I spotted this letter in the Economist this week and thought it deserved a (marginally) wider audience. It's a superb piece of creative thinking, I'm sure you'll agree...
Sir,
Regarding your special report on ageing populations (June 27th), I once proposed a solution somewhat tongue in cheek to the problem of pensions: turn retirement upside down. In my plan, people would be supported by society up to the age of 30. During that period they would study, travel, prepare for a profession, reproduce and give full-time care to their young. They would not hold any positions of responsibility, where their youthful enthusiasm, unbounded energy and overambition were likely to cause problems. After 30, they would work until they dropped dead or became incapacitated.
The advantages are many. First, there would be more people working to support those young "retirees". Second, social-security budgets could be prepared years in advance, and with greater certainty. Third, young "retirees" would need very little health care and the money saved could be spent on their education and child care. Fourth, individuals would enjoy life at the peak of their powers and give full attention to offspring. Fifth, no more bored and sick elderly people looked upon as useless.
Cylon Goncalves da Silva
Sao Paulo
Thursday, 30 July 2009
Monday, 27 July 2009
Newsdredge
The last few weeks have been a blur of activity here in Brigadoon, so time has been short for keeping the blog up to date. To right this wrong it's time for a whistlestop catch up on some recent events...
Norwich North vs Glasgow North East
Many commentators have wondered why only one of these constituencies deserves to have an elected representative. I find myself similarly confused, unless of course it's simply Labour trying to rig things to maximise their chances of success. Surely not, I hear you sputter (ahem). It provides an interesting twist on our culture of loyalty. Usually loyalty is prized (air miles, Clubcard/Nectar points, never change your football club, etc.), but the message to the people of Glasgow NE from Labour HQ is loud and clear: yes, thanks for voting for us since forever, but no, during these times of recessions and looming job cuts you don't really need an MP to speak up and fight for your interests do you? Actually, given how little Labour MPs have done for such constituencies over the decades I don't suppose they'll be missing much.
It was also interesting to note reports of the Labour leopards retaining their spots during the Norwich campaign. Apparently some Labour activists had been whispering unfounded rumours about the sexuality of the successful Tory candidate, Chloe Smith. They really haven't learned from the McPoison affair, have they? Where will they stop in their pursuit of power? Where is the boundary for these people? Is there anything they won't do/say in order to keep one more of their lobby fodder in place? Utterly repellent. The only saving grace is that their shame is being reported and will hopefully be their undoing.
Oil Fund (again)
Imagine the scene. Your boss tells you that you will be getting a bonus. Do you: (a) save/invest all the extra money; (b) spend some of this extra and save/invest the rest; (c) spend all of your bonus; (d) fritter away all of your bonus, increasing your commitments so you become utterly dependent on it even though you know it won't last forever?
Surely the sensible option is (a), or perhaps (b) if something important is needed urgently. Conversely the stupid answer is to choose option (c), and the insane answer is option (d).
So why have Labour/Tory governments consistently chosen the insane option (d) for the last few decades? The plain and simple truth is that they have used the oil money to mask the problems in the British economy. By throwing good money after bad they have squandered this natural resource, while putting off any "tough choices" (Brown's desperate new catchphrase) until after each successive general election. And of course, as long as the oil lasts the mythical tough choices can be blissfully forgotten about...
Whilst this myopic denial is galling enough, it beggars belief that Labour criticise the SNP for suggesting an oil fund. "We can only spend it once", they say. Hmm, or to state Labour's position more accurately, we can only waste it once. The important thing to note here is that if we invest the money wisely, only spending the interest earned, we can actually spend more in the long run. "But the oil price is volatile, it's running out anyway." Erm, yes, but isn't it still valuable? In a good year more goes into the oil fund, in a bad year less. Isn't it better to use it wisely than squander it by papering over the cracks in the economy. And when the oil does finally dry up what would you rather have? A reformed, efficient economy with a decent nest-egg to help us in the future, or an artificially inflated expectation of the strength of the economy and a sudden inability to pay for public spending?
