Glenrothes by-election

[Rolfe]

Going for the ultimate award in tastelessness here, as the MP only died last night, but here is a thread to discuss the political implications of this.

This constituency is in Scotland, and the seat is currently held by Labour with a majority of about 10,000 (compare Glasgow East where the majority was 13,500).

In contrast to the unseemly rush to hold the Glasgow East by-election, I anticipate a bit of foot-dragging on this one.

Rolfe.

Hmmmm. I note that Glenrothes is 48.3 miles from my house, estimated journey time 1 hour 10 minutes. Cf. Glasgow East, which was 52 miles and 1 hour 4 minutes. Oh well, the rosette is still lying on the parcel shelf....

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Going for the ultimate award in tastelessness here, as the MP only died last night, but here is a thread to discuss the political implications of this.

This constituency is in Scotland, and the seat is currently held by Labour with a majority of about 10,000 (compare Glasgow East where the majority was 13,500).

In contrast to the unseemly rush to hold the Glasgow East by-election, I anticipate a bit of foot-dragging on this one.

Rolfe.

Hmmmm. I note that Glenrothes is 48.3 miles from my house, estimated journey time 1 hour 10 minutes. Cf. Glasgow East, which was 52 miles and 1 hour 4 minutes. Oh well, the rosette is still lying on the parcel shelf....

I suspect that the MP for the neighbouring constituency will be staying as far as possible away during the election campaign - maybe he would lend you his house to save on CO2 emissions?

[Rolfe]

The Times is the only online newspaper which seems to have any coverage of this.

Brown faces fresh by-election as Labour MP John MacDougall dies (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4520917.ece)

Analysis: SNP hot favourites to win Glenrothes (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4521884.ece)

The prevailing view seems to be that the by-election is likely to be delayed until October or November, in the hope of a Labour recovery, or the SNP shooting themselves in the foot. This makes a bit of a mockery of the haste to call the Glasgow East by-election, which was said to be due to a desire not to leave the people of the constituency without an MP for several months. (In fact it was a combination of trying to catch the SNP election response on the hop, and hoping that the by-election would be safely over before details of what David Marshall had been up to before he resigned became public.)

It was pointed out at the time that it is possible to call by-elections during the parliamentary recess, and that is still true, but I doubt if there will be a rush to explore that possibility.

It has been suggested that Labour might call an early general election rather than fight this by-election, but I seriously doubt that's in their thinking. Even if thay lose the by-election, that will only give the SNP eight MPs, and it won't disrupt the Commons arithmetic significantly. A general election would be turkeys voting for Christmas, plucking themselves and jumping in the oven, stopping only to make the cranberry sauce on the way. (Apologies to whoever I nicked that from.) Oh yes, make that bankrupt turkeys. A by-election will be expensive, but not nearly as expensive as a general election, in every way.

Of course Glasgow East cost the SNP money too, but I'm pretty sure the party is up for a repeat performance. This by-election has been anticipated for months anyway, and passing round the hat is likely to yield results. And the activists were quite explicitly regarding Glasgow East as a practice run for this one - and Motherwell, of course.

The Motherwell and Wishaw by-election is a different kettle of fish. That's a Holyrood seat, and if the SNP wins that, it makes their majority in Holyrood three rather than one. Tripling it in one fell swoop. I suspect that the good people of Malawi might have to wait quite a while for their new High Commissioner to take office.

There was a new YouGov poll out today, which is very poorly reported online (http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2423575.0.0.php) (though I hear that the Independent has it splashed all over the front page of its Scottish edition).

The YouGov poll, conducted from August 6-8 with a sample of 1,028, puts the SNP on 44%, up 11% on their May 2007 election performance, with Labour trailing at 25%, down 7%.

The Liberal Democrats at 14% and the Tories at 13% are both down on their 2007 performance, by 2% and 4% respectively.

On one calculation, the figures could give the SNP 58 of Holyrood's 73 constituency seats, while Labour would slump to eight seats, the Lib Dems six, and the Tories one.


And from a comment on that thread, the information that Westminster voting intentions were also polled. (I think this is a quote from the Edinburgh Evening News.)

CHANCELLOR Alistair Darling could lose his parliamentary seat in Edinburgh South West at the next election, according to an opinion poll released today.
A huge swing towards the Scottish National Party would see a number of key Labour seats at Westminster wiped out, the YouGov survey indicates.

Edinburgh East MP Gavin Strang and Nigel Griffiths in Edinburgh South would also lose their seats if the predictions are correct.

The survey of voting intentions, which was commissioned by the SNP, found a doubling of support for the Nationalists since the last election.

The party registered support of 36 per cent of those polled, with Labour down 11 percentage points since 2005 to 29 per cent.

The Conservatives showed a rise of two points to 18 per cent, with the Liberal Democrats dropping 10 points to 13 per cent.

Such a victory would swell the SNP's Westminster ranks from six to 26, making it the largest parliamentary party in Scotland. Labour would lose 19 MPs, leaving the party with just 22 Scottish MPs.


Yes, I don't suppose Labour will be all that worried if the constituents of Glenrothes are lacking a representative in parliament for a few months....

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

I suspect that the MP for the neighbouring constituency will be staying as far as possible away during the election campaign - maybe he would lend you his house to save on CO2 emissions?


:D :D :D

Rolfe.

[Darat]

Sadly this one can't have come as a surprise to anyone so you'd expect that the Labour party machinery would be ready to run with it.....

[Rolfe]

Not after what happened in Glasgow East I wouldn't (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4362917.ece).

The really shocking thing about all that was the revelation that Labour's computer software can't cope with the Scottish system of numbering tenement flats. They had to do all the canvass returns manually as a result.

Now, east Glasgow is not the only area of Scotland to have such a numbering system. It's pretty universal in city constituencies. The suggests that they have been doing no canvassing and recording no data for any Scottish constituencies. Can that be for real, given that there was a Holyrood election only a year ago?

I understand they had only canvassed half that constituency by polling day. In contrast to the SNP, who had a third of it done in advance (John Mason's council ward), and got the rest done by ten days before polling day. Well, they called the election, and chose to call it with extreme haste.

This time, I anticipate a pause long enough to get a computer system in place and some canvassing done. Assuming they can get people prepared to do it. And I hope nobody will take this the wrong way, but using people with English accents to canvass in Scotland is often a bad idea.

I suppose at least they'll be vetting their volunteers a bit more carefully this time.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

A couple of interesting articles.

From the Herald....
Why McLeish could be ideal candidate (http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2425984.0.0.php)

From the Times
MPs try to block Henry McLeish as candidate (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article4535817.ece)

.... if Mr McLeish was selected it would show that Scottish Labour had no talent pool to pick from and had to “go back to the future” for a candidate.


