It's unlikely I'll have a vote in the Alba leadership election, but the way things are shaping up, I suspect I'll be keeping my fingers crossed for Kenny MacAskill from a distance

Welcome to the transition between 2024 and 2025 - it's already 2025 in Australia, New Zealand, Korea and quite a few other countries.  Unless the Alba Party's Appeals Committee takes a more enlightened attitude than I've encountered thus far, I'd imagine the coming year will see me being forced (and quite early on, in fact) to find a new political home in a different party.  That means I'm unlikely to have a vote in the Alba leadership election, which is also just around the corner.  If the media is to be believed, that election will boil down to a contest between Kenny MacAskill and Ash Regan, but crucially with Chris McEleny functioning as Ms Regan's éminence grise.  The ideological and personality fissures between the two camps have fascinatingly exploded into public view over the last 24 hours with a series of remarkably blunt tweets from Mr MacAskill - 

Whilst the office of head of state requires to be respected there are office holders who hold views or conduct themselves in ways that are unacceptable. Working with them where required is essential but cosying up to them most certainly isn’t.

— Kenny MacAskill (@KennyMacAskill) December 30, 2024

Some recent social media comments bright this old tune to mind. pic.twitter.com/ePduUzC0Xm

— Kenny MacAskill (@KennyMacAskill) December 30, 2024

Mmmh probably the most research he’s done in the last 6 months. https://t.co/5xhKK0Wm4w

— Kenny MacAskill (@KennyMacAskill) December 30, 2024

Chasing the reform vote rather than acknowledging legitimate fears but defending values and beliefs which are sacrosanct.
It’ll be MAGA on his hat next. https://t.co/EBV3Bh5tvd

— Kenny MacAskill (@KennyMacAskill) December 30, 2024

Says Reform boy! https://t.co/mHVjPjJUUH

— Kenny MacAskill (@KennyMacAskill) December 30, 2024

The war machine. It’ll be Israel and trident next https://t.co/kLLhI2uMyx

— Kenny MacAskill (@KennyMacAskill) December 30, 2024

These tweets are examples of Mr MacAskill doing what Yvonne Ridley would call "not holding his water", ie. bringing a rift out into the open, rather than conveniently letting people plot against him in private without any response.  I must say I very much approve of his new approach.  What he's saying doesn't really require a lot of interpreting - he's criticising the people in the top reaches of Alba (including the McEleny/Regan axis) who have been paying homage to Elon Musk, a man whose politics are no longer ambiguous or subtle in any way - he just seeks out the far-right option in every country and throws his weight 100% behind it.

Mr MacAskill is also laying down a marker that his own vision for Alba is that of a classically left-wing party, in contrast to the McEleny vision of a populist Frankenstein's monster which draws ideas from both the right-wing and the left-wing.  The latter is not necessarily fascism but it certainly describes how fascism started in Italy a century ago.  

If that's the faultline, I don't think there can be much doubt that I'd want Mr MacAskill to come out on top, even if I'm no longer in the party when the election is held.  Don't get me wrong - a win for Mr MacAskill will not solve all of Alba's problems, many of which are very deep-seated and to do with cliquishness and an authoritarian culture.  But at least from an ideological and policy point of view, it looks like it would be a step in the right direction.  What's more, if Mr MacAskill does stand, my gut feeling is that he'll probably defeat Ash Regan - although as the ultimate machine politician Chris McEleny will doubtless try just about anything to seal the deal for Ms Regan.

Some readers may remember that when Jeffrey Archer was selected as the Tory candidate for London mayor, the BBC journalist Michael Crick contacted the then Tory leader William Hague and basically said "look, I know this isn't the done thing for a journalist, but these are extraordinary circumstances and I really do feel honour-bound to let you know that on the basis of information at my disposal, I know for sure that Archer isn't a fit and proper person to hold major political office, and it would be in the overwhelming public interest for you to replace him as the candidate".  Hague didn't heed that warning and lived to bitterly regret it.

Let me put it this way for any Alba members who may be reading this: if you had seen Chris McEleny operating in private in the way that I and others have done, I have little doubt that you would reach exactly the same conclusion that I have - that he is not an appropriate person to put in control of any political party.  I have no idea why Ash Regan seems to have been foolish enough to go into an alliance with him, but now that she has, it is without doubt in the best interests of the Alba party that someone other than her should become leader.  Feel free to heed that advice or to ignore it, but I can promise you it is meant absolutely sincerely - and remember I am very close to having no skin in this particular game anyway.

*  *  *

Poll commissions, poll analysis, election analysis, podcasts, videos, truly independent political commentary - that's Scot Goes Pop, running since 2008 and currently the fifth most-read political blog in Scotland.  It's only been possible due to your incredibly generous support.  If you find the site useful and would like to help it to continue, donations by card payment are welcome HERE, or alternatively donations can be made direct by PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

A challenge for Scot Goes Pop readers: can anyone establish whether Chris McEleny is being truthful in his claim?

My Twitter exchange with Robert Reid (about his false implication that several different polling firms are all showing Alba on course for Holyrood seats) dragged on for a bit, and eventually Chris McEleny made a really quite strange interjection.  Technically, this does not breach his well-established policy of never replying to me, because he nominally addressed his reply to Mr Reid.

"The same pollster had Alba Party at around 2% in April this year (depending on turnout) so this is a 4 point increase in a 7 month period."

What he's saying here is that there was a Find Out Now poll in April 2024 showing Alba on 2% of the Holyrood list vote, meaning there has been a 4% increase since then.  I have tried to verify that claim, but I have drawn a blank.  I'd have to say the claim appears to be untrue.  The two most comprehensive lists of polls (on Wikipedia and John Curtice's What Scotland Thinks sites) do not list any previous Find Out Now polls of Holyrood voting intentions, or at least not in the period since the May 2021 election.  There's also no sign of an independence poll having been conducted by Find Out Now in April 2024.  I also checked Find Out Now's blog, which is where they usually release data tables, and no Scottish poll is mentioned in April 2024.

I'm reluctant to accuse Mr McEleny of knowingly saying something that isn't true, so if any Scot Goes Pop reader can spot something that I've overlooked, please let me know.  I suppose it's possible Mr McEleny is talking about a poll that was privately commissioned by the Alba Party but never released. If that's the case, I'd suggest the onus is now on him to belatedly release it.

Ignore the silly propaganda from the Alba HQ man - if a "clear polling trend is developing", it's that Alba are on course for zero seats in 2026

In spite of my ongoing Kafkaesque experiences with the Alba Party, I won't be churlish - the new Find Out Now poll is decent for them, putting them on 6% of the list vote and a projected three list seats.  However, as far as I can see, Find Out Now have no track record of polling Holyrood voting intentions, so there's no baseline to measure from, meaning it's not possible to say whether there's any sort of upward trend for Alba.  It may just be that Find Out Now are like Norstat and will produce higher Alba numbers than other firms due to a 'house effect'.

One thing I am sure of, however, is that this tweet from Alba HQ man Robert Reid is just very silly propaganda - 

"Great to see yet another polling company projecting ALBA are set to break through in the Scottish Parliament elections in 2026 

Still a lot of work to do but a clear trend is developing"

My question was "'Yet another'?  Who are the others?!".  Reid replied by claiming that the recent Norstat poll showed Alba on course for one seat, but that's based on an unofficial projection done by the Green activist Allan Faulds for his own website.  The Norstat poll was commissioned by the Sunday Times, who asked Professor John Curtice to calculate an official seats projection - and his projection for Alba was zero seats.

In any case, the words "yet another" clearly imply that lots of polling companies, not just one or two, are showing Alba on course for seats.  Well, let's see, shall we?  Here is what the most recent poll from each firm shows for Alba -

Norstat: 5% of the list vote, zero seats.

Survation: 3% of the list vote, zero seats.

Opinium: Seemingly didn't even offer Alba as an option.

Redfield & Wilton: 1% of the list vote, zero seats.

Savanta: Seemingly didn't even offer Alba as an option.

YouGov: 2% of the list vote, zero seats.

Ipsos: 1% of the list vote, zero seats.

Far from being "yet another" polling company showing Alba on course for seats, it turns out that Find Out Now are in fact the only polling company to be doing so.  If a "clear trend is developing", it's that Alba are on course to win no seats at all.

In my several years as an Alba member, I lost count of the number of times the leadership cited bogus evidence that the party was on the brink of that ever-elusive electoral breakthrough, and Reid's propaganda tweet is, I'm afraid, just the latest example.

*  *  *

Poll commissions, poll analysis, election analysis, podcasts, videos, truly independent political commentary - that's Scot Goes Pop, running since 2008 and currently the fifth most-read political blog in Scotland.  It's only been possible due to your incredibly generous support.  If you find the site useful and would like to help it to continue, donations by card payment are welcome HERE, or alternatively donations can be made direct by PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Astounding poll could be scene-setter for renewed SNP dominance in 2025, with pro-independence parties now projected to win 56% of seats at the next Holyrood election

The Holyrood and Westminster voting intention numbers from the new Find Out Now poll for The National have been released, and I have an analysis piece in The National which you can read HERE.

