Richmond By Election

[ProfessorDavey]

And while there is debate about the possibility of another referendum, I am still unconvinced it will happen. The numbers are such that it looks unlikely to get a YES vote, and I suspect the gradualists will back away from another vote that they are not at least reasonably sure they can win.

That may well be true - the SNP won't trigger one unless they think they have a very good chance of winning. But just because they 'wont' trigger one, doesn't mean they 'couldn't' which was the tenet of the 'once in a lifetime opportunity' claims from the very self same SNP just a couple of years ago.

[Nearly Sane]

Sure he couldn't know that the SNP would have enoug support to get a bill for another IndyRef through - but to state that it was a once in a lifetime opportunity suggests he knew that they wouldn't, which wasn't true - and indeed has proven not to be true on the basis of the 2016 result.
I disagree - I think Salmond, the consumate politician knew exactly what he was doing. He was trying to ensure that as many people voted independence as possible, by fooling them into thinking that they couldn't ever get another chance.

You are of course right about the irony of the IndyRef debate over Scotland's membership of the EU.

No, I don't think it implies not being in power in the future. I think he honestly though that any loss would lead to a position where there would not be enough support for a second refetendum for the foreseeable future. That is the SNP could continue to be elected in Holyrood but would not be able to have another referendum in the manufesto. Undoubtedly he used that to stress the need to vote if you wanted Yes. That even after the EU vote there is a huge doubt as to whether there will be another referendum underlines that thinking there would be a one in the nearish future was not that reasonable.

[Nearly Sane]

That may well be true - the SNP won't trigger one unless they think they have a very good chance of winning. But just because they 'wont' trigger one, doesn't mean they 'couldn't' which was the tenet of the 'once in a lifetime opportunity' claims from the very self same SNP just a couple of years ago.

No, this is just you making an assertion - that Salmond stated that on the basis of being out of power - and then begging the question by using that assumption as true. Indeed you are also disagreeing with your original idea that Salmond was lying and knew they would somehow retain the 'levers of power'.

[Nearly Sane]

Just to add that I don't think Alex or indeed any SNP senior figure expected the 2015 GE results at the time of the referendum. While I don't support another referendum, I can see that any statement made then has been superseded by 'Events, dear boy, events' as MacMillan may or may not have said.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, I don't think it implies not being in power in the future. I think he honestly though that any loss would lead to a position where there would not be enough support for a second refetendum for the foreseeable future. That is the SNP could continue to be elected in Holyrood but would not be able to have another referendum in the manufesto. Undoubtedly he used that to stress the need to vote if you wanted Yes. That even after the EU vote there is a huge doubt as to whether there will be another referendum underlines that thinking there would be a one in the nearish future was not that reasonable.

No I don't think that is right - the primary purpose of the SNP is (obviously) to attain independence for Scotland. So if the SNP gained power and thought they could win a referendum they are hard-wired to want to hold one. Let's not forget that at the first opportunity the SNP had to trigger a referendum (i.e. with sufficient majority in the Scottish parliament) they did so. And they will again, the caveat being that first they think they could win it and secondly that offering a referendum would jeopardise their chances of actually getting the power needed.

It is disingenuous that he claimed there wouldn't be another referendum in the 'near-ish' future - he talked about a generation or was it a lifetime, but a length of time much greater than the 'near-ish' future.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, this is just you making an assertion - that Salmond stated that on the basis of being out of power - and then begging the question by using that assumption as true. Indeed you are also disagreeing with your original idea that Salmond was lying and knew they would somehow retain the 'levers of power'.

No my comment about being out of power was in response to your comment about them needing the levers of power. The point I was making was that the claim that the referendum was a once in a lifetime chance to vote for independence was pure politics, based on trying to persuade people that it was now or never. The pragmatic issues of being in power etc were nothing to do with it.

[Nearly Sane]

No I don't think that is right - the primary purpose of the SNP is (obviously) to attain independence for Scotland. So if the SNP gained power and thought they could win a referendum they are hard-wired to want to hold one. Let's not forget that at the first opportunity the SNP had to trigger a referendum (i.e. with sufficient majority in the Scottish parliament) they did so. And they will again, the caveat being that first they think they could win it and secondly that offering a referendum would jeopardise their chances of actually getting the power needed.

It is disingenuous that he claimed there wouldn't be another referendum in the 'near-ish' future - he talked about a generation or was it a lifetime, but a length of time much greater than the 'near-ish' future.

I didn't say he claimed there wouldn't be a referendum in the nearish future. So kindly withdraw the comment on me being disingenuous.

You are right about the SNP being likely to call a referendum if they thought they could win it, the point of the once in a lifetime was it was unlikely to be the case that they could win one in any foreseeable future time. But then things changed with the huge increase in membership, the 2915 GE and the Brexit vote.

