Home Tags Posts tagged with "Politics of Scotland"

Politics of Scotland

The cost of independence might just determine the Scottish referendum. David Cheskin/PA
By John Curtice, Strathclyde University

The Scottish independence referendum campaign has now been raging for 18 months, ever since the Yes Scotland (pro-independence) and Better Together (anti-independence) umbrella organisations were launched in the middle of 2012. But according to ScotCen’s latest Scottish Social Attitudes survey, conducted between June and October last year, the campaigns have so far had remarkably little impact.

For a start, the survey, which has been charting Scots’ attitudes towards how they should be governed on every year since the advent of devolution in 1999, suggests the level of support for independence has not shifted significantly during the course of the last year.

Support for the proposition that “Scotland should be independent, separate from the UK” has increased overall from 23% in 2012 to 29% now – but that means it is still three points lower than it was in 2011. Meanwhile, the proportion who agree that “the Scottish parliament should make all decisions for Scotland” (a statement that implies independence) has slipped from 35% in 2012 to 31%. Both figures are close to the 30% who say they “will” or “think they are most likely to” vote Yes in the referendum (while 54% say they are likely to vote No).

Much the same picture emerges when we look under the bonnet and examine what people say when asked how good a deal they think Scotland gets out of the union at present – and whether independence would make any difference. Such changes as have occurred have been small and not entirely consistent. The proportion who think it is England’s economy that benefits most from the union has increased marginally over the last year from 28% to 32%; at the same time, the proportion who thought that independence would make Scotland’s economy better has now slipped from 34% in 2012 to 30% today.

Meanwhile, voters are apparently still just as uncertain what independence would mean as they were 12 months ago. The proportion who say they are “unsure” what would happen if Scotland were to become independent has actually increased from 58% to 64%.

What really matters

So what needs to be done if either side is to shift the balance of public opinion, and voters are to feel that the campaign is actually helping them to make a decision? To find the answer, we can look at which issues actually divide voters into the Yes and No camps – and which do not.

On the one hand, voters’ expectations for the economic consequences of independence are clearly a key factor as they decide how to vote. Among those who think Scotland’s economy would be better under independence, 71% are inclined to vote Yes. On the other side, as many as 86% of those who think Scotland’s economy would be “worse” expect to vote No. Equally, when voters are asked what they would do if they thought they would be £500 a year better off as a result of independence, 52% indicated that they would support the idea. On the other hand, only 15% said they would do so if they thought they would be £500 a year worse off.

The debate has focused heavily on the economy, but also much else besides: the terms and conditions Scotland would have to accept to remain in the European Union, whether the UK government allow an independent Scotland to use the pound, and whether an independent Scotland would be a more equal society that was willing, for example, to spend more on welfare. These are issues on which Yes and No voters hold largely similar views.

While 67% of Yes voters say an independent Scotland should be a member of the European Union, so do 70% of No voters. Not that either side’s voters are very enthusiastic about that prospect: while 57% of Yes voters think Britain should either leave the European Union or at least reduce its powers, so do 63% of No supporters.

Although 39% of No voters who would like an independent Scotland to use the pound are doubtful it will be able to do so in practice, so are 33% of Yes supporters. On welfare, as many as 56% of No voters think benefits for the unemployed are too high and discourage people from finding a job. But so do 46% of Yes supporters.

The choice that Scotland has to make in September is vital to the country’s future. But the debate needs to focus on the economic consequences of independence, rather than remaining in the UK. Spending time on many of the other issues that have so far been prominent in the campaign simply risks wasting time.

John Curtice is co-editor of the British Social Attitudes 30th report. Partial funding for the 2012 Scottish Social Attitudes data reported here was generously provided by the Economic and Social Research Council (grant number ES/K006355/1) and the Electoral Reform Society. Funding for the 2012 British Social Attitudes data came from NatCen Social Research’s own resources. Responsibility for the views expressed lies solely with the author.

The Conversation

This article was originally published at The Conversation.
Read the original article.

Should anything distract from the referendum campaign?

Scotland’s independence debate illuminates an unspoken truth about Britain’s national tensions

by David Gray
Freelance Journalist

The great cacophony created by Scotland’s independence debate has been so deafening you could easily have missed it. In the rush to claim all manner of glories or horrors for Scottish independence, the sabre rattling has all but annihilated a telling silence at the heart of the battle – the curious absence of its political bedfellow, south of the border. Independence for England?

