Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 57% (-1)
No 43% (+1)
I know some people may actually be disappointed by this result, because they would have expected the reality of a very Hard Brexit to inevitably increase Yes support from wherever it had previously been. We've seen hypothetical polling questions over the years suggesting that Scotland's forced departure from the single market and the customs union would indeed have that effect - but the thing is that people are notoriously bad at answering hypothetical questions, ie. they can't necessarily predict with any great accuracy whether their opinions will change in a different context. In any case, my guess is that people are currently thinking far more about the pandemic than they are about Brexit.
That said, this may not be the ideal poll with which to judge the trend. Because the previous poll in the series was a record-breaker, it's impossible to discount the possibility that Yes support was exaggerated due to sampling factors, in which case you'd expect some kind of reversion to the mean this time. We'll have to wait for further polls to be sure of the direction of travel - but we can certainly rest easy in the sense that it looks like support for independence is still running at an exceptionally high level.
Obviously the main cloud on the horizon for the Yes movement at the moment is the open warfare between Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond (and perhaps just as importantly between their proxies/supporters). The poll was conducted between the 8th and yesterday, which means it just about took place in its entirety after the story broke - but the impact may not have been fully factored in on the first day of fieldwork, which is when most people respond to online polls. The forthcoming Scot Goes Pop poll will have later fieldwork, so that might give us a better clue as to any effect on public opinion. In all honesty I'm a bit nervous about it, because it'll be conducted by a firm that hasn't been quite as favourable for Yes as ComRes has recently, but fingers crossed there'll at least be some sort of Yes lead. I'm quite proud of the fact that a Scot Goes Pop poll in June started the run of seventeen/eighteen polls in a row showing a Yes majority, so I'll be a bit miffed if it's also a Scot Goes Pop poll that ends the sequence, but hopefully that won't happen!
ComRes also have Holyrood voting intention numbers -
Scottish Parliament constituency ballot:
SNP 53% (-2)
Conservatives 19% (-1)
Labour 18% (+2)
Liberal Democrats 6% (-)
Scottish Parliament regional list ballot:
SNP 44% (+2)
Labour 18% (+1)
Conservatives 16% (-4)
Greens 11% (-1)
Liberal Democrats 8% (+1)
In recent times it's mainly been Survation that has shown Labour ahead of the Tories, so there may be some significance in the fact that another firm now has Labour in the runner-up spot in the more important list ballot. But of course the real story is one of Tory collapse rather than of Labour recovery - returning to main opposition party status on a pathetic 18% of the vote would be a pyrrhic triumph for Starmer and Leonard by any standards.
On past form the ComRes question will have described the list vote as the "second" vote, which I've always suspected leads to an overstatement of the Green list vote, and an understatement of the SNP list vote (because a minority of indy supporters interpret it as a 'second preference' vote). I very much doubt that the Greens are really in double figures.
James, Great news confirming the Yes majority is rock solid.
ReplyDeleteCan you tell us the dates the poll was carried out.
With all the problems of Brexit now emerging we can expect soft NOs to be making the journey to Yes.
I am very encouraged by the poll. I thought their previous poll was an outlier but it appears not. Margin of error sampling variation. Wait until the voter actually understand the implications of Brexit.
ReplyDeleteHi James,
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned that for the ScotGoesPop poll you have commissioned that you are a bit nervous about the outcome due to the fact that the survey firm has in the recent past not been quite as Yes-friendly as Savanta/ComRes.
Which polling organisation has been engaged by you this time around (or will that remain a secret until you release the results)?
I'm still confident we will hit 60% before May. The real danger to the YES movement is an intervention by Gordon Brown...πππ
ReplyDeleteI'm worried that the attacks on Nicola by our own side are going to cost us in May .No SNP majority there will be no Indyref2
ReplyDeleteI think the polling is testament to how unionists are wasting their time here and even if Sturgeon wasn't leader in May, it would make little if any difference.
DeleteScotland's future isn't about Sturgeon just like it was never about Salmond, no matter how much unionists tried to make it so.
And this is the easiest way to spot a unionist; they rabbit on incessantly about Salmond/Sturgeon/Swinney etc.
Scots are concerned with the matter of e.g. brexit, covid etc and not whether someone heard properly about something on the Thursday or the Monday. The despise politicians putting personal vendettas before the country.
If unionist take out sturgeon on a minor technicality, I can see them taking a real hit in elections. After all, in the middle of a crisis, disposing of a capable leader out of spite when you've nothing to offer yourself isn't really a vote winner.
