Saturday, January 27, 2024

Westminster in crisis tonight as new Norstat poll shows support for independence has risen to around 50%

One of the minor wins for the unionist camp over the last couple of years is that they've somehow persuaded media organisations and some polling companies to revert to publishing independence poll numbers with Don't Knows left in.  That shouldn't be happening - the practice was completely abandoned in the run-up to the 2014 indyref, and for obvious reasons you would never see voting intention numbers for Holyrood or Westminster that don't exclude undecideds.  The purpose of the wheeze is presumably to give the false impression that support for independence is lower than it is - if you say, for example, that "Yes support is at 47%", most people will assume that means No support is at 53%, whereas 53% is in fact the combined figure for No and Don't Know.

In the case of the latest Norstat poll for the Sunday Times, the figures with Don't Knows stripped out haven't even been mentioned in the write-up at all, so all I can tell you is that a rough recalculation shows that the headline numbers must be either Yes 49%, No 51% or Yes 50%, No 50%, hence my use of the phrase "around 50%" in the title of this post.  It's extremely frustrating not to know for sure, but the fact that we don't can be assumed to be an intentional tactic.  The data tables will resolve the mystery in the fullness of time.

Should Scotland be an independent country?  (Norstat/Sunday Times, before exclusion of Don't Knows)

Yes 47% (+2)
No 48% (-1)

This is the first poll since Norstat took over Panelbase, so the percentage changes are measured from the last Panelbase poll.  If anything, Panelbase have tended to be one of the more No-friendly firms in recent years, which makes Yes practically drawing level all the more striking as a development.  From a personal point of view, given my history of commissioning polls from Panelbase for Scot Goes Pop, I'm sad to see that the Panelbase branding seems to have been dropped for this poll, and I'll be interested to discover whether the change is purely presentational or goes deeper than that.

While this is an unalloyed good news poll for the Yes movement, pretty much the opposite must be said for the SNP, who in Westminster terms have suffered their worst showing in a Panelbase/Norstat poll for many years.

Scottish voting intentions for the next UK general election:

Labour 36%
SNP 33%
Conservatives 16%
Liberal Democrats 7%

Seats projection (with changes from 2019 general election): Labour 28 (+27), SNP 18 (-30), Conservatives 6 (-), Liberal Democrats 5 (+1)

Paradoxically, there's some comfort to be drawn from the fact that Humza Yousaf's net trust rating in the poll is -25, and Nicola Sturgeon's is almost as bad at -19, which would have been unthinkable until very recently.  That suggests there is a personal element to the SNP's current unpopularity, which at least in theory could be reversed with a change of leader.  Whereas Tory rebels look a bit odd plotting to bring down Rishi Sunak when there is no obvious election-winning replacement waiting in the wings, the SNP are fortunate enough to have a 'queen over the water' figure in the shape of Kate Forbes, who we know is more highly regarded with the public than Yousaf.

Scottish Parliament constituency ballot:

SNP 36% (+1)
Labour 31% (-)
Conservatives 16% (-)
Liberal Democrats 7% (-)
Greens 5% (-2)

Scottish Parliament regional list ballot:

SNP 30% (+1)
Labour 29% (-1)
Conservatives 19% (+1)
Greens 9% (-3)
Liberal Democrats 7% (-1)

Seats projection (with changes from 2021 election): SNP 47 (-17), Labour 40 (+18), Conservatives 24 (-7), Greens 10 (+2), Liberal Democrats 8 (+4)

The Sunday Times piece claims this projection would almost certainly result in a Labour-led government with Anas Sarwar as First Minister, even though the SNP would remain the largest party.  Although that's certainly possible, I'm not so sure.  It's one thing Labour governing from second place in local councils thanks to informal deals with the Tories, but at Holyrood level there would be a much stronger spotlight on what they were doing.  The deal with the Tories wouldn't be deniable because the public would require a comprehensible explanation for why the SNP, who "won" the election, were being frozen out of power, while Labour, who "lost" the election, were lording it as if they had won.  And a deal with the Tories which is not deniable is a massive problem for Labour, particularly with a view to future Westminster elections.  They may decide it's simply more trouble than it's worth.

