CROWDFUNDER: A new opinion poll to test support for independence now that the Tories' Hard Brexit has become a cold reality

Click here to go straight to the fundraising page. 

Hi, I'm James Kelly, and I write the pro-independence blog Scot Goes Pop, which has a particular emphasis on opinion poll analysis. Over the course of 2020, I commissioned three Panelbase polls with your help. All three showed pro-independence majorities, and they were all landmark results in their own ways - the one at the start of the year put Yes on 52% for the first time since the summer of 2016, the one in June was the first to show that the events of the pandemic had pushed Yes back into the lead, and the one in November saw Yes soar to an all-time high in Panelbase polls of 56%. 

The time is now ripe for another poll. After four and a half years, the terms of Brexit are finally known and will become a harsh reality within just hours. Extraordinarily, and without a shred of evidence, the Conservatives are claiming that Boris Johnson's last gasp, minimalistic trade deal is some sort of monumental setback for the independence movement. They also seem to believe that the public have been successfully hoodwinked into believing that the SNP "voted for No Deal" - when in fact it was only the Conservatives themselves that put us all at severe risk of a catastrophic No Deal outcome. Who knows, perhaps the public are reacting in the way that the Tories want them to react - but that seems highly unlikely somehow, and they should probably be allowed to speak for themselves. 

As before, if the crowdfunder is successful, I will commission an opinion poll from a firm affiliated to the British Polling Council. It will ask the standard independence question, ie. 'Should Scotland be an independent country?', plus a number of supplementary questions of interest to the Yes movement. I'll ask for your suggestions before deciding on the final list of questions. Bear in mind that there's never any guarantee that we'll get the results that we want - but anything is better than unionist parties presuming to speak for the people of Scotland at such a critical juncture in our national story. 

Target figure: I've set a slightly higher target figure of £7500 this time - not because the poll is likely to cost any more than the previous ones, but simply to give us a head start for the spring. It would probably make sense to commission one more poll during the Holyrood campaign proper. 

Click here if you'd like to donate.

I saw the Scottish fishing industry being shafted again on Christmas Eve, on Christmas Eve

It's the "and a half" bit that will look like the final kick in the teeth.https://t.co/eJMTPGGFNA

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) December 24, 2020

Don't be downhearted, Caron. Scotland can - and will - go back in. The Lib Dems can help, if they want.https://t.co/sYxTR5Yxl9

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) December 24, 2020

They say an hour is a long time in politics. https://t.co/R1IudU8Wvv pic.twitter.com/0wdoEE0ZKL

— Cllr Christina Cannon (@GLAChristina) December 24, 2020

"We respect the result"
"One million Scots voted Leave"
"Two million voted Remain"
"Therefore we must Leave"https://t.co/Ghm7IcF5DZ

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) December 24, 2020

Great to have clarity from Sir Keir Starmer that he is not neutral on the question of whether Scotland should be dragged out of the single market and customs union against its will. He is enthusiastically in favour.https://t.co/dnMTVdUdHh

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) December 24, 2020

As a matter of interest, does anyone know *why* the Tories are so hellbent on leaving Erasmus? It's hard to see any natiobal sovereignty implications?

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) December 24, 2020

Alas, no such suspense over whether you and the other five Scottish Tory MPs will skip through the lobbies to shaft the Scottish fishing industry yet again.

Of course you will. https://t.co/eyvuWQiLnA

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) December 24, 2020

The SNP should vote against this wretched deal without a second thought.

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) December 24, 2020

On what planet is a Tory boycott of an indyref, guaranteeing a Yes majority, a bad thing?

I was just catching up with the story in The National from a few days ago about the suggestion that the Tories might boycott a consultative referendum held without a Section 30 order, even if it clears every legal hurdle and has the blessing of the UK Supreme Court.  This, of course, should be a cause for celebration, because it would guarantee a Yes victory, and we'd all have a nice relaxing campaign trying to maximise the scale of the win and the overall turnout.  Whatever mandate is achieved would then be used as leverage to bring us closer to actual independence or at least to an agreed referendum - and leverage is, after all, the whole point of holding a consultative referendum.

Curiously, though, the article finishes with a quote from Malcolm Harvey, who back in the day was one of the leading pro-indy bloggers (he was one of the founding triumvirate at Better Nation, and before that had his own blog Malc in the Burgh).

"Turnout would be about 50% and the thing would be even less legitimate than holding an un-sanctioned referendum in the first place. It's a mad idea."

My jaw dropped to the floor when I realised he wasn't describing the boycott as mad, but the idea that we should hold a referendum that might be boycotted.  Is anyone spotting the slight flaw here?  There'd be nothing to stop the Tories boycotting absolutely any referendum, even one brought about by a Section 30.  It's hard to think of a better definition of 'madness' than giving our opponents a veto on every move we make.

You know the bit at the end of Life of Brian when the Crack Suicide Squad turn up, stab themselves, and say with their dying breath "that showed 'em, huh?" If Malcolm and Pete Wishart had been in charge of the Roman troops that day, they'd have reacted to that seemingly futile gesture by saying "well, that's it then, we can't possibly go ahead with these crucifixions now..."

An average of all twenty-three polls conducted this year puts support for independence at more than 53%

By overwhelming popular demand (well, a couple of people asked) here is an update of this blog's Poll of Polls.  Just a reminder that rather than including all of the most recent polls, it includes only the most recent poll from each individual firm, to ensure that no 'house effect' is given too much weight.  There are six polls in the current sample - one from Savanta ComRes, one from Survation, one from Panelbase, one from Ipsos-Mori, one from YouGov and one from JL Partners.  The percentage changes are measured from the last published update on 10th November.

SCOT GOES POP POLL OF POLLS

Should Scotland be an independent country?

Yes 54.8% (-)

No 45.2% (-)

So no change whatsoever!  Of course there's been movement underneath the surface, but it's cancelled itself out.  Panelbase and Savanta ComRes have shown a swing to Yes (a huge swing in the latter case), while YouGov, Survation and Ipsos-Mori have shown a modest swing to No.

It's entirely possible that we've now seen the final Scottish poll of 2020, in which case this is also a good moment to calculate an average of all the year's polls - I can always update it later if another poll unexpectedly turns up.  This isn't as straightforward an exercise as it appears, because there's a debate to be had over what should be considered a 'proper' independence poll.  Twenty-one polls this year have asked the standard independence question, while an additional two have asked about independence using non-standard questions.  There's also been a Scotland in Union propaganda poll asking about "leaving the United Kingdom", which as I always point out can't be considered a question about independence, because it's perfectly possible to leave the UK without becoming independent.  (For example, if Northern Ireland ever leaves the UK, it will almost certainly join another existing state rather than become independent.)  So I've excluded the non-indy propaganda poll, but included the two non-standard indy polls for the sake of completeness - which is hopefully fair enough, because one of the two was commissioned by an anti-indy client (Hanbury) and the other by a pro-indy client (Progress Scotland).

2020 average:

Yes 53.2%

No 46.8%

We've never come close before to a whole calendar year in which there was a majority for Yes, so we've broken that duck in quite some style.  (And in case you're wondering, including the Scotland in Union propaganda poll would have made only a minimal difference - Yes would still have been on 52.8%.)

A few people have also been asking already about future crowdfunded Scot Goes Pop polling.  Obviously I have to be careful not to go to the well too often, because there's always a danger of donation fatigue setting in, but if anyone has any strong feelings about timing, let me know in the comments section below.  The two obvious options are at the start of 2021 when people are coming to terms with the realities of Brexit, and at some point in April/early May, during the Holyrood campaign proper.

Truly staggering: support for independence reaches all-time high in an online poll of 58%

The Survation poll published a couple of days ago raised the genuine possibility that Yes support might have fallen back slightly, because it was the third poll out of four to show a 2-point drop.  But that theory has been blown out of the water by a sensational new poll from ComRes that by two clear percentage points puts Yes at the highest ever level of support in any poll conducted online by any firm.

