Scottish voting intentions for the May 2015 UK general election :
SNP 47% (+4)
Labour 27% (n/c)
Conservatives 16% (+1)
Greens 3% (-1)
UKIP 3% (-3)
Liberal Democrats 3% (-1)
There have of course been two post-referendum polls from other firms that were even better than this for the SNP (Ipsos-Mori gave them a 29-point lead and Survation gave them a 22-point lead). But to see a gap of as high as 20 points from YouGov is still a bit startling, because that firm's previous estimate of a 16-point lead was more in line with the average results of their daily subsamples. In fact, the SNP's subsample lead both today and yesterday was exactly 16 points. And perhaps more significantly, the party's raw share of the vote in the subsamples has more often than not been quite a bit lower than 47%. So this poll raises the serious possibility that the daily GB-wide YouGov polls have been understating the SNP's strength, in spite of the party performing outstandingly well in them. To be fair, there's always been a straightforward reason for supposing that might have been going on - in GB-wide polls YouGov use Westminster-oriented weighting by party ID.
The other point that leaps out is just how dreadfully badly the smaller parties are doing. I had assumed that the Liberal Democrats' 4% share in the last YouGov poll was a freakish result, but the chances of them being significantly underestimated by random margin-of-error effects in two consecutive polls is obviously pretty low. The jury is still out on UKIP, though, because they fared a bit better in the last poll.
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 48%
No 45%
It's impossible to know the exact significance of this result until we see the datasets, or find out whether there have been any methodological changes. The last YouGov poll (which was the only other post-referendum poll from the firm to ask the independence question) produced almost identical results to this, putting Yes on 49% and No on 45%. However, it was immediately criticised by John Curtice and one or two others for not weighting by recalled referendum vote, which would have had the effect of keeping No in the lead, albeit only very narrowly. I was slightly cynical about that intervention, because I don't recall Curtice making similar unofficial adjustments to the many pre-referendum polls that failed to weight by country of birth, and which therefore underestimated the Yes vote. However, it's possible that YouGov will have heeded his complaint, in which case tonight's result is even better for Yes, because it suggests there has probably been a further swing in real terms since the last poll.
If they haven't made any methodological change (which is also perfectly possible - they may want to keep the trend figures meaningful) then it means there hasn't been a further swing, but also that the headline numbers remain directly comparable with pre-referendum YouGov polls, which in all but one (legendary) case had No ahead. So either way there is no real doubt that a significant number of voters have been converted to independence since September 18th.
[UPDATE : A point that's just occurred to me is that it would actually be wrong for YouGov to weight by recalled referendum vote, because they're only using over-18s for their current polls, and nobody has a clue what the referendum result was if 16 and 17 years olds are excluded.]
Views on the Smith Commission and its proposals for further devolution :
It doesn't devolve enough powers : 51%
It gets the balance right : 23%
It goes too far : 14%
And there, in a nutshell, is the explanation for why the SNP have either maintained their advantage over Labour or increased it somewhat - it appears that they've comprehensively won the battle of perceptions over Smith. It's all very well for Michael Portillo to sit on a BBC sofa in London, smirking at Alex Salmond like an overgrown schoolboy while tittering : "The Vow has been delivered! You know that! You're just playing games!" But unfortunately for the London establishment and the Daily Record (is there a difference between the two?), it turns out that Scottish voters are not half as stupid as Portillo takes them for. They know what they heard Gordon Brown promise - and they also know that what the Smith Commission has come up with is quite simply not "Home Rule". Nor is it "near federalism". Nor is it the "Devo SUPER Max" promised by Better Together's official representative at the TV debate in the Hydro.
Assuming that YouGov only offered respondents the three options listed above, roughly 58% of people who gave a view said that the Smith proposals are inadequate. It's also fascinating to see how few people thought the proposals go too far, because that must encompass the evidently dwindling group who are opposed to devolution/self-government altogether.
Greens 3% (-1)
UKIP 3% (-3)
Liberal Democrats 3% (-1)
There have of course been two post-referendum polls from other firms that were even better than this for the SNP (Ipsos-Mori gave them a 29-point lead and Survation gave them a 22-point lead). But to see a gap of as high as 20 points from YouGov is still a bit startling, because that firm's previous estimate of a 16-point lead was more in line with the average results of their daily subsamples. In fact, the SNP's subsample lead both today and yesterday was exactly 16 points. And perhaps more significantly, the party's raw share of the vote in the subsamples has more often than not been quite a bit lower than 47%. So this poll raises the serious possibility that the daily GB-wide YouGov polls have been understating the SNP's strength, in spite of the party performing outstandingly well in them. To be fair, there's always been a straightforward reason for supposing that might have been going on - in GB-wide polls YouGov use Westminster-oriented weighting by party ID.