[Nearly Sane]

No my comment about being out of power was in response to your comment about them needing the levers of power. The point I was making was that the claim that the referendum was a once in a lifetime chance to vote for independence was pure politics, based on trying to persuade people that it was now or never. The pragmatic issues of being in power etc were nothing to do with it.

But your original position was it was a lie because the SNP somehow knew that they would hold the  'levers of power' which obviously cannot be guaranteed, particularly under d'Hondt electoral system. The pragmatic issues of being in power are very much to do with whether you can call a referendum.

[ProfessorDavey]

I didn't say he claimed there wouldn't be a referendum in the nearish future. So kindly withdraw the comment on me being disingenuous.

Your own words - my emphasis:

'That is the SNP could continue to be elected in Holyrood but would not be able to have another referendum in the manufesto. Undoubtedly he used that to stress the need to vote if you wanted Yes. That even after the EU vote there is a huge doubt as to whether there will be another referendum underlines that thinking there would be a one in the nearish future was not that reasonable.'

You certainly seem to be linking the SNP position to a proximity of a second referendum as nearish future, rather than once in a generation/once in a lifetime, which was the case in 2014.

[Nearly Sane]

Your own words - my emphasis:

'That is the SNP could continue to be elected in Holyrood but would not be able to have another referendum in the manufesto. Undoubtedly he used that to stress the need to vote if you wanted Yes. That even after the EU vote there is a huge doubt as to whether there will be another referendum underlines that thinking there would be a one in the nearish future was not that reasonable.'

You certainly seem to be linking the SNP position to a proximity of a second referendum as nearish future, rather than once in a generation/once in a lifetime, which was the case in 2014.

So where does that say that Salmond claimed that? It doesn't does it. So please retract the accusation.

[ProfessorDavey]

But your original position was it was a lie because the SNP somehow knew that they would hold the  'levers of power' which obviously cannot be guaranteed, particularly under d'Hondt electoral system. The pragmatic issues of being in power are very much to do with whether you can call a referendum.

We are going round in circles.

Let me be very clear - if Salmond's claims about the IndyRef being a once in a lifetime opportunity was linked to his perception of the SNP's likelihood of holding the levers of power then it implies he thought they'd be out of power (i.e. without the levers of power) for a generation or more. Which is where your original comment linking the SNPs comments not the proximity of another referendum to their holding the levers of power.

Alternatively his comments had nothing to do with the likelihood or otherwise of the SNP having sufficient support in the Scottish parliament to trigger a referendum, and he was purely playing politics.

The latter is my opinion.

[ProfessorDavey]

So where does that say that Salmond claimed that? It doesn't does it. So please retract the accusation.

Lining the second and third sentences - I quote again.

'Undoubtedly he used that to stress the need to vote if you wanted Yes. That even after the EU vote there is a huge doubt as to whether there will be another referendum underlines that thinking there would be a one in the nearish future was not that reasonable.'

Who were you implying was doing the 'thinking' in the final paragraph - some random person, or perhaps the 'he' in the previous paragraph. I think most people would read the linked sentences and conclude that you are talking about the same person. If not, then I apologise, but suggest you are rather clearer in your language in future, because the clear implication of that quote is that 'he', i.e Salmond, was doing the thinking that there wouldn't be another referendum in the nearish future - but that wan't his claim - he claimed that there wouldn't be another one in a generation/lifetime.

[Nearly Sane]

We are going round in circles.

Let me be very clear - if Salmond's claims about the IndyRef being a once in a lifetime opportunity was linked to his perception of the SNP's likelihood of holding the levers of power then it implies he thought they'd be out of power (i.e. without the levers of power) for a generation or more. Which is where your original comment linking the SNPs comments not the proximity of another referendum to their holding the levers of power.

Alternatively his comments had nothing to do with the likelihood or otherwise of the SNP having sufficient support in the Scottish parliament to trigger a referendum, and he was purely playing politics.

The latter is my opinion.

We have already coveted, and indeed you have accepted, that the only time the SNP would call for a referendum is when they were in power and likely to win. For Salmond to be lying he would have to know that they would be in power (not guaranteed but not ruled out by the comment) and that they would think themselves likely to win. It was generally thought that a loss would mean that they would have reached a high water mark and wouldn't be in the possible position of winning for many years, but things change. Salmond undoubtedly wanted to get the vote out, but other than personal animosity you have no evidence of lying as opposed to him not being a prophet about political events.

[Nearly Sane]

Lining the second and third sentences - I quote again.

'Undoubtedly he used that to stress the need to vote if you wanted Yes. That even after the EU vote there is a huge doubt as to whether there will be another referendum underlines that thinking there would be a one in the nearish future was not that reasonable.'

