New YouGov poll

Mctosh45 · New YouGov poll

Interesting poll this apparently less support for independence but S.N.P.increases it's lead over Labour? Confused

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=72882007

azzuri

Dave Coull

Two hundred to one against independence within five years?????!!!!!!!

I'm not usually a betting man, but I have just got to get along to
a William Hill shop and place a bet on that before they realise
they have made a mistake and drastically shorten the odds !

SLG

I think 5 years is optimistic. I think 7-8 years. So I'll be putting a good few quid on the 10 years at 100/1.

SLG

According to the Record, the odds of Scotland becoming independent within 10 years has fallen from 100-1 in January to 33-1.

SNP and Labour both at 5-6 to be the largest party at the election.

Odds from William Hill.

Rinty

I would go for 10 years or more, possibly the 2019 elections. By 2015 we should see a change in the system that standardises the council STV system across the parliamentary elections as well (possibly 30 4/5 member seats). The other election between now and then will have broken Labours dominance and there is a real chance at that election that the pro-independence parties will prevail under this system.

I still think the best tactic (in the long run) would be for the SNP to split into three credible forces (right, left and centre) to secure the jump needed in the votes. I think that IF could take up the baton of the "catch all" pro-independence movement instead of a political party, allowing the SNP to have a programme that doesnt have to please all, and a split from either the centre-left or centre-right to form another strong pro-independence party.

The unionist parties offer a choice from left to to right, the pro-independence parties only offer left and the SNP are left to try and get every other political opinion from centre left to right in one manifesto or programme.

All previous elections show that a rise in other pro-independence parties has led to more pro-indepndence votes and more pro-independence MSPs.

Holebender

I wouldn't object to the SNP splitting into left and right variants but there are now enough pro-independence parties to fill the spectrum. There are the socialists on the left and the Enterprise party just getting underway on the right. I think the Free Scotland Party is also on the right, but I could be mistaken. The thing is, I think these parties will come into their own after independence and that a united front (national unity even) is required to see off the unionists and gain independence.

I'm sorry to say Independence First is a spent force, but that's not to say some other non-party organisation won't appear to fill that particular void.

carol

SLG

I definitely don't think the SNP should be splitting on the left. The 2 parties already there are more than enough. Unless it could be a grouping to unite them. I think the best hope for the left is the one party completely dies out and that the other prospers. The worse case IMO is that they both have MSPs elected.

Holebender

Carol, you're kidding yourself, though that's hardly surprising.

carol

HB you appear to be overly familiar with the situation and with myself Confused

IF is still in existence and will be for some time yet. From the 'steering' stage until now it has taken what around 3 years? For a new group to fill that void it would have a helluva lot of ground to make up. By then we'll have independence Wink

It's not a workable solution with the independence movement being so fragmented.

Carol

Holebender

Carol, I'm very familiar with the situation, and with you.

IF first saw the light of day on Chic Macgregor's monitor about 2 1/2 years ago. It was then honed by a very small group of people before it finally burst into the daylight just over 2 years ago.

But if the same minds which forged IF are already working on a replacement, taking into account lessons learned, do you really think it'll take as long the next time?

carol

I suspected it was you

3 co-founders and only one at the inaugural meeting (I acknowledge there were genuine apologies) you would had to have been at that meeting to realise that from then onwards there was one major liability. The control freakery within started from that day.

There is strength from within IF, there are ones that will keep it together. IF is your loss. You knew the weakness within previously and you did nothing to prevent it. The co-founders pressed the self destruct button not the ones you left behind. If you think when the going gets tough you run is the answer you're wrong. There's no credibility on the co-founders part whatsoever. You will be seen as the failures not IF

Carol

carol

should've added you never were in touch with the situation, never had the finger on the ball, prime position to oversee the day to day running of the organisation and you did nothing.

Carol

azzuri

So how about a new name?

'Democracy First' perhaps - a bit more partisan, trying to promote the referendum itself rather than the goal of Independence!?!?

Holebender

Carol, as always, doesn't have a clue about what has really happened and why IF has been fatally wounded.

It's really simple: any non-party organisation which is taken over by a partisan clique is no longer non-party. Once it is partisan it no longer serves its intended purpose and the damage to its reputation is most likely beyond repair. Carol would sooner be in a clique (any clique, even though she's just a hanger on and not really in the clique) than not so she's happy to see the numpties take over as long as she gets to be one of the numpties.

But you'd better not discuss it, Carol. Discussion has been banned, remember?

