Nick Clegg's scheming plan

Nick Clegg thinks its "disrespectful" of 44 Tory MPs to think that voters in Scotland and Wales cannot vote on 2 issues on the same day - he said so yesterday at Deputy PMQs.  He should probably tell that to Ron Gould and the 140,000 voters in Scotland who spoiled papers in the 2007 Scottish Parliament election as they were invited to vote on both it and the local authority election on the same day.

The Deputy PM's idea for holding the AV referendum on the same day as Scottish Parliamentary and Welsh Assembly elections is supposedly about cost - with an apparent saving of £17m if it goes ahead on that day (as opposed to decoupling the two events and having them on different days).  Strange for me, that Clegg's point of principle, a semi-proportional electoral system should be a matter for such penny-pinching.

Also, I don't suppose he has given much thought to the potential outcome of the vote and the fact that it will be held alongside two national elections in Scotland and Wales and none in England.  Think this one through from a Tory perspective for a minute.  Say people in Scotland and Wales ARE convinced of the argument for AV and vote, possibly 80-20% in favour on a turnout average for devolution of around 60%.  Now consider England is predominantly not in favour, for argument sake, 80-20% against.  But given there is no other election on in England at the time, turnout is merely 15% (less than the European Election in 2009).  

What I'm trying to say is this:  what happens if the electoral system is changed to AV on the fact that turnout in Scotland and Wales is high and in England it is low?  

It's hardly fair that England gets saddled with an electoral system they don't want on the back of Scotland and Wales voting for it.  Or is that Clegg's intention?  Make the case in Scotland and Wales, ignore England and hope no one bothers to show up.  Which they probably won't.  He gets AV.

No wonder the Tory MPs are against the proposals.

Read more...

Several(?) dates with destiny

I wrote at the tail end of last week about Nick Clegg's decision (well, okay, Nick Clegg's announcement of the decision) to hold the referendum to decide whether to adopt the AV vote on May 5th, the same day as the Scottish Parliament election next year.  Cue expected stushie, with Alex Salmond writing to David Cameron complaining that this hardly fits with his "respect" agenda, and suggesting that the referendum would "undermine and overshadow" the Scottish Parliament election.  I outlined some of the reasons for this in my previous post.

In theory, the Scottish Parliament can change the date of its election - up to one month either side of the 5th May date.  Well, actually, no, that's not strictly true.  The Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament can request that the Secretary of State move the election, and they must sign off on it.  This is something, as Brian Taylor points out, which is being considered as a means of settling the other problem of the date - namely Westminster's change to fixed term parliaments, where the election dates would clash every 20 years starting on May 7th 2015.  He wonders whether the PO might make such a request for next year - probably in the full knowledge that if he UK government has made its decision then such a request is likely to be politely declined.

Interestingly (and, I guess, obviously, since they follow the same electoral cycle as Scotland) the problem is the same in Wales - they face having their Assembly election conjoined with the AV vote on 5 May as well.  There has been a similar reaction among elected politicians there as here, except for one, fairly notable exception.  The Presiding Officer of the National Assembly for Wales, Dafydd Elis Thomas, who has no "constitutional objection" to holding both on the same day on the grounds that it would benefit turnout for both.  However, what is really interesting is that he recommends holding Wales' other referendum - that which seeks to move the Schedule 4 of the Government of Wales Act 2006, bestowing in one move legislative powers to the National Assembly - on the same day.  So you'd have the devolved election, the AV referendum and the powers referendum on 5 May.

Dafydd Elis Thomas has previously made clear his objection to holding the powers referendum in Wales until such a time as the result is not really in doubt, and is sceptical of holding it in March (as is currently rumoured to be the intention of Welsh Secretary Cheryl Gillan).  So this seems a bold move - shifting the referendum to a date where there are a couple of other things going on would likely drive up turnout but at the expense of giving a clear campaign solely on the issue of the Assembly powers.  So that is interesting.

Of more interest in Scotland, I guess, is the impact of such a scheduling.  If this did go ahead - and the Welsh had all three votes on the one day - would the First Minister be able to argue that Scots are too stupid to be able to vote on two different issues (the Scottish Parliamentary election and the AV referendum) on the same day?  I guess time will tell on that one, but if Wales did go ahead on that score, it may start to make things more difficult to decouple the votes here.

Read more...