Who were you implying was doing the 'thinking' in the final paragraph - some random person, or perhaps the 'he' in the previous paragraph. I think most people would read the linked sentences and conclude that you are talking about the same person. If not, then I apologise, but suggest you are rather clearer in your language in future, because the clear implication of that quote is that 'he', i.e Salmond, was doing the thinking that there wouldn't be another referendum in the nearish future - but that wan't his claim - he claimed that there wouldn't be another one in a generation/lifetime.

It's a generic person, and includes Salmond, and the nearish future is about the current position. None of that changes that at no time in the second sentence does it talk about makes such a claim. You need to stop your emotions leading you to add things to people's posts.

I await your apology .

[Gordon]

Prof D

In view of Brexit everything has changed, including the prospect of a second referendum on Scottish independence.

To be blunt about it we in Scotland have been fucked-over by voters in the English regions, and some of us aren't comfortable with that situation - and if there is any legal way for the SNP to spike Brexit then I'm 100% behind them!

 

[ProfessorDavey]

Just to add that I don't think Alex or indeed any SNP senior figure expected the 2015 GE results at the time of the referendum. While I don't support another referendum, I can see that any statement made then has been superseded by 'Events, dear boy, events' as MacMillan may or may not have said.

Firstly it is the 2016 Scottish elections that are the relevant ones here, as it is the Scottish parliament that triggered the first referendum and would trigger a second one, not the Westminster parliament.

And to suggest no one predicted the 2015 results in Scotland and the 2016 ones too is non-sense. Sure 2015 was beyond the wildest dreams of the SNP, but was entirely predicted in the polls through the years running up to the 2015 General Election. Indeed they were regularly polling at levels above 50% in Westminster polls.

But Salmond also knew that it was the Scottish parliament elections that were key and in those the SNP actually did slightly less well in 2016 than they were predicted in the polls. So, although the SNP might not have believed the polls, they were certainly telling them that they were likely to hold on to the levers of power in Holyrood either alone or with another party (e.g. Greens) likely to give them enough support to trigger a second referendum if they chose.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's a generic person, and includes Salmond, and the nearish future is about the current position. None of that changes that at no time in the second sentence does it talk about makes such a claim. You need to stop your emotions leading you to add things to people's posts.

I await your apology .

I have done, - note reply 61:

'I think most people would read the linked sentences and conclude that you are talking about the same person. If not, then I apologise ...'

But I remain of the view that it is entirely unclear that the later sentence refers to a 'generic' person, but is clearly linked to an earlier sentence where the 'he' is Salmond. So excuse me if I read your sentences in the most obvious interpretation. You have now indicated this wasn't what you meant (albeit not at all clear) and on that basis I have already apologised.

On emotions, I suggest it is you that needs to take a rain check, given that you are demanding an apology when I've already given one.

[Nearly Sane]

Firstly it is the 2016 Scottish elections that are the relevant ones here, as it is the Scottish parliament that triggered the first referendum and would trigger a second one, not the Westminster parliament.

And to suggest no one predicted the 2015 results in Scotland and the 2016 ones too is non-sense. Sure 2015 was beyond the wildest dreams of the SNP, but was entirely predicted in the polls through the years running up to the 2015 General Election. Indeed they were regularly polling at levels above 50% in Westminster polls.

But Salmond also knew that it was the Scottish parliament elections that were key and in those the SNP actually did slightly less well in 2016 than they were predicted in the polls. So, although the SNP might not have believed the polls, they were certainly telling them that they were likely to hold on to the levers of power in Holyrood either alone or with another party (e.g. Greens) likely to give them enough support to trigger a second referendum if they chose.

Do you actually have some need to make up stuff? My post doesn't say no one predicted the 2015 election, though few did. Please stop misrepresenting what is being said.

[ProfessorDavey]

My post doesn't say no one predicted the 2015 election, though few did. Please stop misrepresenting what is being said.

Oh FFS sake NS, take a chill pill and read your own posts:

'Just to add that I don't think Alex or indeed any SNP senior figure expected the 2015 GE results at the time of the referendum.'

Your words not mine.

Clearly the relevant people here are those in the SNP, as my post made clear. You very, very clearly stated your belief that the SNP leadership, including Salmond didn't expect the 2015 result. Well I think that is wrong, because a quick glance at the polls would have told them that they were on course for a stunning victory. All you have to do is look at their campaigning strategy in the run up to the 2015 result, looking at the seats they were targeting tells you they were well aware that a victory of the level that actually happened was on the cards.

[Nearly Sane]

Oh FFS sake NS, take a chill pill and read your own posts:

'Just to add that I don't think Alex or indeed any SNP senior figure expected the 2015 GE results at the time of the referendum.'

