A few people wrote to me almost simultaneously this morning to ask if the new poll results on the Alba website were real. The answer is yes, its a perfectly real poll - it's one of the Alba-related questions I mentioned a few days ago from the recent multi-client Panelbase survey. Here are the key findings:
Would you vote for the pro-independence Alba Party with your Scottish Parliament Regional List vote if you thought it would help elect a higher amount of pro-independence MSPs to the Scottish Parliament?
Yes 19%
No 63%
Among current supporters of independence:
Yes 37%
No 41%
Among those who plan to vote SNP with their list vote at the next Holyrood election:
Yes 31%
No 46%
Among those who plan to vote Labour with their list vote at the next Holyrood election:
Yes 12%
No 78%
Among those who plan to vote Green with their list vote at the next Holyrood election:
Yes 27%
No 57%
I've thought long and hard about how to cover this poll, because on the one hand I'm an Alba member and am keen to see evidence of the party making strides forward, but on the other hand, long-term readers will spot instantly that this poll is very similar to the type of "Archie Stirling" poll that I heavily criticised Stuart Campbell for running a few years ago to try to get the idea of a Wings Party off the ground. I wouldn't have much credibility if I didn't point out that some of the exact same flaws apply here. The operative word, though, is "some", because if I recall correctly the Wings poll used the phrase "would you consider voting for..." in order to maximise the positive result. The Alba poll is a bit more direct because it asks "would you vote for..."
Let's start by looking at the positives. The poll undoubtedly shows that Alba are not the toxic entity that some SNP politicians (for example John Nicolson) would fondly like to believe. The mention of the name Alba was not enough to send voters scurrying for the hills - if the circumstances are right, well over a third of current Yes supporters are open to voting Alba. Even a non-trivial minority of Labour voters are open to the idea - which is potential gold dust for the Yes movement, because to state the obvious those people are not doing the independence cause much good by voting Labour.
However, Alba are claiming the poll shows them winning more than twenty list seats at Holyrood. That's obviously a bit far-fetched. To remind you of what an "Archie Stirling" poll is, in the run-up to the 2007 Holyrood election, the wealthy theatre producer Archie Stirling (father of the actress Rachael Stirling and ex-husband of Diana Rigg) commissioned YouGov to ask respondents if they would consider voting for his new Scottish Voice party. Around 20% said they would. He then put out a press release which convinced several newspapers to breathlessly report that Scottish Voice was on course to win dozens of list seats. But when the election came around, Scottish Voice took just 0.2% of the list vote, and weren't even within light-years of winning any seats.
The point, of course, is that if you single out just one small party and ask poll respondents if they would consider voting for that party, or would vote for that party if certain circumstances apply, a lot of people will answer "yes" because they're trying to be reasonable and can't find any fault with the proposition being put to them. It's a very different matter if that party is instead presented - as it will be on the ballot paper - as just one of a menu of parties all in competition with each other, and from which only one option can be selected. What would have been a more meaningful question to ask would have been something along the lines of -
"If you thought voting for the pro-independence Alba Party on the Scottish Parliament Regional List would help elect a higher amount of pro-independence MSPs, how would you vote with your Regional List vote at the next Scottish Parliament election?
SNP
Conservatives
Labour
Greens
Liberal Democrats
Alba
Other"
Even that would have been a highly leading question wording, but it would have produced a better indication of Alba's potential vote (or perhaps a better way of putting it is their potential maximum vote). You can only really know if voters are willing to switch from SNP to Alba if you give them an SNP option and they select Alba instead.
The other thing I would say is that the breakthrough Alba are claiming from the Panelbase poll entirely hinges on the premise set out in the question wording that a list vote for Alba would increase the overall number of seats held by pro-indy parties. That points to a repeat of the 2021 "supermajority" strategy, which was dependent on urging people to vote SNP on the constituency ballot and Alba on the list. If so, I'd gently suggest there needs to be some joined-up thinking here, because I saw very senior Alba people on social media last night saying that nobody should vote for the SNP ever again because of the GRR Bill, and even equating a vote for the SNP as a vote for Jimmy Savile. That kind of rhetoric is going to have to be toned down massively if we don't want voters to perceive the idea of Alba working with the SNP to produce a supermajority as an obvious confidence trick. Furthermore, Alba will have to be very careful not to split the pro-indy vote in a Westminster general election conducted under first-past-the-post, because if it's seen that Alba are happy enough to reduce the number of pro-indy seats in one election, few voters will believe that Alba are motivated by a desire to increase the number of pro-indy seats at the following election.