Should Scotland be an independent country? (Savanta ComRes)

Yes 58% (+5)

No 42% (-5)

Even if this poll proves to be an outlier, it's pretty much impossible to reconcile it with a situation in which Yes is moving backwards.  At worst it means that nothing much has changed since the summer, and at best it means we've taken another big step forward.  It's also, of course, the sixteenth poll in a row to put Yes ahead on the standard indy question, and the seventeenth in a row if you add in a Progress Scotland poll that used a non-standard format.

Today's results are from a new series of monthly polls commissioned by The Scotsman - and whatever you think of that publication, it's a very welcome development.  Scotland, at this stage in its political story, is crying out for regular polling, and yet the monthly Herald/System Three series that ran for decades is now a long-distant memory.  Curiously, The Scotsman have opted to slightly blunt the impact of their first poll by billing the 58% Yes vote as merely the joint highest ever - which is true, but only if you count a poll that used a completely different data collection method (an Ipsos-Mori telephone poll in October).

I'm on record as saying many times that if Nicola Sturgeon intends to wait until Yes hits a sustained 60% in the polls before doing anything, she'll wait forever and Scotland will never become independent.  I was asked this morning if the ComRes numbers have changed my mind about that.  As ever, the answer is no: we still haven't reached 60%, and even if we eventually do in the occasional poll, it's unlikely to be on a sustained basis.  But hopefully now we've actually reached these giddy heights, the penny may have dropped with the leadership that we don't need anything over and above this.  And Keith Brown's repeated use of the words "settled will" would appear to support that interpretation.

Scottish Parliament constituency ballot: 

SNP 55% (+5)

Conservatives 20% (-3)

Labour 16% (-2)

Liberal Democrats 6% (-)

Scottish Parliament regional list ballot: 

SNP 42% (+1)

Conservatives 20% (-1)

Labour 17% (-1)

Greens 12% (+1)

Liberal Democrats 7% (-)

Again, these numbers contradict most recent polls which have shown modest movement against the SNP.  However, I would still guess the SNP might be underestimated on the list vote (and the Greens overestimated) due to the Survation-like way in which ComRes pose the list question, which may lead to some people replying as if they were being asked for a second preference vote.

In fairness to Douglas Ross, his net favourability rating of -9 isn't quite as poor as in other polls, but it's still miles behind Nicola Sturgeon's, slightly behind Patrick Harvie's, and no better than Willie Rennie's.  This is plainly not what the Tories hoped for or expected when they defenestrated Jackson Carlaw.  They'll be particularly perturbed that just 16% of respondents regard Ross as "charismatic".  Presumably he would never have been hand-picked unless he had been expected to be seen as charismatic, so the experiment really isn't working out.

Analysis of yesterday's Survation poll: the fifteenth or sixteenth in a row to show a pro-independence majority

Apologies for not covering this yesterday, but I'm sure most of you are already up to speed with it.  A new Survation poll is the fifteenth in a row (or arguably sixteenth in a row depending on definition) to show a majority for independence.

Should Scotland be an independent country?

Yes 52% (-2)

No 48% (+2)

Three of the last four polling firms to report have now shown a small recent decrease in Yes support - so that might be significant, but it could still be happening by chance.  The exception was of course the Panelbase poll for this blog in November showing Yes climbing to an all-time high of 56%.  

Westminster voting intention:

SNP 51% (-1)

Labour 21% (+1)

Conservatives 20% (+2)

Liberal Democrats 6% (-2)

The changes here don't appear to be of any great significance, as they just revert to the numbers in the last-but-one Survation poll.  Labour's second place seems to be a Survation 'house effect' - it's been seen in all of the last three Survation polls, but not in polls from other firms.

Scottish Parliament constituency ballot:

SNP 53% (-1)

Labour 20% (+2)

Conservatives 20% (+1)

Liberal Democrats 6% (-2)

Greens 1% (+1)

Scottish Parliament regional list ballot:

SNP 41% (-2)

Labour 20% (+1)

Conservatives 18% (+1)

Greens 10% (n/c)

Liberal Democrats 7% (n/c)

As I always point out, the list numbers from Survation polls need to be taken with a pinch of salt, because respondents seem to be influenced by the way the question is posed.  Some pro-indy voters seem to be left with the impression that they're being asked for a second preference, thus leading to a (possible) understatement of the SNP and overstatement of the Greens.

The omelette of strategic naivety

No-one has been clearer than I have that the SNP must have a Plan B ready to go if the UK government continue to refuse a Section 30 order.  But I don't think it's unreasonable to point out that Plan B has to be something that actually has a chance of working, as opposed to, you know, no chance under any conceivable circumstances whatsoever.  Which brings me onto a familiar drum being banged by Wings - 

"For much of last year, this site advocated a rational but unpopular position – namely that the SNP, which at the time held the balance of power in the UK parliament, should offer to support Theresa May’s soft-Brexit deal in exchange for the transfer of powers to hold a second independence referendum."

What's wrong with that sentence?  Well, where to begin.  First of all, the SNP didn't hold the balance of power in the UK parliament - if that had been the case, Jeremy Corbyn would have been Prime Minister, not Theresa May.  Secondly, the position Wings advocated was not "rational but unpopular" - it was in fact popular (with Wings readers) but irrational.  Yes, the SNP could have made Theresa May an offer, but it would have achieved absolutely nothing.  Her reply would have been - 

"Our Precious United Kingdom is not for sale.  We do not do deals with separatists."

You might argue that would have made her crazy when somebody was trying to save her bacon, but nevertheless it's indisputably what she would have said.  And actually from her own point of view it would have made perfect sense, because the SNP weren't in a position to deliver the deal anyway.  They didn't have enough votes to put the matter beyond dispute, and more to the point some of the Tory MPs who voted for the deal would have immediately swung the other way if they knew that "the precious" was at stake.

So by all means criticise the SNP for not doing the things they could have done to bring about independence or a choice on independence.  But don't criticise them for not attempting something that was never in their power, and that would have simply have left them looking a bit foolish, a bit cynical, and above all else strategically naive.

YouGov indy polling gossip

First of all, if you'd like to read more analysis of yesterday's Ipsos-Mori poll putting support for independence at 56%, I have an article in today's edition of The National HERE.  

I've also just received an email from a reader to let me know that another YouGov poll on independence is underway - which might be a cause for dismay, because I suspect that YouGov may be the firm most likely to break the long sequence of Yes majorities (they had Yes ahead by 'only' 51-49 in their last poll).  However, it remains to be seen whether the new poll is even intended for publication, because some of the supplementary questions are a bit odd and have the look of a private poll.  There's a question about how the army should be branded in Scotland, and also one about whether the unionist parties should form an electoral pact on the constituency vote in May.  (Seems a bit of a pointless query, because it's surely unthinkable that Labour in particular would be willing to go down that road.)

Make that fourteen/fifteen in a row: Ipsos-Mori shows yet another huge majority for Scottish independence

I wasn't sure if we'd see any more independence polls before the end of this calendar year, but today brings word of something really important - it's only the second telephone poll conducted in 2020, and it's another cracker.

Should Scotland be an independent country? (Ipsos-Mori/STV)

Yes 56% (-2)

No 44% (+2)

This is the fourteenth poll in a row which has produced a Yes majority on the standard independence question - although many people will say it's the fifteenth by adding in one poll with a non-standard question.

Unionists will of course point to the apparent small swing back to No, but the fact is that this is the second-highest ever Yes vote recorded in a telephone poll, and indeed the joint second-highest ever Yes vote recorded in any sort of poll.  What's more, the previous Ipsos-Mori poll in October contained significantly too many respondents who recalled voting Yes in 2014, and the new poll doesn't, so there's a genuine case to be made that the 56% in this poll is as good as, or better than, the 58% in the last one.  

The latter point makes it hard to read the general trend, because the last two polls from other firms gave a contradictory indication - YouGov suggested a small drop for Yes, while Panelbase reported a small increase, taking Yes to a new high watermark.  It still looks entirely possible that nothing much has changed since independence support reached its peak in the summer, but we'll have to await further polls to be sure.