Uh, yes....

Rolfe.

[Architect]

Was "the plumber" all that bad? It all seems so long ago now.....

[Nogbad]

Henry is an OK guy but way too "off message" for NL I would have thought and far too independent of London.

[Rolfe]

Seems to me that Henry could be their best chance of holding the seat. But I suspect they'd rather lose it than welcome the loose cannon back into Westminster.

I wonder if they might try to have the Motherwell and Wishaw by-election the same day, in the hope of splitting up the SNP campaign effort? The trouble with that is, it would split the Labour effort too, and they seemed to have far less resources to call on than the SNP had last month.

Wishaw is only 29.5 miles from here, it's where I moved from last spring, basically lemme attit!!! I swear I'd pay good money to canvass the village where I was brought up, or even the area of the town where I lived latterly.

Rolfe.

[Nogbad]

Seems to me that Henry could be their best chance of holding the seat. But I suspect they'd rather lose it than welcome the loose cannon back into Westminster.

I wonder if they might try to have the Motherwell and Wishaw by-election the same day, in the hope of splitting up the SNP campaign effort? The trouble with that is, it would split the Labour effort too, and they seemed to have far less resources to call on than the SNP had last month.

Wishaw is only 29.5 miles from here, it's where I moved from last spring, basically lemme attit!!! I swear I'd pay good money to canvass the village where I was brought up, or even the area of the town where I lived latterly.

Rolfe.

Didn't even know Motherwell was up for a by election :boggled: At this rate Cameron won't need to wait until 2010.

Did I see an opinion poll putting the SNP comfortably ahead of Labour recently or did I imagine it?

[Rolfe]

Didn't even know Motherwell was up for a by election :boggled: At this rate Cameron won't need to wait until 2010.


It will be a Holyrood by-election. Our esteemed former FM (the one after Henry) was promised the job of High Commissioner to Malawi to get him to stand down and let the fragrant Wendy take over after Labour lost Holyrood last year. Rumour has it that he fancied a seat in the Lords but that wasn't on offer. Bit of a shame for all those working their socks off in the Diplomatic Corps in the hope of a posting like this, but there you go.

Anyway, Henry should have been off to Africa months ago. But Brown is bottling the by-election. Probably even more so than a Westminster one, because while one extra SNP MP is neither here not there in the Commons' arithmetic, a win in M&W would treble their Holyrood majority.

Did I see an opinion poll putting the SNP comfortably ahead of Labour recently or did I imagine it?


Only if you were real quick. The Herald had an article online, but only discussing the Holyrood figures, and even that got buried and the paper itself didn't have a syllable. I bought the Independent that day, because it was splashed all over the front page, but that article wasn't online.

It was a YouGov poll, and it had the SNP comfortably ahead for Westminster as well as Holyrood, in seats as well as votes. I'll see if I can find an online reference to it.

This is the first poll ever that has shown the SNP ahead of Labour in Westminster voting intentions. It's a bit startling that the Herald had nothing at all on it, that's the paper that used to commission a System 3 poll every month.

Rolfe.

[Nogbad]

The Herald is less good than it used to be although it is light years ahead of the tabloids. I like the letters page, some of the regulars are quite entertaining. I picked a Telegraph up by mistake a couple of weeks ago and was horrified by the feeble "Britain isn't what it used to be" one line letters. Turned back to the front page and realised my mistake (I felt sullied and it quite spoiled my morning commute :( )


Forgot all about the Malawi thing.

[Rolfe]

Ah, Malawi. I had a feeling I'd got that wrong. Mind if I edit my post?

The Scottish edition of the Independent seems just to be a front page wrapped round the same as England gets. That front page was worth paying for, but the rest of the paper wasn't. A couple of times recently my paperboy has given me a Telegraph instead of a Herald and it wasn't a bad effort, with a number of Scottish articles inside, but while I find it quite a good read, I like a purely Scottish paper and I don't think I'm Torygraph at heart.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

OK, here's a quick summary of the figures from the Independent.

SNP will rout Labour in general election - poll
Darling and Browne face losing Westminster seats

SNP - 36% (26 seats) (up 18% and 20 seats on 2005)
Labour - 29% (22 seats) (down 11% and 19 seats)
Conservative - 18% (4 seats) (up 2% and 3 seats)
LibDem - 13% (7 seats) (down 10% and 4 seats)
Other - 4%

Oddly enough I can't find this even on the SNP web site.

What I do find there is the Holyrood figures (http://www.snp.org/node/14146), as reported in the Herald.

SNP: 44% [+11]
Labour: 25% [-7]
Lib Dem: 14% [-2]
Con: 13% [-4]
Other: 4% [+2]

Applying these figures to the Weber Shandwick Scotland Votes model, the SNP would win 58 of Scotland's 73 Holyrood first-past-the-post seats.

SNP - 58 constituency seats (plus 37)
Labour - 8 constituency seats (minus 29)
LibDems - 6 constituency seats (minus 5)
Tories - 1 constituency seat (minus 3)

The SNP would gain the seats of all three Labour leadership contenders - Iain Gray, Andy Kerr and Cathy Jamieson.


Labour would obviously get a lot of list MSPs in that situation, I'm sure someone somewhere has done the arithmetic. Nice to watch them backtrack on their present efforts to make list MSPs second-class citizens!

Oh yes, found this calculation.

Although the poll did not ask the regional intentions, the last election results show a pattern of about 2% away from the major parties to the minor parties on the list vote with the Greens getting about half of the minor party vote total.

According the Scotland Votes predictor, 44% constituency vote would give the SNP 58 seats.

Using the constituency vote minus 2% for the major parties and Greens with half of the minor party vote, the regional list could be expected to be similar to this and the totals to this

Scottish Parliament (129 seats)
73 Const. seats, 56 Reg seats, majority is 65 total

Party (Reg) (Const) (Total)

SNP 42 (6)(58) (64)
Labour 23 (24) (8) (32)
LibDem 12 (9) (6) (15)
Tories 11 (12) (1) (13)
Green 6 (5) (0) (5)
Others 6 (0) (0) (0)

It is currently showing the SNP one seat short of an overall majority. With currently one independent, Margo MacDonald, a former SNP member, could that single vote be the difference?


The SNP site also gives a "poll of polls" Westminster analysis (http://www.snp.org/node/13876) for May and June, extracting the Scottish responders from ten UK-wide opinion polls to derive a reasonably meaningful number to play with.