From a pro-independence point of view the numbers are nothing short of stupendous.  The pro-indy parties are projected to win 72 seats in the next Scottish Parliament, which is not only a very comfortable majority, it's also exactly the same number that was won at the 2021 election when all in the garden was rosy.  If you'd asked back in July, you'd have got very, very long odds against a poll like this appearing within this calendar year, and the fact that it has done (albeit with only a couple of days to spare) is testament to just how catastrophic Keir Starmer's first few months in power have been.

Scottish Parliament constituency ballot:

SNP 35%

Labour 19%

Conservatives 15%

Reform UK 11%

Liberal Democrats 9%

Greens 7%

Alba 2%

Scottish Parliament regional list ballot:

SNP 26%

Labour 17%

Conservatives 14%

Greens 13%

Reform UK 11%

Liberal Democrats 10%

Alba 6%

Seats projection: SNP 54, Labour 19, Conservatives 16, Greens 15, Liberal Democrats 12, Reform UK 10, Alba 3

PRO-INDEPENDENCE PARTIES: 72 SEATS

ANTI-INDEPENDENCE PARTIES: 57 SEATS

PRO-INDEPENDENCE MAJORITY OF 15 SEATS

Scottish voting intentions for the next UK general election:

SNP 34%

Labour 20%

Reform UK 15%

Conservatives 14%

Liberal Democrats 9%

Greens 6%

Seats projection: SNP 41, Labour 8, Liberal Democrats 5, Conservatives 3

The Westminster numbers continue the theme of things reverting to how they were before, because the seats projection is strikingly similar to the SNP landslide victory of 2019, albeit Labour would retain more of a foothold than they had in that election.  

It has to be said, though, that the phenomenal pro-indy seat numbers are being run up on relatively modest SNP vote shares.  How is that proving possible?  Well, the Greens are doing a lot of the heavy lifting at the Scottish Parliament - their projected 15 seats would be easily their all-time high, and would put them only just behind both Labour and the Tories.  A significant amount of the bumper Green support seems to come direct from people who might otherwise be voting SNP, with 17.8% of SNP voters from this year's general election saying they will vote Green on the Holyrood list.  

But of course the Greens are playing no role at all in the projected pro-indy majority in Westminster seats - that's purely down to the wonders of the first-past-the-post electoral system.  The SNP's Westminster vote has only recovered by four percentage points since July, but that's more than enough for a huge landslide victory when the unionist vote is as nicely split as it currently is.  

The Reform surge is now working firmly in the SNP's favour in both parliaments.  Farage's party is eating into the support of unionist parties far more than into SNP support.  Just 2% of the SNP's general election voters would now vote Reform in a Westminster vote, compared to 11.5% of Labour voters and 18.7% of Tory voters.  That differential obviously boosts the number of SNP seats in a first-past-the-post Westminster election, but actually to a lesser extent the same effect is felt at Holyrood.  If Reform help the SNP to win Holyrood constituency seats, that is not always going to be fully offset by compensatory seats for unionist parties on the list.

One thing that may frustrate the SNP is the limited success they're having in winning voters back direct from Labour.  A remarkable 45% of people who voted Labour in July say they would not do so again in another general election, but only 9.8% would now vote SNP.  The biggest single beneficiaries are actually Reform UK, who take 11.5% of Labour votes.

Would it be dreadfully unkind of me to point out that on the 3rd of December, Stuart Campbell said - 

"We’re going to call this one early: there is zero prospect of a pro-indy majority after the next Holyrood election. None. Barring a nuclear war or an alien invasion or some equally implausible revolutionary event, it’s simply not happening"

- and that two polls have been published in the month since, both pointing to a pro-indy majority after the next Holyrood election?  Campbell's dwindling band of defenders assure us that he "always gets the big calls right", but that must be in some alternate universe in which these last two opinion polls never happened, where Joe Biden never became US President, where Humza Yousaf never became First Minister, and most of all where Kezia Dugdale lost that court case.  

I mean, it's fine to get predictions wrong - we all do from time to time.  But when you claim total infallibility, and when in reality you're just saying anything that will drain the morale of what is supposedly "your own side", I don't think it's unreasonable to hold you to account when you're as badly caught out as you have been in this case.  There may or may not be a pro-indy majority after 2026, but the idea that it's an impossibility now looks ludicrous beyond words.

*  *  *

Poll commissions, poll analysis, election analysis, podcasts, videos, truly independent political commentary - that's Scot Goes Pop, running since 2008 and currently the fifth most-read political blog in Scotland.  It's only been possible due to your incredibly generous support.  If you find the site useful and would like to help it to continue, donations by card payment are welcome HERE, or alternatively donations can be made direct by PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Find Out Now! Find Out How? Find Out MOP MY BROW! Another pro-independence majority in compelling end-of-year poll

Should Scotland be an independent country? (Find Out Now / Sunday National, 17th-24th December 2024)

Yes 52% (-)

No 48% (-)

Obviously no poll showing an outright Yes lead can ever be considered disappointing, but there is one negative point here - there's been more or less no rise in the Yes vote since the previous Find Out Now poll in October.  (I say 'more or less', because if rounded to one decimal place, the Yes vote has increased slightly from 51.8% to 52.3%.)  That means this poll does not really corroborate the trend in the recent Norstat poll showing a big jump for Yes, thus leaving open the possibility the Norstat poll could yet end up looking like an outlier.  That said, even at around the time of the previous Find Out Now poll, Norstat had Yes at 50%, which was an unusually high figure for that firm.

There's also a "settled will" klaxon to be sounded, because Find Out Now have been polling on independence for years, and all but one of their polls have shown a clear Yes lead.  So if the Find Out Now methodology is broadly correct, the goal of a "sustained" Yes lead that the SNP sometimes talk about is not some kind of imagined future - it's what we already have in the here and now.

A hypothetical question in the poll asking how respondents would vote on independence if Nigel Farage becomes Prime Minister shows a whopping Yes lead of 60% to 40%. As has been well rehearsed recently, hypothetical questions do not necessarily produce reliable results, but I think this particular one may be in a slightly different category.  Unlike Brexit, a Reform UK government wouldn't fade from view.  Voters would be seeing Prime Minister Farage on their TV screens every day.  The reminders would be endless, so it's entirely possible that a massive Yes surge would happen for real.

*  *  *

Poll commissions, poll analysis, election analysis, podcasts, videos, truly independent political commentary - that's Scot Goes Pop, running since 2008 and currently the fifth most-read political blog in Scotland.  It's only been possible due to your incredibly generous support.  If you find the site useful and would like to help it to continue, donations by card payment are welcome HERE, or alternatively donations can be made direct by PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

No party - not Alba, not the SNP, not the Greens - can claim to have a leadership faction that is on the side of the angels

As you may have seen, Douglas Fir left a comment on the previous thread urging me to take care of my mental health in the wake of my expulsion from the Alba Party.  That's not a completely ridiculous thing to say by any means.  Being expelled from a political party is not quite on a par with losing your job or being dumped by a romantic partner, but it's still a downright nasty experience.  A few weeks ago I spoke to one of the other people who were expelled this year, and he admitted he'd been a bit stressed out by the process at times.

Douglas was particularly concerned that this might turn out to be my "Dugdale moment", meaning that I might lose the plot in the same way that Stuart Campbell did after his legal defeat to Kezia Dugdale.  (The low point of Campbell's neverending obsession with Dugdale was probably him wasting hundreds of pounds on a vindictive and utterly pointless Dugdale-bashing question in an opinion poll he commissioned long after she had left frontline politics.)

This was my reply to Douglas' concerns - 

"As far as any comparison between this and Campbell's obsession with Dugdale is concerned, there are obviously numerous differences - a) Campbell needlessly instigated proceedings against Dugdale, whereas it was Mr McEleny and co who maliciously came after me, b) Campbell wasted (at least) tens of thousands of pounds of other people's money on the legal action, whereas I haven't spent a penny, c) Campbell was subject to a fair legal process whereas the process I have been subjected to has been manifestly unfair, d) Campbell had his day in court (multiple days, actually) whereas I had twelve minutes, and e) Campbell hubristically assumed he couldn't lose, whereas I knew from the outset the dice were loaded and I couldn't win.

As for whether this will change me, though, and whether the 'before' and 'after' difference will be apparent, yes it will. It already has changed me. I have been betrayed and trampled all over by people pursuing their own naked political self-interest, and that is bound to leave a mark. Alex Salmond was for many years the closest thing I had to a political hero, but I'm 90% sure he must have signed off on my expulsion before his death, and as with the others, the motivation will have been expediency. That has disoriented me, to put it mildly, but I think ultimately it will help me to see the political situation in Scotland in a clearer perspective than I previously did. In other words, I expect the impact of this episode on me to be constructive, rather than the destructive impact the Dugdale episode had on Campbell."