Scottish Parliament constituency voting intentions:

SNP 55% (-3)

Conservatives 22% (+3)

Labour 14% (+1)

Liberal Democrats 6% (-2)

Greens 1% (n/c)

Scottish Parliament regional list voting intentions:

SNP 47% (-1)

Conservatives 22% (+4)

Labour 16% (+2)

Greens 7% (-2)

Liberal Democrats 6% (-2)

Seats projection (with changes from 2016): SNP 73 (+10), Conservatives 27 (-4), Labour 19 (-5), Greens 5 (-1), Liberal Democrats 5 (n/c)

So a small apparent recovery for the two largest unionist parties since the last Ipsos-Mori poll, but again that can perhaps be partly explained by the fact that there were too many 2014 Yes voters in the sample for the previous poll.  Either way, the SNP remain on course for a comfortable overall single-party majority of 17 seats, with pro-independence parties in combination taking more than 60% of the seats.

A quiet revolution inside the SNP

Just before Tony Blair invaded Iraq, something which he had plainly already made up his mind to do, he sent out junior ministers to claim they were making a "last push for peace".  It was the ultimate Orwellian linguistic trick - framing the warmongering government as peace-lovers, and the anti-war resistance to the government as the obstacle to peace.  I was reminded of that episode the other day when Alyn Smith started his rather brazen crusade against "factionalism" within the SNP - which was really a pitch for people to vote for his own diehard faction in the name of anti-factionalism.  And yet we know that one or two souls were naive enough to be impressed by his words and to take them at face value.  So the question was whether enough people would be hoodwinked to change the trajectory of the SNP's internal elections over the weekend.  Judging by Mr Smith's own result, his gambit failed.

Policy Development Convener Election (first preferences):

Chris Hanlon 43.3%

Alyn Smith 37.5%

Graeme McCormick 19.3%

Final count:

Chris Hanlon 54.8%

Alyn Smith 45.2%

That really is an astounding result when you consider that Mr Smith is far, far better known than Mr Hanlon.  OK, conference delegates are perhaps a little less likely to be 'starstruck' than the rank-and-file membership, but even so.

I've lost count of the number of times over the years that it's been suggested that SNP members might use an internal election to push the party in a more radical direction.  Usually nothing materialises, which makes this batch of results all the more remarkable.  Perhaps delegates could sense that independence was on the ballot this time, and that it was now or never if we were to get back on track in terms of strategy.  Take a look, for example at the contest for President - everyone knew that Mike Russell would win, but what we were waiting to see was whether Craig Murray would secure a big enough minority of the vote to send a message about members' unease in regard to the lack of urgency on an independence referendum. I think it's fair to say that he exceeded expectations.

SNP President election:

Mike Russell 61.7%

Craig Murray 24.5%

Corri Wilson 13.9%

The headline result is Joanna Cherry's triumphant return to the NEC - a body that has lost its way to such an extent that, under the control of Alyn Smith's anti-faction faction, it made a botched attempt to bar Ms Cherry from standing in last year's general election.  Her unofficial running-mate Neale Hanvey was well off the pace on the NEC vote, but managed to win a place on the Conduct Committee - quite an achievement for someone who was himself suspended from the party until only a few months ago.

Arguably the most important results symbolically are the oustings of Rhiannon Spear and Fiona Robertson as Women's Convener and Equalities Convener respectively.  Both had narrowly won their positions last year in the face of a fierce challenge, and I had thought they might hold on with a bit more to spare this time due to Colette Walker and others decamping to a new fringe party.  Their unexpected defeats will surely make it a lot harder for the leadership to press ahead with plans for self-ID.

But in a sense this outcome poses a dilemma for one or two of the rebels too - having won the party back to some extent, won't it be harder to justify sabotaging the party next May by splitting the vote on the list?

It's hard to defend the BBC on a day like today

The BBC always innocently claim to be scrupulously impartial on the Scottish political debate and independence in particular, but they really do make it hard for themselves to hold that line when they attempt stunts like the one we've seen today.  An article on the BBC news website is titled "Sturgeon defends handling of the pandemic", framing her from the start as being on the back foot and having something to defend.  The opening paragraph states that Scotland's death rate is higher than England's - but then we discover that what is being referred to is not the overall duration of the pandemic (which has of course seen a much worse outcome in England than in Scotland), but "the week to 15 November", in which the per capita death toll was slightly higher in Scotland.  Such figures are scarcely surprising, given that England went into a nationwide lockdown when Scotland did not - which was made possible by the fact that Scotland has had the virus under better control in preceding months.  And we know from past experience that the BBC would have been the first to hammer Nicola Sturgeon if she had imposed extra restrictions any earlier than she did.

The rather pathetic impression is given of a state broadcaster just eagerly waiting for months until the first opportunity came along to claim on a thin technical basis that Scotland is performing worse than England, and then pouncing in a less than subtle manner.

Pretty shocking, but sadly predictable, headline from a colonial broadcaster intent on politicising a pandemic. It is of course based on a quite appalling interview by Andrew Marr who treated pandemic deaths as a colonial league contest with England the winners. Disgusting. pic.twitter.com/9QPyQ3YzJ7

— MSM_Monitor (@msm_monitor) November 29, 2020

The Tories' priority in the middle of a pandemic? Dragging us out of the single market and customs union, against our clearly expressed democratic will, in just ONE MONTH from now. Why don't the mainstream media hammer Ross on this brazen hypocrisy?https://t.co/tEdJBNTY23

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 29, 2020

Voting for @theSNP #NEC continues today. Please vote for me #1 as Elected Member to improve party governance & policy making. I will put preparations for #Independence front & centre. I’m speaking in the #indy debate at #SNPConference2020 later this morning pic.twitter.com/Syycp87P18

— Joanna Cherry QC (@joannaccherry) November 29, 2020

POLL: Should all SNP members have the right to vote in internal elections (such as NEC elections), or should the franchise continue to be restricted to conference delegates?

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 29, 2020

SNP vote surges in two Perth by-elections

So just a brief round-up of a couple of local by-election results I overlooked the other day... 

Perth City South: 

SNP 32.9% (+5.2) 

Liberal Democrats 31.6% (-3.1) 

Conservatives 29.4% (+4.2) 

Labour 3.5% (-2.9) 

Greens 2.3% (-0.8) 

UKIP 0.3% (n/a) 

This is one of those bonkers results that can only occur due to the STV system, and which we know from past experience that poor old Mike "impartial Lib Dem election expert" Smithson struggles to get his head around. The Lib Dems topped the poll in the ward in 2017, and the SNP have overtaken them this time. The SNP vote has gone up, and the Lib Dem vote has gone down. The net swing from Lib Dem to SNP is a very healthy 4%. And yet technically the result of the by-election is a Lib Dem gain from the SNP. How is that even possible? Well, it's because STV is a proportional system with multi-councillor wards, and the by-election was caused by the death of an SNP councillor who was elected in 2017 after finishing in third place in the ward on the first preference vote. However, as soon as a vacancy occurs, STV suddenly stops being a proportional system, and all the voters of the ward get to choose a replacement, which naturally gives an in-built advantage to whichever party topped the popular vote in the ward last time around.

But hang on, didn't the SNP top the popular vote in the by-election? So how come it's a Lib Dem gain? That's because STV is also a preferential system, and the lower preferences of Tory voters will have broken heavily for the Lib Dems. A tight head-to-head between the SNP and the Lib Dems on first preferences when there are lots of Tory transfers sloshing around is essentially an unwinnable scenario for the SNP. 

Perth City North: 

 

SNP 61.0% (+12.5) 

Conservatives 22.9% (-2.7) 

Labour 9.5% (-6.3) 

Liberal Democrats 3.9% (+0.4) 

Greens 2.6% (n/a) 

Not much need to worry about transfers when you have 61% on first preferences! The SNP's average increase across the two by-elections is more than 8%, which tends to suggest the mildly underwhelming recent result in Clackmannanshire was - as we suspected at the time - an aberration caused by local factors.