The study based on the ten UK opinion polls conducted in May and June following the first anniversary of the SNP Government gives the following ratings (change from 2005 election in brackets):

SNP: 34% (+16%), Lab: 28% (-12%), Tory: 21% (+5%), LibDem: 12% (-10%), Other: 5% (1%)


It's reasonably in line with the figures reported by the Independent this week, allowing for a spot more movement in the SNP direction. I think the general feeling is that Labour are in trouble in Glenrothes. One dilemma most be, if they throw everything at it, including Henry as a candidate and GB campaigning on the ground, and still lose, do they have any credibility left at all?

Rolfe.

[Nogbad]

Ah, Malawi. I had a feeling I'd got that wrong. Mind if I edit my post?

The Scottish edition of the Independent seems just to be a front page wrapped round the same as England gets. That front page was worth paying for, but the rest of the paper wasn't. A couple of times recently my paperboy has given me a Telegraph instead of a Herald and it wasn't a bad effort, with a number of Scottish articles inside, but while I find it quite a good read, I like a purely Scottish paper and I don't think I'm Torygraph at heart.

Rolfe.

:blush: Feck! I never even noticed you had something else in there - it has been a long week and I am watching Pink Floyd Live at Pompeii on You Tube. I am obviously not a multi tasker - so be my guest

[Rolfe]

Looking at those poll figures, I remember all the protestations that we don't need an independence referendum because a vote for the SNP is the way to express that preference (handily editing out all the Labour voters who are in favour of independence). I wonder how long it will take, if these figures are anywhere near repeated at an actual election, for the result to be declared a protest vote, and of course this doesn't in any way signal a desire for independence!

Rolfe.

[andyandy]

There's a good article about what Labour should do in the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/15/glenrothes.byelections

For one thing, delaying a byelection goes against current Labour instincts about such matters, which are haunted by the loss of Brent East to the Liberal Democrats in 2003 - a byelection loss now put down by the party to the three-month gap between the death of Labour's Paul Daisley and polling day. Modern byelections have to take place quickly, one former Labour manager argued to me before Glasgow East. Going early maximises your own control, minimises your own weaknesses, denies your opponents time, and, if you lose, it gets the bad news out of the way.

This last is a potent factor in any calculations about Glenrothes. If, in the real world, Labour is bound to lose there, then what is the advantage of delaying? In the wake of Glasgow East, nobody expects Labour to hold Glenrothes, so would it not be best - or least worst - to just take the hit?

The crucial political question about Glenrothes is whether a defeat there will trigger a challenge to Brown. There are no easy answers, but the impact of a November defeat in Glenrothes on a relaunched, reshuffled and even modestly resurgent Labour party would in my view be much more damaging to Brown than the impact of a September defeat on a Labour party fully braced for the loss and ready, in the aftermath, to stand by its leader as he attempts to turn things around.

None of this, let's be clear, does much, if anything, to address Labour's central current problem. That problem, as a former minister graphically puts it, is that the electorate now thinks of Brown in the same way as a householder who sees an unwelcome visitor through the spyhole in the front door when the bell rings. At first, the householder just refuses to answer the door. But if the same visitor simply goes on ringing the same bell, the householder will go to any lengths to get rid of him. Labour's challenge is to work out how to persuade the electorate to answer the door. That's partly about the face they see through the spyhole, but in the end it is even more about the message he brings.

Seen from now, in the middle of August 2008, Labour seems willing to allow Brown another chance to ring the bell on its behalf. In my view that is a piece of self-indulgence Labour cannot afford. Yet if I am wrong, as I may be, and the Brown strategy is to have some chance of succeeding - however modestly such success must now be defined - then Labour has to find a way of taking the electorate's punch in Glenrothes and not allowing that punch to lay it on the canvas. That way is to hold the byelection at the earliest possible, if ominous, date: September 11

I think the reasoning is pretty sound. The absolute worst thing for Labour would be to oversee a "party relaunch" with a new mission statement, some new policies and a Cabinet reshuffle in the autumn, only to be trounced just as badly in a following by-election. Given that the economy is only going to deteriorate, and with it Labour support is likely to deteriorate even further, you could certainly make a case for getting it over and done with. This argument is further reinforced by the fact that the SNP can mobilise large numbers of supporters and the fact that the Labour Party have no money, so any protracted by-election campaign would play into the hands of the SNP. Of course, I don't think there will be a snap election. Gordon will try to avoid having to deal with the issue for as long as possible, as he seems quite adept at head in the sand politics.

[gtc]

The Scottish edition of the Independent seems just to be a front page wrapped round the same as England gets. That front page was worth paying for, but the rest of the paper wasn't. A couple of times recently my paperboy has given me a Telegraph instead of a Herald and it wasn't a bad effort, with a number of Scottish articles inside, but while I find it quite a good read, I like a purely Scottish paper and I don't think I'm Torygraph at heart.

Out of interest, how different are the Scottish editions of the Guardian and the Times?

I have read that Scotland has one of the most competitive newspaper markets given that you get the full suite of London papers plus the Scottish ones.

[Nogbad]

Out of interest, how different are the Scottish editions of the Guardian and the Times?

I have read that Scotland has one of the most competitive newspaper markets given that you get the full suite of London papers plus the Scottish ones.

I do know that the Scottish Daily Mail does not run with the intemperate anti-Scottish head lines, articles and editorials printed in the English edition....


not surprising really I suppose.

[Architect]

Indeed, the only complaint I ever made to the PPC was over a full page article in the English edition of the Daily Fascist Mail which said "Will We Let this Scot Ruin Our Green and Pleasant Land". It was an article purporting that Broon had implemented a policy effectively negating the greenbelts. It was, of course, bollocks - in fact it was a different department, with an English minister, and what it said was that there may be cases where greenbelt policies could be relaxed. Funnily enough, the story did not appear in their Scottish edition.

This is one of the reasons I stick to Scottish papers, I have to admit. As for the Times, it's easy to spot the Scottish edition only stories because the font and layout tend to be very slightly different. Most notable on a Sunday, IMHO. Buy the Herald instead!

[Rolfe]

I have to say I only get the Herald. I flirted with the Scotsman once, in about 1994. I read the Telegraph intermittently while I was in England, and it was OK on the whole, but there's nothing quite like the Herald's letters page. Especially when you know about 25% of the writers.

Went to a local agricultural show this afternoon, partly to help man the SNP tent. The first thing that got said to me was, gearing up for Glenrothes, then? I remarked that now I understood why the party had been so keen to abolish the bridge tolls - so that we could get to Glenrothes more easily.

Nobody expects it to be a pushover at all. There is a LibDem presence there, so the protest vote won't go all one way. We're quietly hopeful though.

Rolfe.

[Professor Yaffle]

Out of interest, how different are the Scottish editions of the Guardian and the Times?

