Wednesday, May 27, 2015

YouGov poll hints at further movement to the SNP since the general election

I've just been belatedly catching up with the datasets for the YouGov poll that was published in the Sunday Post.  I was hoping to be able to tell you the unrounded figures on the independence question, but unfortunately we're back to our old problem of YouGov secrecy - there isn't enough information to make the calculation.  By a process of deduction, the Yes vote must be somewhere between 46.8% and 47.5%, and the No vote must be between 52.5% and 53.2%, but it's not possible to narrow it down any more than that.

The datasets are more useful on the question of what impact a pledge for a second referendum would have on the SNP's vote at next year's Holyrood election.  Although the headline figures showed that 11% of respondents would be more likely to vote SNP and 15% would be less likely to do so, that wasn't quite as illuminating as you might think - if it was SNP voters saying they're more likely to vote SNP, for example, that might just be people saying that they're more likely to do what they're planning to do anyway.  What really matters is how many of the SNP's voters would be alienated by a referendum pledge, and indeed how many voters from other parties would be won over.  The findings on that point are fascinating.

7% of people who voted SNP three weeks ago say that they would be less likely to vote for the party next year if another referendum is promised, and an additional 1% say they would not vote SNP anyway.  But 2% of both Labour and Liberal Democrat voters say that a referendum pledge would make them more likely to switch to the SNP - and even more extraordinarily, 2% of Tory voters, 4% of Labour voters, and 6% of Liberal Democrat voters say they will vote for the SNP next year anyway.  We haven't had a full-scale Scottish poll since May 7th, but this may be the first indication that the SNP are enjoying a honeymoon effect, and that their support has crept up further from 50%.

If we "just for a bit of fun" adjust this month's results on the basis of how people say their votes might be changed by a new referendum pledge, the SNP would be left with 48% next year - enough for a second overall majority, as long as SNP voters don't drift off to other parties on the list.  In reality, that's a meaningless figure, because people's voting intentions will change between now and May as a result of issues that have nothing to do with independence referendums - but it's a useful illustration of how the unionist parties may be overestimating the traction they can expect to get from banging on about the "threat" of Indyref 2.

22% of SNP voters say that they would be more likely to vote for the party again next year if there's a referendum pledge.  That's mostly meaningless, but perhaps not entirely - there are other pro-independence parties, after all, and it could be that passionate supporters of independence would be more likely to stick with the SNP on the list if they're given some "red meat" to vote for.  That would obviously help to minimise the dangers of a split vote on the list that we've been discussing in recent weeks.

54 comments:

  1. "as long as SNP voters don't drift off to other parties on the list."

    Or, alternatively, "unless some voters who voted SNP in 2015 choose to vote for parties more aligned to their own political preferences on the list."

    The SNP does not have 50% of Scotland's votes to lose. You'll know more about this than me, James, but do we have any idea of what percentage of the electorate currently consider themselves to be "SNP voters", rather than people whose current preference is the SNP?

    I have no data to back this up, but I would imagine that somewhere near 50% of the electorate are floating (or the much more appropriate term, "migrating") voters.

    The assertion that the SNP are starting from a figure of 50%, and that anyone who decides to vote otherwise next year is in some way a deserter (I know that's not a word you've used, but the impression given is similar), is an arrogant position to take, and reminiscent of another party that recently had near hegemony in Scotland.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We're clearly not going to have a meeting of minds on this subject, but for the record your characterisation of what I meant by "drifting off" is not accurate - I was simply referring to people who vote one way on the constituency ballot, and another way on the more important list ballot.

      I've stressed repeatedly that people who prefer the Greens or SSP should vote Green or SSP. It's for others to explain why they're trying to hoodwink people who prefer the SNP into voting for another party on the list, with a load of statistical gibberish about "tactical voting".

      Delete
    2. Also James didn't say that this was bad, he might have let his SNP supporting bias show but all he said was that if people vote someone who isn't the SNP then the SNP will get fewer seats which is obvious. He didn't say that all lefty splitters should go die (in this post at least :P ).

