Will Westminster allow Indyref2? Sadly I doubt it.

I beginning to doubt whether the British Government will agree to  hold a second referendum on Scotland’s independence.

Its not a scenario I want, but i suspect it will be what happens

Although Nicola Sturgeon the the Scottish First Minister also said 2018 was an ideal time for another attempt because the UK’s post-European Union deal would look a little clearer the UK Prime Minister has two reasons not to do so

The first of course is that Scotland may vote Yes.

A Year before the First Independence referendum the YES campaign were well behind and the then Prime Minister David Cameron was properly  convinced that it would be easily defeated.

2013[edit]

Date(s) conducted	Polling organisation/client	Sample size	Yes	No	Undecided	Lead
3–10 Dec	TNS BMRB	1,055	27%	41%	33%	14%
6–9 Dec	YouGov/The Times	1,074	36%	55%	10%	19%
29 Nov–5 Dec	Ipsos MORI/STV News	1,006	34%	57%	10%	23%
26 Nov	Release of Scotland's Future
20–27 Nov	TNS BMRB	1,004	26%	42%	32%	16%
12–20 Nov	Panelbase/Sunday Times	1,006	38%	47%	15%	9%
23–30 Oct	TNS BMRB	1,010	25%	43%	32%	18%
17–24 Oct	Panelbase/Wings Over Scotland	1,008	37%	45%	17%	8%
25 Sep–2 Oct	TNS BMRB	1,004	25%	44%	31%	19%
13–16 Sep	YouGov/The Times	1,139	32%	52%	13%	20%
9–15 Sep	Ipsos MORI/STV News	1,000	31%	59%	9%	28%
10–13 Sep	ICM/Scotland on Sunday	1,002	32%	49%	19%	17%
30 Aug–5 Sep	Panelbase/Sunday Times	1,002	37%	47%	16%	10%
23–28 Aug	Panelbase/Scottish National Party	1,043	44%	43%	13%	1%
21–27 Aug	TNS BMRB	1,017	25%	47%	28%	22%
19–22 Aug	YouGov/Devo Plus	1,171	29%	59%	10%	30%
16 Aug	Angus Reid/Daily Express	549	34%	47%	19%	13%
17–24 July	Panelbase/Sunday Times	1,001	37%	46%	17%	9%
10–16 May	Panelbase/Sunday Times	1,004	36%	44%	20%	8%
29 Apr–5 May	Ipsos MORI/The Times	1,001	28%	57%	15%	29%
20 Mar–2 Apr	TNS BMRB	1,002	30%	51%	19%	21%
18–22 Mar	Panelbase/Sunday Times	885	36%	46%	18%	10%
20–28 Feb	TNS BMRB/Scottish CND	1,001	33%	52%	15%	19%
4–9 Feb	Ipsos MORI/The Times	1,003	32%	52%	16%	20%
30 Jan–1 Feb	Angus Reid	1,003	32%	47%	20%	15%
11–21 Jan	Panelbase/Sunday Times	1,004	34%	47%	19%	13%
3–9 Jan	TNS BMRB	1,012	28%	48%	24%	20%
3–4 Jan	Angus Reid	573	32%	50%	16%	18%

The result however was a lot closer

Date(s) conducted	Polling organisation/client	Sample size	Yes	No	Undecided	Lead
18 September 2014	Scottish independence referendum, 2014 results	3,623,344	44.7%	55.3%		10.6%
16–17 Sep	Ipsos MORI/Evening Standard	991	45%	50%	5%	5%
16–17 Sep	Survation/Daily Record	1,160	43%	48%	9%	5%
15–17 Sep	YouGov/The Times/The Sun	3,237	45%	49%	6%	4%
15–17 Sep	Panelbase	1,004	45%	50%	5%	5%
15–16 Sep	Ipsos MORI/STV	1,373	47%	49%	5%	2%
12–16 Sep	ICM/The Scotsman	1,175	41%	45%	14%	4%
12–16 Sep	Survation/Daily Mail	1,000	44%	48%	8%	4%
12–15 Sep	Opinium/Telegraph	1,156	43%	47%	8%	4%
10–12 Sep	Survation/Better Together	1,044	42%	49%	9%	7%
9–12 Sep	Panelbase/Sunday Times	1,014	46%	47%	7%	1%

Now the referendum may start with YES and No on equal footing The BMG poll for The Herald indicated 49 percent of Scots support independence with 51 percent opposing it, after "don't know" votes are removed. 

If there was anything like the swing to a YES vote on a par with last time then the referendum will succeed easily.

However the main reason why Scotland may be denied a second referendum  is that it would give legitimacy for a final Brexit vote.