I have read that Scotland has one of the most competitive newspaper markets given that you get the full suite of London papers plus the Scottish ones.

I don't think the Grauniad does a Scottish edition. Even the TV listings are for England in it and you have to check the regional variations for the times when or programmes differ. I keep forgetting this until River City comes on....

[Rolfe]

I bought the Scottish edition of the Independent on Wednesday because of that opinion poll headline (and what with the Herald having decided not to run the story at all....).

Beechgrove Garden? Never heard of it.

Rolfe.

[Architect]

As the only reader here of the West Highland Free Press..............


(beurla? De as a tha seo, an "beurla"?)

[gtc]

As the only reader here of the West Highland Free Press..............


(beurla? De as a tha seo, an "beurla"?)

Possibly, although my Grandma once sent me a copy of the Oban Times and the comics page of the Sunday Post. It took me a while to work out that (unlike Biffa Bacon in The Viz) they weren't making fun of the Broons accents.

[Rolfe]

As the only reader here of the West Highland Free Press..............


(beurla? De as a tha seo, an "beurla"?)


Isn't that under the iron control of arch-unionist Brian Wilson?

I was surprised to learn that in his youth Brian was an SNP member, and to quote Alex Salmond, the author of such inflammatory nonsense that if he did that now it would be my regrettable duty to throw him out of the party."

Rolfe.

[Architect]

Yes and yes, I always thought it surprising too.

[Rolfe]

Bump. Apparently Gordon wants the by-election to be on 6th November. Why, I have no idea.

Two and a half months since the death of the MP. So much for the paramount importance of the constituency having a representative. Probably not so paramount if it looks as if it will be an SNP MP maybe....

I heard a LibDem on the radio today declaring that his party were campaigning to win, and expected to win.

Oh well, that's that then....

I've had, so far, one begging letter, two emails telling me where the SNP constituency election HQ is (with the suggestion that I get my sorry bahookie there as soon as and as often as possible) and one phone call to say, tonight's branch meeting is off, see you in Markinch.

Personally, I think Brown is reversing the usual by-election rule of having it in the most clement weather window as possible to make campaigning pleasanter. Thinking being, perhaps, that if nobody is going to turn up to campaign for Labour anyway, then it won't make any difference to them, and a bit of icy chill, freezing rain and pitch darkness might just cool the SNP juggernaut's ardour.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Another little bump, as the by-election has now been officially called for 6th November. Not quite 3 months since the MP died. You know, it's so important not to leave the constituency without a representative.

Apparently Gordon thinks everything is peachy because Labour got a boost from their Annual Conference. Um, whose Annual Conference is scheduled for 16th - 19th October, again...? Oh, but the brand new fifth wheel Secretary of State for Scotland has stated lugubriously that of course Labour are the underdogs.... that'll be their 10,000 majority, then....

Oh, and in other news, there is apparently going to be no Motherwell and Wishaw by-election after all. Apparently Gordon is so scared of losing that seat to the SNP (you know, the safe one held by the previous First Minister) that he's bottled it entirely and found some strange ruse to avoid Wee Joke having to resign his seat (http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2457390.0.unpaid_parttime_post_for_mcc onnell_avoids_byelection.php). Tripling the SNP's Holyrood majority is obviously something he'd rather avoid.

Rolfe.

[Nogbad]

Call me mad and stick a prize begonia down the front of me trousers but the 6th of November?

I have visions of party big wigs, security and naughty kids with bangers. This should be interesting.

[Rolfe]

Fair point.

Whose idea was it to import that English tradition anyway? The firework merchants?

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Bump (http://www.theherald.co.uk/byelection). I know everyone is otherwise engaged right now, but there are other elections, you know.

One of the Scottish papers today aparently carried a cartoon of a US newsreader opening the news programme by saying, "And now we go direct to Scotland for our regular coverage of the Glenrothes by-election."

Some day....

Rolfe.

(Gross superstition here. I changed my avatar to an SNP logo before 3rd May 2007, and again before Glasgow East. So this is either wearing the lucky socks, or tempting fate, or a completely free gesture, merely demonstrating my party allegience, depending on your point of view.)

[Nogbad]

Have there been any recent polls for Glenrothes? I can't recall seeing any.

[Macoy]

Bump (http://www.theherald.co.uk/byelection). I know everyone is otherwise engaged right now, but there are other elections, you know.

One of the Scottish papers today aparently carried a cartoon of a US newsreader opening the news programme by saying, "And now we go direct to Scotland for our regular coverage of the Glenrothes by-election."

Some day....

Rolfe.

(Gross superstition here. I changed my avatar to an SNP logo before 3rd May 2007, and again before Glasgow East. So this is either wearing the lucky socks, or tempting fate, or a completely free gesture, merely demonstrating my party allegience, depending on your point of view.)

Us English socialists are just so unsuperstitious.


Have there been any recent polls for Glenrothes? I can't recall seeing any.

They are probably hoping we all now love Gordon, even though he forgot to ask the banks to pass on the interest cuts to the mortgagee/taxpayer.

[Rolfe]

Have there been any recent polls for Glenrothes? I can't recall seeing any.


No. But the bookies have the SNP at odds-on. And the tone of the emails I'm getting from "Alex Salmond" (I don't imagine he actually writes them himself!) is more positive than the equivalent ones I was getting in the days before Glasgow East. So I'm taking the "too close to call" rhetoric in the newspapers with a bit of a pinch of salt.

I haven't been able to make it to Glenrothes myself, due to a combination of work and pre-existing personal committments. In hindsight, I should probably have gone there instead of to Perth for the SNP conference. However, I'm told the SNP campaign is well organised and well staffed to the point where people are having to queue to be allocated work. I understand over 5,000 individuals have signed on to help at various times (plus those who didn't bother signing the list). The Labour campaign, in contrast, is said to be poorly supported, with people having to be brought up from England, and many helpers apparently being shy of contact with the voters.

It's a different sort of constituency from Glasgow East. The Fife electorate are extremely left-wing to the point where many used to vote Communist. Why that makes them cling on to the Labour of today I have no idea, but tribal loyalties (as Harriet Harman put it) die hard. The majority to be overturned is less than in Glasgow (10,000 as opposed to, I think, 13,000), and I think it can be done.

Labour is trying to portray itself as the underdog (that 10,000 majority notwithstanding) and Gordon Brown as the single-handed saviour of civilisation, but I don't think it's really connecting.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Today's the day, guys.

Just sayin'....

Rolfe.

[Darat]

I thought some Muslim socialist had won this the other day?

[Rolfe]

:confused:

Rolfe.

[Darat]

Joke based on your comment that "...but there are other elections...."