      Delete
    3. James, I understand and appreciate that you're writing style tends towards the emotive and often hyperbolic, but I think the near certainty of next year's SNP list vote being lower than the SNP constituency vote is much more complex than "drifting off" (in the sense described in your post above) as a result of tactical voting.

      If we take the assumption where the SNP constituency vote is 50% next year, it would be wrong to consider this 50% as a united block of SNP supporters, some of whom decide to try their luck at playing the odds on the list. There are a host of reasons why some voters will decidedly vote SNP in their constituency, and decidedly vote another party on the list, which is why I take issue with your mention of "drifting off".

      I largely agree with your insistence that tactical voting will not work at Holyrood elections, either in from-SNP voting or to-SNP voting on the list. Indeed, although the electoral system is evident, the folly of tactical voting in a proportional system was evident in the 2014 Euro elections, as the Greens were just as far off a 1st MEP as the SNP were off a 3rd MEP, and that meticulous organization of the electorate would have been needed to ensure 4 pro-independence MEPs.

      Anyway, my intention wasn't originally intended to get into an argument on tactical voting, but rather to point out that the potential 50% constituency vote is a very complex body.

      May I also say that I find your blog to be an excellent read.

      Delete
    4. "I think the near certainty of next year's SNP list vote being lower than the SNP constituency vote is much more complex than "drifting off" (in the sense described in your post above)"

      I don't see how it can be more complex than what I described in my post above, because what I said was simply 'people who vote one way on the constituency ballot and another way on the list ballot'. That doesn't leave anyone out, regardless of motivation.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There are two separate questions there -

    1) Would voting Green or for the Scottish Left Project produce MSPs for those parties?

    Answer : Possibly not in the case of the Greens (at least in some regions), probably not in the case of the Scottish Left Project, who I suspect are going to struggle to get anyone elected.

    2) Would Green or Scottish Left Project MSPs vote in favour of an independence referendum?

    Answer : I think Scottish Left Project MSPs probably would, yes. But I've absolutely no idea whether the Greens would.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I deleted my comment because I realised that you didn't actually say anything against either party, it was just my victim complex kicking in. But as a genuine question how well do you think both parties will do? Yougov had a Holyrood poll that put the Greens on 15% of the list vote. Is that an outlier? All Holyrood polls conducted since the referendum have had the Greens as the fourth largest party, do you think they could possible be thrid largest?

      Delete
    2. Sorry it was a survation poll and the Greens were on 13% but had 15 seats.
      http://www.betternation.org/2015/02/latest-holyrood-poll/

      Delete
    3. No, it's extremely unlikely that the Greens will be the third-largest party. They do have a chance to displace the Lib Dems as the fourth-largest, although the Lib Dems have the advantage of defending two constituency seats.

      The poll you mention is an old one - the Greens haven't done so well in the last couple of Holyrood polls. In some ways, they'll probably be hoping the Scottish Left Project don't get their act together, because the two parties will be fishing in the same pond for votes, and could end up damaging each other.

      Delete
    4. Unless something surprising happens then I for one will be voting SNP in the constituency vote. The list vote though is up for grabs. That list vote will depend on either the Greens or the SSP being able to garner enough votes to make it worth my while voting for one or the other and that is a problem both those parties will have. My inclination at the moment is to vote SSP on the list vote but they have work to do.

      Delete
    5. The thing is, you have no idea whether they will get enough votes on the list or not. If your primary political allegiance is to one of the smaller parties, then by all means vote for that party on the list. That's what the list is for. Tactical voting in a PR system is a mugs game.

      The SNP will undoubtedly get fewer list votes than constituency votes, as supporters of smaller parties with no chance of taking the constituency vote SNP for the constituency. This is not a problem. The problem starts when people whose primary political allegiance is SNP start thinking they can get clever.

      Turning away from the SNP on the list, for an SNP supporter, makes the enormous and unjustifiable assumption that the party is going to perform an almost clean sweep of the 73 constituencies. This is anything but guaranteed. Some manufactured scandal, something going wrong at Westminster, even just natural attrition of support for governing party, could easily see a significant number of constituency seats lost. A couple of hundred votes one way of the other, and disaster could follow.