Scot Goes Pop can only continue with your help: In order to commission future Scot Goes Pop polls, but also just to keep the blog going, I am reliant on generous donations from readers.  The simplest and quickest way to make a donation is via direct Paypal payment. Depending on the option you select from the menu, this can eliminate all fees, and the payment usually comes through instantly. My Paypal email address is:

jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

If you wish, you can add a note saying "for poll fundraiser" or "for general fundraiser".

Or if you prefer to make a donation by credit or debit card, this can be done via the GoFundMe fundraiser pages.  The poll fundraiser page can be found HERE.

157 comments:

  1. Any results on your own votes today from the delegates?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, it's usually a day or two before I hear anything.

      Delete
  2. Extraordinary numbers that will pile on the pressure for Yousaf to reinstate the de facto referendum plan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed, it's pretty much the one and only thing that will get the SNP out of their current mess.

      Delete
    2. My bet’s on more identity politics first. Team Nicola will do what comes naturally to them until there’s no other choice.

      Delete
    3. That's the baseline without calling it a defacto referendum. Not that I think the SNP would do it. Humza might do what he did during his leadership campaign and make some noises about independence when he is told it might help, but a proper independence campaign in 9 months (?) from a standing start wouldn't seriously be attempted.

      The context of the COVID enquiries, the ongoing police investigations and the conversion therapies bill in Holyrood make for a very hostile election year for the SNP. They will get gubbed and I think Humza is only in place for now to absorb the damage that's coming.

      That said the SNP could very well go into the election as the only party willing to oppose genocide and UK military involvement in the middle east and elsewhere. Who knows where we'll be by then, or what it would do to those numbers.

      Delete
    4. @Bortwiskels. Quite agreed on almost all fronts. But do remember this: a plebiscite election is no “once in a generation” nonsense. Every election is a de facto referendum now. Let’s make it legit.

      It’s either that or First Minister Shug once Humza has played his human shield. Gies strength!

      Delete
    5. Good point, that first part, the clarity of every campaign focusing on the benefits of independence, would be great to have again. Though precedent could be used against it, it would actually sit well as a next logical step from the rubbered section 30 requests, the high court farce and the wm bill earlier this month.

      Who is "First Minister Shug"?

      Delete
    6. Angus Robertson, I believe. (I've no idea why.)

      Delete
    7. Who is "First Minister Shug"?

      Angus Robertson. The big fuzzy beast who was too smart to put his hat into the ring for Team Continuity last time as he knew it was a poisoned chalice. My guess is he still wants his turn in Bute House while it’s still for the taking.

      Delete
    8. *shudders at the thought of Angus Robertson anywhere near FM*

      Delete
    9. Anon at 9.04 - " Team Nicola" - Sturgeon's gang is a more accurate term in my opinion.

      Delete
    10. @IfS: I call them Team Nicola to emphasise just how much respect I have for Humza's "leadership" and "direction" now that the Dear Eternal Leader has definitely "left" to "write" her memoirs and whatever other guff the National will slavishly report about her for years to come.

      *clink*

      Delete
    11. Anon at 10.06pm - yes I get that point but Team Nicola is a much more positive term than I think they deserve. They truly are like a criminal gang. Anybody who puts together a gang to try and send an innocent person to jail is a criminal with a criminal gang. You could say the same about the Post Office gang except they were very successful in taking people's money and sending innocent people to jail. Sturgeon's gang failed at this as well.

      Delete
    12. Do you think Nicola Sturgeon could chart her way back to the SNP leadership in a few years' time, assuming she is exonerated?

      Delete
  3. Just who are these imbeciles intending to vote Labour whilst maintaining support for Independence.

    Anyone in that frame of mind will be used as cannon fodder by Labour to push the argument that the issue of the constitution is dead in the water.

    As for any glee from Alba supporters at the poor polling of the SNP at the expense of Unionist Labour just what do get out of this?