The other point that leaps out is just how dreadfully badly the smaller parties are doing. I had assumed that the Liberal Democrats' 4% share in the last YouGov poll was a freakish result, but the chances of them being significantly underestimated by random margin-of-error effects in two consecutive polls is obviously pretty low. The jury is still out on UKIP, though, because they fared a bit better in the last poll.
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 48%
No 45%
It's impossible to know the exact significance of this result until we see the datasets, or find out whether there have been any methodological changes. The last YouGov poll (which was the only other post-referendum poll from the firm to ask the independence question) produced almost identical results to this, putting Yes on 49% and No on 45%. However, it was immediately criticised by John Curtice and one or two others for not weighting by recalled referendum vote, which would have had the effect of keeping No in the lead, albeit only very narrowly. I was slightly cynical about that intervention, because I don't recall Curtice making similar unofficial adjustments to the many pre-referendum polls that failed to weight by country of birth, and which therefore underestimated the Yes vote. However, it's possible that YouGov will have heeded his complaint, in which case tonight's result is even better for Yes, because it suggests there has probably been a further swing in real terms since the last poll.
If they haven't made any methodological change (which is also perfectly possible - they may want to keep the trend figures meaningful) then it means there hasn't been a further swing, but also that the headline numbers remain directly comparable with pre-referendum YouGov polls, which in all but one (legendary) case had No ahead. So either way there is no real doubt that a significant number of voters have been converted to independence since September 18th.
[UPDATE : A point that's just occurred to me is that it would actually be wrong for YouGov to weight by recalled referendum vote, because they're only using over-18s for their current polls, and nobody has a clue what the referendum result was if 16 and 17 years olds are excluded.]
Views on the Smith Commission and its proposals for further devolution :
It doesn't devolve enough powers : 51%
It gets the balance right : 23%
It goes too far : 14%
And there, in a nutshell, is the explanation for why the SNP have either maintained their advantage over Labour or increased it somewhat - it appears that they've comprehensively won the battle of perceptions over Smith. It's all very well for Michael Portillo to sit on a BBC sofa in London, smirking at Alex Salmond like an overgrown schoolboy while tittering : "The Vow has been delivered! You know that! You're just playing games!" But unfortunately for the London establishment and the Daily Record (is there a difference between the two?), it turns out that Scottish voters are not half as stupid as Portillo takes them for. They know what they heard Gordon Brown promise - and they also know that what the Smith Commission has come up with is quite simply not "Home Rule". Nor is it "near federalism". Nor is it the "Devo SUPER Max" promised by Better Together's official representative at the TV debate in the Hydro.
Assuming that YouGov only offered respondents the three options listed above, roughly 58% of people who gave a view said that the Smith proposals are inadequate. It's also fascinating to see how few people thought the proposals go too far, because that must encompass the evidently dwindling group who are opposed to devolution/self-government altogether.
I've been slightly bemused over the last few days and weeks by the number of London commentators who appear to think that Scottish Labour's problems are being caused by a "leadership vacuum" and that some sort of "honeymoon period" for Jackanory Jim is about to provide a quick fix. In reality, the Scottish media have been shamelessly treating Murphy as the unofficial leader for weeks now, so that's already factored into the polling results. To be fair, that doesn't necessarily mean that what's going on is Murphy's fault. The electorate know that Miliband is the real leader, and above all else it's him that they don't like, rate, trust, or respect.
* * *
SCOT GOES POP POLL OF POLLS
Tonight's Poll of Polls update is based on the full-scale YouGov poll, plus Scottish subsamples from five GB-wide polls - four from YouGov, and one from Populus. That means fourteen-fifteenths of the sample comes from YouGov, which is plainly less than ideal!
Scottish voting intentions for the May 2015 UK general election :
SNP 45.0% (+2.4)
Labour 26.5% (-0.4)
Conservatives 16.7% (+0.6)
Liberal Democrats 4.5% (-1.8)
UKIP 3.5% (-1.1)
Greens 2.9% (+0.5)
(The Poll of Polls uses the Scottish subsamples from all GB-wide polls that have been conducted entirely within the last seven days and for which datasets have been provided, and also all full-scale Scottish polls that have been conducted at least partly within the last seven days. Full-scale polls are given ten times the weighting of subsamples.)
Hell's teeth. Can we have another referendum NOW?