At some point the usual suspects are going to have make their peace with the idea of sharing the SNP with self-ID sceptics. You can't purge or silence people like Joanna Cherry and Joan McAlpine, and trying to paint them as allies of the 'far right' just looks downright daft.

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 28, 2020

Earlier today members of @theSNP joined with members of other parties to publicise a letter containing a defamatory statement about me. I would like to know who organised the letter so I can seek redress. Now this new account https://t.co/UrKipWDXA3

— Joanna Cherry QC (@joannaccherry) November 28, 2020

Is retweeting the defamatory material. I would like to know the identity of the organisers of this account & the letter are so I can contact them for redress. Please let me know if you can help. Thank you

— Joanna Cherry QC (@joannaccherry) November 28, 2020

I note you’ve removed the defamatory reference of me in the letter. It’s a sad state of affairs that many prominent political party members such as @agcolehamilton signed upto such defamatory comment. I am still waiting on an apology and a donation to a charity of my choice. https://t.co/MG8B3bWFx0

— Christopher McEleny (@ChrisMcEleny) November 28, 2020

What a shame ⁦Alyn⁩ didn’t read my speech before commenting. I supplied a copy to the party in advance. It would be a little surprising if a senior lawyer was advocating an “illegal” referendum. Time to get our ducks in a row. https://t.co/Sl6bkUA4lM

— Joanna Cherry QC (@joannaccherry) November 29, 2020

📣 Today, @theSNP members have an opportunity to elect an NEC that will unite the party behind an independence campaign led by the grassroots. The power to #MakeChangeHappen is in your hands. Here's the team we're backing: https://t.co/LPZeeDcqDt

— SNP Common Weal Group (@SNP_CWG) November 28, 2020

If I was an SNP member this is the slate I’d back. As a Yes supporter the direction & vitality of the SNP matters too. Fringe events - even online - cost around £6k, pricing out grassroots voices. Cmon SNP members - have courage to democratise your party. https://t.co/e1PeML4XwW

— Lesley Riddoch (@LesleyRiddoch) November 28, 2020

So where are all the good guys? You could be looking at them...

I was amused yesterday to see that someone had set up a website called "the SNP Good Guys", a name given by some Twitter users to Denise Findlay's list of preferred candidates for this weekend's set of internal elections. Cheekily, the site purports to have been created on behalf of the candidates in question, who it portrays as a sort of collective. That's highly unlikely to be the case - it's more like a 'fan site' intended to drum up support. A harmless enough wheeze, you might think, but if you listen to certain hysterical voices on Twitter you'd think it was somehow akin to Mussolini's March on Rome. The TV actor David Paisley (nope, me neither) penned a risible 'Sherlock Holmes' thread, and obviously expected everyone to gasp with astonishment when he pointed out the blindingly obvious connection with Denise Findlay, who he described darkly as "a former SNP member who resigned from the party following antisemitism accusations" and "an outspoken anti-trans activist attempting to influence SNP NEC elections". Well, perish the thought that any female activist should be "outspoken", eh, David? And I'm not sure it's really all that surprising or outrageous that someone who was an active SNP member for years and was on the Conduct Committee until only twelve months ago should still take a keen interest in the party's internal democracy. Needless to say, the antisemitism allegations against her were hotly disputed, and she also questioned whether the narrative that she had "resigned" was actually accurate - she felt she had been pressured in the heat of the moment into saying she would resign and that the proper resignation process had not in fact occurred.

Sherlock Paisley's investigation then uncovered the 'shocking' information that SNP Good Guys, ForWomenScot and the LGB Alliance all share the same internet hosting, that Denise Findlay follows ForWomenScot, LGB Alliance, WomensPledge and TransgenderTrd, and that - get this - they all follow her back. And that's pretty much it. Yes, I know what you're thinking - with this standard of cutting-edge investigative journalism we could have the makings of the dullest episode of Panorama ever. (And it would still only last twenty seconds.) 

Not to be outdone, the MP John Nicolson then ratcheted up the absurdity to a whole new level by claiming that the entirely circumstantial link with the LGB Alliance means that the SNP Good Guys literally are the LGB Alliance, and are therefore a "sinister far right" organisation. He then urged his followers not to vote for anyone endorsed by the "far right" - including several of his current and former SNP colleagues in the House of Commons, even though a) by definition no-one has any control over whether someone else endorses them, and b) the whole "far right" characterisation is a pile of nonsense anyway. Essentially Mr Nicolson is making a dog-whistle attempt to (deniably) paint highly respected fellow parliamentarians such as Joanna Cherry and Neale Hanvey as quasi-Nazis. I think he's jumped the shark on this one, and that SNP members aren't nearly as stupid or as gullible as he seems to imagine. 

Where does the "far right" accusation come from? Presumably the idea is that the LGB Alliance and the SNP Women's Pledge are "transphobic" and therefore "bigoted" and therefore "far right". Which is odd, because the standard term of abuse chucked at alleged transphobes is "TERF", in which the "RF" stands for "radical feminist". And whatever other criticisms might be legitimately levelled at radical feminists, it's a bit of a stretch to argue that they're on the right of the political spectrum, let alone the far right. Denise Findlay makes no secret of why she backs the candidates she does - she wants people who put independence first, and who will prioritise the rights of women and girls (ie. sceptics on GRA reform). I'm not as preocuppied as she is with the trans debate, but I'm certainly on the same page as far as putting independence first is concerned, and I do worry that some current SNP office-holders are culture warriors first and independence warriors second. It's ironic that the likes of John Nicolson, David Paisley and Alyn Smith should characterise "SNP Good Guys" as the work of "entryists", because to me and to many others it looks like the entryism has actually been in completely the opposite direction, and that there are now an awful lot of people in positions of influence within the SNP who care a hell of a lot more about their own identity politics zealotry than they do about independence. 

For that reason, if I had a vote this weekend, I'd probably end up voting for quite a few of the people on Denise's list. Not necessarily all of them, because I don't know enough about some of them, but it goes without saying that I'd vote for high-quality and high-profile candidates such as Douglas Chapman, Joanna Cherry, Neale Hanvey, Amanda Burgauer, Corri Wilson, Roger Mullin, Catriona MacDonald and Chris McEleny. (Far right, John? Really?!) I'd also give serious consideration to Denise's recommendations for the Women's Convener and Equalities Convener votes, because frankly I think the incumbents in those two positions have been far too divisive. Here's a suggestion - why not ignore John Nicolson's silly slurs and make up your own mind by checking out Denise's list of endorsements HERE. Whether you vote for them or not, I think you'll agree with me that they're impressive people and that there's not a Nazi amongst them. 

By the way, a bonus point for anyone who correctly identifies the episode of Blake's 7 that I took the title of this blogpost from.

Well, let's be accurate, shall we? After the SNP announced her resignation, she questioned whether she had really done that, and the allegations of antisemitism were contested, to put it mildly.https://t.co/TvN9qbaPft

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 28, 2020

David Paisley instantly blocked me after I tweeted this. As you can see, there was nothing abusive or inaccurate about it, so I think that says rather a lot about him. The self-styled "anti-factionalists" (ahem) are over-reaching themselves. https://t.co/POQR2DEZLe

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 28, 2020

Backing Joanna Cherry's slate for the NEC elections

Those of you who follow me on Twitter may be aware of my confusion a couple of weeks ago at a cartoon that had seemingly been created and shared by the so-called 'woke' tendency within the Yes movement. It contained people who were presumably meant to be gay, trans and from ethnic minorities, looking dubious and alarmed as they were asked by a couple of well-meaning Yessers to "let's all just be friends" with people from the movement who are apparently supposed to be beyond the pale - including Wings supporters, feminists with concerns about GRA reform, and most oddly of all the SNP Common Weal group. I can't pretend to know much about the Common Weal group - I'm not sure if they're a full part of Common Weal itself, or if they're just inspired by the same principles. But given that those principles are firmly rooted in the radical left, you'd think the 'woke' faction would see them as natural allies rather than as mortal enemies. A clue to what is going on is that the Common Weal group are supporting a slate of candidates for the upcoming NEC elections who have given their backing to a 'Manifesto for Democracy' - and that slate includes Joanna Cherry and Neale Hanvey, who are hate figures for a small minority of young activists due to the trans issue. Some of them openly wanted unionists to defeat Ms Cherry and Mr Hanvey in last year's general election, and boasted on social media about campaigning in any constituency but those two. 