New Prime Minister
Congratulations to Baron Mandelson of Foy in the county of Herefordshire and Hartlepool in the county of Durham, First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Lord President of the Council (serving suggestion: breathe now) on finally attaining the office of Prime Minister. It's the best of all worlds really: Gordon is allowed to keep the title and house and serves as a useful target for the nation's anger, while Mandy quietly gets on with running the country without troublesome irritations to distract him, like actually having to be elected to the government. The full list* of committees that the Mandynator now bestrides is available here.
"Implement my policies if you want to live"
* Correct at time of posting...
Swine flu
Oink! :8)
Norwich North vs Glasgow North East
Many commentators have wondered why only one of these constituencies deserves to have an elected representative. I find myself similarly confused, unless of course it's simply Labour trying to rig things to maximise their chances of success. Surely not, I hear you sputter (ahem). It provides an interesting twist on our culture of loyalty. Usually loyalty is prized (air miles, Clubcard/Nectar points, never change your football club, etc.), but the message to the people of Glasgow NE from Labour HQ is loud and clear: yes, thanks for voting for us since forever, but no, during these times of recessions and looming job cuts you don't really need an MP to speak up and fight for your interests do you? Actually, given how little Labour MPs have done for such constituencies over the decades I don't suppose they'll be missing much.
It was also interesting to note reports of the Labour leopards retaining their spots during the Norwich campaign. Apparently some Labour activists had been whispering unfounded rumours about the sexuality of the successful Tory candidate, Chloe Smith. They really haven't learned from the McPoison affair, have they? Where will they stop in their pursuit of power? Where is the boundary for these people? Is there anything they won't do/say in order to keep one more of their lobby fodder in place? Utterly repellent. The only saving grace is that their shame is being reported and will hopefully be their undoing.
Oil Fund (again)
Imagine the scene. Your boss tells you that you will be getting a bonus. Do you: (a) save/invest all the extra money; (b) spend some of this extra and save/invest the rest; (c) spend all of your bonus; (d) fritter away all of your bonus, increasing your commitments so you become utterly dependent on it even though you know it won't last forever?
Surely the sensible option is (a), or perhaps (b) if something important is needed urgently. Conversely the stupid answer is to choose option (c), and the insane answer is option (d).
So why have Labour/Tory governments consistently chosen the insane option (d) for the last few decades? The plain and simple truth is that they have used the oil money to mask the problems in the British economy. By throwing good money after bad they have squandered this natural resource, while putting off any "tough choices" (Brown's desperate new catchphrase) until after each successive general election. And of course, as long as the oil lasts the mythical tough choices can be blissfully forgotten about...
Whilst this myopic denial is galling enough, it beggars belief that Labour criticise the SNP for suggesting an oil fund. "We can only spend it once", they say. Hmm, or to state Labour's position more accurately, we can only waste it once. The important thing to note here is that if we invest the money wisely, only spending the interest earned, we can actually spend more in the long run. "But the oil price is volatile, it's running out anyway." Erm, yes, but isn't it still valuable? In a good year more goes into the oil fund, in a bad year less. Isn't it better to use it wisely than squander it by papering over the cracks in the economy. And when the oil does finally dry up what would you rather have? A reformed, efficient economy with a decent nest-egg to help us in the future, or an artificially inflated expectation of the strength of the economy and a sudden inability to pay for public spending?
New Prime Minister
Congratulations to Baron Mandelson of Foy in the county of Herefordshire and Hartlepool in the county of Durham, First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Lord President of the Council (serving suggestion: breathe now) on finally attaining the office of Prime Minister. It's the best of all worlds really: Gordon is allowed to keep the title and house and serves as a useful target for the nation's anger, while Mandy quietly gets on with running the country without troublesome irritations to distract him, like actually having to be elected to the government. The full list* of committees that the Mandynator now bestrides is available here.
"Implement my policies if you want to live"
* Correct at time of posting...