      Of course it's not disaster if the list vote holds up, because these lost MSPs will be compensated for on the list. But if massive overconfidence has led to SNP supporters going elsewhere on the list, that won't happen. You're effectively limiting the SNP to however many of the 73 FPTP seats it manages to win. Do you feel lucky, punk?

      The result is likely to be that the SNP secures fewer than the 2011 tally of 69 seats. Very possibly even less than the 65 needed for an overall majority. Big headlines, SNP losing support, SNP weakened, and the whole thing portrayed as a loss for the party.

      It may be that the Greens get enough seats for the SNP to continue to govern with their support. Great work, SNP tactical voters, you just swapped a strong SNP government for a weak SNP minority government propped up by Patrick Harvie (whose idea this seems to be, gosh I wonder why, what could be in it for him?)

      It could be even worse than that though. The weakening of the SNP's list support could allow one of the unionist parties to come through the middle, without giving the Greens or the SSP enough votes for a list seat. Well done, chaps.

      Tactical voting strategies sent the #SNPout mob stark, staring mad. We can't follow them down that road. If you're an SNP supporter, and you believe that Nicola Sturgeon leading a strong SNP government is the best route to independence, for God's sake vote SNP on the list. It's the more important of the two votes. If you fancy a tactical punt on something else in the constituency, go for it, but it's vitally important that the SNP list vote holds up.

      Delete
    6. And bear in mind that if SNP support is high enough, even if the party gets all nine constituencies in a region, it can still pick up a tenth seat on the list.

      Harvie's strategy is to persuade SNP voters that they should sacrifice this extra seat for maybe two Green seats instead. To the massive benefit of his own party, and him personally if it ends up with him as Deputy First Minister which I think is what he's angling for, having been disappointed in that in 2011 because the SNP did well enough to govern without a partner.

      It's an enormous risk. It will inevitably weaken the SNP, perhaps fatally if the constituency vote goes a wee bit wrong. Even if it goes to plan, the end result will be a weakened SNP possibly reliant on Green support in Holyrood. Don't do it.

      Delete
  4. James - Have you got a link for the datasets? Cannae find them.
    Ta.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm a passionate supporter of independence. However, as things stand, we are not ready for another referendum and to go too early would be pretty darn foolish. We will only get one more crack at this - if we fail, then independence really is off the table for a generation. Patience will pay off folks, the movement is all our way, but we are not quite there yet. It would be very tragic if we spoilt it all by going too early.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, you know my view - I think it's both desirable and inevitable that there will be a conditional pledge in the SNP manifesto for a referendum in the event of Brexit. It would contradict everything that has been said for months if the manifesto did not reserve the right to do that.

      Delete
    2. I don't think the lack of a conditional bledge would necessarily be contradictory. Nicola Sturgeon has set a third requirement that there must be a sizeable shift in public opinion. I presume this refers to changes in opinion polling regarding independence, where the SNP may prefer to have support for independence at over 55% before calling a second referendum.

      Delete
    3. I don't think the "third requirement" thing is accurate, but it wouldn't make any difference anyway - there would still have to be a conditional pledge in the manifesto to leave that option open.

      Delete
    4. I can't remember the figures that were produced last year regarding independence if we were forced out of the EU against our will?

      Presume it's over 50% though...lol

      I think a conditional pledge is sensible as it appeases the minority of yes voters that want another one asap, as well as the more passive yes voters who understand the strategy as well

      What's more interesting to me anyway, is the swing that will take place in Scotland once people become a bit more clued up on the EU and it's future plans? Cameron seems intent on the immigration issue, whereas people in Scotland that question the EU seem to believe that the business side of things is completely wrong and going down the wrong path for the kind of country we want Scotland to be? Then throw in the damage Barroso did and what the rest of the EU countries did (nothing)...which folk do not like and won't forgive....

      I don't think the numbers from Scotland will be that far apart, we'll vote to stay in, but it could be similar to the indy ref 55-45, which we can all agree, isn't definitive, no matter what Rabid Unionists say.

      The thing for me is that it might hurt the SNP more than is being let on, as staying in the EU, might be alright, but we have no say in things, fishing being a prime example, rights get pished away with no say...so how can the SNP argue to stay in it with that being the case?