ReplyDeleteI fear too many people didn't believe us when we warned them that Westminster parties lie to keep themselves where they want to be. Of course we remember, at least in some way, what happened in 1979.
ReplyDeleteThis time it won't take 35 years for another referendum, and their perfidiousness won't have been forgotten.
This time we shall win.
L'avenir est à nous.
It's a bit dodgy that I'll still be here in 35 years, so let's not wait that long.
DeleteWhy 35 anyway? What's the significance of that, rather than 1997?
In terms of seats, Scotland Decides puts that at
ReplyDeleteSNP 52
Labour 6
LibDem 1
Con 0
Electoral Calculus makes it
SNP 48
Labour 11
LibDem 0
Con 0
This can't last till May, but it's fun for now anyway.
And to think, if they had gone ahead with the boundary changes, there would only have been 50 Scottish seats. Even that has done the SNP a favour, giving more seats to win, to screw over Westminster.
Hi Rolfe, where can I find the Scotland Decides calculator?
DeletePhil, I think this must be the one Rolfe means as it delivers the same results outlined...
Deletehttp://www.scotlandvotes.com/
Thanks Johnny
DeleteSorry, it was late!
DeleteJim Murphy saying 1 vote win is enough leadership
ReplyDeletemight be closer than a fix
It's totally ridiculous - it's obvious they already know the result. This reminds me of the rigged Welsh Labour leadership election in 1999, when Alun Michael and Ron Davies knew the result well in advance, but Rhodri Morgan didn't find out he'd been narrowly beaten until just before the official announcement.
DeleteJim Murphy was at an Ipsos Mori event a few days ago.
DeleteDuring the event, a Mori employee tweeted the folllowing:
@jimmurphymp says he's about to start his new career on Saturday "enough of this Westminster stuff" #KingsIpsosMORI
Pretty obvious that someone has been counting the ballots as they go and letting Jimbo know the score.
It will be interesting to see how the unions and those of their members who did not vote for Murphy react.
DeleteAnybody left seriously advocating a YES alliance by the way? The SNP did the right thing dismissing it but welcoming new members to stand.
ReplyDeleteI'll be the only person reading this blog who disagrees with you I expect!
DeleteIf it is party advantage you are after then yes, maybe the SNP did the right thing; but if you want to continue a movement that seeks not only independence but to use independence to make the changes needed then surely being willing to engage in an electoral alliance for Westminster would have demonstrated that we are all putting people above party, and so would have meant, not only that the number of seats gained would be extraordinary, but also that we would have a clear 'settled will' alliance for the push ahead. Not 2016, where we need as much pro-independence diversity as possible, but for the push for independence.
However, I do agree with you in the sense that Westminster is not where anyone looking to shape the future of Scotland wants to be, so a Yes alliance that meant we lost people like Lesley Riddoch, Pat Kane, Elaine C Smith, Peter McColl, etc to Westminster would have been a terrible waste. We need them here. Whereas someone like Craig Murray, focused on human rights and the international atrocities the UK has been involved in, will be perfectly placed at Westminster (and indeed it might be good to have someone like Peter McColl there for the same reason).
Is anyone else struck by the irony that if the SNP do enable Labour to be more left wing (and therefore more in tune with the majority of voters for ALL parties across the UK) this might make the UK more tolerable and therefore independence less likely?
Or would it mean that folk were encouraged to take power back from those who have been benefiting from others misery, both in Scotland (through independence) and elsewhere (through a shift in Labour, and a shift in the voting system allowing an increasing number of seats to accompany an upsurge in support for parties like the Greens)?
You are not the only person Justin. Anon, surely you have enough experience to know that the drive for Scottish Independence has been a long long one? So why are you insisting on the 'obvious' correctness of such an important strategic decision before it's effects can possibly be known yet. Two months of opinion polls are not enough.
DeleteI want to believe the decision is the correct one (there is now no choice) but surely the only way we will know is by it's delivery of a second referendum and (as Justin explains) the effect this decision has on the chances of reforming the wider (non Party Political) YES in order to win that referendum.
The time to crow about getting to make a strategic decision on everyones behalf, is not at the time of making the decision, but once that decision has ultimately been shown to have been correct. In this case once we are Independent, not after a short series of very (very) encouraging SNP polls.
If we had been successful in pushing through the strategy of a YES Alliance, as a supporter of that strategy (on balance), I would still be worried it was indeed the best way forward. The stakes are so high and the decision potentially so long reaching. I envy you your utter confidence. I doubt there are few with responsibility, at the heart of this decision making process who share your complete assuredness. But I suppose that's the price of Leadership.
braco
The vast numbers who'd seldom if ever voted SNP but who voted for Yes -- a five-year-old (or even a Jim Murphy) knows a YES platform of some kind would more likely attract their vote.
