Thursday, December 17, 2020

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.


  1. Kinda confirms that and small ups and downs seen is most likely just variance, with Yes now looking like the settled will of the Scottish people.

    As for Westminster maybe getting an EU deal; I doubt that will have any impact. Everyone I know saw no deal as a risk, but has always believed something would be agreed before the deadline. It therefore won't change their position on indy. Except if there was actually no deal, which would boost yes yet even further.

    No, the shift part of long term trend and Boris made a f'n huge mistake saying Scotland's future was England's decision. That likely sealed the fate of the UK politically. It was an enormous error of judgement that Cameron was not stupid enough to make as he's British and Boris English.

    1. I think a deal actually helps the indy cause at this stage as it will allow continued tariff free cross border trade post indy.

  2. I look forward to the SNP putting a mandate for ACTUAL independence in its manifesto for the May election. If they do this I will vote SNP on the constituency and the regional list.

    These polling figures surely mean the SNP will get a majority based on Constituency MSPs alone. It's time the SNP showed it was THE party of independence and not just another political party making promises to win elections.

    1. It's fair enough that you'd like to see them deliver independence based simply on an election result, and that promise would make you vote for them.

      However, if you trust them to deliver outright independence if they win the election, why not a referendum?

      A referendum is much easier to deliver and less easy to make excuses to get out of, if that's what the plan was.

      You seem to be saying 'I don't trust the SNP's promises unless it's the promise I want, then I trust them'? Which to me doesn't sound very logical.

      Forgive me if I've misunderstood.

    2. I see the Independence for Scotland Party (ISP) backs a referendum, just like the Greens and SNP.

    3. Skier - I don't forgive you because you deliberately "misunderstood" - back to misrepresenting my posts and idiots say I troll you. Your attempts to hide your trolling using " forgive me" are wasted.

      Skier you are unable to get it through your thick skull I post my opinions not what some political party tells me to do - unlike you.

      Oh and see when I said you have a thick skull that is an insult - when I insult I do not try to pretend I don't.

      Your attempt to resurrect your Saint Skier personality is once again pathetic. I gave you the opportunity to stop misrepresenting and lying about my posts but you chose to want to continue. Your choice.

      Forgive me when I say you are an arse.

    4. Since the Greens, ISP and the SSP all back (correct me if I'm wrong) referendums rather than outright independence based on Yes parties winning in May 2021, do you consider these all these 'just another political party making promises to win elections'.

      This is a genuine, honest question. If you don't vote SNP, who will you vote for if all those in the running are offering the same as the SNP, i.e., iref2?

    5. Skier just fuck off with your lying and misrepresentation. There is absolutely nothing genuine and honest about you - trolling nutter.

    6. Actually IFS I think Skier has a valid point that deserves a more thoughtful answer without the abuse.
      Imagine if you will that the current shit deal being delivered by Boris Johnson is so bad that the Scots are in a stampede for Indy by say 70% yet no party is willing to accept a YES MSP overall majority is permission from the people to begin negotiations to end London rule.
      So valid point then that's worthy of consideration.

    7. Ramstam, I set out in a previous article in great detail how I would vote after you asked me to. I repeat again I will vote SNP in the constituency as I have always done. You can go back and look at my long post as I am not repeating it again.

      Sick of Skier saying otherwise. He deserves abuse.

      Skier ignores in his post that the SNP promised a referendum if certain condition were met in their manifesto. The other parties did not. And SNP did this more than once. Is there an independence supporter who does not know this?

      So to your point Ramstam - it is worthy of consideration and I said how I would vote in my long post. Sick of this trolling masquerading as interrogation.

      Neither of you or Skier address any questions I put to you . Well you don't Ramstam, Skier just reinterprets, misleads and downright lies.

  3. Very significant too that Don't Knows (I think) are just 10%.
    They're coming down on the YES side.
    The point of no return is pretty near.
    I feel the SNP is in a good place, and if those who are fascinated by personalities can just button it ((ye ken whae ye are) the YES/SNP can start selecting the leaders we'll need to win the referendum.

  4. James, can we please have an updated Poll of Polls?

    1. I go with you on this bring back "The Poll of Polls" it may have really good meaning now.

  5. With polls of that size, I have generally assumed that the headline figure has a fuzzy zone of +/- 4%. So, this poll could be viewed as between 54% and 62%, with the preceding Survation poll viewed as between 48% and 56%. So, there is a clear overlap between the two.