    Finally, Kate Forbes is no saviour. She’s a divisive individual who, from what I’ve seen, is held in high esteem in the main by Tories and Alba supporters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shut up, go to bed, and vote SNP, right?

      Not until all your MPs were thrown out on the street. That’s worth it in itself!

      Delete
    2. You've consulted all those Alba and Tory supporters have you? Or is it just your confirmation bias showing through? Something tells me you're a full on Nicophant still struggling to come to terms with the loss of Chief Mammy.

      Delete
    3. I presume "Ian B" is the same person who was throwing his toys out of the pram the other day because I wasn't censoring enough readers' comments for his liking! Oh, and if Kate Forbes isn't popular in SNP ranks, perhaps Ian can explain how she got 48% of the vote in the leadership election last March?

      Delete
    4. Felix @ 9:26pm

      No, it’s an opinion based on the numerous comments I’ve seen from Alba and Tory supporters alike backing Kate.

      As to your comments about me being a full on ‘Nicophant’ grow up ffs and stop making up silly little words.

      Delete
    5. Ian B, couldn’t agree more. I’ve been making more or less the same point on here for days but keep getting shot down.
      I get why people are disillusioned with the SNP, but can’t for the life of me understand why a lot are talking about abstaining, spoiling ballot papers, voting Alba(thereby splitting the nationalist vote), or even voting Labour.
      If these people carry out these threats, I fear they’ll regret it for many years to come.

      Delete
    6. Some on here seem to think the SNP getting almost wiped out at the GE will be a good thing!
      I despair.

      Delete
    7. K C - what did following the advice of people like you achieve over the last 9 years - wasted opportunities for independence that's what. You and people like you should apologise. Take the advice of the people who got it wrong for nine years - aye right.

      Delete
    8. KC, you get why people are disillusioned with the SNP so the solution is to vote for them again! I despair.😄

      Ian, sorry if I'm not grown up enough for you. Maybe you could answer James' question instead. Why did Forbes get 48% in the SNP leadership election when her support lies with Alba and the Tories according to your extensive research.🤔

      Delete
    9. Ian B - sorry to ruin your criticism of Felix but he did not make up the term nicophant. It is there for anyone to use and neatly sums up the nicophants of whom there are still many despite Sturgeon faking it for 9 years, falsely raising money on the back of promises to deliver Indyref2 and then running away when the polis come calling. My advice to all nicophants is if you don't like being called a nicophant well don't be one.

      Delete
    10. IFS and Felix, I stand by my comments and nothing will change my mind.
      I strongly believe if enough people do what you’re saying you’re going to do at the GE, it’ll be regretted for years to come.

      Delete
    11. K C - so that is a no to apologising for the last 9 years. I'll just point out that people like you strongly believed that Sturgeon's gang would deliver Indyref2 for many years. Strangely enough you don't seem regret doing so. Who benefited most from the Sturgeon era - Britnats. They got to say vote for us to avoid Indyref2 while at the same time knowing Sturgeon was a charlatan who had no intention of delivering Indyref2.

      Delete
    12. IfS: if that is indeed the case then there is an obvious question which follows inevitably as a natural corollary from the premise of what you argue which is to ask why if that were the case were so many people on what we might call the broad unionist side of the political fence so pleased to hear the news that Nicola was planning to stand down from her duties? With great respect I suspect you are slightly too negative about the SNP and about Nicola who surely you must agree in all fairness was widely held in the media and among commentators near and far to be a first-rate political communicator and probably the best.

      Delete
    13. Anon at 11.47pm - not often someone says with great respect to me on SGP - so with great respect back I say I am happy with how I describe Sturgeon, her gang and her leadership years. I have posted on many occasions Sturgeon is a good communicator and a wily politician. So what. She used these skills to con numpties. What did she do for independence - she wasted the best years ever for independence by doing nothing and then got having an Indy ref declared illegal. It's not my fault people get caught up in her "first rate political communicator " stuff and couldnae see the reality right under their noses.
      As for your point about Britnats being pleased to see her go - most knew she was a liability for independence but kept up the pretence so they could crow about a victory.