[andyandy]

Come on you Scots! Let's get back to the business of kicking Labour, enough of this Westminster triumphalism over Gordon Brown's new image as economic saviour of the free world.

[mummymonkey]

So I'm taking the "too close to call" rhetoric in the newspapers with a bit of a pinch of salt.

That was very wise of you Rolfe.
A bit of a hammering your boy got there.

[Macoy]

You wait till people don't get the rate cut. Except the investors of course. They'll get the rate cut.

[geni]

That was very wise of you Rolfe.
A bit of a hammering your boy got there.

SNP total increased. Labour have recovered somewhat pulling off another upset would not have been easy.

[Rolfe]

Well, I guess the lucky socks weren't on form.

[Rolfe goes off to chenge avatar....]

Ah, that's better.

I think it's too early to start explaining this - or explaining it away, depending on your point of view. Though of course there are a lot of SNP-types spinning madly all over the place. (Geni is right, there was a swing of over 5% to the SNP, it's mainly that a much bigger swing was predicted and did in fact happen in Glasgow East. The also-rans were also squeezed madly again, to the point where both Conservative and LibDem parties lost their deposits. The collapsing LibDem vote, which had been quite high, went substantially to the SNP but also favoured Labour.)

Yes, expectations were probably unrealistic. People who had familiarity with the constituency and its communist-voting past said it would be a much harder nut to crack than Glasgow East and in the end they were right. However, expectations in the last week or two were based on solid canvass returns, and it wasn't just the SNP. Labour themselves actually thought they'd lost at close of poll, and were as surprised as anyone when, as one commentator put it, it appeared that "something had gone badly right".


Current high contenders on the differential diagnosis list:

The relentless scaremongering in the Labour campaign over the fact that the SNP-led local council had recently changed the charging formula for old age care help to a means-tested system, no less generous than those operated elsewhere in Scotland by Labour-controlled councils, but obviously meaning that some people would pay more. (It appears the outgoing Labour council shied away from doing this before the last election even though it was clearly going to be necessary.)
The spin on Gordon Brown's performance to portray him as the Saviour of Humanity in the present crisis.
The aforementioned communist-leaning electorate, many of whom still seem to think that Labour is a left-wing party.
Adverse economic circumstances leading voters to decide to stick with what they have rather than say "yes we can" to change.
And no doubt there will be others. But at the moment I think the question of why the result was so different from everybody's canvass returns is the interesting part.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Joke based on your comment that "...but there are other elections...."


Sorry, that went right over my head. Mea culpa.

Rolfe.

[geni]

The relentless scaremongering in the Labour campaign over the fact that the SNP-led local council had recently changed the charging formula for old age care help to a means-tested system, no less generous than those operated elsewhere in Scotland by Labour-controlled councils, but obviously meaning that some people would pay more. (It appears the outgoing Labour council shied away from doing this before the last election even though it was clearly going to be necessary.)

Complete colapse of the non SNP labour vote suggests not.


The spin on Gordon Brown's performance to portray him as the Saviour of Humanity in the present crisis.


Posible.


The aforementioned communist-leaning electorate, many of whom still seem to think that Labour is a left-wing party.


Doubtful. I doubt there would be much difficulty persuading that the SNP was at least as left wing as labour.


Adverse economic circumstances leading voters to decide to stick with what they have rather than say "yes we can" to change.


Depends on the change. While the SNP may have been the stalking hourse in the by-election it is cameron who people will be thinking about.

[Rolfe]

I've been looking at some analysis, and this is one I found fairly thoughtful.

That certainly was a good win for Labour, and I think almost everyone is surprised by the scale. I don't attribute it to media bias. (There is media bias of course, but it didn't stop the SNP winning in Galsgow East, or at Holyrood.) Nor do I think such a majority can be explained by local issues (care home charges versus bridge tolls looks at least a draw to me).

I think that the result shows that in troubled economic times more than half the voters of Glenrothes preferred the devil they know. Those Scottish Labour MPs reportedly punching the air with joy during the last Labour conference at news of the banking crisis were spot on about that.

Rather like wartime, a crisis like this puts the opposition parties (which includes the SNP in this context) into a difficult position. If they stir up too much trouble, they can be seen as dragging the country down. If they support the government, then they are saying the government is doing the right thing, and so are not a better alternative... that is exactly how George W Bush got re-elected, remember.

Politics is at least partly about taking credit and avoiding blame. Gordon Brown has obviously earned some credit from the Glenrothes electorate for his recent efforts, while avoiding the blame for his contribution to the development of the crisis in the first place (which, going back over ten years, is actually fairly significant.)


Actually, there is sometimes quite a lot of difficulty in parts of Scotland in persuading people that the SNP is at least as left-wing as Labour. The smear "Tartan Tories" is practically a mantra. The role of the SNP in the vote which brought down the Callaghan government in 1979 and so ushered in the Thatcher years is persistently spun as the SNP single-handedly and knowingly delivering Thatcherism to Scotland, ignoring the wider influences which were at work there.

Also, I very much doubt if many voters in Scotland think much about Cameron at all.

My main point of interest is, how come Labour's (in the end quite comfortable) hold wasn't spotted by anyone in advance. OK, the SNP campaign might have been suffering from an excess of optimism (though their canvassing is usually realistic), but the Labour campaign people quite genuinely thought they'd lost, too. Where did all these Labour voters actually come from?

By the way, can anyone tell me what the actual swing was? The BBC originally quoted it as 8.15% to the SNP, but this was challenged by someone declaring it was just over 5% or thereabouts. Now I read claims that the 8.15% was in fact correct. I'm not quite sure how this ought to be calculated.

Rolfe.

[Darat]

BBC are reporting it as "4.96% swing from Labour to the SNP" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7714670.stm . It really does seem to have come out of the blue, the SNP folk I've seen and heard being interviewed seemed to have been totally taken by surprise. I wonder if the next General Election will be a two horse race between the SNP & Labour?

(But Rolfe don't despair too much - there was some good news (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128307)coming out of Scotland today.)

[CapelDodger]

Actually, there is sometimes quite a lot of difficulty in parts of Scotland in persuading people that the SNP is at least as left-wing as Labour. The smear "Tartan Tories" is practically a mantra. The role of the SNP in the vote which brought down the Callaghan government in 1979 and so ushered in the Thatcher years is persistently spun as the SNP single-handedly and knowingly delivering Thatcherism to Scotland, ignoring the wider influences which were at work there.

Also, I very much doubt if many voters in Scotland think much about Cameron at all.

I, on the other hand, think they do and I doubt they think much about Callaghan and Thatcher. In times like this they mostly think about jobs, families, homes, stuff like that. This is no time to indulge in the unknowns of nationalism. It was a few months ago, but no longer.