Swine flu
Oink! :8)
Saturday, 18 July 2009
Angling for Salmond
Bereft of positive ideas for the future of Scotland, it would appear that Labour will be resorting to ad hominem attacks on Alex Salmond in order to bolster their flagging support. The Times reports that "the gloves are off" in their pursuit of the FM, these presumably being the same gloves that they haven't been able to lay on him for the last 2 years...
Iain Gray minus gloves...'armless as ever
Monday, 13 July 2009
Counsel for a poor mortal
Update at 12:15, 14/07/2009:
oldnat (of Blether with Brian fame) has helpfully pointed out that Stirling council split their expenses figures, one set from April 2007 to 3rd May 2007 and the other from 4th May 2007 to March 2008. Shetland have done the same and I suspect (but couldn't find the info) that the same is true for Clackmannanshire. It seems that the Beeb 's geeks have not noticed this though - out of 467 councils in their spreadsheet 125 have an average cost per councillor below £6000. The obvious moral of the story is to check the source data...and not to trust the Beeb too much!
The revised table minus Clacks is below. Happily Orkney and Shetland are now bosom buddies in the table, not much difference between their costs. But I'm still puzzled by Midlothian and West Lothian Councils...why does a councillor in West Lothian cost on average £10,000 more than one in Midlothian? Anyone got any idea? Might dig a bit deeper into the council websites when time allows...
Source: BBC Research + oldnat's investigative powers
---------------------
Perhaps someone can help me out with the following...
BBC Research has produced an interesting list of councillor pay and expenses for 2007-08, broken down by government region and also by council. Glancing at the figures for Scotland (see table at the bottom of this post) I noticed huge variations in the cost per councillor. For example...
*Total cost = Pay, expenses and allowances for 2007-08.
No, I haven't got those numbers wrong. Can anyone shed some light on this? Why the vast discrepancy between two councils that, to an ignorant mainland loon at least, look like they should be broadly comparable? The only thing I could think of was the Shetland oil fund. But then again I'm pretty sure Clackmannanshire doesn't have one of those, yet they seem to be blessed with much cheaper councillors than Midlothian...
Now for the really weird part. Despite the yawning chasm in the table above, Midlothian have the 4th lowest cost per councillor in Scotland. In fact it's actually Clackmannanshire that pips them to the bronze medal, albeit by a whopping £12,401.26 per councillor! In other words no council in Scotland has a cost per councillor between £3,885.26 and £16,286.52. What's going on?
To round things off, the 22 councillors of Stirling Council cost a total of £48,708.08, i.e. £2,214.00 per councillor. In contrast, the 32 councillors of West Lothian cost £835,518.00 in total, at an average of £26,109.94 per councillor. Why can 3 of our councils give us councillors at an average cost below £4,000, yet all the rest cost from £16,000-£26,000?!?
Now, there may well be a very good reason for this bizarrely skewed distribution of costs, in fact I really hope there is. If so I'd love to know what it is! Please respond via the comments box below.
Source: BBC Research
oldnat (of Blether with Brian fame) has helpfully pointed out that Stirling council split their expenses figures, one set from April 2007 to 3rd May 2007 and the other from 4th May 2007 to March 2008. Shetland have done the same and I suspect (but couldn't find the info) that the same is true for Clackmannanshire. It seems that the Beeb 's geeks have not noticed this though - out of 467 councils in their spreadsheet 125 have an average cost per councillor below £6000. The obvious moral of the story is to check the source data...and not to trust the Beeb too much!
The revised table minus Clacks is below. Happily Orkney and Shetland are now bosom buddies in the table, not much difference between their costs. But I'm still puzzled by Midlothian and West Lothian Councils...why does a councillor in West Lothian cost on average £10,000 more than one in Midlothian? Anyone got any idea? Might dig a bit deeper into the council websites when time allows...
