Saturday, September 17, 2022

Here's why the Sun's claims of "plummeting independence support" should be taken with a heavy dose of salt

Someone asked me on the previous thread if I had any analysis of the new poll in the "Scottish" Sun.  I hadn't heard about it, so I looked it up and found the headline "UNION POLL BOOST: Support for Scottish independence plummets since Queen's death".  Now, I must admit that for a second or two my heart sank, because we're living through an unprecedented period of BBC-led state propaganda seeking to ruthlessly exploit the Queen's death in order to weaken the independence cause, and it's far from implausible that would have had some effect, at least in the short term.  However, you won't be surprised to hear that all may not be quite as it appears.

The "exclusive" poll was conducted by Deltapoll, and supposedly finds 42% would currently vote in favour of independence.  So the first issue here is that the Sun are weirdly vague on whether that number is before or after Don't Knows are stripped out.  It's probably the latter, in which case 42% would indeed be unusually low for recent times, but I'm certainly not going to take that as read until we have confirmation - it wouldn't be the first time a newspaper has cynically led us up the garden path about an independence poll.  (Never forget Scotland on Sunday and #Matchettgate.)

Even odder, though, is the Sun's claim that 42% represents a 7% drop in the Yes vote.  I don't see how that can possibly be true, because there's no sign of Deltapoll having previously conducted an independence poll for many years.  Presumably the Sun must be making an apples-and-oranges bogus comparison with a poll conducted by a different firm using different methodology.

The reality is that major events such as the one we're currently living through can often produce unusual polling figures that are reversed within a few weeks.  Even if the Sun's claims turn out to have a partial grain of truth in them, what will matter far more is what the polls show once the BBC hysteria has died away.

UPDATE: Here's another gem from the Sun's appallingly-written report on the poll... 

"Close to two thirds of respondents in our poll, 57 per cent, said they expect to watch the Queen’s funeral on Monday."

Er, I don't know how to break the news to you guys, but 57% is closer to one-half (7% away) than it is to two-thirds (9.7% away).

*  *  *

We've already seen since Nicola Sturgeon's announcement that the overwhelmingly unionist mainstream media are attempting a 'shock and awe' campaign to try to kill off independence - and the misuse of polling is playing a key part in that.  If you'd like to balance things out with polling commissioned by a pro-independence outlet and which asks the questions we want to see asked, one way of doing that would be to help Scot Goes Pop's fundraising drive - see details below.

Scot Goes Pop General Fundraiser 

Scot Goes Pop Polling Fundraiser 

If you prefer another method, such as Paypal or bank transfer, please message me for details using the contact email address which can be found in the sidebar of the blog (desktop version only), or on my Twitter profile.

Posted by James Kelly at 11:01 PM 6 comments

Thursday, September 15, 2022

A genuine suggestion for the BBC: why not introduce a daily, half-hour Republican Round-up from now until Monday (or however long you plan to keep this up for) to provide a small semblance of balance?

For clarity, the programme wouldn't be 30 minutes of people slagging off the royals for the sake of it.  It would be respectful and in keeping with the solemnity of the moment, but would simply look at the current events through an alternative lens.  It would, in a nutshell, be what is known as journalism.  And thirty minutes a day of that really isn't too much to ask, given that the monarchists would still have the remaining twenty-three-and-a-half hours of each day set aside for unchallenged propaganda.  

The BBC could bring in one of their in-house republican presenters to front the show - it would presumably be OK for that person to 'come out' with their views, given that other presenters have had free licence to espouse monarchist views live on air since last Thursday.  But in a way it might actually be interesting to have one of the monarchist presenters (like Huw Edwards) front the republican programme, just to see if they're journalistically dexterous enough to carry it off with the same level of enthusiasm.

Items for the show could include...

* What would be happening right now if Andrew had happened to be the eldest son, rather than Charles?  Don't the implications of that question suggest that it's far too dangerous to leave it solely to accident of birth to find a suitable (or even semi-adequate) person to be Head of State?  And could the monarchy actually survive the introduction of a legal mechanism to filter out undesirables, or would that be an "emperor has no clothes" moment?

* Has a terrible misjudgement been made in allowing Andrew to be one of the Counsellors of State, who take over the functions of the King when he is incapacitated or out of the country?  Is that decision a giveaway that the monarchy is primarily motivated by family interest, rather than the interests of the country?