      Anon what would you rather have:-

      1. a slick politician who has no intention of delivering a referendum never mind independence or;

      2. someone with lesser skills but has the drive and determination to deliver independence.

      I'll take 2 any day but you seem content with 1. At present the SNP has neither a 1 or 2. Just a poorer version of 1.

      Delete
    14. I regret our continued union with England.
      I regret missing our Brexit moment to leave them.
      I regret our wasted year of unbroken majority support for independence in the polls.
      I regret our leaders sitting on their hands all the way through the worst Tory government in history.
      I regret those I knew and loved who died before we ever saw independence.

      Pete Wishart's bum hitting the concrete outside the Palace of Westminster? That I can live with!

      Delete
    15. KC, I'm not asking you to change your mind which seems to be set in concrete anyway. You're the one who repeatedly comes on here haranguing those who don't want to vote for the busted flush that the SNP has become. If you want to vote for more of the same ad nauseum, knock yourself out but stop demanding others do the same.

      Delete
    16. Felix: it's only by us all voting for the SNP that the interests of pro-independence voters is to be maximized.

      Delete
    17. I'll give you the same answer as to KC. You keep voting for more of the same - ie, nothing in the way of independence - and hope for a better result. Me, after a decade of the charlatans currently running the SNP, I've had enough - they won't be getting my vote and I feel no guilt about it as they have shown no stomach for the fight since 2014.

      Delete
  4. Agreed, Forbes is in no way going to save anything, she's another neoliberal management type when we really need something different. She might be the one waiting in the wings to sweep in and heal the SNP when Humza takes the fall later this year, but nothing good would come of it for the rest of us.

    As for the Labour and Starmer claiming independence is dead, who cares? That man-puppet can and will say what he likes (is told to), it makes not the slightest difference to Scottish independence. Labour's no more likely to be swayed by an SNP mandate for anything than the Tories are! If they win, let them crow about it, it doesn't make them right, and most importantly, it won't change people from indy to unionist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think she’s canny. If Indy polls strongly while Humza’s SNP gets humped, there’s an obvious direction to go.

      Neoliberal, whatever, as if Labour aren’t. One big reason for independence, to me, is Scotland’s future is forever in the hands of Scots. When we have the levers, we can fix our own mistakes.

      Delete
    2. Indeed, Indy should be the focus once Humza takes his fall and the SNP have to regroup. Forbes is canny alright, but from what I've seen she's not that keen to push for independence.

      The neoliberal consensus across all UK parties is a huge reason for needing independence, for me Forbes fits in with them too neatly.

      Delete
    3. If I had a magic wand, I wouldn’t make Kate a socialist, I’d wind time back to 2017 and zap Nicola with an insatiable independence thunderbolt. ;)

      Delete
    4. Kate Forbes is not neoliberal because she is religiously conservative and believes in Christian love for others neither of which is a neoliberal trait.

      Delete
  5. If there’s ever a vote for union it’ll be by a very narrow majority, and the UK will be a country forever divided, possibly resulting in civil unrest.
    This is something Brits either don’t think about or don’t care about. It’s union and to hell with the disastrous consequences.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Based on what I heard from Forbes in the leadership election she would do well for the SNP in elections but nothing on independence. Basically, a nicer Sturgeon, with no criminal tendencies and less lying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The idea is to force her hand by letting the party feel the drop that happens when Indy is off the table. No indy? Take this. Indy, now, you say? You have our attention.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous at 12.04am - they felt the drop in 2017 and were content.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, I know. Should be a whole lot worse for them this time, though, enough to eject the leader.

      I’m just choosing hope, I guess. Indy’s polling well. The door is open. Someone stand up and walk through!

      Delete
    4. Anon at 12.19am - so after 2017 Sturgeon came up with the wheeze of the continuous promise at elections of Indyref2 to maximise the SNP vote but do nothing about independence and the numpties fell for it.
      If it's a moderate fall in SNP MPs or no fall at all as plenty numpties posting on SGP now want then there will be just more of the empty words about independence and more crap policies.

