Over 75% of Greenlanders backed the plan.
Just over 23% said no.
The turnout was around 72%.
I reckon that’s an impressive turnout given the dark Arctic winter days. Those in the north of the country must be coping with little or no daylight at this time.
Its a clear sign that the island is heading towards independence.
As I said in yesterday’s blog, the First Minister Hans Enoksen has a timescale of independence in 12 years time.
Others prefer a shorter timescale.
The former foreign minister Aleqa Hammond sees independence in 8 years.
And the head of the Greenland union SIK, Jess Berthelsen, sees it happen in 4 years.
The defeated unionists like the Democrats leader Jens Frederiksen and rebel Siumut politican Finn Lynge are now left arguing over the timescale and the feasibilty of independence.
Lynge in particular thinks that with only 57 000 people, Greenland cannot be independent. He said it was ‘impossible for an island with 50,000 to 60,000 inhabitants to become an independent state.’
‘There are simply too few of us to provide the personnel necessary to develop a viable state’.
The ex-First Minister Lars-Emil Johansen rejects that criticism. Echoing the slogan of Barack Obama he simply says ‘Yes We Can’.
Greenland is rich in oil, gas, gold, diamond and other minerals.
Scottish companies like Cairn Energy are keen to develop the Greenland oil and gas potential. It is now the largest oil company investing in Greenland with a total of 8 licences around the island. Greenland’s oil company Nunaoil has a 8% stake in those licenses.
Its part of the Greenland Government’s plan to diversify its economy which is currently largely based on the fishing industry.
And speed the path to independence.
The world’s current smallest states by population:
1 Vatican City 920
2 Tuvalu 11,640
3 Nauru 13,050
4 Palau 20,300
5 San Marino 28,880
6 Monaco 32,410
7 Liechtenstein 33,720
8 Saint Kitts & Nevis 38,960
9 Marshall Islands 59,070
Currently the population of Greenland would put it at no. 9 in the world.
It was strange. The SNP ahead in the polls, a short Labour surge to level, before the SNP went once again ahead.
The SNP confident, Labour overly pessimistic.
Pundits predicting a narrow SNP win.
Since I wrote yesterday about the Obama effect on the by-election, the parallels between the Glenrothes by-election and the New Hampshire Democratic Primary came to my thoughts.
An election which Obama was widely predicted to win.
The polls were good; pundits were agreed. Hillary Clinton seemed resigned to the loss.
But Hillary Clinton took the state’s nomination.
Of course, later Barack Obama went on to defeat Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic Presidential nominee.
And went on to win the U.S. Presidential election in an historic victory.
Obama used the lessons in the New Hampshire election to spur on his support, warning them of the dangers of complacency:
“For those of you who are feeling giddy or cocky or think this is all set, I just have two words for you: New Hampshire”
In the middle of October when things were looking rosy he reminded his campaign staff:
‘On a conference call with his campaign staff just now, Barack Obama delivered the same message he’s been telling donors: Don’t get cocky.
‘Obama got on the staff call with campaign manager David Plouffe to praise his staff, but also to tell them not to become overconfident, because — in my source’s paraphrase — “too many people are counting on us not to screw this up.’
‘Eighteen days, he reminded them, is a long time, and he told them to “run scared,” run as though they were 10 points down, and “remember New Hampshire.”
Glenrothes is the SNP’s New Hampshire.
And like Barack Obama’s ‘two words: New Hampshire’, Glenrothes should sound as a future warning to complacency.
As people depended on Barack Obama; Scotland’s future depends on the SNP.
So the Gordon Brown ‘Dead Cat’ bounce has held Glenrothes for Labour.
Its probably bought a few months of air fresheners for the ailing Gordon Brown Government. And probably keep Gordon Brown in his job till the forced General Election in 2010.
But I suspect the public will notice the cat is still dead is due course.
No amount of air fresheners can cover up the decay.
So if that’s Labour what about the SNP?
By-elections give momentum, and although the SNP increased their vote and ate substantially into Labour’s 10 600 majority, many pundits expected them to take the seat.
So the SNP’s blistering momentum from the Glasgow East victory has been slowed.
Still going forward but at a more steady pace.
Alex Salmond has said that his party needs to take a look at how it can combat Labour’s negative campaigning.
I agree, but surely there is only one way to go?
That’s to become even more positive.
Once you become mired in negative politics then not only do you demean your party – and play into the hands of your opponents – but you switch off the voters. Labour does negative campaigning well; they need to – their backs are against the electoral wall, and they lack any vision of where New Labour is going. Although the SNP ran a positive campaign, perhaps they should have killed the negative Labour stories faster.
I think the last thing Scotland needs in its politics is the negative campaigning usually seen in the U.S. The Unionist parties and press are halfway there already, I’d hate to see it get worse!
As Barack Obama shows a positive campaign with the right message can achieve fantastic results.
