It's what leaders do rather than who they are that shifts votes

So Jim Murphy, one of the few on the unionist side who came out of the referendum looking better than he went into it, is in the running for leadership of the Scottish Labour party.

Aside from historically having more factions than members one of Scottish Labour's biggest problems since devolution and the creation of the Scottish Parliament has been that all of their 'big beasts' have tended to stand for election in Westminster rather than Holyrood leaving the SNP to mop the floor with a subs bench of Labour talent.

One of the more compelling arguments I heard from Yes supporters in the referendum campaign was that separation from the UK would prevent the brain drain of many of the brightest Scottish minds moving South (although the rest of the UK would still be stuck with the brain drain of everyone moving to London).

Jim Murphy's decision may have more to do with the fact that he backed the losing Miliband brother in the 2010 Labour leadership contest but the fact that a senior Labour figure wants to become First Minister of Scotland rather than be in the cabinet, the first since Donald Dewar made that decision in 1999, may reverse this effect a little.

There are polls that say otherwise though and that Labour would do as badly, if not worse, under Mr Murphy than they have done under Johann Lamont and Iain Gray before her.

I'm very sceptical of alternative leader polls and Anthony Wells has a good rundown of the faults of some Lib-Dem polling done after the European elections. These were the polls that were part of Lord Oakeshott's abortive coup against Nick Clegg that backfired so spectacularly.

Essentially the issue is that most alternative leaders aren't very well known to the public who can't know how they would actually react if that person took over. So many people still think David Miliband is leader of the Labour party that any polling on Ed vs. his brother is pointless. With Lord Oakeshott's polls very few people had heard of any of the contenders apart from Vince Cable. Political junkies know who Tim Farron is but ordinary voters don't unless they live in his constituency.

For some better known politicians (Boris Johnson springs to mind) voters might have an idea whether they'd be more likely to vote for that party and this may be the case with Jim Murphy but mostly it's still to be taken with a pinch of salt.

The real reason why we can't know the impact of a different party leader is that party leaders themselves change the context of polling by their actions. Your opinion of Ed Miliband comes from what they do, how they respond to the media and events, how people and commentators and other politicians react to that.

Changing party leader is a major change to the political narrative. Look at this chart, again from UK Polling Report. Even without the annotations you'd be able to tell when David Cameron replaced Michael Howard and when Gordon Brown replaced Tony Blair. Similarly, look at the Labour line when the financial crisis hits in 2008 and the bank bailouts began.

We overestimate what politicians and political strategy can do all the time but in this case, what they do matters more to voters than showing their name in a poll question.

(Almost) Everything I think about the Scottish referendum

I've resisted saying anything about the Scottish referendum, or at least putting anything in writing,  until now so this is a bit of an info-dump / omnibus collection of everything I think about the whole situation. Apologies if it's a little disjointed.

A bit of background, I was born in England but my father is from Scotland and therefore I've always thought of myself as half and half. There's apparently some Welsh in there as well on my mother's side though so far back that nobody can remember the exact fraction. Nevertheless, my dad has always expressed pride in the fact that the Scottish portion of each of his children is a plurality if not an absolute majority. Like countless people I have family in both nations and it feels personal whenever nationalists on either side talk of separation.

The most disturbing feeling is that the nationalists have been allowed to define "we" in a way that invalidates the national identity that I and millions of others feel. It is by nature exclusive rather than inclusive and divisive rather than unifying. The nationalists don't want to separate "their" family from "ours", they want a portion of the family we all share to declare itself separate from the rest. Those who disagree with this are told that they have no right to an opinion because they are in the 'other' group, you're not Scottish, nobody cares what you think because you're not one of those who gets to vote.

Alex Salmond says that nobody is better able to govern Scotland than the people who live there. An argument that you can apply to any geographic location. Nobody is better able to govern Britain than the people who live there, nobody is better able to govern Europe, Aberdeen, Kirkcaldy etcetera etcetera. It all depends on where the "demos" is and, while there is most definitely a Scottish demos, there is a British one as well and these are in no way mutually exclusive.


Read more »

Would the Scottish referendum be closer if the Euro was a more attractive option?

Given the centrality of currency issues to the debate in Scotland at the moment it's interesting to imagine how different, or maybe how similar, things would be if joining the Euro was a serious option for Scotland?

A quick Google came up with this from a few years ago when the SNP were divided on whether to offer a referendum on joining the Euro or just join the EU and accept it as part of the broader package of EU membership. That was only five years ago.

Imagine that there was no Eurozone crisis or that the referendum was happening a few years ago but somehow all other factors were the same. Would Yes Scotland be ahead because the post-UK currency didn't involve pinning the country's hopes on whether or not George Osborne was bluffing about a currency union but instead meant entering a currency union with Germany, France (and Greece)? Or would Better Together be ahead because, even though Scotland is more pro-EU than England, actually joining the Euro is a step too far even then and too much of a change given how much the SNP are trying to emphasise how things will stay the same?

The other hypothetical is that let's say that the referendum results in Scotland staying but by a margin less clear than the 60-40% split predicted by polls. Let's say that the Eurozone crisis ultimately resolves itself the way Angela Merkel is hoping (continued austerity in the bailout countries, nobody leaves the Eurozone, some tightening of EU controls over Eurozone country budgets) and that the SNP continue to be the dominant party in Scottish politics. Is it unrealistic not to expect another referendum in Scotland but this time with Euro membership a much more realistic option?
Even if Better Together win in September, I doubt we'll have to wait more than a decade for another vote.