As Wings over Scotland points out the Liberal Democrats call for a second referendum looks hollow when they at the same time reject a second Independence referendum

As Stu puts it to the Scottish LibDem leader  Willie Rennie

1. Having another referendum on EU membership, in which the options would be to leave or remain in the EU, would NOT in fact be a second EU referendum.
2. When people vote on an EU referendum and then see that the consequences might be quite damaging, they should be given the right to change their mind in another referendum.
3. This does NOT apply in the case of a Scottish independence referendum in which people were told (for example) that a No vote would keep them in the EU, and then the consequences turned out to be the opposite.
4. Willie Rennie, we just learned, considers that leaving the EU is a prospect so serious and so damaging that it constitutes grounds to revisit the EU referendum vote. But it’s not serious enough that Scottish people should be given the choice of whether to revisit THEIR choice in the light of accurate information about what a No vote meant in the EU context.
5. In other words, it’s a serious enough matter to overturn a UK-wide vote for, but not serious enough to overturn a Scottish vote for. Even though we’re not aware of a single poll showing that the result of a second EU referendum would be any different now, whereas several polls since the EU referendum, including the most recent one, have shown a majority for Scottish independence.
6. Voters do NOT have the right to change their minds about Scotland staying in the UK within four years of their original vote, even in the light of dramatically changed circumstances, because the indyref was “once in a generation”.
But they DO have the right to change their minds about EU membership within three years of the original vote, even though all that’s happening as a result of the Leave vote is that the UK is leaving the EU, which is what people voted for even though they knew there was no detailed plan.

I agree with Wings over this LibDem double think , but  It seems to me that Mrs May is hardly to give in to another Scottish Referendum if it gives kudos to those calling for some kind of BREXIT affirmation vote.

The Tories have already lost Scotland as a political Party and any revival is due to a Unionist vote bringing in Labour Unionist into their fold.

In allowing a second referendum in Scotland Mrs May must realise that she could see YES vote and the end of he career , would she do this?

The Palace of Westminster is a symbol of a decaying Union.(Time to leave both).

I have admitted a number of times that Economics is a Mystery to me  and I am therefore  for Joseph Ogle and Daria Luchinskaya  over at Click on Wales for unpick the Budget announcement and what it means for Wales

It looks as though the additional money for the Wales budget will amount to £200 million (capital and resource) phased in over the next four years. On the basis of figures seen so far, the addition to the Resource DEL (day-to-day spending) would reach just over 1% by 2019-20 compared with 2017-18.Against this modest increase, there are two offsets. The Chancellor re-affirmed his adherence to austerity and last week’s letter from the Treasury asked Whitehall spending departments to find £3.5 billion of ‘efficiency savings’ by 2019-20. The letter excludes spending on NHS and schools and includes a provision for ‘reinvesting’ £1 billion on priorities. How this will impact on the Welsh budget is to be confirmed – but a straight Barnett consequential would amount to a hit of around £175 million a year. This would dwarf any good news from yesterday’s announcements.  The other offset is the impact of inflation. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s latest Economic and Fiscal Outlook published updated inflation forecasts, including GDP deflators and CPI measures. Adjusting government spending for inflation typically uses GDP deflators, while consumer-related items, such as wages, benefits, etc., are deflated by the CPI. The new CPI outlook is 2.4% in 2017, 2.3% in 2018, and 2.0% thereafter. These forecasts are still higher than those of March 2016, with CPI inflation likely to put pressure on the public sector pay settlement.

So we look to be loosing out  evrn if initially the additional money for the Wales budget  appeared to amount to £200 million 

Contrast this with the  plan for a “full decant” of the Palace of Westminster has been backed by the influential public accounts committee, with MPs and peers moving out for around six years while the work is carried out at an estimated cost of £3.5bn to £3.9bn.

The committee said this was the “most economical, effective and efficient” option for restoring the palace to a proper state. It warned “delay and indecision” would simply add to the final cost.

So it seems that the cost of repairing a building in London will be more than the entire money sent by our London Masters to a grateful nation

Carmarthen East and Dinefwr’s Jonathan Edwards said he

 “cannot consciously support expenditure of that amount on any building, particularly when Westminster is imposing such needless and harsh austerity on everyone else”.
“I have long been calling for another solution to this problem – to relocate from Westminster permanently. One of the great failings of the British state is that it has concentrated all its efforts on one city.
“Addressing the individual and geographical wealth inequalities of the British state should be the most important priority for politicians, not least because addressing those injustices would in itself be an economic driver. Supporting complete relocation would be a bold statement of intent for Westminster’s political class to show that they are serious about equalising wealth and prosperity.”
: “It would be wholly inappropriate, and frankly insulting for Westminster politicians to spend so much money on their own facilities when the people we serve are being forced to bear such pain.”

There is of course another option to Scottish and Welsh Voters and that it is to leave the Union and concentrate on our own  Parliament as Independent Nations.

The Palace of Westminster is a symbol of a decaying  Union and it is time to abandon it as Scotland looks likely to abandon the Union.

