60% Yes For A Year

[Toepoke]

Will this rule out another referendum for a generation after all?

http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/13877169.SNP_want_polls_to_show_60__support_for_independence_for_a_whole_year_before_calling_referendum/

Edited October 19, 2015 by Admin4
Title edited

[ErsatzThistle]

I'd wait for 55% and take the risk.

[McDange]

Has there been an official new Yes Scotland campaign or equivalent launched to work on achieving this?

[derekfaejapan]

Has there been an official new Yes Scotland campaign or equivalent launched to work on achieving this?

Good point.

[Clyde1998]

I doubt we'll get to 60% - without a big push. Independence was generally in the mid-to-low 30s before the referendum and the campaign caused people to move to Yes.

The situation couldn't be better either - a majority Tory Government, a majority SNP Government and the SNP holding nearly every Westminster seat. Who would form - and lead - the No campaign?

I see this as the SNP dodging the issue - in the short term, anyway.

[ParisInAKilt]

Can't ever see a poll delivering 60%

Sort out the currency Q instead

[thplinth]

Completely agree with this.

1. Can't afford another No vote.

2. Need a decent margin in favour - can't win with 51% not enough given the animosity shown last year from the No's

3. Need a decent lead because all hell will be let loose just like it was the last time we got a lead in the polls. A narrow lead can be reduced by another media onslaught of fear mongering led by the BBC and the Murdoch press.

4. Calling a another referendum without a clear majority in favour - why would you do that. The 1st time nobody knew what would happen (and I still think we would have won had it been a fair contest) but to do again is just daft. Next time there has to be clear majority who want it.

[Dave78]

I see this as the SNP dodging the issue - in the short term, anyway.

What's the alternative?

There's no way the Tories would agree to a 2nd one so soon. 'Once in a generation' etc etc....

So would you want the SNP hold a 'consultative' referendum in 2016/2017? Win that narrowly (maybe.... and even then the No side will boycott it, making it invalid).

And we end up in a Catalan style quagmire.

[aaid]

Can't ever see a poll delivering 60%

Sort out the currency Q instead

You're kind of missing the point, the polls won't get to 60% on their own.

Two things will influence the polls, external factors such as a BRexit or how the Tories behave in Westminster but more importantly strengthening the arguments for and countering the arguments against.

If you can give people less reason to vote no, then that's what will be reflected in the polls.

[scotlad]

I'd wait for 55% and take the risk.

55% is the smallest lead I would go again on. I can't see any poll showing 60% support for Yes anytime in the near future though.

Has there been an official new Yes Scotland campaign or equivalent launched to work on achieving this?

This is the tricky part. I am starting to notice people becoming entrenched in their viewpoint; that goes for both sides. If Yes is to win it has to people over. Factionalising people into 'nationalists' and 'unionists' certainly won't help.

[Clyde1998]

What's the alternative?

There's no way the Tories would agree to a 2nd one so soon. 'Once in a generation' etc etc....

So would you want the SNP hold a 'consultative' referendum in 2016/2017? Win that narrowly (maybe.... and even then the No side will boycott it, making it invalid).

And we end up in a Catalan style quagmire.

I'm not saying there is an alternative to put it off, but the Parti Quebecois waited for 'a favourable opportunity' and it never came. Using a 60% polling threshold isn't what we should be having as the triggers - a lower threshold should be used (if we use polling at all). Material change triggers should be the only causes for a second referendum in the short term - ie UK withdrawing from EU against Scotland's will.

The SNP shouldn't be required to have UK government approval, anyway - doesn't Holyrood have control over elections?

[AlfieMoon]

You're kind of missing the point, the polls won't get to 60% on their own.

Two things will influence the polls, external factors such as a BRexit or how the Tories behave in Westminster but more importantly strengthening the arguments for and countering the arguments against.

If you can give people less reason to vote no, then that's what will be reflected in the polls.

How many net new voters do we roughly tend to get from kids turning 16?

Anyone know?

I'm not saying there is an alternative to put it off, but the Parti Quebecois waited for 'a favourable opportunity' and it never came. Using a 60% polling threshold isn't what we should be having as the triggers - a lower threshold should be used (if we use polling at all). Material change triggers should be the only causes for a second referendum in the short term - ie UK withdrawing from EU against Scotland's will.

