As you may have seen, there was a unionist propaganda poll yesterday, commissioned by the "Scottish Fabians", in an attempt to deflect attention from the consistently large pro-independence majority. It amusingly produced two completely contradictory results. On one question it purported to show that, by a 52-36 majority, respondents think independence is a "distraction" from more important issues. But on another question it showed that by a vast margin of 63-9, respondents would be unlikely to vote for a party that disagreed with their own view on independence. Why would people who don't regard independence as important be so unwilling to cross-vote on the issue? Exactly. People do regard it as hugely important, and it's probably the number one driver of people's party political preferences at the moment.
Unsurprisingly, the overwhelming majority of those who said that independence is a "distraction" are No voters. Down the ages, "this is boring", "this is a distraction" has always been a convenient mask for those who are opposed to radical change - what it really means is "we desperately don't want this to happen". If you were to say to them that we should become independent tomorrow so that we can put an end to the "distraction" and the "boredom" once and for all, you'd suddenly find that nothing matters to them more than resisting that.
As for the minority of independence supporters who agreed on the "distraction" point, I suspect some of them would have been virtue-signallers. Many people feel that they 'ought' to say that health and education are more important than the constitution (the problem with that being, of course, that independence is essential for protecting the NHS in particular). In fairness, it was a clever wheeze on the Fabians' part to devise a question that could artificially cobble together a majority by combining hardline unionists and Yes virtue-signallers, but as the other question demonstrates it really is pretty meaningless.
Chris McCall of the Record played along with the little stunt by breathlessly describing the poll as "another independence poll". Well, no. Another independence poll would have asked the question "Should Scotland be an independent country?" And we can all hazard a confident guess of what the result of that would have been, and why the Fabians very carefully didn't ask it.
Thanks James, spot on
ReplyDeleteMore and more desperate British antics
Why are unionists worried at all? I thought London would just refuse iref2 in perpetuity and that would be that? That and/or Sturgeon 'doesn't really want indy'.
ReplyDeleteThat's what some 'controversial bloggers' claim anyway.
'All Bozo needs to do is keep saying no, even if support for indy becomes overwhelming'.
ReplyDeleteThat strategy has successfully kept the British empire together to this day.
Gosh, yes, ruddy good Kipling it has too, old sport. To think the odious French might have pinched an inch of the cottoniferous Americas or the African engine of world trade. Let alone the Indies! Perish the feversome thought.
DeleteFor as long as the magnificent flag of merciful union flies over thankful Dublin, spicy Calicut and hunky dorey Hong Kong, dear London is Sovereign!
That all sounds great skier but can you expand a little? Why on earth would a Boris Johnson govt agree to a section 30? What is going to happen in the reasonably short term to sway him? I’m talking within the next year say? Because if you mean that eventually, maybe a generation, then ok perhaps something might push them to agreeing. Personally a plan which relies on, “sometime in the future” isn’t a plan at all. It’s irresponsible.
DeleteSkier, could you please tell me where this article is wrong. Thanks
Deletehttps://wingsoverscotland.com/you-are-the-boris-johnson/
It's possible that it's right, but some very obvious aspects make no sense.
DeleteFirst of all, the UK has never successfully said No before. Ever. It always says no initially, then buckles under the slightest pressure. I'm Irish. The 'mighty' British empire was defeated in war by a small group of irish potato farmers.
Boris is hardly a fearsome strategic genius. He's the dumbest idiot that's ever took up residence in No. 10. He also couldn't give a shit about the UK really; he's English, not British as the article fails to note. Right now, he feels he should try and save the union, but its rather obvious his heart isn't in it. Cameron by contrast was British.
But the obvious question are why is Gove forming a new anti-indy campaign alliance if Bozo will just say No? Why is he recruiting Galloway and his new list party? Why is he suggesting 'expat Scots' like him should get a vote in iref2 if no such referendum is ever going to happen? Why did Bozo kick out Carlaw and replace with Ross as a young fresh faced leader to boost support for the union? Why get the BBC to continually attack the SNP and indy? Why did Johnson come to Scotland to 'bolster support for the union'? Why has it been revealed that he's holidaying here because he loves our cherished union?
If all Bozo has to do is send Sturgeon an email saying No again, why bother with any of this?
