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.
Exactly why the 2014 sec 30 referendum was never a gold standard referendum and as such there has not been a gold standard precedent set in the past that we need to follow.
ReplyDeleteWaiting around for the Britnats to agree something is a mugs game. You cannae trust the Britnats. These are the Britnats who are willing to break the Withdrawal agreement with the EU only months after signing it. Anyone think they will not break any agreement with Scotland if it suits them.
Put a mandate for ACTUAL independence in the manifesto for May election 2021 and let us vote for independence.
They will definitely break any agreement if it is ever made. An independent Scotland threatens rUK security in too many ways.
DeleteTwo valid questions James with interesting and important breakdown of %'s.
ReplyDeleteValuable statistics to keep in mind for both Holyrood 2021 and Indyref2 campaignes .
Ally
Ally, when will the indyref2 take place?
DeleteSturgeon first floated the possibility back in 2017 and May said "now is not the time."
Sturgeon meekly accepted it.
Sturgeon returned to the subject after the Dec 2019 Gen Election. Johnson said pissof it is once in a generation.
Sturgeon meekly accepted it.
So here we are over 3 years after May said now is "not the time" and what do we have - a promise of a DRAFT Referendum Bill.
So I ask again when will this referendum take place?
When are you organizing our vote IfS or are you all talk and no action?
DeleteYou sound like English Tories the way you lecture the Scottish government / SNP on how they should govern. It's classic unionist.
You are not an SNP member, but lecture them about how best to run their own affairs. Exactly what the English Tories do to Scots.
Anyway, I'm glad we didn't use your 'vote SNP for indy!' plan in the 2017 general election. Yes parties only got 37%.
Or in 2016 for that matter where they got less than 50%...or in 2011....
The reason is that only in the last year has there been consistent polls in support of Independence .and we want to win it!! If the polls stay the same or more likely to show increased support for Indy it would be political suicide for the SG not to have a referendum.
DeleteAlly
One of Skiers personalities can forecast an election result in the past when there was a mandate for ACTUAL independence in the SNP manifeasto. Astonishing or just an idiot? An idiot of course.
DeleteA pity none of Skiers personalities can forecast the date of the next referendum never mind the actual result of this one.
All Skiers posts are pish - the only variation is which of his many personalities posts them.
Ally, two points:
Delete1. You are that confident but you never gave any timescale at all.
2. What happened to the pledge to retain our EU citizenship?
Johnson a few weeks back: 'Cummings is No 10's top advisor. It's the settled will of the people! So, no, there will be no vote on new advisors for a generation at least!'.
ReplyDeleteThe man folds like a cheap suit under the slightest pressure. He's a weak, cowardly bully; they always do.
The only people that think the SNP should stop asking for a Section 30 are the UK government (and online unionist concern trolls).
ReplyDeleteThis Yes vote printing machine should be allowed to run and run right up to May 2021, even if you wanted to pursue a plan B.
Scotland doesn't need permission for indy (and that's not even what an S30 is), but FGS, the 'No S30 jock vermin - England owns Scotland!' is gold dust. Tories might as well deliver Yes huge crates of Yes votes on a gigantic velvet pallet lifter.
Pity Cummings & Co have gone; chances are it was him that gave us our Yes majority by advising Johnson to refuse an S30. No wonder wiser unionist heads have intervened. Jeez, we've got Major agreeing to iref2 already.
Only unionists would, in retrospect, wish the SNP had pushed ahead and held an iref in 2017 after their UKGE setback when the Yes vote fell to it's lowest level since 2012.
ReplyDeleteMay must have been kicking herself for bricking it and collapsing her government when Sturgeon made initial moves for an S30. It seemed like an ideal way to bodyswerve it, either losing her ability to pass a Section 30 by command (Tories lose their majority), or gaining one and the upper hand with a solid Tory majority.
Same for brexit.
Of course post 2017 GE, any S30 needed the nod from the ulster unionists. That or Labour / the Libs. And so even if Sturgeon had sought a S30 from the new, incoming 2017 UK government, it would have not been in May's power to pass one, not without the permission of Arlene Foster's UDA. The S30 faced the same mire as Brexit and the voters were saying a bigger No to indy than in 2014. Depressing as hell at the time, but the truth of the matter.
An S30 comes from an act of parliament; it is not up to Johnson. Keir Starmer could push one through if he persuaded enough MPs.
So it's being refused by all British MPs, and that's a Yes vote printing machine. Hence the SNP milking it for all it's worth, particularly now Johnson cannot claim he doesn't have the majority for one.
At the same time, it seems, tentatively, that Scots are now ready for indy.
