49% of respondents are somewhere on the pro-indy end of the scale (6-10), and 43% are somewhere on the anti-indy end (0-4). However, there is an exact 28-28 tie among those who are absolutely certain in their views, with the Yes advantage being owed to a healthy number of respondents rating themselves around 7 or 8 on the scale. According to the press release, the rough Yes lead with Don't Knows and neutrals excluded is 53-47 - exactly the same as in the new Savanta ComRes poll which used a binary question.
Respondents were also asked to predict the result of a new indyref. 55% thought there would be a Yes vote, and only 30% expected a No vote - very much in line with a similar question asked in a recent Panelbase/Business for Scotland poll. There's a theory in some quarters that these "wisdom of crowds" questions offer a better indication of what is likely to happen than standard polling, because people give an honest assessment based on what they hear from friends, family and colleagues. If that's right, it may be significant that 45% of people who voted No in 2014 now expect a Yes vote (if Don't Knows are excluded). On the other hand, it may just be that people expect a Yes vote because Yes have been ahead in recent polls.
Once again, the myth that the people of Scotland don't want a second indyref is exploded by this poll - 49% think there should be a referendum if pro-indy parties win a majority next year, and only 38% disagree.
* * *
NEW CROWDFUNDER: Earlier today I launched a fundraiser for the next Scot Goes Pop poll on independence, which I intend to commission at some point between now and Christmas. If you'd like to donate, please click HERE.
Approaching a point where even those currently eligible for a postal vote living in the rUK won't be able to tip the balance.
ReplyDeleteThe hidden implication of the post 2014 poll reported in the Record was a far closer result in residents of Scotland than the whole UK.
Admittedly it's a far healthier start than then. Trouble is these polls are a subset. There's a reason unionists want anyone born in Scotland living in the rUK to have a vote and it's nothing to do with fair play. Might even be more effective given Brexit will remove freedom of movement from the EU to rUK even if we regain our membership or join EFTA. A regurgitated Alien Act would encourage them to vote no.
Remove those born in England. They have no right to vote in a referendum about Scottish independence.
DeleteAnyone else born outside Scotland has to have lived here for a minimum of 6 years before they are allowed a vote.
That's the same rules every othere democracy on Earth uses, but we can't apply them here because the media whine about it being racist.
You can't virtue signal your way to victory in a war.
You think e.g. Angus Robertson shouldn't get a vote? How about all the other Yes voters who were not born here such as my French wife? The Brits would love to deny her a vote, are you like them?
Delete"That's the same rules every othere democracy on Earth uses"
Erm, nope. Move to e.g. Ireland and you can vote there if you are British. Many countries grant non-nationals voting rights.
Yes is >50%, it doesn't matter where people were born anyway.
Angus Robertson should be booted out the SNP.
DeleteYes is >50% brilliant let's have a mandate for actual independence in the Scot parliament election next May. No more of these fraudulent promises by the SNP.
Politics Scotland
ReplyDelete"We have got lockdown in the Central belt at the moment." says Gordon Brewer. Funny that I just went to Silverburn shopping centre yesterday. Gordon best get over there and tell them to shut down.
What a clown Brewer is. The BBC doing its best to to wind up everybody.
There's not going to be a vote soon anyway. Sturgeon is too busy lying her fat arse off to save her and her lavander beard's salaries, I mean skins, concern herself with the destruction of Scotland by our enemies in london.
ReplyDeleteDouglas Ross is saying one is inevitable if the SNP win 2021, but the Tories have not given up hope quite yet of stopping a Yes majority.
Delete"I have nothing to hide."
ReplyDelete"I have nothing to hide"
(On yes you do Ms Sturgeon.)
Says Sturgeon time after time. Liar liar pants on fire . Not only does Sturgeon lie continuously but she also smears Salmond continuously on Sky this morning. What an absolute disgrace she is. After wasting millions of public funds smearing Salmond at least this morning she is doing it for free.
An Abuse of power and misuse of public funds by Sturgeon. Time for a better leader.
Maybe you can enlighten is about what it is she has to hide? Also to what lies she told in the interview.
DeleteYou seem to know, so can explain it to us all.
Sky News clearly wanting to show that Sturgeon tried to protect Salmond 'her mentor' from the allegations, hence them trying to get her to say she 'knew' about these as far back as 2017, not 2018.
