Saturday, August 24, 2019

SNP remain firmly in the driving seat in latest YouGov subsample

Strictly speaking we've had one full-scale Scottish poll since Boris Johnson became Prime Minister - the now-legendary Ashcroft poll that gave Yes a narrow lead on the independence question, and that also showed that Nicola Sturgeon was the most popular of the leading Scottish and UK politicians.  But oddly there were no Westminster or Holyrood voting intention numbers in the poll, and that's what we could really do with now.  We're in the highly unusual situation where it seems to me that some London commentators are possibly being a tad optimistic about the SNP's prospects in any autumn snap election - and that's specifically because they're assuming that nothing has changed since the pre-Boris polls that suggested the SNP were riding high and that the Scottish Tories were taking an absolute hammering.  Logically it seems possible that the Boris effect may have seen the Scottish Tories recover somewhat at the expense of the Brexit Party, which would mean that even if the SNP are still in a commanding position, they may find it harder to make heavy gains from the Tories.  Straws in the wind from Scottish subsamples of GB-wide polls have sent conflicting messages about the extent of any Tory recovery.  But, as it happens, the latest subsample from YouGov (which unlike subsamples from other firms is likely to be correctly structured and weighted) is very much on the troubling side for the Tories...

SNP 46%, Liberal Democrats 16%, Conservatives 15%, Labour 9%, Greens 6%, Brexit Party 4%, UKIP 1%

I don't think the SNP will be too concerned about the Lib Dems' recovery as long as it remains at that kind of level - all it means is that the Lib Dems will hold their four current seats and perhaps take North East Fife.  But the slight worry would be a Swinson bandwagon effect during the election campaign itself, similar to the Corbyn effect in 2017.  We should never underestimate the potential for Scottish voters to get swept along with Britain-wide trends during the heat of a Westminster campaign.  The SNP could counteract that problem by firing up their own potential support base with a strong campaign message on independence, but I have my doubts as to whether they'll be bold enough to do that.

*  *  *

It's disappointing but not surprising that the SNP leadership are not going to allow the McEleny/MacNeil "Plan B" amendment to be debated at the party conference.  As you know, I'm worried that the Wings party, if it goes ahead, could be damaging for the independence cause at the next Holyrood election - but the obvious way for the SNP leadership to ward off that threat is to make potential Wings party supporters feel that their voice is being heard inside the SNP.  I'm struggling to understand what the leadership are so scared of - the chances are that they would have won any vote with a "we've heard you, but please trust us" message.  The Blair-style control-freakery of trying to shut down all debate is wholly unnecessary and counterproductive, and will just further arouse suspicions (which may or may not be unfounded) that the leadership are not serious about ensuring that a vote on independence takes place in the relatively near future.

I'm also a tad concerned about possible fallout from the showdown on the gender self-ID issue that will take place at conference, with the elections of Women's Officer and possibly Equalities Officer functioning as proxy votes on the issue.  If there are clear losers, I hope they don't feel that they no longer have a home within the SNP.  The potential for a problem is probably much greater if the anti-self-ID side loses.  If it goes the other way, at least the trans lobby would still know that the leadership is highly sympathetic towards them.

72 comments:

  1. Your final paragraph.

    I cannot quite see why we would allow transgenderism, which is frankly a minority interest, to 'capture' the party.

    I think, correct me if I am wrong, that very few folk identify as transgender.

    I also think that these folk have a right to respect. And, perhaps, in an Independent Scotland we can deal with that. Tearing ourselves apart, on the basis that this is even on the agenda is to place the cart before the horse.

    Quite why we should fight a battle that could be resolved - after independence - just seems to me as playing into the oppositions hands.

    I'd have hoped that Scotland would have something like a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The point being that that has to incorporate everyone.

    Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This affects all women, so it is not just a minority issue

      Women are concerned about safety, women’s rights, women only spaces and their organisations being undermined.

      It is discouraging women who prioritise their rights above Independence from voting for Pro Independence parties.
      (hint: most women)

      This is a huge own goal.