| Council | # Cllrs | Total cost* | Cost/cllr |
| West Lothian Council | 32 | £835,518.00 | £26,109.94 |
| Inverclyde Council | 20 | £474,598.35 | £23,729.92 |
| Argyll and Bute Council | 36 | £817,143.63 | £22,698.43 |
| Highland Council | 80 | £1,727,849.81 | £21,598.12 |
| North Lanarkshire Council | 70 | £1,478,710.00 | £21,124.43 |
| Edinburgh City Council | 58 | £1,216,614.85 | £20,976.12 |
| Scottish Borders Council | 34 | £698,538.00 | £20,545.24 |
| Shetland Islands Council | 22 | £446,618.20 | £20,300.83 |
| Orkney Islands Council | 21 | £425,911.34 | £20,281.49 |
| Western Isles Council | 31 | £624,554.00 | £20,146.90 |
| East Ayrshire Council | 32 | £634,824.94 | £19,838.28 |
| Aberdeenshire Council | 68 | £1,337,062.36 | £19,662.68 |
| Glasgow City Council | 79 | £1,544,427.00 | £19,549.71 |
| South Lanarkshire Council | 67 | £1,308,586.30 | £19,531.14 |
| East Lothian District Council | 23 | £440,939.00 | £19,171.26 |
| East Dunbartonshire Council | 24 | £459,825.02 | £19,159.38 |
| Moray Council | 26 | £496,496.00 | £19,096.00 |
| Dumfries and Galloway Council | 47 | £889,981.00 | £18,935.77 |
| Perth and Kinross Council | 41 | £761,610.87 | £18,575.87 |
| Angus Council | 29 | £536,249.00 | £18,491.34 |
| North Ayrshire Council | 30 | £554,398.84 | £18,479.96 |
| Aberdeen City Council | 43 | £794,498.00 | £18,476.70 |
| West Dunbartonshire Council | 22 | £406,113.12 | £18,459.69 |
| Stirling Council | 22 | £403,958.68 | £18,361.76 |
| Fife Council | 78 | £1,418,840.30 | £18,190.26 |
| East Renfrewshire Council | 20 | £350,773.00 | £17,538.65 |
| Falkirk Council | 32 | £545,823.55 | £17,056.99 |
| Renfrewshire Council | 40 | £671,787.24 | £16,794.68 |
| South Ayrshire Council | 30 | £494,514.00 | £16,483.80 |
| Dundee City Council | 29 | £477,115.38 | £16,452.25 |
| Midlothian Council | 18 | £293,157.27 | £16,286.52 |
| Clackmannanshire Council | 18 | ? | ? |
Source: BBC Research + oldnat's investigative powers
---------------------
Perhaps someone can help me out with the following...
BBC Research has produced an interesting list of councillor pay and expenses for 2007-08, broken down by government region and also by council. Glancing at the figures for Scotland (see table at the bottom of this post) I noticed huge variations in the cost per councillor. For example...
| Council | # Cllrs | Total cost* | Cost/cllr | ||
| Orkney Islands Council | 21 | £425,911.34 | £20,281.49 | ||
| Shetland Islands Council | 22 | £50,476.63 | £2,294.39 |
*Total cost = Pay, expenses and allowances for 2007-08.
No, I haven't got those numbers wrong. Can anyone shed some light on this? Why the vast discrepancy between two councils that, to an ignorant mainland loon at least, look like they should be broadly comparable? The only thing I could think of was the Shetland oil fund. But then again I'm pretty sure Clackmannanshire doesn't have one of those, yet they seem to be blessed with much cheaper councillors than Midlothian...
| Council | # Cllrs | Total cost* | Cost/cllr | |
| Midlothian Council | 18 | £293,157.27 | £16,286.52 | |
| Clackmannanshire Council | 18 | £69,934.61 | £3,885.26 |
Now for the really weird part. Despite the yawning chasm in the table above, Midlothian have the 4th lowest cost per councillor in Scotland. In fact it's actually Clackmannanshire that pips them to the bronze medal, albeit by a whopping £12,401.26 per councillor! In other words no council in Scotland has a cost per councillor between £3,885.26 and £16,286.52. What's going on?