DeleteThe growing adoption within the movement of the term "YESnp" may achieve the same aim, and without seeking the permission or approval of anybody at SNP HQ, or indeed the sneerers among this site's party old guard.
These are wonderful figures but as braco notes, who's to say they couldn't be higher yet? In similar recent polls we're still only attracting half the Labour Yessers, a third of the missing half million Yessers, and zero No voters to the SNP.
There is much more to the Yes Alliance ethos than mere party pacts.
(And to save everybody's embarrasment, please nobody claim that voters wouldn't understand a joint SNP/YES platform).
I can only note (Braco and Sean) that two weeks ago you were campaigning rather more vociferously for this YES alliance. I don't suggest a loose alliance is a bad thing, but for the General Election it was always a stupid idea, and as predicted the SNP agreed.
DeleteBoab, there's more to campaigning than leaving the odd 'vociferous' post on a Scot goes POP! thread.
DeleteYou seem another one blessed with knowledge of the future. When can we expect Independence now then? Love the dismissal of a well thought out and argued strategy as 'stupid' though. Very conciliatory, especially from someone who appears to have got their wish.
braco
braco
How was this Yes Alliance supposed to work in the context of a FPTP Westminster election? There was and is not a single seat where any other Yes party has a better chance of winning than the SNP. Indeed there was and is not a single seat where any other Yes party has a hope in hell of winning. What was the SNP supposed to do?
DeleteBack off contesting a handful of seats to let no-hope Green or SSP candidates have a run at them? Then watch them lose? You can't dictate to voters like that, expecting them to transfer their vote like automatons just because you say so. Some would, but many more would either not vote or revert to their previous party of alliegiance.
Approach the other parties and ask them not to stand anywhere? They've no right to ask that of parties also experiencing their own surge in membership numbers. These people want to campaign for their own party. And again you come up against the problem that you can't just tell voters to transfer their vote where you want them to.
Run some candidates under joint SNP/other banners? It's hard to see how a candidate running like that is going to do better than an SNP candidate, irrespective of whether the person was an SNP or (say) Green member themselves. At best, that strategy might help in only a couple of seats, and it could just as easily backfire.
Ditch the party names altogether, and merge? The SNP's high poll ratings are based on the SNP party name, brand and track record. Ditch that, and you could just as easily see support melt away.
Obviously not all of these options are complete non-starters, but it's hard to see any of them offering huge potential for an improved performance over a straight SNP candidate. In particular, I'd expect the SNP to lose the votes of the people who don't particularly want independence, and these are probably crucial in holding some existing seats.
I'm probably not the right person to say this, being a long-time SNP member, but I'll say it anyway. When I joined the SNP in 1992 (post the failure of "Free by 93" so I kind of know where people are coming from), I did it because the party was the only independence movement we had. That ceased being the case in 2012, with the formation of Yes Scotland, and nobody had to join the SNP to work for independence.
Now, in some senses we're back in 1992. Westminster politics and Westminster tactics. Nobody has to join the SNP if they don't like their policies. But if independence is your main priority, for God's sake hold your nose and bloody well vote for them. We're not going to advance at all unless the SNP does extremely well next year, and if it doesn't we may well lose all the momentum we've somehow managed to keep after the referendum.
Fine words and lofty plans are one thing, hard realities and practical tactics are something else. And the hard realities and practical tactics say vote SNP in 2015 if you want independence, and put your other policy preferences on the back burner until the necessary advance has been made.
'Now, in some senses we're back in 1992. Westminster politics and Westminster tactics.'
DeleteRolfe, yes but this time as a result of the preference of the political parties previously members of the unified YES campaign. You were present at the last 'vociferous' outing of this topic on the previous thread that Boab referred to, so If you cant understand what was being proposed after a hundred odd posts explaining it, then I don't see the value in re running it all again. It's not rocket science. A unified YES Alliance campaign against a 3 or 4 way split unionist campaign.
Pretty simple really, then nobody that supports Independence would have to 'hold their nose' or be forced to vote tactically would they? The referendum was the first non tactical vote I have ever had the chance to participate in. It was a democratic pleasure.
I think one of the reasons we lost was the fact that the Scots electorate is so engrained with the undemocratic need to vote tactically in order to mitigate against the result of life within the UK election system, that they lost sight of that simple truth.
