The tables for the Panelbase poll in the Sunday Times were released today, and there are a few nuggets of interest. First of all, although the headline independence numbers from the poll are Yes 48%, No 52%, they were incredibly close to being rounded up to Yes 49%, No 51%. To one decimal place, the result is Yes 48.5%, No 51.5% - so I think we're safe to assume there's still a big appetite for independence out there, in spite of the SNP's determination to implode over recent weeks.
Secondly, it turns out there's one important group of people who are not going to be at all impressed by Humza Yousaf's decision to abandon all attempts to win independence - and that's SNP voters, without whom it wouldn't even be possible for Yousaf to be First Minister. Respondents to the poll were asked to name up to three things that they thought should be priorities for the new SNP leader to focus on - and 54% of people who voted SNP at the 2019 general election named independence. That's startlingly close to the number of SNP voters who chose the bread and butter issues of health (65%) and the economy (67%). You can imagine the effect on SNP support if the government was felt to be neglecting health and the economy, so it's reasonable to expect a very similar effect if no attempts are made to deliver independence, which almost as many SNP voters regard as a very high priority. There's no point in Humza and his loyal followers shrugging their shoulders in mystification at plunging SNP support - the shelving of the manifesto commitment to a vote on independence is clearly likely to be one of the key factors.
One plan Yousaf very much hasn't shelved, though, is the intention to challenge the imperial veto of the GRR Bill in court. Ironically, SNP voters aren't behind him on that. Only 39% of them want a legal challenge, whereas a combined total of 61% either want the GRR Bill abandoned completely, or for a compromise to be reached with the UK Government. As I've said before, I have no great problem with the legal challenge, because although the GRR Bill would have been a truly terrible piece of legislation, we should be able to resolve our own mistakes in line with the principle of self-government rather than relying on God-like interventions from a foreign capital. But the challenge still seems strategically odd to me, because unlike the long-running question mark over whether the Scottish Parliament had the power to pass a Referendum Bill without Westminster's consent, which genuinely was the subject of heated dispute between different legal experts, there seems to be no real ambiguity over the fact that Westminster does have the legal power of veto in the circumstances it was used.
One obvious question is how the hardline trans rights activists react when the challenge is lost and it becomes literally impossible to deliver self-ID until Scotland becomes an independent country. Starmer has hurriedly switched sides, so there's no longer any rescue coming from that direction. Will we then hear about how it's "transphobic" and "far right" for Humza to insist on sustained supermajorities before holding a vote on independence? Or will we suddenly find out that previously unsuspected reserves of patience and caution are present when the only remaining route to self-ID is indy? It'll be interesting to see.
On the basis of this the instability of our situation is striking.
ReplyDeleteIndividually I agree with both prioritising independence and not challenging the GRR judgement although we would probably want to revisit the basic minority, human rights issue at the core of the mess later.
My concern is that to a large extent the top levels of the Yousaf cabinet have been dumbed down so that Humza wont be outshone. These people lack insight and have become used to the Sturgeon machine being able to win elections whatever.
If, as they may, they delude themselves into believing that that can continue under Yousaf they may easily alienate another tranche of their own support and deepen the danger of losing control of our parliament to the tools of Westminster.
I don't pretend to fully know how but somehow, someone needs to get these mediocre place fillers to see the danger to their own careers as well as to the independence of our country.
One consolation in these trying times is that the cultists' mythology that "Stuart Campbell is always proved right in the end" has been blown to smithereens. Campbell made two catastrophic blunders during the leadership election, and the fact that he made the wrong calls has now been proved beyond all dispute.
ReplyDeleteFirst, he said Forbes should withdraw because she wouldn't attract any support (very similar to what Liz Lloyd told her, ironically) and because she would just get in the way of Ash Regan, who he claimed had a far better chance of beating Yousaf. If Forbes had followed Campbell's crazy advice, a narrow Yousaf win would have been transformed into a Yousaf landslide.
Second, Campbell said in early March: "I'm calling it - Humza Yousaf will not be the next First Minister". Within days he obviously privately realised he'd got totally carried away and that Yousaf still had a 50/50 chance. He then comically made repeated attempts to backtrack on his prediction and to retrospectively add caveats to it, but unfortunately for him he'd said what he'd said.
Far from being "always proved right", Campbell is an absolute f***ing disaster area as a self-styled political analyst. The cultists will edit all of this out of history, of course, but the rest of us won't forget so easily.
"He was only wrong about Yousaf not winning because he couldn't possibly have foreseen that the IDIOTS Forbes and Regan would do IDIOTIC things. If only everyone in the whole world apart from Campbell wasn't an IDIOT, Campbell would always be proved right about EVERYTHING."
