Tell you what, nothing fires you up to vote Yes to independence than an actor reading out a transcript from Shcotland’s favourite tax exile.
Ok, that’s it, cynicism out of the way. And anyway, the nation’s media have the cynicism cup running over what with their gritted teeth reporting of today’s Yes Scotland! event, from what I could glean on Twitter today at least. Suggesting a PR-disaster because Prometheus happens to be out with a strapline of ‘the beginning of the end’ or some such had to be one of the lamest takes on today’s proceedings.
The catcalls that this was Scotland’s z-list of celebrities was in equal parts childish and mistaken. Brian Cox, Liz Lochhead, Denis Canavan, Tommy Brennan and Alan Cumming et al all taking to the Cineworld stage and explaining their reasons for declaring their Yes votes is a significant contribution to the independence debate. Sure, today was glitzy and ultimately a bit hollow but as the counter ticks over with real people signing up to this declaration to vote Yes in Autumn 2014, there will at least be a sense of a momentum building towards an end result of Salmond’s choosing. That said, I don’t really follow the First Minister’s logic that one million declared Yes votes will deliver a Yes result at the referendum itself.
I am also concerned that this is very much preaching to the converted. Will any floating voters be turned by today’s events? Probably not, there’s plenty for proponents of independence to be gloomy about given the Yes camp seem stuck on 33% support for independence, according to a poll out today (with a biased question according to James Kelly).
However, today wasn’t about winning over the electorate, there’s plenty of time for that and the undecideds will probably wait till the last few weeks before breaking one way or the other. Today is about making some noise and building a base for the SNP + friends to push on from, creating a team that will knock the doors and make the calls that will outpower the opposition. I’m not at all convinced that an equivalent Yes Britain (or No Scotland?) coalition would yield the same zeal and volunteers as today will, though surely something will have to be cobbled together by Darling and Goldie etc at some point down the line to show a united unionist front. Perhaps the Cameo is a more suitable location for an event with some otherwise incompatible walk on parts? Glibness aside, today isn’t a game changer but it shows what one side is able to do whereas the other side can’t. Yet, at least.
As it is, the SNP, the Greens, the Socialists and quite a few Old Labour personalities make for an interesting alliance at this stage of the referendum campaign. Out-labouring Labour may well remain the SNP’s best chances of success in two years’ time, given the political Tory cross-dressing that Ed Miliband will have to do in order to win the 2015 Westminster election, arguably his highest priority, even over keeping Britain together.
Getting a left wing alliance behind a single declaration is a simple straightforward move that may builder a broader alliance. So what is this declaration:
“I believe that it is fundamentally better for us all if decisions about Scotland’s future are taken by the people who care most about Scotland, that is, by the people of Scotland.
Being independent means Scotland’s future will be in Scotland’s hands.
There is no doubt that Scotland has great potential. We are blessed with talent, resources and creativity. We have the opportunity to make our nation a better place to live, for this and future generations. We can build a greener, fairer and more prosperous society that is stronger and more successful than it is today.
I want a Scotland that speaks with her own voice and makes her own unique contribution to the world – a Scotland that stands alongside the other nations on these isles, as an independent nation.
It’s a bit happy-clappy to be fair. There’s nothing in the above that will lance the potent arguments about the Greek Euro issues directly undermining the SNP’s stance of a currency union with no political union, for example. Furthermore, Scotland is already greener and fairer under devolution and there can be no assurances that we’ll be more prosperous and more successful when independent, given that is simply a leap of faith.
The devil is in the detail but the saving grace is the last line. Seeing Scotland standing alongside other nations on the world stage will, I believe, bring untold benefits to Scotland’s ambitions, its confidence and its collective self esteem, which is why I had no hesitation in signing up to the pledge earlier today.
#1 by Commenter on May 25, 2012 - 4:50 pm
“I don’t really follow the First Minister’s logic that one million declared Yes votes will deliver a Yes result at the referendum itself.”
I think the idea is to provide social proof, generate a groundswell and all that jazz. I was not enthused by the launch, or what bits of it I gleaned from the live feed, but it’s only the start, I suppose.
#2 by Doug Daniel on May 25, 2012 - 5:00 pm
The launch of the No campaign (or Yes UK or whatever it will be called) is going to be interesting to see. Regardless of what cynics on Twitter said about it, the speeches from Canavan, Brennan and Cox in particular were stirring stuff. Even those who didn’t agree with them would surely have to acknowledge the passion they displayed as they talked. I just don’t see how the No campaign are going to match that. They’re going to have to try and talk up Scotland’s prospects within the union, but it’s going to look a teensy bit absurd against the backdrop of the reality of what the Tories-Lib Dem coalition are doing.