      The Greens have jumped into the abyss, the SNP continue to dance on the edge.

      There are many (hopefully unintended) consequences of accepting gender self ID.
      -Check out events in Canada (Jessica Yaniv), Academia (Edinburgh no platforming and threats) and English Prisons (Karen White).

      This is a major problem.

      Delete
  2. Just so's you know, Unknown above is me. douglas clark.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Totally agree. I can't see that many people are remotely interested in the trans gender issue. And what it's got to do with independence, I haven't a clue - other than the fact that about 1/3rd of Wings Over Scotland tweets are about the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The issue of self-id for sex (gender) will make naff all difference to the way people vote in iref2. It's a debate many western liberal democracies are having at the moment, and is UK-wide. However, it is important and Wings is free to tweet about it if he likes (I note the blog remains focussed on indy). He is a feminist (pro-womens rights) and very pro-gay rights. As these are the groups most directly threatened by the issue, he's standing up for them. He is also someone that likes science / facts (like me) so cannot accept that people change biological sex; which is completely correct. They can't.

    Self-id applies to everyone, not just transsexuals / transgender individuals. If it only applied to people who were genuine, medically diagnosed transsexuals, then it would just be applying to a tiny group, and there would be little to no concern about it. I personally have no issues at all with making life easier for people with sex dysphoria, as long as any law changes don't remove rights from other groups (e.g. biological females).

    However, if you can change your official sex simply through self-identification, then anyone can do it, even if they are not transsexual.
    This could include e.g. rapists / pedophiles / sexual perverts who are already abusing laws in this area, before plans for self-id. The issue of transsexuals in women's sport is also a ticking time bomb unfortunately.

    The Scottish government made a mistake in trying to rush GRA changes though. I am glad they have stopped to review the situation. It won't make a difference to indy, but it was still important that people made a fuss which caused them to do this, including wings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "He is a feminist (pro-womens rights)"

      Has he expressed support for other feminist causes? I may be unobservant, but this is the only one I've ever noticed him mentioning

      Delete
    2. He does not need to express any opinions at all; simply supporting equal rights for women makes someone a feminist.

      Delete
    3. How do you know he does that?

      Delete
    4. He says he supports equal rights for women. That's enough for me in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

      Do you support women's rights? If you say you do, I will take you at your word on the same basis.

      For wings, I have noted him expressing his support in two areas (EA protections based on biological sex, which is a big thing for feminists) and equality in the workplace (he has discussed the merits of quotas etc previously). I have not noticed him advocating against women's rights.

      Delete
  5. There is no 'trans lobby'. It is the #LGBT lobby. Trans always have been, still are and always will be a part of us. Attempts to divide will not work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is emphatically a trans lobby. The mystery is which T (and all these other letters were added to LGB in the first place. Before you shriek "bigot", I am a gay man.

      Delete
    2. Actually the T group has led the movement in US but kept low profile as it is a less sympathetic group. All the big court cases were by lesbians as they are " less threatening". But their are several different groups of " trans" people arguing for completely different things now. Even wanting us to eliminate all pronouns. Or picking different ones. Very confusing, to be honest. In a way it's great that we have come so far that they feel confident enough to ask / demand outsiders to enter their debate, sad that it still matters. But I will say that it is my rule to call anyone or group what THEY want, but the individual or group can't hold me responsible for figuring it out or changing my every utterance quickly, especially if the terms are used frequently in books, songs etc that are still around. For instance, an 80 year old man calling someone " colored" when talking while the NAACP is still running ads, or asking me to always use " African American" when the 40% of blacks who aren't descended from slaves insist they are NOT African is absurd. If people are malicious oppose them, but saying " I 100 % support gay rights as I always have" shouldn't be cause fir people to go berserk and start a fight and give the HATERS yet another 7 years in power.so decide what you want and let us know. And please stick with it. Also, I just want to thank all of you ( except you know who) for this civil and stimulating discussion. I reserve the right to change my mind in the future and admit you were right!!