No Debate on the Future of England

No Debate on the
Future of England

It is an idea that contradicts nearly every notion we have about Britain’s biggest nation – as if even considering the concept would confound the emotional, psychological and political instincts which lie at the heart of public debate in these islands.

Merely asking the question throws up a confusion of reactions. A void exists around the subject, and it is only now, as the United Kingdom is forced to consider its future ahead of the Scottish independence referendum, that the idea is exposed a surprisingly potent taboo. It is a taboo born of politics. But it extends far beyond the limited worldview of the political classes, into nearly every facet of public life.

Whether or not independence is right for Scotland has dogged the nation’s chatter, from fireplace to tearoom, from pub to Parliament. Tongues are alive with the meat of the argument, and its nuances, and nearly everyone has an opinion. Barely a day passes when the subject is not grist to the Scottish media – the newspapers and magazines, television and radio fizz with the debate. It has become part of the fabric of daily life, and the spinners and plotters on both sides of the divide are working extremely hard to keep it that way.

Cross the border into England, however, and an entirely different picture emerges. Despite the frenzy created by the Scottish debate, some of which has filtered to other parts of the UK, the concept of independence for England has simply not fired the public imagination. The cultural and political cross-fertilisation which often happens between Scotland and England has resulted here in silence, in a curious void. It is an enigmatic silence, with no immediate explanation.

The Independence High Ground Seized in Scotland

The Independence High Ground
Seized in Scotland

This may in part be due to the nationalistic tendencies of the English far-right, notably the BNP and English Defence League, and whose policies are so offensive to vast majority of English people that ideas of independence, whether by accident or design, have gradually been assimilated into the murky world of proto-fascist campaigns, rallies and high-profile anti-immigration, anti-Islamic and anti-European rhetoric.

By contrast, in Scotland, the independence high ground has been seized by the SNP, a mainstream centre-left party that has been very successful in persuading both socialist-leaning Labour and middle class Liberal Democrat voters to join its ranks, and who could in no way be associated with the extreme views of far-right nationalists in England.

But the activities of small numbers of English fascists and their flag-waving nationalism only shade part of the answer. While their behaviour taints the concept of nationalist politics south of the border, there is no convincing sign that independence for England, as an idea, is likely to break into the mainstream any time soon. And if that were to happen, a democratic party would soon evolve to capture that support, as it did in Scotland. Which begs the question – why not? Why is Middle England so immune to the concept of independence?

Understanding the reasons, which are woven into the fabric of the two nations’ shared history, begins with a bad marriage – or at least, a fractious one. No one – whether for or against Scottish independence, would argue that the bonding of England and Scotland was ever destined to be a Union made in heaven.

The Royal Bank of Scotland came into being as a result of The ill-fated Darien Scheme

The Royal Bank of Scotland
came into being as a result of
The ill-fated Darien Scheme

The record shows that there was rioting in Scotland when the Parliaments north and south of the border merged in 1707. The record also shows that this deeply unpopular Union, signed in secret, was driven partly by Scottish failure, after the economic collapse of the Darien Scheme in Panama. This attempt at colonialism had left Scotland with crippling debt and the nation’s “nobles” realised their woes could be substantially solved by trading Scotland’s sovereignty for a Union with their more powerful, and wealthier, neighbour south of the border.

Ironically, although the Union was born partly of Scottish failure and birthed the idea of Scotland as inferior to its more colonially-successful neighbour, the Scots went on to excel during the golden era of the British Empire, and subsequent Enlightenment, making a stellar contribution out of all proportion to their relatively tiny population.

This story captures an essential element of the national Scottish psyche. Success born of failure – a grandiose, historically-acknowledged triumph from the ashes of humiliating disaster and, here, it was a triumph inextricably bound to notions of “Britishness” and the Union.

Gladstone

Gladstone

But this success, ultimately – and with the rich irony that has often characterised the British experiment, motivated demands for a return to Scottish self-determination. The arguments being made today have their first echo in the late 19th century, during Prime Minister William Gladstone’s era, and sounded again in 1913, and 1979; but then, as today, Scotland’s national sense of pre-eminence, for some, could not be split from a belief that the Union had been the catalyst for this success.

Inevitably, the failure of these campaigns only heightened the sense of duality in Scotland’s national character, and at the start of the 21st century, it is more pronounced than ever. The landslide Scottish election victory of the Scottish National Party in 2011 has only served to heighten this tension, as latest opinion polls show that only around one-third of voters, at most, are convinced by arguments for independence.