The SNP dusted off their 1997 election slogan ‘Yes we can’ after Barack Obama’s historic victory in the United States.
In hindsight, they should have used it much earlier when they saw the polls favouring the Obama campaign.
It might have got them some decent press for once.
Then on Obama winning they might have had their own bounce.
“By the way, Labour word is that Glenrothes is a lost cause.
“The SNP will take it by 1500, give or take 500.
“I don’t detect a Brown Central attempt to prepare a “shock” win. Instead they say that had they had a few days more it might have made a difference, and that without Gordon and Sarah Brown’s personal intervention the result would be far worse.
“So the good news is that defeat will be masked by the Obama euphoria.
“The bad news, as Team Dave will doubtless put it, is that the Novice won, and Gordon lost.”
The same bad admission by Labour is repeated by The Evening Standard:
‘Party insiders conceded that the contest was a “lost cause” despite evidence that the Scottish National Party’s lead in the seat had been narrowed in recent days.’
‘A No10 insider said that if the party had a couple more weeks to campaign, it could have pulled off a victory against the odds. “But we just don’t look like getting it.” A Labour source added that the seat was now a lost cause, though the SNP majority would be tight at possibly around 1,000 votes.’
Interesting that Labour think another couple of weeks would have helped their campaign. Of course no-one knows for sure.
The bookies though give a probability of a Labour win at around 25%, the SNP around 75%.
And interestingly, the Labour probability was falling and the SNP probability was rising over the last week.
It hardly backs up Labour’s perception of ‘just another couple of weeks’ to campaign, does it?
The media are already bracing themselves for another change of position on Gordon Brown.
‘Senior Labour party figures are braced for an election defeat to a strong Scottish National Party in today’s byelection in the former safe seat of Glenrothes. A heavy defeat could trigger renewed speculation over Gordon Brown’s ability to lead Labour to an election victory.’
Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.
The first black man to have that honour.
In 1964 the U.S. passed the Civil Rights Act giving blacks the same rights as whites. In 1965 the U.S. passed the Voting Rights Act. It finally gave Black Americans the right to vote – in every state, without obstacle – and America finally became a true democracy.
The passage for Black Civil Rights campaigners has not been an easy one. At one time or other, blacks had to contend with race riots, lynchings, and the assassination of their charismatic leader Dr. Martin Luther King in 1968.
2008. Just over 40 years later from that Voting Rights Act and America elects a black President.
An incredible achievement and one which Americans should be rightly proud.
Its a glowing example of the American dream finally working.
In 2004 Barack Obama delivered his keynote address to the Democratic National Convention. It was just before the Bush – Kerry presidential election of that year. He talked about his hopes and dreams for America, and then added another:
“The hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too.”
He had hope in America.
Now America has their hopes in him.
Obama continued that speech:
“Hope — Hope in the face of difficulty. Hope in the face of uncertainty. The audacity of hope!
“In the end, that is God’s greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation. A belief in things not seen. A belief that there are better days ahead.”
I thought I’d heard a lot of political doublespeak in my time.
But this ‘Negative Flakeage Rate’ is a new one on me.
What that means is instead of people promising to volunteer (and then not bothering), instead people are volunteering and persuading friends to volunteer too.
This guy is Obama’s National Field Director, Jon Carson, and he’s pretty happy with the Obama campaign especially in the marginal ‘toss-up’ states.
It just makes me wonder about the Glenrothes by-election.
Will Labour or the SNP be wondering about their flakeage rates among their voters?
OK here’s my U.S. election prediction for tomorrow’s poll.
Obama to win by 200 electoral college votes; 369 to McCain’s 169.
Though I’d dearly love Obama to take Arizona too – McCain’s home state – I just can’t see him manage it.
I’ve went with North Carolina for Obama, even with the ballot snafu that will probably hinder the Democrats vote.
I’ve went with McCain for Missouri. Apparently Missouri has a reputation for picking the winner, or going with the favourite, but I can’t see McCain winning it this time.
The reported feud between McCain and Palin advisers seem to be having an affect on Republican support.
“She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone,” said one McCain adviser, “she does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else. Also she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: divas trust only unto themselves as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom.”
Four Republicans close to Palin said she has decided increasingly to disregard the advice of the former Bush aides tasked to handle her, creating occasionally tense situations as she travels the country with them. Those Palin supporters, inside the campaign and out, said Palin blames her handlers for a botched rollout and a tarnished public image — even as others in McCain’s camp blame the pick of the relatively inexperienced Alaska governor, and her public performance, for McCain’s decline.
It does seem the feeling is mutual:
“She’s lost confidence in most of the people on the plane,” said a senior Republican who speaks to Palin, referring to her campaign jet. He said Palin had begun to “go rogue” in some of her public pronouncements and decisions.
“I think she’d like to go more rogue,” he said.
