Ipsos-Mori : SNP retain lead in Scottish Parliament voting intentions

As you'll probably have seen by now, the latest full-scale Scottish poll from Ipsos-Mori is out, and it shows the SNP government retaining its gravity-defying lead over Labour in mid-term.  However, the gap has narrowed.  Here are the full figures -

SNP 39% (-4)

Labour 36% (+1)

Conservatives 16% (+3)

Liberal Democrats 8% (+1)

The figures for the independence referendum show the No campaign increasing its lead somewhat, essentially returning us to the status quo ante from the last poll but one from the same company - although the Yes share is still 1% higher than it was in that poll.  Curiously, though, the focus of Ipsos-Mori's Christopher McLean (who may or may not be TSE's 'prominent pollster' Chuckle Brother) is not on the headline figures, but on the figures for the segment of the sample who claim to have already made a firm decision about how they will vote in 500 days' time.  Mr McLean gets rather carried away with his own logic, first pointing to the percentage of respondents who claim they are certain to vote, then to the percentage of that percentage who claim they are certain of how they will vote, and then working out what proportion of the "remaining" voters the Yes campaign would need to convince to have a chance of winning.  The one tiny flaw in this logic?  The graphic right above Mr McLean's analysis helpfully demonstrates that at least 5% of the voters who claimed in the last poll in February that they had already firmly decided how to vote have changed their minds since!  And that change isn't some kind of mirage caused by an increase in the proportion of the electorate that has reached a decision - in fact the number of respondents who say they have decided has fallen from 567 in February to 558 now.  So while the 'definitely decided' question may be moderately useful in distinguishing 'softer' voters from 'firmer' voters, the reality is that responses to that question can't be taken quite as literally as Mr McLean seems to believe - many of those 'firmer' voters remain up for grabs.

The recent YouGov poll commissioned by the SNP offers another way of looking at the underlying state of play.  Respondents were asked if they'd be more or less likely to vote Yes - or if it would make no difference either way - if they were persuaded that independence would make Scotland fairer and wealthier.  The combined total for those who claim to have already decided to vote No, and those who perversely would be less likely to vote Yes if they anticipated greater fairness and wealth, is 45%.  The combined total for those who claim to have already decided to vote Yes, and those who would be more likely to vote Yes in the specified scenario (and who can therefore be assumed to at least be consciously open to the idea of voting for independence), is 47%. So that demonstrates a clear potential route to a narrow victory - if Yes Scotland run the perfect campaign.  In reality there probably isn't such a thing as the perfect campaign, which means that at least some of the people who currently think they are firm No voters will need to be converted.  But the fluidity detected by Ipsos-Mori in the supposedly 'already decided' group suggests that is perfectly doable.  With a year and a half to go, there's all to play for.

*  *  *

One point that will presumably be of some concern to the anti-independence campaign is that their figurehead Alistair Darling now has an outright negative personal rating - and that's in spite of the fact that he doesn't even have any ministerial responsibilities that might be making him unpopular.  What can he possibly be doing so wrong?  Could it be that his relentless negativity is beginning to wear thin on the public?

"You're an idiot - now go and play with something sharp" says the No campaign's champion of courteous discourse

I realise there's a slight danger of turning this blog into one long transcription of my exchanges on Twitter, and I'll try not to make too much of a habit of it, but as so many of us have had encounters with Duncan Hothersall over the years, I thought you might appreciate this one.  For the uninitiated, Duncan was for quite some time practically the one-man online presence of Scottish Labour.  Yes, even in the days when Labour Hame was but a twinkle in its Admin's eye, there was Duncan, fighting the good (or goodish) fight on Twitter.  More recently, he's taken to sternly shaking his head at the largely mythical "Cybernat hordes", more in sorrow than in anger, and exhorting them to at least aspire to his own standards of decency.  Rather like Matt Smith begging the humans not to harm the Silurian hostage, Duncan just yearns with all his heart for his hot-headed, misguided political opponents to be "better than this" - for the sake of their own souls as much as anything.

