though, while everyone has heard of the serial killer Robert Black.

I think it started as an affectation and he'd have been better to have ditched it before Wings. But did I mention "stubborn as a mule" and "bloody-minded"? He doesn't do back-tracking very well.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

That's quite funny! Do you have any links/photos?

Yeah, they've been tweeted, with the recurring faces circled. I'll try to find the tweet.

Rolfe.

 

[Ian Osborne]

I suspect you might be right. He also said something about using the "Rev" title to distinguish himself from someone else of the same name - a murderer or something. (I guess Robert Black is doing the same thing, but he really is a university professor.) I never heard of a Stuart Campbell who was a murderer though, while everyone has heard of the serial killer Robert Black.

That would be this charmer, who raped and murdered his own niece. Rev Stu had a problem with people linking his name in Wikipedia articles to that page, and IIRC, had to threaten to sue to stop it.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Just listening to Rita Chakrabati on R4 talking to an educational blogger, Andrew Old (Auld?) about the growing influence of online activity. Quite interesting.

I don't follow or use Twitter. I hadn't seen any mention of the W Linton meeting . Looks like the same sort of thing that was held here a month or so ago. That was interesting, but turned into a discussion of energy policy more than anything else.
Being pro-nuclear and anti-windfarm, I don't exactly see eye to eye with the SNP on this issue. Although none of the speakers was an SNP member, they had a poster prominently on display claiming that Scotland had 200 years of coal available and planned to be CO2 emission free by 2020 or some time soon. The obvious contradiction of the two points led me to ask the first question when questions were requested and that tipped the balance of discussion in that direction. So to avoid one issue dominating your meeting, I'd advise restricting one subject to a limited time. You can always return to it later if nothing else offers itself.

The thing about being involved in campaigning is that it could give an exaggerated impression of the degree of involvement of the average person- just as not being involved may give an opposite, low impression.

Re the remaining 90+ days, I wonder what effect an international event might have on the issue- such as HMG sending troops back to Iraq?

 

[Rolfe]

I've asked Calum to chair it, because he has a clearer head for these things than I have. He said the Walkerburn meeting went off a bit on Common Weal subjects, but that was to do with the speakers. I think if you have Harvie on the panel you're going to go down the energy route with a fair degree of probability. (Disclaimer - I liked what Harvie had to say in Biggar.)

To a large extent though, that's peripheral. This is about whether Scotland's interests are best served long-term by being a self-governing independent country, or by having all its decisions taken for it by Westminster. The argument that the latter is the answer because you personally disagree with one or two short-term decisions that seem likely to be taken by your countrymen is a tad on the short-sighted side.

Nevertheless, it's the nature of the beast. At its worst, we get "I'm voting No just to wipe that smug grin off Salmond's face." So you want to keep the smug grin on Cameron's face in perpetuity, and gift him the 2015 election while you're at it? Right....

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

That would be this charmer, who raped and murdered his own niece. Rev Stu had a problem with people linking his name in Wikipedia articles to that page, and IIRC, had to threaten to sue to stop it.

Ah, I wasn't familiar with that. Stu certainly has a lot of people out to knife him. With more being added to the list daily.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

That's quite funny! Do you have any links/photos?

Here you go.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Skooshbag/status/478824666535305216/photo/1

There are only three in that set, but I saw some more elsewhere.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

The thing about being involved in campaigning is that it could give an exaggerated impression of the degree of involvement of the average person- just as not being involved may give an opposite, low impression.

Soapy, someone who didn't know who either Gary Robertson or John Smith were, isn't average. He's comatose.

Rolfe.

 

[Information Analyst]

BBC News: Scottish independence - Scots and English 'willing to share institutions'

"People across the UK appear willing to continue sharing institutions after Scottish independence, according to the annual British Social Attitudes survey.

The survey indicated almost 70% of people in England and Wales believe an independent Scotland should be allowed to share the pound.

And more Scots think Trident nuclear missiles should stay in the country than think they should leave."

Mind you, the main report on the survey highlights a lot of widespread but questionable views, as well:

BBC News: 'Benefit tourists' should be made to wait, Britons say

 

[Rolfe]

Only 240 Scottish residents were included in that survey, and the results weren't even weighted. It's statistically meaningless as far as Scottish attitudes are concerned. Oh and the fieldwork is a year out of date.

There is a separate Scottish Social Attitudes Study (equally out of date but at least surveying a statistically significant number of Scottish residents) which shows a clear majority wanting to get rid of Trident, for example. And then there's this, from March.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/polit...en-pro-uk-voters-reject-trident-move.20481478

I mean, an unweighted Scottish subsample of 240 people? (Which also deliberately excluded everyone living north of the Great Glen, for reasons of cost.) Who do they think they are kidding? But if it can be spun as unfavourable to Yes, the BBC will be all over it like a rash, every half hour on the half hour.

Rolfe.

 

[Information Analyst]

Only 240 Scottish residents were included in that survey, and the results weren't even weighted. It's statistically meaningless as far as Scottish attitudes are concerned. Oh and the fieldwork is a year out of date.

There is a separate Scottish Social Attitudes Study (equally out of date but at least surveying a statistically significant number of Scottish residents) which shows a clear majority wanting to get rid of Trident, for example. And then there's this, from March.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/polit...en-pro-uk-voters-reject-trident-move.20481478

I mean, an unweighted Scottish subsample of 240 people? (Which also deliberately excluded everyone living north of the Great Glen, for reasons of cost.) Who do they think they are kidding? But if it can be spun as unfavourable to Yes, the BBC will be all over it like a rash, every half hour on the half hour.

Well, 240 out of the 3,000 total sampled is 8%, which is about right for population. Do you have a source for it being unweighted? Also, how much of the Scottish population lives north of the Great Glen?

