In terms of the theory, winning elections is a simple process. In my time in Scottish politics, and from my side of the business, I've come to understand three simple rules, which if followed increase the chances of success exponentially.
The first is one I have written about a great deal, the idea that a positive (or more accurately, as I've pointed out before, an optimistic) campaign will always beat a negative campaign. If the battle is between two negatives, then the most negative will win. If it is between a negative and a mixed (part positive, part negative), the negative will win. But if a wholly positive faces a negative or mixed, then the positive will come out victorious. There is a great deal of misunderstanding about what a positive campaign can or cannot do. It doesn't mean you can't highlight a problem or a concern, but rather, the problem has to be balanced with offering a solution. That part of the equation - the solution - is why I am very confident the No campaign will never be able to construct a positive campaign. And, in terms of balance, my rule of thumb is to spend 3 times as long talking about the solution, the way forward, than talking about what is going wrong.
It is also very important that there is authenticity in the claimed problem. I used to always find it amusing that during the 2007 and 2011 election campaigns the SNP's opponents were trying to characterise the party in certain ways, as extremists, out of touch, obsessed with one thing, when the research told us that voters regarded the SNP people they met as being the most human, ordinary and connected: that is why the 'team' element of the SNP's 2011 election campaign was so powerful. People were able to judge the SNP not on what others said, but on what the SNP did. The false characterisations rebounded for many voters, because they didn't ring true. That is a very important lesson for all of us in the Yes campaign, faced as we are with an almost daily barrage of negative assaults, many of them personalised and outlandish. By our own words and actions we will be known.
The second is another oft repeated truism about election campaigns. If the election is fought on your ground, you are likely to win. If it is fought on your opponents ground, they are likely to win. And the ground you define is one that should enable you to build the largest coalition of support. For the No campaign, their ground is clear: uncertainty and "it's all about Salmond". They want people to vote in 2014 on the detail of independence (essentially on a record that doesn't exist, just as they tried with the SNP in 2007) and for it to be a judgement on the First Minister and Scottish Government. This, of course, makes sense given that even in 2011 the SNP fell short of 50% of the vote: an anti-SNP coalition gives the No parties the majority they seek. For Yes, we are determined that people make their decision based on an assessment of what both a Yes and a No will mean - it is a choice of two futures. If people believe Scotland will be fairer and more prosperous after a Yes rather than after a No then they will vote yes, and that is why our efforts must be focused as close to 100% as possible on making this case.
We must also be really aware of how and when people tune in to the debate. For many of us who are active in the campaigns, we have an unhealthy level of engagement with the minutiae and so feel the ebb and flow more than everyone else. In this atmosphere people often miss the underlying movements, concentrating as they are on the next day's headlines. For the SNP in the past, and for Yes now, the most powerful engagements are not through newspaper headlines or in parliamentary exchanges, they are in the personal contacts and through social media - our own channels of communication. That is where victory will be secured. How do I know it? From the 'science' and from experience. People trust their friends and family more than any paper or politician and as we saw in 2007 the SNP faced a major onslaught in the media, including, if you remember, the polling day noose: but the SNP won.
What is most important is how things look in the real world rather than how they feel to us. In this respect there has to be congruence and consistency. To take an example, No undermine their key 'it's all about Salmond' line by highlighting differences of view and alternative opinions about what should happen, policy wise, in an independent Scotland. Because, ultimately, you will only get non-SNP policy choices if you elect a non-SNP government.
The third rule is one I have not written about explicitly before but which, in the context of this particular campaign, is perhaps the most important. It is about the mood we create as much as the detail of any campaign messages. Scotland will not vote Yes in a mood of acrimony or in an atmosphere dominated by anxiety. Anger, rancour, point scoring, pettiness - they put us in the fast lane to a No vote. The psychology of this is unchallengeable - for the majority, anxiety will predispose them to the supposed safety of the status quo. Whereas a case that is presented calmly and with confidence, makes it far, far easier for people to choose Yes.
Above all, we must be respectful of the views expressed by others. You don't convert someone to your cause by telling them they are wrong. You don't bring them on to your side by trashing their roots or their political background. For those of us with an SNP background it may be difficult to admit, but we wouldn't be here today without the efforts of those in the Labour Party who took forward devolution. They didn't do it on their own, and they sometimes leave out the SNP contribution, but without co-operation across the parties the Scottish Parliament (that has, to give just one example, protected our NHS from Tory privatisation) would not be in place. I look forward to building a parliament together that can also protect our welfare state.
The journey to a Yes for a Labour member or supporter will not be an easy one, and the gulf they have to cross will grow larger if the Yes side does not show understanding and respect for the values that motivate them. A Labour Yes comes from a different place than an SNP Yes, just as a Green Yes is based upon different priorities too. And, just as for Labour members and supporters, so too the general public - they want to understand the purpose of more powers, or indeed all powers, as Yes argues.
This is not an ordinary election where, after the votes are counted, the opposing camps can sit on opposite benches in the parliamentary bubble and throw politics at each other. This is about deciding whether or not we build a new independent country. That creates a different sort of responsibility for all of us. And for those, supposedly, on the Yes side, who sit and let poison drip through their key boards, my message is very clear - you are one of the biggest barriers to a Yes success.
But poison can drip just as corrosively from politicians and commentators, and while some of the political sophisticates in the Labour Party may think it is fair play to demonise Alex Salmond, because he is a politician, others without their supposed mastery of political strategy may try to follow their lead. If it is ok to describe Alex Salmond's democratically elected government as a dictatorship or the man himself as the Scottish equivalent of a Mugabe, Mussolini or Milosevic or as akin to North Korea's Dear Leader, are we surprised that others - bloggers, journalists, comedians - are also seen as fair game?
