scotlandisdifferent

Gisela Stuart told us last night on BBC Radio Four's "Any Questions?" that more people voted Leave in the EU referendum than have ever voted for a UK government before. An impressive statistic, and absolutely right. Here are some figures from General Elections over the last 70 years, showing the number of votes that the winning side took: 1945 11.9m votes 1950 13.2m votes 1992 14.0m votes 2005 9.5m votes 2015 11.3m votes EU Referendum 17.4m votes Between 1945 and 1992 turnout remained steady but the population grew, increasing the winner's number of votes; but since 1992 turnout has decreased faster than the population has grown, reducing the winner's votes. This means that we're not going to see winning numbers of votes like that of 1992 unless there's a dramatic change in turnout. So the winner's number of votes in the EU referendum was indeed a formidable and startling result. Still, maybe we should just cast our glance a little more widely, and get...

Dazzling bit of footwork from Kezia Dugdale on BBC Radio 4 News today, on whether Sturgeon has a mandate to call for another referendum. Surely she has a mandate, the interviewer suggested, because the relevant SNP manifesto said that a material change in circumstances would justify another referendum, and Brexit is such a change? Well, no, said Kezia, because that was only one line in their manifesto, and the line before said that there would need to be support from public opinion, which isn't there. Quite right, Kezia. The line did say that, and that support isn't there. But surely the change in circumstances is there, so we do have the right to a referendum? On the other hand, the public support *isn't* there, so we *don't* have the right to a referendum! My head's spinning, Kezia, with these contradictions - perhaps you can sort me out. No? It's beyond you too? Let's look at the manifesto itself, then. Here's the text: "We believe that the Scott...

Sunday night is random thoughts night:- Still uncomfortable (to put it mildly!) with EU referendum result. If this is post-truth politics, where you win democratic decisions by lying longer and louder, then it stinks. Definitely Vote Jeremy to change that! Tired of people calling us bad losers. We just think the process was crap. Probably can't change that without changing the first-past-the-post system, that's why there's no nuanced politics in England. First-past-the-post is obviously the best, the UK has had it for centuries, it's the way the Britain works. Can we have an explanation of why none of the devolved governments have it? Sooner the Labour party splits, the better. At the moment we have two Labour parties anyway, the one the party memebers belong to, and the one the parliamentary members belong to. Guys in parliament are out of touch! (or as a Labour commentator on BBC Radio Four put it today, "the roots and the flowers", and what he mean...

In an earlier post for IndyRef1 I quoted my old friend Thingy, who said (basically), "It was always an English Empire! - go for it!" Now my friends Whatsit, who live in Scotland but spend time in France, and have children and grandchildren in Spain and Switzerland, have emailed to say: D and I have been so distressed and confused recently it has been difficult to know what is best to do;" and: "We have certainly been through all the obvious feelings of anger, disgust, frustration, feeling sick, sadness, mounting to fury at the complete idiocy of what has happened and spitting blood at the awful people who have allowed it to happen! You may think that their responses are overstated, but these are ordinary middle-class Scottish citizens, who are totally pissed off with the UK response. On a less despairing note, our constituency MP for Glasgow North, Patrick Grady, convened a meeting today to reassure those of his constituents who were frazzled by the EU referendum re...

Email to: Patrick Grady, Sandra White, Ruth Davidson, Nicola Sturgeon Dear Patrick, Sandra, Ms Sturgeon, Ms Davidson, I'm a voter in a Glasgow constituency, and a member of the SNP. Whilst this morning's result gives a colossal boost to aspirations for independence (62%-38% in Scotland for Remain, as against 53%-47% in England for Leave, for heaven's sake!), I urge you to proceed cautiously, bearing in mind these considerations: 1. Independence is a step that needs a proper understanding of the issues. The campaign that's just finished was too full of bile and misstatements to allow that. If we're to have independence, it's got to come out of a campaign conducted in a mature way. 2. A mature campaign needs support to be slowly built, and I'd suggest that, for a period of a year, politicians make no commitments regarding independence other than to enhance public debate and understanding. 3. Independence isn't an end in itself, despite the SNP constitution...

Overheard: She: See this independence thing, like, Ah'm worried about ma, you know, ma pension... He : For f*ck's sake! Was Robert the Bruce worried about his pension !?

I'm worried about the polls. Opinion polls for this referendum are showing neck-and-neck, and we're told that the result is 'too close to call'. But this is not what it feels like on the street, where I spend time trying to f*ck the heads of No voters. What it feels like on the street, as a colleague said to me on a street stall a month ago, is pushing on an open door. I trust the street more than I trust the polls, and the street says we're ahead. I'm not entirely comfortable putting this view forward, because it could cause some Yes campaigners to be less energetic, and that could lead to a disaster. But equally, if we are on a roll, then let's acknowledge it, and give ourselves more energy and courage. This campaign has been described as the biggest grassroots campaign in Scottish political history, and Yes has enormous visibility. When I count window-stickers as I toddle about the Kelvin electoral area, I see something like ten saying Yes, or maybe twent...