[geni]

Also, I very much doubt if many voters in Scotland think much about Cameron at all.

Voters in britian do.


Where did all these Labour voters actually come from?


Where I suspect fear of Cameron or at least not-labour kicks in. Filling in the ballot form do you vote the way that will localy help the SNP but nationaly helps the tories?

[CapelDodger]

BBC are reporting it as "4.96% swing from Labour to the SNP" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7714670.stm . It really does seem to have come out of the blue, the SNP folk I've seen and heard being interviewed seemed to have been totally taken by surprise. I wonder if the next General Election will be a two horse race between the SNP & Labour?

Not in Cardiff it won't :).

(But Rolfe don't despair too much - there was some good news (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128307)coming out of Scotland today.)

That is excellent news.

[Darat]

Not in Cardiff it won't :).

...snip...

Pah!

[mummymonkey]

BBC are reporting it as "4.96% swing from Labour to the SNP"
If Labour's vote went up, which it did, how can there have been a swing from Labour?

[gtc]

Wikipedia has two different ways to calculate swings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_(politics)) in British elections.

The first is the Butler Swing which seems to be calculated as the average of the gain in percent for Labour and the loss in percent for the SNP.

Labour got 19,946 or 55.11% of all the votes cast. In 2005 they got 51.91% so they increased their share by 3.20%.

SNP got 13,209 or 36.49%. In 2005 they got 23.37% so their increase was 13.13%.

The Butler swing seems to be the average of 3.20% and -13.13% or -4.96%.

The Steed Swing excludes the votes that weren't for the SNP or Labour. Labour went from 68.96% to 60.16% and so they suffered a swing of -8.80%.

Labour suffered a swing against them even though their vote increased in both number of votes cast and in percentage of total votes cast because the SNP did even better.

These calculations are my interpretation of the wikipedia article, so I may be wrong.

[Nogbad]

I've been looking at some analysis, and this is one I found fairly thoughtful.




Actually, there is sometimes quite a lot of difficulty in parts of Scotland in persuading people that the SNP is at least as left-wing as Labour. The smear "Tartan Tories" is practically a mantra. The role of the SNP in the vote which brought down the Callaghan government in 1979 and so ushered in the Thatcher years is persistently spun as the SNP single-handedly and knowingly delivering Thatcherism to Scotland, ignoring the wider influences which were at work there.

Also, I very much doubt if many voters in Scotland think much about Cameron at all.

My main point of interest is, how come Labour's (in the end quite comfortable) hold wasn't spotted by anyone in advance. OK, the SNP campaign might have been suffering from an excess of optimism (though their canvassing is usually realistic), but the Labour campaign people quite genuinely thought they'd lost, too. Where did all these Labour voters actually come from?

By the way, can anyone tell me what the actual swing was? The BBC originally quoted it as 8.15% to the SNP, but this was challenged by someone declaring it was just over 5% or thereabouts. Now I read claims that the 8.15% was in fact correct. I'm not quite sure how this ought to be calculated.

Rolfe.

There were apparently over 7,000 postal votes - prolly Fife Labour voters on their hols on the French Riviera.

[Rolfe]

I have heard a CT that the postal ballots were stuffed. I don't believe it. First, because the result really did seem to take the Labour bigwigs by surprise, and that wouldn't have been the case if they had been involved in any fiddling extensive enough to produce a majority of this size. But second, because we didn't hear any strange rumblings when the postal votes were opened.

The opening of the postal votes is a time when it is possible for observers to get an idea of how real voters are voting, in advance of the actual poll. They are sworn to secrecy but usually leak like the proverbial sieves. A postal vote of near-on 100% to Labour would have been noticed. The fact that there were no rumours flying after the postal vote opening suggests to me that the unexpected result was achieved by voters in person. This is of course consistent with the observation that none of the parties seem to have noticed the size of the Labour vote in advance.

On the radio this morning the matter was discussed in detail, and the preferred explanation was that the high turnout (well, a fair bit higher than expected for a by-election on a rainy November day) had come about late in the day. There were a lot of late voters turning up, and they seem to have voted Labour. It appears that Labour simply managed to get their vote out, whether by an intensive knocking-up effort or as a result of their campaign, and did so to a greater extent than anyone predicted.

Of course, we are now being asked to believe that Gordon Brown and only five trusted people knew that this result was coming up, ten days in advance. But they kept it deadly secret so as to lure the SNP into making claims of impending victory. I don't believe this either.

First, you can't hide canvass returns like that from everybody, and it was clear to anyone looking at the faces of the Labour people (including the candidate and the Secretary of State for Scotland) as they entered the count that they didn't think they were going to win. Second, the SNP's canvassing isn't so deceptive. If it was possible to tell that Labour were going to hold comfortably, ten days in advance, the SNP would have known too. And they didn't.

I think the "late (and rather unexpected) outpouring of Labour loyalists" explanation is the most plausible one, and the attempts to make the Labour machine and Gordon Brown appear all-knowing are merely post-hoc spin.

Rolfe.

[mummymonkey]

Wikipedia has two different ways to calculate swings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_(politics)) in British elections.

The first is the Butler Swing which seems to be calculated as the average of the gain in percent for Labour and the loss in percent for the SNP.

Labour got 19,946 or 55.11% of all the votes cast. In 2005 they got 51.91% so they increased their share by 3.20%.

SNP got 13,209 or 36.49%. In 2005 they got 23.37% so their increase was 13.13%.

The Butler swing seems to be the average of 3.20% and -13.13% or -4.96%.

The Steed Swing excludes the votes that weren't for the SNP or Labour. Labour went from 68.96% to 60.16% and so they suffered a swing of -8.80%.

Labour suffered a swing against them even though their vote increased in both number of votes cast and in percentage of total votes cast because the SNP did even better.

These calculations are my interpretation of the wikipedia article, so I may be wrong.Thanks.
I'd no idea it was as complex as that. I thought it was simply the movement of voters from one party to another. (Which I expect is what most people think when they watch Jon Snow on election nights).

[Ivor the Engineer]

It can't have had anything to do with voters remembering Salmond's comment about "the arc of prosperity" he wanted Scotland to join?

http://www.snp.org/node/10359

2006-08-11

SNP Leader Alex Salmond has today called for Scotland to join northern Europe's arc of prosperity, with Ireland to the west, Iceland to the north and Norway to the east all small independent countries in the top six richest nations in the world. In comparison, the UK is 14th and devolved Scotland 18th * with similar, oil rich Norway over £12,000 per person better off.