Now my questions... why ask people to vote for a very secretive party to split the indy vote? We don't know who is running this party, who is funding it, what its policies are, who its candidates are? It magically arrives on the scene just at the time London sees support for indy go above 50% with the SNP soaring. It is run from England by someone who loves England / prefers living in England to Scotland, and we are supposed to trust it with Scotland's future?
Sorry, but it all seems rather unconvincing.
Indeed. Wings likes to pretend this is all super taboo stuff to talk about. It’s not. Paul Kavanagh put it well recently:
Delete“ Democracy means that those in power accept the verdict of the people. If Johnson refuses to accept what the people have said, then it means that British nationalist arguments about the economics of a future Scotland, their claims about currency, their assertions that Scotland needs the UK, all become side issues. The debate will have become one about the fundamentals of democracy itself, and how democracy is denied to Scotland within the UK. When there is a direct equation between independence and democracy itself, that is not an argument that supporters of the British state can win.”
https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2020/08/17/getting-the-job-done/
If a massive Holyrood election win is met with a section 30 refusal, with no way forward, the politics changes. Things get real. We are no longer pondering hypotheticals. Scotland enters a new reality, and the people will be awakened again as they were in the 2014 campaign. I expect to see a referendum legislated for in Holyrood, and counter actions in Westminster to prevent it from taking place. Then all hell breaks loose. Constitutional crisis is the birthplace of nations.
But until then it’s all talk. We’ll see reality soon enough.
There is also the question about how English people feel about Scots being refused democracy. While English people are supportive of the union, polling does not have them rabidly against Scots being allowed to decide their own fate. If pro-indy parties win again and support for indy in Scotland is >50%, it looks very bad to people in England if London doesn't do democracy. If the UK is not democratic for Scots, it won't be for the English either.... Given how low Westminster has fallen in the electorate's esteem, is it wise to fall further?
DeleteAnd what about EU countries? The UK will soon cease to be a member, so the EU will stop staying out of its domestic affairs. If it's not ok for Alexander Lukashenko to suppress democracy, how is it ok for England to do that to Scotland? How can London say Lukashenko is not respecting the will of the people while it's telling Scots 'no' after pro-indy parties win a clear mandate and polls are 55% Yes?
The No section 30 is a last resort and kind of works if Yes is consistently less 50% and the SNP don't push hard. However, with Yes <50%, the SNP are not going to push that hard, and they are unlikely to get much support from the EU.
If Yes becomes the norm, this changes the whole situation. If unionism is no longer the majority position, No section 30 becomes politically untenable unless the UK wants to go down the pariah state route.
And there's little doubt that the refusal of a section 30 has been a major factor in driving yes to majority. While the gap had been closing for a while, the crossover occurred after the section 30 was refused.
If yes parties win next May, the political pressure on London will be extreme. They will need to decide to facilitate or send in the jackboots.
Thanks for your repl skier. Just one thought. The SNP don’t seem to be pushing at all.
DeleteYes wasn't in majority.
DeleteAnd the whole 'but if we had a campaign...' is just not true. Not any more.
It was true ahead of 2014, but now Yes/No is part of every day life in Scotland and support for indy depends on the performance of Holyrood vs London and wider events. We are in a constant indy campaign so this time we will no see notable poll changes ahead of voting day; not due to campaigning anyway.
Yes is slowly becoming the default position due to circumstances and demographics, but I think if we'd had an iref in the past few years we'd have likely lost it again. Probably more narrowly, likely really quite so. But the public didn't seem to want it and if you push it on them they'll reject it. Brexit wasn't the decider some hoped it would be. It is becoming more so as people see the mess of it and those who advocate it. It's bloody obvious Scotland can govern itself far better than london from Covid; the public sees that. Not perfect, but a lot better.
I think they are increasingly ready for a new vot now, but it's too late for one before May 2021. Even if you held one in a few months time, what happens if Yes parties then lose the election for some reason? A Yes win is best in the first year or so of an election so the result can be taken forward and not screwed by unionists.