Cardiff & Edinburgh

Apologies for the hiatus, I've been in Cardiff awhile, with no real internet to speak off (or time for that matter) doing some academic research for my thesis.  And I seem to have missed out on a fair bit whilst away.

Take, for example, the UK Con-LD Government's decision to schedule the AV referendum on 5 May, the same day of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and English local government elections, ostensibly for reasons of saving the public money (£17m was the estimate I heard).  Cue outcry from MSPs, AMs and, well, anyone who isn't a Tory or Lib Dem MP to be honest.  

Their argument - it'll overshadow the devolved elections.  And that, I think, has merit.  Because - and this is more of an issue in Wales I think, than in Scotland, where our media is a little more focused on what happens at Holyrood - the media, generally speaking, sets the terms of reference for elections.  You can quibble with my hypothesis if you like, but look at recently passed General Election - without the TV debates and the presence of the now Deputy PM Clegg, where would the Lib Dems have been?  Answer: probably out of government, most likely with fewer seats.  So the media matters - and if they are focused on the AV referendum then the devolved institutions will lose out. 

Another argument, and one that has merit in Scotland after the fiasco of the 2007 Scottish Parliament election, is that we might confuse people. I know, it sounds patronising - trust members of the public to put a cross on two different bits of paper?  But with that experience here - and the resulting democratic stooshie - I wouldn't be too willing to bet that people won't make a hash of it.  So that one I think, has some merit - but just a little.

There is a case that it may actually help - by combining both votes you may drive the turnout up a little.  This I'm more sceptical of.  If people feel so strongly about changing the method of electing their MPs, they'll show up to vote on the day anyway.

But really, I think, what it comes down to is money - and a distinct lack of it.  Parties are fresh from fighting a UK General Election.  In Wales they have the added complication of holding a referendum to decide on the speed of extending the powers of the Assembly, probably in March, followed by the AV referendum and the Assembly election, both on May 5.  The latter has a month's wiggle room and so could be held in June, but that's at the discretion of the Secretary of State... and if her government has decided to hold the AV vote on May 5 to save money, I doubt they'll shift the Assembly election to June, however valid their reason for doing so it.

No, money is the kicker - and political parties are lacking in it at the moment.  So while in public they will whinge and moan about the AV vote being on the same day as the devolved elections, privately they are probably a little more pleased that campaigning for both can take place at the same time, thus saving them time and energy - and, more importantly, money - in the campaigns.  Or maybe I'm just being cynical.

Read more...

Guest Post: Lib Dems - supporting a referendum?

Another guest contribution, this time from Linlithgow's favourite Liberal Democrat, Stephen Glenn. He is a Lib Dem, so be gentle with him. But he is writing about an interesting subject, so get torn in!

Malc has kindly asked me write a guest post looking at the role that Ross Finnie has undertaken, looking at the position the Liberal Democrats in Scotland on the question of a referendum. Some have pointed argued it is a sudden change in direction. This being Malc’s blog I thought I’d best do some research into the historical context to see if that argument holds water.

A Scottish Parliamentarian once rose from the green benches of the House of Commons and said:

“The demand exists, and is becoming so urgent that it will no longer be ignored. That demand is reasonable. I do not know that I should need to make that point, for the simple reason that the Scottish people themselves are so reasonable that you could not imagine them taking up such a demand unless it were itself reasonable...

“The Scottish people never voluntarily renounced their ancient Parliament. It was filched from them by methods scarcely less discreditable than those which accompanied the parallel transaction on the other side of St. George's Channel at a somewhat later date.”

No it wasn’t Alex Salmond. It was however someone who in their career represented Aberdeenshire and Kincardineshire (no, not Nicol Stephen!). It was in fact William Cowen, the Liberal MP for Aberdeenshire Eastern, moving his Government of Scotland Bill in 1913.The move was a step to fulfil Grand Old Man William Gladstone’s promise from the very start of his Home Rule campaign:

“I will consent to give to Ireland no principle, nothing that is not upon equal terms offered to Scotland, and to the different parts of the United Kingdom.”

But before the Nats jump up and down and cry out for a Scottish Free State that wasn’t on the table at the time but came in subsequent legislation. Cowen cited the backing for his bill from the Liberal Association in Scotland. In 2007 there was no discussion with the membership, which led to the refusal of the Lib Dems to even enter talks with the SNP.

