Cat's Out the Bag
The Guardian published a great scoop yesterday which exposed the fact that 'Project Fear' has been talking out of a strange part of its anatomy on the subject of Scotland keeping the pound, if the country votes for independence on 18 September 2014.
Now this will not make any difference to the way I cast my vote, but it does expose the character of people who are running the Better Together campaign - and in my view they are a shallow bunch.
The same kind of untrustworthy politician who said one thing in private over the release of Abdelbaset al Megrahi, yet attacked the decision to release the Lockerbie bomber on humanitarian grounds - simply because the decision was taken by the SNP Government.
Now that's low life politics if you ask me, just as it is over this business of Scotland keeping the pound because that would, self-evidently, be in everyone's interests if the people do indeed decide on 18 September, that Scotland should become an independent country.
Comments made to Guardian by goverment minister at heart of pro-union campaign will be major boost for Alex Salmond
By Nicholas Watt - The Guardian
Scotland's first minister, Alex Salmond, has accused the UK’s three main parties of 'bluff, bluster and bullying' over a currency union. Photograph: Andrew Milligan/PA
A currency union will eventually be agreed between an independent Scotland and the remainder of the UK to ensure fiscal and economic stability on both sides of the border, according to a government minister at the heart of the pro-union campaign.
The private admission comes amid increasing jitters at Westminster, after opinion polls showed an increase in support for independence despite the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats all arguing that Scotland could not keep the pound after a yes vote.
"Of course there would be a currency union," the minister told the Guardian in remarks that will serve as a major boost to the Scottish first minister, Alex Salmond, who accused the UK's three main political parties of "bluff, bluster and bullying" after they all rejected a currency union.
The minister, who would play a central role in the negotiations over the breakup of the UK if there were a yes vote, added: "There would be a highly complex set of negotiations after a yes vote, with many moving pieces. The UK wants to keep Trident nuclear weapons at Faslane and the Scottish government wants a currency union – you can see the outlines of a deal."
The frank statement, contrasting sharply with the public position of ministers, comes amid soul-searching on the pro-union side after a series of opinion polls showed Scottish voters do not believe the UK would refuse a currency union with an independent Scotland.
Willie Rennie, leader of the Scottish Lib Dems, acknowledged on Friday that a yes vote was a "distinct possibility" in September's referendum as he called on the anti-indpendence Better Together to replace negative campaigning, dubbed "Project Fear", with a "sunshine strategy".
A Times/YouGov poll found that Scots believe the Westminster parties are lying about the main element of Project Fear – their joint rejection of a currency union. The poll, which still put the pro-union camp ahead, found that 45% believe the rejection is a campaigning tactic that would be abandoned after a yes vote.
Better Together strategists, who are nervous about the high numbers of voters who are not convinced by the Westminster parties, believe they have to step up their efforts to make voters trust them. On Friday Nick Clegg accused Alex Salmond of trying to make voters think "the world is flat and down is up" by claiming the UK would agree to a currency union.
The deputy prime minister told reporters before his speech to the Lib Dem Scottish spring conference in Aberdeen: "It is simply not going to happen. It is not on offer. I do not think it is right for Alex Salmond to claim that the world is flat when it's round; to claim that down is up and to somehow invite people to believe in commitments which he cannot and will not deliver. He will not deliver the currency union because it is not available to him."
But the mixed signals from the polls are prompting senior figures at Westminster to look at the currency union in the context of a yes vote for independence. The minister said: "You simply cannot imagine Westminster abandoning the people of Scotland. Saying no to a currency union is obviously a vital part of the no campaign. But everything would change in the negotiations if there were a yes vote."
The minister's remarks echo comments by Jackson Carlaw, deputy leader of the Conservatives in Scotland, who said he would man the barricades to argue for a currency union if Scots voted yes. Carlaw later disowned his remarks.
Better Together is nervous about the large numbers of voters in Scotland who simply do not believe the joint rejection of a currency union by the three main parties in England. They hope an initial emotional reaction by voters will be replaced by a calmer assessment in the months ahead.
"We went early with the currency union announcement in the hope that a rational, rather than an emotional, judgment will prevail among voters," one Better Together source said. "But people have got to believe we mean it."
However, the SNP said the minister's remarks showed that the pro-union campaign had now abandoned its main trump card. Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish deputy first minister, told the Guardian: "This was supposed to be the no campaign's trump card but, as the polls show, it has backfired badly – the gap between yes and no has halved since November, and most Scots simply do not believe the bluff and bluster we had from George Osborne, Ed Balls and Danny Alexander."