Don't get me wrong; democracy says we should have been given a Section 30. However, I don't have faith it would have delivered a Yes and I feel the SNP know that. However, with covid, Sturgeon saw an opportunity to swing people in a big way; people already close to Yes from the mess of brexit etc.
i'm not sure i like the discussion about will bojo say yes or no. its like trying to anticipate who shot jr. it isnt an argument worth having
Deletewhether bojo says yes or no is up to him, not us. nor should it change what we are doing at the moment and up until the next election.
there are folk, mainly on wings, who are so convinced that bojo will say no, they have convinced themselves, and others, that there is no point in even voting??
Perhaps because no one has come up with a logical answer to the question “ if the SNP position remains that the only way to a referendum is to ask our jailers permission and Westminster just says no, then what’s the point in voting SNP?”
DeleteIf that was the SNP's position and if it was Boris's, the an alternative party* with a different approach would appeal to me. However, I've not seen any decent evidence to that effect.
DeleteAnd I certainly won't be voting for e.g. a party run by a (through free choice) Englishman living in the south of England who calls Scots 'a cowardly people he doesn't want to live amongst', even though they (Scots born/nationally identifying) voted Yes in 2014.
---
*Assuming it was not all mysterious with no information on who is behind it, who is funding it, its accounts, what it's policies are, who its candidates are and whether they live in Scotland...
It is the SNP position? Section 30 only way, gold standard etc
DeleteSkier, you say you’ve not seen any evidence that is the SNP position? can you point me in the direction of evidence That it’s not? I promise you that the SNP position is exactly that. Plan A section 30. They won’t even discuss any other possible route. All talk of any other route is banned from conference.
DeleteHope I’m wrong skier. Could you post a link showing any of the high heid yin’s in the SNP contemplation something other than just continual begging for a section 30? Thanks.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI would not vote for a party stupid enough to tell johnson they are willing to fold on the section 30 issue, letting him win.
DeleteEven sir John curtice has said such an approach would be idiotic. You don't exert pressure by conceding defeat.
I personally am very concerned that this new Pro indy list party has, apparently, all but already accepted defeat and conceded to johnson here.
The moment this list party says its given up on a section 30 is the moment johnson say no it's plan b, confident it will fold easily here too.
'Fabians' - Scottish or otherwise, are just front men for the normalisation of Capitalism. No credibility whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteIt is a hard time for the unionists. When all else fails go with the tried and trusted obfuscation , lies and deceit. Reported faithfully by their lapdogs in the MSM .The problem they face is that less and less people trust the MSM. It is interesting when you see the demographics of the genuine polls . That you kindly elucidate for your readers,that the last bastion of no voting majority is amongst the over 65's the generation that gets most of its "news" from the MSM.
ReplyDeleteIt is a hard time for the unionists. When all else fails go with the tried and trusted obfuscation , lies and deceit. Reported faithfully by their lapdogs in the MSM .The problem they face is that less and less people trust the MSM. It is interesting when you see the demographics of the genuine polls . That you kindly elucidate for your readers,that the last bastion of no voting majority is amongst the over 65's the generation that gets most of its "news" from the MSM.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course "health and education [could be] more important" for some and that's the reason they support indy... to be able to have full powers to do something about it.
ReplyDeleteThe General Sun Teu would send a few men on horseback behind enemy lines. The Army would think they were surrounded and lose the will to fight.
ReplyDeleteThe Fabians, The Daily Record, The Herald, The Scotsman, The BBC etc etc are not voters. They are simply a few people standing on a hill waving the Union Flag.
That knowledge should strengthen our resolve, not weaken it. This is not 1707 and our votes now outnumber "The Rogues"
You would have to be an obsessive who lives in a bubble to believe that most people don't consider health and education (etc) more important than Scottish constitutional issues.
ReplyDeleteApart from the Fabians, who are polling on the constitution rather than health and education.
DeleteYes, but ...
DeleteIn the here & now, we have to deal with the health crisis using the powers we have. And I believe that the Scottish Government is doing a better job, for Scotland, than the UK Government is doing.
But, I also believe that with an independent SG, we could do better.
On any issue, such as currency or the monarchy, I think that decisions can, and should, be made after independence. So independence is more important than these single issues. Health, however, is an immediate priority.
So, If I were in government, taking decisions on a daily basis, I would answer that health is first priority. As an individual whose only say in the matter is on the occasion of my next vote, I think that independence is more important.
These questions are answered by individuals ...
I agree. I think we should put lives before iref2.