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. @Jumper

      As transgender / gender dysphoria is not by definition a sexual interest / orientation, I have wondered myself why it was appended to LGB.

      If anything, it will make the general public think that it's about sex (in the shagging sense), which I feel probably isn't helpful at all to, e.g., a transwoman who just wants to quietly use the ladies.

      Delete
  6. If you have a boabie with or without haw maws you are a man. If you have a snatch you are a wummin. It is nature. Some women do like plastic and batteries as well as some poofters but that at least does not provide unwanted children and a burden on the taxpayer. So there is merit in diversity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Y-DNA chromosome is only found in men passed from father to son. This contains gene code for male development. Adding or removing boobs, cocks, through surgery, science, or, whatever, won't change the fact Y-DNA chromosome carriers are men.

      Trans is much like those claiming to be British but nothing of the sort. British is an old name for Welsh people. Quite why the likes of New York born Boris, or Scots born Brown, are claiming to be Welsh ("British") is unknown.

      Delete
  7. To debate plan B will give an advantage to the no side.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The National today says the lead of LibDems in Shetland by-election down to 4 points.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Opinium UK Scottish sample:
    47% SNP
    25% Con
    12% Lab
    8% Lib
    4% Brx
    3% Grn

    ReplyDelete
  10. 72% intend voting for the two Tory parties. Scotland always was right wing by nature.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's funny. I make it 49% willing to vote for four Tory parties. Do try to keep up.

      Delete
    2. Rich Scottish Privateer who Love the SNPAugust 26, 2019 at 8:03 PM

      You are clearly missing the largest Tory Party in Scotland who are in power and friends of the rich and landowning class

      Delete
    3. I know. So sad to see the Conservative Party in government in our precious union.

      Delete
  11. Fist me please up my dung hole

    ReplyDelete
  12. Been browsing around and it seems that many of peoples concerns regarding safe sapces for women are already protected by the 2010 equalities act. THe UK Gov is making this clear in its consultation for England and Wales:

    There will be no change to the provision of women-only spaces and services
    The Government is clear that there will be no change to the Equality Act 2010, which allows service
    providers to offer separate services to males and females, or to one sex only, subject to certain criteria.
    These services can treat people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment differently,
    or exclude them completely, but only where the action taken is a proportionate means of achieving a
    legitimate aim. Importantly, a service provider’s starting point should be to treat a trans person in the
    gender they identify with, and to allow them to access services for that gender unless by doing so they
    would be unable to provide that service to other service users. This means it can’t be a blanket ban,
    or done on a whim. It has to be for a real reason, on a case by case basis. For example a female only
    domestic violence refuge may provide a separate service to a trans woman if it can be shown there is
    a detriment to other service users from including the trans woman as part of the regular service. If they
    then have to exclude that trans person, they ought to consider what alternatives they can offer to the
    trans person. This has been the law since 2010 and will not change.

    This protection seems to render may arguments against and change to the GRA mute.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's self-id that's the problem. This means people who are not trans can readily get a gender recognition certificate and so access women's spaces. They don't even have to present as the opposite sex; they can be an e.g. 'male presenting trans-woman'. It's a gift from heaven for pervs.

      We need to keep medical diagnosis for such things. This applies to 'cis', so should apply to trans too.

      Delete
    2. If someone self ids as trans then in the eyes of the law they are trans and can have their access to women's spaces restricted under existing laws as described as above.

      As for medical diagnostics i agree that 'self id' may be a step to far. I guess that the point of a consultation, its chance for the Government to hear both sides of the argument.

      Delete
    3. Of course a number of countries have had self id for a number of years (Ireland since 2015 as an good example) so if there has been a n uptake of 'pervs' attacking women due to self id then there would be some form of evidence that could be presented to Scot Gov to highlight the risks, which of course the Scot Gov could then take into account.

      Delete
    4. The other concern is who gets to decide who is allowed in where.