I suppose what I mean by "a clearer perspective" is that I've been disabused of the notion that any political party in Scotland has a leadership elite that behaves in an entirely decent and principled way.  I agree that if it's true that people close to Nicola Sturgeon conspired to put Alex Salmond in jail for crimes he did not commit, that would be a particularly extreme form of wrongdoing. But nevertheless over the last year I've seen lesser forms of wrongdoing on the part of the Alba elite, and I've seen them cynically abuse both the disciplinary machinery and confidentiality rules to cover up that wrongdoing and to prevent rank-and-file Alba members from knowing what has been going on.  One of the disciplinary cases earlier this year was Mr McEleny specifically targeting a whistleblower who had courageously brought to light possible evidence that last year's Alba internal elections had to some extent been rigged.

It goes without saying that the Greens are no better - just look at the appalling way they treated good people like Andy Wightman and Topher Dawson.  

So there are no perfect options out there.  If, hypothetically, my appeal against expulsion is rejected, and if, hypothetically, I then apply to rejoin the SNP (I haven't yet made up my mind what I would do), and if, hypothetically, that application is accepted (I'd be taking absolutely nothing for granted), there'd be no point in IFS then lecturing me about being in a party led by the person he calls "REDACTOR MAN".  We're all faced with a menu of imperfect options, and all we can do is make a hardheaded decision about what is the most promising vehicle for delivering sovereign independence for our country.

*  *  *

Poll commissions, poll analysis, election analysis, podcasts, videos, truly independent political commentary - that's Scot Goes Pop, running since 2008 and currently the fifth most-read political blog in Scotland.  It's only been possible due to your incredibly generous support.  If you find the site useful and would like to help it to continue, donations by card payment are welcome HERE, or alternatively donations can be made direct by PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

CONFIRMED: The Alba Party are still charging me for membership, even though they've expelled me!

I really can't emphasise enough how extreme a step it is to expel someone from a political party - by all accounts, it only happened *ONCE* in the entirety of Alex Salmond's combined total of *TWENTY YEARS* as SNP leader (he was leader from 1990 to 2000 and again from 2004 to 2014), and that was to Bill Walker, who had been violent towards domestic partners for several decades.  It's fair to say that the Alba Party, despite having been led by Mr Salmond himself until only a few weeks ago, are not treating the expulsion option with anything like the same reverence or seriousness - they've been chucking people out like confetti, for the most trivial and laughable of reasons.  Some of the people directly involved in my own expulsion still follow me on Twitter as if nothing of any great significance has changed, and so I've been treated over the last couple of days to 'adorable' photos of themselves in party hats showing off their pressies.  "Surreal" doesn't begin to cover it, and nor does it cover the fact that having checked my bank account just after midnight (this being the first working day after Christmas), I discovered that Alba have just charged me for another month of membership even though they have deprived me of my membership.  OK, I do have an appeal underway, but the rulebook is clear - expulsions take effect immediately regardless of any pending appeal.  To continue charging me in these circumstances is, not to put too fine a point on it, absolutely bloody outrageous.

It's not a surprise, though, because I haven't been a member in any real sense since I was arbitrarily suspended at the sole whim of Chris McEleny in September (I haven't even been able to login to the party website since then), and yet they've had no compunction in continuing to charge me in the months since.  I am very, very sorely tempted to cancel my direct debit, but I don't want to give them any 'technical' excuses for dismissing my appeal without properly considering it, so I'll hold off until the appeal is completed in early January.

No matter what the outcome of the appeal is, I'm not going to be taking any public stance on whether other people should leave the Alba Party - that's a very personal decision for each individual.  But what I would say is that if you do make your own decision to leave Alba, for heaven's sake make very, *very* sure that you cancel your direct debit.  I know it's a hassle, but if you don't, it wouldn't surprise me if you still find yourself being charged two years after you leave.

*  *  *

Poll commissions, poll analysis, election analysis, podcasts, videos, truly independent political commentary - that's Scot Goes Pop, running since 2008 and currently the fifth most-read political blog in Scotland.  It's only been possible due to your incredibly generous support.  If you find the site useful and would like to help it to continue, donations by card payment are welcome HERE, or alternatively donations can be made direct by PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Biden mitigates what remains an appallingly cynical betrayal on the death penalty

Twice over the last few weeks, I sat down intending to write an iScot column about how betrayed I felt by Joe Biden, who I voted for in 2020 specifically because he had committed to putting an end to the death penalty at federal level.  That wasn't the only reason I voted for him, I was also voting to stop Donald Trump, but nevertheless it was an absolute dealbreaker for me - if Biden hadn't made that pledge I would have voted for a third party candidate.

Of course technically Biden couldn't abolish the federal death penalty without Congress passing a law to that effect, but what he certainly had the ability to do was commute all federal death sentences and put an end to the physical infrastructure of federal death row.  Not only did he fail to do that, but his government continued to seek the imposition of the death penalty in new cases.  I should have expected no less of a betrayal from a politician who infamously sponsored legislation in the 1990s that vastly increased the scope of the federal death penalty.

But even after Donald Trump was elected, there was still some talk that Biden, now that he had little left to lose, might use the transitional period to belatedly make good on his promise - and in so doing save some inmates from almost certain death, because Trump is hellbent on resuming capital punishment on an industrial scale.  What Biden actually did in the early days and weeks after the election was pardon his own son Hunter, approve hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of arms sales to Israel to allow the genocide to continue unabated, and give Ukraine the green light to attack Russia with long-range missiles, thus risking a world war. It was quite clear, it seemed to me, where Biden's warped priorities lay when freed of any constraints, and that was why I almost felt safe in going ahead and writing my intended column.

But not quite, and I ended up writing the column about a completely different subject, because I couldn't totally exclude the possibility that an announcement would still be made before Trump's inauguration.  To my surprise, that's what happened, although as always with Biden there was a sting attached.  He commuted the death sentences of the vast majority of federal death row prisoners, but made three exceptions, claiming this was consistent with his adminstration's moratorium on the death penalty "except in cases of terrorism or hate-motivated mass murder".  But that wasn't what you promised when you stood for election, was it, Joe?  You promised an end to federal capital punishment without any mention of exceptions.  Abolition can't be achieved without applying the principle to even the worst of the worst offenders.  Retentionism for only terrorism is still retentionism.

That said, in other countries a drastic reduction in the number of executions has eventually led to abolition, so I suppose I shouldn't be churlish.  As far as I'm aware this is an unprecedented step from any US President (although one or two state governors have done something similar), it will save dozens of real people from being executed, and it removes from death row around 1.7% of all condemned prisoners in the US, which is a non-trivial percentage.

In my opinion Biden has been one of the worst presidents of all-time, and I hope that's reflected in the historical rankings that are sometimes published.  I'm not interested in the endless sneering over the decline in his health - I'm talking simply about the total moral bankruptcy of his administration, as exemplified by its facilitation of genocide in Gaza.  Nevertheless, I will grudgingly accept that the commutations represent a very modest mitigation of that appalling record.

*  *  *

Poll commissions, poll analysis, election analysis, podcasts, videos, truly independent political commentary - that's Scot Goes Pop, running since 2008 and currently the fifth most-read political blog in Scotland.  It's only been possible due to your incredibly generous support.  If you find the site useful and would like to help it to continue, donations by card payment are welcome HERE, or alternatively donations can be made direct by PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Norstat poll: SNP on course for astonishing 2019-style landslide, Labour on course for near-wipeout, and Reform UK have overtaken the Tories

Don't worry, I don't think anyone has been crazy enough to publish a poll on Christmas night (although actually that has happened in the past when the 26th fell on a Sunday and the Sunday papers trickled through the night before).  However, David Francis has just spotted the Westminster numbers from the recent Norstat poll, which were missing at the time of publication, so presumably they were smuggled out at some point over the last few days without most of us noticing.

Scottish voting intentions for the next UK general election (Norstat / Sunday Times, 4th-6th December 2024):

SNP 31% (+1)

Labour 20% (-3)

Reform UK 15% (+1)

Conservatives 14% (-1)

Liberal Democrats 9% (-1)

Greens 6% (-)

According to David, the seats projection is as follows - 

SNP 44, Liberal Democrats 6, Conservatives 5, Labour 2 

That would effectively put July's general election result into complete reverse, and restore both the SNP and Labour to roughly where they were at the time of the 2019 election - which of course was a landslide for the SNP and an unmitigated catastrophe for Labour.  The 2024 outcome would be left looking like a historical blip, whereas Labour had been complacently assuming that the SNP's wins in 2015, 2017 and 2019 were going to be remembered as the aberrations.  However, there's a very, very, very long way to go before we see if the reversal actually happens.  