    Having been brought up with Calvinist gloom (and doom!) I tend to be a bit cautious and to temper my enthusiasm. However, I stopped being religious over 50 years ago, so I admit a bit of optimism, too!

  6. If the SNP would stop producing Britnat propaganda crap liked the GERS report and instead provide some decent financial/economic info on what post independence could be like, and I don't mean the appalling Growth Commission report, then imo the poll could go up to 70% yes.

    There are still people who say their heart is for Independence but we can't afford it.

    What happened to the replacement GERs report the SNP promised. They can find the time to do other stuff.

    Note to the idiot trolls on this site this is my opinion. I have not done surveys etc. So just pissof - you know who you are.

    1. I have been posting on Indy sites since 2012 under the same name. I've followed Skiers interesting posting since then.
      You only appeared when YES moved into a consistent lead.
      Who is the troll?

    2. I didn't see much of a problem with the Growth Reports headline findings i.e. 6% deficit dropping to 3% and debt not exceeding 50% of GDP. Can remember seeing any major economists / economic organisations saying that those figures were being too pessimistic about a Indy Scotland's headline financials.

    3. It might not be the height of wisdom for you to call others 'trolls'.

    4. Juteman - take a long hard look in the mirror - if you look long enough you will start to see tthe letter T appear on your forehead - hope you haven't been trolling for all these years. You can stuff your 77th brigade trolling crap.

      Yeh and your amateur detective stuff - Skiers wee assistant detective are you.

      It's truly pathetic that anyone who posts a different opinion is auto a Unionist. You know what you sound like - the sort of person who would love the SNP to use their Hate bill to ensure everyone speaks with one voice or it is anti SNP hatred - lock them up - oh that's right they are already trying to do that to Mark Hirst using Tony Blair's anti terrorism legislation that they promised would only be used against terrorists.

      I can just see you chanting lock them up - just like Trump supporters.

      Skiers - " interesting posting" - he lies and I have shown often enough he lies.

    5. Can you direct me to any other Indy sites or blogs you post on? Someone that calls himself, or her, Independence for Scotland' must surely have an online history.
      Why the sudden attraction to Skier on this blog?
      Is it a sex thing?

    6. Juteman - you really are a disgusting troll. Have a good look at yourself in the mirror. I think you probably have been trolling away for the last 8 years - but you clearly are no normal troll - a pyscho troll.

      I say to the trolls to pissoff and they just have to troll away.

      Adam, I do not include you in the troll club as you ask a reasonable question.

    7. Why do you only post on this blog?
      If it isn't some kind of sexual fetish with Skier, why don't you post on other blogs? Has your superior officer given you this blog to disrupt, and others have been given other blogs?

    8. Adam, you ask a reasonable question I will reply in a reasonable way.

      Where does the " debt not exceeding 50% come from"?

      So you think organisations like the Britnat Fraser of Allander Insitute organisations are ok to give unbiased commentary? Are any of them going to say otherwise?

      There would be nothing wrong with an independent Scotland having a reasonable size of deficit but that is not the message that will win votes after many years of GERS mega fantasy £15 b deficits polluting voters minds. Apart from that I believe an independent Scotland could easliy run a permanent surplus if it wanted to and got full control of its finances and stoppped wasting money.

    9. Juteman - you really are a disgusting troll. Not as disgusting as GWC but well on the way.

    10. What happened to the alternative GERS report that the SNP promised that Derek McKay would deliver. You would think this never happened if you believed some of the SNP party men ( how's that - better than fanboy?) that post on this site.

      Their capacity to ignore the truth and facts is astonishing. However I am heartened by the fact that they are just a small minority of ignorant trolls that pervade this site and are not representative of SNP members in general. I would also remind them that this a pro- INDEPENDENCE site - see heading at the top - and not an SNP party site.

      I would also remind them that contrary to what the liar Skier posts I have always said I vote SNP on the constituency. I always vote SNP in General Elections European Elections and Council elections. Skier of course is the person on this site who told me not to vote SNP.

      Just because I vote SNP does not mean I cannot express my opinion on how they can improve. None of you brave trolls pull up James Kelly if he says anything against the SNP - do you!