No-one would argue, on this basis, that independence is a done deal, and once again, the country is split. Nationalists know they must work hard to convince the one in four undecided voters, while the proportion in favour of the Union – around half of those polled in most surveys, suggests that even if the SNP is successful in winning over more middle ground voters, the final battle in 2014 may be balanced on a knife edge.

It is a scenario that reinforces the history of the Scottish psyche, and the absence of any debate on English independence in 2013 well illustrates a profound difference between the two countries. England is by far the most powerful nation in a Commonwealth of more than 50 countries, and from this perspective, is beholden to nobody. Its psychological development as a nation has tracked a course defined by control and influence on a global scale.

The British Commonwealth

The British Commonwealth

And here lies the crux of the independence argument. Although part of a British Commonwealth, there is no precedence for England seeking independence from a world in which it has no larger power to answer to. Instinctively gravitating towards securing that position and maintaining British influence – illustrated recently by the verbal spat with the Argentinian government over the Falkland Islands – the English national psyche has not been forced to develop in thrall to any outside influence.

Sometimes silence can be as meaningful and revealing as any number of carefully chosen words. In the case of English independence, as a taboo subject in public debate, it says much about that nation’s history, social psychology and unspoken ambition.

That it took another heated argument about Scottish independence to illuminate this truth suggests a conundrum. It shows again how Scotland and England interact, for good or ill, and exposes a virtually impenetrable complexity in the relationship between the two countries – a Union forged in adversity, from unequal forces, and shaped by profound differences in national character.

Whether those differences favour the Union, or an independent Scotland, will always be a matter of opinion. But it seems that a Great British taboo, which lies at the heart of the relationship between Scotland and England, may be one idea that will ultimately help to crystallise, and define, the answer.

Ends (1,323 words).

Scottish constituency map after 5 May 2011 <em>Picture: Barryob</em>

Scottish constituency map after 5 May 2011 Picture: Barryob

If there is a consensus among Labour figures in Scotland, it is that their party will be out of power for at least two more terms – and maybe more.

One former Labour MSP admitted privately last week that she believed her party would lose the next election and possibly even the one after that.

Another Labour figure, one of the many candidates to fail this year, gave a similar prognosis to me today. The next election has already been lost, according to them, and the one after that may also come too early for the party.

Realism or pessimism?

Interestingly, both gave similar reasons for Labour’s likely failure to make headway: “We haven’t anybody who can take on Salmond,” said one.

“There is nobody in the Labour Party who can appeal to the country as a potential leader of Scotland,” said the other.

But it isn’t just the Salmond factor. They both agreed that, if Alex Salmond were to stand down today, Nicola Sturgeon, his deputy, would lead the Nationalists to another election success, such is the paucity of options and ideas coming out of Labour north of the border.

The key to this, according to senior figures in the party, is independence: or, rather, Labour’s lack of an alternative to the SNP’s independence message.

“We haven’t come up with a coherent response and we haven’t got anybody to articulate it, even if we did,” said the failed candidate.

So what does Labour have to do?

It has to reinvent itself, completely and utterly. There is – at last – a general acceptance within Labour that the party has to learn the lessons of its defeat in the 2007 election. This includes an acknowledgement that the party failed to do so after 2007. Then, there was a general feeling that the SNP “had got lucky” by scraping home by one seat – and that tiny advantage (less than one per cent of the vote) would be overturned in 2011, when normal service would be resumed.

When that failed to happen in such spectacular style this year, the lesson did, eventually, hit home.

The party needs a new leader and it will get one: probably with Jackie Baillie.

Ms Baillie is a good, competent, experienced Holyrood stalwart. She will do well to start the change process that Labour needs – but, if the general assessment that Labour will be out of power for at least two terms is correct, she will not be the one to lead the party back to power.

It may depress her to admit it, but she may have to be the “Kinnock” for Scottish Labour, the person who initiates difficult reforms and paves the way for the Blair who will actually win.

Who that winner is, though, is hard to spot. To give the new intake their due, they haven’t yet had the chance to shine in parliament and someone may emerge as a potential leader in waiting – but there does seem to be a dearth of quality in Labour ranks.

John Park was being tipped by many as a future leader as soon as he entered parliament. He is well liked inside and outside the Labour movement – but, by masterminding Labour’s disastrous election campaign this year, he will find it difficult to recover.