A decaying building for a decaying Union?

Indeed the Bill for the Westminster Repairs and the news that Buckingham Palace to undergo 'essential' £370m refurbishment, could be a factor in the referendum as Scots will be expected to contribute.

It also an insult to millions of English people who do not even seem to have the option of success

Should Labour surrender its role as official opposition?

When it comes to holding to the Tories in Westminster to account it seems that Labour have virtually given up .

The Tories on going austerity program continues , and  although you might not see much reporting in the Media it becomes even more obvious this is about destroying the welfare state and is a matter of ideology rather than any fiscal intention.

The latest governmental plan is  to cut housing benefit to those under 21 from April 2017.

According to the Westminster  website

The measure was initially forecast to save £40m by 2020/21. In response to a PQ answered on 24 January 2017 the Minister said around 10,000 people would be affected, saving an estimated £95 million over the course of the current Parliament. On 7 March 2017 Caroline Nokes said that “in the region of £105 million” would be saved over the period of this Parliament.
ExemptionsThe Regulations specify the categories of young people who will be exempt from the removal of the housing costs element of Universal Credit. These exemptions include:  those who may not be able to return home to live with their parents; certain claimants who have been in work for 6 months prior to making a claim; and young people who are parents. Section 2 of the full report provides information on all the exemptions that will apply

SNP MP, Mhairi Black, has nailed the  question that summed up what the government are up to

 Speaking during an Urgent Question debate on withdrawing Housing Benefit from those under 21, Black asked:

Does the Minister agree that it is simply ridiculous that young people should suffer purely because the Government are obsessed with imposing austerity?

he Canary tells us that

MPs were asking urgent questions about the legislation brought in without debate under a Statutory Instrument. This also means that MPs are unlikely to overturn the decision. The last time this happened in the House of Commons was 1979.

Speaking about the cuts, Black stated:

The Government seem to be working on the incorrect assumption that young people can simply stay at home, when parents have no obligation to house their adult children.

As you can see above there are categories of exemptions such as for those at risk, parents, and orphans. But Black sought to clarify the numbers who would be affected:

Can she tell us how many young people will be affected who do not qualify for an exemption?

Black also raised the problems that young people who do not have stable accommodation might face:

Does she think that an unemployed young adult is more likely to get a job if they have a stable address, or if they are living in a hostel or sleeping on the streets?

Scotland

Black further raised the question of how the issue will affect Scotland. She pointed out that the SNP is opposed to the legislation but it will be imposed on Scotland regardless:

The SNP has consistently opposed the withdrawal of housing benefit for 18 to 21-year-olds, but under the current powers of the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government cannot reverse the cut or provide an exemption for Scotland.

And she asked:

Will the UK Government exempt Scottish young people from the impact of the regulations and allow the Scottish Government to provide the housing support on their behalf?

Mhari Black’s questions  however were pretty much ignored by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Work and Pensions, Caroline Nokes.

Nokes failed to answer the part of the question regarding austerity. Nor did she comment on the number of young people affected by this legislation. Instead, she gave a vague and unhelpful answer regarding the Scottish question:

The Scottish Government already have a wide range of powers that would enable them to alleviate the proposed changes. Our Government are committed to working with the Scottish Government on a whole range of issues in the DWP portfolio, to make sure that they have the power and the strength to implement those powers.

Msy Black on her Facebook page: wrote

Yet more cuts that Scotland didn’t vote for and no real answers from the Minister.

Where is the Official Opposition on this ? How much longer can Labour be locked into its Civil War and its failure to have any strategy over Brexit

The SNP of which Mhari Black is a shinning example along with the Three Plaid MPs and the Greens Caroline Lucus seem to be the real opposition when it comes to holding this government to account .


Are Labour more interested in sabotaging Jeremy Corbyn leadership than opposing the continuing Government war on the poorest members of our society?

If the are not interested in being an effective opposition , then maybe they ask the speaker to knowledge where it really is and call on the SNP.Green.and Plaid alliance more often.

 

First we have Fake News. Now Melanie Phillips brings us Fake History.

A English ( I am deliberately using English)   journalist has sparked outrage online after she questioned Ireland’s claim to nationhood in an opinion piece for The Times

Melanie Phillips wrote the column in the wake of Sinn Féin’s surge in last week Northern Irish elections and amid heightened speculation that Scotland First Minister Nicola Sturgeon might seek to hold a second independence referendum in the coming year

Even more weirdly she dismisses claims that Northern Ireland — is intrinsically British. But no, Phillips clarifies:

“The Unionists hate this being said but they are not British. They’re the bit that got tacked on to Great Britain to make the UK.”