Although the SNP's lead is handsome, it has to be said that it's not quite as impressive as the Holyrood constituency numbers from the same poll, which have the SNP in the high 30s, with a sixteen point advantage over Labour.  The swing to the SNP at Westminster since the previous Norstat poll (2%) is lower than the equivalent swing on the Holyrood constituency ballot (3%).

Also of note is that Reform have overtaken the Tories in Scotland for the first time, although the two parties were level in the Norstat poll in August.

*  *  *

Poll commissions, poll analysis, election analysis, podcasts, videos, truly independent political commentary - that's Scot Goes Pop, running since 2008 and currently the fifth most-read political blog in Scotland.  It's only been possible due to your incredibly generous support.  If you find the site useful and would like to help it to continue, donations by card payment are welcome HERE, or alternatively donations can be made direct by PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Don't take it personally if Santa forgot you - rumours mount that he missed Scotland altogether due to having listened to Baron Botham

Ian Botham, in spite of having a grandson who plays rugby for Wales, famously said that he supported Brexit because "England is an island", so it's entirely understandable if Santa assumed there was nothing but sea north of Berwick.

I know I speak for all Scot Goes Pop readers in saying that it's entirely appropriate that a former England cricketer who has never been elected by anyone should get to make laws that the people of Scotland have to obey.

After all, he can bat AND bowl.

*  *  *

Poll commissions, poll analysis, election analysis, podcasts, videos, truly independent political commentary - that's Scot Goes Pop, running since 2008 and currently the fifth most-read political blog in Scotland.  It's only been possible due to your incredibly generous support.  If you find the site useful and would like to help it to continue, donations by card payment are welcome HERE, or alternatively donations can be made direct by PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Could a Reform government make independence inevitable by trying to abolish devolution?

I'm going purely by memory here, and it was a long, long time ago, but my recollection is that in the late 90s, the journalist George Rosie was commissioned by STV to provide the scenario for a sort of drama/documentary on Scotland becoming an independent country.  It didn't strike me as the most riveting TV - it basically consisted of a few fictional news reports interspersed with footage of "independence day fireworks".  But it did spark some debate, because the scenario presented was not one in which the SNP won an election and successfully held a referendum.  Instead the idea was that the Tories came back to power in London under hard-right leadership (possibly Michael Portillo was mentioned), tried to abolish devolution, and Scotland under a Labour-led government opted for independence as the only way of saving its parliament.  

The joke was that Rosie had offended almost everyone - he had offended unionists by suggesting independence would happen and would be a cause for celebration, and he had offended the SNP by suggesting they couldn't win elections and that independence would happen in spite of them.

In retrospect it all looks a bit silly.  Rosie seems to have been wrong on every count - the Tories embraced devolution, however reluctantly, Portillo made an unexpected journey towards the political centre and never became leader anyway, and the SNP proved perfectly electable within less than a decade of devolution commencing.  And yet something that happened yesterday made me wonder if the Rosie scenario might suddenly be rearing its head again, albeit in modified form.

The Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe called devolution a "scam" and said it needed to be reversed.  And judging from recent opinion polls, we could be just four years from a Reform government that would have the opportunity to abolish the Scottish Parliament if it so wished.  But would it?  It's a remarkably difficult question to answer.  Apparently Lowe made similar remarks in September and the party issued some sort of retraction afterwards, but I can't find a text of the retraction.  The Reform manifesto for July's general election didn't mention devolution and barely even mentioned Scotland.  Entering search terms like "Farage devolution" turns up very little.  When Murdo Fraser ran for the Scottish Tory leadership, he penned an article stressing that the Tories would have to remain pro-devolution if Reform ran against them on an "abolish Holyrood" platform, but that seemed to be purely speculative.

One thing is for sure - if Farage became PM and reversed devolution, it would turbo-charge support for independence more than anything else ever has or than anything else ever could.  It would have a far greater impact than Brexit.  Labour would presumably try to hold the line by arguing that the Reform government is just a blip and that devolution would soon be restored, but would anyone be buying it by that point?

*  *  *

On a semi-related point, having now read the Reform manifesto I realise they have two flagship policies I genuinely agree with - not only do they want proportional representation but they also want to abolish the House of Lords.  Interestingly, of the two policies, Lords abolition is the one they seem to be most committed to - it's listed as a priority for the first 100 days of a Reform government, whereas PR is not.

There's also a third policy which I don't necessarily agree with but which certainly falls within the category of "satisfyingly ironic".  That's abolition of the BBC licence fee.  The BBC created the Farage monster almost from scratch, so if they end up being destroyed by that monster, it'll be rather fitting.

*  *  *

Poll commissions, poll analysis, election analysis, podcasts, videos, truly independent political commentary - that's Scot Goes Pop, running since 2008 and currently the fifth most-read political blog in Scotland.  It's only been possible due to your incredibly generous support.  If you find the site useful and would like to help it to continue, donations by card payment are welcome HERE, or alternatively donations can be made direct by PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

54% for Yes on the standard independence question is more than enough - it's plenty enough

It's not the normal practice of our resident Brit Nat troll KC (who I recently found was self-identifying as a youthful Italian stallion on Twitter) to tell direct lies - he normally takes something with a very small grain of truth in it and spins it for all he's worth.  But he broke that habit today by lying through his teeth.  In two comments that I've since deleted, he falsely claimed that the recent 54% for independence in the Norstat poll was merely from another hypothetical, conditional question and was based on the idea that independence would lead to everyone in Scotland being given a large lump sum payment.  That's complete rubbish - it was the standard independence question 'Should Scotland be an independent country?' and there was no jiggery-pokery at all.  It will have been asked by Norstat at the start of the question sequence and so repondents will not have been affected in any way by the leading wording of the supplementary questions that were posed later in the sequence on behalf of Believe in Scotland.

However, I think this highlights one of the dangers of the hypothetical "would you vote for independence if condition X applied?" questions, because they've led people to start talking as if the 54% on the standard question somehow isn't good enough and that we instead need a "Yes supermajority".  In fact, Yes 54%, No 46% is an almost exact reversal of the 2014 referendum result - the winning margin of which BBC journalists repeatedly referred to at the time as "decisive" (almost as if they'd received an order from on high to call it that).

And yet we know John Swinney isn't remotely interested in pressing home for independence with anything that might look like a slender Yes majority - his plan seems to be to do nothing until there is overwhelming public backing for independence.  There are two ways of interpreting that stance - either a) he's the de facto devolutionist that his critics portray him as, or b) he's genuinely trying to achieve independence by the slow road, and has in mind the precedent of devolution finally being achieved when the majority in favour of it was so huge that it could be safely described as a "settled will".

But there's one huge problem with the devolution precedent.  It took a genuinely pro-devolution Labour government in London to actually give effect to Scotland's settled will in the late 1990s.  No matter how high the Yes vote goes, there is never going to be a pro-independence government in London, so sooner or later the SNP themselves will have to force the issue.  If Mr Swinney is serious about independence, he will eventually have to confront the "process" problem, whether he likes it or not.  Supermajorities in opinion polls are not somehow self-enacting, although you'd occasionally be forgiven for thinking some in the SNP's "slow boat" faction believe they are.  "The barriers will just melt away", etc, etc.

*  *  *

Poll commissions, poll analysis, election analysis, podcasts, videos, truly independent political commentary - that's Scot Goes Pop, running since 2008 and currently the fifth most-read political blog in Scotland.  It's only been possible due to your incredibly generous support.  If you find the site useful and would like to help it to continue, donations by card payment are welcome HERE, or alternatively donations can be made direct by PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

HISTORIC BREAKTHROUGH as poll shows ALMOST EVERYONE would vote for independence if it's the LovelyThings version of independence with the LovelyThings pension - and there's a tantalising possibility of achieving TOTAL UNANIMITY if we chuck in a free wok

Yes, I'm being sarcastic, but where do you even start with a question like this?  It's a bit difficult to answer "no" to happiness, health and fairness, and in a way it's quite impressive that 39% of respondents actually did so.  The coup de grâce is when they come back at you when you're still pinned to the wall and say "Really?  You don't want happiness, health and fairness?  OK, what if we chuck in an extra £72.30 a week for your granny?  Come on, you're not going to say no to that, SURELY?"

If an independent Scotland meant that Scotland would implement a Wellbeing Economic Approach (a plan that recognises that quality of life, equality, fairness, sustainability, happiness, and health were all economic outcomes that should be given equal weight to growth in economic planning) - how would you vote if there was a Scottish independence referendum tomorrow? (Norstat / Believe in Scotland):

Yes 61%

No 39%

If the Wellbeing Economics Approach (detailed above) also included a commitment to increase the basic state pension from £169.20 to a Wellbeing Pension of £241.50 per week, how would you vote if there was a Scottish independence referendum tomorrow?  

Yes 66%

No 34%

Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp clarifies in his breathless write-up that he's not actually proposing to alter the referendum question, which is something of a relief, because I think he might struggle to get the LovelyThings question format approved by the Electoral Commission.