There has been talk of parachuting in a heavyweight from Westminster, such as Alistair Darling, but that would only be a short-term fix. Labour needs to nurture and develop its leaders of tomorrow and it needs to start doing it now, otherwise it will find itself behind the SNP for the foreseeable future.

But the question of independence is also key.

Labour has to find a way of articulating its opposition to independence in a populist and popular way: something it has been unable to do up to now. That means making a positive case for the Union, not just banging on about an “expensive divorce”.

Mr Salmond was right when he told The Caledonian Mercury that a positive campaign would beat a negative campaign every time. That will be the way the SNP will fight the referendum campaign. It will be positive, it will be forward-looking and it will paint a picture of Scotland forging a new path in the world.

Labour have to find a way of combating that with an equally positive message for staying in the Union. If not, then it won’t matter who the leader is because, by the time Labour gets the chance to run the Scottish government again, it will be in an independent country.

The party will be helped, along the way, by Westminster elections and the tendency of many voters to back Labour for Westminster and the SNP for Holyrood, but it can’t rely on that to resurrect its fortunes.

Labour is in a mess – but, to its (limited) advantage, it has been is similar messes before: notably in 1979. It reformed, changed, became modern and, crucially, stood on a positive message.

Labour in Scotland has to do all these things and more if it is to recover.

Donate to us: support independent, intelligent, in-depth Scottish journalism from just 3p a day

Westminster: missing the point

Westminster: missing the point

Like a rather sluggish giant, England has just woken up to the prospect of Scottish independence. London’s media and political establishment has roared and hit out at Scottish independence, warning of the destruction of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and everything related to these concepts.

Unfortunately, but perhaps not surprisingly, a lot of the commentators and the politicians at Westminster are some way behind the curve on this issue.

They are debating, fighting and challenging constitutional arguments that were current a decade ago but which are not topical today.

To be fair, they are not the only ones. There are Scottish nationalists too who perhaps do not realise that Alex Salmond has nipped out during the night and shifted the goalposts. The First Minister’s view of Scottish independence is, now, radically different to the one the SNP espoused in the early 1990s and some way from that being punted by the SNP even a few years ago.

The first to highlight this was SNP policy adviser Stephen Noon. If anyone in the nationalist movement doesn’t know who Mr Noon is, they should do: he is the brains at the heart of the SNP in government and if he suggests, as he does, that the SNP is pursuing a different, softer approach to independence then that is indeed what is happening.

Mr Noon wrote a blog on Tuesday, Stronger Together as Equals, making it clear that “separatism” is not on the SNP’s agenda and that everything was about “partnership” with England.

Angus MacLeod then delved a little deeper in the Times yesterday, using an analysis column to explain what senior SNP sources had told him: that Scottish independence was entirely compatible with some form of set payment from the Scottish to the English Government, covering such items as defence and the diplomatic service, which would be retained for the UK and run by London, as they are now.

The Professor James Mitchell of Strathclyde University put even more meat on the bones of this new, less aggressive form of independence. He interviewed 80 senior nationalist politicians, at length, to discover what they meant by independence.

Quoted in the Times today, Prof Mitchell said: “I was surprised by just how pragmatic the senior members were in terms of what they understood independence to mean. I would describe what they are thinking about as being much more of a confederate arrangement within these islands than the traditional concept of independence.”

It is this quasi-federal nature of the relationship between Scotland and England which seems to have become the focus of the SNP’s new approach.

At its heart, this new approach would involve the handing upwards of certain powers, over defence, macro-economic management and foreign affairs to run on behalf of both countries, as is done now.

The major difference is that this would be at the discretion of the smaller country which would hand over money to pay for them, not have that money held back – as is the case at the moment.

“One senior figure said to me that provided Scotland had the right to pull out of any sharing arrangement at any time, he would be quite happy to share a whole range of services,” Prof Mitchell told the Times.

This does tend to reinforce the view that independence and unionism are not poles apart and separated by an ideological divide. Rather that extreme unionism and extreme nationalism are at opposite ends of a spectrum with many different (and subtly nuanced) variations dotted out between them, ranging from the current devolution settlement, through fiscal accountability, fiscal autonomy, federalism, independence-lite to old-fashioned, complete separatism.