For my own part, I think both Ms Cherry and Mr Hanvey would make ideal members of the NEC, and I can't see much to disagree with in the Manifesto for Democracy - which includes an urgent push for independence, a fairer complaints process, and a long-overdue reform to give all party members (rather than just delegates) the right to vote in internal elections, such as NEC elections. Of course this runs into the age-old problem with reforming electoral processes - to get changes through you first have to win a vote among the existing franchise, which is often weighted towards those who may have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. 

It's unlikely anything I say will have much influence on conference delegates, who are highly politically engaged and will know their own minds. But for what it's worth, I would urge anyone with a vote at the weekend to back change on the NEC. Let's democratise the party and make independence our number one priority going forward.

I didn't think it was the end of the world when the SNP reversed policy on NATO a few years ago. I'd much prefer to be out of NATO, but if the centre of gravity of Scottish public opinion is in favour of membership, it may be unwise to go against that. However...

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 24, 2020

...one thing that always bothered me was Alyn Smith's speech in favour of the change, in which he claimed that opposition to NATO made us look "a bit odd" in the eyes of other European countries. His tone of voice suggested we looked like weirdos.

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 24, 2020

That was obviously a bogus point when you consider that a number of highly valued EU member states are outside NATO, and always have been - Sweden, Ireland, Finland, Austria.

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 24, 2020

But look at it also in the context of the current trans debate. It would be unthinkable for Alyn Smith to lecture individuals on how they look 'odd' and should try to conform more, use the 'right' bathroom, etc, etc. Why shouldn't countries forge their own distinct paths too?

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 24, 2020

When the BBC responded to the Panelbase poll last week, they claimed they had covered the power-grab "regularly" on GMS, Gaelic News, The Nine and Reporting Scotland. What's missing from that list? The network news, for starters. Did that even occur to them?

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 23, 2020

It was the BBC's own decision to repeatedly reject a Scottish Six. The onus is therefore on the BBC to provide a network news that properly serves Scottish viewers, who are entitled to hear about major stories of great importance to them.

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 24, 2020

The SNP's defence submission is a 'modernisation' too far: it's time to reaffirm the long-standing commitment to *unilateral* nuclear disarmament

Here lies problem with by passing @theSNP members in creating policy. The Clyde will dry up before SNP members abandon our support for unilateral nuclear disarmament in favour of a New Labour multilateral policy.

Defence policy is set by SNP party members, not by British MP’s. pic.twitter.com/EJfLBrpCZt

— Christopher McEleny (@ChrisMcEleny) November 23, 2020

Did you read the submission? pic.twitter.com/Fbab6ZWp9S

— Roddy (@roddymcglynn) November 23, 2020

Here is the relevant sentence, which in fact has been paraphrased accurately - "If we are to achieve a world without nuclear weapons, it is imperative that HM Government and its international partners commit wholeheartedly to multilateral nuclear disarmament."

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 23, 2020

It is plainly inconsistent with the SNP's longstanding belief in *unilateral* nuclear disarmament to call upon the UK Government to commit to multilateral disarmament, which implies *the retention of nuclear weapons* for as long as other countries are unwilling to disarm.

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 23, 2020

It's pretty obvious that a couple of high-profile SNP Westminster parliamentarians honestly think they are "modernising" party policy with an increasingly full-throated commitment to NATO, but multilateral disarmament is not the hill to die on.

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 23, 2020

If they can't bring themselves to retract that sentence, they should at least 'clarify' that they are calling for the UK to disarm unilaterally.

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 23, 2020

I also have concerns about the way that paper bangs on at such length about Russian interference - those sections could have been written by David Leask himself. Are the SNP defence team preoccupied with the things they really ought to be preoccupied with?

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 23, 2020

Read the report Marcus.
"If we are to achieve a world without nuclear weapons, it is imperative that HM Government and its international partners commit wholeheartedly to *multilateral* nuclear disarmament."

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 23, 2020

That's not a commitment to "scrapping Trident". It's a policy that gives the UK government our blessing to retain Trident until such time as France or China are interested in disarming: in other words, sometime never.

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 23, 2020

Marcus we can control our own words and call upon them to do what we actually want them to do. I want them to disarm without condition. What do you want them to do?

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 23, 2020

Pro-indy parties make progress in Clackmannanshire East by-election

A rare advantage of being forced to have pre-moderation switched on is that I was able to intercept a comment the other night by a well-known unionist propagandist who was attempting to portray the Conservative hold in the Clackmannanshire East by-election as some kind of glorious, game-changing victory for unionism. In reality, the vote share for both pro-independence parties actually went up slightly, and it looks like the unexpectedly sharp increase in the Tory vote can be explained mainly by an intra-unionist swing caused by yet another Labour collapse. 

Clackmannanshire East by-election result: 

 

Conservatives 51.2% (+9.7) 

SNP 32.0% (+1.8) 

Labour 8.1% (-12.1) 

Greens 5.8% (+2.0) 

Liberal Democrats 2.9% (-1.4) 

If we'd seen this result in late 2017 or 2018, I might have interpreted the Tories' relatively strong performance as being of wider national significance. But at the moment we have tonnes of polling evidence, and indeed evidence from other recent local by-elections, that the Tories are struggling across Scotland and that the Douglas Ross experiment is failing. So the Clackmannanshire East outcome has got 'local factors' written all over it. It was a reasonably solid Tory ward in 2017 anyway - it contains Dollar, so it's very much the posh end of the county.

To only focus on "disaster" would be our "biggest mistake"

Boris Johnson didn't just say that devolution is a "disaster" - he also said it was Tony Blair's biggest "mistake", which implies it should never even have happened. So "mistake" is the word to emphasise for as long as Johnson - and the Tories - remain in power.

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 19, 2020

How are the SNP failing to respect the results of two referendums?

1997 devolution referendum: SNP respecting it, Tories trashing it.

2014 independence referendum: Scotland didn't become an independent country.

2016 EU referendum: Scotland voted Remain.

What's your point?

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 19, 2020

Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll: Scottish public think Nicola Sturgeon has outperformed her fellow world leaders in her handling of the pandemic

Last but not least in the Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll, we have an opportunity to see how Nicola Sturgeon shapes up in a league table of selected world leaders - and we all know how thrilled our unionist friends always are to see Ms Sturgeon receiving her due recognition alongside her fellow world leaders.  Bear in mind that this is a poll of voting-age respondents in Scotland.  

How good or bad a job do you think the following leaders are doing in their response to the coronavirus/COVID-19 outbreak?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE USA:

Very Good: 2%

Good: 5%

Bad: 13%

Very Bad: 68%

Neither Good Nor Bad: 9%

Total Good: 8%

Total Bad: 82%

Net Rating: -74

I know there appears to be a small discrepancy in the numbers, but that'll be due to the effect of rounding.  As you'd expect, Trump has an abysmal reputation across all demographics and partisan loyalties, and interestingly there's no difference between Yes and No voters on this one - he has a net rating of -75 among people who voted Yes in 2014, and -74 among people who voted No.  There is, however, a slightly bigger difference between people who would currently vote Yes and No, which is logical enough, because the No coalition has shrunk in recent months and has presumably been left with a bigger percentage of right-wingers.  Trump's least-worst rating is among Conservative voters, but that's not saying much - exactly half of Tories say he's done "very badly".