DeleteThat doesn't of course mean we can't push forward with the latter, just not at the expense of the former.
The comparisons tend to be entirely parochial. The Scottish government have done far worse than the Welsh government, and they have done far, far worse than the N. Ireland government.
DeleteWhat is important is that we have done far worse than pretty much everywhere else on the planet. The parochial comparison game is an attempt to prevent anyone from being held responsible for obvious serious blunders.
Scotland is the only place in the world who's political leader spends half her day preparing for what is a political broadcast, and the rest of the day making the broadcast. I get the feeling that over lunch she decides things like her over-riding priority is allowing people out to get pissed (as long as they can't hear recorded music).
The decisions have mostly been random, often bizarre, and sometimes stupid beyond belief.
Seems someone is unhappy with recent polling.
DeleteLet it out wee man. Let it all out.
Comparisons between Scotland and other independent countries is of course apples and pears anyway. In terms of outbreak control, Scotland is a region of one of the worst affected countries in the world. With Holyrood so powerless in this area - most main control powers being reserved (borders, migration/quarantine borrowing, wage support, welfare, taxes and the economy, vaccine licensing...) it's miraculous the death rate is do low, particularly in comparison to England, which does have full sovereign powers (as the UK government is the English government).
DeleteGod has pronounced.
DeleteYour wrong.
Keep hearing rumours of these list only parties standing for the next election, but with the exception of the Indy Scot Party can't see much actual action. Aside from ISP none other have registered with the Electoral commission for example. Still time, but you would think you would want to get up and running sooner rather than latter so you could start accepting donations etc .
ReplyDeleteIs it possible to find out who is funding this ISP in detail?
DeleteIt's a prerequisite for me for any party, and particularly for some new unknown entity that the BBC is promoting.
Yea in exactly the way that you would for any any other party, through the list of donations that all parties have to provide to the Electoral Commission.
DeleteSure. It's just for the moment, that information is not available.
DeleteIt would be good if it's put on the party site in detail.
But why do they have to do more than any other political party? There donations are published quarterly in the public domain along with annual accounts. Before the election they will be available three times (end of August November and February) so plenty of opportunity to view and analyse before voting.
DeleteIf you think that there needs to be more transparency regarding donations to parties than that's a valid conversation, but any changes need to apply to all parties.
As someone who's primary interest is in analysing and breaking down data /data viz i'll keep an eye on ISP and any other parties that may form but can't really see them making an impact.
Even when look at the breakdown for the ComRes poll (https://bit.ly/2FPiMJ6) can't see were they get enough votes from to have an impact and that's in a poll that has the SNP list vote lower than other recent polls. Maybe they could squeeze a bit of the SNP/Green vote possibly even some soft Labour 'yes' votes but haven't seen any evidence (as yet) that it is going to be anything even bordering on significant.
It's just the info isn't available for them right now, but an election is looming. Will the accounts appear decently in advance of the election? I'm assuming they will, in which case that would be fine.
DeleteMy own opinion is that this new list party is being pushed by an (through free choice) Englishman who lives in and loves the South of England / English culture / language (hates Gaelic) who calls Scots 'cowards that he doesn't want to live amongst' while praising the 'brave English' (presumably for being so scared of independence from Scotland that they refuse a Section 30). This makes me a bit suspicious of motives, particularly as he is attacking all the other pro-indy parties, including existing list ones people could give their vote to if they wanted to 'game the system'.
This new party appears, not when the SNP are on the rocks, but when they are soaring along with the indy vote, i.e. when indy is closer than it has ever been. Far closer than 2014. When unionists will try anything to stop iref2.
I’ve been on the lookout for a unionist backed ‘pro-indy’ party appearing to split the Yes vote. Now the BBC are pushing this one on me enthusiastically.
If the BBC starts giving this party a lot of air time UKIP style - which is should not get as it has no currently elected representation - then I'll be warning people to definitely not vote for it. The BBC etc will only promote it if they are advised to by Whitehall / MI5 etc because it will split the vote.
However, as you say, currently it’s going nowhere in polls. On less than 1-2%, in which case voting for it will only cost Yes seats. It needs to start hitting 8% or so to be sure it will make a breakthrough.
Will the accounts appear decently in advance of the election?