The key message from Mr Noon and highlighted with academic rigour by Prof Mitchell suggests that Alex Salmond’s version of independence has shifted along this spectrum for both practical and electoral reasons.

He knows that when the Scottish people come to have their say on the issue of independence, they are much more likely to vote for something that retains some kind of link (however tenuous) to the old United Kingdom than complete separation.

It is also now clear that many of the unionist commentators and politicians in London have yet to catch up with the new arguments and, unless they do, they will be left behind and stand little chance of winning the real battle when it is launched in earnest by the referendum bill.

SNP MSPs en masse, 7 May 2011

SNP MSPs en masse, 7 May 2011

By James Browne

Scottish first minister Alex Salmond met his new parliamentary colleagues today – some of them for the first time.

“I’d like to say I knew everybody in the new group,” Mr Salmond said, “but I signed an autograph for one a moment ago and I thought they were a member of the public.”

Mr Salmond held a photocall with all the other 68 SNP MSPs on the grass ouside the Holyrood parliament, before the first parliamentary group meeting which was designed to set out the priorities for the SNP in government.

Mr Salmond talked through various issues with the prime minister, David Cameron, on the telephone and hopes to secure coalition backing for an extension to the powers of the Scottish parliament through the Scotland Bill as his first and most immediate priority.

msps03

Want to discuss other issues? Join the debate on our new Scottish Voices forum

<em>Picture: Gorriti</em>

Picture: Gorriti

By James Browne

According to a TNS-BRMB poll for STV, the SNP and Greens are on course for a total of 69 seats in the Scottish Parliament, giving pro-independence parties an absolute majority.

But before independentistas crack open the Smoked Salmond cocktails (one part champagne, one part Ardbeg and a dash of Diet Irn Bru), it’s worth noting that everyone – left, right, Nationalist, Unionist, Green, orange and pink – is pouring buckets of cold water on the survey.

It might be a “rogue poll”. It is out of sync with others. No poll can ever give a truly accurate picture of how the constituency seats will play out. There might be huge variations in who actually bothers to vote. And nobody is sure how the constituency/list balance will work for the SNP. Remember: the Holyrood setup makes it very hard for any one party (especially the SNP) to gain total control.

Well, we shall see.

Only an idiot would make predictions this close to polling day. But I feel that makes me particularly qualified to make predictions: Labour are about to have a huge can of whupass opened all over them and the Lib Dems will be marginally less extinct than Liopleurodon pachydeirus.

In the meantime, let’s indulge in what Peter Snow would have called “just a bit of fun”.

If the pro-independence parties: the SNP, Greens and, please God, Margo, are in the driving seat they should go for the referendum on Day One.

The Lib Dems (or Lib Dem if things go really badly for them) will be busy licking their wounds and wondering why they sold their souls for a referendum they could never win on a voting system they don’t want.

Labour will be busy looking for a Scottish leader. The far from prodigious pool of talent on the Scottish benches should make this an entertaining spectator sport, rich in comedic possibility. The “big hitters” brought in to boost the campaign – Gordon Brown and Ed Balls – show that Labour is the party that charm forgot.

Its strategists might also take some time out from trying to tell the difference between their humerus and illium to ponder the wisdom of the parliamentary “Unionist alliance” to thwart the SNP. Traditionally, Labour voters (as opposed to activists) view the Tories as the enemy, not the Nats.

And the Labour message that David Cameron wants us to vote SNP to hurt Ed Miliband is flawed and facile. The problem is that if enough Scots vote for pro-independence parties then Cameron ceases to be our problem.

It was all summed up for me by this Labour press release: “Alex Salmond’s obsession with independence puts recovery at risk.” it was prefigured by “Balls:”. Indeed…

The Tories will have a cracking Scottish election in their terms, which means not losing too many seats and remaining on the periphery of Scottish life.

In short, the Unionist parties will be in disarray. The Scottish people will have clearly shown that they reject the Westminster way of doing things. Scotland will have shown its distaste for Tory (and Lib Dem) government.

If that STV poll is right, then there will never be a better moment for an independence referendum.

But it’s only a rogue poll, of course.

Probably…

Jobs dominated the political communications yesterday, as first minister Alex Salmond outlined the SNP’s vision for reindustrialising Scotland by meeting the party’s target of 130,000 jobs in the low-carbon sector by 2020.

A word cloud showing the most common words across all of yesterday's press releases. The larger the word, the more it was used.

A word cloud showing the most common words across all of yesterday's press releases. The larger the word, the more it was used.