* Should the King have spoken out against the arrest of protestors?  OK, such an intervention would have been highly unusual, but past monarchs have spoken out about issues that they found particularly important, and can there be anything more important than ensuring that a system of installing unelected Heads of State is consistent with the upholding of free speech?

* Should the cost of the funeral be sharply reduced?  The Royal Family take pride in what their admirers describe as lives of "sacrifice" and "selflessness", so shouldn't that entail the dispensing with unnecessary frills in the middle of a cost of living crisis?

* How do particularly selfless members of the public, for example those who give up their homes for others or work in soup kitchens, compare to the "sacrifice" of the Royal Family?  Do they live out their lives in greater or lesser luxury, and which sacrifice should we celebrate more?

* This is the first time that a new Head of State has assumed office since we moved into a less deferential age.  Would this be an appropriate moment to have a referendum just to check the public are willing to give their considered consent to the system of non-election?

* Are the 'marks of respect' proposed for the day of the funeral causing an unnecessary and unwanted disruption to people's daily lives?  Was the semi-lockdown that occurred when the Queen died an act of self-harm that may have needlessly made a recession more likely?

* How does the media coverage of the Queen's death and a new Head of State compare with the North Korean media?  Are there obvious parallels in the attribution of almost superhuman qualities to a 'dear leader' who is supposedly admired more than any other person in the whole world?  Are the sometimes rather absurd examples given of the leader's greatness (see the satirical pigeon video below) comparable to examples that the North Korean media regularly offer? 

* Will the replacement of a popular monarch with a less popular one hasten the break-up of the United Kingdom?

* Should the King pay inheritance tax in the way that any other person would be obliged to?

* Are there at least ten news stories happening in the world right now that are more important than a long queue?

*  *  *

We've already seen since Nicola Sturgeon's announcement that the overwhelmingly unionist mainstream media are attempting a 'shock and awe' campaign to try to kill off independence - and the misuse of polling is playing a key part in that.  If you'd like to balance things out with polling commissioned by a pro-independence outlet and which asks the questions we want to see asked, one way of doing that would be to help Scot Goes Pop's fundraising drive - see details below.

Scot Goes Pop General Fundraiser 

Scot Goes Pop Polling Fundraiser 

If you prefer another method, such as Paypal or bank transfer, please message me for details using the contact email address which can be found in the sidebar of the blog (desktop version only), or on my Twitter profile.

Posted by James Kelly at 11:02 AM 11 comments

Monday, September 12, 2022

The BBC are practically treating anti-monarchists like terrorists. The only tinfoil hat brigade these days are the people still ludicrously trying to pretend the BBC are impartial.

I've almost been dreading attempting to write this blogpost, because I feel it may expose my inadequacy.  I'm not sure I actually have the words to sufficiently convey how angry I am right now and how angry I think everyone else should be.  Over the last few days we have come face to face with how power is derived and exercised in this country, and it bears little resemblance to the pretty story of freedom and democracy we've been told all our lives.  Complicit in it are the monarchy itself, the politicians, the police, and a media committed to the industrial-scale dissemination of state propaganda.  Consider what we've seen...

* An unelected Head of State assumed office on Thursday.  When people peacefully protested against this and argued in favour of a democratic system for electing our Head of State, they were arrested and even charged.  How does that look?  How is that even intended to look?  In a free country, the logic for police intervention in protests is generally that it's necessary to uphold liberties and democracy - but this is the polar opposite.  This is the forces of anti-democracy using the raw power of the state to suppress anyone calling for a democratic system.   It's just like the communists in the old Eastern Bloc telling the ordinary people that they're snookered - not only do you not get to choose the person who reigns over you, you don't get to even say that you should be allowed to choose, or to explain why.

