Wednesday, July 26, 2023

'Yes to Independence' on the ballot paper

I did my periodical search yesterday to see if there were any new Scottish opinion polls out, and there weren't any, but it drew my attention to something else that is rather surprising and that might be of interest - The National are running an unofficial readers' poll about whether the SNP should use the ballot paper description "Yes to Independence" at the general election.  At time of writing, 1253 people have voted in the poll, with 75% in favour of the idea and 25% opposed.  I'd like to suggest everyone votes in the poll and bumps up the Yes vote as much as possible, because a ballot description like that, coupled with the top line in the manifesto stating that a vote for the SNP is a vote for independence, would make it very difficult to argue after the event that the election was not a de facto referendum on independence.  You can vote in the poll HERE.

I know some people may be suspicious, because The National are running the poll in response to a suggestion from Toni Giugliano, who is one of the SNP's nearest equivalents to Labour's notorious Luke Akehurst.  He's perhaps not quite as powerful as Akehurst, but the similarity is that he's an open, unapologetic Godfather of factionalism, who preaches the virtues of division and exclusion at every opportunity - perhaps on the theory that driving enough of Yousaf's critics out of the SNP would synthetically produce 'unity', albeit with a hollowed out base, which is the very definition of a pyrrhic victory.  So yes, doubtless he has some kind of convoluted factional / careerist motivation for making this suggestion, but here's the thing - it doesn't really matter what the motivation is for holding a de facto referendum or something similar to one, because it empowers voters anyway.  It's up to voters to decide what to do with that power, and if they use it to choose independence, the SNP leadership will find they are on a train that they are not actually driving.  The pressure to deliver on an independence mandate will have a momentum of its own.  The important thing is to lock them into something as close as possible to a de facto referendum while the chance is there, and if they believe they're doing it for their own self-interested reasons, so much the better, because it makes them more likely to see it through.

*  *  *

SCOT GOES POP FUNDRAISER 2023: This year's fundraiser has now been running for well over two months, and it's been partially successful - it's around a quarter of the way towards its target figure of £8500.  Please bear with me as I plug away at continuing to promote it at the bottom of every blogpost, because there's very little point in leaving the job half-done - that would mean continuing with the current service for maybe two or three more months and then more or less stopping.  We wouldn't necessarily need to hit the full target figure to avoid that outcome, but substantial progress would need to be made.  Why is it a bit harder to raise money these days than it used to be?  Obviously it's partly because of the cost of living crisis, but I think the bigger issue is that it's far easier for a pro-indy blog to inspire people to donate if it's pumping out a "purist" message that appeals to one of the two opposite ends of the spectrum - ie. either that the SNP leadership can do no wrong and deserve our unquestioning support, or that the SNP is unremittingly evil and must be totally destroyed.  Scot Goes Pop has a much more nuanced analysis that is pretty much bang in the middle between those two extremes.  But the glass-half-full way of looking at it is that £2000+ raised means that people still think nuance and independent thinking (alternatively known as "being in the scunnered middle") have their place.  A million thanks to everyone who has donated so far, and anyone wishing to make a donation can do so HERE.  Alternatively, direct donations can be made via Paypal (in many ways this is preferable because it cuts out the middle man).  My Paypal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

28 comments:

  1. What's a ballot paper description?

    ReplyDelete
  2. There is no doubt that if the SNP do the right thing, they can turn the next general election into a ‘de facto’ referendum by issuing the appropriate manifesto and making agreement with the other indy parties to maximise the vote, and that is exactly what they should do.
    The wording, though, is crucial. If it does not actually amount to a plebiscitary vote for a definite thing, that will give London the excuse to label the exercise as too inexplicit to constitute a vote for independence. Even if there is a majority of votes for Yes, if that does not in fact constitute a vote for independence, we are going nowhere.
    A plebiscitary manifesto must contain two statements, each of which must be clear, explicit and unambiguous. The first is that it’s a vote for independence, and the second is that on a majority of votes Scotland will go independent, i.e. the meaning of the vote and the effect of it.
    In the 2014 indyref, only the meaning was required, because the effect was already stated in the Edinburgh Agreement. In a plebiscitary election, the effect of a majority vote must be stated in the manifesto in order to put the position beyond any doubt whatsoever. London must be left no room to quibble over the effect of a Yes victory.
    The wording in the manifesto could still be simple, something along the lines of the following.
    1. A vote for the party will be taken to be a vote for Scotland to become an independent country.
    2. On a majority of such votes, that is what will happen, within 2 years of the election, whether on terms negotiated with the UK Government or not.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Absolutely. It was a YES for me.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The usual suspects are coming up with the rubbish (as far as I know) that this could not be done on a ballot sheet. Well, from the recent by-election for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, pardon the French:

    "JANE Rebecca - UKIP - People not Politics"

    And the heading is "Description (if any)

    Could you check it out please and confirm it's OK for "SNP - YES to Independence"?