We are extremely fortunate in Scotland to have a truly sophisticated electorate, one that, when it tunes in, sees the bigger picture in a way many of us caught up in the fog of war don't always appreciate. What sways them is very different from what sways a newspaper headline writer. That is why those of us on the Yes side must always take a step back. We must ask, what is it that is really important to the person or people we are engaging with? What is it the people of Scotland want to see and hear over these next 16 months? And that must be our single-minded focus.
Have no doubt they will be turned off by the slightest whiff of the sort of poisonous anger that can drip out in Parliament or from a computer key board. They can smell anger rooted in animosity, hatred and fear a mile away. It will turn them off, just as night follows day. And that goes for both sides. If there is to be anger in this debate don't make it personal, let it be an indignation, an outrage based on the belief that there is a better way.
I should add that these rules or lessons have been learnt by me in their breaking as well as in their keeping. But, as we look forward to the crucial next 500 days, I know that success depends on all of us getting it right.
Saturday, 4 May 2013
Wednesday, 3 April 2013
Devolution and independence part of the same home rule journey
My first introduction to politics was in the early 1990s in an organisation called Scotland United - we campaigned for a multi-option referendum in the period just after the 1992 election returned the Tories to government in the UK (despite Scotland voting overwhelmingly against them). For me independence and devolution are very much part of the same 'more powers' continuum. This is an article I wrote on the Yes Scotland website on this very point:
"Scots like it and want it to continue and grow. Devolution, that is. That’s why we want to complete the powers of the Scottish Parliament, not set limits on them.
Devolution has been a good start: we’ve had a strong Scottish Parliament with full control over things such as health and education. But now Westminster is taking us in a dangerous direction, with greater instability and insecurity through policies such as austerity and welfare changes. It is clear we need a stronger Scottish Parliament and a new approach.
Since devolution in 1999, the Scottish Parliament has delivered for the people of Scotland. Our parliament has led the way with groundbreaking legislation. It has transformed our country and brought power closer to our communities. It is therefore little surprise that opinion polls routinely show that Scots like devolution and want to see our parliament’s powers grow. In particular these polls tell us that people want the Scottish parliament to be responsible for decisions on tax and welfare and to have the power to remove nuclear weapons from our shores.
In recent weeks the debate about how we build upon the success of devolution has taken centre stage. All the parties in the Scottish Parliament now support the strengthening of devolution. We all know that devolution is popular. The Yes parties believe the Scottish people should decide how our parliament grows, whereas the No parties believe that decision should be made at Westminster.
The No campaign points out that devolution and separation are two very different ideas. We agree. But devolution and independence are part of the same journey. Independence is very different from separation.
In September 2014 we face a choice between two different paths: building on the success of devolution with an independent parliament or major changes to our society with Westminster’s austerity and welfare changes - with all the risks and uncertainty those things bring. It’s a choice between focusing on getting our economy back on track - with Scotland’s future in Scotland’s hands - or years of uncertainty and instability if we leave Westminster politicians in control.
It is a choice between the values of unity and solidarity, where we work together as equal independent nations (much like the most successful union in the world – the partnership of Scandinavian nations), versus the politics of division, where a Westminster system delivers even greater inequality and undermines so much that is good in our society .
By voting positively for a new partnership on these isles, allowing us to work together as part of the same family of nations, we are taking the opportunity to complete devolution. This completion of devolution with independence is the exact opposite of the separation the No parties talk about. By choosing Yes we can reject the No campaign’s separatist vision and rhetoric – we can reject the sort of Scotland they speak of.
All three No parties are now “actively considering and putting forward their ideas” on how they think we can best develop devolution in future. But the fantastic thing is that we don’t have to wait for these politicians to make up their minds, or indeed to get permission for any changes from their bosses in London. Instead the people of Scotland can choose to complete the devolution project with a Yes vote in 2014.
That’s how we have done it before – through our votes we have a track record of delivering, including the creation of the Scottish Parliament back in 1999. The devolution debate is alive and well. And now that we are seeing the full impact of the new and highly damaging Westminster agenda, more and more Scots are moving towards a Yes.
A Yes to completing devolution with independence. A Yes that once and for all rejects separation and the sorts of divisions in our society delivered by successive Westminster governments over these past 30 years (inequality that respected international experts tell us has grown faster here than anywhere else in the developed world).
The London parties are keen to present this as a false choice between devolution and separation, but nothing could be further from the truth. Instead, with a Yes vote we can get the best of both worlds – an independence that allows us to build on devolution, to see it grow and develop into something that protects us from the worst of Westminster’s ways.
The devolution debate has always been pluralistic with different parties and Scottish society setting out how they want Scotland’s democracy to work. That was how devolution was established in the first place, with all parties campaigning together to deliver a Yes, Yes in 1997. We can achieve the same again in 2014, with a Yes vote bringing Scotland’s home rule journey to a fitting conclusion.
If you want to join the campaign to build on the success of devolution click here."
"Scots like it and want it to continue and grow. Devolution, that is. That’s why we want to complete the powers of the Scottish Parliament, not set limits on them.
Devolution has been a good start: we’ve had a strong Scottish Parliament with full control over things such as health and education. But now Westminster is taking us in a dangerous direction, with greater instability and insecurity through policies such as austerity and welfare changes. It is clear we need a stronger Scottish Parliament and a new approach.