I've never been more determined to vote SNP now. IfS, Wings, unionist media etc have made 100% sure of that.
I could not agree with you more with every point that you have made SS.
DeleteI think you underestimate how popular Nicola is especially among younger woman .If she goes we will lose support .Why she should have to answer for Alex Salmond s behaviour
DeleteRocksie67, I wouldn't be over worried atm. I don't think twitter stramashes have much cut through into real life. (Thankfully).
Delete"I think you underestimate how popular Nicola is especially among younger woman .If she goes we will lose support .Why she should have to answer for Alex Salmond s behaviour"
DeleteIf you replace her with some wanker of male chauvinist then maybe, but to where? Probably the Greens; certainly not to a unionist party if you are a young female Yes supporter. So bang, another Yes majority anyway.
Previously, Scots in majorty backed the union so unionist parties won elections. Now Scots back indy in majority so Yes parties will win majorities. We will see movement back and forth between these, but not back to unionism.
The independence movement is much stronger than any individual. Rightly so.
ReplyDeleteAye, it's really insane to imagine people base their support for indy on individual politicians. They just don't. It's somewhat a factor in domestic politics, but indy is a much bigger, existential issue.
DeleteEven if sturgeon was taken out before May, that just highlights why you shouldn't base your support for indy on individual politicians, whose rise and fall is so fleeting.
There is an extensive list of 'reasons for independence' and 'Nicola Sturgeon' isn't on it just like 'Alex Salmond' wasn't. Ergo no Sturgeon makes no real difference. Her replacement and chosen cabinet would need to be totally sh**e, and for an extended period of time, to cost the SNP votes, and even that would probably be mainly to the Greens.
Support for a party is only loosely linked to leader; Johnson is a universally incompetent, unpopular leader of a party that retains 40% of the vote and a lead over Labour.
Support for indy isn't based on Sturgeon's popularity, rather she is popular with people who support independence.
What about the Farage party.
ReplyDeleteWhat about it?
Delete@ UnknownJanuary 14, 2021 at 2:09 PM
ReplyDeleteDifferent planet. Different modus of Failure. So Different we won't ever see them ressurected, ever.
"The open warfare between Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond"
ReplyDeleteAnyone wonder what Murray Foote is doing these days?
Unionists have been pushing this line for some time now.
DeleteThey are making sure there's no coming back for Salmond. If the electorate believe Salmond is trying to damage the SNP / indy movement as a hole, he'll lose the respect he used to hold among the electorate.
Independence is not about him or sturgeon, and if either one puts personal stuff in the way of it, the electorate will never forgive them.
Unionists will also take a hit in polls if Sturgeon's taken out by them.
"Wheest for Indy" is a morally bankrupt stance.
DeleteSalmond wants to tell the truth unlike others who have attended the Committee sessions. Salmond did not create either of the current Inquiries.
Some people think he should just lie like the others who have attended. They are wrong.
Sturgeon will not be taken out by unionists - it will be by the truth and her own government's actions if it happens.
'Revenge for indy and I don't care if it derails things for Scotland' is a morally bankrupt stance.
DeleteIt is not for anyone but the standards committee to decide if someone has or has not broken the ministerial code. Salmond should state that Sturgeon is 100% innocent until such time as she's found guilty of breaching the code, which is what I said about him ahead of his trial. If he's found her guilty in 'trial by my own opinion', he's gone way down in my estimation.
Anyway, I see he isn't going to speak at the committee, although I understand Sturgeon has accepted the invitation. A pity as I wanted to hear both sides.
Skier - try reading the ACTUAL papers published by the Committee and not the BRITNAT MEDIA that you are so fond of quoting.
DeleteYou of course as ever post your inaccurate and self contradictory comments based on ignorance or just a desire to misrepresent.
1.You said previously it does not matter to independence who the leader is so just how does Salmond derail things by telling the truth?
2. Salmond proposes a date in February for him to attend - its in the letter from his solicitors. Ignorance or deliberate misleading?
Skier you know all about being morally bankrupt - just like the liars that have pitched up at the Committee meetings.
Salmond will hurt support for himself by proclaiming people guilty without trial. If that's what he's doing to Sturgeon, he's lost my respect. The standards committee are who decides who has broken the code and how serious it is, nobody else.
