Alex Salmond looks on during the Ryder Cup Exhibition Launch at the Scottish Parliament on April 29, 2014 in Edinburgh. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Alex Salmond's forward march has been halted

The latest polls all show the Scottish independence campaign losing ground.

Labour MPs might be increasingly anxious about their party's performance in the national polls (today's Populus survey has them a point behind the Tories) but their spirits have been lifted by the latest numbers on Scottish independence. After narrowing for months, the polls have begun to move in the No campaign's favour. 

An ICM survey put the Unionist lead up from three points to 12, with the Yes vote falling to its lowest level for eight months (34 per cent), while another by Panelbase (the Yes campaign's pollster of choice) put it up from five points to seven. Across the six main pollsters, the No campaign's average lead now stands at 14 points. The nationalists' forward march has been halted. 

With just four months go until the referendum, Alex Salmond can't afford to lose ground at this stage. But losing ground he is. Having failed to lead in a single poll since the campaign began (with the exception of a biased Panelbase survey commissioned by the SNP), the Yes campaign is now trailing badly again. While it's not impossible that this will change before 18 September, it is increasingly unlikely. A narrow defeat might allow the SNP to press for devo max (and even to revisit the independence question at some point) but a defeat it will be. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

GETTY
Show Hide image

Why Prince Charles and Princess Anne are both wrong on GM foods

The latest tiff between toffs gives plenty of food for thought.

I don’t have siblings, so I was weirdly curious as a kid about friends who did, especially when they argued (which was often). One thing I noticed was the importance of superlatives: of being the best child, the most right, and the first to have been wronged. And it turns out things are no different for the Royals.

You might think selective breeding would be a subject on which Prince Charles and Princess Anne would share common ground, but when it comes to genetically modified crops they have very different opinions.

According to Princess Anne, the UK should ditch its concerns about GM and give the technology the green light. In an interview to be broadcast on Radio 4’s Farming Today, she said would be keen to raise both modified crops and livestock on her own land.

“Most of us would argue we have been genetically modifying food since man started to be agrarian,” she said (rallying the old first-is-best argument to her cause). She also argued that the practice can help reduce the price of our food and improve the lives of animals - and “suspects” that there are not many downsides.

Unfortunately for Princess Anne, her Royal “us” does not include her brother Charles, who thinks that GM is The Worst.

In 2008, he warned that genetically engineered food “will be guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time.”  Supporting such a path would risk handing control of our food-chain to giant corporations, he warned -  leading to “absolute disaster” and “unmentionable awfulness” and “the absolute destruction of everything”.

Normally such a spat could be written off as a toff-tiff. But with Brexit looming, a change to our present ban on growing GM crops commercially looks ever more likely.

In this light, the need to swap rhetoric for reason is urgent. And the most useful anti-GM argument might instead be that offered by the United Nations’ cold, hard data on crop yields.

Analysis by the New York Times shows that, in comparison to Europe, the United States and Canada have “gained no discernible advantages” from their use of GM (in terms of food per acre). Not only this, but herbicide use in the US has increased rather than fallen.

In sum: let's swap superlatives and speculation for sense.

India Bourke is an environment writer and editorial assistant at the New Statesman.