Since devolution in 1999, the Scottish Parliament has delivered for the people of Scotland. Our parliament has led the way with groundbreaking legislation. It has transformed our country and brought power closer to our communities. It is therefore little surprise that opinion polls routinely show that Scots like devolution and want to see our parliament’s powers grow. In particular these polls tell us that people want the Scottish parliament to be responsible for decisions on tax and welfare and to have the power to remove nuclear weapons from our shores.
In recent weeks the debate about how we build upon the success of devolution has taken centre stage. All the parties in the Scottish Parliament now support the strengthening of devolution. We all know that devolution is popular. The Yes parties believe the Scottish people should decide how our parliament grows, whereas the No parties believe that decision should be made at Westminster.
The No campaign points out that devolution and separation are two very different ideas. We agree. But devolution and independence are part of the same journey. Independence is very different from separation.
In September 2014 we face a choice between two different paths: building on the success of devolution with an independent parliament or major changes to our society with Westminster’s austerity and welfare changes - with all the risks and uncertainty those things bring. It’s a choice between focusing on getting our economy back on track - with Scotland’s future in Scotland’s hands - or years of uncertainty and instability if we leave Westminster politicians in control.
It is a choice between the values of unity and solidarity, where we work together as equal independent nations (much like the most successful union in the world – the partnership of Scandinavian nations), versus the politics of division, where a Westminster system delivers even greater inequality and undermines so much that is good in our society .
By voting positively for a new partnership on these isles, allowing us to work together as part of the same family of nations, we are taking the opportunity to complete devolution. This completion of devolution with independence is the exact opposite of the separation the No parties talk about. By choosing Yes we can reject the No campaign’s separatist vision and rhetoric – we can reject the sort of Scotland they speak of.
All three No parties are now “actively considering and putting forward their ideas” on how they think we can best develop devolution in future. But the fantastic thing is that we don’t have to wait for these politicians to make up their minds, or indeed to get permission for any changes from their bosses in London. Instead the people of Scotland can choose to complete the devolution project with a Yes vote in 2014.
That’s how we have done it before – through our votes we have a track record of delivering, including the creation of the Scottish Parliament back in 1999. The devolution debate is alive and well. And now that we are seeing the full impact of the new and highly damaging Westminster agenda, more and more Scots are moving towards a Yes.
A Yes to completing devolution with independence. A Yes that once and for all rejects separation and the sorts of divisions in our society delivered by successive Westminster governments over these past 30 years (inequality that respected international experts tell us has grown faster here than anywhere else in the developed world).
The London parties are keen to present this as a false choice between devolution and separation, but nothing could be further from the truth. Instead, with a Yes vote we can get the best of both worlds – an independence that allows us to build on devolution, to see it grow and develop into something that protects us from the worst of Westminster’s ways.
The devolution debate has always been pluralistic with different parties and Scottish society setting out how they want Scotland’s democracy to work. That was how devolution was established in the first place, with all parties campaigning together to deliver a Yes, Yes in 1997. We can achieve the same again in 2014, with a Yes vote bringing Scotland’s home rule journey to a fitting conclusion.
If you want to join the campaign to build on the success of devolution click here."
Tuesday, 26 March 2013
We've heard it all before
We’ve heard it all before on oil & gas. The No parties saying one thing in public (that oil wealth is a bad thing for Scotland) but another in private (that oil wealth is a good thing for Scotland). And even worse, saying one thing about oil in Scotland (that it is a bad thing) and another, completely opposite and contradictory, about oil in the UK (that it is a good thing).
And it seems that the figures they are now using to make this topsy-turvy case have been criticised by the oil industry. In a letter of 13th March 2013 to the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR - the people who produce the oil revenue estimates), the Chief Executive of Oil & Gas UK, Malcolm Webb, wrote:
"This year we forecast capital investment will reach £13.5bn, a historic high, even in real terms. This builds on investment of £11.4bn last year. These record levels secure our place as the UK’s largest industrial investor. More importantly, this investment will feed through to increasing production levels in future years – we expect a daily production rate of 2 million barrels of oil equivalent by 2017, providing a vital boost to the UK’s balance of payments and manufacturing output.
It is important to the wider energy debate that the OBR’s forecasts reflect the most up to date information available. Activity levels in the offshore oil and gas sector are constantly changing and as such the most recent forecast commentators are using is your Autumn Statement forecast, which is based broadly on last year’s Activity Survey. This information is now over 12 months out of date."
That's right, the numbers that have been at the heart of the No campaign's recent oil claims are based on information that 'is now over 12 months out of date' and exclude the impact of record high investment. And while the No campaign peddle their oil myths to Scotland, the UK Energy Minister, John Hayes MP, was telling the House of Commons on 14th March 2013 that "North Sea oil and gas have a long and bright future".
But this is not the only inconsistency in the No approach. Let's take a look at the words of No Campaigner in Chief, Alistair Darling, and his contrasting attitudes on oil.
When talking about oil and the UK he said, "there are potentially more than 20 billion barrels of oil and gas still available to be produced, which is good news for industry, our economy and energy supply . . . The oil and gas sector is one of the UK's most important industries..." (Press and Journal, February 2, 2007)
And, a year later, Mr Darling was boasting that there were "substantial reserves" of oil left in North Sea. In an interview on the World at One in 2008 he said: "...anything we can do to increase the amount of oil coming out of the North Sea will help, and although as Professor Kemp was saying, it is a mature field, it's nearly 40 years old now, everybody knows that there are still substantial reserves there..." That same year, the Daily Telegraph reported that 'North Sea oil will last for 100 years'.