DeleteI don't understand why he's refusing to attend now and Fabiani is right to be miffed. February does not give enough time to properly conclude and prepare the final report before the parliament shuts for the new campaign. What if they need him or others to come back again following testimony or to get new documents?
If he's concerned about covid he could get vaccinated or just attend remotely.
Scottish Skier don't bother answering Independence for Scotland ,he is a Yoon trying to wind you up.
DeleteRocksie67 - it seems you like smearing people. Well done hope you are proud of yourself. The trouble you have Rocksie is I post the truth. You on the other hand well - just post insults - you probably hero worshipped Salmond but now you smear him.
DeleteSkier says "I don't understand why he's refusing to attend now..."
DeleteWell you would if you spent less time posting nonsense on here and actually read the correspondence on the Committee website. It's all there. It's not just about Covid. You comment in ignorance or are deliberately misleading. You are a menace to the truth Skier.
Skier says " the standards committee are who decides if someone has or has not broken the Ministerial code"
DeleteWRONG - there is no such Standards Committee - James Hamilton QC will decide if Sturgeon has broken the Ministerial code. The Harrassment Committee Inquiry includes in its scope the Ministerial code.
Skier as ever posts nonsense based on ignorance and deliberate attempts to mislead.
I do not support independence because of Gordon Wilson or Winnie Ewing or Margo MacDonald or John Swinney or Alex Salmond or Nicola Sturgeon.
ReplyDeleteI support it for a range of reasons that are not influenced by any one person.
Spot on
DeleteJust completed a strange Panelbase poll, that asked questions meant to be from a 'Scottish Socialist Party', but seemed to be a Tory poll in my opinion. The questions were all about 'separation', not independence.
ReplyDeleteSounds like George Galloway?
DeleteOutside the political bubble, majority of people are not paying attention to the Sturgeon Vs Salmond battle. Both Yes supporters and Unionists, overestimate how much people know or even care about the matter.
ReplyDeleteWings and his supporters are increasingly screaming into the abys, and find themselves keeping strange company with Unionist Commentators and the MSM, who believe the same.
It is not about who is wrong, was there skulduggery or is there a wider conspiracy, it is about whether or not the general public actually give a shit, and if they do, would it change their stance on Independence. I think Scot Goes Pop poll will discover the answer to that question is no.
Tearlach, I very much doubt if someone deliberately tried to send you to prison for years for a crime you did not commit you would be so carefree about the matter and call it skullduggery.
ReplyDeleteSo in your opinion crimes and malicious acts by people in power only matter if the public pay attention to them.
I agree I do not see the Skullduggery, as you term it affecting support for independence but this is the type of approach that Labour used to take about wrongdoing - sweep it under the carpet - it was wrong by Labour and it is wrong by the SNP. If people want to live in a better Scotland then in my opinion they should give a shit.
I very much doubt if someone deliberately tried to send you to prison for years for a crime you did not commit
DeleteIf you have evidence sturgeon did this and are withholding it you are a criminal.
Skier you do post such nonsense.
DeleteRocksie67
ReplyDelete"Why should she have to answer for Alex Salmonds behaviour"
I think you have got the wrong end of the stick Rocksie67. Both the Inquiries are about Sturgeon answering for her own and her government's behaviour including special advisers.
Do you actually read any of evidence posted on the Committee website? Or are you too busy reading Britnat newspapers.? You have fallen 100% for the plan "smear Salmond" if we cannot send him to jail. Well done you.
I agree independence for Scotland .....the smear Salmond campaign continues.
ReplyDeleteI firmly believe NS only changed the law to close the loophole that allowed previous ministers to evade prosecution for things they had done in the past.
Closing the loophole allowed the ten to bring their cases against AS
Was this planned all along ?
We’re the ten already teaming up to get AS but couldn’t do so til the loophole was closed ?
We don’t know the answers to these critical questions.
Did NS know about the ten before she ordered the loophole closed ?
If she did
Would we expect her to close the loophole or leave it to help AS evade court ?
Personally I would expect NS to do the right thing by law and by her position of responsibility as First Minister which is close the loophole
It would have been wrong for NS to leave the loophole allowing ministers to evade the courts just because AS was a colleague and friend
I think NS trusted in AS good character I think she changed the law closing the loophole knowing the ten might bring charges against AS but trusted what she knew of him and trusted the courts.
