Support for Scottish independence is on the slide

The anti-independence campaign's lead has risen from 11 points to 20.

Ahead of the launch of the "no" to Scottish independence campaign (or, rather, "yes" to the United Kingdom) next Monday, there's some cheer for unionists in a new poll. The latest Times/Ipsos-MORI survey (£) reveals that among those certain to vote, support for indepencence has fallen by four points since January to 35 per cent. Over the same period, support for Scotland remaining in the UK has risen by five points to 55 per cent. In other words, what was an 11-point lead for the "no" campaign has become a 20-point lead.

Worse for the SNP, Ipsos-MORI asked Scots Alex Salmond's preferred referendum question - "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?" - a question widely criticised as leading. Robert Cialdini, for instance, an American psychologist with no stake in the race, told the Today programme:

I think it's loaded and biased because it sends people down a particular cognitive chute designed to locate agreements rather than disagreements. It's called a one-sided question or a loaded question... [pollsters] for a long time have warned us against those sorts of questions.

When all responses are taken into account, including those unlikely to vote, support for independence falls to 32 per cent, while backing for the Union remains at 55 per cent.

After his dalliance with Rupert Murdoch came under new scrutiny, Salmond's personal ratings have also fallen. Fifty three per cent of Scots say they are "satisfied" with his performance as First Minister, down from 58 per cent in January. Concurrently, the level of dissatisfaction with Salmond has risen from 36 per cent to 40 per cent.

We're still more than two years away from the SNP's preferred referendum date of autumn 2014 (a few weeks after the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn) but with the UK in recession and discontent with David Cameron at a new high, the nationalists should question why they appear to be losing momentum.

One possibility is that the form of independence proposed by Salmond is increasingly indistinguishable from the alternatives of "devo max" (full fiscal autonomy) or "devo plus" (full tax-raising powers, with the exception of VAT and National Insurance). As NS editor Jason Cowley recently noted, Salmond would retain the Queen as head of state, keep the pound (the SNP leader, who quipped in 2009 that sterling was "sinking like a stone" and that the euro was viewed more "favourably", is now desperate for a currency union with England) and, perhaps, seek to join Nato. What kind of independence is this? So long as the Better Together campaign (as it will be known) makes a genuine offer of further devolution to Scottish voters, it has little reason to fear the coming battle.

Alex Salmond, Scotland’s First Minister and leader of the Scottish National Party. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Let's face it: supporting Spurs is basically a form of charity

Now, for my biggest donation yet . . .

I gazed in awe at the new stadium, the future home of Spurs, wondering where my treasures will go. It is going to be one of the architectural wonders of the modern world (football stadia division), yet at the same time it seems ancient, archaic, a Roman ruin, very much like an amphitheatre I once saw in Croatia. It’s at the stage in a new construction when you can see all the bones and none of the flesh, with huge tiers soaring up into the sky. You can’t tell if it’s going or coming, a past perfect ruin or a perfect future model.

It has been so annoying at White Hart Lane this past year or so, having to walk round walkways and under awnings and dodge fences and hoardings, losing all sense of direction. Millions of pounds were being poured into what appeared to be a hole in the ground. The new stadium will replace part of one end of the present one, which was built in 1898. It has been hard not to be unaware of what’s going on, continually asking ourselves, as we take our seats: did the earth move for you?

Now, at long last, you can see what will be there, when it emerges from the scaffolding in another year. Awesome, of course. And, har, har, it will hold more people than Arsenal’s new home by 1,000 (61,000, as opposed to the puny Emirates, with only 60,000). At each home game, I am thinking about the future, wondering how my treasures will fare: will they be happy there?

No, I don’t mean Harry Kane, Danny Rose and Kyle Walker – local as well as national treasures. Not many Prem teams these days can boast quite as many English persons in their ranks. I mean my treasures, stuff wot I have been collecting these past 50 years.

About ten years ago, I went to a shareholders’ meeting at White Hart Lane when the embryonic plans for the new stadium were being announced. I stood up when questions were called for and asked the chairman, Daniel Levy, about having a museum in the new stadium. I told him that Man United had made £1m the previous year from their museum. Surely Spurs should make room for one in the brave new mega-stadium – to show off our long and proud history, delight the fans and all those interested in football history and make a few bob.

He mumbled something – fluent enough, as he did go to Cambridge – but gave nothing away, like the PM caught at Prime Minister’s Questions with an unexpected question.

But now it is going to happen. The people who are designing the museum are coming from Manchester to look at my treasures. They asked for a list but I said, “No chance.” I must have 2,000 items of Spurs memorabilia. I could be dead by the time I finish listing them. They’ll have to see them, in the flesh, and then they’ll be free to take away whatever they might consider worth having in the new museum.

I’m awfully kind that way, partly because I have always looked on supporting Spurs as a form of charity. You don’t expect any reward. Nor could you expect a great deal of pleasure, these past few decades, and certainly not the other day at Liverpool when they were shite. But you do want to help them, poor things.

I have been downsizing since my wife died, and since we sold our Loweswater house, and I’m now clearing out some of my treasures. I’ve donated a very rare Wordsworth book to Dove Cottage, five letters from Beatrix Potter to the Armitt Library in Ambleside, and handwritten Beatles lyrics to the British Library. If Beckham and I don’t get a knighthood in the next honours list, I will be spitting.

My Spurs stuff includes programmes going back to 1910, plus recent stuff like the Opus book, that monster publication, about the size of a black cab. Limited editions cost £8,000 a copy in 2007. I got mine free, as I did the introduction and loaned them photographs. I will be glad to get rid of it. It’s blocking the light in my room.

Perhaps, depending on what they want, and they might take nothing, I will ask for a small pourboire in return. Two free tickets in the new stadium. For life. Or longer . . . 

Hunter Davies is a journalist, broadcaster and profilic author perhaps best known for writing about the Beatles. He is an ardent Tottenham fan and writes a regular column on football for the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 16 February 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The New Times