Mr Darling is also one of those who dismissed the McCrone Report – the 1970s publication the No parties kept secret remember. Those same No parties were telling us that revenues would be lower than expected and that the oil would soon run out and that an independent Scotland shouldn’t and couldn’t depend on it (recognise the narrative?) when they were being told, in private, the exact opposite - that oil & gas would turn Scotland into one of the wealthiest and most financially secure nations on the planet. In fact the McCrone report made clear that all that was wrong with the SNP estimate of the benefits of oil & gas for Scotland “is that it is far too low”.
But, so we can be clear on the pattern, lets look at what other politicians from the No parties have been saying – telling us that oil & gas would have run out years ago (and confirming that ultimately we can’t trust a word they say on Scotland’s oil & gas future):
"Oil will run out but textiles will not." - Nicholas Winterton MP (Tory), Hansard, 27 March 1985
Timothy Eggar MP (Tory): "Would not my hon. Friend agree that one of the deepest concerns and one of the results of the BGC monopoly is that some private oil companies now predict that we will run out of gas or cease to be self-sufficient by the end of the 1980s?"
Peter Rost MP (Tory): "Undoubtedly this is accepted..." - Hansard, 19 January 1982
"...the benefits of North Sea oil will run out faster than was previously expected..." - Jack Straw MP (Labour), Hansard, 21 February 1983
"...when the oil has run out in 25 years." - Tony Benn MP (Labour), Hansard, 21 May 1979
"North sea revenues will be running out before the end of the decade." - Jeff Rooker MP (Labour), Hansard, 10 April 1984
"...the oil will run out in 30 years instead of 50 years..." - Tony Benn MP (Labour), Hansard, 10 November 1981
"...the oil will last for another 25 years..." - Stuart Bell MP (Labour), Hansard, 19 March 1986
“North Sea oil will run out within the next two decades. It will no longer he there in 30 years' time.” - the late Ioan Evans, Former MP for Cynon Valley (Labour), 1980
"North Sea oil will run out before long" - the late Lord Hampton (Liberal), Hansard, 20 December 1989
The No campaign would like us to think that oil & gas is the only thing going for Scotland and our economy, but nothing could be further from the truth. If we strip out oil & gas from our GDP figures, Scotland’s national wealth is still 99% of the UK level.
Building for the future, we have 25% of the EU’s potential for offshore wind and tidal energy, and 10% of wave power, altogether worth up to £14 billion each year by 2050. We have the whisky industry with exports worth £4.2 billion - 23% of the UK’s food and drink exports, the food and drink industry worth £10 billion, with fish and aquaculture Scotland’s largest food export, tourism which generates over £5 billion and 200,000 jobs, the Scottish construction industry worth around £21.4 billion annually and agricultural output worth £2.7 billion and 11.4% of UK total agricultural output.
And, we have Scottish ingenuity – for our size we have more highly ranked Universities than the UK, the US or Europe. Good ideas generated by Scots and Scotland have changed the world around us and will continue to do so.
So think on these many strengths and ask yourself, why aren’t we doing better economically?
And each time you hear the No campaign go on about oil & gas remember these three things:
First, for forty years the No parties have been misleading us about the opportunity and future offered by oil & gas – so why should we believe them now?
Second, time after time, it is the SNP and the Yes movement that have provided the most accurate predictions about the contribution oil & gas is making and will make to Scotland’s economy – why should that change now?
And, finally, why on earth should we pay any attention to people who try to persuade us that Trident on the Clyde is good for Scotland, but well over £1 trillion (and as much as £1.5 trillion) of remaining oil & gas reserves is bad for us. It takes a Snake Oil Salesman of epic proportions to get away with that one – so don’t let them.
After all these are the same No parties who haven’t saved and invested a single penny of our oil wealth, an act of gross negligence. Take even a quick look at this list of oil funds around the world to understand the shocking scale of their failure.
And it seems that the figures they are now using to make this topsy-turvy case have been criticised by the oil industry. In a letter of 13th March 2013 to the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR - the people who produce the oil revenue estimates), the Chief Executive of Oil & Gas UK, Malcolm Webb, wrote:
"This year we forecast capital investment will reach £13.5bn, a historic high, even in real terms. This builds on investment of £11.4bn last year. These record levels secure our place as the UK’s largest industrial investor. More importantly, this investment will feed through to increasing production levels in future years – we expect a daily production rate of 2 million barrels of oil equivalent by 2017, providing a vital boost to the UK’s balance of payments and manufacturing output.
It is important to the wider energy debate that the OBR’s forecasts reflect the most up to date information available. Activity levels in the offshore oil and gas sector are constantly changing and as such the most recent forecast commentators are using is your Autumn Statement forecast, which is based broadly on last year’s Activity Survey. This information is now over 12 months out of date."
That's right, the numbers that have been at the heart of the No campaign's recent oil claims are based on information that 'is now over 12 months out of date' and exclude the impact of record high investment. And while the No campaign peddle their oil myths to Scotland, the UK Energy Minister, John Hayes MP, was telling the House of Commons on 14th March 2013 that "North Sea oil and gas have a long and bright future".
But this is not the only inconsistency in the No approach. Let's take a look at the words of No Campaigner in Chief, Alistair Darling, and his contrasting attitudes on oil.