She argued that currency union is as much in the interests of the rest of the UK as an independent Scotland, and said: "Not sharing sterling would cost businesses south of the border an extra £500m in transaction costs."
Westminster's emphatic rejection was taken on the specific advice of the former chancellor and Better Together chief, Alistair Darling, and the main Downing Street Scottish adviser, Andrew Dunlop. The Treasury had assumed that Osborne would stick to his position of saying that a currency union would be highly unlikely.
The decision to toughen up the message was made because Darling believes Better Together needs to do more than win the referendum – it needs to kill off independence with an emphatic win. "Alistair and Andrew are running the show – we just did what they said," one Treasury source said.
John Curtice, professor of politics at Strathclyde University, wrote in a recent blogpost: "It has long been apparent that the currency intervention had not produced any boost for the no side. It is now beginning to look as though the last six weeks may, if anything, have seen the yes side catch up a little further."
Any negotiations on a currency union would involve major concessions by both sides. The UK would have to abandon the clear commitments of Osborne, Alexander and Balls. But Salmond would have to acknowledge for the first time that joining a currency union would involve the loss of some sovereignty after Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, said in Edinburgh in January: "A durable, successful currency union requires some ceding of national sovereignty."
The minister's remarks provoked a furious response from the pro-UK camp. One government source said: "As the chancellor has said – and has been echoed by Danny Alexander and Ed Balls – no means no. It is off the agenda. It is off the table. It will not happen. Parliament simply wouldn't wash it and the rest of the UK simply wouldn't buy it."
The UK government dismissed the private comments by the minister. Alistair Carmichael, the Scotland secretary, said: "An anonymous, off-the-record quote does not change the stark reality on the currency. The UK government has listened to the views of the governor of the Bank of England and the independent advice of the permanent secretary to the Treasury that a currency union would be damaging for all the United Kingdom.
"That's why a currency union simply will not happen. The Scottish government should remove the uncertainty on the currency by coming forward with a plan B."
Politics of Deceit (13 March 2014)
I came across this post in the blog site archive the other day which reminded me of just how untrustworthy politicians can be when it suits their purpose.
Because when the Scottish Government finally released Abdelbaset al-Megrahi on humanitarian grounds, effectively allowing him to return to Libya to die, the Labour Government led by Prime Minister Gordon Brown pretended that they were outraged by the decision - simply because it was taken by their political rivals, the SNP.
Now that's the worst kind of partisan politics if you ask me, completely lacking in principle or integrity which is a measure of how far the Labour Party has fallen these days.
Crystal Clear (9 February 2011)
Sir Gus O'Donnell's report on the early release of the Libyan bomber - al Megrahi - from prison makes fascinating reading.
Here's an extract from Page 90 of the report - a submission from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office - on how the UK government should play its hand.
David Miliband was the Foreign Secretary at the time - and the submission was dated 22 January 2009.
"Megrahi‟s health remains a key high risk issue. We do not want him to die in a Scottish jail, with the likely negative consequences for our relations with Libya. That he is prepared to abandon his appeal is a significant step – we should now work hard to enable transfer under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement."
The UK government's view at the time was crystal clear - Megrahi should not be allowed to die in a Scottish jail.
So why did they behave so completely differently - when he was finally released?
"If Scotland votes Yes to independence, there will be no pound, no monetary union", so said the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems recently in a coordinated attack on Scotland retaining the pound
But their cunning plan seems to have backfired badly, if the latest opinion poll is to be believed as this shows the Yes vote up by 6 points to 38% - and the No vote down by 5 points to 47%.
Quite a turnaround - and the full results of the survey are detailed by John Curtice in the following article for the BBC's web site.
For what it's worth I think the poll is correct because while I'm still undecided about which way to vote the behaviour of the No or Better Together camp is pushing me towards voting Yes.
Because as I said in a previous post the logic of the NO camp is that "If Scotland walks away, then it walks away from the pound, since the pound belongs to what remains of the UK."
Then why does the same logic not apply to the mountain of debt built up by the Westminster Parliament over the past 10 years?
Scottish independence: Which way for polls after currency speeches?
Here's an extract from Page 90 of the report - a submission from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office - on how the UK government should play its hand.
David Miliband was the Foreign Secretary at the time - and the submission was dated 22 January 2009.
"Megrahi‟s health remains a key high risk issue. We do not want him to die in a Scottish jail, with the likely negative consequences for our relations with Libya. That he is prepared to abandon his appeal is a significant step – we should now work hard to enable transfer under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement."
The UK government's view at the time was crystal clear - Megrahi should not be allowed to die in a Scottish jail.
So why did they behave so completely differently - when he was finally released?