To be serious for a moment, I suppose this is not a completely pointless polling exercise.  It doesn't, of course, demonstrate what Gordon claims it demonstrates, or anything even remotely close to what he claims it demonstrates - there would not be a 66% Yes vote with a "Wellbeing" package because you wouldn't be able to ask voters such an epic leading question.  However, it does perhaps show that there is no outright hostility to independence among a large majority of the population, and that if you offer them enough lovely things, they won't refuse to even think about it.  That does actually matter, because standard polling sometimes gives the impression of an impenetrable unionist bloc vote of 45%+ that is implacably opposed to independence under absolutely all circumstances.

It's also, in fairness, a bit more plausible that offering people a better quality of life could substantially increase the Yes vote than it is that promising to abolish the monarchy would do so. Nevetheless, I think we need to find a somewhat more honest and rigorous way of testing the potential benefit to the Yes campaign of specific policy proposals, because people are just going to start laughing at these novel-length leading questions producing ever-more fantastical Yes supermajorities.  I'm almost a bit scared to think of what the next question in this series is going to be.

"Our Precious Union" could soon be tested to destruction as Opinium poll points to danger of Farage premiership

I'm fairly sure that the Techne poll last week showed Reform UK on an all-time high vote share, and it was undoubtedly the highest figure since the general election.  This week's poll from the same firm shows Reform dropping back a statistically insignificant one percentage point, which still leaves the party with more support than in the vast majority of Techne polls since July.

Meanwhile, this week's Opinium poll shows Reform on a new post-election high watermark of 22%.  Technically, this is not an all-time high, because Reform is legally a direct continuation of the Brexit Party, and Opinium was one of two polling firms (the other was YouGov) that showed an outright lead for the Brexit Party during the late spring and early summer of 2019, with a vote share hitting 26%.  However, 22% is certainly a new high for Reform since the party's rebrand.

GB-wide voting intentions (Opinium, 18th-20th December 2024):

Labour 29% (-)

Conservatives 23% (-2)

Reform UK 22% (+1)

Liberal Democrats 11% (-1)

Greens 10% (+1)

SNP 3% (-)

Plaid Cymru 1% (-)

The miniscule one-point gap between the Tories and Reform is the closest Reform have come to overtaking the Tories and moving into second place in any Opinium poll (or any since the Brexit Party days, I mean).

Labour's 29% may look not too bad compared to other recent polls, but in fact it's atrocious on a like-for-like comparison.  Opinium has settled in as the most Labour-friendly pollster since the election, and 29% is the joint-lowest figure so far.  It's only the second time a post-election Opinium poll has shown Labour below 30%.

*  *  *

Poll commissions, poll analysis, election analysis, podcasts, videos, truly independent political commentary - that's Scot Goes Pop, running since 2008 and currently the fifth most-read political blog in Scotland.  It's only been possible due to your incredibly generous support.  If you find the site useful and would like to help it to continue, donations by card payment are welcome HERE, or alternatively donations can be made direct by PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Your golden link to keep handy for whenever you encounter a true believer in "BBC impartiality"

I'd encourage everyone to read Owen Jones' remarkable investigative piece on Drop Site News about the sources of the BBC's pro-Israel bias during the ongoing genocide in Gaza.  And then I'd invite everyone to bookmark the page and make sure you always have it handy, because I think it will prove to be invaluable in the years to come.  Although it's primarily about why the BBC cannot be trusted in its reporting of Gaza, it also has the side-benefit of powerfully demonstrating why the BBC cannot be trusted in its reporting of domestic UK or Scottish politics either.  We all have people in our lives who still think the BBC is impartial in the way it covers the Scottish constitutional debate and that anyone who suggests otherwise is a tinfoil hat zoomer, so gently encouraging people like that to read Jones' piece with an open mind might be the first step for them on the road to enlightenment.

A particularly damning section is about Robbie Gibb, who hilariously is "charged with helping to define the BBC’s commitment to impartiality", even though - 

1) He is the brother of a former Tory government minister

2) He is the former chief of staff to a Tory MP

3) He is the former Director of Communications for the Tory Prime Minister Theresa May

4) He was knighted by Theresa May

5) He was described two years ago by former Newsnight presenter Emily Maitlis as an "active agent of the Conservative party"

6) Until only a few months ago, he was the 100% owner of the rabidly pro-Netanyahu, pro-genocide newspaper the Jewish Chronicle

It's the revelation about the Jewish Chronicle that made my jaw drop to the floor, because if the BBC's impartiality safeguards were functioning as they're supposed to, that should have been enough to lead to Gibb's instant dismissal from his BBC role.  

During my battles a year or two back with the press regulator IPSO, which is largely a sham regulator, I read up about the small minority of complaints that IPSO have upheld over the years and discovered that the Jewish Chronicle is by far the biggest offender.  If you read comments IPSO have published about the Jewish Chronicle, you'll find that they basically regard the paper as staffed by hyper-partisan amateurs who push an agenda without even bothering with the basics of journalism.

The debate over the future of the House of Lords used to be about whether it should be composed of hereditary peers or people who win elections. Keir Starmer has devised an elegant compromise - the Lords is now composed of people who *lose* elections.

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) December 21, 2024

Edinburgh local politics is like a remake of the Chris Tarrant quiz show "Lose A Million". You gain power by having as few councillors as possible. The Labour administration will only be truly safe when it slips to fifth place. https://t.co/ww7DSd9viK

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) December 20, 2024

 *  *  *

Poll commissions, poll analysis, election analysis, podcasts, videos, truly independent political commentary - that's Scot Goes Pop, running since 2008 and currently the fifth most-read political blog in Scotland.  It's only been possible due to your incredibly generous support.  If you find the site useful and would like to help it to continue, donations by card payment are welcome HERE, or alternatively donations can be made direct by PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

A reply to Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp

Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp, who was ultimately responsible for commissioning the Norstat poll question about the monarchy and independence, left a series of irate comments on Scot Goes Pop yesterday.  Quite frankly I think he was bang out of order, and in any other circumstances I would just have deleted his comments.  But instead I replied to his "points", such as they were, and I will do so again in more detail here.

His first complaint was that I had not stated that his question had been a bolt-on to the same Norstat / Sunday Times poll that showed a Yes vote of 54% on the standard independence question.  The reason I did not state that is that I did not know, and there was no possible way I could have known for sure.  The data tables were not available on the Norstat website, so all I had to go on was Gordon's own tortuously-worded article on the Believe in Scotland website, which seemed to be going out of its way to make it as difficult as possible to work out whether a bolt-on question had been added to the Sunday Times poll or whether a wholly separate poll had been conducted.  So I accurately stated the position as it stood - that Gordon's wording had been ambiguous and it was therefore impossible to be sure, but my impression was that a separate poll had been conducted.

Gordon harrumphs that he had made the position "quite clear" in the first sentence of the second paragraph of his "announcement".  Er, no you didn't, Gordon.  That was the very sentence that led me to form the strong impression that you had commissioned a separate poll and not a bolt-on question, and any other reasonable person would have reached the same conclusion.  This is what you said in that sentence - 

"Believe in Scotland have always used Norstat as our polling provider and we had a poll of our own going at the same time with the same panel of respondents."

For future reference, Gordon, if you don't want to convey the false impression that you had commissioned a separate poll, it might be best to try not to use highly misleading words like "we had a poll of our own going at the same time". The bit about "the same panel of respondents" did not clear the mists, because by definition all Norstat polls use the same panel - that's the way online polling firms operate. If you had instead said "the same sample", that would have been of more help.  But you did not.

Frankly, my guess is that Gordon used ambiguous language quite deliberately, because he feared that directly admitting his question was a bolt-on or "piggy-back" to the Sunday Times poll would have somehow diminished the prestige of his exercise.  That in my view is an unwarranted concern, but I think that's probably what was going on.

The cherry on the cake of Gordon's rant was this concluding sentence - 

"James you could have just called me have we not always got on well enough?"

I mean, what?  Scot Goes Pop is a polling analysis blog that tries to get as much information out as possible, as quickly as possible. Am I supposed to put everything on hold for twelve hours every time there is a point of ambiguity in the way a poll is reported, in the forlorn hope that I might get a clarifying reply from the Scotsman or whatever?  I don't operate that way, and I don't plan to start operating that way.  

And as it happens, Gordon, I don't think I've got your phone number.  Having thought about it, the last time I spoke to you was way back in May 2021 when we appeared together on Independence Live's election results show. I doubt if that date is a coincidence, because I've formed the distinct impression that you and your organisations have quietly distanced yourselves from the likes of me since 2021 - not out of any personal animosity, but simply because you were hostile to the Alba project and were distancing yourselves from anyone associated with it.