DeleteAnd she blinks too fast during key answers to be telling fat ones. If she was lying, her blinking would slow down considerably.
DeleteShe also says 'me, I, my' etc far too much. This strongly suggests honesty as liars tend to talk in the third person in an attempt to distance themselves from the lie / subject. She also expands too much on points where she doesn't need to; liars don't do this because they would need to manufacture new information here. Liars try to keep lies simple and repetitive.
DeleteShe speaks too quickly as well. Liars slow down, often a lot, to try and make sure they get the lie right. People speaking honestly under pressure speed up and blink a lot. They say 'em' and jump around, giving very long answers.
Finally, she doesn't say things like 'I am telling the truth' or 'I'm not lying', which is a classic sign of a liar; they try to insist on honesty and do so repeatedly when people question what they are saying.
I've done plenty of interviews in my life, and she's not coming across as clearly dishonest. She is acting nervously, which is quite different from lying. She's squirming because the topic is hard for her and the SNP. She's being accused of protecting him by the interviewer, when she didn't. This is while others accuse her of conspiring against him.
I would conclude that the interviewee had felt very uncomfortable about that topic because of their links to it, but not that they were lying.
Skier - the sites "Blinking idiot"
DeleteSkier - no intention of discussing a liar with another liar.
ReplyDeleteAt least you are not denying she used the interview to continually smear an innocent man. Quite frankly you are disgusting Skier - almost as much as Sturgeon.
What have I lied about?
DeleteIn what way did she smear him?
Salmond told us all that he's 'no saint' and has 'made a number of mistakes in his past conduct', and even 'did have sexual relations with one of the complainers', but that he's not a criminal.
In the interview, Sturgeon said nothing more than this, i.e. what he's said and what I knew. His behaviour did at times fall below that of an FM, as he admits, but yes, he's not a criminal.
I find your own pattern of posts intriguing BTW. They start with something attacking the 'Britnats' (Brewer today), then move to a direct attack on the SNP, but without any evidence provided in support. When challenged to debate, you refuse to, calling your opponents liars.
Experts in lying would point this out as classic liar behaviour; first try to establish trust, then make the real attack, then attempt projection / deflection when challenged.
If you want people to believe you, I'd suggest a different approach. Don't just e.g. regurgitate what English bloggers say; come up with your own thoughts and explain why you think them.
Incidentally, when Sturgeon finished the interview by admitting that Salmond had fallen out with her in a large part because she didn't try to protect him from his own admitted (but not criminal) indiscretions, I knew she was being honest. Whoosh! It was hard to argue that was anything but the truth, and I'd impressive to see her say what causes flack for her and the party. But then even while his actions were not criminal at all, there is no way on earth Sturgeon could have done anything but get out of the way in any investigation.
" Here's freedom to him that wad read
ReplyDeleteHere's freedom to him that wad write
There's nane ever fear'd that the Truth should be heard
But they whom the truth would indite.
Sturgeon and her Scottish government.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI assume we still have not heard Salmond actually make any claims / accusations against Sturgeon, providing evidence to that effect?
ReplyDeleteI guess he also still backs folk voting SNP / has not said to do otherwise?
Without anything further here, I'm going to be wary of anti-Yes party English blogs which openly lie to me and tell me otherwise.
So far all I see is what I already knew; Salmond was more of a ladies man that I thought, but no criminal. Which I am glad of as I respected the man the FM/leader he was.
Whitehall however saw a way to get at him using that and Sturgeon didn't intervene - which was absolutely the right thing to do - but took all the flak as new leader of the SNP and his former Padawan and close friend.
Frank, call the fire brigade my pants are on fire oh and by the way some numpty called skier needs the fire brigade as well.
ReplyDeleteAlex Salmond whilst under the influence of alcohol hit on junior female members of staff he admitted as much Alex Salmond behaviour may not of criminal but it was not was expected of FM.In today's corporate where companies are fearful of compensation claims if Salmond had been a senior Executive exhibiting similar behaviour to younger junior members of staff he would have almost certainly faced disciplinary procedures.
DeleteWhat was Nicola supposed to do cover up the allegations ? Also there is absolutely no upside for Nicola to stitch up Alex Salmond .
Yes, this is what he admitted too. It's absolutely not criminal, but, like he says, he should have known better.