To round things off, the 22 councillors of Stirling Council cost a total of £48,708.08, i.e. £2,214.00 per councillor. In contrast, the 32 councillors of West Lothian cost £835,518.00 in total, at an average of £26,109.94 per councillor. Why can 3 of our councils give us councillors at an average cost below £4,000, yet all the rest cost from £16,000-£26,000?!?
Now, there may well be a very good reason for this bizarrely skewed distribution of costs, in fact I really hope there is. If so I'd love to know what it is! Please respond via the comments box below.
| Council | # Cllrs | Total cost* | Cost/cllr |
| West Lothian Council | 32 | £835,518.00 | £26,109.94 |
| Inverclyde Council | 20 | £474,598.35 | £23,729.92 |
| Argyll and Bute Council | 36 | £817,143.63 | £22,698.43 |
| Highland Council | 80 | £1,727,849.81 | £21,598.12 |
| North Lanarkshire Council | 70 | £1,478,710.00 | £21,124.43 |
| Edinburgh City Council | 58 | £1,216,614.85 | £20,976.12 |
| Scottish Borders Council | 34 | £698,538.00 | £20,545.24 |
| Orkney Islands Council | 21 | £425,911.34 | £20,281.49 |
| Western Isles Council | 31 | £624,554.00 | £20,146.90 |
| East Ayrshire Council | 32 | £634,824.94 | £19,838.28 |
| Aberdeenshire Council | 68 | £1,337,062.36 | £19,662.68 |
| Glasgow City Council | 79 | £1,544,427.00 | £19,549.71 |
| South Lanarkshire Council | 67 | £1,308,586.30 | £19,531.14 |
| East Lothian District Council | 23 | £440,939.00 | £19,171.26 |
| East Dunbartonshire Council | 24 | £459,825.02 | £19,159.38 |
| Moray Council | 26 | £496,496.00 | £19,096.00 |
| Dumfries and Galloway Council | 47 | £889,981.00 | £18,935.77 |
| Perth and Kinross Council | 41 | £761,610.87 | £18,575.87 |
| Angus Council | 29 | £536,249.00 | £18,491.34 |
| North Ayrshire Council | 30 | £554,398.84 | £18,479.96 |
| Aberdeen City Council | 43 | £794,498.00 | £18,476.70 |
| West Dunbartonshire Council | 22 | £406,113.12 | £18,459.69 |
| Fife Council | 78 | £1,418,840.30 | £18,190.26 |
| East Renfrewshire Council | 20 | £350,773.00 | £17,538.65 |
| Falkirk Council | 32 | £545,823.55 | £17,056.99 |
| Renfrewshire Council | 40 | £671,787.24 | £16,794.68 |
| South Ayrshire Council | 30 | £494,514.00 | £16,483.80 |
| Dundee City Council | 29 | £477,115.38 | £16,452.25 |
| Midlothian Council | 18 | £293,157.27 | £16,286.52 |
| Clackmannanshire Council | 18 | £69,934.61 | £3,885.26 |
| Shetland Islands Council | 22 | £50,476.63 | £2,294.39 |
| Stirling Council | 22 | £48,708.08 | £2,214.00 |
Source: BBC Research
Monday, 6 July 2009
Tribal loyalty 0 - 1 Common sense
How nice to see a principled stand being taken on the issue of prison reform by Cherie Blair and Henry McLeish. Both have stepped above the political fray, casting any tribal loyalty aside in order to praise the SNP's proposed penal reforms, whereby community sentencing would be preferred to jail time of less than 6-months.
Note that important word: preferred. This would be no diktat to those deciding on sentencing. Dangerous criminals could still be put in prison at the discretion of the courts. But rather than wasting public money sending petty criminals tofinishing school prison, they would instead be "paying back" to society.
It is perhaps instructive to ask ourselves what purpose a sentence less than 6-months serves. Is it a punishment/deterrent? Or an attempt at rehabilitation? If the former, then I suspect most criminals are not quaking in their boots at the prospect. If the latter, then perhaps we need to ask why re-offending rates remain stubbornly high.