    11. J R Tomlin - what arrogance - it's ok for you to troll people but I am not allowed to call you and others out off your trolling.

    12. For sure, absolutely nothing stopping Scotland (or any other country for that matter) running a surplus. All that is involved is setting your tax rates high enough and your public spending low enough.

      So, as an extremely extreme example, if a Scot Gov said it was going to put an extra 5p/£ on basic tax and privatise the NHS the Scotland would most likely run a stonking great surplus; but any party that proposed that would get very short shrift from the electorate.

      Its not a simple as deficit bad/ surplus bad. Most people would probably would be more happy with a country running a larger deficit but better public services rather than a surplus and lower public services.

      Deficit then feeds into debt (all the time you run a defect you are increasing your debt level). As with any debt you have to pay interest on this debt. UK's debt repayment is about £45 billion a year as an example. So there is the argument that a country should try and reduce its deficit and therefore its debt so it pays less in tax.

      Whilst I agree that things like GERS figures need to be challenged but equally the 'Yes' side needs to drop some of its more silly economic predictions. AS an example i still people arguing that an Indy Scotland would get the money from export duty that allegedly gets funnelled into Englands figures. Except there is no such thing as export duty so its just nonsense. All the time people are continuing to promote nonsense like this it just makes it easy for the unionists to say that the yes side is economically illiterate.

    13. Most of the cash the government has 'borrowed' to fund furlough etc has been lent to it by the BoE, i.e. itself, so it hasn't borrowed any extra really.

      Of course we are being prepared for austerity now because that's the only way to reduce taxes on the wealthy.

    14. What Mr Murphy writes it 100% correct. What he fails to mention is that the interest on these gilts will be paid out of government income (ie taxation). When they mature the capital will be have to be repaid. So when the gilts mature money will be need to be borrowed to pay the capital owed; at this stage the debt will be owed on the open market and not by the BoE.

      If there was a sustainable way for Governments to continually lend its self money through its own central bank then every major economy. In the history of economics dating back tens of thousands of years there has never been a thing as 'free money'.

    15. Adam , sorry as an economics graduate you misunderstand my question re where does the debt come from - it wasn't to ask you to provide me with a brief understanding of basic economics. But thanks for making the effort.The point I was trying to make but very obviously not clear enough - who determines what debt an independent Scotland starts with as there are different arguments re the UK national debt. If Scotland has to take a share of the debt then we get a similar share of the assets. If the partnership is equal then we have an equal share of assets and debts.

      The key point for me is that the people of Scotland will have an opportunity to determine its prorities for spending, control its own revenues and manage its economy more efffectively. Presenting reports that paint a picture of deficits just plays in to the Britnat hands who can then tell people who may not understand the basic of economics that they will not get their pensions etc.

      It will need the right sort of people negotiating the terms.

    16. Of course important to note that not actually talking about transferring the actual debt (ie the existing UK Gilts get split at some percentage split between rUK and Indy Scotland) that just causes to many problems.

      So from that respect Scotland starts debt free. As you say assets and debt are linked. An 'asset' is anything that was financed by public funds, so from road cones all the way to satellites.

      Then there is really two choices the Scottish and rUK Governments could spend years bickering about about the total value of Scotland's assets (I really wouldn't want to be the guy who has to calculate the vale of every road sign in Scotland!) or, much more likely make a commitment to pay for a percentage of the rUKs debt. Most likely way of this happening is a yearly payment (I think about £5 billion a year is the figure mentioned in the growth report).

      Any predictions made about a Indy Scotland's financial postions are just that, predictions made on assumptions regarding what the country would spend and how much revenue it would generate. Its actual financial position would be determined by the Government of the time (along with global factors) - which is the whole point of independence.

    17. Personally I have no problem with an Indy Scotland running a manageable deficit providing that it is used in the right areas, ie improved infrastructure, health education etc etc. Ultimately it will pay for its self to some extent as better infrastructure leads to improved productivity, better education and health leads to a better workforce and a more attractive country for people to invest into and live in which intern leads to increased tax revenue which in turn means that the deficit can be reduced.

      Its a bit like extending your mortgage to make improvements on your house. You borrow in the short term, but will make that back in the value it adds to your property. Problem in the UK at the moment is that the UK Gov is borrowing and then giving millions of that money to their mates and not getting much in return!