 

[Rolfe]

Well, 240 out of the 3,000 total sampled is 8%, which is about right for population. Do you have a source for it being unweighted?

Several of the polling gurus have been discussing it on Wings. No weighting of the Scottish subsample.

It's not about whether 240 people is about right for a population share of the whole survey, it's about whether anything can be concluded about Scotland by analysing the subsample. It can't, because 240 people is way too few. If you want to know about Scotland in particular, you go after about 1000 people actually living in Scotland, not 240.

And, as I said, it's not weighted to Scottish population demographics (quite hard to do that on such a small subsample I suspect) and the fieldwork was done in early 2013.

Also, how much of the Scottish population lives north of the Great Glen?

Not that many, but that's not the point. The study wasn't designed to find out anything about Scotland. Way too few people, no weighting, and a chunk of the country just arbitrarily excluded.

I don't know why they bother including Scotland in that exercise at all. There is an entirely separate study of the same nature specifically into Scottish social attitudes - which I imagine does cover the entire country. They'd be better just confining theirs to England and Wales.

It's a complete non-story. But of course the BBC will big it up no end, without any qualifiers, if it shows No in a good light in some way.

Rolfe.

 

[Damien Evans]

Soapy, someone who didn't know who either Gary Robertson or John Smith were, isn't average. He's comatose.

Rolfe.

To be fair, John Smith could be anybody.

 

[Rolfe]

Here's Scot Goes Pop on the Trident poll thing. It seems it's even dafter than has previously been commented on.

http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/no-andrew-neil-this-new-poll-does-not.html

It actually shows that the Scottish public do not want Britain to have nuclear weapons at all, by a margin of 46% to 37%. (That makes it uncannily similar to an Ashcroft poll which was also brazenly misreported as showing that Scots were pro-Trident.) It's impossible to argue that the public want Trident to stay when they do not think it should even exist.

The question that has generated such excitement among the nuclear weapon loving Brit Nats (Johann Lamont must be so proud) implicitly presupposes that Westminster will be retaining the inhuman weapons against our wishes, and merely poses a practical query about what should happen to them after independence.

(Scot Goes Pop times the fieldwork for last October, not early in the year then, but still hardly a "new poll". Still, the unionist media do this all the time, trumpeting these surveys that take many months to appear as "new" when they can be spun as contradicting a long-term trend they don't like.)

You know, I'm quite tired of the way the BBC is flooding the airwaves with biassed presenters with a hugely pro-union bent, and allowing them to spout blatant lies and spin with complete impunity. Neil is so ridiculously gleeful when he thinks he's found some little nugget to stick it to the Nats, and there's no way at all to correct him.

Rolfe.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I'm not obsessed with BBC Scotland, or with politics. If that makes me comatose, I guess I'll survive.
To be honest, I find rocks a lot more interesting than politics - and (coprolites aside) a great deal less full of crap.

 

[Rolfe]

It's not a question of obsession, it's a question of being at least marginally aware of your surroundings. For an intelligent man of your age, living in Scotland, to be unaware of the leader of the opposition (and darling of the Scottish Labour Party) who was expected to succeed John Major as Prime Minister but who died suddenly in 1994 so that we got Tony Blair in 1997 instead, or the BBC Scotland presenter who has barely been off-air (day or night) for about ten years, is remarkable.

I mean, I hate pop music, talent shows and football and screen all talk of them out as much as possible, but I'd at least have a vague clue who you were talking about if you said the Arctic Monkeys, Susan Boyle or Craig Levein.

Rolfe.

 

[Soapy Sam]

It's not a question of obsession, it's a question of being at least marginally aware of your surroundings. For an intelligent man of your age, living in Scotland, to be unaware of the leader of the opposition (and darling of the Scottish Labour Party) who was expected to succeed John Major as Prime Minister but who died suddenly in 1994 so that we got Tony Blair in 1997 instead, or the BBC Scotland presenter who has barely been off-air (day or night) for about ten years, is remarkable.

I mean, I hate pop music, talent shows and football and screen all talk of them out as much as possible, but I'd at least have a vague clue who you were talking about if you said the Arctic Monkeys, Susan Boyle or Craig Levein.

Rolfe.

I'd get 2/3 out of that lot. I'll let you guess which.

I remember Smith as trade secretary when I was working in Glasgow (77-78??) I was abroad probably 75% of 92-94, when he became Labour leader.
He was already dead before I came back to work in the Atlantic Frontier in 95.
It was some time after that herself mentioned him to me and much later that I realised he was the same Smith I heard arguing with Keith Joseph (I think on "Question Time" or similar) in 1977 or 78. It truly isn't the most memorable name.

Remember, first that I didn't own a TV since 1983 (and rarely watched one at all much after 1973). Add that to my job and the "remarkable" aspect fades to "predictable".

It really is easy to miss fairly large events, when you live the kind of life I did for 35 years.
I very rarely knew what day of the week it was. I had no need to, because the entire 5 and 2 weekly cycle that dominates most lives was utterly irrelevant to mine. There were hundreds of such examples in all aspects of my life. The things I was interested in, I pursued during my time off. Those that did not interest me, I ignored.
I went to Algeria the morning the death of Princess Diana was announced. My 4a.m. taxi driver told me about it. Had I left the previous day, I almost certainly wouldn't have heard about it for a month or more. As it was, I missed all the sanctimonious nonsense that I read about much later.
I could quote you similar histories in a wide range of areas. Thing is, in most cases after a month or two, events have dropped off the front page and can be easy to miss if they are not of great interest to you.

I'm no more a football fan than yourself. I do know what job Craig Levein held till this year, but if Craig Levein had died a month ago and you just returned from abroad today, how long might it be before you noticed? Months? Years? And when you did, would you remember what his last job was?