DeleteLOL. You're right, that was pretty much his stated excuse for getting it wrong. And instead of pointing and laughing, his followers were like "oh yes, great point, Stu". The whole Wings circus is beyond parody.
DeleteTalking of cults, any chance the SNP had enough intelligence to organise a parallel ballot to verify the integrity of the mi-voice process - ie one that can now be published in bid to restore trust from the wider public/ hell yessers to maybe not after alls?
DeleteThe enthusiasm of SNP members (especially elected ones) for the chumza character was astonishing, but not necessarily in a good way (ie more like the sort of behaviour that gets the children of beknighted ex PMs £250 million windfalls for running a Maxwellian apprenticeship scheme for poundshop) so be great to learn sooner than later if the membership was duped or was indeed fully on board with whatever it is his supporters are trying to achieve.
Campbell should concen himself about what is happening in his country of residence.. Suella Braverman, 30p Lee Anderson jeez....
DeleteA point I made publicly some time ago was never taken up, but should be if the S35 Order ends up in court.
ReplyDeleteJack’s explanation relies on only one reserved matter, namely “equal opportunities”. A S35 order requires that the bill modify the law relating to a reserved matter. But “encouragement” of equal opportunities is an exception, i.e. not a reserved matter. It might be argued that if the bill does anything to equal opportunities it is to encourage them. If that is so, the S35 order would not be competent to start with. That would just be a cut and dried legal argument, nothing to do with the merits of the thing.
"It might be argued that if the bill does anything to equal opportunities it is to encourage them."
DeleteNope. Self id has adverse implications for the protected characteristics of sex, religion and belief and arguably race. It hardly encourages Equalities to adversely affect the rights of larger groups of people. The section 35 order is competent and it has a really low burden of proof - no reasonable person could have come to the same conclusion. If Yousaf challenges it, it will be at least half a million down the drain
It seems to me that if your points hold, they do so in relation to the other requirement of a S35 Order. An order must meet both requirements, namely the bill must
Deletea) make modifications of the law as it applies to reserved matters and
b) be thought to have an adverse effect on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters.
It’s really the first requirement to which I was referring, and the argument on that does not have to do with whether it’s a good idea or not.
The Equality Act is reserved law and the protected characteristics named were created by reserved law (obv the legal protection was created not the characteristics themselves). Indeed virtually all equalities legalisation is reserved so requirement a is fulfilled.
DeleteIt’s the subject-matter, not the law, which is reserved (i.e. Holyrood cannot legislate on it), and here the reserved subject-matter is “equal opportunities” - except for the encouragement of equal opportunities, which is not reserved. This is all defined in the Scotland Act. If all the bill does to equal opportunities amounts to encouraging them (and all I’m saying is that is an argument which might well be made, irrespective of rights and wrongs), then the S35 Order would be a nullity, since the bill would not encroach on a reserved matter in the first place.
DeleteWhat are the age group percentages on independence in this poll?
ReplyDeleteI don't really think the SNP can tell the difference between its arse and its elbow just now - the desires of members are an irrelevance amid a crumbling authority. It didn't have to be this way - Sturgeon left us with a floating turd.
ReplyDeleteI think that Humza Yousaf needs to find a way to defuse the GRR issue. He needs to bring Scottish Labour into this too, primarily to point out the differences between Anas Sarwar's and Keir Starmer's positions.
ReplyDeleteThe way to do this is to bring back the idea of a legal challenge to the UK Govt's intervention back to Holyrood. Holyrood supported the GRR including Scottish Labour. A legal challenge of the UK Govt's intervention should have Scottish Labour's support.
The other plank is a citizen's assembly on the matter. Have it meet for 6 or 12mo and then have Holyrood vote on its recommendations.
This gives Humza Yousaf the political cover of Holyrood for the challenge and the people on how the GRR should be amended.
Then it's put to bed and the Greens can hiss and scream.as.much as they want.
That's a great idea. It also has the advantage that with case brought with the approval of the Scottish Parliament, not just the Scottish Government, it could improve the chances of working.
DeleteNick Chuggins
Follow up:
ReplyDeleteHard to disagree with anything that Robin McAlpine writes these days. Well worth a read.
https://robinmcalpine.org/what-does-the-rebel-15-mean-for-scottish-politics/
Time that McAlpine grew a pair and stood for election himself.
DeleteNo I don't think so. It's perfectly okay to be an advisor rather than a leader.
DeleteSNP has yet another Party leader and quite posibly a majority of its elected MP's and MSP's etc out of touch with its own voters. That can only end badly or as MI6 wants it to end.
ReplyDelete