      I think we are falling into the unionists trap of deficit = bad. This is not the case. Sadly the voices trying to explain this are being overshadowed by those promising 'free money'.

    18. Adam, again I think you miss my point. It is not about arguing about who gets Scotlands assets rather who gets the UK assets. If Scotland and England created the UK as equal partners then there is a case to say they should leave with equal shares of assets and debts. As the UK assets outstrip the debts by a considerable share Scotland has a surplus to start with.

      If the UK argues otherwise then why do they have a case for retaining any of Scotlands resources and passing on debt to Scotland that they say Scotland had no involvement in.

      The UK as an entity will no longer exist - and just like a marriage all debts and all assets ( including overseas assets) need to be allocated / agreed. Agreeing to any annual debt repayment to England would be madness never mind the £ 5b you quote.

      Your final paragraph in your post of 10.13pm sums up the situation very neatly. So why prepare a growth commission report full of assumptions that can only be used against independence - as indeed the Britnats have done. And that is why I stated in my original post that the Growth Commission was appalling. What good did it do for the independence cause as against providing ammo for the Britnats.

    19. Adam, with regards to your 10.39pm I totally agree for the most part.

      I would just say whilst I agree that a deficit is not per se a problem for a country, to a lot of ordinary folk talking about a deficit just plays in to the Britnats GERS propaganda. That to me is the important point. The arguments about monetary theory and deficits do not mean much to get additional voters who believe the GERS propaganda to get them to cast off their fears of economic Armageddon and vote for independence. Until independence is voted for it is a moot point.

    20. IDS - no-one can tell you that at the moment and TBH there'll be years of negotiations to determine that. But that can all happen in the background - it's not really the matter of life and death. There're loads of different precedents here - USSR, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, even Austria-Hungary. They all managed to divide assets and debts. And yes - the more debt we take, the more assets we get. You can start with the army and finish with the Scottish artefacts in English museums. All of this could take lots of time - but won't influence the fact that Scotland will be independent at that point and negotiating from the position of equality.

    21. The equal partners statement is a political one and does not have much to do with asset distribution. For example land is considered an asset. On Independence Scotlands border is not going to move a couple of hundred miles south so that it gets an equal share of the asset! The precedent from other countries is that assets inside Scotlands borders (infrastructure housing etc etc) would be considered Scotland's assets plus a population share of non fixed assets and then debt owing could be based on that.

      Plus, of course, if you want to go down the 50/50 route then Ruk would be entitled to half of Scotlands assets. That would mean half of its oil and fish. I can't imagine a deal in which the Ruk gets half of Scotlands oil and fish is going to be exactly popular!

      £5 billion is not much in the scale of Scotlands GDP, its about 2% of GDP. Best just agree to pay shut down the argument and then move on. It either that or spend years arguing about Scotlands assets and debt with the rUK. Its just going to keep us in limbo unable to move forward. For example the EU is not going to even consider starting the process of Scotland rejoining until Scotlands Debt/asset situation is resoolved.

      The easiest way to counter any unionionist statements regarding a indy Scotlands financials is to say know body knows what Scotlands financial postion is going to be - predictions are just guesses. But unlike now it will be Scotlands choice alone on how it manages it economy - which is the point of Independence.

    22. Adam, I agree with your last paragraph and Gove has recently just provided a nice quote that can be used for independence - I refer you to Iain Lawson's blog Yours For Scotland.

      Last time I looked UK assets were calculated as £10 trillion Uk debt £2 trillion. - a good negotiating point surely. But I repeat the main point of my original post was not economics etc but political. Why only provide economic info that frightens no voters and that is what the Britnat politicians and their media pals use GERS and the Growth commission report for.

    23. Martin, I agree with your post.

      Westminster has been ripping off Scotland for a very long time I find it very hard to agree that Scotlands negotistors should just roll over and let them get their own way. Surely part of the point of independence is that the political representatives of Scotland actually stand up for Scotlands interests.

    24. As I said at the top there is nothing wrong with the Growth Commission report IMO. The main point keeps being missed. Independence does not guarantee anything Scotland economic future. How an independent Scotland manages it finances will decide the state of its economy. All independence does is give us full control to make economic choices.