NICOLA STURGEON, FIRST MINISTER OF SCOTLAND:

Very Good: 29%

Good: 37%

Bad: 9%

Very Bad: 12%

Neither Good Nor Bad: 12%

Total Good: 66%

Total Bad: 21%

Net Rating: +45

What leaps out at me here are the differences between voters for the various unionist parties.  Ms Sturgeon has won over both Labour and Liberal Democrat voters, who give her net ratings of +28 and +51 respectively.  The die-hards who will presumably always say she's performing badly no matter what she does are mostly to be found among Tory voters, who give her a net negative rating of -21.

BORIS JOHNSON, PRIME MINISTER OF THE UK:

Very Good: 5%

Good: 14%

Bad: 21%

Very Bad: 43%

Neither Good Nor Bad: 15%

Total Good: 19%

Total Bad: 65%

Net Rating: -46

Ouch.  Would it be tactless of me to say these figures are a "disaster" for the unionist cause?  In a reverse mirror image of the results for Ms Sturgeon, only Tory voters give Mr Johnson a positive rating - although there are plenty enough Tories who hold him in disdain.  28% of them think he's handled the crisis badly or very badly.  The only other group where he gets even close to respectability is current No supporters, who give him a net negative rating of 'only' -13, but of course that'll be largely because such a significant percentage of current No supporters are Tories.

ANGELA MERKEL, CHANCELLOR OF GERMANY:

Very Good: 18%

Good: 34%

Bad: 5%

Very Bad: 4%

Neither Good Nor Bad: 23%

Total Good: 52%

Total Bad: 9%

Net Rating: +43

You wouldn't think there'd be such an ideological and/or partisan element to people's appreciation of Ms Merkel's assured response to the crisis, but in fact it appears that anti-European prejudices are rearing their ugly head here.  No supporters are more grudging than Yes supporters, and her least good numbers are to be found among Tory voters - although even they give her a positive rating of +18.  

WORLD LEADER LEAGUE TABLE:

Nicola Sturgeon: +45

Angela Merkel: +43

Boris Johnson: -46

Donald Trump: -74

I'm sure Douglas Ross and George Foulkes will gladly confirm that this outcome makes us all feel incredibly proud to be Scottish.  

* * *

You can read my comment piece in The National on the BBC results from the poll HERE.

Remember that the Scottish people were fearful about the future of devolution even *before* Boris Johnson called it a "disaster"

Translation: "Devolution is great but not when the Jocks elect the wrong government, which is every single time."https://t.co/pXhj0i67Yv

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 16, 2020

2014: Faster, safer, better change. Strongest devolved parliament in the world. Entrenched constitutionally. Only in exceptional circumstances. Settled will. Respected partner. We love you.
2020: Mugs.

— David Halliday (@DavidJFHalliday) November 17, 2020

If you think devolution has been a disaster because the people of Scotland keep electing the government they do, it means you think the people of another country are better suited to deciding what is best for Scotland.

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 17, 2020

I don't know if it's just me, but the longer this farce of his leadership goes on, the more he looks and sounds like a pretendy student politician.https://t.co/ctBN8ZI4nE

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 17, 2020

Chr*st. If I were @theSNP, I'd just post this to every household next Spring and leave it there https://t.co/X9vFo8CIjj

— Tim Bale (@ProfTimBale) November 17, 2020

I keep sharing this clause of the IMB around in the hope that people will read it and see that it spells the end of devolution. Criminal that the media has not covered this more. pic.twitter.com/rnviysY5Ub

— Ian Sutherland (@Sutheia) November 17, 2020

There's such an opportunity now for the SNP to convince voters that the Scottish Parliament is under real threat if we don't win independence soon. It's hardly going to seem implausible that a Prime Minister who thinks devolution is a "disaster" might abolish devolution.

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 17, 2020

Alex Massie in the Spectator: "Speaking to his northern English MPs last night, Johnson declared that devolution has been 'a disaster north of the border' and was the biggest mistake Tony Blair ever made. The implication, quite obviously, is that in a better ordered world the Scottish parliament should be abolished." 

Just a reminder of how fearful voters were about the future of the Scottish Parliament before our beloved Prime Minister called devolution a "disaster"... 

If Scotland does not become an independent country over the next ten years, and if the Conservatives remain in power at Westminster, which of the following three outcomes do you think is most likely? (Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll, 5th-11th November 2020) 

The UK Conservative government will substantially increase the Scottish Parliament's powers: 23% 

The UK Conservative government will substantially reduce the Scottish Parliament's powers: 55% 

The UK Conservative government will abolish the Scottish Parliament altogether: 22% 

TOTAL REDUCE/ABOLISH: 77% 

And of the potential electoral consequences of those fears... 

If the UK Conservative government substantially reduces the powers of the Scottish Parliament or abolishes the Scottish Parliament altogether, would you be more likely or less likely to support Scotland becoming an independent country?

More likely: 69% 

Less likely: 31% 

Incidentally, Alex Massie went on to say this: "Arguing that devolution has failed because Nicola Sturgeon is first minister is the same as arguing that Britain has failed because Boris Johnson is Prime Minister...A rotten government in Edinburgh no more makes devolution a disaster than Johnson proves the Union’s bankruptcy. (The answer, in each case, is to elect a better government.)" 

Which is fine, if you actually have the capacity to do that in each case. The Scottish people can certainly elect the Scottish government that they most want, but I'm at something of a loss to explain how Alex thinks they can elect the UK government they most want, given that Scotland only has 59 of 650 seats at Westminster.

*  *  *

Later today I'll publish the final batch of results in the Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll - watch a preview below.

 

Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll: Staggering three-quarters of voters think the BBC have failed to make the public aware of how the Internal Market Bill will reduce the Scottish Parliament's powers

As I mentioned the other day, one of the difficulties of polling about public attitudes to the Westminster power-grab contained in the Internal Market Bill is that most people aren't even aware of it, due to the mainstream media's abject failure to report it.  No-one would expect anti-independence newspapers to go out of their way to draw attention to something that would be unhelpful for their side of the debate, but what of the public service broadcaster that so many people look to and trust to give them impartial information?  I thought it might be worth asking respondents what they think about the BBC's non-reporting of the power-grab.   

Do you think the BBC have done enough to make the public aware of the changes to the Scottish Parliament's powers proposed by the Internal Market Bill?  

Yes 23%

No 77% 

I was actually quite staggered by that result - I thought we might see an even split, with independence supporters being critical of the BBC and unionists more content.  But in fact this is a rare example of literally every demographic or political group mentioned in the datasets reaching the same conclusion.  89% of SNP voters, 68% of Labour voters, 74% of Liberal Democrat voters, 62% of Conservative voters, 86% of Yes supporters, 63% of No supporters, 77% of people born in Scotland and 76% of people born in England all agree that the BBC have failed to properly inform the public. 

My guess is this will have happened because of a straightforward logical process.  Having been just asked a question that summarised the changes to the devolution settlement that the Internal Market Bill entails, respondents will have come to the inescapable conclusion that what is happening is important enough that the public should know about it, and will also have realised that they've heard very little about it on the BBC.  Even for many Tory voters, that will have left only one possible answer to the question. 

So to summarise what we've learned from this poll: when the public know about the power-grab, they think it breaches The Vow and shouldn't happen without a referendum, but many of them don't know about it because the BBC haven't told them, and they think that's wrong.  I'm not sure that's a great look for the state broadcaster.

*  *  *

There's still a little bit more to come from the poll - if you'd like to be the first to know, you can follow me on Twitter HERE.

*  *  *

You can read my piece in The National about last night's results HERE.

VIDEO: Preview of tonight's question in the Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll

Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll suggests strong backing for a Plan B: Almost two-thirds of voters want the Scottish Government to take decisive action to circumvent Westminster's attempts to 'veto' an independence referendum

Quite a number of you specifically asked me to use the new Panelbase poll to ask about support for a Plan B option for securing an outright independence mandate if the UK Government continues to refuse a Section 30 order. I was initially sceptical, because I had posed questions about the two main Plan B ideas in the earlier polls this year. The January poll found backing for the Scottish Parliament going ahead with legislation for a referendum, and allowing the courts to decide whether the vote can take place. And then the June poll found even stronger support for the option of using a scheduled election to obtain an indy mandate. I wasn't sure there was much to be gained from repeating those questions. However, it was pointed out to me that with big votes coming up very soon at the SNP conference, it was important to have up-to-date information about the public's wishes. So on this occasion I decided to simply ask about the general principle of pressing ahead with a Plan B. 