When talking about oil and the UK he said, "there are potentially more than 20 billion barrels of oil and gas still available to be produced, which is good news for industry, our economy and energy supply . . . The oil and gas sector is one of the UK's most important industries..." (Press and Journal, February 2, 2007)
And, a year later, Mr Darling was boasting that there were "substantial reserves" of oil left in North Sea. In an interview on the World at One in 2008 he said: "...anything we can do to increase the amount of oil coming out of the North Sea will help, and although as Professor Kemp was saying, it is a mature field, it's nearly 40 years old now, everybody knows that there are still substantial reserves there..." That same year, the Daily Telegraph reported that 'North Sea oil will last for 100 years'.
Mr Darling is also one of those who dismissed the McCrone Report – the 1970s publication the No parties kept secret remember. Those same No parties were telling us that revenues would be lower than expected and that the oil would soon run out and that an independent Scotland shouldn’t and couldn’t depend on it (recognise the narrative?) when they were being told, in private, the exact opposite - that oil & gas would turn Scotland into one of the wealthiest and most financially secure nations on the planet. In fact the McCrone report made clear that all that was wrong with the SNP estimate of the benefits of oil & gas for Scotland “is that it is far too low”.
But, so we can be clear on the pattern, lets look at what other politicians from the No parties have been saying – telling us that oil & gas would have run out years ago (and confirming that ultimately we can’t trust a word they say on Scotland’s oil & gas future):
"Oil will run out but textiles will not." - Nicholas Winterton MP (Tory), Hansard, 27 March 1985
Timothy Eggar MP (Tory): "Would not my hon. Friend agree that one of the deepest concerns and one of the results of the BGC monopoly is that some private oil companies now predict that we will run out of gas or cease to be self-sufficient by the end of the 1980s?"
Peter Rost MP (Tory): "Undoubtedly this is accepted..." - Hansard, 19 January 1982
"...the benefits of North Sea oil will run out faster than was previously expected..." - Jack Straw MP (Labour), Hansard, 21 February 1983
"...when the oil has run out in 25 years." - Tony Benn MP (Labour), Hansard, 21 May 1979
"North sea revenues will be running out before the end of the decade." - Jeff Rooker MP (Labour), Hansard, 10 April 1984
"...the oil will run out in 30 years instead of 50 years..." - Tony Benn MP (Labour), Hansard, 10 November 1981
"...the oil will last for another 25 years..." - Stuart Bell MP (Labour), Hansard, 19 March 1986
“North Sea oil will run out within the next two decades. It will no longer he there in 30 years' time.” - the late Ioan Evans, Former MP for Cynon Valley (Labour), 1980
"North Sea oil will run out before long" - the late Lord Hampton (Liberal), Hansard, 20 December 1989
The No campaign would like us to think that oil & gas is the only thing going for Scotland and our economy, but nothing could be further from the truth. If we strip out oil & gas from our GDP figures, Scotland’s national wealth is still 99% of the UK level.
Building for the future, we have 25% of the EU’s potential for offshore wind and tidal energy, and 10% of wave power, altogether worth up to £14 billion each year by 2050. We have the whisky industry with exports worth £4.2 billion - 23% of the UK’s food and drink exports, the food and drink industry worth £10 billion, with fish and aquaculture Scotland’s largest food export, tourism which generates over £5 billion and 200,000 jobs, the Scottish construction industry worth around £21.4 billion annually and agricultural output worth £2.7 billion and 11.4% of UK total agricultural output.
And, we have Scottish ingenuity – for our size we have more highly ranked Universities than the UK, the US or Europe. Good ideas generated by Scots and Scotland have changed the world around us and will continue to do so.
So think on these many strengths and ask yourself, why aren’t we doing better economically?
And each time you hear the No campaign go on about oil & gas remember these three things:
First, for forty years the No parties have been misleading us about the opportunity and future offered by oil & gas – so why should we believe them now?
Second, time after time, it is the SNP and the Yes movement that have provided the most accurate predictions about the contribution oil & gas is making and will make to Scotland’s economy – why should that change now?
And, finally, why on earth should we pay any attention to people who try to persuade us that Trident on the Clyde is good for Scotland, but well over £1 trillion (and as much as £1.5 trillion) of remaining oil & gas reserves is bad for us. It takes a Snake Oil Salesman of epic proportions to get away with that one – so don’t let them.
After all these are the same No parties who haven’t saved and invested a single penny of our oil wealth, an act of gross negligence. Take even a quick look at this list of oil funds around the world to understand the shocking scale of their failure.
Monday, 25 March 2013
We know the date and we know that we can win
Yesterday’s poll in the Sunday Times provided the most recent snapshot
of opinion on Scotland’s constitutional future, with the gap between Yes and No
narrowing. According to Panelbase, a swing of only 5% is needed for the
pro-Scottish independence campaign to win in 2014.
As the experience of the SNP in the run up to the 2011 election tells us, we have to be cautious about headline poll numbers. Throughout the autumn and winter of 2010/11 the SNP was well behind in the polls, and yet all of us involved in the campaign remained confident in our prospects for a substantial victory in the actual Scottish election. Why? Because the fundamentals underneath the headline numbers told a very different story – including a substantial lead for the SNP on questions such as who would make the best First Minister. We knew that the election was almost certainly going to be fought on this ground, and so it transpired. As we got closer to the actual poll and people focused on the actual issues at stake, these fundamentals transferred into higher SNP support.
The same is the case with the independence polls. While the headline numbers currently show a No lead, the fundamentals paint a different picture – including clear majorities who believe decisions on tax and welfare should be taken in Scotland, higher levels of trust in the Scottish Parliament than Westminster, and the belief that the Scottish Government will do a better job of representing Scottish interests in the EU. Once again, when people actually focus on what the referendum means – and essentially it does mean a choice between a Yes path and a No path (as ably demonstrated by the SNP broadcast last Friday) – then I have no doubt that Yes will win.