The SNP shouldn't be required to have UK government approval, anyway - doesn't Holyrood have control over elections?

The 60% figure isn't fixed but it is the sensible approximate level of support that is required. There's too much at stake to lose in another referendum.

Brian Taylor and John Curtice were both in agreement about this discussion this morning and also both acknowledged that it isn't exactly a fixed marker. If Yes had 60% for 11 months and then dropped to 59% in the 12th month they wouldn't exactly be saying "ah well, let's forget that then". They are just putting a figure on the broad level of support that would be required over a sustained period of time to have genuine belief that they can win against the onslaught from the establishment + media friends. 'Material changes' such as Brexit, Trident (I don't see that making much difference) and another Tory Government (2020) they would hope would create that 60% anyway so I would expect the 2 statements ( Material change / 60% ) go hand in hand.

*Oh ... and of course we need UK government approval otherwise you have a real mess looking at a UDI situation which simply won't wash against a backdrop of a finely balanced Yes/No.

Edited October 19, 2015 by AlfieMoon

[aaid]

Rather than look at parallels with Quebec, I'd look at the parallels between the Devolution referendums in 1979 and 1997 where on the first question support went from a notional 51% in 1979 to 74% in 1997. These aren't like for like as in 1979 the powers on offer were far less than 1997 and the impact of the 40% threshold probably overstated the support for. That said its a large swing in opinion of almost 25%.

I wouldn't read too much into the fact it took 18 years, for almost the entire 1980s, the SNP and Labour were in disarray - as may be the case with Labour now, but this time they are on the other side of the argument - and devolution was very much off the national conversation during this time.

Things are very much different now and while it would take a lot of work and a lot of things need to happen but I could well see consistent polling around the 60% mark by the end of the decade.

[Auld_Reekie]

Absolutely agree with this. People need to disengage from viewing every political issue through an independence prism. There needs to be a sobering realisation that there will not be another vote this side of 2020 (probably). The intense entrenchment on both sides is bad for Yes IMO - as others have stated, it's become very difficult to shift everyone's opinion. Backing off, letting everyone cool down and refocusing on other issues is very important if we've to soften up 10% of No voters.

Get through the EU referendum and get through 2020 General Election and see where we are. If the Tories continue to dominate and Labour continue to be posted missing, I dont think 60% is unreasonable in 5 years time - I think it's hugely challenging and will probably need longer, but if we go too early and lose, I dont think we'll see independence in my lifetime (and I plan to live for a wee bit yet).

In the meantime, I want to see far better performance in the Scottish Parliament, from Scottish parliamentarians, and I want to see some progress on debating the major issues we f***ed up on last time (ie: currency). We havent even started on that.

Brave move by SNP if true, but correct IMO.

[Dave78]

Rather than look at parallels with Quebec, I'd look at the parallels between the Devolution referendums in 1979 and 1997 where on the first question support went from a notional 51% in 1979 to 74% in 1997. These aren't like for like as in 1979 the powers on offer were far less than 1997 and the impact of the 40% threshold probably overstated the support for. That said its a large swing in opinion of almost 25%.

I wouldn't read too much into the fact it took 18 years, for almost the entire 1980s, the SNP and Labour were in disarray - as may be the case with Labour now, but this time they are on the other side of the argument - and devolution was very much off the national conversation during this time.

Things are very much different now and while it would take a lot of work and a lot of things need to happen but I could well see consistent polling around the 60% mark by the end of the decade.

What's your feeling on No voters slowly dying off, increasing the balance towards Yes?

Will that happen, or are older folk just more conservative and fearful of change, meaning the auld deid No voters will be replaced by former Yes voters who've had a change of heart?

[aaid]

How many net new voters do we roughly tend to get from kids turning 16?

Anyone know?

The 60% figure isn't fixed but it is the sensible approximate level of support that is required. There's too much at stake to lose in another referendum.