In the unlikely event that anyone took the nurturing tone of his 'advice' at face value, I fear that what you're about to read might be a bit like that moment when you first discovered there isn't a Santa Claus.

Duncan Hothersall : How is UKgov involved? Salmond wants to debate Cameron to make it look like they are the enemy.

Me : Salmond v Cameron is the choice of Prime Ministers in #indyref

Duncan Hothersall : Which is a bollocks argument and you know it.

Me : I knew you'd like it, because it has the virtue of being self-evidently true.

Duncan Hothersall : It's the ultimate expression of the false idea that #indyref is an election substitute. Current leaders irrelevant.

Me : Like Tony Blair was "irrelevant" in 2005 because he saw out less than half a term? Same principle.

Duncan Hothersall : UK elections don't pick Prime Ministers they chose governing parties. #indyref is nothing to do with either.

Me : So why do we have "Prime Ministerial (sic) Debates" in UK elections?

Duncan Hothersall : I think I have a new favourite idiotic #yesscot argument: Salmond should debate Cameron because #indyref is a choice between them as PMs.

Me : Glad you like it, but do you actually have an answer to the Prime Ministerial Debate point?

Duncan Hothersall : We had them precisely once. Are you even going to pretend you don't understand our democracy to score points? Sad.

Me : Does that mean you oppose them, Duncan? This is important.

Duncan Hothersall : Yes. Our democracy works on the basis of law, not TV programmes, and you know that fine well.

Me : So you do oppose such debates? Fair enough. On that issue and Trident, I just wish you had more sway with your own party.

Duncan Hothersall : Do you really think #indyref is a choice between Salmond and Cameron as PM? How about we clear that up first.

Me : I thought we just had cleared it up, but evidently I've missed something. Answer to your question - obviously.

Duncan Hothersall : Then you're an idiot.

Me : Ah, the famed positivity and civility of the No campaign on social media!

Duncan Hothersall : I'm being neither negative nor uncivil. Your stated position is idiocy. It's stupid.

Me : "You're an idiot." That's a quote. Bit of a stretch to say that's "neither negative nor uncivil".

Duncan Hothersall : It's an observation. Now go and play with something sharp.

Me : Hmmm. While I do that, Duncan, why don't you quietly reflect on whether you practise what you preach on standards of debate.

Duncan Hothersall : Let me just file that advice for safekeeping. It's a gem.

Me : Feel free. I'll certainly be filing the "idiot" and "play with something sharp" comments for when you next mention Cybernats.

Does James Mackenzie have a problem with alternative points of view?

James Mackenzie, the supremo of the Better Nation blog, has in a somewhat haughty (and not exactly unprecedented) manner declared that he cannot bear to continue a Twitter discussion with me that he himself initiated, solely on the grounds that I failed to concur with his own point of view. I'll repost the exchange in full here and let it speak for itself, but there are a number of things that I find utterly dumbfounding about it. Firstly, there's the automatic assumption on two separate occasions that because I didn't agree with a radical feminist text/video that he directed me to, that I must not have bothered to read/watch it. It literally doesn't even occur to him that it's possible for someone to listen to radical feminist arguments in good faith and not be persuaded by them. Then there's the apparent belief that disagreeing with radical feminism is the equivalent of racism, and can be characterised as "radical sexism". As I said at the time, it's hard to think of a more Orwellian use of language than to accuse the people who DON'T think there is any difference between male and female victims of being the "sexists"!

I really do think the way in which James brought this exchange to an end is incredibly revealing of the mindset that lies behind Better Nation's notoriously unpredictable - and occasionally suffocating - moderation policy. One useful thing to come out of this is that we now know that Jenny Kemp wasn't responsible for the deletion of JPJ2's perfectly legitimate comment on her BN thread about violence against women. My guess is that it may have been James himself and he's simply forgotten, but we'll probably never know.

James Mackenzie : (in response to this blogpost of a couple of days ago) Having moderated comments for @nationbetter, and despite being passionately pro-Yes, I do see much more hate on "our" side.