Yes Scotland’s research confirms that people are there to be persuaded. At SNP conference this weekend we launched new canvass cards, which have the independence question asked in two ways, including an innovative 1-10 scale. So people are able to tell us how they plan to vote in the referendum – Yes, No or Don’t Know (in the same way as the traditional polls) but they can also say where they are on the scale, with 1 being totally opposed and 10 being totally in favour.
This method is already forming part of our research approach, with thousands of people across the country engaged in this way. The 1-10 scale gives us a more detailed understanding of people’s attitudes towards independence than any poll. If we take ‘don’t knows’ as anyone between 3 and 8 on the scale then just over half of voters in Scotland are undecided. If we narrow that definition to people between 4 and 8 on the scale, just under half are undecided.
And, contrary to some received wisdom, women are not more opposed to independence, but rather women are more undecided. That doesn’t mean that the Yes campaign does not have work to do to make the case to women more effectively, but we should also be aware of two other points. First, if Yes has a ‘women problem’ then that means No has a ‘men problem’ (and they face that problem from what has been their high-water mark in the polls). And, second, with the No campaign’s appalling welfare changes about to come into effect on April 1st and with women set to feel 75% of the impact of those changes, what we can be sure of is that No are on the point of massively alienating this sector of their support.
Which brings me to the third and final lesson from our research – No support is built upon incredibly shaky foundations. We know that many people who currently say they will vote No do so because they have a ‘fact’ or belief that means they think we can’t be independent. This is usually around whether or not we can afford it. These anchors for No support are very fragile and can be removed by a series of simple arguments: essentially being able to persuade people that Scotland’s got what it takes to be an independent country and that, when we look at our many economic strengths, it all adds up to more prosperous Scotland if we are independent and able to determine our own economic future.
Once people have a full understanding of Scotland’s financial position and our economic potential then their doubts about independence are quickly erased and they begin to ask the more pertinent question, not whether we can afford to be independent, but rather, given all we have, why isn’t Scotland a more successful and fairer nation?
Now that we have the date of the referendum, it is my intention to blog a bit more regularly and so, in a few days time, I’ll set out the key arguments that we know, currently, are most effective in drawing people towards a Yes vote.
As the experience of the SNP in the run up to the 2011 election tells us, we have to be cautious about headline poll numbers. Throughout the autumn and winter of 2010/11 the SNP was well behind in the polls, and yet all of us involved in the campaign remained confident in our prospects for a substantial victory in the actual Scottish election. Why? Because the fundamentals underneath the headline numbers told a very different story – including a substantial lead for the SNP on questions such as who would make the best First Minister. We knew that the election was almost certainly going to be fought on this ground, and so it transpired. As we got closer to the actual poll and people focused on the actual issues at stake, these fundamentals transferred into higher SNP support.
The same is the case with the independence polls. While the headline numbers currently show a No lead, the fundamentals paint a different picture – including clear majorities who believe decisions on tax and welfare should be taken in Scotland, higher levels of trust in the Scottish Parliament than Westminster, and the belief that the Scottish Government will do a better job of representing Scottish interests in the EU. Once again, when people actually focus on what the referendum means – and essentially it does mean a choice between a Yes path and a No path (as ably demonstrated by the SNP broadcast last Friday) – then I have no doubt that Yes will win.
Yes Scotland’s research confirms that people are there to be persuaded. At SNP conference this weekend we launched new canvass cards, which have the independence question asked in two ways, including an innovative 1-10 scale. So people are able to tell us how they plan to vote in the referendum – Yes, No or Don’t Know (in the same way as the traditional polls) but they can also say where they are on the scale, with 1 being totally opposed and 10 being totally in favour.
This method is already forming part of our research approach, with thousands of people across the country engaged in this way. The 1-10 scale gives us a more detailed understanding of people’s attitudes towards independence than any poll. If we take ‘don’t knows’ as anyone between 3 and 8 on the scale then just over half of voters in Scotland are undecided. If we narrow that definition to people between 4 and 8 on the scale, just under half are undecided.
And, contrary to some received wisdom, women are not more opposed to independence, but rather women are more undecided. That doesn’t mean that the Yes campaign does not have work to do to make the case to women more effectively, but we should also be aware of two other points. First, if Yes has a ‘women problem’ then that means No has a ‘men problem’ (and they face that problem from what has been their high-water mark in the polls). And, second, with the No campaign’s appalling welfare changes about to come into effect on April 1st and with women set to feel 75% of the impact of those changes, what we can be sure of is that No are on the point of massively alienating this sector of their support.
Which brings me to the third and final lesson from our research – No support is built upon incredibly shaky foundations. We know that many people who currently say they will vote No do so because they have a ‘fact’ or belief that means they think we can’t be independent. This is usually around whether or not we can afford it. These anchors for No support are very fragile and can be removed by a series of simple arguments: essentially being able to persuade people that Scotland’s got what it takes to be an independent country and that, when we look at our many economic strengths, it all adds up to more prosperous Scotland if we are independent and able to determine our own economic future.
Once people have a full understanding of Scotland’s financial position and our economic potential then their doubts about independence are quickly erased and they begin to ask the more pertinent question, not whether we can afford to be independent, but rather, given all we have, why isn’t Scotland a more successful and fairer nation?
Now that we have the date of the referendum, it is my intention to blog a bit more regularly and so, in a few days time, I’ll set out the key arguments that we know, currently, are most effective in drawing people towards a Yes vote.