That was the power of the last minute vow. It allowed many off the pure, direct democratic hook they were finding uncomfortable (what you vote for you get) and allowed them to fall back into the tactical voting mindset we have been forced to become so used to. 'Lets vote NO to get more powers', instead of simply voting yes for more powers.
Again this is another reason we might well see a massive SNP win in May (just like 2011). The Scots ability to act incredibly tactically against what they don't want as opposed to acting decisively for what they do want.
Nobody putting forward the concept of a YES alliance is a political dreamer or a naive idealist or even some sort of splitter of the cause. We are YES (hardcore). We will all vote the way we think is the best way to advance Independence. We have not somehow suddenly lost our tactical voting intelligence and hard nosed experience of the realities of Scottish 'democracy' in the UK. It's just that I for one regret and resent being forced back into that particular box unnecessarily, and by the very parties I thought understood the democratic deficit, the damage it has done (and still does to the Scots electorate's understanding of 'democracy'.
My original post got lost so apologies if this has drifted O/T Rolfe.
braco
Rolfe, as I explained last time, there's nothing "hold your nose" abour the SNP for me. I'm a party member. The primary electoral beneficiaries of the Yes Alliance were always meant to be the SNP.
DeleteSince our last debate it's become clear the SNP will indeed allow candidates to run under a joint platform, and this is a move in the right direction. The strongest possible ticket next May outside the northeast is SNP/WFI. Any female candidate outside the northeast who has the option of running on that ticket and doesn't is being daft IMO.
And once again the main reason is because of increased appeal for Labour Yessers, who at present we're only attracting half of, and also the missing half million Yessers, who we're only attracting a third of.
I simply disagree that such joint tickets might only gain us a couple of extra seats. Every extra pecentage point could gain us several.
It's unpleasant for party old timers to remember that politicians are generally despised, and especially difficult when your party is flying high in the polls. Nevertheless it's the truth. Just because WE like Nicola and Alec doesn't mean the Scottish people do.
The SNP currently has an opportunity open to nobody else in UK politics: to become (seen as) a movement and not that dreary old twentieth century entity called a political party. And to be fair to the leadership they do in fact seem to realise such possibilities, as shown by the joint ticket move. Everything I'm hearing about off the records comments suggests they GET IT.
So who cares if Boab and co. are still scratching their heads?
Scratching my head? lol
DeleteI told you YES Alliance wouldn't happen - it didn't. This loose arrangement which is what you're now talking up is exactly what I suggested.
So please, spare me your condescending pish, and catch up eh?
And you've been told numerous times the Yes Alliance meant much more than party cooperation, yet you still appear to be the only person here who fails to understand this. Boab scratching his head, Boab frowning in confusion, Boab's jaw going slack...
DeleteHere are the Ladbrokes prices in Ross, Skye and Lochaber:
ReplyDeleteLiberal Democrats (Charlie Kennedy) 2/9
SNP 3/1
Labour 33/1
UKIP 100/1
Conservatives 100/1
Result in 2010:
Liberal Democrats (Charlie Kennedy) 18,335
Labour 5,265
SNP 5,263
Conservatives 4,260
Green 777
UKIP 659
Independent 279
Are the SNP value at 3/1 ? Would seem to be the case based on this poll, but obviously this contest will be very local, as they always are in the highlands.
As a voter in Charlie's patch I reckon the result depends on the SNP candidate. The personal vote is still there. I was amazed at the referendum to see No voters only showing up in the last week. They never said a word until then and many gave the impression that they had no interest one way or another. Suddenly after a visit from Charlie they turned into rabid No's.
DeleteAlthough Kennedy had an enormous majority at the last election his personal deficiencies (ahem) and the crass behaviour of his Party at Westminster must surely have registered with the Highland voters by now.
ReplyDeleteThe 2015 GE will be squeaky bum time for Kennedy in my opinion.
"It goes too far : 14%". This pretty well accurately confirms the Ashcroft poll immediately after the Ref, but in a very strong fashion as far as the breakdown of the 55% NO vote is concerned. I.e. the 27% who just wanted to stay in the UK = 15% of all those who voted. From history there would be roughly half who'd like to abolish Holyrood, which means that the number who wanted just the Status Quo is down to about 8%. That's a huge drop from before the referendum. Roughly 66% wanted more powers or Independence, leaving 34% against - that's now down to 16% eliminating DKs. I'd say that's as strong a result towards Independence in the future, as the 45% YES vote.
ReplyDeleteWhat it means also is that if some of us dared to presume that the 48% in Ashcroft who had concerns about currency, EU etc. were at least "more powers" voters we'd have been right, and if we dared further to think they were potential YES voters, we'd also on the face of it, be correct.