      Delete
    5. @Chalks
      We get no say in fishing only because fecking Westminster won't let us anywhere near the fisheries talks. Sending a Tory Lord off instead this year like last.

      Were we an independent nation in the EU we would have a full say in our fisheries which is a sight more than we get now. It may not be a nirvana but it is better than anything we are likely to get in the UK.

      Delete
    6. I know that muscleguy, but I'm only pointing out that we're arguing to stay in something where we don't actually have a say in anything to do with it....if we were independent, doesn't really matter as we aren't, its the system we operate in currently that matters and currently we have no say in how things affect us when it comes to the EU...that might not be the EU's fault, granted but we are also saying we want a fairer society, wealth distribution more fair, but the EU is effectively a bigger version of the UK, the rich tell the poor what to do, they get richer, the poor get poorer, see Italy/Portugal/Greece/spain

      I struggle to see how the SNP will play it, I'd be in favour of them being open about it and letting people argue for or against being in it.....as consider this, Cameron gets his way and gets much more control over immigration, where does that leave Scotland?

      We, as everyone knows, need immigrants, yet the EU we are voting to stay in, has just turned round and gone against a principle of itself!? How could we argue to stay in something that could do that?

      How would people vote then?

      Cameron isn't arguing for better wealth distribution, isn't arguing for the little guys that have had the life sucked out of them

      Things would be a hell of a lot easier if we were independent, maybe no voters will wake up

      Delete
  6. I fully agree with a conditional referendum promise, James. It makes perfect sense, but it must be conditional and not a "we will have another referendum" pomise. A wee bit of vagueness would actually be useful, this time without losing the option of going for it in the event of Brexit or something unforeseen that arises. Anway, better minds than mine are on the case and the haven't let us down so far!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Conditional Referendum Pledge - check
    SNP List vote - check
    SNP constituency vote (barring absolute bampot candidate) - check

    IF Brexit THEN we're offski!

    @ James: has there been any research done into how much of the vote for the SNP is a warning shot re: delivery of "Vow" and how much is for policies not related to independence?

    Also how do I stop being Anonymous?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the drop-down menu, select "Name/URL" - you can leave the URL section blank.

      I'll have a think about your first question when I'm less sleepy!

      Delete
  8. The independence question was 47% Yes on a dataset I found - from 19th-21st May 2015 for DC Thompson.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (44% Yes; 49% No; 2% WNV; 5% DK)

      Delete
    2. Yes, I know, those are the figures that I used to make the calculation in the blogpost. No other details are provided in the datasets, so it's not possible to be any more specific than a range of 46.8%-47.5% for Yes, and 52.5%-53.2% for No.

      Delete
  9. I think that Nichola Sturgeon has a more nuanced opinion than the pollsters.

    Unless I have got this completely wrong, the idea is to have the possibility of a further referendum in the manifesto if some major event occurred

    That, it seems to me, is an entirely legitimate position for the SNP to take.

    We lost a referendum and won a Westminster election. My head is still spinning with that.

    However, it is completely honest, I think, to offer a provisional referendum if things go horribly wrong with Westminster. I expect the shall.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Who mentioned red meat? Feed Me!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is anyone around called Seymour who can respond with meat?

      Delete
  11. James,

    There is another important factor. If the SNP do not put a referendum in their Holyrood manifesto, they could lose a substantial number of list votes to "fringe" candidates who campaign for early independence.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think we are all agreed that the word "referendum" has to be included in the Holyrood manifesto. That's a given. However, I do think it has to be in the context of possibility rather than certainty. "we will have another referendum" would not put people off voting for SNP, but it would trap an SNP SG into having another referendum, even if circumstances were unfavourable. It is very important to keep options open at this stage - to offer hope and intention, not binding promises. There will be screams from the usual suspects, but I believe that most people are smart enough to wait a little bit longer. And I trust the instincts of our FM - she hasn't let us down thus far.

    ReplyDelete
  13. James - I see you've been name-checked by Iain MacWhirter today in the Herald over your musings on whether the SNP should take seats in the Lords:

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/queens-speech-throws-a-tax-challenge-to-snp.127334447

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "influential Nationalist blogger"... ooh, get him!