Thursday, 21 March 2013
Who would benefit from a No?
There were some really unedifying responses to today’s Scottish Government statement on the referendum date, but the prize for most obsessive and most shortsighted surely goes to the Scottish Labour Party’s press release, which led on Salmond announces his retirement date.
I don’t usually speculate on the consequences of a defeat, but the utterly myopic triumphalism of the Labour MSPs in Holyrood has persuaded me, for a short-time only, to break this habit.
So who would benefit, politically, from a No in 2014?
Some commentary today focused on the fact the referendum is being held before the UK party conferences, pointing out that this protected the vote from 3 weeks of non-stop pro-Union campaigning at those events. But few have looked at it from the other perspective.
The UK conferences will effectively kick-start the 2015 UK general election and so just think about the impact of a No vote on those campaigns. Which party would get the biggest electoral boost from a Scottish No (if it happens)? I can assure you, it would not be the Labour Party.
So lets work with Scottish Labour's premise and imagine, if we can, a No scenario in 2014 . . .
Labour and Tories may share a platform and campaign together before the vote, but as soon as the votes are counted there would be only one person in the No victory spotlight. Peer into that future and what do you see? It's David Cameron, UK PM, alone on the winner’s podium. Ed Miliband and Johann Lamont, thank you, your job is done.
I bet the Tories are rubbing their hands in anticipation at the fillip a Scottish No would give them as they enter their pre-election Conference. They would hail the PM as the man who saved their 'nation'. Success breeds success. And no one does flag waving better than the Tories. If you thought John Major was saved by his soapbox campaign to save the Union in 1992, well you ain’t seen nothing yet.
And so today, while Scottish Labour loyalists congratulate themselves in advance of any victory, the rest of us can see the bigger picture. They will have spent 18 months as the foot soldiers of the No campaign, and every door they knock for No, every leaflet they deliver will help, in the event of a No victory, to deliver David Cameron the keys to Downing Street for a second term. You might call it ironic. Let's make sure it doesn't happen.
(p.s. in case there is any doubt, nothing in the above should be read as me thinking there will actually be a No vote in 2014. This scenario was brought to you courtesy of the Scottish Labour Party)
I don’t usually speculate on the consequences of a defeat, but the utterly myopic triumphalism of the Labour MSPs in Holyrood has persuaded me, for a short-time only, to break this habit.
So who would benefit, politically, from a No in 2014?
Some commentary today focused on the fact the referendum is being held before the UK party conferences, pointing out that this protected the vote from 3 weeks of non-stop pro-Union campaigning at those events. But few have looked at it from the other perspective.
The UK conferences will effectively kick-start the 2015 UK general election and so just think about the impact of a No vote on those campaigns. Which party would get the biggest electoral boost from a Scottish No (if it happens)? I can assure you, it would not be the Labour Party.
So lets work with Scottish Labour's premise and imagine, if we can, a No scenario in 2014 . . .
Labour and Tories may share a platform and campaign together before the vote, but as soon as the votes are counted there would be only one person in the No victory spotlight. Peer into that future and what do you see? It's David Cameron, UK PM, alone on the winner’s podium. Ed Miliband and Johann Lamont, thank you, your job is done.
I bet the Tories are rubbing their hands in anticipation at the fillip a Scottish No would give them as they enter their pre-election Conference. They would hail the PM as the man who saved their 'nation'. Success breeds success. And no one does flag waving better than the Tories. If you thought John Major was saved by his soapbox campaign to save the Union in 1992, well you ain’t seen nothing yet.
And so today, while Scottish Labour loyalists congratulate themselves in advance of any victory, the rest of us can see the bigger picture. They will have spent 18 months as the foot soldiers of the No campaign, and every door they knock for No, every leaflet they deliver will help, in the event of a No victory, to deliver David Cameron the keys to Downing Street for a second term. You might call it ironic. Let's make sure it doesn't happen.
(p.s. in case there is any doubt, nothing in the above should be read as me thinking there will actually be a No vote in 2014. This scenario was brought to you courtesy of the Scottish Labour Party)
Wednesday, 5 September 2012
They come bearing half-truths
The CBI Director-General, John Cridland, has come north to tell Scotland we shouldn't be independent. He has every right to do so.
But what he has no right to do is use half-truths as the basis for his scaremongering.
I hear that Mr Cridland will tell the CBI Annual Dinner in Glasgow tomorrow night that the "immediate effects [of independence] would be profound, and in the short term costly. When Slovakia separated from the Czech Republic, it cost the country four per cent of its GDP in the following year."
But what Mr Cridland won't tell us is what happened next. In the years since independence economic growth in Slovakia has averaged 3.5% each year, compared to 1.9% for Scotland. Their growth rate has been almost double that achieved here. And that extra growth has a direct benefit for ordinary Slovak families - benefits like higher wages, more jobs, higher standards of living. You might call it the Slovaks' independence bonus.
And this excellent economic performance covers the period of the financial crisis when we have been told it was better for Scotland to be part of the bigger UK. In fact, the Slovak economy only contracted for 1 year during the crisis, compared to two years for the UK and for Scotland. And over the past two years of recovery they have enjoyed growth rates of 4.2% and 3.3% compared to 1.3% and 0.4% here. You won't hear the CBI talking about that!
In case you thought this story only applies to Slovakia, don't worry the beneficial effect of independence can be seen elsewhere across Europe.