AS was found not guilty her trust was well placed
I think it’s likely the ten have backing from people in powerful positions who set all this up I think they found this loophole in the law and drew it to NS attention knowing she had to close it and knowing that closing it would allow the ten sitting at the ready to bring charges to court they knew that if NS did not close the loophole they would be able to end her career by accusing her of protecting AS
NS had no choice
Now we need to uncover who the backers of the ten really are
It seems to me that Salmond allowed himself to caught in an MI5 honeytrap, and probably one that was planned for 2014, but then not used as polling looked ok for the UK. It's been brought out now since Yes started rising steadily from 2017.
DeleteHe admitted to 'making mistakes' and that he 'could have been a better man'. No criminal, but Moria probably pretty pissed off.
Any, if you are a senior SNP you should not be e.g. letting yourself be alone in wee small hours with fully paid up female London Whitehall civil servants (7 of the 9 in court). The honeytrap sex assault is as old as the hills.
When I saw the Alphabet list of UK civil service employees rolled out with 'whitehalls woman in Scotland' Leslie Evans championing them, I though 'FFA Alex, how did you ever let them put you in this position'.
I imagine Sturgeon, Swinney etc told him the same and had no choice but to walk away because interfering could only do far more damage.
I note that as far as I'm aware, nobody in the SNP is accusing Sturgeon of 'setting up Salmond'. If she has set him up, the party would be split down the middle.
All the 'Salmond supporters' that are peddling the anti-SNP stuff are of course not in the SNP, but are mysterious unknowns or from the S of England.
Skier "proud to smear " should be your family motto. Shameful.
DeleteYou claim to only want the truth, but refuse to listen to it.
DeleteSalmond has openly admitted, for the record, that he has made mistakes and (through his defense team) that he could have been a better man.
If you were senior SNP, would you be so stupid as to allow yourself to be e.g. alone at night in your residence with younger women in the direct pay of Whitehall? MI5 must have been cracking open the champagne; he just invited them straight in.
This was, without question, a really stupid mistake and yes, he should have been more sensible. A better politician would have not allowed themselves to be put in that position. SNP should know all about the secret service and not be handing them opportunities like this on a plate.
Terence you may want to consider:
Delete1. No other country in the world has a Harrassment procedure for FORMER MINISTERS.
2. Creating this new procedure or closing the loophole as you call it does not prosecute any offenders. So all the conclusions you draw are wrong.
3. Only 2 out of ten actually raised a complaint through closing the loophole but 8 went direct to the Police. So again closing the loophole was not necessary for complaints to be made to the police.
4. There is no law that Sturgeon needed to follow to close the loophole. It was her decision.
5. There is no loophole in the law that Sturgeon needed to close.
6. You clearly have no idea of who the ten are or you wouldn't be asking these questions about backing from powerful people etc or alternatively like Skier you want to cover up wrongdoing.
7. Sturgeon did have a choice - she could have chosen not to create a new process that no other country in the world has.
8. Sturgeon did have a choice - she could have chosen not to sign of a process that any reasonable person never mind a lawyer could see was unlawful, unfair and tainted by apparent bias.
9. Sturgeon did have a choice - as Salmond says - it was her duty to stop/concede the Judicial Review as FM because it was an unlawful process. That is part of her duty to prevent her gov acting unlawfully - Ministerial code. It is not all about meetings as people like Skier try to mislead.
Skier - I source the truth not from Britnat media like you but from the Committee documents. All you do is smear and mislead - shameful.
DeleteSalmond has made plenty of mistakes - one of them is trusting that people like you are decent people.
What's wrong with closing the loophole?
DeleteAt my work, the harassment procedure allows for students to come forward with complaints about former lecturers.
Are you saying students at Strathclyde university should not have been able to complain about Gorman once he stopped working there? That because he became a former lecturer, all complaints had to be forgotten?
It's attitudes like that which allowed him to go on to Heriot-Watt and continue with his sexual assaults. You seem to think if you leave a place of work, you should be able to get yourself off the hook.
https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/uni-accused-whitewashing-pervert-professor-19265534
IfS, if you were a pro-indy FM of Scotland, would you allow yourself to be alone with young Whitehall female civil servants 'after hours' in your residence, knowing that they reported to 'Whitehall's woman in Scotland' at least, and possibly even directly to Thames house? It's bloody obvious that they could make stuff up and it would be your word against theirs.
DeleteIf 7/9 had complainers in court had been long term SNP members, politicians etc, we'd be dealing with something entirely different, but I think we can be pretty confident some, most likely the ringleaders, were MI5.