      Delete
  14. I believe that the SNP leadership will have a pledge in 2016 about holding another referendum on independence if we leave the EU, but it will have so many caveats as to be obvious that it is not really on the agenda at all. I think this is really about removing the dilemma over the promise of holding an independence referendum once in a generation. So there will probably be a pledge, but it will be one designed for the longer term, probably in about 2025 imo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree but I think it will not limit it to Brexit, just in case something else extraordinary happens in the next Scottish Parliament term which tips the balance of opinion decisively in favour of independence - the catch-all 'material change in circumstances', carefully worded and so able to be deployed at the leadership's discretion.

      Delete
  15. By voicing the "" distant "" drum of another referendum ... you weaken the case....
    Jeesus wept.... all this sitting on the fence... the libs tactics... "" well we should be independent... and I fully support it.... but not just now..... just some time away in the distant future.... unless some unexpected circumstance comes about """ .....in the name of all that's holy.... by the time all these sitters on the fence realise whats happening then we can forget it.... as every single day Scotland's resources are being plundered .... Scotland's economy is being subtlebly strangled.... production shifts south of the border... contracts are placed... & the BRANCH economy is being strengthened... and when the next referendum comes the wm machine will have tightened up those bits that they feel are a wee bit loose just now.... the soft nos will have turned into hard no's as the drip drip drip influence of wm mouthpiece ... the monopoly bbc.... will have flogged the 1st & 2nd world wars to exhaustion...aligned with the succession of the monarchy.... & the huge MSM/EU propaganda biased reporting on re-running the fear factor with Scotland being forced to take the Euro... and the 56.... every choice adjective will be applied by the unionists to their advantage... with their venom aimed at A.S. in particular...
    All this list vote is unproductive.. it should be SNP first & last... as simple as that... when we have Indy... then the eventual split of the various camps of the SNP & Holyrood will be natural...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here is the deal Sam. You say we are sitting on the fence. Do you understand that if we lose a second referendum on independence then that is our chance gone for good?

      There needs to be a lot more work done before we get independence, that should be obvious to everyone who saw how Yes dealt with the currency issue, the pensions issue, the bombardment of the MSM and big business, not to mention the USA in the referendum. The EU were not exactly helpful either. Make no mistake although the British state has been weakened considerably in the last 60 years, it is still a formidable opponent to Scottish independence. No amount of wishful thinking is going to change that fact.

      Delete
    2. 'Do you understand that if we lose a second referendum on independence then that is our chance gone for good?'

      Who says? That's what was being said about losing indyref 1. It was about how it was fought by the unionists and that aftermath is now being felt. If they are not forced to fight dirty, then the pro indy aftermath cannot be felt.

      Waiting will not tackle the issues you raise muttley. Fighting another referendum campaign will. We are not where we were pre refererendum and niether are the unionists, that much should be obvious.

      braco

      Delete
    3. It's the indyref2 yes campaign that will tip 'the balance of opinion decisively in favour of independence' just as the first indyref yes campaign did. Waiting for a change is just as likely to result in the possibility of 'change' less, not more' favourable to our cause. That's why every unionist party and media outlet is trying desperately to place a second indy referendum campaign off the agenda. 'Waiting' suits them fine. That alone, as an indy supporter, should give everyone reason to think twice about the wisdom of waiting.

      braco

      Delete
    4. Sorry, that was for Hapleg.

      braco

      Delete
    5. Sam,

      There are some things that you left out of your analysis of the situation. 1. The MSM is dieing 2. The BBC is likely to be killed off eventually by the Tories (their programming is terrible anyway). 3. The electorate is far more educated. 4. Trust of MSM and BBC is at an all time low. 5. The demographics of Indy support is in our favour for now. 6. Trust of unionist parties is at an all time low. 7. The economy in Scotland is strong, robust and getting stronger. 8. It is slowly becoming obvious how badly treated Scotland is by London. 9. Westminsters likely failures. 10. Tory cuts.

      Delete
    6. 11. Growth of the new media and the Internet.