      Delete
    5. @IfS: Polls speak louder than trolls. We will soon find out.

      Delete
  7. On the same day that the ICJ delivers its judgements allegations against 12 UN staff surface that they took part in the Hamas attack on 7/10/23. One of the judgements was to remove all impediments to aid getting to Gaza. What do the US and UK do - they stop all financial aid to the UN aid organisation in Gaza. The exact opposite of what the judgement said you should do. This could be seen as facilitating genocide. It certainly looks like a punishment for the ICJ for daring to go against the US and UK.
    As Israel has already killed 150 of the aid agency staff but missed the 12 accused of being Hamas members it kinda reflects the wanton killing by the IDF soldiers.

    Israel on the path to genocide with the UK assisting. What a shithouse the UK is run by shitty politicians.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good evidence-based post and good analysis.

      Delete
    2. With Westminster complicit in the genocide while Holyrood isn't -- a more significant split than that on Brexit -- we need independence for our honour as much as for our welfare. I'd guess that Yousaf, apart from his own sentiments, sees the political potential in this; let's hope that he uses it. (Next step in Israel's petty response to the court judgement: name Yousaf as another of those ubiquitous undercover Hamas agents.)

      Delete
  8. Good luck in the election James. Like the spider and Bruce story - keep going for it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Even English Tories are fed up with the Tories. Scottish Tories - never a peep because they are the colonial collaborators and they know their place. The English Tories would soon remind any Scottish (British) Tories that dared criticise an English Tory government that they are subservient and should shut up. When do you ever hear Scottish Tories saying anything negative about an English government - they are nowt but lapdogs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent comment IfS.

      Delete
    2. Ifs, what nonsense you spout.

      Delete
    3. You have to wonder what post-indy Scotland’s right of centre party would be like. Currently, you’re right, the North British Tories are defined entirely by their London masters, lickspittle and cringing as they go. That won’t last independence.

      Looking around Europe, there’s several kinds of party that could emerge in Scotland. Maybe it would even be a split from the Fergus Ewing wing of the post-independence SNP. Or the SNP itself might be displaced by a social democratic party or the like, and wind up on the right.

      Delete
    4. Anon at 10.36am - join my fan club. It's free.

      Delete
    5. Post-indy Scotland’s right of centre party would probably be like Alba.

      Delete
    6. Are Alba low-tax, big-business, climate change denying neoliberal bampots? Surely only some of these!

      Delete
    7. All of thoses things. Their economic (and climate change) policies were written by someone who trains hedge-fund managers in Hong Kong, if anyone cares. They want to privatise the governmental response to climate change. Wow. That's more right-wing than Reform UK. I guess Alba are more Reform UK than Tory, and some of their vocal members are most definately far-out bampots.

      Delete
    8. Albas policies are here and they are on the left: https://www.albaparty.org/where_we_stand

      Delete
    9. Anon at 11.54am - James Kelly is a vocal member surely you are not suggesting he is a far- out bampot. Plenty of Bampots in the greens and SNP though.

      Delete
    10. Kelly speaks out against the Alba bampots on this blog. I presume that would include the people who wrote their 'climate(nothing about climate) and energy' policies - 20% of them are about single-use vapes. Honestly FFS its a load of tripe.

      Delete
  10. Obviously people are far more concerned about things like the cost of living than constitutional stuff. I think that Sturgeon being questioned under oath next week will do the SNP no favours. Thereafter, there will be a Scottish covid enquiry where sending covid+ patients to care homes may be viewed not just as unbelievably stupid, but as criminal negligence (was Yousaf the health minister at the time....? He's the one that will be on general election TV debates).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “Obviously people are far more concerned about things like the cost of living than constitutional stuff.”

      Labour’s been praying at that altar for ten years now.

      Delete
  11. Also, as far as the general election goes, apart from the constitution, the SNP seem to have no policies apart from 'we probably agree with Starmer'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And that’s why they’ll be humped.