DeleteI cannot understand those with their heads in the sand treating Salmond as a whiter than white messiah when he himself says he's 'no saint' and 'made mistakes', behaving 'below the standards expected of an FM'.
Some of the alleged incidents definitely happened; they just were not criminal. Getting frisky with office juniors after a bevy is not remotely criminal, but isn't really a good look for a married FM. But then he's only human, so I don't think people care that much, not if he's holding his hands up the way he has.
And I don't think Sturgeon is miss perfect on this either; I think she's been a bit hard on the guy. But then I can understand why she's ranging; he put her in the shit with his flirtations and the RT show. Every time she's interviews the press have rejoiced in bringing both up as if she's working for Putin or something.
People need to take heads out of the sand here and accept we have two friends that have fallen out a bit and both need to go easy a bit on each other, accepting some fault from either side.
The public don't give a crap of course; if the SNP deliver what they want better than the opposition, petty internal feuds between individuals matter jack shit.
Rocksie67
DeleteAway and spend some time looking at the facts.
" Junior female members of Staff"
So you know who they are do you - wee girls are they - get a grip.
"Admitted as much" where and when did he admit this? You will find it is all in your imagination. Unbelievable that people like you are still persecuting Salmond. Holy Willie are you. Perfect Rocksie67 is it?
"What was Nicola supposed to do cover up the allegations?"
No she should have told any of them to take their allegations to the police instead of setting up "an unlawful unfair and tainted by apparent bias " new process for Former Ministers designed specifically to smear Salmond but formally maintain her distance from it. No other country in the world has such a procedure for FORMER ministers.
"Also there is absolutely no upside for Nicola to stitch up Alex. Salmond."
Well best ask Sturgeon, her husband and all the rest of her associates what their motivation is. I don't do mind reading I just look at the facts.
This whole scandal is an abuse of power and a misuse of public funds.
I work for a university, it has a rigorous internal procedure for dealing with harassment, including sexual harassment. This is retrospective, i.e. you can come forward about past abuse and it will be investigated, meaning pervs can't hide from past bad behaviour. A former Prof was recently caught by this retrospective approach, and it's very good he was.
DeleteIf one member of staff was subject to unwanted advances from another, there are procedures to deal with this / investigate the allegations and see if it constituted harassment, and might even require the police. Such harassment might not actually be criminal, and often isn't. It's just against company policy. A company decides what it accepts here. It can ban personal relationships between staff for example. It can literally ban flirting and comments that would be perfectly legal in a bar.
What would definitely not happen if someone complained of unwanted advances would be for the university to say to them 'If it bothers you, go to the police! Now back to your desk and shut it!'.
And anyway, 9/7 of the complainers in court didn't work for Sturgeon. Their boss was in London. So it would have been impossible for Sturgeon to tell them just to go to the police even if she wanted to.
But liars will say otherwise.
Yes I did look at the facts Alex Salmond admitted he was no angel he also admitted to have some sexual contact with one of the accusers.
DeleteThe accusers were in employment therefore it is their employers duty to investigate complaints all employers have a duty of care and failure to act could have left them open to compensation claims.
Alex Salmond actions may not have been criminal but that does not mean his conduct towards junior members of staff and that is what they were employees .
It suits Westminster very well to have procedures in place not to investigate former ministers .Now I wonder that might be ?
DeleteRocksie67
Delete"Failure to act"
Both complainers had already had their complaints investigated in the past. So that makes your point invalid.
You repeat the " junior member" smear again. So you are joining Skier in your smearing are you - never answered what age are these junior members then? Just in your mind is it? If you are FIrst Minister everybody is junior to you in an organisational sense but that is not how you meant it is it.
You of course conveniently ignore the other points I made.
Away you go you Holy Willie.
I'm meant junior members as in the organisation that there was a power differential between Alex Salmond and the accusers.Just because his behaviour was not criminal it doesn't mean his behaviour was acceptable as the FM of Scotland .
DeleteIt's not the 1970s in the modern world it is not acceptable for senior male members of organisations to get frisky with the secretary anymore it's now a sacking offence .
Holy Willie get lost with your smears. Sturgeon got the dog whistle out today on Sky and out come the dogs smearing him. Woof woof - who's a good boy.