* * *
If you'd like to help Scot Goes Pop continue in some form, donations are welcome HERE.
Thanks, James. A very balanced and honest piece of analysis.
ReplyDeleteAgree. Which is the reason why SNP are ruling out a holyrood plebiscite and not a wm one as they don't want to give Alba a platform.
ReplyDeleteOk, they won't do either, at best they'll pretend to do a wm by vaguely mentioning independence and losing it and even if they did nothing would happen..
But yes realpolitik dictates that alba standing at wm means the hard of thinking majority won't vote for them at holyrood.
Good analysis as usual James. Regarding a Holyrood plebiscite, the fact of having two votes could make for a messy result. What if we get >50% for pro-Indy parties in one vote but not the other?
ReplyDeleteIIRC we had this situation in the last election, >50 for SNP+Greens+Alba in the regional vote, but a fraction of a percent below 50 for the constituency vote. Of course unionists routinely state as fact that pro-Indy parties have never had a majority of the vote, happily cherry picking the one that suits them.
The way the polls are at the moment such a nightmare result could well be repeated. It would be easy for the unionists to then argue that there was no mandate for change and so the status quo should persist. Anyone have any wise ideas on how to mitigate this risk? Other than having a fat Yes majority of course!
On the subject of how to get pro-Indy Labour voters on board, did anyone ever poll on voting intentions in a first election of an independent Scotland? I realize it’s a very hypothetical question, and that the results might be of limited use, but I could well imagine a truly Scottish Labour Party doing a bit better, and the broad SNP kirk starting to fray at the edges. If pro-Indy Labour voters see improved prospects for their party, it might just encourage them to make the leap. Maybe it’s worth asking the question in a subsequent poll?
Anonymous - when you collapse Holyrood you specify the details. Namely, this is a de facto referendum not a normal Holyrood election. Constituency vote is for independence - list vote is for party. All votes for independence candidates on the constituency count for independence. It's only difficult if you don't want do do it.
DeleteSturgeon prefers the UK route because it is harder to win. Funny how the "all people living in Scotland must get a vote mantra" suddenly gets thrown out the windae. Along with strict voter ID coming into operation for UK votes makes a yes win a lot harder.
You could do that or you could just add up the pro indy votes (under a yes alliance umbrella) from both votes and divide it by the total cast. Either way is fine but to be effective they require a yes alliance which is the principal reason why it won't happen.. it's ma baw an am no playin.
DeleteThat and the fact that the UN route is fraught with difficulty. But you'll have to try it no matter what James says here as UK will never recognise it.
Else we lose.
Sigh. There is no "UN route". It's not "fraught with difficulty", it doesn't exist. There will be international recognition of an independent Scotland as soon as agreement with the UK government is reached.
DeletePlenty of countries have seceded from other countries and had recognition from other countries without recognition from the state they wish to secede from. Estonia is an example. Iceland recognised them first.
DeleteYour argument gives UK an absolute veto. If and when we win a pleb and "enter negotiations" with the UK when they say phuq off what do we do then. We need politicians who would do exactly what Catalonia did in that instance, declare UDI. We need to be warming up the International community in advance of the economic and environmental benefits of an ind Scotland to maximize the chances of their recognition.
"Estonia is an example. Iceland recognised them first"
DeleteI'm afraid you're going to have to do about a thousand times better than citing western countries recognising the independence of Baltic states annexed by the Soviet Union. You will search in vain for a modern example even remotely comparable to Scotland's situation.
"Your argument gives UK an absolute veto."