A Cunning Plan (25 February 2014)
"If Scotland votes Yes to independence, there will be no pound, no monetary union", so said the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems recently in a coordinated attack on Scotland retaining the pound
But their cunning plan seems to have backfired badly, if the latest opinion poll is to be believed as this shows the Yes vote up by 6 points to 38% - and the No vote down by 5 points to 47%.
Quite a turnaround - and the full results of the survey are detailed by John Curtice in the following article for the BBC's web site.
Because as I said in a previous post the logic of the NO camp is that "If Scotland walks away, then it walks away from the pound, since the pound belongs to what remains of the UK."
Then why does the same logic not apply to the mountain of debt built up by the Westminster Parliament over the past 10 years?
Scottish independence: Which way for polls after currency speeches?
By John Curtice
Professor of politics at Strathclyde University
Chancellor George Osborne made a speech saying a post-yes Scotland could not keep the pound
George Osborne's announcement last week that the UK would be unwilling to share the pound with an independent Scotland, an announcement that was subsequently endorsed by both the Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, and the Liberal Democrat Chief Secretary, Danny Alexander, was meant to be a "game changer".
Strategists for the Better Together campaign claimed that those voters who were as yet not wholly committed to either a "yes" or "no" vote were particularly concerned about the prospect that independence might mean losing the pound.
The co-ordinated announcement appeared to be a determined attempt by the "no" campaign to regain momentum after signs that its poll lead had slipped back somewhat.
So, the first poll to be conducted following the currency row has been eagerly anticipated. Today it finally appeared - conducted by the internet polling company Survation for the Daily Mail.
The poll's headline findings suggest that, if anything, the "no" side's stratagem has not only failed to deliver any immediate boost to the Unionist cause, but has actually backfired.
The poll puts the "no" vote on 47 points, down five on a poll Survation conducted just a fortnight ago.
George Osborne's announcement last week that the UK would be unwilling to share the pound with an independent Scotland, an announcement that was subsequently endorsed by both the Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, and the Liberal Democrat Chief Secretary, Danny Alexander, was meant to be a "game changer".
Strategists for the Better Together campaign claimed that those voters who were as yet not wholly committed to either a "yes" or "no" vote were particularly concerned about the prospect that independence might mean losing the pound.
The co-ordinated announcement appeared to be a determined attempt by the "no" campaign to regain momentum after signs that its poll lead had slipped back somewhat.
So, the first poll to be conducted following the currency row has been eagerly anticipated. Today it finally appeared - conducted by the internet polling company Survation for the Daily Mail.
The poll's headline findings suggest that, if anything, the "no" side's stratagem has not only failed to deliver any immediate boost to the Unionist cause, but has actually backfired.
The poll puts the "no" vote on 47 points, down five on a poll Survation conducted just a fortnight ago.
The currency issue has come to the fore in the last few weeks
The "yes" tally is estimated now to be 38%, up six.
If the "don't knows" are excluded from the calculation the poll points to a 45% "yes" vote, up seven points on Survation's previous poll.
However, there is an important difference between the way in which this poll was conducted and analysed and the way in which Survation's previous poll was undertaken.
That difference probably accounts for most if not necessarily all of the apparent swing in favour of independence.
Even so, the figures are hardly in tune with the "no" side's expectation that the currency announcement would prove to be a decisive move in their favour.
The 45% Yes vote (excluding "don't knows") is well above the 41.5% average "yes" vote in other pre-currency announcement polls, including the 41% vote in another (pre-currency) poll from TNS BMRB released today.
To work as the "no" side hoped it would, the currency announcement needed to be believed by voters and succeeded in posing them with an unpalatable choice on an issue that mattered to them. It seems to have failed on both counts.
BBC poll - Top 10 issues
A sample of 1,008 adults, aged 16 and over, were asked which issues, from a list of 10, mattered most to them.
1. Economy
2. Pensions
3. Welfare
4. Relationship with rest of the UK
5. Currency
6. Immigration
7. Energy
8. Defence
9. Relationship with the EU
10. The media
Today's Survation poll reports that only 37% of voters think that the Westminster parties really meant what they said. Just as many think they are "bluffing", while 26% say they just do not know whether to believe them or not.
Meanwhile, only 48% say they want to form a monetary union and share the pound with the rest of the UK in the first place. That mood is not new. The figure is almost identical to the 46% who backed that view in a poll conducted by Panelbase shortly before the currency statement.
Moreover, well before the announcement voters were telling pollsters that the currency was not a key issue for them.
In a poll conducted by TNS BMRB for the BBC, for example, the subject came eighth when voters were asked to put 10 key issues in order of importance to them.