Me : Given that you moderate comments for being "otherwise dickish", I take that observation with a pinch of salt.

James Mackenzie : But I'm specifically talking about dickish comments amongst others - not sure how your comment relates to the balance thereof?

Me : The point I'm making is that the approach you take to moderation at Better Nation often IS the problem. "Otherwise dickish"?

James Mackenzie : What makes you say that? How do dickish comments, especially ad hominem, improve the debate?

Me : The absolute worst thing for the debate is heavy-handed, unbalanced moderation. A "good debate" isn't you silencing people.

James Mackenzie : What makes you think it's unbalanced? I can assure you it's nothing of the sort. Where's this coming from?

Me : I've seen examples of comments that didn't get through moderation on BN, where there was no conceivable justification to delete.

James Mackenzie : By all means show me examples of what you mean. I've got a complete record in my email of everything ever submitted.

Me : If you give me half an hour I probably can. Someone posted one on my blog a while back.

James Mackenzie : Excellent, I'd rather get this away from unsubstantiated allegations!

Me : OK, here's what I had in mind. A comment by JPJ2 that took issue with Jenny Kemp.

James Mackenzie : I'd have probably let that through, but it's much more problematic than it looks: (at this point he directs me to a post on a radical feminist blog that offers a convoluted ideological justification for the silencing of alternative points of view)

Me : So you might - just might - have blocked that comment because it's at variance with your own ideology, which others dispute?

James Mackenzie : I'd have probably let one comment of that sort through, replied with that link, and said I intended to block others.

James Mackenzie : Do you accept that that specific argument is a regular tool used to derail consideration of violence against women, though?

Me : James, are you seriously suggesting that everyone has to buy into key tenets of radical feminism before they are fit to debate?

James Mackenzie : No, I asked you a specific question about your personal view about the way the "what about teh menz" argument gets used.

Me : This is ludicrous. This is exactly what I mean. "Otherwise dickish" is code for "doesn't accept the premise of my ideology".

James Mackenzie : No, it's a genuine query. Do you accept that that particular rhetorical approach regularly derails discussions about violence?!

James Mackenzie : Feel free to say "no, it doesn't", but if you thought it did, what would you do? Let another discussion get derailed?

Me : I don't. I believe in free debate, not silencing people on purely ideological grounds.

James Mackenzie : I mean, if there are better ways to deal with that problem, great, but I'm sure it's a real problem. And yes, I'm a feminist.

Me : Dealing with what "problem"? That people, in a civilised way, take a different view on the subject to you?

James Mackenzie : So you'd accept long screeds about the inferiority of other races on your blog?

James Mackenzie : Just checking: have you read the piece I linked to? That sets out the problem. More here. (at this point he directs me to a Google search for the cretinous and belittling phrase "what about teh menz")

Me : Probably - I'd argue rather than delete. Are you now suggesting that disagreeing with radical feminism is comparable to racism?

James Mackenzie : Fair enough. I'm saying that radical sexism and radical racism are quite similar, that's all.

Me : Yes, I've read it multiple times, and the first time was ages ago. I profoundly disagree with it. Is that allowed?

Me : What is "radical sexism"? The view that domestic violence of men is the same as domestic violence of women? I'm bemused.

James Mackenzie : Of course. Just as it's permitted for people to disagree with race equality. And to publish whatever comments they like.

Me : Sure. You pontificate on what other people do, so I'm just letting you know what I think about your ideological moderation.

James Mackenzie : One of those irregular verbs: "I let you know what I think", "you pontificate", etc.

Me : Do grammatical offences fall under the catch-all "otherwise dickish" category?

James Mackenzie : No, just noting a bit of skewed language. I'd have let that through ;)

Jenny Kemp : I just happened on this conversation. Just want to clarify I had no moderation rights on the blog I wrote for BN.

Me : Thanks, Jenny. Perhaps BN ought to make clear who is doing the moderating on any given thread to avoid confusion.

Jenny Kemp : Sounds wise. I had no idea there were comments submitted but not published. Not nice to be accused of silencing...