The impressive thing about today was that the two (current) politicians took up just four minutes in total of the launch. I can think of plenty of unionist politicians who will gladly say their piece for why Scotland can’t “tear itself away” from the union, but who will match the rest? Which respected cultural figures will speak up for the union? Which left-wing legend will speak up for the union? And how will they manage to sell an idea of hope through continuing a union that is becoming more and more removed from Scotland’s needs?
Incidentally, glad you agree in regards to the Prometheus poster remarks. I was 126 miles away, and I could still feel the excitement building – and here’s a bunch of journalists making pithy jokes. I think it gives you an insight into their mindset. They don’t understand this at all, they’re hopelessly out of their depth. The whole disagreement-on-one-thing-equates-to-a-split shtick sums it up in a oner for me – the media don’t have a clue how to handle this, because it goes beyond the well-worn narrow party politics that they’re used to.
(Oh, and I see your Greece and raise you a Finland…)
#3 by MJL on May 25, 2012 - 5:03 pm
If the Darling question is biased, then the question proposed by the SNP to go on the ballot is biased also. They are roughly equivalent but opposite. If one is ok to be used then so must the other.
#4 by Commenter on May 25, 2012 - 5:33 pm
It’s not so much biased as *weirdly tautologous*. “I agree that Scotland should be independent from the rest of the UK” or something like that. I mean, an independent Scotland would also be independent from France. On one hand you have a simple non-weird question (with arguable psychological bias) and on the other, a weird question that doesn’t make sense.
#5 by Jeff on May 25, 2012 - 7:42 pm
I see it completely opposite to that actually. The question surely has to explain what Scotland will be independent from? one could say that that is obvious but I would have thought that to be legally watertight then the UK has to be mentioned, a la the Quebec referendum question, for example.
#6 by Doug Daniel on May 25, 2012 - 7:59 pm
If, after two years of campaigning, people go into the voting booths not knowing what the concept of “independence” is, then both campaigns have utterly failed.
Let’s keep it simple:
Independence?
Aye [X]
Naw[ ]
#7 by Gaz on May 26, 2012 - 9:59 am
If we need to be specific, then strictly speaking we are talking about the soveriegnty of our elected institutions, so the question should really be:
“The Scottish Parliament should be Independent from the Parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Agree / Disagree.”
Although this would be ‘fairer’ by the measure of Ian Davidson and Alastair Darling, somehow I don’t think they would like such a precise variation of the question because it strips it completely of the hooks they are relying on to generate a response based on emotion rather than reason.
However, how could the Electoral Commission possibly deny that it is a perfectly legitimate way of putting the question if it was put before them?
The truth is that the Unionists had an opporunity to influence the question during the last parliament but decided instead to block it completely. That may have suited the SNP at the time but that makes it all the more difficult to understand why they did it – unless, of course, they know that the result is far from certain.
They had their chance to have the question put on their terms but they blew it. Now they have to live with the consequences and that is what they are finding so hard to accept.
My advice to them would be to stop complaining about the perfectly fair and clear question as currently proposed or find yourselves dealing with a question that is far more conducive to delivering a YES vote.
#8 by Bill Pickford on May 25, 2012 - 5:39 pm
DD says: “Which respected cultural figures will speak up for the union?”
Howzabout Sir Alex Ferguson and Michelle Moan?
(And no, it’s not a spelling mistake.)
#9 by Jeff on May 25, 2012 - 7:19 pm
They were the two names that sprang to my mind (though I had a different spelling for the latter!)
#10 by Doug Daniel on May 25, 2012 - 7:53 pm
Ferguson maybe, although if his contribution to the Union Terrace Gardens debate is anything to go by, I’m not going to start quaking in my boots. As for Michelle Mone, apart from the fact she’s a businesswoman rather than a cultural figure, what would she say? Her standard line so far is “if you vote for independence, I’m off”, which is hardly a message of inspiration. I can’t see either of them offering up a message of hope for the continuation of the union. And again, how do they trump the likes of Canavan and Brennan anyway?
I’ve just thought of one person that we’ve all overlooked, though – The Big Yin. It’ll be interesting to see if he gets involved…
But then, with “razzmatazz” being the word of the day for unionist politicians, it’ll be a bit hypocritical if they attempt a similar kind of launch anyway.