Speaking on a campaign visit to Steel Engineering Ltd in Renfrew, Mr Salmond said:

“By 2020, our target is to have 130,000 jobs in the low carbon sector. That is a goal which will see the reindustrialisation of Scotland on a huge scale – and just as our shipyards were the workshop of the world in the 19th century, the green energy revolution gives us the chance to become the hi-tech workshop of the world in the 21st century.

Also raising jobs‘ profile, SNP candidate for Aberdeen Central, Kevin Stewart, said Ed Balls had blundered by exposing Labour dishonesty on the issue of changes to offshore oil taxation.

Mr Balls is quoted in the Press & Journal saying the oil tax changes were a mistake but when a vote to oppose those tax changes was held in the UK parliament on 29 March 2011 he failed to vote against them despite voting in two other divisions.

Commenting Mr Stewart said:

“Ed Balls came north to lecture Scots about their country but has now been caught out being dishonest about Labour’s position on oil tax. It is hypocrisy for him to say he now opposes a tax on oil jobs when he failed to try and stop it in a key vote.

“It yet again shows why no-one can trust a word Labour says – that the rhetoric doesn’t meet the reality.”

Labour accused the SNP of the same, however, as it emerged that a flagship SNP council has been forced to admit that compulsory redundancies have not only been made in the last year, but the option cannot be entirely ruled out.

The SNP manifesto states that the party is “committed to a policy of no compulsory redundancies”.

However, documents released by Fife council reveal that the SNP-led administration in Fife made 191 compulsory redundancies last year alone.

As part of plans to axe around 500 staff in a bid to save £16 million over the next year, SNP council leader Peter Grant has admitted that “there will be occasions when compulsory redundancies can’t be avoided” and Sharon McKenzie, Fife council’s human resources manager, has said that “redundancies can’t always be confined to the volunteer pool.”

Scottish Labour’s candidate in Mid Fife and Glenrothes, Claire Baker, said:

“This latest revelation comes as a humiliating blow to one of the SNP’s key election pledges. It speaks volumes that one of the SNP’s flagship councils has already made almost 200 compulsory redundancies and is now admitting that more are on the table.”

Next on the word cloud are the two largest parties’ leaders with Alex, Salmond, Iain and Gray placing unusually highly. The appearance of both leaders’ names is linked to the rather odd appearance of asda, and supermarket – both of which appear on the right of our cloud – as the supermarket’s Ardrossan branch was the site of a clash between the two parties.

Both men were campaigning in Ardrossan last night, when Iain Gray and his campaign team stopped at an Asda supermarket to pick up some provisions on the way to a public meeting in Ardrossan Civic Centre.

Unbeknown to them, Alex Salmond was campaigning in the same supermarket – but Labour claim that he was ushered up the aisles and kept shielded from Mr Gray.

Scottish Labour Leader Iain Gray said:

“If I’d have known Alex Salmond was there, I’d have gone up and asked him why he is hiding his date for an independence referendum. Sadly he was kept well hidden until I’d left.”

The SNP tell it differently, claiming that it was Iain Gray, not Mr Salmond who fled the store after being approached by the local newspaper.

SNP campaign manager Angus Robertson commented on footage taken by Kevin Paterson, reporting for the Ardrossan Herald, which shows Iain Gray leaving the store, turning to avoid an SNP activist and ignoring a question from someone in the shop asking “are you not hanging about?”

Mr Roberston said:

“This footage makes an absolute mockery of the claims in a Labour press release issued this morning and raises serious questions about the negativity, dirty tricks and misinformation at the heart of Labour’s “re-launched” campaign.”

Mr Gray’s comment referred to Labour’s call for the SNP to name the date of their proposed referendum on independence. The Scottish Labour leader called for the SNP to reveal their date saying:

“Don’t hide your plan for independence. Tell Scotland the date you want to hold the referendum and tell us today.

“Don’t hide behind the pathetic excuse that it would be a ‘mistake’ to reveal the date you already know. If Labour forms the next government, we will not be distracted by a constant campaign to break up the UK. It will be jobs, jobs, jobs and jobs again.”

Services, local and communities appear as Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Tavish Scott joined Alison Hay, Scottish Liberal Democrat candidate for Argyll and Bute and Alan Reid, Liberal Democrat MP for Argyll and Bute at Connel post office in Oban to campaign on the party’s plan to continue the Post Office Diversification Fund.