Many in the membership, myself included, believed it was possible to allow a referendum without supporting the same side in that campaign as the SNP. Others considered it was possible to not have that as plank of coalition governance but leave room for the SNP to bring a bill forward. Yet the decision was taken and many in Scotland - Malc included - saw it as the Lib Dems being undemocratic and failing to live up to our name.

To 2009 then, and a new leader is in charge but the same position. A debate on devolution saw questions asked, dilemmas posed. First Kevin Lang (Lib Dem PPC in Edinburgh North and Leith) then new Lib Dem MEP George Lyon both called for a referendum in Scotland on the question of independence. I could have got up and said the same thing.

Tavish Scott was clearly flustered. In last year’s leadership campaign, one of the key separating factors between the three candidates had been their willingness to listen to the membership on key issues like this one. In fact Mike Rumbles had promised to revisit this very question with the membership in very clear terms - just as Tavish is doing now. It is not going against party policy: there wasn’t really a firm policy on the issue, and there hadn’t been a discussion about the possibility of a referendum in many leading members time within the party.

So is this discussion in Liberal/Lib Dem circles sudden? Looking at the historic context no, we’ve been having it for over 100 years. Will it, as some online Nats have been suggesting, bring down Tavish Scott? No. He’s called for the formalising of the discussion, maybe as a result of the wake up call provided in Bournemouth, maybe at the behest of others. But Lib Dems are a forgiving lot. However, what he does with the resultant consensus going forward will be the key.

The big question of course that everyone is asking is ‘What will the outcome be?’. I really don’t know. One thing I do know is that post-Bournemouth and post-announcement of this consultation more people are coming forward saying that the time for the referendum is right. There is certainly a feeling of let’s get it over with. I don't know what the outcome will be, but what I do know is that when we gather in Dunfermline on Saturday (31 Oct) to start that process, it will be an interesting session. I’m prepared to be shocked this time, if that is possible, unlike the time I was sitting in the hall back in September.

If a week is a long time in politics, how much more six of them?

Read more...

Ross Finnie to decide the future of Scotland

Okay, so that headline is not entirely true. But it does sort of encapsulate the position of the Scottish Liberal Democrats at the moment.

It seems that Tavish Scott's merry men (and two women - so much for gender balance!) have decided upon a "policy review" on the issue of an independence referendum. The issue will be explored by Ross Finnie before a behind-closed-doors debate at their conference at the end of October.

Now this, to me at least, makes a bit of sense. The party were none too happy during the Calman Commission (particularly with the Interim Report when it looked like it was going nowhere) and the recommendations did nothing to improve their mood. And when an MSP (JFM), a PPC (Kevin Lang) and an MEP (George Lyon) have all declared their support for a referendum (not to mention top Lib Dem activists/bloggers) it is only right that the party conduct an internal review.

Jeff is sceptical about the review, wondering if Tavish might just be holding it in order to appear to be listening to his "young thrusting" PPCs but has already made up his mind on the issue - and it's a no from him.

I have to say, I'm not so sure. This might be a genuine attempt to change party policy. Having spent the last month reading "constitutional" documents relating to A National Conversation, the Calman Commission and The Steel Commission (pdf), my view is that the review is a genuine attempt to shift the Liberal Democrats position on the issue. We know where they stand on the constitution - and what powers they would like to see devolved (the Steel Commission showed that clearly). We know too, that the recommendations contained in it were much more like some of the discussions of extended devolution in the Scottish Government's Choosing Scotland's Future than the final report of the Calman Commission - with which the Lib Dems (particularly Lord Wallace, who served on the Commission) were not overly impressed. And we know too that, of the Unionist parties, the Lib Dems are the most likely to back down from the "not a chance in hell of a referendum" position - they apparently do like democracy after all.

For me, I suspect there may have been a quiet meeting between Alex Salmond and Tavish Scott. Or maybe John Swinney and Jeremy Purvis as Finance folk. Or maybe it wasn't even on that level. Maybe just a quiet whisper somewhere, a "name your price" deal which would see the Lib Dems agree to a referendum - probably a multi-option one - in exchange for something in the budget. Because this affects more than the Lib Dems. This is core SNP stuff. They promised a referendum. If - if - the Lib Dems decide to back it at their Conference (late October), then the SNP can deliver, as planned, their White Paper on a referendum on St Andrew's Day, safe in the knowledge that they will have the support to pass it.