    As for Guigliano, perhaps he's become aware that people think he's wishy-washy about Indy and should be sacked.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mean like you have been from WGD? Bye.

      Delete
    2. Can you be "sacked" from a comments section? Was he being paid a salary or something?

      Delete
    3. No, but they tried to remove my N95 respirator.

      Delete
    4. Haven't looked at Paul's site for some time now one of the reason's being that it doesn't engage. The articles are all WM is bad (I know that already) and the comments are all Yes, Paul WM is very bad. Pointless website nowadays, shame because it used to be entertaining.

      Delete
    5. Poor old yesindyref2 tried to think for himself on WGD and got told he was a Unionist by the numpties btl. Or even worse on occasion - an Albanist. There is never any shortage of WGD numpties quick to brand you a Unionist if you stray from the SNP groupthink. Thicko Hamish is always quick to pounce.

      Delete
  5. Personally, I don't think the SNP is an evil organisation. It has, however, been taken, by Sturgeons gang, down an unacceptable criminal path (in my opinion) by the conspiracy to send Salmond to jail and destroy the chances of Indyref2 ever happening. The SNP members have to take some responsibility for this as they keep voting for them to be in control.

    There is nothing the SNP, under Sturgeon's gang, can now say or do that I will have any trust in them to do what they promise.

    If they wanted independence they could easily at any time call a Holyrood de facto referendum/election where the voting franchise is under Holyrood control, more favourable to yes and the focus of the election would be 100% independence. They won't do this because their jobs are more important to them than Scottish independence.

    Sturgeon's puppet, Yousaf, will deliver nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm not going to vote for the SNP even if that's their 'description' because in reality it's a deception. It's meaningless, there will be no de facto referendum under the SNP and they know it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a circular argument that borders on absurdity. You're effectively saying that because you know they won't hold a de facto referendum, you'll oppose them holding a de facto referendum if they prove you wrong by holding one. It would be like saying in 2014, "this is a sham, there isn't going to be a referendum, so I won't be voting if there's a referendum".

      Delete
    2. I had no intention to vote SNP following the election of Humza Yousaf on a "do nothing for indy" platform.

      However I would absolutely vote SNP if "Yes to Independence" was on the ballot paper. Even if it failed to get >50% at first try, or if Humza Yousaf failed to progress indy on the back of the vote, there'd nevertheless be absolutely no disputing that I'd voted for Scottish independence.

      Delete
  7. What difference will it make? Independence is inevitable. All we're doing is arguing about what exact route to take to something we all know is going to happen within three years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looking at recent polling, I share your optimism. The conclusion is pretty inescapable.

      Delete
    2. That's encouraging.

      Delete
  8. RIP Sinéad O’Connor

    ReplyDelete
  9. " Still not a majority of Scots though"

    "There has never been a prolonged period in which yes has topped 50 percent% "

    " In what was billed a once in a generation vote"

    " In 1949 the Scottish Covenant a petition for a Home Rule Scottish Parliament garnered 2 million signatures in a population of just over 5 "


    The words of that disgusting Britnat Kirsty Wark on tonight's Newsnight where she broadcast her hit job on Scottish independence and the SNP. Like most Britnat broadcasters lies and misrepresentation come easily to her and she did not disappoint. She worked her way through a number of interviews whilst unable to hide her love for Britnat Labour.

    1. A professor from Edinburgh uni - no Scottish accent - no surprise.

    2. F*****g Liz Lloyd. Two despicable women trying to kid on they are on opposite sides.

    3. Laura Webster - Editor of the National.

    4. F*****g Stephen Noon SNP member.

    5. Keith Brown SNP Deputy Leader.

    6. Brtitnat polling guru Prof Poultice.

    A colonial update on the Scotland colony's desire for freedom from Westminster presented by bought and paid for House Jocks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Didn't see it, but if she literally said ""There has never been a prolonged period in which yes has topped 50 percent%", that's a lie. Every single poll conducted between mid-2020 and early 2021 showed a Yes majority.

      Delete
    2. It's not a lie, James but it is merely an opinion. These terms 'sustained majority' and 'prolonged period' which Unionists have started to use are of course deliberately vague and allow them to move the goalposts.
      51% for six months, 66% for a decade (seen that one trotted out a few times) and 90% for as long as anybody can remember (Catalunya) can all be described as a sustained majority for a prolonged period depending on your colours.

      Delete
    3. I've just watched it and, as ISP stated, Kirsty Wark definitely says "Since the 2014 referendum the polls on support for Independence have varied but there's never been a prolonged period in which YES has topped 50%".

      You can hear her say these very words at 25.43 on the broadcast (https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001p41s/newsnight-cleared-of-rape-after-17-years-in-jail).

      Between 1st June 2020 and 22nd January 2021 there were 20 consecutive polls carried out on the question according to wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_Scottish_independence) where there was a MAJORITY in favour of YES.

      However, if you include don't knows, won't say and non-respondents the percentage in favour was 50% or above only on 7 of these occasions, with 2 of these registering exactly 50%. And the maximum consecutive streak on 50% or more was 2 polls.

      So whilst the picture that Kirsty Wark paints by that remark is, let's say, 'incomplete' I imagine the Beeb would use this point to argue that they were being factually accurate.

      Delete
    4. If the argument is that it's not a lie because they're including Don't Knows (a complete and utter nonsense because very few referendums have a Don't Know option), it would be fair to ask when the last time was that there was a No majority over a "prolonged period" when Don't Knows are left in? Why do the BBC never mention that side of the coin? The Union must be doomed.

      Delete
    5. It's no suprise Wark lying and misrepresenting but what pissed me off was seeing Liz Lloyd being interviewed and throwing her head and hair back/ playing up to the camera as if she was a model. Totally trolling us. Look at me I'm on Newsnight and you can't do anything about it. Lloyd claims Salmond and Sturgeon failed re the education attainment gap but Yousaf and her pal Jenny Gilruth will make real changes and deliver real reform and real changes in the classroom. Now that made me laugh. It was Sturgeon who failed not her advisers and certainly not her Chief adviser the person called Liz Lloyd. Well let's hope Gilruth succeeds and let's hope she does not take any advise from her partner Kezia Dugdale over the dinner table.

      When Wark said 2 million out of 5 million signed the petition in 1949 it was all part of the main theme to convince people that yes has always been a minority. Wark doesn't point out you can hardly expect all the children/minors in the 5 million to have signed the petition. 2 million is actually an impressive figure but Wark presents it otherwise. Wark is a Britnat Labour loving House Jock. She even managed to get pictures of Tony Blair in her report.

      F*****g Steven Noon SNP comes on and basically says we will move to be MORE independent in a looser arrangement with the UK and the EU over a 20 - 30 year period. You are either independent or you are not. These are the views of some SNP people - punting more devolution and that makes them Britnats. Would he have been on the programme picking up his fee if he wanted to say something else - no - another House Jock. House Jocks have taken over the SNP.

      The only surprise to me was the non appearance of her disgusting pal Dani Garavelli. I felt sure she would have been involved picking up her usual House Jock fee. No point in AIM/ Robertson telling me to tone down my comments and be nice to Britnats because this be nice was all supposed to be the approach during the fictitious Indyref2 which ain't happening.

      The UK is a shithouse of a country informed by shitty broadcasters.

      Delete
    6. Laura Webster says:- " I personally feel that the Scottish government and the SNP are more interested in looking at this as a long term project whereas Nicola Sturgeon was quite keen on telling people that this was just around the corner."

      Sturgeon is a liar and a devolutionalist. The National and the SNP are getting bolder in telling us they are really devolutionalists (they prefer the term gradualists) and therefore unionists which is what I have been saying for some time.

      The National was also very good at telling its readers independence was just around the corner as well as Sturgeon. Will the National now have a series of new front page headlines saying you will all be long dead before the SNP do anything about independence. Charlatans the lot of them.

      Delete
    7. The thing that really grinds my gears is that this gradualist approach is apparently only just starting now. Not 9 years ago or even 3 years ago when Sturgeon ripped the heart out of the grassroots indy movement.
      Yousaf wants us all out chapping doors like he's just come up with idea. The SNP themselves are giving every indication that Independence is merely a possible medium to long term goal.

      Delete
  10. I think it might be time to let the SNP be wiped out. It will give Anas Sarwar and his team of crack politicians a chance to screw up Scotland - which will let the SNP off the hook for their incompetent administration. It will also give us a chance of losing the scroungers amongst them and perhaps forming a new independence drive, perhaps someone with some guts will appear and make the movement more vibrant. I have a problem with the SNP and I'm sure others share it, I just can't trust a word they say. And, lets be straight, if you can't understand the message then the message is not independence. Independence is clear cut, it just needs some guts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WT says:- " I just can't trust a word they say." Neither can I.

      WT also says:- " Independence is clear cut, it just needs some guts. " Guts are sadly lacking in today's SNP. Grifting is plentiful.

      Delete
  11. Humza Yousaf, Sturgeon's puppet, was very pleased today when he took delivery of his new batch of carrots. The carrots are strangely burgundy in colour.

    He wisnae very happy when asked if any of the three SNP musketeers interviewed by the polis were charged would they be kicked out of the SNP. Like the puppet ( or should it be muppet ) he truly is he waffled about it being kept under review. Can the puppet kick the puppet master out of the SNP? If all three were charged I wouldn't put it past Yousaf to come down hard on 2 out of the 3. No prizes for guessing who he would send a bunch of flowers to.

    ReplyDelete