  7. That Yougov poll must have been a private poll as it hasn't been published or they didn't like the results.

  8. Any one who needs a GERS report cannot count, these reports are made up by the Westminster civil service. The civil service in Scotland are supply by Westminster.

    1. Yes, and people should remember that there is no Scottish civil service; it is merely an administrative branch of the British civil service. All the 'bureaucrats' at Holyrood are employed by Whitehall. MSPs / the Scottish cabinet don't write GERS, British civil servants do.

    2. All of which both of you say is true - unusual for you Skier - but this defeatist/ apologism of the Scotgov/SNP lack of action to disown the GERS propaganda is quite tiresome.

      Sturgeon regularly gives credibility to GERS by saying things like it is positive that this years deficit has come down by a bit - from £15 b to £13.5b yes that's brilliant piece of politicking for the Britnats - just totally disown it SNP. I can only think that Sturgeon has no confidence in her ability re economics.

      On a more positive note Kate Forbes at least started recently to disown GERS and attack its credibility - not before time for someone in the SNP to do so.

  9. Reading the North British news today you'd be forgiven for not noticing a particular pattern emerging.

    I'm right in thinking drug misuse control is a Westminster reserved matter yes?

    Drug deaths at their highest ever levels in Wales

    Drugs deaths in Northern Ireland reach highest level

    Drug deaths: England and Wales see highest number since records began

    1. It is and of course Independence would give full powers. Until then need to look at why Scotlands drug deaths are 80 & 104% higher (per capita) than Northern Irelands and Wales who have the same powers.

      This is why quite rightly Nicola Sturgeon has said that the figures are completely indefensible and that her Government has much to do to sort out this issue. Hopefully the steps she has committed to taking in the new year will help the process.

      We all want independence and the powers that will bring, but 'till that day comes its the Scottish Governments responsibility to use the powers its has to full effect.

    2. This isn’t particularly directed at you, but since you are asking along these lines. I agree the UK government do need to use their drug control powers to full effect in Scotland, while Holyrood works on the NHS treatment / health aspect, which it is. What I admire most about Sturgeon is she does actually take responsibility saying 'the buck stops with her' in such situations. It's actually somewhat unjust given how much her hands are tied.

      I guess for me it's why 'Scotland'? What's the reason for picking out this as a specific region in terms of addressing this British problem? It's selecting an arbitrary border with no obvious reason as drug policy is the same UK wide. Some regions of Scotland have lower drug death rates than some regions of England. It’s clearly not related to being ‘Scottish’ or to Scotland. It's just not a Scottish problem.

      Certainly, we can’t say it’s a particular problem of Scottish people as up to 1/3 of people in Scotland don’t nationally identify as Scottish first or at all. So for all we know, our drug addicts could all be British or English in identity. We’d have to get the national identity of victims / those with a problem to establish whether they were ‘Scottish’ culturally. All may be Scottish ‘citizens’ but as a multi-cultural nation, if we are looking to link such problems to social / cultural groups, then we would need information on nat id. If Scotland was independent, then it would be easier as we could simply look at those who had opted for Scottish nationality in the first instance.

      That aside, there isn’t a Scotland when it comes to drug policy, only North Britain as it's a reserved matter. Westminster wants responsibility for drug deaths; there are only British drug addicts and deaths. I do find it amusing to read how 'Scotland is the country with the worst drug deaths in Europe' from the same sources that tell me 'Scotland isn't a country, can't be without permission, isn't in Europe and won't be allowed in.' Saying Scotland is a country with the worst drug deaths in Europe is like saying north Rhine Westphalia is the European country with the worst XYZ in Europe. It’s nonsensical. It’s classic unionist; Scotland is a country and not a country depending on what suits. ‘Scotland is 50% responsible for the empire!’, yet ‘isn’t a country so needs permission for indy!’ etc.

      England has full control of drugs and economic policy so you'd expect it to perform better. It does. Shockeroonie! this shows why Scotland needs independence; so it can do as well as England.

      However, should really be asking if it has such control, why are things going so badly wrong in England too? The trend is exactly the same, just the magnitudes are different. Same for Wales and NI. Whatever is going wrong is British, manifesting with variable intensities in different areas of Britain based on socio-economic history. The British need to face up this problem; what have they done to create this, and how are they going to fix it? The Scottish government is picking up the pieces in Scotland. Britain creates illegal addicts, Scotland treats those within its borders. It cannot stop the problem of illegal drug abuse as it doesn’t have the power over this or the economy; the latter being a fundamental factor in drug abuse.