* It's a very similar story over at the state broadcaster.  We can all understand the BBC giving only a one-sided, rose-tinted perspective on an individual who has just died and is being mourned, but when they blur the distinction between that person and the institution of the monarchy and use that as an excuse to give only one side of the story on a matter of legitimate political debate, they are betraying their nominal duty of impartiality (which we can now see has always been a fiction).  Either they should be restricting themselves to celebrating the life of an individual, or they should bring in anti-monarchy voices to robustly contradict BBC presenters who apparently are now de facto politicians and are allowed to give monologues on the virtues of an unelected Head of State.   As Emily Maitlis pointed out recently, the BBC moved heaven and earth to find pro-Brexit economists to artificially balance out the 99% of economists who are anti-Brexit.  By contrast, they wouldn't need to look further than the broom cupboard to find anti-monarchy commentators.  So why aren't those people on TV every day?  You don't achieve impartiality as a broadcaster with a tokenistic disclaimer that "not everyone in this country supports the monarchy but the vast majority do and let's face it those who don't are a bit weird and out of step".  In a functioning democracy, dissenting voices are actually heard, not swept under the carpet and pathologised.

* Even worse than a blurring of the distinction between the virtues of the Queen as a person and the virtues of the institution of monarchy is the blurring of the distinction between the virtues of the Queen and the virtues of a "united UK" as she supposedly stood for (even though, paradoxically, she was betraying her duty to be non-political by taking any sort of stand at all against Scottish independence).  The broadcasters have given themselves free licence to openly campaign against independence over the last few days, with their implicit justification being that to allow the other side of the argument would be disrespectful towards what the Queen was all about.  The generally very good BBC contributor Allan Little made a catastrophic error of judgement the other night when he said in a voiceover: "A small group of protestors booed and called for an independent Scottish republic, but this was not the prevailing mood."  He said this in the same tone of voice that a journalist might say "a small minority support terrorism, but the vast majority of people are decent and oppose violence". But what is the word Little finds so troubling here? "Independent", "Scottish" or "republic"? As far as I can see, all three words encapsulate beliefs that are entirely moderate and mainstream.  And remember that what Little calls "the prevailing view" is, in this instance, the anti-democratic view.  It's the protestors who believe in a democratic system for choosing the Head of State.

* I gather Jeremy Vine eagerly grabbed the opportunity to host a phone-in asking whether the death of a Queen so "devoted to Scotland" (where's my violin?) would help save the Union.  But can you imagine any broadcaster having a phone-in at the present time to ask the equally logical question: "will the replacement of a popular British monarch with an unpopular one hasten the break-up of the UK?"  Well, no, of course you can't imagine it, because that would be "disrespectful to the memory of the Queen".  Do you see how this works?

* Quite possibly the most barking mad thing I've heard about the BBC doing is Martin Geissler trying to explain away the muted reaction on the streets of Scotland by saying "we Scots don't show our emotions".  That's the kind of propaganda strength you'd expect from the state broadcaster in a totalitarian state.  If people don't show the emotions you insist they must have, it's not because they're not feeling those emotions, oh no perish the thought.  It's because those emotions are so intense that they have to be hidden by a cunning outward show of not actually giving a monkey's.

In 2014, I agreed with the strategic logic of the Yes campaign saying the monarchy would be retained in an independent Scotland.  Supporters of a republic were mostly voting Yes anyway, so what was the point of alienating the monarchists?  I would grudgingly still take that view, although we in the Alba Party have the luxury of being pro-cake and pro-eating it, because we can take a republican stance without that being portrayed as the official position of the Yes campaign.  But what I would say is this: if independence wasn't my over-riding priority, the experience of the last few days would have led me to throw caution to the wind and decide that we must do all we can to build as much support as possible for the end of this corrupt system of monarchy. If there's one thing that the state won't let you say, and won't let you be heard saying, that in itself makes it vitally important to say it, over and over and over again.

 *  *  *

We've already seen since Nicola Sturgeon's announcement that the overwhelmingly unionist mainstream media are attempting a 'shock and awe' campaign to try to kill off independence - and the misuse of polling is playing a key part in that.  If you'd like to balance things out with polling commissioned by a pro-independence outlet and which asks the questions we want to see asked, one way of doing that would be to help Scot Goes Pop's fundraising drive - see details below.

Scot Goes Pop General Fundraiser 

Scot Goes Pop Polling Fundraiser 

If you prefer another method, such as Paypal or bank transfer, please message me for details using the contact email address which can be found in the sidebar of the blog (desktop version only), or on my Twitter profile.

Posted by James Kelly at 10:20 PM 15 comments
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)