by Christian Wright

updated May 6 2015

Electoral Calculus’ final meta analysis

Labour’s public, “Go on punk, make my day – vote us down if you dare!”, challenge to the SNP is a recipe for absolute disaster for Labour and for the Union.

Two parliaments, two prime ministers, one house. That’s where this bit of machismo leads.

The response of the SNP would be to say, uh, OK we’ll not bring your government down. We will support you in the initial confidence vote so that you can form a minority government. We will support you in the event of a no confidence vote should one be tabled at any time.

We will support you in matters of defence and foreign affairs (unless you propose something daft, like renewing Trident, where the Tories will vote with Labour). We will support you in those votes where Scotland’s vital interests are at stake.

Other than that, in the case of English-only legislation, being mindful of the inequity perceived by other members of this House and by the English electorate at large, we will continue our time-honoured practice of abstaining from voting.

Now, you can’t say fairer than that, right? Wrong!

The effect of this strategy would be:

1. To have in UK matters, Ed Miliband calling the shots, installed as British Prime Minister in the UK Parliament, propped up by the SNP.

2. In England-only matters, where the Tories can command a majority with others parties, David Cameron, de facto Prime Minister of England in an English parliament.

Two parliaments, two prime ministers, one house. And we all know that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Contrary to chattering class analysis, my inner Yoda tells me Miliband by the short and curlies Sturgeon has.

by Christian Wright

Prime Minister David Cameron met with Sony Pictures representatives 2 1/2 months before indyref to discuss the impending release in Britain of the Outlander series, according to WIKILEAKS. The series premier broadcast was inexplicably delayed here until after the referendum.

The Outlander series is set in Scotland in 1743 and it explores among other things the relationships and attitudes of British occupying military forces toward the local population. The picture painted is often one of British repression and brutality borne of visceral contempt for Scots.

It seems there were no limits to which HMG would not go to subvert the referendum campaign while simultaneously the Prime Minister told the Nation independence was entirely a mattter for the Scots.

Eight months before the referendum vote, diplomatic cables had revealed, that Cameron was conspiring with 34 foreign governments to traduce the Scottish Government and to publicly oppose Scottish independence. HMG was also caught planting negative stories in foreign newspapers, implying the Scots were not capable of self governance.

In part the Sony Pictures document reads:

“From a SPE perspective, your meeting with Prime Minister Cameron on Monday will likely focus on our overall investment in the U.K. – with special emphasis on… the importance of OUTLANDER (i.e., particularly vis-à-vis the political issues in the U.K. as Scotland contemplates detachment this Fall).” emphisis added

by Christian Wright

Uh guys, both Cameron and Miliband have unambiguously ruled out DevoMax/FFA. It ain’t gonna happen and we all know why – and it has nothing to do with an alleged £7.5b hole.

FFA is inherently unstable when kludged on to an otherwise unreformed unitary state (without a supporting federal infrastructure). It is a dagger at the heart of Unionism and there is no chance of Westminster relinquishing its sovereignty to enable federalism just for the sake of placating the sweaty socks.

Given that DevoMax/FFA is a non-starter in the next parliament due to Unionist intransigence, why are the Nationalists allowing ProjectFear 2.0 to use it as a stick with which to beat them? Take that stick away from them.

Issue a statement:

“Both Labour and the Tories have stated that they will not under any circumstances enable any legislation supportive of FFA – that is the reality. At Westminster, the SNP will continue to work in the best interests of Scotland and its people mindful of that constraint.”

Game over.

We need as many bums on seats at Westminster as possible. For now until at least May 7, DevoMax/FFA is naught but an interesting hypothetical. It’s not on the table.

by Christian Wright

Sturgeon Wins again. YouGov poll confirms Survation poll results

The result they’re not telling you about

YouGov poll on opposition leaders debate Sample Size: 1780 GB Adults Fieldwork: 17th – 18th April 2015

Which leader do you think came across best in the debate? 

Nicola Sturgeon 30%
Ed Miliband 27%
Nigel Farage 17%
Leanne Wood 3%
Natalie Bennett 3%

SURVATION UK-WIDE POLL

“Putting aside your own party preference and basing your answer on what you saw or heard during the programme, which one of the 5 leaders do you think performed the ‘best’? :”

Nicola Sturgeon 35.2%
Ed Miliband 29.3%
Nigel Farage 25.5%
Natalie Bennett 5.3%
Leanne Wood 4.7%

Survation poll Scottish sub-sample
Who do you think ‘won’ the debate?
Nicola Sturgeon 67.9%
Ed Miliband 17.4%
Nigel Farage 8.5%
Natalie Bennett 5.2%
Leanne Wood 1.1%

.Sisters are doing it for themselves!.

Well, post poll party for us at the weourselves.com World Headquarters in beautiful downtown Auchtermuchty

.

by Christian Wright

Alex Massie, one of the Spectator’s house trained pet jocks pontificates in his latest sermon from the pulpit on the nature of the SNP, Scottish nationalism, and Scottish Nationalists:

“… how do you defeat a faith-based party whose voters are animated by quasi-religious zealotry?”

“This helps explain why, according to YouGov, 56 per cent of SNP voters believe collapsing oil prices are ‘neither good nor bad’ for Scotland. It helps explain why so many Scottish voters are prepared to buy the idea that Scotland contributes more, per capita, in tax revenue than the UK average while ignoring the inconvenient reality that it also receives much more per capita than it contributes. These too are just numbers.”

Now, this tells us far more about Massie than it does about the Nationalist psyche. Massie, like others of his ilk, is not a journalist, he is a pontificator who deals in truthiness.

The data are indisputable that over the past four plus decades, Scotland’s contribution to the UK has exceeded what it has received back in pocket money by many tens of billions of pounds.

As the Herald noted 

1997: “Mr William Waldegrave, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has been forced to concede figures in Commons questioning in recent months, which show that if Scotland’s share of North Sea revenues had been allocated since 1979, then the net flow in favour of the Treasury from north of the Border ran to £27bn.”

That figure was later corrected to THIRTY ONE BILLION POUNDS

And as recently as 2013 Denis Healey admitted that the Thatcher boom was funded by Scottish oil that alone accounted for 5% of UK GDP in the Eighties. In an interview with Holyrood magazine he said:

“I think we did underplay the value of the oil to the country because of the threat of nationalism but that was mainly down to Thatcher. Thatcher wouldn’t have been able to carry out any of her policies without that additional 5% on GDP from oil.”

Massie again: ‘.. how do you defeat a faith-based party [SNP] whose voters are animated by quasi-religious zealotry?”

This from the Fundamental Unionist who went on a jihad to save us all from the break-up of Britain. Yet when asked repeatedly by we ourselves and many others to articulate his positive substantive case for Scotland remaining in union with England, the extremist McHadi journo couldn’t do it.

For Massie Unionism is an article of faith – full stop. He believes in it . . . well, because he does. He cannot offer a rationale.

Alex Massie should meditate on the fact that the eye sees not itself but by reflection. If he wants to find a swivel-eyed quasi-religious political fanatic fueled by blind faith in a cause, he need look no further than the nearest mirror.