At the same time, the Scottish Social Attitudes survey recently reported that voters' views about whether Scotland should and would keep the pound seemed to make relatively little difference to whether they intended to vote Yes or No.
Of course we should bear in mind that no one poll is definitive.
Any individual poll is always at risk of leading us astray because of the random fluctuations that come with any attempt to ascertain the nation's mood by interviewing just a thousand people.
The "yes" tally is estimated now to be 38%, up six.
If the "don't knows" are excluded from the calculation the poll points to a 45% "yes" vote, up seven points on Survation's previous poll.
However, there is an important difference between the way in which this poll was conducted and analysed and the way in which Survation's previous poll was undertaken.
That difference probably accounts for most if not necessarily all of the apparent swing in favour of independence.
Even so, the figures are hardly in tune with the "no" side's expectation that the currency announcement would prove to be a decisive move in their favour.
The 45% Yes vote (excluding "don't knows") is well above the 41.5% average "yes" vote in other pre-currency announcement polls, including the 41% vote in another (pre-currency) poll from TNS BMRB released today.
To work as the "no" side hoped it would, the currency announcement needed to be believed by voters and succeeded in posing them with an unpalatable choice on an issue that mattered to them. It seems to have failed on both counts.
BBC poll - Top 10 issues
A sample of 1,008 adults, aged 16 and over, were asked which issues, from a list of 10, mattered most to them.
1. Economy
2. Pensions
3. Welfare
4. Relationship with rest of the UK
5. Currency
6. Immigration
7. Energy
8. Defence
9. Relationship with the EU
10. The media
Today's Survation poll reports that only 37% of voters think that the Westminster parties really meant what they said. Just as many think they are "bluffing", while 26% say they just do not know whether to believe them or not.
Meanwhile, only 48% say they want to form a monetary union and share the pound with the rest of the UK in the first place. That mood is not new. The figure is almost identical to the 46% who backed that view in a poll conducted by Panelbase shortly before the currency statement.
Moreover, well before the announcement voters were telling pollsters that the currency was not a key issue for them.
In a poll conducted by TNS BMRB for the BBC, for example, the subject came eighth when voters were asked to put 10 key issues in order of importance to them.
At the same time, the Scottish Social Attitudes survey recently reported that voters' views about whether Scotland should and would keep the pound seemed to make relatively little difference to whether they intended to vote Yes or No.
Of course we should bear in mind that no one poll is definitive.
Any individual poll is always at risk of leading us astray because of the random fluctuations that come with any attempt to ascertain the nation's mood by interviewing just a thousand people.
'Slow burner'
We will need to await the findings of other polls to see if they confirm the impression that the currency row has not immediately shifted public opinion decisively in the "no" side's favour.
And the "no" side can hope that the issue will prove a "slow burner" that eventually eats away at people's confidence in the prospect of independence.
But in the meantime, there will be considerable relief in Bute House and not a little consternation in Downing St.
John Curtice is professor of politics at Strathclyde University, and chief commentator atwhatscotlandthinks.org, where details of all of the referendum polls can be found.
On his flying vista to Edinburgh the other day George Osborne, the chancellor, made the following statement in connection with the independence referendum:
"If Scotland walks away from the UK, it walks away from the pound."
Now the logic of the Chancellor's position is that the pound belongs to what remains of the UK - if Scotland votes to become an independent country.
Yet if this is true, then if Scotland does decide to walk away (to use the Chancellor's language) - why don't we also walk away for the UK's debt mountain which has been piled up by the last two Westminster Governments?
So, I would say that you can't have it both ways George - you can't have your cake and eat it at the same time because that would be politically dishonest and unfair.
And that goes for George's new chums as well - Labour's Ed Balls and the Lib Dems Danny Alexander.
Because I would have thought that if the Scottish people vote Yes in the referendum, then Labour and the Lib Dems would be all in favour of Scotland maintaining close ties and good working relations with England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I was astonished at the comments of the Chancellor, George Osborne, yesterday who came all the way to Scotland to tell us that if we Scots vote for independence on 18 September 2014, then we can kiss goodbye to any kind of monetary union with what remains of the UK.
Now how's that for grown up behaviour?
Just imagine a business partnership that was coming to an end after a long period or a marriage, especially if there were children involved - the message appears to be 'We hate you and we're going to do our best to make life as difficult as possible in future'.
To make matters worse, Labour and Lib Dem spokespeople quickly appeared to reinforce the Conservative message that Scotland would be punished for having the cheek to decide that it would be better off as an independent country.
What puzzles me is that these are the same people who keep telling us that we would be Better Together because of our mutual ties and history which make the UK greater than the sum of its parts.
