A new poll today revealed only a third of Scots would vote yes to separation, against 57% sticking with the Union, as Alex Salmond launched the ‘yes’ campaign.
.
As Alex Salmond finally launched his independence campaign – fully five years after becoming first minister – a new poll today revealed only a third of Scots would vote yes to separation, against 57 per cent sticking with the Union.
It also emerged today that the Archbishop of Canterbury is opposed to independence, which he says is no “magic bullet”.
Beyond the headline figures, today’s YouGov poll reveals further damning findings, as this morning’s Guardian reports:
The poll also suggested that only 58% of people who voted for the SNP in last May’s landslide victory for Salmond would back independence in a snap referendum, while 28% of SNP voters opposed it.
“Even after winning two Scottish general election victories, raising a war-chest of millions and deploying the full resources of the Scottish government, Alex Salmond has failed to convince Scots that they should leave the United Kingdom,” [Alistair] Darling said.
“The nationalists will go to great lengths to try to prove there is a groundswell towards leaving the UK but the truth is that their campaign is stalled. Independence is as unpopular as it has ever been.”
The polling results will not greatly surprise the “yes” campaign but Darling’s intervention marks the first head-on challenge for Salmond by the anti-independence coalition formed by the three main pro-UK parties of Labour, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats, which is expected to launch formally in June.
• Galloway to square up to Salmond over independence 14 May 2012
• MPs accuse SNP of “biased” independence question 8 May 2012
• Salmond’s screeching u-turn over independence consultation 3 Apr 2012
• Salmond courts Murdoch as pro-union dream team finally begins to emerge 28 Feb 2012
• Polls apart? The news for the SNP might not be as good as it looks 6 Feb 2012
Salmond, meanwhile, sought to brush off the poll at his big Edinburgh launch, calling for a million Scots to sign a ‘yes’ declaration, with his deputy, Nicola Sturgeon, telling the Today Programme this morning that independence “puts powers over our economy, over our political life into the hands of the people of Scotland”.
The vote will take place in autumn 2014 – expect the claims and counter-claims to intensify.
30 Responses to “Salmond quits stalling and finally launches independence campaign – as poll says ‘no’”
Anonymous
Yes, right, you are out to destroy democracy. I get it. Move on.
Look Left – Massacre in Syria, the horror of Azerbaijan and a deeper double-dip | Left Foot Forward
[…] Alex Salmond quit stalling and officially launched the ‘Yes’ campaign for Scottish independence, more than two years ahead of the referendum […]
Anonymous
Brown and Darling…a matter of political practicalities I think – not so much Paxman’s ‘Scottish raj’ comments(though that’s not insignificant) but simply the fact that they did a dreadful job. The current mess is not ‘all their fault’ by a long, long chalk, but they were instrumental in making things as bad as they are.
Any extra costs from FFA would be trivial – it might actually be marginally cheaper in the medium to long term since one Scottish finance department could deal with everything from corpoation tax to water rates, but the real up side is that it would be politcally acceptable in England & Wales and do away with the old tory ‘subsidy junky’ bollocks. I’m not clear that there are massive advantages to independence or to the Union. I’ve asked a lot of politicians from all parties about it and I’ve yet to hear a really convincing arguemnt for either side, so I’m – broadly – inclined toward the status quo. OTH I’m well aware that the current set-up is not satisfactory to most people and that the proposals under the new Scotland Act are a decade behind the times. If this had been the basis of the initial Holyrood intiative it might well have been sufficient, but it was n’t and we have to move with the times. The thing abouit FFA is that it is comprehensible and is enough to preserve the Union; fiddling about at the margins just does n’t make much impression on the wider public. If the choice in 2014 is a question of the staus quo (as in the current Scotland Act proposals) and independence, a lot of people will vote ‘yes’ as the least bad of two not very good options.
I still think the gnats are weak in particular areas and are therefore vulnerable – especially so in the area of personal liberty, which is really an area where labour should be able to blow every other party out of the water, but at the moment the statist element (‘You have the liberty to do as your damned well told’) is way too strong. We do have to think about the future. The gnats are n’t going away any time soon so just waiting for the electorae to drift back to Labour is not going to do the trick – there has to be a positive agenda that will actively attract the voters. As things stand there is a strong likelihood that Labour will win the next GE on the basis of English and Welsh constituencies, but take a lot of damage in Scotland – as the tories did in the 60s, 70s and 80s and as the Liberals did a generation before that. It’s not just L:abour though. Chances are the glib-dumbs are pretty much finished in Scotland. If they retain 2 Scottish MPs they ‘ll be lucky, but the seats they lose are going to go to the gnats, not to Labour or the tories…unless Labour can find an agenda and message that the public likes. I think it can be done, but it calls for a bit of imagination.
Anonymous
“Any extra costs from FFA would be trivial”
Tens of billions, in projections I’ve seen. The disconnection in things like tax rates, which is a major business cost, the additional bureaucracy, etc.
“it would be politcally acceptable in England & Wales”
Why do you think that? It’s certainly not acceptable to the mainstream left, indeed it’s LESS acceptable than independence in many ways.
It MOCKS the Union, without an English Parliament. The very minimum would be the exclusion of Scottish MP’s from votes on English matters, and it’s very likely indeed that the Tories would be able to deadlock Labour there.
And Labour are paternalist centralists, why would they have any particular stake in civil liberties? If they refuse to engage with the left, and they are refusing, their GE success is far from assured.
I’ll keep supporting a proper federal structure rather than a nebulous and damaging “FFA”. “Free For All”.
Anonymous
Can’t imagine where ‘tens of billions’ would come from; where did you see these projections?
And there’s no problem with Scotish MPs not voting on England and Wales issues; the gnats don’t do it and I think some Labour and glib-dumb MPs refrain also – it does n’t really matter about the lone tory. If the tories were in the majority in England, why should they not have power over English affairs?
FFA would be acceptable to English and Welsh voters because it would bring an end to the ‘subsidy’ issue. I can’t imagine why it would be less acceptable to the mainstream left since it would be a prety democratic solution.
In what sense would ‘disconnection in tax rates be an issue? The principle was part of the original devolution settlement, but the parameters were so small as to be meaningless.
If Labour and the left are opposed to individual liberty, then there is something seriously wrong about their understanding of socialism. Why should the left autoamtically be paternalist or centralist? Is there a rule that says the socialism has to be authoritarian?