But nevertheless it's true that before then we had always got on well enough, which is probably why I held back on Thursday from pointing out the elephant in the room, namely the downright dodgy wording of your poll question - 

If Scottish independence meant that Scotland would be a republic - meaning the King would no longer be the head of state, so Scotland’s governance would be fully democratic and not a monarchy - how would you vote if there were an independence referendum tomorrow?

The words "so Scotland's governance would be fully democratic" are insanely leading.  Even leaving aside the more general problems with hypothetical poll questions that I previously discussed, the use of such leading wording means the results of the poll are of very dubious worth.

*  *  *

Poll commissions, poll analysis, election analysis, podcasts, videos, truly independent political commentary - that's Scot Goes Pop, running since 2008 and currently the fifth most-read political blog in Scotland.  It's only been possible due to your incredibly generous support.  If you find the site useful and would like to help it to continue, donations by card payment are welcome HERE, or alternatively donations can be made direct by PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

What is the 1989 analogy here: is it Wenceslas Square, or a prelude to Tiananmen Square? Nobody can quite work out whether it's safe to topple the statues, as news breaks that the post of General Secretary of the Alba Party is to be sensationally ABOLISHED

I follow the Moskva

Down to Gorky Park

Listening to the wind of CHA-ANGE

An August summer night

Soldiers passing by

Listening to the wind of CHA-ANGE

Take me 

To the magic of the moment

On a glory night

Where the children of tomorrow dream away (dream away)

In the wind of CHANGE

Mmmmm

As has been well-rehearsed in recent weeks and months, Chris McEleny has sweeping powers over members of the Alba Party that would make many a dictator blush, even though on paper he is no more than a paid employee of the party.  It's rather akin to giving a civil servant powers to impose the death penalty on random passers-by.  To the best of my knowledge Mr McEleny holds no elected position within the party whatsoever.  So what happens if his paid job suddenly disappears?

We may find out in the relatively near future, because the weekly Alba email has dramatically revealed that the positions of General Secretary (held by Mr McEleny) and Deputy General Secretary (held by Corri Wilson) are likely to be abolished, although this will be dependent on constitutional amendments.  It's not clear whether the true underlying motivation for the decision is primarily cost-saving (as the email implies), or whether concerns over the way Mr McEleny has exercised his dictatorial powers, and the countless casualties he has left in his wake, are shared in the upper reaches of the party.

The email states that Mr McEleny's functions will be replaced by dedicated roles among party staff covering areas such as "media" and "campaigning".  But there's no word on what will happen to his regal powers allowing him to arbitrarily suspend party members at his whim and press for their expulsion.  One obvious possibility is that those powers will simply be transferred to the unelected party chair, Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, which will not constitute any sort of improvement at all.  Or perhaps Mr McEleny will just carry on, and even double down on the purges, with a new job title.

Whatever the details turn out to be, the change is unlikely to save me from expulsion, because presumably Mr McEleny and Ms Wilson will still be in harness when my appeal is heard on 8th January.  But in the best case scenario, there may now be an unexpected glimmer of hope for those Alba members who have yet to be expelled or suspended or bullied out of the party (it was only ever a matter of time, guys).

More analysis of the Norstat poll suggesting 59% would vote for independence if it means abolishing the monarchy

Just a quick note to let you know I have a new analysis piece at The National about the new poll suggesting a commitment to republicanism would increase Yes support by five percentage points.  You can read it HERE.

No, the Believe in Scotland poll does not mean promising a republic would boost Yes support (in fact the opposite is probably true)

As you may have seen by now, Believe in Scotland have commissioned a Norstat poll asking about support for independence in the hypothetical scenario that the Yes campaign promises that the monarchy will be abolished.  The write-up is slightly ambiguous on the context in which the question was asked, but the impression I get is that this was not a bolt-on question added to the Sunday Times poll that found 54% Yes support for independence on the standard referendum question.  In other words, the Believe in Scotland question was asked to a different sample of respondents.

If Scottish independence meant that Scotland would be a republic - meaning the King would no longer be the head of state, so Scotland’s governance would be fully democratic and not a monarchy - how would you vote if there were an independence referendum tomorrow?

Yes 59%

No 41%

This is a potentially quite dangerous result, because it could lead people down a very deep rabbit hole.  Believe in Scotland are arguing that it means promising a republic would instantly add five percentage points to Yes support, but it really, really doesn't mean that.  Quick fixes of that sort generally aren't available, but if anything this particular suggestion of a quick fix would be highly likely to backfire and reduce Yes support.

So why has the poll produced such a misleading result? It's well known that hypothetical questions, asking "if condition A applied, how would you vote in response to question B?" do not produce reliable numbers.  For example, in the run-up to the EU referendum, any number of polls purported to show that a Leave vote would result in big majority support for independence, but that didn't materialise when the event actually arose.

The reason is probably that respondents tend to focus on "condition A" much more than they do on the main meat of "question B".  If you oppose Brexit, or if you hate the monarchy, your natural reaction will be to demonstrate how strongly you feel about the subject, ie. "yeah, I'd do anything to stop Brexit, even vote for independence!", but when the question actually comes up in the real world, you focus on how you feel about independence itself, and Brexit or the monarchy fades into the background.  It may still affect your thinking but not to anything like the same degree.

The reason why tying a Yes vote to a republic would be unhelpful is that everyone knows that the UK will retain the monarchy.  So republicans have nowhere else to go - even if the pro-independence campaign is explicitly monarchist, there's no reason why republicans wouldn't vote Yes, because it would leave them no worse off.  By contrast, monarchist voters will always have an alternative if you push them too far - if the Yes campaign is overtly republican, that might just tip the balance and lead monarchists to vote No.

That said, the replacement of the former Queen with the less popular Charles may mean it's now safer for any future Yes campaign to adopt a position of neutrality on the monarchy, and say that the people will decide the issue later in a separate referendum.  That may well be the most sensible course, and I suspect that's what would happen.

If there is any significance to the Believe in Scotland poll, it may be that it implies that the 54% Yes vote in the Sunday Times poll was not a fluke, because it's hard to see how you'd get to 59% support on the hypothetical question unless baseline Yes support was also very high.

*  *  *

Poll commissions, poll analysis, election analysis, podcasts, videos, truly independent political commentary - that's Scot Goes Pop, running since 2008 and currently the fifth most-read political blog in Scotland.  It's only been possible due to your incredibly generous support.  If you find the site useful and would like to help it to continue, donations by card payment are welcome HERE, or alternatively donations can be made direct by PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Wings is following the "OTHER STUFF" signpost

A typically jaw-dropping comment from Wings in his latest blogpost - 

"And to be honest, readers, living to see the truth finally come to light is the main driver that’s keeping this website going. There is no hope of Scottish independence under the current SNP."

The truth he's talking about is the truth about any conspiracy intended to put Alex Salmond in jail for crimes he did not commit.

For years now, Mr Campbell's fan club has screamed blue bloody murder at anyone who has dared to suggest that Wings is no longer a pro-independence blog, in spite of the fact that - a) Mr Campbell said he would abstain in any new referendum on independence, b) he urged his readers to vote Labour at the general election in July (which means, incidentally, that he is in no position to say anything at all about the betrayal of the WASPI women), c) he indicated at one point that he was planning to vote Conservative at the general election, d) he urged his readers to vote for unionist parties in certain constituency seats in the 2021 Holyrood election, and e) the vast bulk of his blogging and social media output for many years has been about the trans issue, and not about independence or anything even vaguely related to it.  If it's going to be argued that Wings is pro-indy in spite of all that, it would have to be assumed there's some kind of grand plan on Mr Campbell's behalf to use his site to break through the barriers and pursue independence by a radical alternative route.  But now we have it from the horse's mouth - there is no plan.  He has no alternative ideas to offer.  He's given up on independence, and Wings is now nothing more than a trans issues / Justice for Salmond / Vote Labour site.

There was a cartoon on Wings at the time of Nicola Sturgeon's resignation which showed her at a junction in a path, with one sign pointing to "INDEPENDENCE" and another sign pointing to "OTHER STUFF".  She, naturally, was finding her feet drawn to the "OTHER STUFF" path.  Mr Campbell is now eagerly following her down that road.  Establishing the truth of what happened in the run-up to the Salmond trial is an important matter, but it has got nothing to do with independence and is not going to get us to independence.  If it becomes the all-consuming focus of a part of (or rather a former part of) the independence movement, something has gone very seriously awry somewhere.

As readers will probably appreciate, I'm considerably more ambivalent about the planned legal action on behalf of Alex Salmond than I was a year ago, because I've since been trampled all over by the Alba Party without a shred of due process and seen the same thing happen to other good independence supporters, and I know (at least to some extent) which specific individuals played a direct role in that.  It's become clear that certain people's high-minded talk about "justice" is only really about "justice for the powerful" or "justice for the famous" or "justice for people I'm related to", and is not at all about justice as a general principle that everyone can and should benefit from equally.  Nevertheless, if there was a conspiracy to jail Mr Salmond for political reasons, that's disgraceful and it's entirely appropriate to use the courts to bring the facts to light.  But that's something Mr Salmond's family and friends can and will pursue.  For the rest of us, our laser-like focus must remain on the goal of independence.  I know there was some concern among Alba members two or three weeks ago about an appeal from the party leadership for funding that didn't really make clear whether the funds would be used for Alba's political campaigning, or for the Salmond justice campaign.  The two concepts seem to be getting muddled up in a really quite dangerous way.