My argument "gives" nothing to anybody. It's simply a recognition of a reality that neither you nor I nor anyone else can do anything about. I'm sure fantasy versions of independence are all very enjoyable, but I'm more interested in achieving independence in the *real world*.
Nasty WGD numpty Dr Jim will be foaming at the mouth if he reads your headline.
ReplyDeleteSturgeon will be saying I'll get him next time - no jury trials are coming - all you Alba guys better watch out.
ReplyDeleteThe independence movement violently cursed with two thinkings : 1) NOT desperately anywhere near enough thinking-outside-the-box; 2) FAR TOO MUCH blinkered thinking-inside-a-bubble.
ReplyDeleteTBH : Salmond and Campbell, very, very unfortunately both are divisive figures now (in the Sturgeon-SNP political landscape which will remain the environment till Sturgeon steps down AND the SNP hits its electoral Titanic iceberg and sinks) both can readily avoid bubble-think and the what-do-you-mean-by-a-box, eh? mentality.
We'll never get indy via the current Sturgeonista LGBTQ+ junta : they're well meaning fanatics and I'm sure Mz S has her closetted reasons for championing the trannie rights agenda (hey, I'm fine with it - couldn't gaf tbh - good luck'n all) but indy has crept onto the agenda and we need SNP 1 / Pro-Indy2 (on a good SNP polling day - tbh that's looking very iffy at this time with Mz S failing profoundly to provide leadership.
I fear (with Labour gaining and the SNP flailing) that the next HR election will not be a good polling position) that SNP 1 / SNP 2 will be the correct call.
Jimmy Saville is long dead so how do Alba people think you can vote for a dead person?
ReplyDeleteI've no idea, you'd have to ask them.
DeleteSo what is the view of the big dug on Sturgeon's Holyrood GRR horror show this week. Not a word nothing. He asks for money for a new laptop so he can continue to write his articles and then says thanks very much I've now got my laptop but I am going on holiday for a wee while, bye.
ReplyDeleteA bungalow, a car and a laptop - what next? - 2023 summer holiday in Mauritius?
You certainly cannot expect the big dug to criticise Sturgeon and her deceit over raising money for a fictitious Indyref2 as the big dug has been doing the same for years. The big dug has been top cheerleader for Sturgeon's just around the corner Indyref2.
He did write in the National about the GRR
DeleteKeaton - so what did he say?
DeleteNo answer Keaton. Let me guess - "I agree with our great leader" is a fair bet because he says that most weeks in his blog.
DeleteConfused Irish Skier on Dublin's pub loos once again says:- "The next time Sunak's in eg, Dublin, will his wife avoid the loos for safety." One minute Skier is saying they are all safe the next minute he is suggesting they aren't. It's not just his nationality he is confused about he's not even sure which loos he has confirmed as safe.
ReplyDeleteOne of the worst arguments for the GRR policy is other countries have it. Well so they do. Other countries ( the majority ) do not have it. Other countries have capital punishment. So should we introduce capital punishment? Other countries just love torturing people they don't like. So should we allow torture in Scotland? It's no surprise that this is a favourite argument of WGD numpties to support Sturgeon and her GRR policy. Other countries have it so it must be ok.
ReplyDeleteOf course the WGD numpties just love a majority when it is the SNP relative to Alba but when a majority of countries do not have selfID the numpties conveniently ignore this fact.
The WGD numpties ain't so keen to say if they agree with the Scottish Greens MSP who stated that sex is non binary. How many sexes are there then ya bampot - 5 or 10 or does that vary from month to month. These bampots get elected using climate change and independence just like Sturgeon uses independence. So a challenge to the WGD numpties who support all this nonsense - how many sexes are there? Careful now numpties Sturgeon may come after you with her hate crime laws.
Also numpties when you are thinking about many sexes the human race has. Pray tell me how many sexes they have in mammals in the animal kingdom - more specifically, how about chimpanzees our nearest relative - how many sexes do they have?
DeleteNumpties just cannae think for themselves - it's whatever Sturgeon says is their truth no matter how barking mad it is.