#11 by Iain Menzies on May 25, 2012 - 8:05 pm
She could suggest that the union is good for tits……
(this comment may be a bit of a gift for you)
#12 by JPJ2 on May 26, 2012 - 12:07 pm
The Big Yin would be completely undermined by his expressed support and admiration of the independence of Ireland………………………so I hope he is daft enough to get involved.
#13 by Indy on May 25, 2012 - 6:54 pm
I enjoyed it but it felt slightly odd as well in a way that I couldn’t quite put my finger on until I read some tweets from Kenny Farquarhson later saying it was a bit 7:84 and meandered into 1980s nostalgia (don’t know if that was a reference to Tommy Brennan). But yes it did really have that feel about it.
I don’t know if that was an actual thing that was planned or if it was just the circumstances, the music, the signing of a Declaration, the poetry, the slightly uncomfortable cross-partiness of it, the politicians restraining their politicalness, the actors and musicians and writers being political. But there was a real sense of continuity from back in the day, you definitely felt echoes of previous such events. Very clever, if it was actually planned to be like that.
Also clever to basically take ownership at this stage of the “Yes” in the Yes campaign. Because it makes it almost inevitable that the unionist side will be called the No campaign – even if they call themselves something like Yes Britain or Yes UK they will still be called the No campaign and who wants to be called that?
So well done, good job all round I thought.
#14 by Iain Menzies on May 25, 2012 - 7:18 pm
I have only seen a little of the coverage of this event.
And I just looked at the tables from yougov.
All things considered I know think that the SNP has a chance of getting what they want.
But that chance amounts to people who would vote no thinking that its in the bag and not turning up.
So erm….God Save the Queen! 😉
#15 by Indy on May 25, 2012 - 7:55 pm
I think everyone involved on either side would agree that around a third of people are a hard Yes, a third are a hard No and a third are either a soft No or undecided.
So it will all come down to swaying the switherers – and that will come down to knowing who they are.
#16 by Iain Menzies on May 25, 2012 - 10:14 pm
Those are numbers i have heard a lot from nats, cant remember ever seeing or hearing a unionist come out with that tho.
And almost every poll comes out with 30-40 yes, and 60-70 no.
So erm….Rule Britannia!
#17 by Indy on May 26, 2012 - 10:35 am
Well they are not going to say that, are they?
Because there is also a phenomenon in politics where are substantial number of voters will vote with what they think is going to be the winning side.
So the unionist camp will be hoping that polls continue to show the same (hard) level of support for indy with a majority for the status quo. While the yes camp will be focusing on shifting the soft Nos/undecideds to a Yes.
It’s why – inevitably – the Yes campaign will be a positive one and the No a negative one.
#18 by JPJ2 on May 26, 2012 - 12:17 pm
Actually the polls don’t. The 33% support for the somewhat biased question asked by Darling excludes the don’t knows and undecideds, so it is akin to saying only 23% support the SNP given the turnout at the last Holyrood election.
The unionists are definely ahead, but fortunately they delude themselves about the extent and solidity of that lead-classic evidence for that is Darling’s wildly incorrect comment that support at 33% for independence is no greater than it was 30 years ago………………….on a like for like basis it was only in the high teens then.
Still, I should and will say litle more about this as rampnat unionist complacency is veru useful to the cause of Scottish independence.
#19 by Sean on May 25, 2012 - 8:21 pm
The thing with the Big Yin is the extraordinary disrespect he’s shown to devolved Scotland’s institutions. Can the NO campaign really have as their heid honcho someone who refers to Holyrood as a ‘wee pretendy parliament’?
#20 by Iain Menzies on May 25, 2012 - 10:16 pm
Who ever suggested Connolly would be the head honcho?
And why should anyone show any respect to the devolved institutions? A helluva lot of the voters dont seem to respect it enough to vote for it.
And since when did scotland become a country that had to doff its cap to a bunch of politicians?
#21 by Richard on May 26, 2012 - 5:08 am
That “wee pretendy parliament” comment is a few years old. I must admit that I was of a similar mind-set way back when. I voted for it though, because even a “wee pretendy parliament” is better than no parliament at all.
Then I saw what could be done with it, with the right will. Who knows, maybe the Big Yin’s views have developed over the years? He has been rather quiet on the subject for a while.
Here is a man who made his name by being uncouth and anti-establishment. What better way to stick it to the man than to choose your own path?
#22 by Nikostratos on May 25, 2012 - 8:24 pm
After two years plus or 24 months or 728 days or 17472 hours of Yes Scotland (a bit twee) or YES YES to the United Kingdom..
Most normal people will be fed up to the back teeth with it all (accept the eye swiveling Nat extremists).