      Certainly, it should only be biological females who decide who gets to enter their sex segregated spaces. I should not get a say and neither should male politicians or trans women. Otherwise, it's not a 'safe' female controlled space.

      Delete
    5. This is covered under exisiting legislation. Important to remember that it is illegal (under the existing gender recoginition act)to prevent Transsexuals from using womens toilets, changing rooms etc without legal permission from the courts.

      Of course when presenting your evidence to the sheriff/s to ask that transexuals cannot enter the 'safe space' you are representing you cannot stipulate that the sheriff/s only be female. As professionals Judges are expected to make judgements based on law alone. The only exception to this would be if (usually at appeal) you could prove that the sheriff made his/her judgement based on personal sympathies not legal facts.

      Delete
    6. Apologies its would be the equality act 2010 that makes it illegal to prevent transsexuals from using womens facilities unless an legal exception is applied for and granted.

      Delete
    7. You could bare your erse in an old British Army thunderbox irrespective of whether you thought you had a willy or snatch. Defacation and pissin was your priority and not having a sleek it swatch at your neighbours tackle.

      Delete
    8. This:

      https://www.holyrood.com/articles/comment/scottish-government%E2%80%99s-clumsy-attempts-reform-gender-recognition-act-have

      The main thing is that we don't end up in a Canadian situation where e.g. vulnerable women are taken to court by a pervert for politely declining to wax his big hairy cock 'n' baws.

      We have freedom of belief in this country, so if a bloke believes he's women, then that's his/her freedom. For official documentation however, we need expert certification (not self-id). Even then, if they are trans, by definition they have a e.g. a man's body, particularly if they want to keep the crown jewels. So migrant women can wax the 'lady brain' maybe, but not the bawbag. For me that seems fair; if you want to retain the tadger, then you use the gents. If you sign up for the chop, you can use the bishop free facilities.

      We can ask how on earth we got to the point where vulnerable woman lost their jobs and were taken to court for declining to handle the naked genitals of a man they didn't know. The answer is the 'transphobes' who warned such things would happen were told to shut up.

      Hopefully when GRA reform comes around again, a bit more thought has been put into it.

      Delete
    9. since the GRA became law in 2004 males who transgender to female or females who transgender to male are , under law, considered the gender that they have transitioned to. There is no provision to the act to if they have male genatalia or female genatalia. If you transition to female from male and have a gender recognition certificate your gender (for legal purposes) has changed.

      So, no you could not make transgender men who keep their tadger use male toilets, that would be unlawful. Since the GRA came into force to comply with a ECHR ruling thats is not going to change. Of course this is nothing new having been the law for best part of 15 years.

      As for something like waxing, as long as the person involves makes it clear that she will not perform waxing that involves her touching being exposed to penises and testicals then she is fine, she can refuse to wax a transgender male who has still got is penis. However, if she does not state this and just states that she will perform intimate waxing on females but not males, she would have to perform waxing on a transgender male who still has his tadger as legally she is a female.

      Delete
    10. Someone having a penis and not wanting it chopped off is a classic example of 'male identification'.

      If you are looking for the 'mysterious' one single thing that can define 'what is a man' it's absolutely that.

      Delete
    11. Wants to have a penis = bloke

      Doesn't want to have a penis = lady

      It's really that simple. You don't need brain scans or anything.

      Delete
    12. Don't compeltely disagree, although there will be some trans men how would not be able to have the op due to medial problems, etc.

      Anyhow as i said its redundant the ECHR did not make that distinction if a transsexual was pro or post op.

      Delete
    13. Sure, but I did add the word 'want' for good reason. There may well be good reasons in some cases for trans women not progressing the op stage (just as some cis men may have e.g. lost their manhood in an accident), but if they are really a women, they'd desire to be free of their 100% male fishin tackle.

      That's the key. If you are protective of yer wee john thomas, yer a bloke, end of, and you shouldnae be in the ladies. If you are, your are a dangerous, creepy perv.

      Delete
    14. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    15. Don't disagree with you. However the ECHR did, hence why pre op or post op transsexuals have to be treated the same.