So that referendum, that opportunity to decide the future direction of our nation really does lie in the hands of Ross Finnie. But for now, we wait.

My title wasn't as daft as you thought.

Read more...

The SNP & Independence

(Text of yesterday's guest post for SNP Tactical Voting).

We've had an SNP Scottish Government for a little over 2 and a quarter years now and - for better or worse - we've pretty much gotten used to it. There's no doomsday, no massive fighting between Holyrood and Westminster and no vote on independence (yet). And the party have performed well, if not spectacularly, as Scotland's first minority administration. This new form of government is a learning process for all the parties in Holyrood - budget debates now actually mean something, the government is fairly regularly defeated in minor votes but forges loose alliances on an issue-by-issue basis. In spite of the challenges of minority government, the defeats, the compromises, the failure to deliver on some key manifesto commitments (thus far) the SNP remains a popular party. Take a look at these opinion poll figures:

May 2007 Election

Constituency Vote - 32.9%

Regional Vote 31.0%

Jan 08 YouGov/Express - 38%/30%

Feb/ Mar 08 MRUK/ Times - 39%/40%

Apr 08 YouGov/ Sun 40%/33%

Aug 08 YouGov/ SNP 44%/-

Sept 08 YouGov/ Times 42%/35%

Oct 08 YouGov/ Times 39%/32%

Jan 09 YouGov/ Times 38%/34%

Mar 09 YouGov/ Times 35%/30%

Apr 09 YouGov/SNP 37%/37%

2009 figures here (pg22), Sept/ Oct 2008 here (pg21), Aug 2008 here (pg56), Jan-Apr 2008 here (pg46)

For a party under attack for failing to deliver some of its policy commitments, the SNP have maintained and - in every single on of these poll figures - increased their vote share. That to me indicates a government that remains popular with the electorate. Of course you can debate just how popular, how much opinion polls matter, the accuracy and methods of pollsters etc, but how else can we measure their support? In the only actual poll of public opinion - with a real live vote at the end of it - the SNP polled well ahead of Labour in the European Parliament Election in June 2009. Again, those of you who want to will claim that this isn't a reflection of their popularity - its a third order election, low turnout etc etc - but I guess you'll never be convinced. The point is this - the SNP, as a government, are relatively popular.

But - and this is a point those of you who disagree with the first half of this post will have no trouble agreeing with - their main policy aim is not. If you look at the straight up-down figures below, the height of popularity for independence was in March/ April 2008 - at 41%. Now that - the shrewd of among you will note - is a minority. There were a considerable number (19%) of "don't knows" in that poll, but even so, as the preference of only 41% at its height, independence remains the constitutional preference of the few.

I agree/ disagree that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state:

Aug 07 Agree 35% Disagree 50%

Nov/Dec 07 Agree 40% Disagree 44%

Mar/Apr 08 Agree 41% Disagree 40%

June/July 08 Agree 39% Disagree 41%

Oct 08 Agree 35% Disagree 43%

Jan/Feb 09 Agree 38% Disagree 40%

See John Curtice's chapter here for figures (particularly page 16).

Indeed, that analysis is borne out by the following Populus/Times Poll, which gave 4 options - independence/ more powers/ status quo/ less powers with the following result:

But - Populus/ Times Poll April 2009:

Independence - 21%

More Powers - 41%

Status Quo - 26%

Less Powers - 8%

(Same source, page 17)

That poll - as you can see - indicates that when several options are given, the constitutional preference of Scots tends to be for extended devolution over independence (albeit still a minority of those polled).

So, what does that mean for the SNP? Well, it's a problem. The SNP's strategy - devised at some point before the 2007 election - was to be in a position to govern Scotland effectively and efficiently, do what they could within the framework of the current constitutional settlement to implement policies which would improve Scotland - and demonstrate that improvements could also be made to other areas of policy were they granted extended powers. A simple strategy really - take the credit for what they could do, blame the UK Government for what they could not.

And it has worked - to a degree. The SNP have successfully delivered a number of key pledges which have proved popular with the electorate which has seen them maintain - or even increase - their poll numbers (as detailed above). However, the electorate remains unconvinced that the powers of independence are required for Scotland. This is the conundrum for the SNP - if they govern too well, they run the risk of people wondering why they need independence.

That, I think, is a whole other blog piece. Jeff - over to you.