As for the 23% grossed up to 26% who think Smith is about right, that's the battleground for the next Indyref, and even for the General Election 7/5/15. There's been several independent experts saying that Smith is incoherent and unsustainable, what's needed is to hammer this point down to move some of that 26% to the 58% who don't think Smith goes far enough.
This poll is very recent, James - I took part in it on in Wednesday.
ReplyDeleteJohn Bell
Massively encouraging.
ReplyDeleteIs that now about 2 months the SNP have had a large lead. It's near the year's turn now and we are battering along nicely.
The referendum numbers are also very pleasant reading. My pal was saying he wants to see us at 60% Yes in the polls before we have another one, and well this is how we'll get there. We won't be having a referendum tomorrow, but who's to say in the next few years - and by then we'll have seen more and more austerity, much of the nothingness from northBritish Labour and Murphy.
Only concern is the SNP getting squeezed in the spring due to the UK tv bias of the debates and no doubt we'll hear til May 7th "Vote SNP get Tory/Labour'' from either side.
To think, we lost the referendum. Sept 19th was a gutting experience, but if you were to tell me that on the 18th I would be closing the year more optimistic about independence than even during the summer, the SNP would be flying high in the polls, I would be a member of that party and my enthuiasism for Scotland has not diminished, but increased. I would have said you had better odds for the Lotto. I honestly thought a No vote would have certainly put me back in my box and would be done with this concept of 'Scotland' as a liftime of following the football team has shown, that they only build you up and put you back in your box, and the 18th of Sept was the ultimate letdown, but not at all, I feel refreshed, energised and inspired by the masses of Yes voters who are not going away.
Tis the season indeed!
What a lift the figures give us.
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for the work. Popping off to google + this and annoy all my mates. :)
Meanwhile all the racists at PB are orgasmic over the election of a racist, genocide supporting, nuclear war lover as labour in Scotland leader.
ReplyDeleteAnd apparently oil is worth £30,000,000,000pa to Scotland. But removing that from the rUK economy wouldn't cause any damage at all?
It's intriguing that YouGov have not yet posted the tables for this poll. I wonder if there is something else of interest in the poll that will be published tomorrow / late tonight.
ReplyDeleteI took part in the poll and they asked a lot more questions than have been published so far. I'm assuming they'll drip feed it
DeleteHere they are;
Deletehttps://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/19n7gw3lt9/Sun_Results_Scotland_December_2014.pdf
They actually did it! They went for a right-wing uber-Blairite London branch office manager.
ReplyDeleteLOL
Yes! Don't these idiots realise Findlay would have at least sounded half-convincing espousing the kind of left-leaning policies scotland regularly votes for? Only westminster bubble twits somehow don't understand that we in the SNP very much want to be up against a right-wing warmonger with a truly massive amount of Blairite baggage. Good luck trying to persuade anyone that Murphy isn't little Ed's placeman and that SLAB aren't still the London branch office of Labour with a westminster MP as leader.
Murphy is also going to plunge what's left of SLAB into yet more infighting soon enough. Some of use remember he was neck deep in Falkirk and that he isn't even an MSP, as do some of the less stupid members of SLAB. (that particular MP/MSP procedural omnishambles going to be vastly entertaining)
Besides, look at that poll. That when the media had all but coronated Murphy anyway and he was wall to wall on scottish TV. Doesn't exactly seem to be helping them too much, does he?
Bring it on.
Getting close to 100,000 members against a Blairite terrified of eggs.
So a very merry Eggmas to one and all. :-D
"a right-wing warmonger with a truly massive amount of Blairite baggage"
DeleteTV debates between Sturgeon and Murphy will be fun.
I was slightly concerned that Findlay might win, which would definitely have been the best outcome for SLab. Had I been a Labour strategist this is the outcome that I'd have been aiming for. A Findlay win would have been two fingers to Westminster from the Scottish branch and might have restored some credibility. Glad to see they went for the self-destruct button instead. :)
DeleteAny idea why the likes of The Sun and The Times are claiming on Twitter that 'a shock new poll finds Scots would now vote for independence' when, as we know, there has already been at least one poll saying this since Sep 18? Is this some attempt to make it seem like it's only now that people have been saying that so that Murphy can later be credited if the next one shows less support/more for No? Are they trying to make out it was only because there was a 'Labour leadership vacuum' in other words?
ReplyDelete"Are they trying to make out it was only because there was a 'Labour leadership vacuum' in other words?"