Yet if we vote for independence, then overnight we are transformed into some kind of enemy as opposed to a friendly neighbour which simply wants the right to govern itself and make the big decisions when it comes to Scotland's economy and future direction.
I can't see it I have to say and I'm disappointed that the Westminster based political parties have combined to issue such an ugly threat which I suspect will cause a backlash amongst people like me - who don't like being pushed around.
The 'nice cop' in the Conservative Party, Prime Minister David Cameron, has played things well up until now by recognising Scotland's right to vote on its future, by agreeing to hold a referendum and by stating publicly that he will respect the outcome.
Unlike his counterpart in Spain, for example, where the conservative Popular Party prime Minister, Mariano Rajoy, has blocked an independence referendum in Catalonia - and said that the Catalans basically need to become a bit more Spanish.
Now that's a red rag to a bull, if you'll pardon the pun, and so is this little gang comprising George Osborne (Tories), Ed Balls (Labour) and Danny Alexander (Lib Dems) who speak the language of Better Together while threatening that the whole business will get nasty if things don't go their way.
Me? I think this is a ridiculous way to behave and it certainly makes me less inclined to believe that politicians at Westminster have Scotland's best interests at heart.
We will need to await the findings of other polls to see if they confirm the impression that the currency row has not immediately shifted public opinion decisively in the "no" side's favour.
And the "no" side can hope that the issue will prove a "slow burner" that eventually eats away at people's confidence in the prospect of independence.
But in the meantime, there will be considerable relief in Bute House and not a little consternation in Downing St.
John Curtice is professor of politics at Strathclyde University, and chief commentator atwhatscotlandthinks.org, where details of all of the referendum polls can be found.
If Scotland Walks Away (15 February 2014)
On his flying vista to Edinburgh the other day George Osborne, the chancellor, made the following statement in connection with the independence referendum:
"If Scotland walks away from the UK, it walks away from the pound."
Now the logic of the Chancellor's position is that the pound belongs to what remains of the UK - if Scotland votes to become an independent country.
Yet if this is true, then if Scotland does decide to walk away (to use the Chancellor's language) - why don't we also walk away for the UK's debt mountain which has been piled up by the last two Westminster Governments?
So, I would say that you can't have it both ways George - you can't have your cake and eat it at the same time because that would be politically dishonest and unfair.
And that goes for George's new chums as well - Labour's Ed Balls and the Lib Dems Danny Alexander.
Because I would have thought that if the Scottish people vote Yes in the referendum, then Labour and the Lib Dems would be all in favour of Scotland maintaining close ties and good working relations with England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Nasty Neighbours (14 February 2014)
I was astonished at the comments of the Chancellor, George Osborne, yesterday who came all the way to Scotland to tell us that if we Scots vote for independence on 18 September 2014, then we can kiss goodbye to any kind of monetary union with what remains of the UK.
Now how's that for grown up behaviour?
Just imagine a business partnership that was coming to an end after a long period or a marriage, especially if there were children involved - the message appears to be 'We hate you and we're going to do our best to make life as difficult as possible in future'.
To make matters worse, Labour and Lib Dem spokespeople quickly appeared to reinforce the Conservative message that Scotland would be punished for having the cheek to decide that it would be better off as an independent country.
What puzzles me is that these are the same people who keep telling us that we would be Better Together because of our mutual ties and history which make the UK greater than the sum of its parts.
Yet if we vote for independence, then overnight we are transformed into some kind of enemy as opposed to a friendly neighbour which simply wants the right to govern itself and make the big decisions when it comes to Scotland's economy and future direction.
I can't see it I have to say and I'm disappointed that the Westminster based political parties have combined to issue such an ugly threat which I suspect will cause a backlash amongst people like me - who don't like being pushed around.
The 'nice cop' in the Conservative Party, Prime Minister David Cameron, has played things well up until now by recognising Scotland's right to vote on its future, by agreeing to hold a referendum and by stating publicly that he will respect the outcome.
Unlike his counterpart in Spain, for example, where the conservative Popular Party prime Minister, Mariano Rajoy, has blocked an independence referendum in Catalonia - and said that the Catalans basically need to become a bit more Spanish.
Now that's a red rag to a bull, if you'll pardon the pun, and so is this little gang comprising George Osborne (Tories), Ed Balls (Labour) and Danny Alexander (Lib Dems) who speak the language of Better Together while threatening that the whole business will get nasty if things don't go their way.
Me? I think this is a ridiculous way to behave and it certainly makes me less inclined to believe that politicians at Westminster have Scotland's best interests at heart.