      Delete
  16. Sam,
    I agree with just about everything you have said .. except that it's the SNP themselves (at the moment) who are putting the possibility of an imminent indyref2 on the back burner. Everything you warn of will happen regardless of a 'material change in circumstances' or not and so, in my view (and many others too), I think we should be agitating for indyref2 ASAP.

    Currently, unionism in Scotland as a political force has never been weaker and pro indy support never stronger. This may not remain the case for ever. Scotland's independence will not be won through a willingness to simply wait long enough. We have already tried that technique over the last 300 and odd years.

    It was action, in the form of the first ever independence referendum, a referendum some say the SNP felt came 'too soon', that has brought us to the brink. It will be another forced action, brought about by public demand, that will gently but decisively tip us over into independence. We must find ways to make it clear to the SNP that they do indeed have in Scotland the support and political 'room for maneuver' to call that referendum ASAP.

    braco

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are missing one thing, demographics. You seem to think that the old grannies who came out for the union can be convinced that their pensions are safe etc... but what if the reason that they voted No was because they are British. No amount of persuasion can change that, only the slow inevitable push of demographics.
      We need time to normalise the separation of the Scottish and English polities. We also need our media to be scottish.

      I can see the fear we have - of losing momentum. I think that to keep it going we need another referendum on devomax by 2018 - it must be in the manifesto. That will keep the argument fresh and slowly but surely make independence feel inevitable while the demographics move it further in our favour.

      Delete
    2. Good points there Graeme.

      Delete
    3. All the above are good points ...but fall into the same trap of believing every change that's coming is inevitably going to be to the benefit of indy. One reason that pensioners can be scared into NO is because they have a pension to be scared with. As folk become pensioners and become dependent on their pension, so they become more susceptible to that kind of attack. Pensioners present and future will always to some extent be easily scared into NO.
      The point I am making is that real and bankable inroads into independence as a reality comes from the real debates brought about by the actual indyref campaigns with the force of a decision to be taken at the end of it. Not from the pros and cons theoretical arguments that go round and round when there is no pressure of decision making at the end of it.

      We made these incredible inroads and we are here teetering on the edge BECAUSE of the Indyref YES campaign and it's aftermath! That's why the Union has spent the last 300 years absolutely avoiding any referendum on Independence. It's the argument that kills the union and the indyref campaigns are the only forum in which those arguments can be properly heard and taken seriously.

      That's why we have 56 of 59 Mps. It's simple.

      braco

      Delete
    4. Also, the time for the indy movement pushing for a full fiscal autonomy referendum question was during Indyref1. Think of the the arguments we would have to have to defend full fiscal autonomy as the sole question in the referendum. Those are the very financial/ share the pound with full tax powers etc. that the unionists hammered us with during Indy ref 1. We essentially went into that referendum, financially at least, advocating full fiscal autonomy within the 'UK' for an Indy Scotland and you and Muttley have already sited that policy as one of the YES campaigns greatest flaws. A flaw I might add inherited from the SNP party political policy menu.

      How do you propose to fight that ffa referendum in the teeth of those same unionist arguments/scare stories without even the option of saying 'well that's why we have the option of full Independence'.

      Similar complex problems are about to face the SNP and YES movement over the IN out Euro referendum. Can we really get behind a 'better together YES' message for Europe while the pro euro side in England hammer home how we need to be part of a bigger Union to be financially secure/viable. These are all core arguments against Scottish Indy when viewed through the prism of English (as British) politics and MSM attacks.

      braco

      Delete
    5. Braco, whilst I agree with you regarding the EU referendum and the hypocrisy it might lead to, I don't agree about the FFA points you make.

      The point regarding FFA is that it's very easy to argue for it, whilst ripping away the most emotive arguments that Better Together had. You can throw everything back in their face.

      Currency stays the same, pensions backed up by the strength of the UK (LOL) but we are responsible for them and have power to raise it etc.

      Defence policy is decided by basically a senate, which will have a greater number of English senators, naturally, same with foreign policy.