DeleteI now await you defending the British state by saying how they'd never do this and it must be the SNP that set salmond up.
Same old nonsense and smears from Skier.
DeleteOf course it wasn't a case of his word against their word was it. Female witnesses testified for the defence to prove it was lies but people like you continue to smear. Shameful.
Skier who knows nothing but is confident in the conclusions he draws. What ignorance and arrogance combined with nastiness. Smearer Skier has a ring about it.
And IfS defends the british state to the last.
Delete'The British secret service would never be so devious! They would only ever be fair and uphold the principles of great British fairness and mothers of parliamentary democracy!
The SNP must have infiltrated whitehall with sleeper agents who were the 7/9!'
Skier back to his lies because he has nothing but smears.
DeletePutting words in quotes that I did not say - What a despicable character you are.
In fact it would not surprise me if the British Secret Service were involved. In fact it would not surprise me if you were British Secret Service the way you lie and mislead.
Strathclyde Uni the home of the Britnat Fraser of Allander institute. Pals of yours Skier.
DeleteTaxis for Sturgeon Cult. Cult is obviously more interested in smearing Alex Salmond than promoting Scots Indy. That despite AS being found not guilty on every charge leveled against him.
ReplyDeleteNicola Sturgeon and the SNP have of course not ever leveled any charges against Salmond.
DeleteThose that have were:
7 Whitehall employees
1 SNP party employee
1 SNP 'politician' who complained he once put his hand on her leg, which isn't an offence that will get you put away for years
It's only unionists that claim the SNP/Sturgeon tried to put him away.
Skier back to arguing that Sturgeon and Swinney do not run the Scotgov. If they don't then what are we voting for. I voted for an SNP led Scotgov but according to Skier they have no responsibility it is just Whitehall that runs things. Oh well best get independence then this gradualist devolution approach is just the same as being run by London direct. Skier really posts such nonsense.
DeleteSturgeon smeared Salmond on the Sophy Ridge Show.
Swinney smeared Salmond on the BBC Sunday Politics
Skier smears Salmond on SGP.
The offence/ lie by the unnamed SNP politician (as you describe her) was part of the attempt to convict Salmond using the Moorov principle. It failed.
Placing your hand on someone's leg will not get you put in jail for years. End of.
DeleteYes, and we know that woman wasn't sturgeon, as sturgeon never appeared in court, as you've told us.
She was listed as defense witness for Salmond but wasn't called by his team.
What we do know is that you claim to have evidence that sturgeon broke the law (conspiracy to commit perjury) but you won't tell the police about it, which makes you a criminal that is apparently trying to protect someone who you claim in a criminal.
Skier cannot address the facts so he smears Salmond and he smears me with his nonsense.
DeleteSmearer Skier.
Do you even know what Moorov is?
DeleteSo you have no evidence that Sturgeon committed conspiracy to commit perjury?
DeleteNot a shred of evidence for all your claims?
It's that or you are withholding this evidence and are a criminal for doing so.
"Not a shred of evidence for all your claims"
DeleteIt's you saying it.
Aye, you have failed to provide any evidence that Sturgeon and/or the SNP conspired to commit perjury with the aim of jailing salmond.
DeleteIf you do have evidence, you are committing a criminal offence while persecuting salmond for not letting people know the truth.
Skier thought you were a rock basher at Strathclyde uni not a lawyer. But of course you regularly claim to be an expert on everything. Googled Moorov yet.
DeleteMoorov expains why all these other pathetic claims suddenly appeared. It failed because the jury saw through their lies with the help of facts and witnesses.
Skier the smearner using your " lawyers" knowledge it seems you are committing a criminal act by not reporting my criminal act to the police. πππππππ what a plonker you are.
I don't work for and have never worked for Strathclyde uni, which kind ties in with the reliability of your thoughts on things.
DeleteSkier - So you are not a rock basher at Strathclyde but think you are an expert on everything.
DeleteGoogled Moorov yet?
My guess is you attend one of the educational establishments in Edinburgh - perhaps the one that removed the Salmond stone. Fits in with your anti Salmond smearing that you would remove it and enjoy giving it a bash with your hammer.
DeleteReaders will of course notice that a high frequency of 'Sturgeon and the SNP tried to jail Salmond and are really unionists that don't want indy' comments correlate closely with blogposts about Yes being above 50% again.
ReplyDeleteSkier the family motto - smear and smear again - shameful.