      Delete
    16. I am actually agreeing broadly with the ECHR (although I'd need to see the precise ruling). If someone is a true transsexual, then they will desire to be the opposite sex (by dictionary definition). So a real trans woman would desire to be free of their tadger, and have this replaced by female genitalia ideally. They would be active in trying to do this if practically achievable, including taking hormones etc. This is 'pre-op trans'. The 'pre-op' means 'an op is planned / hoped for but has not yet happened'. You cannot be pre-op if there is no operation planned somewhere down the line.

      If you want to have a penis - the most fundamental symbol of masculinity since time immemorial - you are 100% a man through and through and you are not trans as maleness is key to your identity.

      Delete
    17. Think we are going around in circles here. Once your legal gender has been changed then you are considered that gender, irrespective if you have a penis or not (or a vagina or not in the case of a trans woman.)

      What you are saying is that trans men should not be legally allowed to change there gender until they are 'post op'. This is a seperate matter and would be down to the Scot Gov to amend the GRA to state this.

      However, since the GRA is 15 years old, one would assume that successive Scottish Governments have decided there is no need for this change.

      Delete
    18. No, I'm not. I said that people should be able to get official recognition if they are 'pre-op'. If you are 'pre-op', there must be an op coming down the the line. You desire a physical sex change (as best this can be done with modern surgery + hormone treatments) and doctors are treating you (hormones etc + planning the operation etc).

      If you don't ever plan an operation (and are not bothering with hormones etc) then you are not 'pre-op' and you are not obviously trans as your body matches your identity sufficiently that you wish to keep it as is. You might self-id as a transwoman and fancy yourself in a frock, but if you like your john thomas you are clearly man comfortable with that sex and so should legally remain so.

      We are in agreement I think, just confusion over some finer points.

      I am pro-equal rights, which is why I feel this way. We must be fair to trans and cis people in the same way. They should be subject to identical rules.

      Delete
    19. Pre op does not necessarily mean that you are waiting to have or even planning to have the op. It is just the term used to say that you still have your man bits.

      Anyhow, the Scot Gov does not agree with you ( and me to an extent) and even if you never plan to have the op you can legally change your gender.

      Delete
    20. I disagree with the government on a number of issues, as is normal for a citizen. Self-id is one of the areas we differ. I only agree to let medically diagnosed trans people who are moving to a full sex change to start using their new sex facilities. I am an uber-liberal ‘live and let live’ person, but I’m scrupulously fair too. For me, if we have same sex facilities, then that should be for same sex.
      We already have ‘same gender’ facilities with signage so that that women know they are vulnerable to male sexual predatory / violent behaviour in those spaces. For same sex they should not have this concern.
      I may well change my vote in elections based on this issue amongst others. Although it goes without saying that is has no bearing on my support for independence.

      Delete
    21. Sorry that should be 'mixed sex / gender' facilities.

      Delete
  13. "Defacation and pissin was your priority"

    Sounds very like GERS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The closure of Glasgow City Council lavvies was clearly a setback for the wllie watchers. The cutbacks and austerity affect everyone.

      Delete
  14. Blackford & Corbyn unholy alliance. Right wing Jockos and anti semetic lefties.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ooh, Monsieur Didier. Commes vous etes beau. Je t'adore. Oui, t'adore.

      Delete
    2. I'm pretty sure Bozo's plan is a GE with him ideally getting a majority before the 31st.

      He want's a VoNC but I suppose it is more of a vote winner for the Tories if he's seen to be take down by the 'anit-democratic remoaners'.

      If he can win enough seats to dump the DUP, he can pass May's deal with the backstop only applying to N. Ireland. That way he's seen to get 'a better deal' from the EU while keeping the ERG and brexit voters happy.

      The price would be the union however as that puts a border in the Irish sea.

      Delete
    3. I love you too. Q. How does a Frenchman hold his liqueur. A. By the ears.