@SS
DeleteI don't know why Arlene Foster and DPU would've had to be involved when Tories and SNP had enough MPs for a majority in 2017. SNP had in Westminster far more power in 2017 in a hung parliament with fewer MPs than it has now. And that bigger influence was thrown away when NS and the SNP leadership became cheerleaders for the early election as they wanted to have it before the Salmond trial. Agreeing to that early GE, although SNP increased its vote-share, was the biggest strategic mistake NS had done. If there had been no GE in December 2019, we'd still be in the EU now. And TBH we don't talk enough about that mistake of hers. The second strategic mistake was her long awaited January speech just before Brexit when NS basically said she and the SNP were going to do FA.
But - that's not the point - the point is that more and more people have the feeling that SNP's just waiting for the independence to fall into their laps and that party itself isn't that interested into doing much to increase support. Yes - Johnson did far more for independence than the present SNP leadership. There're people there for whom I'd say independence isn't even second on their to do list (and this is the feeling I'm getting with NS), but very much towards the bottom of the list, if it even is there. And Johnson isn't going to stay forever. What happens when/if Tories get a cannier operator as a leader? What happens when the Brexit outrage passes? The window of the opportunity's closing and unfortunately I'm not so sure the SNP are going to use it.
One of Skier's multiple personalities says it is Sturgeons handling of the pandemic that has produced a majority for independence.
ReplyDeleteAnother of his multiple personalities said it was Johnson being an arse that delivered the majority.
Another of his personalities now says it was really Cummings.
Another of his personalities says it would be just great if a sect 30 is continued to be asked for and refused. Conveniently forgetting that the last time was nearly a year ago.
Another of his personalities still thinks John Major is the Tory Prime Minister.
Another of his personalities probably thinks the majority is all down to Brexit.
Who to believe? Must be confusing in Skiers mind.
It is straightforward in my mind Skier posts a lot of pish.
One of Skier's multiple personalities says it is Sturgeons handling of the pandemic that has produced a majority for independence.
DeleteWe are all awaiting you proving you are not lying here by providing a link to me saying this.
Of course you won't be able to, because I've never said it. Largely the opposite in fact.
But it's good that unionists think it's the reason. The less they understand why they are losing, the better.
SSSS - "we are all......"
Deletenow have you definitely checked with all your multiple personalities. There is one of your personalities that has a very poor memory.
" The Committee notes that your letter dated 6 November 2020 provides details of the involvement of the Principal Private Secretary to the First Minister. The Committee wants to know why this is the first time this information has been given to the Committee, including why it did not feature in the Scottish Government's chronology of events relating to the development of the Scottish Government's harassment policy. The interaction between other officials and the complainants was referenced so the Committee fails to understand why this interaction was never mentioned."
ReplyDeleteThe above text is the last paragraph in the recent letter to John Swinney from Linda Fabiani.
Mr Somers PPS to Sturgeon met with one of the complainers in two meetings on successive days 20th Nov 21st Nov 2017 prior to the new Harrassment process being completed. It now appears that a number of people met with the two complainers - not just Mackinnon.
So why did Somers meet this complainer. Who instigated both meetings? Where is the agenda/ minutes of the meeting? What was the purpose of the meetings?
Why have the Scotgov kept Somers meetings secret from the Committee and tried to do the same for the judicial review.
Swinney has yet to reply.
The Nation that desires to hold a group of people seeking Self Determination CANNOT be the arbitrators of the process.
ReplyDeleteOur sovereignty was purchased by the bribery of the small number of people who themselves were elected by a tiny,tiny proportion of voting entitled men within the population. The final manipulation was designing a parliament with a build in English majority that ensured Scotland was held tight.
It has never been a Union. It is the English Parliament with a few seats for appearances. Even that pretence was discarded with EVEL.
The next move is the neutering of Holyrood...."You may discuss all you wish. However when you are finished talking we will tell you what will happen"
The leash is being yanked...Power devolved is power retained. Ending devolution by stealth. A reminder though that they can end it ANYTIME they wish.
So, covid cases falling, % positive falling, hospital patients falling, hospital admissions dropping like a stone, ICU falling. Deaths, which has a 4 week lag on cases, will soon follow.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53511877
The plateauing when you introduce tough restrictions is about a month, so we should start to see all numbers dropping more quickly going forward; i.e. the current edging down should accelerate.
Note that cases are actually much less than it appears comparatively. The number of tests has been rising sharply, and as Cases = Tests x fraction positive, creating the impression that these are not falling that quickly. This means even comparing cases early in phase 2 with now is apples and pears, just like the problem with comparing to phase 1.
Hospital admissions really shows what is happening (not test artefact dependent) and what we can expect deaths to do a few weeks later.
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1632/idt2/idt2/14be4548-88fe-4dfb-8214-d6b6f755b173/image/816