    3. We know why some areas of Scotland have a problem. Generally, its for exactly the same reasons some areas of England, Wales, NI have; it's very much a legacy of the 80's. The rentons and sick boys who developed habits in the ruins of closed shipyards, textile mills and coal mines are now reaching their 50's and dying early. It’s why the deaths are heavily skewed to this age group. Of course Scotland suffered much more than England as a whole from this, so has a particular problem per capita now.

      When I grew up, 1 in 10 left Scotland in search of better life; mass emigration from an oil-rich nation utterly ruined through its membership of the UK. While the educated went to England to boost it’s ‘non addict’ population (almost me until I got a job in oil and gas), the rentons and sick boys were left behind rotting.

      On top, there does seem to be a long dark winters aspect, as Scandinavia has issues too.

      I guess what makes me sick is that the Brits created this, don't want to give control, then try to pin the blame on Scots. One moment we are all British together as one happy family of brothers and sisters, then we're jock addicts. It's classic Andy Murray; British when he wins Wimbledon, Scottish if he's shooting up.

      Listening to Leonard and Rennie today just reaffirms why I won't vote unionist. Attack Holyrood for what it does have power over, not for what it doesn't.

    4. That and I know that Westmister won't devolve drugs control because it wants more addicts and deaths in Scotland so it can use that as a stick to bash the natives with. There is no other possible explanation; as a separate legal jurisdiction with its own law making body, there are no hurdles. It is a domestic matter with no effect on trade, defense, foreign affairs etc.

      It's sick. Lives ruined for political gain, steeped in open racism.

      Suffice to say I'm supportive of decriminalization of possession, safe rooms, prescriptions for addicts etc. Whatever works best.

      I've seen the damage drugs can do personally too in regard to someone close to me. Thankfully they are still around today, but there were some near misses. The UK gets zero credit for this; the Scottish NHS 10/10.

      So there is reason for my rant.

    5. Well said Skier. And the likes of Davidson make me puke with her crocodile tears for the working class. Baroness FFS.
      Nicola's intent to tackle this head on is welcome.
      Too many families are desperate and London/UK will still hog the powers we need.


      Article at Talking up Scotland on this subject. Totally correct there Scottish skier, the EngGov want people in Scotland to die due to drugs, they control marine policing, Scotland's coast is vast, landing small boats would be easy as pie. Why do the EngGov state security folk not step in, because it's not in their interest to thrwart the drugs barons! English drugs gangs travel into Scotland's mostly rural areas, and preyvon vulnerable people, taking over their homes, basically kidnapping them. It's bloody horrendous.

    7. There is quite a good summary here. It makes for sobering reading. The UK government needs to act; Britain has a serious drugs problem which is destroying lives.

      Drug use prevalence in Scotland is about 1 in 10, as it is in England. Variance in estimates is within statistical error.

      Scotland does have a problem with a particular types of drug use (opioids and more recently benzodiazepines) which result in death due to poisoning. Cocaine is popular in England, but it doesn't tend to cause overdose. It kills, but not by this route.

      Drug deaths don't tell you about drug misuse. A small number of people injecting opioids will result in more deaths than a larger number of people snorting cocaine.

      The person I know would not have shown in the death statistics. If they'd died, it was because they have successfully taken their own life. What they were addicted too rarely if ever results in death. So all the addicts who have taken their lives in the UK due to drug abuse - which is an all too common outcome - won't show up in the 'drug deaths' statistics.

    8. Skier sorry Ross - did you share a needle with your friend? Or is your nose in a Bad Way?

    9. I think this pretty much confirms that yes, you are, without doubt, a right wing unionist troll. No decent person would respond in such a way to what I posted.

      I shall direct people to this particularly post from you regularly to ensure readers understand this.

    10. Yes direct away - you are no decent person - nothing but a lying toerag. I warned you if you doll out abuse to me then you will get it back - sad trolls like you do not like it returned in spades.

      If you have a problem them I'll meet you at the next AUOB march where I can point out the flags of the other nations that you seemed not to be aware of.