Brian Taylor and John Curtice were both in agreement about this discussion this morning and also both acknowledged that it isn't exactly a fixed marker. If Yes had 60% for 11 months and then dropped to 59% in the 12th month they wouldn't exactly be saying "ah well, let's forget that then". They are just putting a figure on the broad level of support that would be required over a sustained period of time to have genuine belief that they can win against the onslaught from the establishment + media friends. 'Material changes' such as Brexit, Trident (I don't see that making much difference) and another Tory Government (2020) they would hope would create that 60% anyway so I would expect the 2 statements ( Material change / 60% ) go hand in hand.

*Oh ... and of course we need UK government approval otherwise you have a real mess looking at a UDI situation which simply won't wash against a backdrop of a finely balanced Yes/No.

I've no idea how many "new" voters will come on to the register but given the population of Scotland is largely static, I don't think its a case of waiting for all the older people who voted no to die off, if that's what you are getting at.

Salmond made a couple of good points on 5 Live yesterday, when asked whether David Cameron might withhold consent for another referendum. Firstly, he pointed out that Cameron most likely wouldn't be around anyway and more importantly, one of the beauties of not having a written constitution in the UK is that it everything is essentially based on precedent, which of course has been set with the Edinburgh agreement.

[aaid]

What's your feeling on No voters slowly dying off, increasing the balance towards Yes?

Will that happen, or are older folk just more conservative and fearful of change, meaning the auld deid No voters will be replaced by former Yes voters who've had a change of heart?

I think there's a lot in that last statement, it's a generality of course but I think there's a lot of truth in it.

One thing I think is very different between 1979 and 1997 though is that in 1979 you would have had a lot of people who came through the Second World War - and the aftermath - who with that experience would have had more of an affinity with the UK, not just in a "God Bless the Queen Mum" sort of way but also the huge social changes such as the NHS, welfare state, etc.

That's not relevant any more, except for Uber Billy Brits who don't see the irony of seig-heiling in front of the cenotaph in George Square.

[Auld_Reekie]

Yep. British identity is deid, or dying. In Scotland at least.

It wasn't the only thing, but a nostalgic British identity - where many felt bound to the UK and Britain without being able to understand why - probably saved the Union. Most of the Better Together threats/fears/bogeymen were built upon the notion that Britain was great, it was just and it would be an affront to our immediate ancestors that it should end. It played to the most basic emotions of people who grew up in post-war Britain, through the 70's, 80's and even 90's where British identity was still strong. Rightly or wrongly, that's a huge psychological barrier for people to cross and for many, they couldn't.

Since the turn of the century though (probably since the re-opening of the Scottish Parliament), things have changed. British identity has been on a downward spiral ever since and no amount of Bake-Offs will resurrect it. One of the most potent arguments made during the referendum was the question of whether Scotland, if it already independent, would join in Union with rUK. If anyone even answered Yes to that previously, it's surely becoming more and more No with every passing day. And that's partly because there's no real affinity for Britain these days or a real British identity.

In 5 years time, there will be even less affinity with Britain. The longer the Tories are in power, and the longer Labour are a shambles, the quicker that remaining emotional identity will disappear.

This is why it's only a matter of time.

[aaid]

Yep. British identity is deid, or dying. In Scotland at least.

It wasn't the only thing, but a nostalgic British identity - where many felt bound to the UK and Britain without being able to understand why - probably saved the Union. Most of the Better Together threats/fears/bogeymen were built upon the notion that Britain was great, it was just and it would be an affront to our immediate ancestors that it should end. It played to the most basic emotions of people who grew up in post-war Britain, through the 70's, 80's and even 90's where British identity was still strong. Rightly or wrongly, that's a huge psychological barrier for people to cross and for many, they couldn't.

Since the turn of the century though (probably since the re-opening of the Scottish Parliament), things have changed. British identity has been on a downward spiral ever since and no amount of Bake-Offs will resurrect it. One of the most potent arguments made during the referendum was the question of whether Scotland, if it already independent, would join in Union with rUK. If anyone even answered Yes to that previously, it's surely becoming more and more No with every passing day. And that's partly because there's no real affinity for Britain these days or a real British identity.

In 5 years time, there will be even less affinity with Britain. The longer the Tories are in power, and the longer Labour are a shambles, the quicker that remaining emotional identity will disappear.