James Mackenzie : Author or whoever posted a guest post leads, does uncontroversial stuff, the rest goes round by email. No mystery.

Jenny Kemp : I didn't have any moderation rights on that thread. Unless I am remembering it wrong - but pretty sure.

James Mackenzie : Just out of curiosity, would you have approved a comment likely to turn the discussion into "what about teh menz"?

Jenny Kemp : probably because otherwise you're accused of silencing that argument!

James Mackenzie : Although we did publish a marginally better version of the same argument from the same person.

Me : Pictish Beastie also complained of having a post deleted in that thread, James.

James Mackenzie : I have found it. It alleges bias on @jennykemp's part in a pretty unpleasant way. We moderate attacks on guests more than on us.

Jenny Kemp : glad that one didn't make it through then.

Me : I haven't seen it, but I'm a tad sceptical of these judgement calls (ie. "pretty unpleasant") based on what you said yesterday.

James Mackenzie : Oh, it's entirely subjective. But my original point stands: I see much harsher language from my side vs the No side.

Me : Yes, it is highly subjective. Which is another way of saying that your point only stands in your opinion.

James Mackenzie : Ah, I meant "what's unpleasant" is subjective. I have no doubt you could double-blind the comments and see what scores worst.

Me : I think that would be a very useful exercise one of these days - and it's possible you'd be shocked by the outcome.

Doug Daniel : hasn't something similar already been done by a university that found it's actually unionists who are the worst?

Wings over Scotland : Mark Shephard at Strathclyde.

James Mackenzie : {citation required} ;)

James Mackenzie : Also, I have no idea what the cross-blogosphere average is, I'm just going by all the BN comments.

James Mackenzie : James, you might find this interesting. (at this point he directs me to this radical feminist video)

Me : When will we see "human beings speaking out against domestic violence, irrespective of the victim's gender"?

James Mackenzie : Are you agreeing or disagreeing with his argument there?

Me : That self-styled "anti-sexist activist" is in truth profoundly sexist, as is your Orwellian notion of "radical sexism".

Me : I'm disagreeing with it. I thought that was fairly obvious!

James Mackenzie : Not really. He talks about violence against other men and boys too.

Me : Is there any reference to female-on-male violence?

James Mackenzie : You've not watched it. I give up: let's not speak again. It probably frustrates you as much as it does me.

Me : Jesus, man. I spent twenty painful minutes watching that on your request. The least you can do is engage.

James Mackenzie : So why ask me what was in the film? Did you appreciate any of it, then, or was it all some kind of misandric plot?

Me : I asked you because I thought there was a possibility - however remote - that I might have missed something vital.

Me : I just don't agree with the premise of it. I'm surprised you thought for a moment that I would.

James Mackenzie : I'm genuinely surprised that anyone could ignore the strength of his argument. I don't see how we find common ground.

Me : This is what I don't understand, James. Do you think "debate" ought to be others seeking common ground with you?

James Mackenzie : Not with me per se. Starting any debate surely means aiming to understand each other's argument as a first basis?

Me : Yes, but understanding it is not the same as accepting it. You seem offended that I don't accept your worldview.

Me : Or is the offence that it's possible to understand it without agreeing with it?

James Mackenzie : I admit I don't understand how anyone can look at violence against women in the way you do. Let's not discuss more.

Me : Why not? Because you must remain in a closed world, sealed off from other views? Explains BN moderation.

*  *  *

UPDATE : Predictably (again this is not exactly unprecedented) James Mackenzie unfollowed me on Twitter the moment he saw this post.  Oh well, at least now I can follow suit and dispense with Twitter updates branded with the mildly disturbing 'dog smoking a pipe' image!

UPDATE II : And now he's going around calling me a "misogynist".  Well, we may as well be treated to the full repertoire...

Questions to which the answer is "don't ask questions with your mouth full, you obnoxious child"

It's strategy, Jim, but not as we know it. The No campaign seem to have convinced themselves that the masterstroke that will win this referendum is the revival of Labour Hame's highly-successful (ahem) Questions to Which the Answer is 'Er...' series.