Commenting, Tavish Scott said:

“The Connel post office is a local store, cafe, paper shop and a post office. We want to see more post offices growing their businesses and cementing their place at their heart of their local community.

“They are a genuine lifeline for many vulnerable and older people in particular. We need to protect these services.”

Scottish Greens dismissed this claim, however, pointing to the privatisation of Royal Mail being championed by Vince Cable.

Legislation to enable Royal Mail to be privatised is just weeks away from completing its passage through Westminster. Greens argue that the Royal Mail is a vital public service that should stay in public hands.

Patrick Harvie, the Greens’ top candidate in Glasgow, said:

“It’s bare-faced cheek for Liberal Democrats to be posing outside post offices pretending to care about them while Uncle Vince in Westminster is getting ready to sell off the Royal Mail for a short-term profit. It’s time for the Lib Dems to understand that we are talking about a genuine public service, not just some indistinguishable commercial operation, and that if they had any principles whatsoever they’d be opposing these daft plans.”

Also campaigning for better local services, Scottish Conservatives unveiled plans for another round of town centre regeneration funding, totalling £140m over the course of the next Scottish parliament.

In the last parliament, Scottish Conservatives delivered a £60m Town Centre Regeneration Fund, which benefited communities the length and breadth of Scotland.

Speaking from Peterhead Harbour in Banffshire & Buchan Coast, where she was joined by local candidate Michael Watt, Annabel Goldie, Scottish Conservative leader, said:

“Scottish Conservatives pledged a Town Centre Regeneration Fund in our last manifesto and we delivered. We delivered £60m of help to town centres and high streets across Scotland, despite Labour and the Lib Dems trying to vote it down.

“That is real help in these tough times and, because we have taken difficult decisions, we can do more to boost local economies and give people more pride in their community.”

We’ve analysed all of yesterday’s press communications, from each of the five parties, to pick out the main topics of discussion and generate today’s CalMerc Cloud. The larger the word, the more often it was used across all of the press releases. The topic of the day was renewable energy targets and policies, with renewable, energy, electricity, power and renewables all dominating our cloud and appearing in releases from every main party with the exception of the Scottish Conservatives.

Today's cloud, with Scottish, Scotland, Scotland's, Support and the five party names removed

Today's cloud, with Scottish, Scotland, Scotland's, Support and the five party names removed, as these all appear numerous times in almost every press release.

First minister Alex Salmond welcomed support for the party’s green energy targets from leading industry figures, and said that the goal of generating the equivalent of 100 per cent of Scotland’s own electricity needs from renewable sources by 2020 would give confidence to companies ensuring further investment and jobs in the sector, which in turn will power the re-industrialisation of Scotland.

Seven of the green energy sector’s most influential leaders have backed the SNP’s manifesto pledge in an open letter, in which they say it is a “vital step” in the creation of a sustainable low-carbon economy. The endorsement comes as the SNP publishes a paper giving a detailed breakdown of how the 100 per cent renewables target can be achieved.

Welcoming the industry backing for the policy, Mr Salmond said:

“This is very welcome backing for the SNP’s renewable energy target from some of the leading figures in the industry.

“Our goal of generating 100 per cent of Scotland’s own electricity demand from renewable sources by 2020 is ambitious but achievable. It will mean that by that date Scotland will be producing around double the electricity we need, with just over half of that coming from renewable power and the rest from other sources.”

Contradicting the SNP, Scottish Labour challenged them to answer 20 questions on how they plan to produce 100 per cent of the electricity from renewables by 2020, citing other industry figures who derided SNP claims as “unrealistic”, “undesirable”, “utter nonsense” and “cloud cuckoo land”.

Scottish Labour’s energy spokesperson and candidate for Aberdeen Central, Lewis Macdonald, said:

“We must set ambitious renewable energy targets, but Alex Salmond’s pledge has been debunked by industry leaders as a lot of hot air and comes from a party that failed in government to process many applications for new wind and hydro power projects.”

The Liberal Democrats also had the environment at the forefront of their campaign yesterday. Commenting on Environment LINK’s calls for prospective MSPs to declare their commitment to helping reverse the declining health and biological diversity of our seas, Liberal Democrat environment spokesman Liam McArthur said:

“The Marine (Scotland) Act provides a framework which will help balance competing demands on Scotland’s seas. It introduces a duty to protect and where appropriate enhance the marine environment and includes measures to help boost investment and growth in areas such as marine renewables.