Personally, I'm a firm believer in criminals being confronted with the effects of their crimes. Most human beings, when shown the misery they have caused their fellow man, will show some form of remorse. With support and guidance at that stage we give them the best chance of becoming productive members of society. If the community sentencing is of this type then the reforms have my full support. Of course there will always be an uncaring few without a conscience, and custodial sentences perhaps remain the best option for such cases.
Of more concern to me however, is the nature of the opposition to the reforms. If Labour were pretty hopeless in power they are even worse in opposition. Where are the ideas? Where is the alternative vision for Scotland? Nowhere to be seen. They seem far too busy opposing any new SNP initiative for the sake of it. On this particular issue former FM Henry McLeish puts it in unequivocal terms:
[Quoted from the Scotsman, 5th July 2009]
I've emphasised a couple of phrases: Labour were the progressive party. But no longer. Labour are misleading the public. Strong stuff from McLeish, but spot on. How much better the public is served when our politicians tell it like it is, rather than meekly following party orders.
Note that important word: preferred. This would be no diktat to those deciding on sentencing. Dangerous criminals could still be put in prison at the discretion of the courts. But rather than wasting public money sending petty criminals to
It is perhaps instructive to ask ourselves what purpose a sentence less than 6-months serves. Is it a punishment/deterrent? Or an attempt at rehabilitation? If the former, then I suspect most criminals are not quaking in their boots at the prospect. If the latter, then perhaps we need to ask why re-offending rates remain stubbornly high.
Personally, I'm a firm believer in criminals being confronted with the effects of their crimes. Most human beings, when shown the misery they have caused their fellow man, will show some form of remorse. With support and guidance at that stage we give them the best chance of becoming productive members of society. If the community sentencing is of this type then the reforms have my full support. Of course there will always be an uncaring few without a conscience, and custodial sentences perhaps remain the best option for such cases.
Of more concern to me however, is the nature of the opposition to the reforms. If Labour were pretty hopeless in power they are even worse in opposition. Where are the ideas? Where is the alternative vision for Scotland? Nowhere to be seen. They seem far too busy opposing any new SNP initiative for the sake of it. On this particular issue former FM Henry McLeish puts it in unequivocal terms:
"Their claims are wholly ridiculous," he said. "They are arguing against something that is not being implemented or recommended by the [Scottish] Government. My appeal to Labour, who were the progressive party, is to read the report [by the Scottish Prisons Commission]. None of it adds up to anything remotely like what they are claiming. They are misleading the public."
He added: "The Labour claims on this are just totally wrong. There is no provision that says every sentence under six months is not allowed. The sheriffs still have the right to sentence as they wish."
He went on: "Labour and the Conservatives are saying crime equals punishment equals prison. That strategy has got us into a situation where we are wasting millions of pounds every year, a situation where we are not protecting the public any better and a situation where we have some of the highest re-conviction rates in Europe."
[Quoted from the Scotsman, 5th July 2009]
I've emphasised a couple of phrases: Labour were the progressive party. But no longer. Labour are misleading the public. Strong stuff from McLeish, but spot on. How much better the public is served when our politicians tell it like it is, rather than meekly following party orders.
Poll results: What do you think of the 48 skiving MSPs who "snubbed" HM Queen?
Orf with their heads! 0 votes
To the Tower's naughty step! 0
We're a' Jock Tamson's MSPs! 2
Vive la revolucion! 10
On that basis Brigadoon seems to be a hotbed of revolutionary fervour, treasonous dogs that you are! Thanks again for all your votes.
To the Tower's naughty step! 0
We're a' Jock Tamson's MSPs! 2
Vive la revolucion! 10
On that basis Brigadoon seems to be a hotbed of revolutionary fervour, treasonous dogs that you are! Thanks again for all your votes.
Thursday, 2 July 2009
A right royal rant
In these troubled times what is exercising the little grey cells of the chattering classes of Scotland? The prospect of shipyard closures on the Clyde? The imminent loss of hundreds of jobs at two of Diageo's plants? No dear reader, worthy though these stories might be of attention, a far graver matter faces the nation. Prepare yourselves. Forty-eight of our MSPs didn't bother to go and listen to the Queen giving some speech or other. Alas, whither Scotia?!