However She writes

 "Does this mean the Westminster Government, should tear up the Good Friday agreement and bid farewell to Northern Ireland . No because it has an obligation to Unionist and Ireland itself has a tenuous claim to nationhood, having seceded from Britain as the Irish Free State only in 1922,” 

“Britain, by contrast, is an authentic unitary nation. It didn’t begin with the union with Scotland but as the British Isles, an island nation defending itself (or not) against invaders from across the seas. Throughout its history, it was beset by attempts at secession by tribes across Hadrian’s Wall [the historic Anglo-Scottish border] and across the Irish Sea.”

"Er this was when parts of these Island were under Roman Occupation  who were invaders from across the sea." and who were followed by Anglo Saxon Tribes who eventual united to form England

Like many a Unionist Ms Philips seems to confuse England and English history  with Britain even more so

She went on,,

 “It is a curiosity that the SNP and Sinn Fein want to leave the UK in order to remain in Europe. In other words, they want to reclaim powers from Westminster in order to surrender them to Brussels,” she noted.“Scottish nationalism and Irish republicanism are cultural phenomena rooted in romanticism and myth and hatred of the other in the form of the English or the Protestants… Britain is a nation with the right to rule itself. It is the EU which is the artificial construct, the imagined community that falsely claims for itself the hollow appurtenances of a nation… Faced with the contemporary resurgence of regional or tribal uprisings, it’s the ancient British Isles that must hold itself together to take its place once again as a sovereign nation in the wider world.”

As for Wales, 

it’s simply a bit of land with a language, having ‘lost its separate identity’ when it was ‘subsumed into the English legal system by Henry VIII’.

Even J K Rowling who was eligible to vote in the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence, and campaigned for the "No" vote. and She donated £1 million to the Better Together anti-independence campaign (run by her former neighbour Alistair Darling) was prompted to Re-word the column, She wrote: 

"Scotland is the nation with the right to rule itself. It is the UK which is the artificial construct, the imagined community that falsely claims for itself the hollow appurtenances of a nation.
"Faced with the contemporary resurgence of far right populism, it is the ancient land of Scotland that must regain its independence to take its place once again as a sovereign nation in the wider world."

Ms Phillips interpretation of History would be laughable if his was in some obscure right wing blog.It was in the Times a so called "Quality!" newspaper.

First we get Fake News now we have Fake History paralytic from the right .

How long with a UK government officials s reportedly describing a post-Brexit Africa-focused trade policy as “Empire 2.0.” will we see Mrs May arguing that this and Ms Phillips interpenetration is taught on the curriculum?

Alice Hooker-Stroud stands down as Welsh Green leader.

As most regular readers of this Blog I an notionally a Plaid supporter  and share many of the aims of the party . particularly since Leanne Wood became leader.

But I resist the urge to become a Part member as  i feel that it would interfere with this Blogs Independence.

There are times (not many) when I disagree with the position of Plaid on a number of issues  and wish to be disagree without any threat  from Party officials  for me to tow the line

The fate of Syniadau  who was once one of the best Welsh Political Blog where he was disciplined by the party over the party's nuclear power fudge and the shooing in of Rhun ap Iorwerth is a salutatory one .

I don't think I am alone in missing his contribution  and plead with Mike to return to the blogasphere regularly.

I also make no secret that I also support the Green Party  and wish there was an equivalent to the Scottish Greens , which can provide a home for those with Progressive views who support Independence who sometimes feel that the SNP are in the wrong on some issues.

So I am disappointed to see  Alice Hooker-Stroud took the helm of the Welsh Greens 
party in December 2015 resigning  She will be replaced by deputy leader Grenville Ham.

Ms Hooker-Stroud said that the lack of funding for smaller parties in the UK meant it was "untenable" for her to carry on in the voluntary role.

She said: 

"Parties that have a lot of money can do a lot, and those who have a smaller amount can do less."

Ms Hooker-Stroud, who will step down from the job at the end of March, said that because the party does not take funds from large businesses means members have the "biggest say".

"But it has contributed to my role being effectively a voluntary one, which for me has sadly become untenable," she said.

"The financing of political parties in general needs urgent reform so that politicians aren't just the mouthpieces for big business, and so that alternative voices are heard."

There will be some who sneer at the Welsh Greens  seeing it not as independent as it still part of the Green Party of England and Wales.

But we have seven Ukip members in our Assembly who are probably financed  almost entirely from outside  Wales by a right wing millionaire and now have the influence and Assembly money to make themselves permanent structure.

Some will see the Welsh Greens as no more than hippy incomers but even that was totally the case would be preferable to home grown Unionist Bigots.

 I for one would like to see Welsh Green members in our Assembly rather Neil Hamilton's mob and hope they cn grow and form a Welsh Green identity.

The Scottish Greens are both an Ally and Thorn in the side of the SNP government. I hope in the future the Greens in Wales could provide a similar role to a Plaid Cymru government in a future Welsh Parliament.