      If they’re just nuLabour with a dash of “indyref2 please”, they’re pointless.

      Delete
    2. The SNP does have policies of its own which will be revealed in the Westminster manifesto. These include environmental policies, policies to improve fairness, and policies to promote economic growth.

      Delete
    3. Policies Sir Kier will have a veto on, which he will be keen to use in order to flex his muscles as a British Nationalist.

      When you're stuck under London's thumb, the only policy of any substance is how to free yourself.

      Delete
  12. Obviously the SNP aren’t in a good place at the moment, and potentially things could get worse before they get better, but get better they will, I have little doubt.
    Independence can’t be achieved without a strong SNP. They do need to get their act together, no question, but people need to get behind the party.
    Voting Alba is one thing, but I feel those talking about spoiling ballot papers, abstaining or even voting for Labour, have frankly lost the plot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The SNP may not be the perfect party for everyone but a perfect party does not exist. It's important to put aside personal reservations on details of strategy and vote for the bigger picture.

      Delete
    2. The Scots may not be the perfect electorate for everyone but a perfect people does not exist. It's important to put aside petty partisan reservations on details of pocket-stuffing strategy and act for the bigger picture: of Scottish Independence.

      Delete
    3. K C "Independence can't be achieved without a strong SNP. " - that is your assertion once again KC but is not a fact. I see you got two of your repetitive sayings in that post, namely, " lost the plot" and " people need to get behind the party". No room for " get a grip ". You would almost think you were on the SNP payroll.

      Delete
    4. Agree with KC, here. Strong SNP is needed to achieve the goal of independence. Of that there can be no doubt. Scotland does best with a strong SNP.

      Delete
    5. Independence can’t be achieved without a strong SNP. They do need to get their act together, no question, but people need to get behind the party.

      I don't expect this to be answered since you only seem to do assertion, but just in case: if we "get behind" the SNP (i.e. vote for them at the Westminster election), what incentive do they have to get their act together? Won't a good result just encourage them to continue as they've been going?

      Delete
  13. Hi James, im a bit confused when you say "Panelbase have tended to be one of the more No-friendly firms" are you saying that the polls are not accurate because the company interpreted them with bias ?, or how else can they be no friendly ?, genuine question.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Methodology differences, resulting in different weights for different observable types.

      Delete
    2. The industry term for it that I've heard is: "house effect." Different polling firms use different techniques, and their errors tend to drift in one direction or another instead of randomly. The best way to read them is compare their latest poll with the trend of their previous ones, which will share their methodology.

      FiveThirtyEight has a writeup about how they compile their American polling averages here:

      https://abcnews.go.com/538/best-pollsters-america/story?id=105563951

      Delete
    3. The whole issue in polling is whether the sample is a random sample of those who cast a vote. Its a constantly changing issue. It's not just a matter of observed heterogeneity but also unobserved heterogeneity. There are relatively few "left hand" variables to train the data on, because there are few elections, and things can change between elections.

      Delete
    4. (cotd) the margin of error only takes into account classical statistical sampling error using the various laws of large numbers such as the Central Limit Theorem. But often the errors are modelling errors (e.g. choice of weighting) and these are not included in the margin of error.

      Delete
  14. Thanks for answering , it appears that polls dont mean that much then and would seem to be more a political weapon than a means to inform actual trends ?, so sad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 0% correct!

      Polls are imperfect, but are a hell of a lot better than baseless speculation. A canny reading can glean a lot of information from them, as is indeed the explicit purpose of James's blog!

      Delete
  15. Any thoughts on a Lab/Lib/Green coalition at Holyrood with these figures James? I know that would still be a minority Labour-led government but the only way they could be overruled would be for the SNP and Tories to join forces and who knows where that would lead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't see the Liberal Democrats and Greens going into coalition together. Particularly as the government wouldn't have a majority - there's often a feeling for small parties that any concessions they win in a coalition deal aren't worth the paper they're written on if there isn't a majority to guarantee they will actually be enacted.