DeleteSkier - " office juniors" - more lies from Skier. He either knows who they are and he is lying or he doesn't know who they are so he is lying to attack Salmond. Either way he is lying - seems to be a trait he has in common with Sturgeon.
ReplyDeleteComments from MPs like Bowie that the UK is back in Scotland and 'get used to it' should guarantee greater increases in independence support. Day by day, they proof the truth of the 'power devolved is power retained' adage.
ReplyDeleteSkier - " like he says, he should have known better" - more lies from Skier.
ReplyDeleteSorry, it was his defense which argued he was guilty of that, but not sexual assault / attempted rape. However, they were speaking on his behalf. He has said himself that he is 'no saint', 'flaws' and has 'made mistakes', i.e. should have known better, so would not have made mistakes.
Deletehttps://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/alex-salmond-trial-defence-agent-21725223
He [Jackson] said Salmond isn’t accused of not being a “better man”, or that he “behaved inappropriately”, or that he “should have known better”, but that he “intended to rape her”.
Skier - you reference the Daily Redcoat which previously you decried as not fit as a source when it came to Murrells messages when you seemed to have a problem accepting the validity of the messages. You went quiet on that when Murrell admitted he had sent the messages. Murrells spin on the messages was even worse than yours so I guess you must be covering up for Sturgeon as an unpaid freelancer.
DeleteYou could start up your own Whattsapp group called FANBOYS WHO LIE FOR STURGEON.
You Skier of course could be a "better man" - more lies - Jackson never said Salmond "intended to rape her".
You really are a disgusting person.
This is from the court records. How about the New Law Journal?
Deletehttps://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/content/train-of-thought-the-jackson-salmond-saga
https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/regulatory-blog/train-of-thought-the-jackson-salmond-saga
I've gone quiet? Are you for real? Quite the opposite. I was proven correct in that the messages from Murrell were taken out of context. Now I have heard him explain what he said and what context, my fears were proven correct. I will never trust out of context messages, particularly when the person who made them is not present to explain; it's why such things are not admissible in court. Unlike you, I will not judge based on what the courts deem illegal because it's unfair. It's the unionist way to do that.
I noticed the BBC editing the Murrell messages just as you did, to mislead. Why do that if Murrell is their mate and anti-Salmond? Why is the BBC taking Salmond's side?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54439758
"the more fronts he [Mr Salmond] is having to firefight on the better".
But there is a key word missing here. No attempt to suggest the sentence continued.... Better for who? For Sturgeon? Nope. For the SNP? Nope. For Murrell himself maybe? Again, nope.
What he said was 'for the complainers' which is a statement of fact. What was happening was of no clear benefit for the SNP, for Sturgeon, for Murrell, for the next election... Quite the opposite, obviously. It was only of benefit for the complainers. A statement of fact.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-urged-act-over-alex-salmond-messages-2994494
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/msps-told-they-could-force-peter-murrell-to-hand-over-whatsapp-messages-tl2zkbk5d
skier posts pish again - series 1 episode 11
Delete" Taken out of context" - what utter utter pish.
DeleteYou just post a load of tripe.
"Just as you did" - more lies. You sure can churn out the lies Skier. Flood the stream with your lies and total pish.
When all else fails Skier defaults to claiming that the Scotgov is nothing to do with Sturgeon and the SNP is nothing to do with Murrell.
ReplyDeleteSo just who are the people Murrell wanted Ruddick to get to pressurise the police?
Is it normal for SNP execs to get involved in criminal cases and try to drum up charges in London as well. Is Murrell a fan of the Pink Panther. Of course in Skiers fantasy world Murrell never told his wife he was into moonlighting as a detective when he should be advancing Scottish independence.
Yes, the UK civil service isn't controlled by the SNP. Nor are the police, nor are the courts.
DeleteThis is the stuff of alien abductions.
The idea that Peter Murrell has the London met under his thumb really is on a par with the moon landings being faked.
DeleteJeez, the BBC are out to get Murrell yet at the same time he controls the London establishment and can give a quick call down south to have them put pressure on Salmond?
Sorry IfS, but this is magic roundabout stuff.
Salmond and Sturgeon may have fallen out, but at least they live on planet earth.
Never said the BBC were out to get Murrell. More lies from Skier. Your mother should have washed your mouth out when you were young for all the lies you tell. Truly unbelievable and you are doing all this for free. You work at a uni do you - did you lie to get the job?
