The pros and cons of Alex Salmond fronting a new pro-indy party

As I mentioned a few days ago, a reader very kindly sent me screenshots of the questions in the latest Scottish poll from Panelbase that has been in the field over the last week. It looked to me like another multi-client survey - some of the questions had Wings written all over them (yes, there's yet another trans question coming), but others were on subjects that it was hard to imagine RevStu asking about. Part of that theory has been proved right, because the first of the results has now been published on Wings - a very useful question that found overwhelming support for border restrictions between Scotland and England if they become necessary due to higher infection rates south of the border. However, it remains to be seen whether the results on the standard independence question, and also on the Westminster and Holyrood voting intention questions, will appear on Wings or elsewhere. One obvious possibility is the Scottish edition of the Sunday Times, which has been commissioning polls from Panelbase for many years. However, there was no sign of any results at midnight, which is often when they've appeared in the past.

But while we're waiting, let's take a look at the wording of one the other questions that probably come from the Wings section of the poll -

We'd like you to imagine a new pro-independence party was formed for the 2021 Scottish Parliament election, contesting seats ONLY on the regional list, and that party was led by Alex Salmond. Do you think you might vote for the new party with your list vote?

Options:

* Yes, definitely
* More likely than not
* Possible but unlikely
* Definitely not

This is the "Archie Stirling"-type question that I've been warning about for the best part of a year -

"What is an Archie Stirling-type question? Just weeks before the 2007 Holyrood election, the wealthy businessman Archie Stirling (ex-husband of Diana Rigg and father of Rachael Stirling) commissioned a YouGov poll which asked respondents whether they would consider voting for his new centre-right political party, Scottish Voice, on the regional list ballot. 21% said they would. Mr Stirling sent the results to the newspapers, which breathlessly reported that Scottish Voice could be on course to win dozens of list seats and to hold the balance of power. But a few weeks later when the actual results came in, the party received only 0.3% of the list vote and didn't come remotely close to winning a single seat. It had won just one-seventieth (!) of the number of votes that the YouGov poll had implied was possible."

To get a meaningful sense of the likely support for a new party, you have to present it as merely one of a menu of options, alongside the established parties.  If you instead ask about it in isolation, as Stirling did, you're likely to get a massive overestimate.  So be on your guard for any breathless commentary in the coming days that suggests a new list party is on course for 20% or 30% or 40% or 50% of the vote, because that is the total number who tell Panelbase they would "definitely" or "more likely than not" vote for it.  Any such result cannot be considered reliable, simply because of the way the question was posed.

That said, the shortcomings of this particular polling exercise don't change what is already obvious - that a party led by Alex Salmond would stand a realistic chance of winning seats.  Is that a prospect we should be excited about?  Here are the pros and cons as I see them...

Pros: Any Salmond-led party would, almost by definition, be a lot bolder in its pursuit of independence than the current SNP leadership.  That could help to break the impasse on adopting a  Plan B in the absence of a Section 30 order.  If the new party held the balance of power, it could make Plan B a condition for supporting an SNP government.  And even if it didn't hold the balance of power, its success could still shock the SNP into becoming more daring.

Cons: There would be the whole psychodrama of Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon being in direct competition with each other.  My guess is that Mr Salmond would play that aspect down and would portray his party as a complement to the SNP rather than a competitor.  But our unionist-dominated media would still have a field-day, and there would be a danger of the broader independence movement being damaged.  The broadcasters might also be tempted to bend their already flexible "rules" on who qualifies for TV debates in the hope of getting sparks flying between the former colleagues.  An additional concern is that some senior SNP parliamentarians foolishly launched thinly-veiled attacks on Mr Salmond in the wake of his acquittal.  That could make it psychologically harder for the two parties to work together if the parliamentary arithmetic makes cooperation necessary.

Looked at that way, it might appear that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.  But it really just depends on whether you think the current SNP leadership will ever take the steps necessary to give the people of Scotland a choice on their future.  If you genuinely don't think they will, then accepting the risks (and those risks are substantial) becomes much more logical.

I've no idea whether Mr Salmond is actively considering the possibility of fronting a new party.  But if he is, I don't envy him the choice, because it's very hard to judge the right course of action, and the future of Scotland could hinge on his decision.