Read more...

Conundrum for the SNP

Reading through Jeff's analysis of recent poll figures, a question which I've been considering in my studies at the moment suddenly became more pertinent.

Jeff has the SNP winning 25 of the 59 Scottish Westminster seats on 33% of the vote, which seems doubtful, but that's not the point of this post. Ipsos-Mori also has them winning 38% of the constituency vote in the 2011 Scottish Parliament election, a massive 13% lead over Labour in second. Again, it seems rather high, but perhaps that reinforces the point I'm going to make.

The SNP, after 2 and a half years as the Scottish Government, are still proving popular with the public (as the poll figures above indicate). Yet, and despite moving forward with the National Conversation with the publication of An Oil Fund for Scotland and Europe and Foreign Affairs indicating a more intensive discussion process as they build towards their intended referendum, support for independence remains static at around 28% of the population.

Now, from an SNP perspective, that figure may be "soft", indicating a lot of people (such as Jeff himself) who remain undecided about independence but may be convinced when they have heard a positive case for independence through the National Conversation process. Or, it may be a hard ceiling - the height of support for the SNP's constitutional preference - and indicate that, if a referendum occurs, the party will see a massive defeat.

I suspect the answer may be somewhere in between. Without reading too much into "loaded" polling questions and from anecdotal evidence, I'd suggest the constitutional question falls at about 60-40, with 60% against at the moment. Which I think is good news. 60% is 6 in 10. Change one mind and its a tie, change two and its a landslide (quote, Will Bailey). But I digress.

The point I wanted to make was this. What if support for the SNP maintains at its current levels - or even increases - and sees the party win near a majority of Scottish Westminster seats, improve their position in the Scottish Parliament to 50-55 MSPs in 2011 and maintain their position as the Scottish Government post-election but at the same time support for independence remains static at 28, what does the party do?

The party will have proved that they can govern competently and will have remained popular as a government (if indeed, their vote share/ representation increases). But their main policy objective would remain the preference of the minority (assuming no referendum in 2010 given current parliamentary hostility to the idea).

Could we judge the party as a successful government? Or, given their inability to legislate for their main policy objective, would that constitute failure? And yet, if they continue as a popular (populist??) government, people will continue to vote for them, and ignore their constitutional goals.

This is the conundrum facing the SNP: how do they translate the support for the party in government to support for their constitutional objective? How can they convince people that the government needs more powers when they are running it (in the public's eye at least - according to poll figures) effectively and efficiently? In short, why should the Scottish population support constitutional upheaval when they are content with the SNP as a Government?

I don't know if there is an answer, but I'd suggest that the extension of the National Conversation at the moment is seeking to inform further why constitutional change may be preferable. But whether the SNP see any shift in support for independence remains to be seen.

Read more...

A very Calman influence

I've been reading Final Report of the Calman Commission on Scottish Devolution. Well okay, the Executive Summary - I don't have the time to read 269 pages today.

It's an interesting read for those interested in Scotland's constitutional future - whatever that may be. Plenty has been written elsewhere about the content of the report, I just wanted to focus briefly on one aspect of it.

RECOMMENDATION 6.5: Section 31(1) of the Scotland Act should be amended to require any person introducing a Bill in the Parliament to make a statement that it is (in that person’s opinion) within the Parliament’s legislative competence.

So says the Calman Final Report. I guess that is their way of suggesting that a referendum on independence couldn't/ shouldn't be considered by the Scottish Parliament. And I guess that debate could go on for awhile - particularly given it is a legal decision.

I do find it funny to note that the person introducing a bill (which, in the case of an independence referendum bill would presumably be Mike Russell) merely has to say that they reckon it is within the Parliament's competence to debate it. They don't have to get any kind of legal opinion or anything.

I can't see Mike Russell having a problem saying "I think the Scottish Parliament has the competence to debate this referendum bill" - can you?

Read more...

No referendum - for now (probably)

It seems that every time I try to take a wee break something comes up. Guess I should pass comment on yesterday's Parliamentary debate on "Scottish Government Failures." Or rather, as everyone else has done, ignore the substance of the debate and comment upon the Lib Dem amendment on the potential for a referendum.

So, Labour, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats have stated their position. They will not support a bill to allow a referendum on independence during this term of office.