I thought I'd take the liberty of replying to some of the more straightforward of the latest batch of '500 questions' - it'll free up our finest minds to deal with the questions that are cunning enough to require more than three seconds to answer. A word of warning - it's just possible you may spot a couple of recurring themes here.

Q. How would Scotland be better represented in the international community after independence if it was no longer a member of the G7, G8 or G20 as it currently is within the UK?

A. Because we are currently "represented in the international community" by David Cameron and William Hague.

Q. What is the Scottish Government’s strategy for achieving a separate Scotland’s membership of the Food and Agriculture Organisation?

A. Apply.

Q. What is the Scottish Government’s strategy for achieving a separate Scotland’s membership of the International Atomic Energy Agency?

A. Apply.

Q. What is the Scottish Government’s strategy for achieving a separate Scotland’s membership of the International Civil Aviation Organisation?

A. Apply.

Q. What is the Scottish Government’s strategy for achieving a separate Scotland’s membership of the International Labour Organisation?

A. Apply.

Q. What is the Scottish Government’s strategy for achieving a separate Scotland’s membership of UNESCO?

A. Apply.

Q. What is the Scottish Government’s strategy for achieving a separate Scotland’s membership of the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation?

A. Apply.

Q. What is the Scottish Government’s strategy for achieving a separate Scotland’s membership of the World Food Programme?

A. Apply.

Q. What is the Scottish Government’s strategy for achieving a separate Scotland’s membership of the World Health Organisation?

A. Apply.

Q. What is the Scottish Government’s strategy for achieving a separate Scotland’s membership of the World Meterological Organisation?

A. Apply.

Q. What is the Scottish Government’s strategy for achieving a separate Scotland’s membership of the World Tourism Organisation?

A. Apply.

Q. What is the Scottish Government’s strategy for achieving a separate Scotland’s membership of the Commonwealth?

A. Apply.

Q. What is the Scottish Government’s strategy for achieving a separate Scotland’s membership of the OECD?

A. Apply.

Q. What is the Scottish Government’s strategy for achieving a separate Scotland’s membership of the International Olympic Committee?

A. Apply.

Q. What is the Scottish Government’s strategy for achieving a separate Scotland’s membership of Interpol?

A. Apply.

Q. What is the Scottish Government’s strategy for achieving a separate Scotland’s membership of the International Maritime Organisation?

A. Apply.

Q. What changes would an independent Scotland make to personal taxation bands?

A. The answer to this question depends very much on which party wins the Scottish general election. Rest assured that an independent Scotland will not be a one-party state, and that multi-party elections will be held. As three of the five main parties that will contest those elections are currently part of the No campaign, in many ways you guys are slightly better placed to answer this question than we are. (Unless you're not very optimistic about getting elected. But it can't be that.)

Q. Would an independent Scotland introduce a 10p tax rate?

A. The answer to this question depends very much on which party wins the Scottish general election. I refer you to the earlier reassurance that an independent Scotland will be a multi-party democracy and not a one-party state.

Q. Would a Local Income Tax be introduced in a separate Scotland? If so, when?

A. The answer to this question depends very much on which party wins the Scottish general election. I refer you to the earlier reassurance that an independent Scotland will be a multi-party democracy and not a one-party state.

Q. What would be an independent Scotland’s approach to fiscal policy, and what would be the implications for taxation of business?

A. The answer to this question depends very much on which party wins the Scottish general election. I refer you to the earlier reassurance that an independent Scotland will be a multi-party democracy and not a one-party state.

Q. What will be the tax allowance on business mileage?

A. The answer to this question depends very much on which party wins the Scottish general election. I refer you to the earlier reassurance that an independent Scotland will be a multi-party democracy and not a one-party state.

Q. What will be the rates for Company Car taxation?

A. The answer to this question depends very much on which party wins the Scottish general election. I refer you to the earlier reassurance that an independent Scotland will be a multi-party democracy and not a one-party state.