ReplyDeleteAre you OK hunny?
DeleteGlad to hear you have been let you out Thepnr. Hope you are coping well. Take it easy to start with.
DeleteI've been worried about you, that was a hell of a beating you took from Skier, must have hurt taking such a battering.
DeleteI just wanted to make sure that you were still a Braveheart like the rest of us. You take it easy too hun x
Thepnr - don't think you have been worried about me in the least - just another liar.
DeleteJust another member of the FANBOYS WHO LIE FOR STURGEON CLUB
I didn't say you said that, I said the BBC are out to get Murrell/Sturgeon. They deliberately twisted what he said in the whatsapp messages to make it sound that he was out to get Salmond.
DeleteIdiot Skier - he is along with his missus out to get Salmond - always have been. The smears from Sturgeon yesterday were a clear dog whistle to all her fanboys to suspend reality and critical judgement and attack Salmond - you did well Skier maybe she will give you a dog biscuit.
DeleteI'll end on a positive note I'm sure the Murrells won't get the same treatment as the Ceauescus of Romania.
ReplyDeleteWhy is the BBC/Record/Telegraph/Wings attacking Sturgeon & Murrell, trying to mislead people about what they said / their actions?
DeleteDo you not find it odd that you are on the same side as the English media here?
Hey stupid they are attacking Salmond as well. I think there is something wrong with you! That is what I find odd.
DeleteI am on the side of truth and Scottish independence. You should try it some time.
Delete"Hey stupid they are attacking Salmond as well"
DeleteI am glad we agree that the BBC etc are attacking Sturgeon etc because they are pro-independence, and that the the UK civil service isn't in Sturgeon's pocket.
Skier - in your fantasy world you can agree anything you want - don't drag me into it.
Delete" Petty internal feuds between individuals matter jack shit." Says Skier. This is how Skier thinks an attempt by a cabal to lock up an innocent man probably for the rest of his life should be described. Truly unbelievable. You really really are a disgusting individual Fanboy Skier.
ReplyDeleteSo just who are the people Murrell wanted Ruddick to get to pressurise the police?
ReplyDeleteWhy is Ruddick saying nothing? Is Ruddick getting legal advice? Perhaps because the SNP seem to be hiring a lot of lawyers.
When I donated previously to the SNP I thought it was to help the cause of independence not for legal fees to protect dodgy people.
Alex Salmond has hired a legal team too.
DeleteWhat's your point exactly?
You don't think the various parties should ensure they act within the law when producing evidence for the investigation?
This isn't a police/court investigation, so lawyers are not needed to defend actions, but they are needed to ensure folks don't break the law when submitting evidence, Salmond included. Think of the criminal unionist the police are hunting for the Murrell tweets. There should have been a court order before the tweets were released, and that will apply for a lot of documents relating to the trial. Also to confidential personal and work communications.
If you and I have a chat on whatsapp which I ask you to regard as confidential, I can take you to court if you show others what we said.
If English bloggers try to pretend it's like a real court case where folks are in the dock, they're trying to mislead you in the same way the BBC, Record and other British/English media sites are.
If Salmond, the UK civil service and the SNP want to release documents, they need good lawyers. This is obvious. Withholding stuff requires no lawyers; you can just say it's confidential so can't be released. So if you've hired a lawyer, it means you are trying to help the enquiry while making sure you don't end up in court for doing so.
When someone tries to take me for an idiot so they can mislead me, like about the Holyrood voting system or why Salmond has hired a top legal team when he's no longer in court / been found innocent, I know they must be a unionist.
Delete"What's your point exactly?" As your pal Campbell says you really really are a terrible reader. I made my point idiot. Clearly reading and telling the truth ain't important in your job at uni.
ReplyDeleteAll Salmonds legal fees are paid by himself or raised by crowdfunder.
The Scot gov and the evil cabal spend (misuse ) public funds.
The SNP spend(misuse) money donated or from members.
Is that that clear now or you want me to repeat it in big block capitals for you like this:
SO JUST WHO ARE THE PEOPLE MURRELL WANTED RUDDICK TO GET TO PRESSURISE THE POLICE?
Skier and Thepnr the dumb and dumber of the FANBOYS WHO LIE FOR STURGEON.
ReplyDelete