      Delete
  15. The right wing leftie Liberal EU forces of reaction are gathering to thwart brexit. This is an undemocratic fascist attempt to overthrow the will of the people. The government should deploy the army, police and lock out the fascists from Parliament and arrest them for treason. They will find the Nat si booze bags in the Red lion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'right wing leftie Liberal'

      Lol. Brexiter logic.

      Delete
    2. Do not put facts and logic in the same category when dealing in politics.

      Delete
  16. Do not laugh Skier. It was an allsorts of Liberal, leftie Communist right wing Christian types that formed the Third Reich. People with personal financial interest just like the EU Commission who no doubt piss themselves laughing at You.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The SUN Murdoch Scottish Nat si supporting newspaper says women with big tits should run the UK. So where is Knickerless when we have Soubry and Swinson leading the fascist EU agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Think have to be very careful about the suspend democracy line. There is no legislation left to pass, so a Queens speech would be the normal thing to happen, otherwise MP's have nothing to do.

    Of course we know the reason for Boris doing it now, but the fact that a Queens Speech is well overdue and the only reason May did not call one was because the DUPs C&S agreement would have to be renewed for the new session of parliament.

    Also worth noting that Parliment would of been in recess for two weeks anyhow for conferences so parliament will only be sitting for one week less than it would of been.

    Basically I agree with SS, Boris has decided now is the time for an election and this, he hopes, will force a VoNC next week, when that looked to be going on the back burner.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He absolutely better be angling for a GE and playing to crowds.

      Otherwise Scotland may need to withdraw from the uk unilaterally.

      Which it would get support for from the international community in the circumstances.

      Delete
  19. Boris is a wee dictator it seems.

    Queen better say no or Scotland will need to UDI to maintain its status as a free democracy.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49493632

    Government asks Queen to suspend Parliament

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Queen won't say no. She makes decisions based on PM recommendation, if he says no more legislation can be passed without a new session of Parliament then she has to grant it; otherwise it could be argued that she is stopping the Government from doing its 'job' of presenting legislation.

      Delete
    2. So our dictatorship begins in earnest then.

      Very, very scary stuff.

      Delete
  20. When an unelected politician suspends democracy, you never get it back without a fight.

    It is how dictatorships begin.

    ReplyDelete
  21. You should be really, really scared right now.

    'First they came for democracy...'

    Even if they don't pull it off this time, the very fact it has been attempted is sufficient grounds for Scotland to leave the UK immediately.

    #BetterTogether

    ReplyDelete
  22. In Iran they have an elected parliament. Unlike the UK right now.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Official notice from the UK's unelected head of state that the UK's unelected 'leader' will shut down parliamentary democracy for at least a month so he can progress with his personal political ambitions.

    Gulp.

    ReplyDelete
  24. UK population don't think this is acceptable at all.

    https://yougov.co.uk/opi/surveys/results?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=daily_question&utm_campaign=question_1#/survey/2e67ccc2-c972-11e9-9f2c-314db6d91589/question/731dac7a-c972-11e9-9b62-5f6fc7e95b11/region

    47% Against vs 27% for

    In Scotland it has gone down like a lead balloon:

    58% Against to 17% for:

    If that was put to vote it would be 77% against, so 1997 Yes epic runaway landlside levels.

    Boris has no doubt just given the Yes vote one hell of a shot in the arm. You need to vote Yes now as the UK is not democratic. If parliament is shut down once for personal/party advantage, it will be shut again. The precedent for dispensing with democracy is set.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I'm assuming seeing as the first minister will be announcing in the next day or so that emergency legislation is going to be tabled on Monday, so that Scotland can have a secondy indy ref latter this year. Obviously as the UK is no longer a democracy, she will no longer be awaiting for a section 30 order?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It seems that the British precedent is set; you can shut down and ignore parliament to achieve your political aims. So, no reason why the SNP can't do similar. It's the British thing to do.

      Delete
  26. Amazing, the article was about support for Independence in a Yougov poll. Yet it seems no one wants to discuss that as transgender issues are more important. Or so it it seems.

    ReplyDelete