I mean what nut would run a two year election campaign mind The papal election from November 1268 to September 1, 1271 is a close second.
and as in that election I wonders how many voters will die before casting a vote. Its probably one election which could end up with a complete different electorate come balloting day.
And then there could be extended legal complications why
the rocks could melt with the sun before we get a final result.
#23 by Doug Daniel on May 26, 2012 - 12:02 am
Who’s getting elected?
#24 by Richard on May 26, 2012 - 5:02 am
different visions of the future of Scotland?
#25 by Doug Daniel on May 26, 2012 - 3:16 pm
Not even that. The Yes campaign will focus on the different visions of Scotland that we could have under independence, and highlight why they are impossible under the current structure. But even then, we’re not actually voting for any of those visions – we’re just deciding if we want decisions made in Holyrood that are currently made in Westminster.
It’s nae an election, it’s a referendum, and people who treat it like an election (e.g. journalists) are going to be found wanting. Anyway, one has to wonder what it is about the time-scale that worries people like Niko so much…
#26 by Richard on May 26, 2012 - 5:24 pm
I meant a vision of a Scotland where we decide things ourselves versus a vision of a Scotland where we leave such an onerous responsibility to those who know better than us (so they tell us). Yes, it’s weak journalism, but when all the journalists are on the one side, it’s no bad thing for them to be weak.
The only problem I can see with the time scale is that a longer debate increases the chance that some people might get scunnered with the whole business.
#27 by Doug Daniel on May 27, 2012 - 2:31 am
It’s a risk, but a much smaller risk than having the referendum before people have had a chance to really get to grips with the arguments for and against. There are a lot of myths to debunk and false premises to rubbish, and I do think the fact unionists only have fear on their side means their arguments will start to sound tired and boring long before the Yes campaign’s ones.
Friday’s Newsnight was a typical example, where rather than actually discuss the different faces of the Yes campaign that had just launched (even if just to try and chip away at their policy differences), they had Alistair Darling banging on about the currency, teeing up Emily Maitlis to give the 1,278th grilling of an SNP politician about the currency. How many times do people have to hear people trying to differentiate between monetary policy and fiscal policy before they say “actually, I don’t give a toss – if independence can get more money in my pocket, then I don’t care if interest rates are still set in England”?
Negative messages turn people off long before positive ones, and we’re still waiting for that elusive Positive Case For The Union that is going to beat the numerous differing visions the Yes side will put forward…
#28 by Allan on May 26, 2012 - 11:29 am
“I mean what nut would run a two year election campaign”
If you gaze westwards, you will see a country where election campaigns regularaly last 2 years, remind me how long Mitt Romney has been campaigning for again?
#29 by Dr William Reynolds on May 26, 2012 - 6:22 am
Somewhat pessimistic Jeff.The cumulative evidence from all polls indicate that pro and anti independent groups are pretty close.Irrespective of that,I was impressed by the launch of the Yes campaign.I am also encouraged by the broad base of support that spans all dimensions of Scottish Society.The time for narrow party politics has passed.I think that will have be the key to success as Robin McAlpine pointed out recently in Bella Caledonia.
#30 by BM on May 26, 2012 - 6:51 am
No matter what happens, at least we’ve got the theme tune sorted for Euro 2020.
#31 by Nikostratos on May 26, 2012 - 8:49 am
Kevin McKenna
An epiphany lost?
can you lose an epiphany Kevin certainly seems to have
or perhaps he suffered from false epiphany syndrome(FYS)
found most common amongst Nat extremists.
It is highly contagious in cramped beer filled snp meeting rooms but generally wears off when in the clean fresh air
and the return of good old common sense.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/23/scottish-independence-end-of-union
on 20 October 2011 a small epiphany occurred on the banks of the restless River Ness.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/26/kevin-mckenna-union-vote-historically-important
the nationalists should turn away from the easy path of crass populism they have recently begun to follow
Alex Salmond would say(in private of course) crass populism wins elections and has served him well so far.
and looking at the reputable(non snp ) polls Alex needs as much crass populism as possible. Just to reach a creditable second in the Independence vote.
#32 by andrewgraemesmith on May 26, 2012 - 9:53 pm
Does anyone see the irony in the SNP showing off an endorsement from Connery (a confessed wife beater) one month after they dismissed an MSP for hitting his wife?
#33 by Richard on May 27, 2012 - 9:48 am
Type your comment here
1707?
Pingback: Sunshine, snaps and songs – Scotland in the week the Yes campaign launched – Scottish Roundup