“We are committed to ensuring that the Act fulfils its promise.”

And the Scottish Greens launched a mini-manifesto for the rural economy yesterday with a visit by the party’s co-convenors Eleanor Scott and Patrick Harvie to Macleod Organics in Ardersier.

Included in the mini-manifesto is the Greens’ plan to support Scotland’s rural economy by establishing a new £80 million a year fund to support small farmers, crofters and new entrants.

Patrick Harvie said:

“Hundreds of millions of pounds is handed out to Scotland’s big landowners and industrial agribusiness each year, yet organic and sustainable food production for strong local food networks remains the best future for this country’s agricultural sector. That’s why we want to work with the NFUS and others to agree the best way to support small farmers, crofters and new entrants through a new fund worth £80 million for each year of the next session of the Scottish parliament.”

Council tax was the other hot topic of the day, with the SNP, Labour and Conservatives contributing local, freeze, council and tax to the word cloud in response to a poll in yesterday’s Scotsman.

The Scottish National Party welcomed the results of the YouGov poll which finds that 75 per cent of people support “the continuation of the council tax freeze”, with only 19 per cent opposed.

Finance secretary and SNP candidate for Perthshire North, John Swinney, said:

“This is an excellent poll, showing that re-electing the SNP government reflects the priorities of the people of Scotland.”

Labour, however, hailed the poll as proof that the SNP’s policy of creating a local income tax to replace council tax is ill-fated and should be scrapped.

Scottish Labour leader, Iain Gray, said:

“This is a damning indictment of the SNP’s plans to make Scotland the highest taxed part of the UK. Almost 90 per cent oppose the level at which local income tax would have to be set, so it is no wonder the SNP resorted to the courts in a desperate bit to hide the true cost of their tax.”

Scottish Labour’s finance spokesman, Andy Kerr, said:

“Labour understands that times are tough, bills are rising and families are feeling the squeeze, that’s why Labour has pledged to freeze the council tax. But unlike the Nationalists, Labour will fund the council tax freeze properly so we don’t see council’s cutting services, higher charges for services people depend on, public sector workers losing their jobs and a five year pay freeze for the public sector.”

Derek Brownlee, Scottish Conservative finance spokesperson, said only the Scottish Conservatives had a fully costed plan for a further freeze :

“This poll confirms what we already know – a council tax freeze is hugely popular. That is why Labour, despite having voted against the freeze in the last parliament, panicked a few weeks ago and cobbled together a new council tax policy – one that had been written on the back of an envelope and just hadn’t been costed.”

“Likewise, the SNP has promised a five-year council tax freeze without demonstrating how they would pay for it. Both parties are indulging in fantasy economics.

“By contrast, all Scottish Conservative proposals – including a council tax freeze until at least 2013 and an annual £200 council tax discount for all pensioner households – are fully costed as part of our comprehensive spending plans for the next four years.”

Finally, the last of the largest words come from clashes over knife-crime policy between SNP and Labour. Knife and crime appear as Iain Gray highlighted his pledge to take tough action on knife crime as Labour unveiled a new a new poster promoting Labour’s “Carry A Knife – Go To Jail” – knife-crime pledge.

Mr Gray joined knife crime campaigner John Muir and South of Scotland Labour candidate Graeme Pearson to unveil a campaign poster in Greenock.

Mr Gray said:

“Over 30,000 Scots have signed our anti-knife crime petition and many, many more have signed petitions by campaigners like John Muir. Knife murders increased by 56 per cent in Strathclyde in the last year and knives remain the most common cause of homicide across Scotland.

“Alex Salmond’s attitude to knife crime has been complacent, the Tories have flip-flopped and only Labour will take the tough action necessary to get knives off our streets.”

In response, Kenny MacAskill, Justice Secretary and SNP candidate for Edinburgh Eastern, said Labour’s proposals had collapsed as soon as they had been subjected to any detailed scrutiny or expert analysis.

Mr MacAskill said:

“Labour’s flagship policy on knife crime has collapsed as soon as it has been exposed to any scrutiny – it is unworkable, uncosted and contradictory, and has been left totally discredited by the experts. The police say it won’t work, the prison officers say it is not credible and dangerous – and even Labour themselves have been forced to admit it wouldn’t actually involve mandatory jail terms.”

123...12Next Page 1 of 12
©