The wording of the motion Parliament agreed (by 72-47 with one abstention - Margo) is:

That the Parliament notes that SNP manifesto promises have been broken on a wide range of issues including health, housing, community safety and education; further notes the absence of a credible strategy to address the needs of people facing difficult economic circumstances and to tackle poverty and disadvantage; regrets that the Scottish Government prefers to focus its attention on the powers it does not have in order to pursue its party's agenda of separation; urges the Scottish Government to examine how it might effectively use the powers at its disposal to meet the needs of people by sustaining economic activity and employment and supporting communities across Scotland, and calls on the Scottish Government to concentrate its efforts on economic recovery and abandon its divisive plans for a Referendum Bill for the remainder of its term of office.

Now I don't know about you, but that motion suggests to me that they are not exactly chuffed with the SNP Government's record. Which begs the question, why don't they make moves to remove the SNP from power by forcing a vote of no-confidence through?

But that, I guess would mean they would have to come up with alternative ideas rather than just bashing the government, that they'd have to act instead of wax lyrical about principles they (allegedly) have.

If the Unionist parties are so confident that the end result of such a project would be a "No" vote, why don't they let the SNP have their vote? If they believe in the Union and believe that their stance is the correct one - and, crucially, that the majority of the Scottish population agree with them - then, in the now famous words of one W. Alexander, why don't they "Bring it on"? A rejection of not only the SNP's core policy but their whole raison d'etre not only deliver a huge blow to the SNP's credibility as a governing party but kill the question dead for at least a generation.

Rejecting their plans for a referendum only leaves open the question, builds uncertainty over the future (something they seem keen to avoid "in this economic climate") and gives the SNP the opportunity to paint them as "obstructionist" and "undemocratic" when they fail to give the people their say in the constitutional future of Scotland. And that is win-win for the SNP.

I can't fathom these tactics. If, in fact, there are any tactics at all.

Read more...

Westminster still matters for the SNP

I read with interest Jeff's take on the YouGov post-budget-vote-Scottish poll printed at the weekend. And I'd throw a note of caution his way.

For yes, he is right (and he'll enjoy my saying so!) in that "Holyrood is the main show in town for the SNP." Poll numbers from there are not only based upon the popularity of the SNP in government in Scotland, they follow the workings of the Scottish Parliament and give a clear indication of voters' intentions in Scottish Parliament elections (albeit two years prior to the next - scheduled - one of those). And since 1999 the party has focused its energies on the Holyrood Parliament, with the "gradualist" approach of winning seats, taking office, proving competence, holding and winning a referendum seemingly well in its way to fruition.

But (you could sense it coming) what of those who are banished from Holyrood, sent to serve time in a foreign land, that Parliament hosted by the arch-nemesis? For if there is only one game in town, if Westminster is but a mere distraction, why bother with the place? Why not invite abstentionism? Or, if you must stand, why not refuse to take up your seats - as Sinn Fein's members do?

There is a reason. You see, the SNP's strategy, while bold, seemingly foolproof and inherently democratic (in that it lets the people decide their constitutional future - a noble and somewhat under-used gesture) has one, somewhat major flaw: No one knows whether it can be done.

This referendum would require a majority of votes in Parliament to be held, it is true. But even if the SNP could muster a simple majority (65 - possibly with the aid of Lib Dems and Greens - of 129) that probably would not be enough. Not enough? And why on earth not I hear you ask?

Well... here's the rub. There's no guarantee that such a vote in the Scottish Parliament would be upheld as "within the remit of the Scottish Parliament." Any changes to the Scotland Act, "constitutional arrangements" or "sanctioning" of a referendum which seeks to change these arrangements would probably have to pass through Westminster.

So yes, 65 might be a majority in the Scottish Parliament... but the 7 SNP MPs fall far short of a majority of Scottish MPs at Westminster. And I'd argue Jeff's point. Yes the main game for the SNP is Holyrood. And yes, if they are to achieve their raison d'etre of independence then it will be through a referendum. But it is - at the very least - debateable whether that referendum will be delivered through the Scottish Parliament or by Westminster if/when the SNP gain a majority of Scotland's MPs.

I'm not one of those who subscribes to the belief that a hung parliament will aid this goal. But what I am pointing out - albeit in a rather long and winded way - is that Westminster, while now a second priority for the SNP, remains an important part of their plans for the constitutional future of Scotland.

But a good poll for the party!

Read more...