[Nogbad]

No matter what the current strains of the world economy I think it fair to say that these countries are still some of the most prosperous places on earth. That is, I don't think a global banking problem has suddenly catapulted Zimbabwe above them.

The quote I liked best was from the Conservative candidate. "the electorate realised a vote for the SNP was not a vote for change"

So they voted Labour? Politicians speak the most dreadful tripe.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I think the fate of Iceland brought home to people how vulnerable and exposed small countries can be when the world economy goes tits up.

Not that this will make any difference to those whose motivation for Scottish independence is grounded in emotion rather than reality.

As an aside, what's the SNP's position on EU integration? Is the call for independence only from the rest of the UK (or even just England), or do they want to pull out of Europe as well?

[Architect]

Yes, and a big country is going to take away a major part of our banking sector and lead to the loss of tens of thousands of jobs.

What's your point, caller?


Is the call for independence only from the rest of the UK (or even just England), or do they want to pull out of Europe as well


You may wish to consider the legal implications if the Act of Union is repealed.

[CapelDodger]

I think the fate of Iceland brought home to people how vulnerable and exposed small countries can be when the world economy goes tits up.

Scotland's colonial fiasco at Darien springs to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_of_Scotland
"All told, the disastrous venture, dubbed the Darien Scheme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_Scheme), drained Scotland of more than a quarter of its liquid assets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_assets) and may have played a key role in pushing the country to the eventual 1707 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1707) Act of Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Union_1707) which united Scotland and England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England). The English agreed to cover the Scottish Government's debt to its people, and this was likely one of the main reasons the Acts of Union were not as heavily resisted by the government of Scotland as they had with other English attempts to amalgamate the two countries, although prevailing public opinion in Scotland was overwhelmingly against it."

This is no time to cast-off from the Bank of England.

As an aside, what's the SNP's position on EU integration? Is the call for independence only from the rest of the UK (or even just England), or do they want to pull out of Europe as well?

The SNP is pro-Europe. Their position is that as long as they're in Europe there's no need to be in the UK.

[Architect]

The Darien analogy is incomplete. Darien was specifically a response to the crippling of Scotland's trade as a result England's continual wars against continental Europe, our principal trading partners, and hence our domestic economy was in an abject state. I find the reference to the Bank of England particularly amusing, since William Paterson - the force behind Darien - was one of the Bank's founders.

But hey, don't let the fact that I was one of a very small number who studied Scots History at school get in the way of a bit of confirmation bias

[geni]

The Darien analogy is incomplete. Darien was specifically a response to the crippling of Scotland's trade as a result England's continual wars against continental Europe, our principal trading partners, and hence our domestic economy was in an abject state.

And that is meant to be a plus point for scotland why? Just a further demonstraition of the problems scotland runs into under difficult economic conditions.

[Darat]

Yes, and a big country is going to take away a major part of our banking sector and lead to the loss of tens of thousands of jobs.

...snip...

As far as I was aware the takeover is of one UK bank by another?

[Architect]

And that is meant to be a plus point for scotland why? Just a further demonstraition of the problems scotland runs into under difficult economic conditions.

Really, I know the English curriculum doesn't really cover the other home nations very much prior to the various Unions, but stick with the programme; we were being bankrupted because the English state blockaded trade with European ports, our principal trading partners. Likewise because we were allied with same we were denied access to English colonies in North America.

[Rolfe]

You going to tell him why things got so bad during the 17th century, or let him find out for himself?

Myself, I blame Essex man.

Rolfe.

[Giz]

Really, I know the English curriculum doesn't really cover the other home nations very much prior to the various Unions, but stick with the programme; we were being bankrupted because the English state blockaded trade with European ports, our principal trading partners. Likewise because we were allied with same we were denied access to English colonies in North America.

So Scotland never figured that making alliances with all of Englands enemies would make life on the British Isles a bit harder than it needed to be? They should have tried being better neighbours...

[CapelDodger]

The Darien analogy is incomplete. Darien was specifically a response to the crippling of Scotland's trade as a result England's continual wars against continental Europe, our principal trading partners, and hence our domestic economy was in an abject state.

Do what now? We're talking the 1690's here. What were these continental wars you speak of? The Scottish problem (vis-a-vis England), apart from it being mostly a godawful wilderness, was that Edinburgh money was excluded from the East India Company.

I find the reference to the Bank of England particularly amusing, since William Paterson - the force behind Darien - was one of the Bank's founders.

I referred to the Bank of England in today's terms; amusingly, you don't seem to have considered that Paterson was collecting his pay-off for bankrupting Scotland. The BoE was founded on the funding of government debt, a chunk of which paid for the Darien fiasco and bought the Act of Union. You guys were like lambs to the slaughter, frankly.

But hey, don't let the fact that I was one of a very small number who studied Scots History at school get in the way of a bit of confirmation bias

Learning Scottish history in Scotland should make you very wary of confirmation bias. I, on the other hand, can take a disinterested view.

[CapelDodger]

So Scotland never figured that making alliances with all of Englands enemies would make life on the British Isles a bit harder than it needed to be? They should have tried being better neighbours...

The English were always going to roll over Scotland at some point. Scottish alliance with the French simply delayed the inevitable.

[geni]

Really, I know the English curriculum doesn't really cover the other home nations very much prior to the various Unions, but stick with the programme; we were being bankrupted because the English state blockaded trade with European ports, our principal trading partners. Likewise because we were allied with same we were denied access to English colonies in North America.

Scotland was free to trade with anyone it liked within europe (well until the Alien Act 1705). If it was unable to get it goods past a maritime blockade well then it was free to build a navy and attempt to challange that blockade. That is was unable to do so is as I said a demonstraition of the problems an independent scotland faced in difficult economic conditions.

[geni]

The English were always going to roll over Scotland at some point. Scottish alliance with the French simply delayed the inevitable.

Questionable. From the POV of England Scotland was a lot less tempting than northern France. The highlands in particular were full of mountians and people who tried to kill you. While some of the more ambitious english kings had a go at the place the general aproach appears to have been to rely on the northumbrians to keep the scots out on a day to day basis and more southern forces when they invaded in significant numbers.

[Architect]

Scotland was free to trade with anyone it liked within europe (well until the Alien Act 1705). If it was unable to get it goods past a maritime blockade well then it was free to build a navy and attempt to challange that blockade. That is was unable to do so is as I said a demonstraition of the problems an independent scotland faced in difficult economic conditions.

As opposed to its problems being caused by a larger, more powerful and beligerent neighbour? My, what an interesting perspective.....

:rolleyes:

[Giz]

As opposed to its problems being caused by a larger, more powerful and beligerent neighbour? My, what an interesting perspective.....