      Each federal state has the power to ask for more money but it's backed up by the Bank of England, which is soon to be renamed...borrowing is put to a monetary policy committee made up of people from each country as it would ultimately affect the UK's credit rating....that's the thing with FFA and what the SNP can try and get, a federal UK, where each nation is responsible for its economy, borrowing, but puts money into defence and foreign policy decided by an elected senate

      If the SNP suggested such a thing, it would be complete pie in the sky, but the point is that they are going down the same route as soft no's, holding their hands as they merrily skip along the federal road, only for Westminster to turn round and laugh at them. They are trying to do what 15% of soft no's now want, running our own affairs but within the UK....

      Where do you think the soft no's will go once they've been laughed at? Back up the federal road with the SNP and down Independence Road.

      I'm afraid that's the only way I can see us winning the next indy ref. Gradualism and pointing out that what people want isn't necessarily possible.



      Delete
    6. Chalks,
      yes i see and understand your argument re the 15% soft no's. Unfortunately they are in actual fact 'soft' and therefore open to actual, proper and well considered argument (if you can get such people to pay attention long enough to get involved in the detailed argument). In my experience, many of those soft no's are people who came to the party so late that it was impossible to bring them along the argument road quick enough for the vote.

      Once the pressure of the decision date was taken away, those soft no's just stopped at the point in the journey to yes that they had reached during the all encompassing social pressures of the Indy ref campaign. Come indyref2 those soft no's will pick up on the journey just where they left off. The important point is getting folk to start the journey in the first place and for most, that takes the social pressure and excitement of a potentially life changing decision and it's accompanying political campaign.

      You cannot fight a referendum on the whims of the 15% least committed of the electorate. That's triangulation and might work to some degree (temporarily) in a basically two party political system, but on a single point of principle referendum, that will only lead to disaster. Soft no's will not be pounding the street, creating the vibrant exciting atmosphere and making the arguments.

      Triangulation is why the Euro referendum could become a real mess for the SNP and by association the YES movement. I would not recommend the same mistake for our core principle during any future Scottish Independence referendum.

      braco

      Delete
    7. I think that you (plural) are assuming that the grannies are soft No's when they are in fact Brits (not in the orange lodge sense) and so not really amenable to argument.
      You can tell them that their Britain no longer exists but they are in denial about that. There's not that much that you can do about that except wait and go for devomax.
      Devomax has four advantages, it brings some of the soft No's along with us, builds confidence in our country, removing the cringe, it shows up Westminster for the unbending centralists they are and it keeps the momentum going.
      In the event of a Brexit all bets are off and people then have to choose between two different unions which is a completely different ball game. We might even bring some libdems and Labour along with us. I wonder if McLeish would move to our side in that situation for example.

      Delete
    8. Not assuming that at all. Those that cannot be persuaded are the 30 odd % Brits that you are talking about. What we are talking about is the best way to turn the 15% or so soft no's into yes. I am arguing that soft no's will, as many were at the beginning and throughout the first indy ref campaign, open to reasonable, considered and logical argument. It takes time and requires the pressure of an imminent decision, yes or no, that only a real referendum campaign brings. Otherwise soft no's will simply stay where they are and not engage.

      You and others appear to be arguing that we go through the risk and heat of another referendum arguing for a situation neither of us agree's with, because a group of undecided and uncommitted electorate (they are 'soft' no's after all) THINK that's what they want. They think that because they have not spent any time investigating the reality of that position. Something that a full on referendum on FFA will spend it's whole time exposing. Only this time you and I would find ourselves arguing for the impossible and appearing like naive dreamers in the face of unionist refusals.

      This was the entire weakness of our currency position in the last referendum. It was not that our proposals were not reasonable or workable, it was the unionists ability to utterly refuse to be reasonable and so undermine us as naive dreamers in the eyes of the public. They got away with it last time and would do exactly the same for a FFA referendum and it would be even more likely to work this time.

      Imagine the catastrophe a no to FFA would be treated as. Why have you so little faith in the arguments for full independence? Something this big just needs more than one bite to finish the job and that means another indy referendum campaign ASAP before everyone forgets the arguments, lies and false promises made during the last one.

      Delete
  17. James, reading this makes we wonder if you ever thought about adding polls to your blog for your readers? It would be thought provoking to see relative support for various options surrounding independence, ie, holyrood VI, Brexit, Scexit(?!), Indyref2 conditions, Indy currency, etc.

    ReplyDelete