    11. You said " properly baited" so this is what you do for fun on this site. Bait people winding them up and then claim they are Unionist for a bit of fun. You and your wee group,of trolls are truly disgusting people.

      What would you prefer I refer to you in future - Junkie Ross or ex Junkie Ross. Think about because you will be seeing it for a long time because you are not bullying me - I aint going anywhere.

    12. I'm not the one calling people scots junkies.

  10. I have never believed there was much more than a 5% swing available to either camp

  11. I checked out the Britnat TV media coverage of Drew Hendry's actions in the House of Commons yesterday re the Internal Market bill.

    BBC Reporting Scotland - no coverage.

    BBC Scotland the Nine - a couple of seconds but no explanation of why he was protesting other than to say Internal Market Bill.

    STV News - very little coverage and no explanation.

    Drew Hendry meant well but the SNP will have to make a bigger noise in future to get any chance of proper coverage. Propaganda by omission will always be the case unless the noise made is big - like the mass walkout.

    1. Pretty much agree with that IFS.
      Except that reportage should be based on newsworthiness and this was worthy of extensive coverage
      but was virtually blanked by the MSM.
      Not sloppiness, but political manipulation on a great British level.
      An eye-opener for some, but only if you know about the event in the first place.

  12. Looking good .I respectfully disagree with James on the 60% barrier I think we will break it next year . Johnson saying it's his choice how Scotland and not the choice of the Scottish people .
    Also the youngsters and demographics Lewis Goodall Newsnight reporter tweeted a few months back that when you ask young people in Scotland if they support Independence they look at you as if you are stupid .My own kids and their friends are all solid for Independence .This belief in my opinion is so deeply ingrained very few will move to Unionism as they grow old .

  13. FFS.

    Unicef to feed children in UK for first time

    Unicef said it was helping children in the UK for the first time because the pandemic has increased food poverty in Britain. It estimates there are children going hungry in a fifth of households.

  14. An OP result achieved in spite of the SNP and Sturgeon and not because of them.

    1. How do you balance Sturgeon's popularity rating with your statement?

    2. Here comes the Surgeon Cultists and the SNP Sycophants. Sturgeon and the SNP have done SFA the last 6 years to promote Scots Indy.

    3. I've said this numerous times; the support for Yes isn't down to the SNP/Sturgeon. It's not in spite of them either. The two are just not really related at all. That's why what is happening is a serious problem for the union.

      Yes parties now dominate in Scotland because Scots increasingly want independence, not the other way around. If Scots were not interested in independence, the SNP would be nowhere, even if sturgeon and co were exactly as they are in terms of competence.

      If, as a regular voter, you want independence, then you note which Yes party dominates and vote for them. If you are more political, you might look at smaller parties such as the greens. So the SNP are riding high it is because Yes is. That and they are pretty competent.

      Certainly, we can be sure that the Yes majority is absolutely not down to those that spend time constantly attacking Yes parties, voters and politicians. They can claim zero credit.

  15. Hi James, I just messaged you on twitter but I'm not sure if here is better. I notice your site doesn't automatically upgrade http traffic to https

    Google demotes listings that don't do it, so you might want to get it sorted

    Tweet me back if you're not sure how

    1. I'm not sure it's even possible to sort it given that it's a free blogspot site (ie. I have limited control over it).

  16. Dear lord, one has to wonder who in the Tories thought that the gormless Douglas Ross was 'charismatic'.

  17. It makes you wonder, DRoss is very much a puppet, and not a very good one either.

  18. Just a reminder that celebration of high polling figures for independence should be tempered by the knowledge that the means by which this public support might be converted to a democratic vote does not exist; is not in prospect; is not in planning; and isn't even promised

    As things stand, there is no reason to believe we will ever have the opportunity to exercise our right of self-determination in a free and fair referendum.

    1. Peter. It does no harm to continually remind people of this fact. When I see actual legislation passed for a referendum with a date and an agreed question then I believe it will happen. Until then the pressure needs to be maintained.

      However it is a poor show that pressure has to be put on the leadership of THE party of independence to actually deliver independence.

      I remember hearing you speak at a BBC Pacific Quay demo - well done and thanks for your contribution to independence.

    2. Aye, there could yet be a "Men in grey kilts moment".
      The YES Movement is presently nursin its wrath tae keep it warm..
      But after May it's game on.