Imagine that the pro-independence parties win a majority of seats in next year's Scottish Parliament election, but the UK Government still refuses to agree to an independence referendum. In that scenario, do you think the Scottish Government should ensure the Scottish people are given a choice on independence over the course of the next parliamentary term, or should it accept that the UK Government has a veto on an independence referendum? 

The Scottish Government should ensure the Scottish people are given a choice on independence: 63% 

The Scottish Government should accept that the UK Government has a veto on an independence referendum: 37% 

If I had been writing the question a week later than I did, I might have worded it slightly differently, because 'accepting a veto' closely echoes language used in the SNP leadership's draft motion for conference, which is based on the questionable assumption that simply saying "we don't accept the veto" will by some metaphysical means force the UK Government to grant a Section 30 order. It's important to stress that the result of this question indicates that the overwhelming majority of the public want the Scottish Government to actually take action to circumvent the veto, rather than continuing to talk impotently about how "unsustainable" the situation supposedly is. 

60% of Labour voters think that there should be a democratic choice on independence, regardless of Downing Street's wishes, as do a very healthy 46% of Liberal Democrat voters. However, I couldn't help but think it's richly ironic that a slender majority of people who vote for a party with the words "liberal" and "democrat" in its name think there should be a Westminster veto on the democratic process in Scotland! (Admittedly the subsample of Lib Dem voters is pretty small.)  As you'd expect, the strongest support for the veto comes from Tory voters (86%), people who voted No in 2014 (61%), and people who would still vote No in a second indyref (82%). 

Tonight's second question is a little different from the others. When I ran the poll in June, Dr Tim Rideout of the Scottish Currency Group asked me to add on a question about currency, and offered to provide funding to cover the additional cost. It was already too late in the day by that point, but he made the same request this time, and I agreed. So this question was written by Tim (or at least he was the one that sent it to me), although I did tweak the wording just slightly before submitting it to Panelbase. 

The SNP's policy is that if Scotland becomes independent, a new Scottish currency would be introduced as soon as practicable after Independence Day, to ensure that Scotland has control over its own monetary and fiscal policy, and interest rates. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this policy? 

Completely agree: 30% 

Somewhat agree: 29% 

Somewhat disagree: 12% 

Completely disagree: 29% 

TOTAL AGREE: 59% 

TOTAL DISAGREE: 41% 

Bear in mind that what is described in the question as the SNP's policy is what was passed at conference last year, and is somewhat more radical than the leadership's own wishes in calling for a new currency "as soon as practicable". Naturally the strongest backing for the policy comes from current Yes supporters (89%), people who voted Yes in 2014 (86%), and SNP voters (87%). But intriguingly half of Labour voters want a Scottish currency in the event of independence, as do a significant minority of 2014 No voters (37%). 

You'll doubtless have spotted that this result appears to directly contradict the recent Survation poll for Progress Scotland, which showed support for retaining Sterling in the long-term. The reason for the difference is probably that the new question briefly explained the rationale for a change of currency. It looks like respondents were convinced by the need for Scotland to be able to control its own monetary policy and interest rates.

Speaking personally, I'm a tad ambivalent on this subject, because polls that specifically mention the pound (as the Progress Scotland poll did) tend to find there's an emotional pull for voters towards retaining a currency they're familiar with.  But the experience of 2014 suggests that having a credible policy that doesn't depend on Westminster acting reasonably may ultimately be more important than having a policy that is superficially popular.  So on balance I'm inclined to think that moving towards a new currency with a degree of urgency is the correct approach.

*  *  *

There's still more to come from the poll over the coming days - if you'd like to be the first to know, you can follow me on Twitter HERE.

*  *  *

You can read my piece in the Sunday National on last night's results HERE.

VIDEO: Preview of Sunday night's questions in the Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll

Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll: More than three-quarters of voters expect the Tories to take more powers away from the Scottish Parliament or abolish it completely - and if that happens, almost 70% will be "more likely" to support independence

Last night's results from the Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll suggested that voters think the removal of powers from the Scottish Parliament that is currently underway is in breach of "The Vow" that was so pivotal to the No side in winning the 2014 indyref.  But what of the future?  Do voters have confidence that the UK Government will nobly draw a line after the current power-grab and leave Holyrood in peace after that?  Unsurprisingly, the answer is no.

If Scotland does not become an independent country over the next ten years, and if the Conservatives remain in power at Westminster, which of the following three outcomes do you think is most likely?

The UK Conservative government will substantially increase the Scottish Parliament's powers: 23%

The UK Conservative government will substantially reduce the Scottish Parliament's powers: 55%

The UK Government will abolish the Scottish Parliament altogether: 22%

TOTAL REDUCE/ABOLISH: 77%

What ought to be of greatest concern to unionist strategists is that the fears over the future of devolution very much extend to the coalition of support that delivered the No vote in 2014, presumably including many voters who were swayed by the bogus assurances that the Scottish Parliament was permanent and would become much more powerful.  74% of Labour voters, 77% of Liberal Democrat voters, 67% of No voters from 2014, and 59% of people who are currently minded to vote No again, expect that Holyrood will be diminished or abolished over the coming decade. 

To me, this speaks to the strategic blunder that the Conservatives made in abandoning the so-called "respect agenda" under Ruth Davidson's leadership.  Having spent years trying to convince voters that Tory rule was not a threat to the Scottish Parliament, they suddenly noticed that devolution - or at least devolution under SNP control - was unpopular with a militant core of unionist support, and that it was therefore possible to win a few extra Tory seats by reverting to the old anti-devo or devo-sceptic posture.  But they've lost sight of the fact that the militant core of unionism is only a minority of the Scottish population, and that the pro-devolution majority are listening to the rhetoric as well.  

If the UK Conservative government substantially reduces the powers of the Scottish Parliament or abolishes the Scottish Parliament altogether, would you be more likely or less likely to support Scotland becoming an independent country?

More likely: 69%
Less likely: 31%

Once again, it's not just the Yes die-hards who are saying they would be more likely to back independence in that scenario - so are 71% of Labour voters, 59% of Liberal Democrat voters, 50% of people who voted No six years ago, 32% of those who would currently vote No, and even 27% of Conservative voters.  

Put these results together, and what have you got?  Voters believe the UK Government is likely to follow a course of action - either abolition of Holyrood or a further significant power-grab - that would clearly make a bigger Yes majority much more attainable.  That expectation may be all that is really needed, if Yes campaigners can constantly remind voters of the ongoing threat to devolution and point to the power-grab in the Internal Market Bill as an example of what may be yet to come.

*  *  *

There's still more to come from the poll over the coming days - if you'd like to be the first to know, you can follow me on Twitter HERE.

*  *  *

You can read my piece in The National on last night's results HERE.

VIDEO: Preview of Saturday night's questions in the Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll

Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll: Two-thirds of voters say the Internal Market BIll breaches The Vow - and demand a referendum on whether the Westminster power-grab should go ahead

You might remember that when I first floated the idea of crowdfunding another poll, my plan was to test public reactions to the Westminster power-grab that is currently underway due to the Internal Market Bill.  As it turned out, Progress Scotland had only just conducted a poll that covered the Internal Market Bill extensively, and so at that point I expected to move on to other topics instead.  However, the questions asked in the Progress Scotland poll effectively tested reactions to what people already knew about the Internal Market Bill, which obviously in most cases won't have been very much, because the mainstream media haven't exactly been falling over themselves to keep the public informed about the power-grab.  The respondents who did have a view were mostly hostile to the Bill, but there were an awful lot of people who just didn't know.  I came to the conclusion that there would be value in posing a question that briefly summarises the effect of the Bill on the devolution settlement, thus allowing us to see how people react when they're actually in the know.  I also decided to ask about the democratic principle of whether the Scottish people should get to decide in a referendum whether or not powers are removed from the Scottish Parliament - which seems to me important given that those powers are currently there because of the landslide in favour of the devolution settlement recorded in the 1997 referendum.