One of the many reasons I was hoping Kate Forbes would defeat Humza Yousaf in the 2023 SNP leadership election is that it would finally have moved the independence movement away from the Salmond v Sturgeon faultline.  John Swinney can't provide such a decisive break because everyone knows he's more associated with Sturgeon, but nevertheless there have been some encouraging signs - Swinney has distanced himself from the Greens and de-emphasised gender ideology in a way that Sturgeon would never have done, and he made an important healing gesture by attending the Salmond memorial service.  Let's not squander that progress by trying to perpetuate an internal Cold War within the Yes camp that is now well past its sell-by date.  We have a country to win, so let's get back to doing that.

*  *  *

Poll commissions, poll analysis, election analysis, podcasts, videos, truly independent political commentary - that's Scot Goes Pop, running since 2008 and currently the fifth most-read political blog in Scotland.  It's only been possible due to your incredibly generous support.  If you find the site useful and would like to help it to continue, donations by card payment are welcome HERE, or alternatively donations can be made direct by PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

It's incoherent to stand in constituency seats while still telling voters to game the system for a supermajority

This is something that genuinely puzzles me, and I know it's a point that has also been made by Colette Walker of ISP.  If the Alba Party are planning to take the (unwise, in my view) step of intervening in constituency seats in 2026, that would imply that they've moved away from the 2021 messaging of "get a pro-indy majority by gaming the voting system", because the latter only works if you advise people to vote SNP in the constituencies.  As long-term readers know, I think gaming the system is a dead-end idea once you start to consider the myriad ways in which it can totally backfire, but nevertheless to the extent that it can even theoretically work, it 100% depends on convincing people to vote for two different parties on the two ballots.  There is no planet on which "both votes Alba" is a recipe for a supermajority.

And yet, once again, leading Alba figures are regularly pushing the "game the system for a supermajority" narrative.  There seems to be a distinct lack of joined-up thinking.

Angus MacNeil understandably has the zeal of a convert at the moment, and perhaps hasn't realised yet that all Alba members with a mind of their own, of which is he is now one, are merely "expellees in waiting". This is what he had to say today on the supermajority subject - 

"Look at that poll  for the 2026 election. 👇

What does 2nd vote SNP do ?

The answer is that it gives you Reform MSPs. Tory MSPs. And Labour MSPs.

2nd vote SNP helps anti independence parties. 

That will be the effect of 2nd vote SNP in 2026 as it was in 2021.

So Vote #Alba4Indy"

But does that logic actually make any sense?  Here are the seats projections for the Norstat poll from a prediction website -

Constituency seats:

SNP 58

Conservatives 7

Liberal Democrats 5

Labour 3

Regional list seats:

Labour 17

Reform UK 13

Conservatives 12

Greens 7

Liberal Democrats 6

SNP 1

The first thing you'd have to say about the above numbers is that they could be wildly misleading, because they're based on an enormous 16% SNP lead over Labour on the constituency ballot.  Many people think that scale of lead is highly implausible.  If the SNP aren't doing that well in the constituency seats, they stand to be compensated with far more list seats.

But even if you take the numbers at face value, the brutal truth is that they show that the wasted pro-indy votes on the list are both SNP and Alba votes.  The only pro-indy voters who are getting bang for their buck on the list are Green voters.  If you could move votes around like pieces on a chessboard (which in the real world you simply can't do) the obvious way to game the system would be to shift both the SNP's and Alba's list votes to the Greens, and then you'd have your supermajority.

In the Norstat poll Alba were on 5% of the list vote, but any serious analyst will tell you that Norstat regularly overstate Alba's support, which in truth is probably flatlining at 2% or 3% at most.  That means Alba would have to double or triple their current support to move into seat-winning territory.  That's not impossible, but the severe difficulty of the task contrasts with the fact that the Greens are already well into seat-winning territory, and that the SNP would win lots of list seats in the entirely plausible scenario that their constituency support drops back a bit.  So no matter which way you cut it, Alba is statistically not the most promising option for gaming the list vote.  Not even close.

Voters were totally unmoved by the supermajority pitch in 2021, and given that the case is even weaker this time, it's hard to see why Alba would suddenly start cutting through with it.  They'd be much better advised to try to win votes by the conventional method of persuading voters that they are a better party than the SNP and have better policies.  OK, I'm not sure the optimal way of doing that is with the current increasingly right-wing positioning of "it's not racist to take money away from asylum seekers / President-elect Donald Trump deserves greater respect from us / Elon Musk has saved the internet gonnae take me to Mars, hun / Andrew Doyle off GB News is just so goddamn fabulous is he not", but even that is probably preferable to the excruciating embarrassment of making your Party Election Broadcast a three-minute monologue on the d'Hondt formula.

*  *  *

Poll commissions, poll analysis, election analysis, podcasts, videos, truly independent political commentary - that's Scot Goes Pop, running since 2008 and currently the fifth most-read political blog in Scotland.  It's only been possible due to your incredibly generous support.  If you find the site useful and would like to help it to continue, donations by card payment are welcome HERE, or alternatively donations can be made direct by PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

My appeal against expulsion from the Alba Party will be heard in early January

Chris McEleny told me last week that the clerk of the Appeals Committee would be in touch "in due course" about the details of my appeal, and I did wonder when he said that whether the clerk of the Appeals Committee would turn out to be exactly the same person as the clerk of the Disciplinary Committee, who is also exactly the same person as Mr McEleny's own deputy as General Secretary.  The answer is yes.  It's like the Holy Trinity: they're three different roles and yet somehow all the same.  When I was growing up, my uncle, who had been in a Catholic brotherhood for a few years, explained the concept of the Holy Trinity to me and then asked whether I understood it.  I said that I did.  He said: "No you don't.  Nobody understands it.  If you think you've understood it, that means you haven't."  Which, to be fair, could also apply to just about every Kafkaesque twist and turn in the Alba Party's internal procedures.  

My appeal hearing will be on the evening of the 8th of January, which I think might be just about within the 30-day rule that I remember reading somewhere (I can't find it in the main text of the party constitution so it's probably in a separate set of rules governing the Appeals Committee itself).  I was hoping it was going to be a bit earlier than that, because this has been an incredibly stressful and downright nasty process and I want it over.  I'm not going to mince words anymore - it's been an utterly bogus, baseless, malicious, evidence-free "disciplinary" action brought by a vindictive leadership due simply to a personal vendetta against me, which they probably hold for three principal reasons: a) the persistent stand I took in favour of internal democratisation of the party, b) my refusal to meekly put up with low-grade bullying attempts from two very well-connected individuals at in-person meetings of the Constitution Review Group during the spring and subsequently on Twitter, and c) my calling out of blatantly false information provided by the General Secretary during meetings of the Disciplinary Committee at the start of this year (yes, ironically I was an elected member of the Disciplinary Committee until my expulsion).  

At least now the end is in sight - either the Appeals Committee will do the right thing and overturn the upholding of Mr McEleny's malicious action against me, and I can resume my party membership and return to pressing for change to try to ensure that this can never happen to anyone else again, or they will not do the right thing, my expulsion will become irrevocable, and I can finally draw a line under my hellish experience within Alba and look to the future, either in a different party, or as an independent or as a supporter of independents.  

It's likely that I'll have a great deal more to say in the coming weeks and months about the blatant and cynical abuse of power on the part of the General Secretary, and possibly the party chair, that has led to the malicious action against me and against so many other Alba members.  But for now I want to say a few general words about the bankruptcy of Alba's disciplinary process, which I've experienced from both sides.

The essence of the problem, I would suggest, is the hopeless lack of independence of the Disciplinary Committee.  This is an example of the Alba set-up actually being inferior to the SNP's, because on my reading of the SNP constitution the Conduct Committee in that party is genuinely independent of the NEC (at least on paper).  By contrast, Alba's Disciplinary Committee functions effectively as a subcommittee of the NEC.  Although there are six elected members, those are topped up by two NEC appointees (effectively people directly appointed by the party leader), of which one is nominated by the NEC to be the committee's convener.  OK, you might say, that still means the committee is three-quarters elected, but in practice the appointed convener controls the committee to a quite extraordinary degree.  Not only does he or she have the casting vote in the event of a tie, they also determine the format of meetings, can ensure the rights of 'defendants' are interpreted as narrowly as possible, and can prevent committee members from expressing 'undesirable' viewpoints or asking 'unwanted' questions.  So to a large extent, the Disciplinary Committee is under the NEC's direct control.