      Delete
    2. Is my memory off or didn't Labour and the LibDems form some sort of coalition in the early days of Holyrood? I certainly wouldn't put it past them in the future, such is their hatred of independence message.

      Delete
    3. Yes, IIRC Labour and Lib-Dems have formed a formal coalition government in Scotland.

      Delete
    4. The first 8 years of devolution were all under a Lib Lab coalition. Liberal leader Jim Wallace was even acting first minister two times. The two parties are two faces of the same cheek, as it were!

      I can see the SNP propping up a Labour minority Scotgov rather than being seen to help the Tories. Labour can too. They taunt the SNP endlessly about it in Westminster.

      Delete
    5. Yes, there was a Lib-Lab coalition from 1999 to 2007, but the point is that it *always had a majority*.

      Delete
  16. The Sunday Mail keeping the pot boiling ( well lukewarm ) over the missing £600k. They claim that someone is saying that a forgery is afoot - a person unnamed seemingly says he/she didnae sign/know about some document. Even if you think Sturgeon is totally innocent any sensible person would say as the lead politician, supposedly for a national independence movement, she should have made sure this sort of thing just couldn't happen. The SNP were warned that having a married couple as leader and Chief Executive of a political party was just plain wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Does anyone know when the Alba committee election results will be announced? Voting took place yesterday.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Westminster doing its best to get the UK involved in two wars - against Russia in the middle of Europe and in the Middle East against Yemen and Iran. Absolute madness yet SNP numpties prattle on here about a vague we must wait for a sustained period of a substantial yes majority before anything is done - as if we have all the time in the world ( as the song goes)- more madness - we don't have all the time in the world. If Yousaf's family and fellow Muslims getting massacred in Gaza and others shot and imprisoned on a daily basis in the West Bank is not enough for him to show some urgency then the guy will never do anything about Scottish independence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course we need a sustained period of polls showing a majority in favour of independence. Clearly we haven’t got that at the moment. It’s only the odd polls that have Yes ahead.

      Delete
    2. IfS: would you accept the view that Humza has been quite good in terms of his commentary on the topic of Gaza.

      Delete
    3. KC: No, what we need is a vote on independence. If a sustained majority was going to change anything, we'd have noticed in 2020/21. But as it happens, it's not "only the odd poll" showing Yes ahead at present - it's pretty much every poll conducted by Ipsos or Find Out Now.

      Delete
    4. James, I agree we need a vote on independence, but we need to be confident of winning it. If we go back say the last 20 polls to the middle of last year, only 4 of these polls had Yes ahead. What you appear to be suggesting is the Ipsos and Find out Now polls are more reliable than the rest.

      Delete
    5. Anon 5.12pm - yes I have posted that previously. It's not saying a lot when you are commending someone for not wanting to see thousands of children being massacred but that is the low low standard set by Sunak and Starmer.
      K C comes along to demonstrate my point. You are getting bloody boring K C. Can you not even say the same but use some different words - you know - just for some variety in your boring monotony.

      Delete
    6. IFS, if I’m getting that boring why are you reading my posts and responding to them?

      Delete
    7. "What you appear to be suggesting is the Ipsos and Find out Now polls are more reliable than the rest"

      Is there any particular reason why Ipsos, the UK's gold standard pollster and the only telephone pollster in Scotland, would not be the most accurate? That's an important question to which I hope you have a non-flippant answer. The clear implication of what you've been saying is that polling accuracy is determined by majority vote - for example, that because Redfield & Wilton conduct six times as many polls as Ipsos, they must be six times as accurate. That's clearly a nonsense.

      Delete
    8. K C - its a public forum - think I've told you that before - you are a slow learner.

      Delete
    9. Nevertheless, 4 polls out of 20 showing Yes ahead wouldn’t exactly fill me with confidence if we had a referendum tomorrow.

      Delete
    10. IFS, and you’re a right pain in the arse.

      Delete
    11. I’m undecided on the K but I sure know what the C stands for.

      Delete
    12. KC: It would be more helpful if you simply answered the question you were asked. Do you have any particular reason for thinking the only telephone pollster, which consistently shows Yes ahead, may not be the most accurate?