The article continues:
Some McCain aides say they had little choice with a candidate who simply wasn’t ready for the national stage, and that Palin didn’t forcefully object. Moments that Palin’s allies see as triumphs of instinct and authenticity — the Wright suggestion, her objection to the campaign’s pulling out of Michigan — they dismiss as Palin’s “slips and miscommunications,” that is, her own incompetence and evidence of the need for tight scripting.
Watching that video convinces me that the McCain aides are right. If ever there was a need for tight scripting then I think that video proves it. Whether Sarah Palin has the competence to deliver a tighter speech is another question.
It comes as no surprise then, that the home states of Palin and McCain seem to be having doubts over their nomination.
Of course, it would be a huge ask for the Democrats to actually win either state for Obama. The mere fact that they are gaining support in Arizona and Alaska does show how much trouble the Republican campaign is in.
The McCain – Palin split is just a symptom of this trouble.
But its a clear indication to the voters that the Republican campaign is in disarray. Its a clear indication that McCain will lose the election.
Just watched the edited highlights of the John McCain – Barack Obama debate on Newsnight.
I couldn’t believe that the Republician representatives on the programme declared that it was a good night for John McCain.
My word! That’s utterly inexplicable.
If that was John McCain on a good night then I’m glad I missed the bad nights!
He really showed his age and his war wounds:- hobbling about the floor and latterly hanging onto his chair towards the end of the debate. I don’t mind his age but it brought home to me how his physical condition may affect his ability to be President. And brings me back to the scary thought of Sarah Palin becoming President, should McCain’s health deteoriate still further.
In fact, McCain’s televisual performance reminded me of the oft-quoted Nixon – Kennedy debate; the perception that Nixon lost against Kennedy due to a bad shave. Neither Nixon or McCain came across as television-friendly.
Its often said that listeners of the Nixon – Kennedy debate on radio scored Nixon higher.
Alas, I doubt even that is true of John McCain.
To me, Obama was more insightful and had more answers than McCain. Even on McCain’s supposed strong suit of foreign policy he failed to hit a blow.
In fact, for someone with a supposed grasp of foreign policy how could he let this statement out of the bag:
“We will be talking about countries sometime in the future that we hardly know where they are on the map”
And by the future, he obviously meant his political future if he was President, so its basically today’s countries with maybe a couple of changes, perhaps.
And if he doesn’t know where they are on a map, how the hell can he have a good grasp of foreign policy?
And if he does have a ‘good grasp’ on foreign policy by American standards, does that mean Obama’s is worse?
Could either McCain or Obama pick out Scotland on a map? Would they be shocked if Scotland was to become independent as the Unionist partisan newpaper The Scotsman recently suggested?
The same link gives Barack Obama as a descendant of King Edward I of England, the Hammer of the Scots. The same king that battled against William Wallace and Robert the Bruce. The same king that on leaving Scotland said:
‘Bon besoiogne fait gy du merde se delivrer’
(‘It was well to be rid of shit’)
I wonder at the end of the debate just who was thinking that?
And of those ‘toss up’ states the latest polling is:-
State
Electoral votes
Obama %
McCain %
Prediction
2004 result
2000 result
Ohio
20
48.0
46.0
Obama +2.0
Bush +2.1
Bush +3.5
Florida
27
48.6
45.6
Obama +3.0
Bush +5.0
Bush +0.1
Nevada
5
47.8
47.3
Obama +0.5
Bush +2.6
Bush +3.5
New Hampshire
4
46.7
45.4
Obama +1.3
Kerry +1.3
Bush +1.3
Virginia
13
49.0
46.6
Obama +2.4
Bush +8.2
Bush +8.1
North Carolina
15
47.0
46.5
Obama +0.5
Bush +12.4
Bush +12.8
Missouri
11
46.8
48.5
McCain +1.7
Bush +7.2
Bush +3.3
Indiana
11
45.3
47.5
McCain +2.2
Bush +20.7
Bush +15.7
Colorado
9
49.0
44.6
Obama +4.4
Bush +4.7
Bush +8.4
According to RealClearPolitics Wisconsin is already Obama’s to lose.
These results suggests that McCain should concentrate on the bigger college votes of Ohio, Florida, Virginia and North Carolina; where Obama’s poll lead is tightest.
Lets go with these RealClearPolitics predictions to see what might happen:-
If these bigger key swing states moved to McCain, along with Missouri and Indiana where McCain is marginally in front it would give McCain 260 electoral college votes.
Tied with Obama’s 260 [predicted by RealClearPolitics].
Given that Obama should pick up Colorado’s 9 votes, that could leave the fate of the election in the hands of Nevada (5 votes) and New Hampshire (4 votes).
Should they both go McCain’s way; it’ll be a tie! Something that pundits have already been postulating; here and here. An Obama – Palin presidential ticket?
That is a lot of ifs for McCain, and its doubtful if he’ll manage to take all of the bigger key swing states to make it interesting. We’ll see if McCain’s Michigan gamble pays off.
Posted by northbritain 