Shake It Up

Anyway, getting back onto the original topic, the only problem here is that if everyone goes to Will Hill and starts laying down vast sums of money on becoming independent, then Will Hill might also join in the pro-unionist scaremongering for fear of becoming bankrupt! Smile

carol

Azzuri good suggestion m8 Very Happy

Neil like Dave you're in La La land

It makes sense for IF business to be discussed at meetings, and not overtaken by cyber madness

Carol

agentmancuso

Rinty

MY point is, holebender, that "after independence" might not come if we try to have the "united front" as a political party rather than a non-political movement or an electoral coalition. A party has to look after its own success first and foremost over its programme.

The council tax vote was an indication of this. The SNP should have backed Tommy Sheridans bill with an amendment but couldnt as it would be mistake tactically to allow the SSP (at the time) to appear succesful and potent as it could lose votes for the SNP.

The Enterprise party might be the key as the centre right in the SNP could add to their strength and some tories would join if they were a credible force with a chance of political representation.

When I talk of a split from the left of the SNP I am talking about centre left not the SSP or Solidaritys territory. Very few people left in the SNP are socialists in the way that members of those two parties are.

I think the 2003 elections highlighted this idea perfectly. A large minority of SSP voters were previously Labour voters who previously had never voted for independence, I belive a similar move on the right would be better for all of us.

It may not be necessary for IF to be the "catch all" movement but they are best placed at the moment and have respected individuals in the movement at the forefront of the campaign.

There is no way the SSP can grow their socialist vote while backing their pro-business part of their manifesto and no way that they can attract the right (economically) while they back public ownership. It is this contradiction that prevents the SNP from taking a step forward, in my opinion.

We dont yet know how the election will turnout in a couple of weeks but in every other recent election the SNPs vote has fallen yet support for pro-independence parties has increased.

I would like to see the SNP emerge as a left of centre social democrat party and not be pulled as much by the business agenda. I believe that is what most of their members want and what most of the public see them as.

Look at the trade union situation. Much has been made of the FBU donation to SNP candidates but when you consider that it was the same amount as Solidarity got from the FBU while millionaire businessmen are pumping 6 figure sums in to the SNP, it is an indication of who the current SNP leadership are appealling to more than they did in the past.

This time round we see the other pro-independence parties leaving the FPTP seats to the SNP. This decision wasnt taken as a united electoral front but more a tactic for the small parties to increase votes. If the SSP had stood on the list only in 2003 we estimate that they would have had 10 MSPs with the Greens having just 3.

All this might mean that this years results will see my theory tested but, so far, I believe that all evidence suggests that several strong pro-independence parties with specific political programmes leads to a higher pro-independence vote and more pro-independence MSPs.

For a movement, we need to see pro-independence MSP and MPs as the priority. For the SNP the priority is that the MPs and MSPs are from their party, quite rightly, but the overall movement will always take second place to the party.

That is why the Independence movement needs IF or similar to be able to make the breakthrough and take over from the SNP as the "movement".

agentmancuso

Holebender

I don't disagree with you Rinty.

And agentmancuso... I don't need to think up swearywords, I know lots of them in several languages.

Joe Middleton

IF's role is to facilitate change by pushing for a referendum and by being wide enough to include everyone. This it has achieved and despite some of the alarmist remarks above it has not changed its character one iota.

I appreciate your desire Rinty to move the SNP to the left and I share it to a certain extent however whether the SNP moves to the left or right I think it will lose votes just as it gains from others.

We already have the SSP and Soldarity to cover the further left ground, what is really required is a reasonably successful pro independence party from the right to scoop up a few more percentage points. Scotland is a left wing country so I think the SNP has got it's balance about right.

The Scottish Enterprise Party are trying to fill the right of centre void and the Free Scotland Party are aiming for the pro indy anti EU vote, whether either party will have success we don't know but I appreciate their strategic objectives (even if I don't agree with either).

Rinty

Actually Joe, I have no desire to move the SNP to the left. I would rather they adopty a social democrat centre-left position that is already there, and their natural territory. I would prefer to see the right in the SNP move to SEP ior elsewhere to provide that right of centre alternative to the pro-independence movement. A move any further to the right for the SNP at the minute would leave a need for a new left of centre Scottish party.

I disagree with the "alba" analysis of the resuklts and wonder where they got the guess of one more SSP MSP. I think they are not looking at how the votes panned out but are cocentrating on guessing whwere SSP votes might have gone if they hadnt stood.

Following the 2003 election (when I was still in the SSP) we conducted our own (probably unscientific) research over a period of time and found that many voters were torn between the SSP and Greens. One option taken by the voters who slightly preferred the SSP was to give their first vote to the SSP and regional vote to the greens. The extent of this suggests that the SSP would have landed another three seats and the Greens would have won far less.