Q. What will be the exemptions applied for Company Car taxation?

A. The answer to this question depends very much on which party wins the Scottish general election. I refer you to the earlier reassurance that an independent Scotland will be a multi-party democracy and not a one-party state.

Q. What will be the Capital allowances for Ultra Low emission vehicles?

A. The answer to this question depends very much on which party wins the Scottish general election. I refer you to the earlier reassurance that an independent Scotland will be a multi-party democracy and not a one-party state.

Q. What will be the Capital allowances for energy saving machinery and equipment?

A. The answer to this question depends very much on which party wins the Scottish general election. I refer you to the earlier reassurance that an independent Scotland will be a multi-party democracy and not a one-party state.

Q. What will be the Capital allowances for railway assets and ships?

A. The answer to this question depends very much on which party wins the Scottish general election. I refer you to the earlier reassurance that an independent Scotland will be a multi-party democracy and not a one-party state.

Q. What will be the Capital Allowances for mineral extraction?

A. The answer to this question depends very much on which party wins the Scottish general election. I refer you to the earlier reassurance that an independent Scotland will be a multi-party democracy and not a one-party state.

Q. Will Air Passenger Duty continue to be collected in a separate Scotland?

A. The answer to this question depends very much on which party wins the Scottish general election. I refer you to the earlier reassurance that an independent Scotland will be a multi-party democracy and not a one-party state.

Q. What will be the Air Passenger Duty Rate for differing types of flights i.e. long/short haul?

A. The answer to this question depends very much on which party wins the Scottish general election. I refer you to the earlier reassurance that an independent Scotland will be a multi-party democracy and not a one-party state.

Q. Will Highland/Island airports be exempted from Air Passenger Duty?

A. The answer to this question depends very much on which party wins the Scottish general election. I refer you to the earlier reassurance that an independent Scotland will be a multi-party democracy and not a one-party state.

Q. Will there be differential rates of Air Passenger Duty within Scotland?

A. The answer to this question depends very much on which party wins the Scottish general election. I refer you to the earlier reassurance that an independent Scotland will be a multi-party democracy and not a one-party state.

Q. What will be Air Passenger Duty/taxation regime for private planes?

A. The answer to this question depends very much on which party wins the Scottish general election. I refer you to the earlier reassurance that an independent Scotland will be a multi-party democracy and not a one-party state.

Q. Will all income tax levels in a separate Scotland remain the same as other parts of the United Kingdom?

A. The short answer to this question is "you are a moron". The longer answer is that it depends very much on which parties win the various Scottish general elections that will take place between now and infinity, and it also depends very much on which parties win the various UK general elections that will take place between now and infinity. I refer you to the earlier reassurance that an independent Scotland will be a multi-party democracy and not a one-party state, and I would also add at this point that the remainder of the UK is also unlikely to abolish democracy, although you never know I suppose.

Q. What happens if the Scottish Parliament has a different view on the line of succession for the Monarchy?

A. Jupiter explodes and millions die. Alternatively, see my answer to this question the last time it was asked (in almost word-for-word identical fashion) by Gordon Brown. And don't jump to conclusions - I'm sure not all of the 'real Scots' who spontaneously submitted these 507 questions are former Prime Ministers of the UK.

Now, having got through that little lot, I wonder if someone from the No campaign would be prepared to answer a question - just one solitary question - of my own.

If Scotland votes No and remains part of the United Kingdom, what will be the basic rate of income tax that decent, law-abiding, hard-working Scottish families have to pay in the year 2033?

Don't you DARE ask for our votes before giving us the number.