The UK Government is currently seeking to pass the Internal Market Bill.  The House of Lords Constitution Committee has stated that the Bill would change the current powers of the Scottish Parliament by allowing the UK Government to override laws passed in Edinburgh, by imposing new restrictions on the Scottish Government in relation to goods and services, and by removing powers from the Scottish Government on state aid.  Do you think these reductions in the Scottish Parliament's powers should only take effect if the Scottish people agree to them in a referendum?

Yes 66%

No 34%

There have been some complaints about the question wording, but I would urge everyone to read the Lords committee report and then judge for themselves whether the summary contained in the question is fair.  I would strongly contend that it is.

Support for a referendum on the power-grab cuts across the partisan divide - 87% of SNP voters, 67% of Labour voters, 49% of Liberal Democrat voters, and even 33% of Conservative voters are in favour.  Indeed, exactly half of people who voted No in the 2014 indyref think there should be a referendum before the powers are removed.

I also asked a follow-up question about whether respondents think the power-grab is consistent with the Vow that was published on the front page of the Daily Record in the week of the indyref -

Before the 2014 independence referendum, the three largest anti-independence parties issued a "Vow" promising that the Scottish Parliament is permanent.  If the changes to the Scottish Parliament's powers proposed by the Internal Market Bill take effect without the Scottish people agreeing to them in a new referendum, do you think the Vow will have been kept or broken?

The Vow will have been kept: 37%

The Vow will have been broken: 63%

The notorious unionist troll Steve Sayers loudly complained on Twitter that this question was illegitimate, on the grounds that the "permanence" part of the Vow had supposedly been honoured with wording inserted into the Scotland Act.  But the whole point is that this is a matter of interpretation - can an institution be said to be "permanent" just because it remains in existence in some form, or is it actually necessary for its existing powers to be maintained in full?  Respondents were free to express either view, and unfortunately for Sayers their interpretation of the Vow clearly differs from his.  Again, substantial numbers of non-SNP voters agree that the Vow is being betrayed - including 57% of Labour voters, 56% of Liberal Democrat voters, 34% of Conservative voters, and a remarkable 52% of No voters from 2014.

*  *  *

There's still lots more to come from the poll over the coming days - if you'd like to be the first to know, you can follow me on Twitter HERE.

*  *  *

You can read my piece in The National on yesterday's headline voting intention numbers HERE.

VIDEO: Preview of tonight's questions in the Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll

Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll: History made again as the pro-independence vote rises to 56% - the highest ever in a Panelbase poll, and in any online poll conducted by a BPC-affiliated firm

I seem to have set expectations sky-high with my video teaser this morning, so I hope you're all happy with this outcome - Yes have hit 56% in our latest exclusive Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll, and that's an all-time high in Panelbase polling. 

Should Scotland be an independent country? (Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll)

Yes 56% (+1) 

No 44% (-1)  

(Before Don't Knows are excluded, the figures are Yes 51%, No 40%. The fieldwork was conducted between the 5th and 11th of November, and 1020 respondents were interviewed. Percentage changes are measured from the most recent Panelbase poll, which was commissioned by Business for Scotland in August.) 

It's been obvious from social media, and also from one or two posters on the comments section of this blog, that unionists have been frantically looking for some signs of hope that the Yes majority might be narrowing slightly as the autumn wears on, and as they've continued chipping away at Nicola Sturgeon over her handling of the pandemic. They certainly won't find any such hope in this poll. Technically a 1% increase isn't statistically significant and might potentially be explained by margin of error 'noise', but anything outside a polling firm's normal range ought to make us sit up and take notice, however small the movement needed to get there. This is the eighth Panelbase poll in this calendar year, and the sequence of results for Yes is 52-49-50-52-54-54-55-56. That does not look like a Yes vote that has started to drift downwards after peaking in the summer. Quite the reverse. And it also shouldn't be forgotten that until relatively recently Panelbase were actually on the No-friendly end of the spectrum, and for several years regularly showed the Yes vote hovering in the lowly 43-45% range. We've come a long, long way since then. 

This is a landmark poll in quite a few ways - 

* It's the highest ever Yes vote in a Panelbase poll. 

* It's the highest ever Yes vote in a poll conducted online by any British Polling Council-affiliated firm. 

* It's the joint-highest ever Yes vote in any sort of credible online poll (it's only equalled by the recent JL Partners poll). 

* It's the joint second-highest Yes vote in any credible poll conducted by any firm (only surpassed by last month's famous Ipsos-Mori poll, which of course was conducted by telephone). 

Drilling into the details, we see a now-familiar pattern. Yes command the support of a very impressive 42% of people who voted Labour in 2019, and 28% of people who voted Liberal Democrat - the latter can probably be explained by the impossibility of Scotland rejoining the EU if it remains part of the UK. Almost one-quarter (23%) of No voters from the 2014 referendum are now in the Yes column, whereas only 8% of Yes voters have moved in the opposite direction. And the gender gap of days gone by has essentially vanished - 56% of men and 55% of women support independence. 

We also have voting intention numbers for both Westminster and Holyrood. The SNP remain in an utterly commanding position, although understandably the figures don't quite match the almost absurd heights that were recorded when Panelbase last asked these questions for the Sunday Times in the early summer.

Scottish voting intentions for Westminster: 

SNP 50% (-3) 

Conservatives 21% (n/c) 

Labour 20% (+1) 

Liberal Democrats 5% (-1) 

Greens 2% (n/a) 

Westminster seats projection (with changes from 2019): SNP 56 (+8), Conservatives 2 (-4), Labour 1 (n/c), Liberal Democrats 0 (-4) 

Scottish Parliament constituency ballot: 

SNP 53% (-2) 

Conservatives 21% (+1) 

Labour 18% (+3) 

Liberal Democrats 5% (-1) 

Greens 3% (n/c) 

Scottish Parliament regional list ballot: 

SNP 46% (-4) 

Conservatives 20% (+2) 

Labour 17% (+2) 

Greens 8% (n/c) 

Liberal Democrats 6% (n/c)  

Scottish Parliament seats projection (with changes from 2016): SNP 71 (+8), Conservatives 25 (-6), Labour 19 (-5), Greens 9 (+3), Liberal Democrats 5 (n/c) 

So in contrast to the recent Survation poll, the Tories are clinging on to second place, but it's reasonable to suggest they're now in some danger of ceding their position as the largest opposition party next May. 

A few days ago, you might have seen a rather amusing meltdown from several hard-core unionists on Twitter, who had taken this poll and were angrily brandishing screenshots of the 'shockingly biased' supplementary questions (most of which were written by me, but Panelbase also added on a few questions for a different client). I'm totally comfortable with the wording of those questions, which you'll be seeing over the coming days, but for now what I'd say is this: regardless of your opinion of those questions, it makes literally no difference whatsoever to the credibility of the headline Yes/No results, because Panelbase - like all reputable pollsters - always ask the main voting intention questions before any of the other questions. So respondents cannot be skewed or influenced in any way.

You may have seen that, just by chance, YouGov conducted an independence poll with almost identical fieldwork dates, and showed a slightly different result, with the Yes vote dipping a little from 53% to 51%.  The fact that we have two polls conducted at the same time, with both showing minor margin of error changes in different directions, suggests to me that the situation on the ground has remained pretty steady since Yes reached its new high watermark during the summer.  So as enjoyable as it is watching the likes of Andrew Bowie 'celebrating' a poll showing a Yes majority, they're probably barking up the wrong tree.

There are plenty more results to come from the Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll - if you'd like to be the first to hear about them, you can follow me on Twitter HERE.