This is why it's only a matter of time.

This is worth watching - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06nd9z7- Angus Robertson talks about the referendum campaign from his perspective as campaign organiser.

I think its really interesting what he says about "people who were born outside Scotland" and the need to improve the "offer" to them.

[AlfieMoon]

Yep. British identity is deid, or dying. In Scotland at least.

It wasn't the only thing, but a nostalgic British identity - where many felt bound to the UK and Britain without being able to understand why - probably saved the Union. Most of the Better Together threats/fears/bogeymen were built upon the notion that Britain was great, it was just and it would be an affront to our immediate ancestors that it should end. It played to the most basic emotions of people who grew up in post-war Britain, through the 70's, 80's and even 90's where British identity was still strong. Rightly or wrongly, that's a huge psychological barrier for people to cross and for many, they couldn't.

Since the turn of the century though (probably since the re-opening of the Scottish Parliament), things have changed. British identity has been on a downward spiral ever since and no amount of Bake-Offs will resurrect it. One of the most potent arguments made during the referendum was the question of whether Scotland, if it already independent, would join in Union with rUK. If anyone even answered Yes to that previously, it's surely becoming more and more No with every passing day. And that's partly because there's no real affinity for Britain these days or a real British identity.

In 5 years time, there will be even less affinity with Britain. The longer the Tories are in power, and the longer Labour are a shambles, the quicker that remaining emotional identity will disappear.

This is why it's only a matter of time.

What sort of impact would Charles taking the throne have on Scotland and our British identity? ... there's a thought.

I'm sure the union may get some sort of bounce from grief for Queen Elizabeth (as many are sympathetic to the monarchy) and the ceremony of having a new king but once the dust settled I'm not sure that he would be as popular as her majesty. On the other hand... if the crown were to go straight to Wills then the British royal family would surely re-strengthen for those in favour - and possibly draw in more of the younger and more impressionable in our society.

[Charlie Endell]

This is worth watching - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06nd9z7- Angus Robertson talks about the referendum campaign from his perspective as campaign organiser.

I think its really interesting what he says about "people who were born outside Scotland" and the need to improve the "offer" to them.

As an Anglo-German he's in an ideal position .

[aaid]

As an Anglo-German he's in an ideal position .

Well he does actually say that.

[Charlie Endell]

Well he does actually say that.

I didn't read the article.

Edit: Sorry, watch the clip.

Edited October 19, 2015 by Charlie Endell

[Auld_Reekie]

What sort of impact would Charles taking the throne have on Scotland and our British identity? ... there's a thought.

I'm sure the union may get some sort of bounce from grief for Queen Elizabeth (as many are sympathetic to the monarchy) and the ceremony of having a new king but once the dust settled I'm not sure that he would be as popular as her majesty. On the other hand... if the crown were to go straight to Wills then the British royal family would surely re-strengthen for those in favour - and possibly draw in more of the younger and more impressionable in our society.

As you said, Charles would be a disaster for Royal family. More likely to go straight to Wills and Kate, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's brought about in the next 5 years in order to try and shore up British identity. Superficial though. Would lose as much support for Britain as it wins - royal support in Scotland is about as skin deep as watching Eastenders. I doubt anyone cares that much. Certainly not enough to swing political opinion these days I'd argue.

During campaign I heard from more people who said they'd be more likely to vote Yes if the proposal was for a Scottish republic. Silent majority no doubt disagreed but the Royals are also living on borrowed time in Scotland IMO.

Along with currency, a more formal plan for a written constitution and a commitment to a Scottish republic are high up my list of things to do differently next time. Would win a not insignificant number of Yes votes IMO.

[Guest flumax]

What's your feeling on No voters slowly dying off, increasing the balance towards Yes?

Will that happen, or are older folk just more conservative and fearful of change, meaning the auld deid No voters will be replaced by former Yes voters who've had a change of heart?

There is also an issue that Scotland will always be a destination for olds from down south looking for a remote retirement, students wanting to head to prestigious ancient universities, money grabbers heading to Aberdeen for oil and Edinburgh for finance, as such I reckon 16 yo yessers will be suppressed by people joining the debate from elsewhere.