But even that level of control wasn't enough for the leadership, who at the start of this year (coinciding with my own election to the committee) introduced a set of draconian new rules which shifted power over the disciplinary process away from the Disciplinary Committee and firmly into the hands of the unelected General Secretary and to a lesser extent the unelected party chair.  A new "clerk to the committee" was imposed, who of course just happens to be the same person as the Deputy General Secretary, and who is now present throughout all meetings regardless of whether the committee wants her there or not.  She therefore becomes a brooding presence which is bound to inhibit the free expression of views - because it's an open secret that she'll be reporting back to her boss the General Secretary, to the party chair and probably to half a dozen other people besides.  In the first meeting I took part in, it became obvious that Mr McEleny had told us a direct lie in the paperwork - he had told us that the member who was the subject of the complaint had not expressed any wish to attend the hearing, whereas in fact I knew that wasn't true, because the member in question had contacted me to say that he did wish to attend but that Mr McEleny had ignored his emails.  During the meeting I said something along the lines of "it looks to me like the General Secretary has been playing games", which of course I knew full well that "the clerk to the committee" would report straight back to her boss.  That may well have been the moment when the seeds were first sown for Mr McEleny's vendetta against me.

But the much more important effect of the new rules is the total power they give to the General Secretary in determining what complaints reach the Disciplinary Committee.  Mr McEleny, despite being an entirely unelected party employee, has an absolute right to lodge a complaint against a party member himself and compel the Disciplinary Committee to hear it, but he also has an absolute right to reject any complaint submitted by anyone else and to prevent the committee from even considering it.  Let's be blunt - Mr McEleny has not only been making full use of that dictatorial power, he's been abusing it for all it's worth.  Every single complaint that was heard during my time on the committee could be very easily traced back to Mr McEleny's own vested interests, or the vested interests of the wider leadership group.  In at least two cases, it was ultimately about a wish to hush up the strong and probably well-founded suspicions that the 2023 internal elections were at least partly rigged.  By contrast, complaints submitted by ordinary party members with no connection to the party leadership seem to be of no interest whatever to Mr McEleny, and he routinely dismisses them out of hand.  Which is highly convenient when those complaints are about prominent figures in the party.

It's also worth noting that the right of the 'defendant' to be present at the hearing is largely a sham.  You might remember that my sense was that I had only been allowed to be present at the hearing about me for around seven or eight minutes.  I was later able to work out that it had actually been twelve minutes.  Assuming the hearing probably lasted for an hour or so, that means I was only actually there for 20% of it.  I have a fair idea of what was going on in my absence for the first half-hour of the meeting, and that was something I certainly should have been present for and been allowed to hear - but that would have involved me being made aware of what I was actually being accused of and being allowed to answer it.  And that would never have done, would it?

*  *  *

Poll commissions, poll analysis, election analysis, podcasts, videos, truly independent political commentary - that's Scot Goes Pop, running since 2008 and currently the fifth most-read political blog in Scotland.  It's only been possible due to your incredibly generous support.  If you find the site useful and would like to help it to continue, donations by card payment are welcome HERE, or alternatively donations can be made direct by PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

An embarrassment of hitches: catastrophic leadership ratings for Starmer leave him trailing all of his opponents by light-years

I mentioned yesterday that there was a new (or new-ish) GB-wide poll from More In Common, and although it didn't show any further movement against Labour and in fact showed a minor dip in Reform UK support, it nevertheless served up yet more dreadful leadership ratings for Keir Starmer.

Net ratings (More In Common, 6th-10th December 2024):

Ed Davey (Liberal Democrats): -8

Kemi Badenoch (Conservatives): -9

Nigel Farage (Reform UK): -10

Keir Starmer (Labour): -35

Rachel Reeves (Labour): -35

The -10 rating for Farage is derived from 27% of the sample having a positive opinion of him and 38% having a negative opinion of him.  (I know those numbers don't quite tally up - the discrepancy is caused by rounding.)  That latter figure is hugely significant, because the equivalent figure in years gone by was often 60% or above.  If 62% of the British electorate are not actively hostile to him, there is no longer any ceiling on Reform support, or at least not one low enough to make it impossible for the party to win a general election.

On the head-to-head question about whether Starmer or Badenoch would be the better Prime Minister, Starmer still leads by a slender margin of 28% to 23%.  But that's nowhere near as big an advantage as it should be, given the general consensus that Badenoch is hapless, and the 49% of the sample who answered "neither of the above" should be of huge concern to both leaders.  With increasing evidence that British politics is now a three-way battle for power, I'm not sure how much longer More in Common can really justify excluding Farage from the head-to-head.  There'll probably end up being three questions - Starmer v Badenoch, Starmer v Farage, and Badenoch v Farage.

Incidentally, there are also approval ratings for the two largest parties, and they show the Tories on a dismal -28, with Labour on an even more dismal -35.  So, oddly, Badenoch is outperforming her party for now, although that's probably just because she's still relatively little-known and many people have yet to form an opinion of her.

*  *  *

Poll commissions, poll analysis, election analysis, podcasts, videos, truly independent political commentary - that's Scot Goes Pop, running since 2008 and currently the fifth most-read political blog in Scotland.  It's only been possible due to your incredibly generous support.  If you find the site useful and would like to help it to continue, donations by card payment are welcome HERE, or alternatively donations can be made direct by PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

An under-appreciated side-effect of the Reform UK surge: it may put proportional representation for Westminster back on the agenda

Since the penny started to drop that Nigel Farage and Reform may be emerging as serious contenders for power at the next general election, I've been repeatedly making the point that this could potentially have the side-benefit of jolting the Scottish public into recognising the urgent need for independence.  But I've also been trying to think if there are any other more direct benefits.  It suddenly struck me that, amazing though it may seem, Reform do actually have one genuinely good policy, and it relates to something that I've supported for even longer than I've supported independence - namely proportional representation.  So, on paper at least, a Reform government ought to finally deliver a cherished dream of progressive politicians down the ages, going back to the likes of Jo Grimond, Roy Jenkins and Shirley Williams.

There is, of course, a snag.  Suppose the Reform bandwagon keeps rolling to such an extent that they get into the mid-to-high 30s and end up winning an outright majority.  Would they really stick to their policy on proportional representation, or would they (like PR-curious Prime Ministers such as Tony Blair before them) suddenly become born-again converts to the dubious virtues of first-past-the-post?  Forgive me for being cynical about NIGEL FARAGE of all people, but I think it would be the latter.  He probably wouldn't officially ditch the policy, but he would say there wasn't enough time for it because there are so many other more important things to be getting on with.

In truth, though, it's hard to imagine Reform going from single digits to an outright majority in one jump.  A more likely scenario for them 'winning' the general election might be something more like this, which is based on yesterday's Techne poll but with the numbers swapped around to put Reform ahead - 

Reform UK 27%

Conservatives 25%

Labour 22%

Liberal Democrats 11%

Greens 7%

SNP 3%

Let me make clear that I agree with everyone who says that Electoral Calculus is a dud projection model, but as it's the easiest one to find and use, here is what it says the above would translate into in terms of seats - 

Conservatives 179

Reform UK 176

Labour 164

Liberal Democrats 70

SNP 23

Greens 5

Plaid Cymru 4

Others 29

The only viable government in this scenario would involve some kind of deal between the Tories and Reform UK, probably a full coalition with Kemi Badenoch as Prime Minister.  But there would still be a very, very strong incentive for Reform to make proportional representation a condition of that deal.  They'd know it might make them kingmakers for decades to come, and would increase their chances of sometimes being the largest party and getting their leader installed as PM.  Unlike Nick Clegg in 2010, they might not back off from the demand, and they would have far more numerical leverage than he did anyway.

So it would be a straightforward choice for the Tories - buy themselves five years in government but at the cost of probably never being able to win an overall majority ever again, or do what Harold Wilson did in February 1974, ie. reject all overtures, form a minority government on a caretaker basis, and hope for the best in a snap election a few months later.  I'm really not sure the Tories would make the same choice as Wilson, because with the momentum that would be behind Reform by that stage, a deal might look necessary if the Tories are to survive as an electoral force.

There's also another point: if a major Reform UK breakthrough starts to look inevitable as the next election approaches, and if Labour's chances of winning a majority or remaining the largest party look slim to non-existent, would it not make sense for the Labour government to pre-empt the situation and introduce proportional representation themselves?  In many ways it would, but I still don't think they would do it.  Rational self-interest has its limits, as we've seen many times before.

*  *  *

Poll commissions, poll analysis, election analysis, podcasts, videos, truly independent political commentary - that's Scot Goes Pop, running since 2008 and currently the fifth most-read political blog in Scotland.  It's only been possible due to your incredibly generous support.  If you find the site useful and would like to help it to continue, donations by card payment are welcome HERE, or alternatively donations can be made direct by PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk