Yes, of course a pro-independence majority in 2026 is still perfectly possible

I'm indebted to my Somerset-based stalker for posting a seemingly exhaustive list of every political blog of note in Scotland, and which shows Scot Goes Pop with impressive figures as the fifth most-read blog, ahead of sites such as Bella Caledonia, Effie Deans, Talking Up Scotland (which I affectionately think of as Global Ferry News) and best of all Blair McDougall's Notes on Nationalism.  Indeed, if the figures are to be believed, Scot Goes Pop has a readership some sixty-two times bigger than Notes on Nationalism, a website that McDougall assumes is so well known to the public that he feels he only ever needs to refer to it by the admittedly amusing initials "NoN".  

Sadly, the numbers and the rankings aren't remotely reliable, because they almost certainly come from SimilarWeb.  As I've mentioned many times before, I used to doublecheck Mr Campbell's claims before SimilarWeb introduced a registration-wall, and the figures for Wings Over Scotland revealed that the site supposedly has around fifteen "employees", a "turnover" of several million pounds, and is based in Glasgow, as opposed to, say, Bath.  If the traffic estimates are as reliable as those claims, there's something of a credibility problem.  In truth, the likelihood is that Wings' traffic is wildly overestimated by SimilarWeb due to many of his regulars treating the site as a de facto discussion forum, meaning they constantly refresh the page to see if there are new comments, with each refresh counting as a fresh "visit".  It was for exactly that reason that fifteen years ago Political Betting was able to honestly claim to be the UK's "most-read" political blog, even though Iain Dale's blog had a far higher number of unique readers, which is what really matters.

Nevertheless, because I now have such a high-profile source for the claim that Scot Goes Pop is the fifth most-read political blog in Scotland, I might as well take advantage of that, so I've updated the site's masthead accordingly.  I was tempted to say "one of the four most-read political blogs in Scotland", because I'm not sure we should really be counting Somerset-based gender politics blogs as "Scottish", but I'll be ultra-generous and stretch the point. 

Mr Campbell goes on to make my ears burn with this assertion - 

"What’s left of the much-reduced Scottish political blogosphere has mostly reacted to these developments with either catatonic indifference or wild outbreaks of denial, clutching at all manner of straws to pretend that there’s any credible prospect of a pro-indy majority after the next Holyrood election...18 months is a long time in politics, but we’re going to call this one early: there is zero prospect of a pro-indy majority after the next Holyrood election. None. Barring a nuclear war or an alien invasion or some equally implausible revolutionary event, it’s simply not happening."

With all due respect (which admittedly is not much respect), that's an absolutely clueless claim that reveals a truly astonishing level of ignorance about the current state of polling, and also about recent political history in both Scotland and the wider democratic world and what it tells us about the volatility of the electorate.  Mr Campbell is a good bit older than me, so he really ought to be able to remember the 2011 Scottish Parliament election, when a Labour-led government looked a racing certainty as late as February or early March, but a single-party majority SNP government was elected in early May.  If predictions were that far out just two months before an election, it is just absolutely nuts for Mr Campbell to claim that a pro-independence majority can be completely ruled out some eighteen months before the 2026 election.  Especially given that it's just one month since the seats projection from a Norstat poll showed the SNP and Greens in combination on 61 seats - just four short of a majority.

Nobody is suggesting that a pro-independence majority is the most likely outcome, but with so much time to go there are multiple ways in which it could still happen - most obviously by the UK Labour government's unpopularity continuing to deepen and voters drifting back to the SNP as a result.  A major Green surge could also do the trick, as long as the SNP vote holds up reasonably well.

Mr Campbell also approvingly quotes Robin McAlpine, who all of us are completely in awe of for his wonderfully incisive policy and strategy analysis, but I'm not sure his analysis of our electoral system is quite up to the same standard here - 

"If Reform ended up one point ahead of the Greens in every list, it is conceivable the Greens could be wiped out."

Well, I suppose that's theoretically possible, in the same sense that it's possible Shergar may yet turn up alive and well in a Chelsea penthouse, but with recent polls putting the Greens between 8% and 10% of the list vote, they look pretty well-placed to return a sizeable contingent irrespective of the Reform surge.  The chances of them being wiped out completely are very low.

That said, it's worth noting that Robin McAlpine himself confidently stated at times during the 2016-21 parliament that the polling evidence showed there was no real chance of the pro-indy majority being sustained in 2021, so that's another example of how it pays to be cautious with predictions and how dramatically and unpredictably the state of play can change.

I know Mr Campbell was sort-of-quoting an Irish website with the following statement, but pedantry means I can't resist - 

"Our dear cousins across the Irish Sea, incidentally, are in a similar boat. Last week’s election to the Dáil left the nation so split, with no party able to achieve even 22% of the vote, that a coalition of FOUR parties might be required to get anything done."

Hmmm.  In fact, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in combination ended up just two seats short of an overall majority, so adding a third party (either Labour or the Social Democrats, who have eleven seats apiece) will put them well past the winning post with an extremely comfortable working majority.  It's possible there may yet be a four-party coalition, but if that happens it won't be because it's arithmetically necessary, but simply because Labour and the Sccial Democrats are both looking for safety in numbers, ie. nobody wants to be the fall guy as the only junior coalition partner.  

And needless to say Mr Campbell hasn't missed an opportunity to spew yet more random hatred about the Gaelic language.  We knew you wouldn't let us down, Stu.

Polling shows that Keir Starmer is now far more hated by the UK public than all of his opponents, including Nigel Farage

So I've been meaning to mention this since the weekend.  The regular Opinium series of Britain-wide polls continues to be more favourable for Labour than polls from most other firms, although the latest one has the Labour lead down to 4 points, rather than the 6 or 7 points that has been typical with Opinium in recent times.  But what will concern Labour far more are three specific details from the leadership questions in the new poll.

Some analysts have argued for years that the best predictor of election results, or at least the best predictor months or years ahead of polling day, is not the standard voting intention numbers but instead the head to head question about which leader would be the best Prime Minister.  Opinium are now showing Keir Starmer just 5 points ahead of Kemi Badenoch on that question.

Who would make the best Prime Minister?

Keir Starmer (Labour): 23%

Kemi Badenoch (Conservatives): 18%

Now, OK, I suppose you could argue that this does put Labour ahead on the best indicator. But the point is that when Badenoch became Tory leader, Labour told themselves that Christmas had come early and that they'd just been handed a monumental advantage. In fact, their leadership advantage looks almost non-existent, because Starmer's slim lead is closely in line with Labour's lead in standard voting intentions.

But it gets even worse than that for Labour when you look at the net ratings of each leader, which subtract the percentage of respondents with a negative view from the percentage of respondents with a positive view.

Ed Davey (Liberal Democrats): 0

Kemi Badenoch (Conservatives): -6

Nigel Farage (Reform UK): -9

Rachel Reeves (Labour): -31

Keir Starmer (Labour): -32

Obviously this means that Starmer is far more hated than all of his opponents.  But what really stands out is Nigel Farage's rating in isolation.  It wasn't that long ago that Farage typically had abysmal net ratings - he had a substantial minority of the public who adored him (thus permitting his party to take first place in successive European elections on a low percentage vote and a low turnout), but they were easily outnumbered by the big majority who loathed him.  That put a natural ceiling on Reform's potential support, possibly in the mid to high 20s.

That ceiling seems to have been lifted, because now only 37% have a negative view of Farage. And it was reported a day or two ago that Elon Musk was considering giving Reform a massive donation of $100 million, which would make Reform by far the UK's richest party.

Money can't necessarily buy elections on its own.  At one time Sinn Fein were one of the wealthiest parties in Europe due to fundraising among Americans of Irish descent, but because of their historical baggage, other parties were still able to compete with them.  Jimmy Goldsmith poured huge amounts of his personal wealth into the Referendum Party's 1997 general election campaign but only ended up with a modest share of the vote.  But money can certainly buy a party a hearing with the public if there are no other factors holding them back.  And now that large swathes of the English public seem more neutral about Farage than they used to be, the notion that Reform could win a general election as the UK's wealthiest party no longer seems fanciful.

I maintain that a Farage premiership would be similar to the Iraq War, Brexit and Thatcherism in that it would be a phenomenally disruptive event that would fundamentally change the dynamic of Scottish politics, and could potentially lead to independence.

Is an early Holyrood election actually in the interests of any of the opposition parties?

I don't take seriously all the chatter about the Budget failing and an early Holyrood election being called, because past history shows that a resolution is generally found - even if it happens very theatrically at the last minute.  However, the best way to judge the true level of danger in these situations is to ignore what opposition parties are saying in public and consider whether in the case of each party an early election actually serves their own self-interest.

Labour:  Even for Labour it's not a straightforward equation.  They would undoubtedly gain a large number of seats in any early election, but it's unlikely to be the clear-cut victory they were starting to take for granted only a few months ago, so there's a danger of looking like a firework that fizzled. That might drain momentum away from them as they look ahead to the 2026 election, which under the rules would still take place.  On the other hand, they might get into government, which is the ultimate goal for any party, but that would almost certainly require a deal with the Tories and possibly with Reform UK as well.  That would be bound to complicate their 2026 campaign, ie. "a vote for Labour is a vote for the Tories and Farage".

Conservatives: Without question an early election is not in the Tories' best interests.  They would lose up to half their seats, would drop to third place or possibly fourth, and would see Reform UK open up a bridgehead against them.  The chance of having some power or influence within a new unionist government surely doesn't outweigh all of those negatives.  So in a rational world, if there looked to be any danger of the SNP government falling, they would head off the danger by abstaining somewhere along the line.  In practice it's very difficult for them to do that, though, because it would damage their anti-SNP-ultra tough guy image.

Liberal Democrats: On paper an early election is very clearly in the Lib Dems' interests, because they would stand to gain seats, and would have at least a chance of a share in power.  So it's interesting that they seem to at least be theoretically open to a deal (remember they also saved the SNP's bacon when other parties tried to prevent Kate Forbes from becoming Deputy First Minister).  Maybe party finances are the explanation - it could be the Lib Dems have limited resources and would prefer to save them for one big push in 2026.

Greens: It's not simple for the Greens, because polls often suggest they would see some progress in an early election, but that progress wouldn't be dramatic, and they have to weigh that against the fact that they currently hold the balance of power, and might hand that privileged position to Reform UK on a plate if they bring down the SNP government.  For that reason, my guess is that an SNP-Green deal will rescue the Budget, with the second most likely escape route being an SNP-Lib Dem deal (even though the latter doesn't make intuitive sense).

"No Due Process Please, We're Alba"?

Iain Cameron posting this publically about Wee Annie, Scotlands hardest working independence fighter. 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿💪❤

Can @TasminaSheikh list those of us with a lifetime ban on joining the Alba Party please. And maybe explain why Iain Cameron was chosen to make that announcement. pic.twitter.com/XB0aRxalJu

— Leanne Tervit (@LeanneTervit) December 1, 2024

(Note: click on the tweet to read the screenshot in full.)

Nobody held the late Alex Salmond in higher regard than I did, but the above screenshot is concerning, because it speaks to some of the deep-seated problems within the Alba party that I and others have been highlighting in recent months, and whatever else it describes, it certainly does not describe due process.  If people really are going to be subject to lifetime bans, it can't just happen by the decree of one person - there has to be some kind of proper, fair, transparent procedure.  

The provision in the Alba constitution about "public resignations from the party" has been an ongoing problem, because it's been used to conveniently bypass the normal disciplinary machinery.  If Chris McEleny (whether acting on his own behalf or on behalf of the broader leadership) wants to get someone insta-banned from Alba, but doesn't want to bother with the tiresome business of a referral to the Disciplinary Committee and a possible subsequent appeal to the Appeals Committee, all he has to do is persuade the NEC to certify that person as having "publicly resigned", and they instantly cease to be a party member without ever having faced any sort of disciplinary process (even of the sham variety!), and will never be allowed to rejoin without prior permission from the NEC.

This perhaps wouldn't be quite so bad if the people affected really had "publicly resigned", but in many cases that simply isn't true.  You might remember that Alan Harris mentioned in his recent Scot Goes Pop guest post that he had been certified as having publicly resigned even though he had kept his resignation several months ago strictly private.  And I can certainly vouch for the fact that he did that, because at the time of his resignation I searched social media carefully, and there wasn't a trace of a mention anywhere.

But it gets even worse, because during my own time on the NEC in 2021-22, there was an occasion when Mr McEleny asked us to certify someone as having publicly resigned even though she had not actually resigned from the party at all.  One of my biggest regrets is that I didn't challenge that.  The reason I didn't is that the subject came up very suddenly and unexpectedly, and at that point I was still assuming good faith and taking it as read that Mr McEleny's reasoning must have been sound, but in retrospect it really, really wasn't.  The person in question may well have done enough to warrant disciplinary action, but there is no way on God's earth that she had "publicly resigned from the party".

As far as the nasty language about a "group of malcontents" is concerned, that of course is a variant of the "wee gang of malcontents" catchphrase which is such a favourite within Alba's in-group.  It's regularly used to demonise and belittle a number of prominent and highly-respected former Alba members, many of whom were forced to leave the party due to relentless bullying.  The irony is that the people who use that phrase are simply demonstrating publicly that the bullying was all too real, but they're caught in such a bubble of entitlement and groupthink that they seem blissfully unaware of that fact.

When I was preparing my defence submission for my own upcoming "disciplinary" hearing on Thursday (which will be the most surreal hearing ever given that Mr McEleny can't seem to work out what he's accusing me of, let alone supply any evidence for it), I had a look through the Twitter accounts of a number of leading Alba figures to see how the party's social media policy is actually being interpreted in practice.  I found the "wee gang of malcontents" line again and again and again, from several different people, even though that is clearly forbidden by an anti-bullying clause in the social media policy which makes the "targeting of individuals" a "red line".  But of course if you're inside the in-group rather than outside it, you can pretty much do these things with total impunity and no action will ever be taken against you.  Under the current rules, remember, Mr McEleny has an absolute veto over whether submitted complaints ever reach the Disciplinary Committee.

I may or may not be expelled on Thursday night, but even if it turns out through no choice or fault of my own that my political future lies in a party other than Alba, I would still urge Alba members to think very, very carefully about who they elect as their next leader, and to make sure that person is someone who will put an end to this nonsense and re-establish due process.  Alba will not thrive electorally until it puts its own house in order.

Labour face catastrophe in Wales as Plaid Cymru storm into historic lead for 2026 Senedd election

I can't 100% say that no polling firm has ever shown Plaid Cymru in the lead before, because Plaid had that extraordinary purple patch in the late 90s under Dafydd Wigley (people in Scotland may have forgotten that, but Plaid actually performed better in the inaugural devolved elections of 1999 than the SNP did).  But these latest numbers from YouGov are truly remarkable, and open up the real possibility that the impressive Rhun ap Iorweth could become the next First Minister of Wales.

Plaid Cymru 24% (+1)
Labour 23% (-4)
Reform UK 23% (+5)
Conservatives 19% (+1)
Greens 6% (+1)
Liberal Democrats 5% (-1)

We've seen in Glasgow recently, both at the general election and in local by-elections, that Reform UK have already replaced the Tories as the main party of the right in a way that hasn't yet happened UK-wide.  It looks like something similar may be unfolding in Wales.  Could working class electorates be the vanguard in ushering in the biggest realignment of the UK party system since Labour overhauled the Liberals in the 1920s to become one of the two main parties?  If so, the talk of Nigel Farage as Prime Minister is no longer fanciful.  The odds remain against it, but it's possible.  

Maybe he'd make Keir Starmer his deputy, they seem quite chummy.

Ironically, the success of the unusual coalition model from the Greens' point of view probably means it will never be repeated

It now looks like Fianna Fáil will top the first preference vote in the Irish general election, despite the exit poll last night putting them third.  Some people are claiming that means the exit poll was a "dud", but that's pushing it a bit - the top three parties were all within 1.6 percentage points of each other in the exit poll, so due to the in-built margin of error, the poll could still have been "right" no matter which of the three came out on top.

On one point the exit poll certainly wasn't misleading - the Green party, which was the junior partner in the outgoing coalition government, is taking a hammering.  This seems to be a recurring pattern for the Irish Greens every time they join a government, and is also a common phenomenon for junior coalition partners across Europe.  What tends to happen is that people who are satisfied with a government gravitate towards voting for the senior coalition partners at the subsequent election (those parties are "the government" in voters' eyes), while those unhappy with the government will be angry with the junior coalition partners for compromising on their principles.

Strangely, though, the Scottish Greens seemed to be immune to that general rule - they took part in a government for almost three years, did some very controversial things, and yet their popularity didn't dip at all.  If anything, it was the SNP who took a hammering for the concessions they made to the Greens, rather than vice versa.  That can be explained by the unusual model of coalition that was adopted, with the Greens taking ministerial roles but not in the Cabinet, and with a number of policy areas excluded from the deal.  That allowed the Greens to pose as either a government party or an opposition party depending on what suited them at any given moment.  In her recent controversial article, Kezia Dugdale said "OK, it technically wasn't a coalition", but actually the opposite is true - it technically was a coalition, but the Greens somehow managed to hypnotise everyone into pretending that it wasn't.

Ironically, the sheer effectiveness of the deal from a Green point of view probably means that the model used will never be repeated - any potential senior coalition partner will be wary and will insist that the junior partner is either all in or all out.

A slight surprise in Irish exit poll as Sinn Féin are predicted to top the first preference vote again

It suddenly occurred to me a few minutes ago that I could listen live to the drama of the Irish general election exit poll reveal on RTE Radio, and although there wasn't a huge shock, there was a slight surprise, because Sinn Féin are predicted to top the first preference vote for a second time in a row - albeit that prediction is within the margin of error, because Sinn Féin are just 0.1% ahead of Fine Gael, with Fianna Fáil around 1.5% further back in third.

Bear in mind that Sinn Féin are a bit less transfer-friendly than the other two main parties, so even a slight lead in the popular vote may translate into them being slightly behind in terms of seats.  But at the very least it looks like they'll retain rough parity with the traditional big two.

For most of the last five years, Sinn Féin have had a healthy lead in the polls, and some Scottish independence supporters have looked at that as a back door route by which we might make progress - ie. a Sinn Féin led government might take office in the Republic and demand an early referendum on Irish unity.  That prospect fell away a few months ago when Sinn Féin support dramatically collapsed and they fell to a poor third place.  I'm not sure why that happened - maybe they overplayed their hand on identity politics and lost touch with what voters were really looking for from them.  But they've since rallied, and ended up with a middling result which is unlikely to get them into power right now, but will rescue their credibility and keep the flame burning for future years.

Sinn Féin 21.1%

Fine Gael 21.0%
Fianna Fáil 19.5%

Social Democrats 5.8%
Labour 5.0%
Greens 4.0%
Aontú 3.6%
People Before Profit - Solidarity 3.1%
Independent Ireland 2.2%
Others 1.9%
Independents 12.7%

Richard Tice's statement undoubtedly makes a Labour minority government in Scotland more likely - but at what cost to Labour?

Thanks to Yesindyref2 on the previous thread for pointing me in the direction of an article suggesting Reform UK's Richard Tice has said his party would vote for Anas Sarwar to be First Minister after the next Holyrood election.  Assuming he's been reported accurately, and assuming he wasn't going rogue by saying the first thing that popped into his head, this is a rare example of a comment by an opposition politician that really does change things, because it makes it significantly more likely that Sarwar will become First Minister.  Although most polls recently have shown the SNP on course to remain the largest single party, they have also mostly suggested that Labour, the Tories, the Lib Dems and Reform UK would have a majority between them, so if Reform UK are on board for Sarwar, the only way that John Swinney (or Kate Forbes, or whoever) would be able to win the First Minister vote would be if the Tories and/or the Lib Dems abstained, or if Sarwar didn't stand at all.

But nominally becoming First Minister is only half the battle for Sarwar - other than adding a bit of glitter to his CV, it won't really count for much if he's then brought down within a few weeks or months.  What Tice has said is really quite odd, because it reduces Reform's leverage in any post-election negotiations - it's effectively saying they will install a Labour government without any concessions from Labour at all, presumably as a virtue-signalling demonstration of British Nationalist ultra-purity.  But the snag is that they're bound to hold Sarwar hostage after installing him on specific policy matters, so either Sarwar would gain a damaging reputation for being Farage's Puppet, or he would stand his ground and lose vote after vote, perhaps leaving his government looking non-viable, with the only remaining choices being to hand over to the SNP (who might have the strongest case if they're the largest single party) or to accept the inevitability of a re-run of the election.

And as Yesindyref2 pointed out, Tice's statement may ultimately be a problem for Reform UK too, because if it becomes widely understood that "a vote for Reform is a vote for Labour", some of the voters who have switched direct from SNP to Reform may start to have second thoughts.  That could increase the chances of the pro-independence majority at Holyrood being rescued in 2026 against all the odds.

Another by-election setback for Labour - they finish just TWO VOTES ahead of SNP in West Fife, with the average swing in yesterday's two elections pointing to a national SNP lead of 13 or 14 percentage points

West Fife & Coastal Villages by-election result on first preference votes (28th November 2024)

Labour 33.2% (+0.7)
SNP 33.2% (-2.7)
Conservatives 16.1% (-1.0)
Liberal Democrats 8.6% (+1.9)
Greens 4.6% (+0.5)
Independent - Morton 2.4% (n/a)
Scottish Family Party 2.0% (n/a)

On raw votes, Labour topped the first preference poll by just two votes (881 to 879) - there's no way they would have been expecting it to be that tight.  The swing from SNP to Labour was a miniscule 1.7%, which remember is measured from the baseline of the 2022 local elections, when the SNP were still more than 12 percentage points ahead of Labour nationally.  So if the by-election result is extrapolated nationally, it would point to an SNP lead over Labour of around nine points.

As you'll have seen, there was actually a swing to the SNP in the other by-election yesterday.  If the two swings are averaged, they come to a 0.6% swing to the SNP, which would suggest that the SNP are around thirteen or fourteen points ahead of Labour nationally.

Labour stunned as Kilpatrick by-election produces swing of almost 3% *to the SNP* - it's a Labour hold, but points to a large SNP national lead

As I pointed out yesterday, both of the by-elections taking place looked almost certain to be Labour holds, because both wards were particularly favourable for Labour in 2022, at a time when the SNP were still miles ahead of Labour nationally.  Well, Labour have indeed held on in Kilpatrick, but the details of the result do not bode well for them at all.

Kilpatrick by-election result on first preference votes (28th November 2024)

Labour 42.7% (-13.4)
SNP 30.3% (-7.7)
Reform UK 10.4% (n/a)

Conservatives 5.7% (-0.2)
Greens 4.3% (n/a)
Liberal Democrats 3.7% (n/a)

Scottish Family Party 1.5% (n/a)

Communists 1.4% (n/a)

That's a swing from Labour to the SNP of about 2.9% - and remember the swing is supposed to be the other way around at the moment, because the baseline in local by-elections is the 2022 result, not July 2024.  Assuming a uniform swing, that would put the SNP ahead nationally by a stonking 18 percentage points.

Someone said on the previous thread that Scotland is not immune to Reform UK's charms - well, that's clearly true, and Reform are certainly doing better in Scotland in recent weeks than at one time seemed remotely possible (remember what a busted flush they looked like after Michelle Ballantyne came nowhere near to retaining her Holyrood seat).  But it's worth stressing that Reform's average vote share in recent Scottish by-elections is only around half the vote they are typically recording in GB-wide polls.  So Scotland is still far from being Farage's most fertile territory.