:rolleyes:

Let's be clear here… there was belligerence on both sides.

Some Scottish Invasions of England (snipped from Wiki):

David ignored truces with England and was determined to stand by his ally Philip VI during the early years of the Hundred Years' War. In 1341 he led a raid into England, forcing Edward III to lead an army north to reinforce the border. In 1346, after more Scottish raids, Philip VI appealed for a counter invasion of England in order to relieve the English stranglehold on Calais. David gladly accepted and personally led a Scots army of over 12,000 men southwards with intention of capturing Durham. In reply, an English army, of 5,000 men, moved northwards from Yorkshire to confront the Scots. On October 14, at the Battle of Neville's Cross, the Scots were defeated.

England under Henry VIII declared war on France in 1512 (as part of the larger conflict known as the War of the League of Cambrai). James IV of Scotland invaded England in fulfilment of his alliance with France. (Ending in the battle of Flodden Field).

War broke out in 1541. Once again there were preliminary border skirmishes, but when James sent a large army into England, its leadership was weak and divided and it suffered a humbling defeat at the Battle of Solway Moss.


Who can say how Scotland would have been treated in the 17th and 18th centuries if they hadn't kept siding with France and trying to pincer England but instead been more neighbourly?

[Rolfe]

As opposed to its problems being caused by a larger, more powerful and beligerent neighbour? My, what an interesting perspective.....

:rolleyes:


I still blame Essex man.

I'm still waiting for someone to understand what I'm talking about.

1601, anyone?

Rolfe.

[Architect]

Giz, I can see that Scottish History is a foreign land to you. You might want to look at (in no particular order) the Wars of Independence, claims of overlordship from the English throne, the invasion of Scotland by Cromwell.

[geni]

As opposed to its problems being caused by a larger, more powerful and beligerent neighbour? My, what an interesting perspective.....

:rolleyes:

Having problems caused by large, powerful and beligerent neighbours would count as normal economic conditions in europe. Are you suggesting that an independent scotland was unable to cope with normal economic conditions?

[Giz]

Giz, I can see that Scottish History is a foreign land to you. You might want to look at (in no particular order) the Wars of Independence, claims of overlordship from the English throne, the invasion of Scotland by Cromwell.

Architect, All I am claiming is that not all of the blame can be laid at England's door… I would not neccesarily disagree that England was being a wee bit naughty in the wars of independence and taking advantage of its position of relative power. However, there was aggression and opportunism on both sides… as was the norm in that era.


And the use of Cromwell as an example of English aggression is a bit iffy, the English Parliament was responding to the imminent threat of a Scottish invasion to put the (Scottish!) King back in charge…

(From Wiki… Second Civil War)

Charles I took advantage of the deflection of attention away from himself to negotiate a new agreement with the Scots, again promising church reform, on 28 December 1647. Although Charles himself remained a prisoner, this agreement led inexorably to the Second Civil War.

A series of Royalist uprisings throughout England and a Scottish invasion occurred in the summer of 1648.


Or were you thinking of two years later (the Third Civil War) when the Scots acclaimed Charles II King and ended up marching into England as far as Worcester before Cromwell caught them and ended the civil wars for good …?

[Rolfe]

Having problems caused by large, powerful and beligerent neighbours would count as normal economic conditions in europe. Are you suggesting that an independent scotland was unable to cope with normal economic conditions?


Scotland managed pretty well as an independent nation. Like I said, it all comes down to what Essex man failed to achieve, and 1601.

Rolfe.

[geni]

Scotland managed pretty well as an independent nation.

First problem is that scotland as a nation is somewhat questionable. There was a single king parliment yes but the degree of autonomy by some of the highland clansmen was beyond what the lords of other kingdoms would enjoy.

As for how well it managed. An unexceptional economy with depelopments stuggeling to keep pace with england dispite the massively damageing Wars of the Roses.


Like I said, it all comes down to what Essex man failed to achieve, and 1601.


Elizabeth was in her 60s at that point so an heir would have been unlikely. In any case by that point England had begun the rise from low to mid ranking power to major power. There was no conciveable way for scotland to match that rise. In the enviroment of the next few centuries the best an independent scotland could have hoped for would have been irrelivence.

[CapelDodger]

Questionable. From the POV of England Scotland was a lot less tempting than northern France.

The English succumbed to temptation, and wasted blood and treasure on the Hundred Years War (and even longer in the Gironde) fighting a war they could never win.

The highlands in particular were full of mountians and people who tried to kill you.

The Lowlands, on the other hand, are just like England, and who actually gives a toss about the sparsely-populated barbarian wasteland beyond? Lowland Scots have had more in common with the English than they've ever had with the Highlanders. Scottish Kingship has always been based on the productive Lowlands and the excellent North Sea ports (Edinburgh in particular), and regarded the Highlanders as a problem.

While some of the more ambitious english kings had a go at the place the general aproach appears to have been to rely on the northumbrians to keep the scots out on a day to day basis and more southern forces when they invaded in significant numbers.

This is because English power was being wasted on quixotic exercises in France. Victory after glorious victory, and never an end to the war. Even if an English King (Henry V, say) had become King of France the English would have rebelled against the combined kingdom within a generation or two because its centre of gravity would have been in Paris, not London (let alone York or Cardiff).

The full potential of Lowland Scotland wasn't something that the Wardens of the Marches wanted any English king to appreciate. The Percy family in the East (Earls of Northumberland, "Kings of the North"), the Nevilles in the West, and the bandit families of the Border country (Kennedys, Nixons, Armstrongs ...) they were intimately connected with in between. It was very much in their interests for the king's eyes to be turned in a completely different direction.

It took a Scot on the English throne to tell the Marcher Lords to "get tae f@&!, y'English ponce" and to put the Border Reivers in their place (which meant enlistment or transportion to the American Colonies).

Where the English did project power advantageously to the Continent was in the Netherlands, and it wasn't as conquerors. It was based on shared interests.

[CapelDodger]

Really, I know the English curriculum doesn't really cover the other home nations very much prior to the various Unions, but stick with the programme; we were being bankrupted because the English state blockaded trade with European ports, our principal trading partners.

Scotland's principal trade was with fellow Protestants around the North Sea. Without England's input there wouldn't have been any. That may have been missed in your Scottish curriculum.

Likewise because we were allied with same we were denied access to English colonies in North America.

It was because of being Scottish, not because of Scotland's allies. Scottish is not English, and these were English colonies. Incorporated, invested in, and fought for all under the seal of the English Crown and the money of London. Scots were just as excluded as Dutch and Turks.

Independence cuts both ways.

[Darat]

As Admin:

The "History...." section is somewhere over in that direction!