DeleteYea as mentioned above there will be three updates before the election with the closest one being at the end of February 2021
Sorry, was on the phone and didn't see your previous comment properly for some reason.
DeleteSeems the recent poll results have tipped some unionists over the edge.
ReplyDeleteNow randomly ranting the same things over an over again as they hug themselves alone in a corner.
Did your mum call you down or something Unknown?
ReplyDelete"Scottish Fabians"?
ReplyDeleteAll Labour party members to their core.
Why are they being given air time?
PS rhetorical question.
Does anyone have a link to e.g. the equivalent article for George Galloway's new unionist list party or is the BBC just promoting the 'pro-indy' one?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-53402456
Could a new independence party reshape Scottish politics?
Galloway could give us a lot more trouble by hitching his wagon to the Indy cause, then muddying the waters with his usual attention seeking dictator sycophantic guff. Imagine having to “defend” our vision of a liberal left independent Scotland against all that!
DeleteBut even he’s not quite that cynical, it seems. Maybe Dominic should have a word with him.
DeleteThat article highlights what I was saying in my original post. Out of all the ‘parties’ mentioned only one is a registered political party. Two have said they are going to form a party (but not showing as have done so publicly) and two are nothing more than speculation.
I’m sure the whole i list parties ‘gaming the system’ topic is great for journalists who need to produce some copy that is going generate interest /site traffic and it’s certainly a topic that generates discussion on social media and online discussion; but can’t see (as yet) any of this translating to anything actually significant politically.
Maybe things will develop more during the autumn and winter, we will see.
The economic slump and the real political situation will develop in that time, all the more so in the new year. I reckon talk of new parties will be long forgotten come election time.
DeleteThe idea that Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP don’t want independence just doesn’t square in people’s minds. Quite rightly. It’s a social media bubble story, and it’ll pop. There’s far more at stake and it’s coming fast now.
The new map of independence support, based on a running sample of polls:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thenational.scot/news/18669754.scottish-independence-support-across-country-revealed-new-map/
The swing in Lothian is striking (is even Edinburgh a Yes city now?) and Glasgow astounding! South Scotland does look like a problem, though, and needs a focus when campaigning is on.
Sub-samples have large margins of error compared to the full poll. I would not take those figures as set in stone. The trend overall is positive.
DeleteI think the opposition in Belarus should just just concede to Lukashenko on the recent election and tell him their plan B.
ReplyDeleteJohnson wants the SNP to concede on his initial 'No' to a Section 30. He's taken a huge gamble and he's praying the SNP don't push for this 'gold standard British democratic' approach to iref2, but let him off the hook and reveal their plan B so he can say no to that straight away as well. Then people can demand plan C, D etc.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who want's to do his bidding by immediately (the initial refusal was only in January before covid hit) holding up their hands and saying 'We asked and he said no, so there's no hope; he's won and we can't have a repeat of the 2014' is a unionist.
Aw, bless. The troll is missing his adoring audience.
ReplyDeleteYou can see how much of his own time he’s wasting by the time stamps on those dozens upon dozens of manually copy paste posts. Awa’ and find a better hobby for your empty nights!
Hours upon hours, man. Day after day. What’s missing in your life?
DeleteAnd, in one fell flush, his whole night’s hard work is gone. To just where it belongs!
Delete"Johnson's not going to give a Section 30. Give up on a Section 30. You can't have a 'legal' referendum. Stop demanding a Section 30. Forget it and concede to Johnson...Give up on a Section 30 and the SNP...."
ReplyDeleteSays the BBC and other anti-Scottish websites now Yes is >50%.
Notice how Prof Curtice is not singing from that hymn sheet. Wonder if Misreporting Scotland will have him on for some of his latest analysis!
Deletehttps://www.thenational.scot/news/18670462.fith-no-voters-think-independent-scotland-tackled-covid-better-says-curtice/
It’s vital for them not to normalise independence. Trouble is, when you ask the people via polls, it’s getting very mainstream now indeed!
Lukashenko is saying Scots should accept no Section 30 / that they are not allowed a referendum.
DeletePeople/organisations telling me not to vote SNP next May and to give up on a Section 30 without even trying:
ReplyDelete- The Tories
- The BBC
- The Daily Express
- The Daily Telegraph
- The Daily Mail
- Wings over Scotland from a southern English perspective