By all means let's be civilised, but let's do it because we're human beings

Let me say straight away that I quite like Susan Calman - I've seen her live a few times, and while she's maybe not rip-roaringly hilarious, she's certainly a 'feel-good' performer, and on the amusing end of the spectrum. I wouldn't previously have said that I've got a lot in common with her, but as a result of the controversy over the last few days I've realised there are a couple of little things. For example, we both feel that we've been the subject of rather nasty personal abuse on the internet as a result of comments we've made about the independence referendum. Because of my expression of support for independence on certain unionist-dominated websites over the years (OK, mainly one website), I've been called a "c**t", a "Nazi", a "w**ker", a "t*at", and a "traitor" to Britain, and told that like all Scottish nationalists I'm not a true Scot, and that I should f**k off back to Ireland or Quebec or wherever it is I really "come from". (That's just the stuff I can remember off-hand.) And like Ms Calman, I've sometimes written blog-posts to let off steam about the abuse.

There the similarities end, though, because in those blog-posts I actually quoted some of the abuse (and of course for doing that I was always accused of "Nat whining"), whereas Ms Calman only referred to being told about something she hadn't actually read, without even the vaguest hint of where it could be found. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has succeeded in tracking it down, which must at least leave open the possibility of a "Chinese whispers" effect being at play in her original claim. Oh, and the other difference is that I didn't have much of the print and broadcast media indignantly weighing in on my behalf.

And now we're solemnly told over and over again that while there may be abusive online warriors on both sides, the "Cybernats" are much, much worse than the "CyberBrits"? Well, with respect to Ms Calman's talent, that's a considerably funnier joke than she or any other comedian is ever likely to come up with. One of the great mysteries of our time is why the only personal abuse that is invisible to the eye of unionist media commentators is the abuse of nationalists by unionists.

As a long-standing victim of precisely the type of abuse that Ms Calman seemingly has merely been told she is a victim of, there's something else I'd like to say. Until this blogpost, I had only previously made one brief comment about the controversy, and that was a tweet in which I asked an ITV reporter if he could point me to evidence to support his claim that Ms Calman had suffered abuse. At the time I wrote that tweet, it would never even have occurred to me that it could be perceived as anything other than entirely innocuous. But from the bizarre reaction of people (who I would otherwise regard as intelligent) to equally legitimate comments made by others, I'm beginning to realise that by merely questioning the evidential basis of Ms Calman's claim, my tweet was probably regarded as a full-blown part of the "barrage of abuse" that she supposedly suffered, and that led to her deleting her Twitter account. The logic seems to be something like this - "If someone says they've been abused then they have been, and if you ask them for evidence you are compounding that abuse and are worse than the original abusers (who may or may not exist). Oh, and if the complainant happens to be a woman, you're also automatically a misogynist."

That attitude is chilling, it's Orwellian, and it's an affront to free speech. But it gets even better. If you still refuse to be cowed, you'll be told something like this -

"Just take a step back and think about whether what you've said is going to make a Yes vote in the referendum more or less likely."

Ah, the nuclear option - if you can't think of a logical reason why someone should be silenced, try to frighten them into submission with "even if you've got a point, don't say it out loud, because you're helping the other side". I can't remember what RevStu's response was when an SNP councillor tried that line on him, but if it had been me I think I would have said that I simply don't see every word I utter through the prism of vote-winning or vote-losing, and if I did I would cease to be human. Given that the Yes campaign is dominated by the left, there's inevitably a strong radical feminist strain within it, and I can think of posts on this blog (opposing the Swedish model on prostitution law, for instance) which some people probably think I should have been "disciplined" enough not to write, just to avoid the million-to-one chance that the sight of a random independence supporter saying such things might cost one or two radical feminist votes at the referendum.

Nope. Sorry. I'm not a robot. If I was employed by the Yes campaign or by the SNP, I might feel obliged to act like a robot for the greater good, but even then I'd probably be unsure whether the tactic was really paying off. The electorate aren't fools, and they can smell a lack of authenticity a mile off.

Mike Small said this the other day -

"You’re going to threaten Susan Calman? Really? Are you? Susan Calman? Then you’re going to defend it or explain it? Really? Count me out of that brigade. What’s the Goldman quote? 'If I can’t dance to it, it’s not my revolution' should be turned to 'If I can’t laugh, it’s not my revolution'...

It’s time for the independence movement to move on and stop the push-button responses to infantile unionist baiting. Let’s have a lightness of spirit and re-set the agenda onto what we can do, what we will do and what we hope for."