DeleteSays the criminal sweeping key evidence under the carpet rather than reporting it to the police.
DeleteSmearer Skier.
DeleteOut of interest, I got an email yesterday saying the covid rules at work were changing, and this would be detailed in a meeting today, which I duly attended and learned about said changes.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone asks, when should I say I 'first heard about the changes in rules', i.e. should I say the email or the meeting, and does it really f'n matter which?
Asking for people with sense that don't understand those with none.
Such nuances are important to unionists, while this sort of thing isn't.
Deletehttps://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/13/world/europe/scotland-seafood-brexit-.html
For Some Scottish Seafood Businesses, Brexit Could Be a Death Knell
Daunting new paperwork could cause border delays that would ruin entire shipments — and their businesses.
That would be caused by the Brexit that Blackford kept saying wouldn't happen. Yes a disgrace.
DeleteYou really are the king of unsubstantiated claims.
DeleteHave you ever posted a link to anything you claim?
Here you go:
https://www.canto.com/blog/copy-link-url/
How to Copy Link URLs
What you are now saying Blackford didn't say Scotland won't be taken out of the EU against its will.
DeleteYou seem to be great at linking people on here to Britnat media giving the purveyors of propaganda clicks and advocating they read Britnat anti - independence propaganda.
You can always spot a Unionist they think a link to a Britnat newspaper or the BBC validates their comments. That's you Smearer Skier.
I understand that on two occasions now witnesses have attended the Salmond committee hearing remotely and it all went fine.
ReplyDeleteGood news as it means there should be no problems for Salmond to do that.
https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,alex-salmond-could-be-required-to-give-evidence-to-the-scottish-parliament-harassment-inquiry-remotely
More lies from Smearer Skier - you understand wrongly - the most recent meeting on a Tuesday this week had many of the Committee experiencing significant problems with their connections so that is why the Committee wanted to change back to in person meetings.
DeleteSo you have been reading too much Britnat media again or deliberately misleading. If you actually tuned in to the session on Tuesday you would know that.
I quote:
DeleteFabiani called on him to reconsider his refusal to appear in person on Tuesday and warned that if he didn’t, he might have to give evidence remotely.
She wrote: “Of course I understand that you may feel unable, or reluctant, to travel from your home whilst the current restrictions are in place, and it is also clear that we cannot assume the restrictions will be lifted in time for your proposed alternative date.
“If you do not wish to reconsider the Committee’s proposal [to appear on 19 January] and to discuss with us in detail the possible arrangements, an alternative format may have to be considered by the Committee which may not align with your preference to appear in person – for example, the option of MSPs attending the meeting in person and you appearing remotely.
“The Committee has done this twice already during this inquiry and it was certainly more effective than an entirely remote session.”
Fabiani suggested the material from the trial was of more importance to Salmond than to the committee.
“I understand why this evidence from the criminal trial is central to you as an individual. However, the Committee must make progress,” she wrote.
Linda Fabiani and Holyrood magazine are not reliable sources? if the committee finds against Sturgeon we can trust it?
Either we can trust Fabiani or we can't, which is it?
I'll add:
Delete"Fabiani also took issue with the fact that Salmond had released the submission he sent to James Hamilton, who is leading a separate inquiry into whether Nicola Sturgeon broke the ministerial code, to the media before the committee clerks had time to check it was legally publishable.
“Sharing it more widely, with the result that it is now in the public domain, did not respect the Parliamentary process,” she said."
Looks like a potential breach of the code here by Salmond?
So Smearer Skier is shown up to be posting lies about the Committee meeting and then deflects on to something different. Only people of low character act like this.
DeleteSmearer Skier says "looks like a potential breach of the code here by Salmond"
DeleteWhat code would that be - The order of a Holy Willie Smearer code.
You quote a journalist - as usual it does not match to the actual words of Fabiani below in your post. Smearer Skier misleading again. Fabiani does NOT say Salmond leaked it to the media - the journalist says that. It could have been a Committee member. So you just mix up the words of a journalist with the words of Fabiani - only people of a low chararcter do these sort of things to mislead - the sort of thing Britnats do.
Skier, IFS , get a room FFS !
ReplyDeleteThis is our room; there's a newer post for the latest comments.
DeleteThe salmond stuff always gets ramped up when a new majority Yes poll is reported.
SSkier says the "Salmond Stuff" - that is of course how the Britnat media refer to it.
DeleteIt is an inquiry into the FM, Scottish