Your words not mine.

Clearly the relevant people here are those in the SNP, as my post made clear. You very, very clearly stated your belief that the SNP leadership, including Salmond didn't expect the 2015 result. Well I think that is wrong, because a quick glance at the polls would have told them that they were on course for a stunning victory. All you have to do is look at their campaigning strategy in the run up to the 2015 result, looking at the seats they were targeting tells you they were well aware that a victory of the level that actually happened was on the cards.

Yes and my words do not say that no one predicted it, and your words say it was beyond their wildest dreams so you are again disagreeing with yourself and misrepresenting what I've said
 I would suggest that I am not the one in need of a chill pill here, as once again your posting is overwhelmed by emotion leading to inaccuracy.

[ProfessorDavey]

My post doesn't say no one predicted the 2015 election, though few did.

All the pollsters did, and the bookies, and most pundits. And without doubt the major parties were pretty clear about what was happening on the ground in the 12 months or so running up to the 2015 election.

Sure that final details on how stunning for the SNP and how catastrophic for the other parties (particularly Labour) was not quite certain, but that there was going to be pretty well complete wipeout of other parties was well accepted.

When not on here I spend a lot of time on a political web-site that looks at polling, betting and election predictions, and in the run up to 2015 there was a pretty credible view, based on the polling, that the SNP could win every single seat in Scotland - in the end they failed to win 3, and 2 of those 3 ended up ultra-marginal with majorities less than 1000.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes and my words do not say that no one predicted it,

If you are allowed to shift the specific (Salmond) to the generic, as you did earlier, and I accepted that, and apologies from misinterpreting you, then I suggest I am allowed to shift the generic (no-one) to the specific (the SNP) which seems reasonable as we were talking about what the SNP leadership thought.

and your words say it was beyond their wildest dreams so you are again disagreeing with yourself and misrepresenting what I've said.

Nope, dreams and reality are different.

So I think it was beyond the SNP's wildest dreams to expect to win all but three seats in Scotland and despite the fact that all the evidence predicted they would do that it was still beyond their wildest dreams - guess what dreams sometimes come true and the SNP knew darned well that it was well on the cards even if they dared not believe it.

As do nightmares.

I suspect that for Labour to lose all but one seat in Scotland, and the LibDems to end up with just a handful of seats in Westminster was beyond their worst nightmares but was completely predicted and senior figure in Labour and the LibDems knew it albeit they no doubt hoped against hope that it wasn't true.

[Hope]

Stop being so anti-democtratic. And also recognise that this by election is a significant blow to May and the three brexiters. It will markedly bolster those that take the sensible view that parliament must have a significant say on the process and the deal and that the government must outline its main objectives for a deal - 'having your cake and eat it' handwritten on a piece of paper by an aide doesn't constitute a strategy.

The problem is that I'm not sure that European leaders will allow much flexibility during the negotiations or after them.  Our Parliament and MPs probably has less influence over the outcome now than they ever had whilst debating EU treaties/legislation/directives/etc.

[ProfessorDavey]

The problem is that I'm not sure that European leaders will allow much flexibility during the negotiations or after them.  Our Parliament and MPs probably has less influence over the outcome now than they ever had whilst debating EU treaties/legislation/directives/etc.

I think you are right there will be little flexibility from the EU leaders - they can either have the cake, or we can eat it, but we can't have both. So we can either retain significant access to the single market or we can restrict free movement, but we can't have both.

What the by-election does it bolster the parliamentary view that it must have a significant say in whether we have the cake, or we eat it. And also it increases pressure on the government to make clear which of cake or eating it preferred.

Now the reason why the government has been so coy is nothing to do with running commentaries, or giving away negotiating positions - that's non-sense as all that is being suggested is a headline priority which would have to be revealed at the 'talks about talks' stage anyhow. No the government is terrified at stating whether having cake or eating it is priority because as soon as it does all hell breaks loose and the uber-fragile lies holding together the brexiteers will dissolve. So if the government opts for soft brexit the UKIP hard line nutters will throw a massive wobbly, but if it goes for hard brexit a new consensus will form, almost certainly with a majority, between the 48% remainers, for whom hard brexit is the last thing they want, and the soft brexiteers, for whom remaining is probably preferable to xenophobic isolationism.

[Jack Knave]

What do you reckon. Should the people of Richmond who did not vote for the Lib Dem candidate start a campaign to overturn the result or stop Sarah Olney taking her seat.......

Against a majority of 3.78% for Brexit she is happy to take her majority of 4.53% as a massive vote of confidence.

Good point.

What it does mean is that the Tories only have a 10 seat majority now, so the likelihood of a early GE has just gone up.

This says nothing about the come back of the LibDems only that they venally jumped on a bandwagon to win.