DeletePretty silly if they are. For those who don't get how these things work, you get a blaze of publicity when you have a leadership election. It's why many parties have a leadership election shortly before an actual election to capitalise on a 'honeymoon period'. That bump isn't always guaranteed to be significant of course, nor is the honeymoon period very long when there is one, but the media interest/coverage is very real particularly for those opposition parties who generally struggle to get heard at other times. Murphy and SLAB have been wall to wall on scottish TV for months so claiming the vacuum was a hinderance doesn't really stack up unless they believe the only reason for SLAB's polling collapse was Lamont resigning. (it ain't and we all know it. That was a symptom not a cause) Also, if you think all that matters is the leader then Murphy will be in real trouble because Nicola certainly doesn't fear him. (As Scottish_Skier rightly points out) Her popularity is obvious and I shall be most amused to see if the Eggman can fill a good sized hall these days never mind a stadium. It's only the westminster bubble twits who still don't get that Murphy's 'tour' was a comical figure of fun even before the Eggpocalypse.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-sure-thing/
ComRes sub-sample (fieldwork from Wed - Friday) has SNP 43, Lab 23 and Tory 17 (page 22).
ReplyDeletehttp://comres.co.uk/polls/IoS_SM_Political_Poll_December_2014.pdf
Look, just stop nicking our bloody voters!
ReplyDeleteWe all hate the Tories and want rid of them, and you lot are not bloody helping!
Stop it!
Thanks x
Hugh
PS Sorry about that whole fucking up the independence vote thing, on reflection we really, really, really, REALLY shouldn't have got into bed with the Tories on that. Hey ho...
The Labour supporters who come out with this type of guff are still unable to explain how trading Labour MPs for SNP ones will make ANY difference to the number of Tory MPs that get elected. Keep asking them, folks, it's entertaining watching them try :)
DeleteIt won't, of course.
DeleteBut Scottish seats might make the difference between a Labour Government or a Tory Government for our country. By which I mean the UK, for better or worse.
Anyway I only came here to say hello kinda, not for a scrap, glad the blog's still going well James, and you guys remind me of Obi Wan Kanobi: "strike me down and I'll become more powerful than you could ever imagine"
All the best.
Hugh
How? Exactly please.
DeleteIf Labour can get a majority with their Scottish MPs, how would they not be able to get a majority with SNP MPs propping them up? Because the tories would not be able to form a majority in that scenario under any circumstances.
"Meanwhile all the racists at PB are orgasmic over the election of a racist, genocide supporting, nuclear war lover as labour in Scotland leader."
ReplyDeleteThere are no Labour or left of centre posters on PB, they've all been banned or chased off by the unpleasant and notorious Rightwing Tory campaigner TSE.
But yes, those on the left of the Tory Party are welcoming Murphy, which speaks volumes for the Blairite dick.
Still, he's a decent campaigner and COULD claw back enough votes for us to secure enough seats for a UK majority.
Just a crying shame, the SNP is now the Party that Labour (UK wide) could and should be.
Hugh
Blah, blah, blah.
ReplyDeleteBack in the real world; 12 months ago the SNP's then leader said that oil would be $150 per barrel. Now it is under $70.
The same leader was desperate for Scotland to join the Euro, stating that the £ was a 'milestone' around Scotland's neck. Ten years later they were saying that it was a outrage that the Westminster government would not enter into a £ union!
And the SNP government actively supported the RBS' disastrous expansion under Fred Goodwin. They were not attacking the bankers then.
Is nobody in the SNP embarrassed that they have consistently got so many big calls wrong?
Aye, no oil revenue is much better for Scotland than less oil revenue, isn't it. As for the Euro, come back in a year's time when sterling has collapsed and tell us how rubbish the Euro is. And as for Fred Goodwin, erm, yes, a few encouraging words from the sideline is far worse than being mired in it up to their necks like Darling and the Labour party were, eh?
DeleteChrist.
Yes, oil at 62 dollars a barrel and still falling, whisky exports down 11% due to falling demand in Asia and far east. Japan's Suntory now makes better quality single malts than Scotland, which no longers has a place in the top 5 worldwide brands, pelagic fish exports are down 20% due to sanctions against Russia, one of the two wave energy companies has just become bankrupt,while the other has part d off most of its staff as it no longer considers wave feasible (their words). So out away your saltire, wipe of the blue face paint, put the Braveheart dvd back in the box and thank 2mullion people for saving Scotland from Salmond's naked desire to emulate Robert the Bruce while flushing Scotland down the toilet
DeleteBlah, blah, blah. Osbourne's deficit grows bigger by the day.