Treachery though it be, I'll confess that I didn't bother to listen to Her Majesty, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that "her" speech consisted of the usual platitudes and banality that she's restricted to in order to remain apolitical and avoid giving offence (Big Phil on the other hand...). Happy to be corrected on that point mind, please relay to me any great profundity that she imparted to us plebs using the comments below.
So why the stushie? Why is everyone proclaiming this to be a day of shame for the parliament? Whatever happened to that idea of Scotland building a modern, egalitarian, 21st Century democracy? Or the pride and glee we all shared when "A man's a man for a' that" was sung to the Queen at the official opening? Straight out the window! Get a grip Scotland!
Treachery though it be, I'll confess that I didn't bother to listen to Her Majesty, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that "her" speech consisted of the usual platitudes and banality that she's restricted to in order to remain apolitical and avoid giving offence (Big Phil on the other hand...). Happy to be corrected on that point mind, please relay to me any great profundity that she imparted to us plebs using the comments below.
So why the stushie? Why is everyone proclaiming this to be a day of shame for the parliament? Whatever happened to that idea of Scotland building a modern, egalitarian, 21st Century democracy? Or the pride and glee we all shared when "A man's a man for a' that" was sung to the Queen at the official opening? Straight out the window! Get a grip Scotland!
Wednesday, 1 July 2009
Logan's run
The BBC ICM poll details have been published (available here). Some interesting snippets therein, particularly the mixed feeling on Brown as PM, the foreboding at the prospect of Cameron as PM, and the high aproval for Salmond as FM.
The two big questions posed were around how Scotland should be governed and how Scots would vote in a referendum next year. Mischievous type that I am I couldn't help but notice that the 65+ age group responded quite differently to the rest on these questions...
Q.14 Which of the following comes closest to your view about how Scotland should be governed....
Q.19 Next year, the Scottish Government wants to hold a referendum to ask the people of Scotland whether they agree or disagree that..."the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state"
Interesting stuff I'm sure you'll agree! Remove the wrinklies (hypothetically speaking!) and Q.19 looks pretty close to me. Maybe Eck should wait a few more years for that referendum ;o)
The remaining difference between pro-independence and pro-devolution max responses to Q.14 comes largely from the 18-34 age group. I wonder what effect a lack of jobs for young people and a good dose of paternal Toryism might have on this group over the next few years...all to play for!
The two big questions posed were around how Scotland should be governed and how Scots would vote in a referendum next year. Mischievous type that I am I couldn't help but notice that the 65+ age group responded quite differently to the rest on these questions...
Q.14 Which of the following comes closest to your view about how Scotland should be governed....
| Excl. 65+ | All | |||
| Scotland should become independent of the rest of the UK, with the Scottish Parliament able to make all decisions about the level of taxation and government spending in Scotland | 42.27% | 38.35% | ||
| Scotland should remain part of the UK, with the Scottish Parliament able to make some decisions about the level of taxation and government spending in Scotland | 49.94% | 53.72% | ||
| Scotland should remain part of the UK, with decisions about the level of taxation and government spending in Scotland made by the UK Government | 6.67% | 6.64% | ||
| Don't know | 1.11% | 1.29% |
Q.19 Next year, the Scottish Government wants to hold a referendum to ask the people of Scotland whether they agree or disagree that..."the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state"
| Excl. 65+ | All | |||
| For | 45.92% | 42.26% | ||
| Against | 46.41% | 50.10% | ||
| Refused | 7.67% | 7.64% |
Interesting stuff I'm sure you'll agree! Remove the wrinklies (hypothetically speaking!) and Q.19 looks pretty close to me. Maybe Eck should wait a few more years for that referendum ;o)
The remaining difference between pro-independence and pro-devolution max responses to Q.14 comes largely from the 18-34 age group. I wonder what effect a lack of jobs for young people and a good dose of paternal Toryism might have on this group over the next few years...all to play for!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)