The first problem here is that Mike has seemingly fallen into the aforementioned self-supporting cycle of illogicality that results in someone who politely asks for evidence that the abuse took place being reimagined as "an abuser who is defending or explaining the abuse". Not good enough. But as for a "lightness of spirit"? Agreed, there were a few things that were (genuinely and as a matter of record) said about Ms Calman that were petty and vindictive, and would have been far better left unsaid. But the reason they'd have been better left unsaid is that human decency is a good thing, not because we're automatons who must conform at every step with the Blueprint for Victory. Human beings are lighter of spirit than robots.

Darling : "I'm in the wrong campaign!"

This seems to be the top tweet featuring the #indyref hashtag at the moment -

"@TogetherDarling I don't want to & I shouldn't have to choose between being Scottish & British, I'm both!"

Someone explain to him that Scotland is, always has been, and always will be part of an island called Great Britain, and that "British" is not a name reserved for citizens of whatever political state London happens to be capital city of at any given moment. It's the birthright of all of us on this island.

Maybe he thought he was signing up to be leader of the "Better Not Let the SNP Build the World's Biggest Chainsaw" campaign. Easy mistake to make.

Keep it together, darling.

Fancy becoming a contributor to Scot Goes Pop?

In recent months, the visitor numbers to this blog have reached unprecedented levels. Although that's a good thing, in a way it generates its own type of pressure - having sweated blood over the last five years (and it's now exactly five years) to build up a steady readership, there's a need to continue producing new content constantly, otherwise those readers would disappear soon enough and all the hard work would have been for nothing. Writing a solo blog sometimes feels like a self-imposed life sentence, and with the best will in the world it's murderously hard to keep the required pace up when you have a million-and-one other commitments.

A few weeks ago, Tris and Marcia both mentioned the possibility of a fund-raising campaign. Unfortunately, that's not a realistic option - in spite of the increase in traffic, Scot Goes Pop just isn't in the same league as a Wings Over Scotland or a Bella Caledonia, so there's no way on Earth that I'd be able to raise enough to allow me to blog on a full-time basis. And in all honesty I'm not sure that I'd want to do that anyway - I simply don't live and breathe politics in the way that many other bloggers do. I've never been active in the SNP, for example.

A potentially more plausible way of squaring the circle would be for Scot Goes Pop to cease to be a solo blog, and to open its doors to other contributors. I'm not just talking about the odd guest post here and there - I mean giving others full posting rights and allowing them to publish here on their own initiative whenever the spirit moves them. I haven't the faintest idea whether anyone would be interested in doing that, but I thought I'd at least pose the question and see what happens.

So if you were to become a contributor, what would be in it for you, I hear you ask? Well, basically you'd have a platform for your views, and a guaranteed audience - not a massive one, by any means, but a decent-sized one.

If you think you might be interested, feel free to drop me a line at the email address at the top of the sidebar, and we can talk it over. There'd be a few important ground rules, but hopefully nothing that would prove too onerous. Oh, and as this is a pro-independence blog, it would obviously help enormously for you to be in favour of Scottish independence!

* * *

As far as I can see, there's still no sign of the full-scale YouGov poll on referendum voting intentions that we were expecting. However, there is a YouGov poll on whether the UK government should reverse its stubborn refusal to accept the Electoral Commission's recommendation that it should agree a joint position with the Scottish government prior to the referendum, allowing voters to know the exact meaning of a Yes or No vote. 67% of voters think the UK government should enter into such an agreement, and only 21% do not.

So let's recap...

1) David Cameron used to think that all Electoral Commission recommendations should be accepted without question - until the Electoral Commission made a recommendation he didn't like.

2) David Cameron thinks that the EU should enter into negotiations with him before his own in/out referendum, but doesn't see why exactly the same principle should apply in Scotland.

3) The electorate think that David Cameron should accept the Electoral Commission's recommendation, and enter into pre-referendum negotiations with the Scottish government.

The Prime Minister is fast running out of legs to stand on.