DeleteBlah, blah? Just proves one thing snp voters have in common with ostriches - they both bury their heads in the sand.
DeleteAnon NO voter, Oil at $62 a barrel so the UK ups production to make good the short fall, as they have always done. Market temporarily drops, UK sells it's physical resources at the bottom of it for short term need.
DeleteGordon saved the world doing exactly that with 'our' gold reserves and 'our' pension 'windfall' funds. Norway started with approx. three quarters of the oil reserves that Scotland had back in the seventies, now we have approx. three quarters of the oil reserves left that Norway does. They have more oil than us and that famous 'worlds largest sovereign wealth fund'. We have less oil left and one of the biggest debt mountains in the world plus a growing deficit. All this from a sector of our economy that only makes up approx 17 % in terms of our entire economy, as compared to approx the 30% which oil makes up of the Norwegian economy. (That would mean half the impact on our economy from oil price fluctuation that the Norwegian economy currently 'suffers'!)
This subject, as well as every other economic subject that the NO Campaign raises, when actual historic fact is analysed (as opposed to media driven and multiplied hype from 'political think tank' 50 year 'predictions') we see total and utter mismanagement and truly awful governance of everything Scottish.
No amount of petty, self loathing triumphalism, at a temporary downturn in your own Countries asset base will cover those facts up. 'I am a proud Scot but I can't help but punch the air and wet my union flag pants when Scotland appears to be financially disadvantaged and weakened! No really, I love Scotland but it's just politics (wink).Why is no one voting Labour any more?'
Arse.
braco
Now that's an intelligent response.
ReplyDeleteSo Scotland solves the problem by upping production. Typical snp dimwit finance thinking. The reason for the price drop is a fall in demand! So where would you sell the increased production?
ReplyDeleteYou obviously follow the Salmond fantasy economics, just like his based on 113 dollars a barrel.
Like I said, thank god for the 2 million. Are you able to post without resorting to foul language? Seems to be a characteristic of yes voters, sad really.
Try reading the post again.
DeleteIt was not a recommendation to a future independent Scottish government, it was criticism of current and past UK government policy when confronted with these circumstances.
It is their solution. Wrong, wasteful short sighted and, as you point out, dimwitted (but historically undeniable). Hence the size reversal of oil reserves left in the Scottish sector in relation to those left in the Norwegian sector. (Not to mention Statoil and the historically shortsighted but ideologically driven lack of a UK equivalent)
I am not a member of the SNP. As for the foul language, I say as I see. Read my posts, on Scot goes Pop! I rarely feel the need, so well done you.
braco
When I started working in the industry in 2000, oil was ~$20 a barrel. At this point, Westminster desperately didn't want an independent Scotland, having been totally against that going in the 1997 referendum as an option. Price then climbed to nearly $140 a barrel by 2007. Then it collapsed suddenly to $40 a barrel. Strangely, Westminster still desperately didn't want an independent Scotland at this point; the huge financial burden it had suddenly become surely? Then, as is standard after a rapid fall, the price shot up within a year again to $70 a barrel. Then, after a while, it climbed to $110 a barrel. Then, it suddenly dropped to $60 barrel where we are now (and we can be fairly sure, given we around peak oil, it's going to shoot up again soon enough once the temporary glut is reduced!). Strangely once more, Westminster still doesn't want rid of the non-Tory voting Scotland which is such a financial millstone around its neck. It won't even consider devolving oil and gas either for some very inexplicable reason...
DeleteMaybe its because Scotland's GVA per capita without any oil revenues is great than the UK's with oil revenues?
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_GVA_per_capita">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_GVA_per_capita
Yes, that makes sense.
Now, if we lived in a well governed country, George wouldn't be in a panic about the loss of revenues and corporation tax (oil and gas production and services is up to 25% of UK corp tax) as he could dip into his stabilisation / wealth fund.
But then we live in a bankrupt UK governed by fools so that won't be happening.
There will be some job loses in the meantime (although the sensible, strong players will retain while they await the price going back up so they can be ahead when it does), George / the UK will take a big hit, and production will reduce.
ReplyDeleteIn a few years time the price will be rocketing again due to a lack of production global (caused by cut backs and instability in those countries heavily dependent on oil, unlike Scotland), there will be lots more left in Scottish waters than there would be if prices remained high meantime, the industry will start to boom once more, and it will all be timed perfectly for the next referendum.
Every cloud has a sliver lining.
As noted, I've lived and worked with $20 a barrel and the most spectacular crash from $140 to $40. I'm not even an old timer.
Only a complete imbecile would decide the future of a country based on oil price at a given instant.