Lets take the countries in the EU that became independent in the early 1990's (Slovenia, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania). Over the past 20 years, the average annual economic growth rate for these six newly independent nations has been 2.9% - thats our growth rate plus half as much again. And remember, more growth means more jobs and opportunities, higher family incomes and a better standard of living.
So don't believe CBI Director-Generals when they tell you Scotland should be happy with our lot. More of the same may suit a CBI boss in London and Tory ministers at Westminster, but it is bad news for families across Scotland.
It is time for something different. There is a better way forward for Scotland. We too can claim our own independence bonus as we use our huge resources, our own tax base and our fantastic international reputation to drive forward our economy and deliver the fairer and wealthier nation we all know, in our hearts and in our minds, that Scotland should be.
But what he has no right to do is use half-truths as the basis for his scaremongering.
I hear that Mr Cridland will tell the CBI Annual Dinner in Glasgow tomorrow night that the "immediate effects [of independence] would be profound, and in the short term costly. When Slovakia separated from the Czech Republic, it cost the country four per cent of its GDP in the following year."
But what Mr Cridland won't tell us is what happened next. In the years since independence economic growth in Slovakia has averaged 3.5% each year, compared to 1.9% for Scotland. Their growth rate has been almost double that achieved here. And that extra growth has a direct benefit for ordinary Slovak families - benefits like higher wages, more jobs, higher standards of living. You might call it the Slovaks' independence bonus.
And this excellent economic performance covers the period of the financial crisis when we have been told it was better for Scotland to be part of the bigger UK. In fact, the Slovak economy only contracted for 1 year during the crisis, compared to two years for the UK and for Scotland. And over the past two years of recovery they have enjoyed growth rates of 4.2% and 3.3% compared to 1.3% and 0.4% here. You won't hear the CBI talking about that!
In case you thought this story only applies to Slovakia, don't worry the beneficial effect of independence can be seen elsewhere across Europe.
Lets take the countries in the EU that became independent in the early 1990's (Slovenia, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania). Over the past 20 years, the average annual economic growth rate for these six newly independent nations has been 2.9% - thats our growth rate plus half as much again. And remember, more growth means more jobs and opportunities, higher family incomes and a better standard of living.
So don't believe CBI Director-Generals when they tell you Scotland should be happy with our lot. More of the same may suit a CBI boss in London and Tory ministers at Westminster, but it is bad news for families across Scotland.
It is time for something different. There is a better way forward for Scotland. We too can claim our own independence bonus as we use our huge resources, our own tax base and our fantastic international reputation to drive forward our economy and deliver the fairer and wealthier nation we all know, in our hearts and in our minds, that Scotland should be.
Sunday, 29 April 2012
Why antis should go to Iceland
The International Monetary Fund has just published its latest statistics for the relative wealth per head of different countries. And, for Iceland, Ireland, Norway and the UK, they paint a fascinating picture.
The figures are based on 'purchasing power parity' which allows us to make a fair comparison between the different countries, and they show that Norway, Ireland and Iceland are all wealthier per head than the UK. Indeed, at no point in the financial crisis did any of the countries dip below the UK in this IMF wealth league table.
If we take a look at 2010, when the full impact of the crisis was being felt, the wealth per head for each country, in current international dollars, was:
Norway 52,164.773
Ireland 39,491.564
Iceland 36,535.164
UK 35,343.700
The UK was 1,191.5 behind the 'poorest' of the three, Iceland at this point.
Fast-forward to this year, 2012, and the IMF estimates:
The figures are based on 'purchasing power parity' which allows us to make a fair comparison between the different countries, and they show that Norway, Ireland and Iceland are all wealthier per head than the UK. Indeed, at no point in the financial crisis did any of the countries dip below the UK in this IMF wealth league table.
If we take a look at 2010, when the full impact of the crisis was being felt, the wealth per head for each country, in current international dollars, was:
Norway 52,164.773
Ireland 39,491.564
Iceland 36,535.164
UK 35,343.700
The UK was 1,191.5 behind the 'poorest' of the three, Iceland at this point.
Fast-forward to this year, 2012, and the IMF estimates:
Norway 54.479.058
Ireland 40.443.263
Iceland 39,082.925
UK 36,605.022
This year, the UK is now forecast to be 2,477.9 "current international dollars" behind 'insolvent' Iceland.
And putting the IMF's crystal ball to full use, lets take a look at referendum year, 2014. What will be the relative strength of the 4 countries by then? Won't being a powerhouse big country have propelled the United Kingdom above lowly Iceland at least?
Norway 57,217.364
Ireland 44,283.334
Iceland 41,647.386
UK 38,935.325
It seems not. In 2014, the UK won't even reach the level of GDP per capita that Iceland enjoyed in 2012. The wealth gap between the two countries will have increased, once again, to 2,712.1 per person.
Similarly, for Ireland, the wealth gap in 2010 saw the Irish still 4,148 "current international dollars" ahead of the UK in wealth per head and, according to the IMF, that Irish advantage will increase to 5348 in 2014.
Norway's 16,821 advantage per person in 2010 becomes 18,727 - pretty much 50% wealthier than the UK.
Similarly, for Ireland, the wealth gap in 2010 saw the Irish still 4,148 "current international dollars" ahead of the UK in wealth per head and, according to the IMF, that Irish advantage will increase to 5348 in 2014.
Norway's 16,821 advantage per person in 2010 becomes 18,727 - pretty much 50% wealthier than the UK.
Not quite what you'd expect from listening to some of the rhetoric, even still, of the anti-parties. Perhaps they should go to Iceland, or Ireland or Norway - small, independent countries which, it seems, now form an Arc of . . . faster recovery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)