      Delete
    13. Interesting. Who do I believe - SGP or Sunshine?

      Well, taking the last poll from 9 pollsters I get 3 out of 9 for a YES lead, and the average of those results gives YES 1 point behind NO, which I think James calls a statistical dead heat.

      So much for "4 out of 20". Null points for that.

      Delete
    14. And this is with the imminent end of Tory rule (for a term or few) clear to all on the horizon.

      What a starting point! We can do this. If but we had the willing leadership.

      Delete
  19. Will put all you Nats out of your misery. I’m a strong Unionist 😁😁😁
    Just been having a little fun, can’t believe none of you twigged😁
    Managed to keep K C going for longer than TartanTam ( the hapless IFS eventually sussed him out after about 4 days I think it was😁).
    Do yourselves all a favour and forget this independence nonsense, it ain’t ever happening.
    IFS what a gullible fool you’ve been🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You’re a clown? In that outfit? How could we not have guessed? 😉

      “Keep on voting SNP.”

      Delete
    2. I'll keep that final comment up, in spite of the "it ain't ever happening" provocation, to helpfully discredit everything that went before. This, ladies and gentlemen, is what you should bear in mind the next time you hear a purported independence supporter claiming we need a "sustained majority" before actually doing anything.

      Delete
    3. Good effort KC! You had me well fooled anyway!

      Delete
    4. K C - a perfect example of a sad Britnat. Makes a change from SNP numpties insulting me. A lesson for the SNP numpties who went along with his charade. Could K C be charlieboy having a bit of fun lying in his hospital bed?

      Delete
    5. That's the Way. Please Don't Go!

      Delete
    6. K C - calls himself a Unionist but in reality he is a British Nationalist pining after his lost Empire and Queen. There ain't no union - it's a charade, a falsehood, deceit, a con, just like K C. There is no such thing as a proud Unionist never mind a " strong Unionist".

      Delete
    7. Think independence for Scotland might even be disappointed kc turned out a troll, and mis his exchanges with the clown.
      Maybe he’s been singing “please don’t go” all night lol

      Delete
    8. Aye and TartanTam lol. Going to give you a wee break now though ifs.

      Delete
    9. Please Don’t Go ifs.

      Delete
    10. It should be remembered that Britnats like K C are not just stupid clowns/trolls these are the people who revel in supporting UK governments that murder peoples all over the world and sell arms to others to kill people all over the world. A bit of deceit to them is nothing.

      Delete
    11. IFS, 🎶🎶🎶 Please don’t go, don’t go, don’t go away, please don’t go 🎶🎶🎶🎶🎶 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

      Delete
  20. KC you should try looking up the psychopathy of trolling - it might interest you and perhaps be of help

    ReplyDelete
  21. I'm not too fussed about the trolling, it's almost inevitable after a while. But what he couldn't hide was the fact that he's an eejit yet several people were happy to agree with the nonsense he posted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True. But worth noting: his pish is so similar to the pish you'll read over and over again in the National…

      The trolls in the SNP's leadership are the ones to watch.

      Delete
  22. No I don't!

    Tee hee

    ReplyDelete
  23. This from Craig Murray is worth repeating.

    " If you visited one grave a day to pay your respects, for every Palestinian child Israel has killed in this genocide. It would take you over thirty years. And that's just the ones who have graves. "

    This is what the UK government is aiding and abetting. Remember that if you are tempted to vote for any Britnat party. Blair at least lied when going to war in Iraq but the Tories just shove it in your face that they support this genocide/ethnic cleansing and get their Britnat media to try and wash it clean for them. The Israeli army even bulldozes Palestinian graves just out of cruelty/badness and leaves the corpses exposed. Similarly, they often refuse to return the bodies of Palestinians who die in prison to their families as another form of sadistic punishment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “You’re either with us or you’re with the innocent.”

      Delete
    2. Why can't their pals in the oil rich Muslim countries take up the slack? They hate the West anyway apart from its aid programmes.

      Delete
    3. No. I said why can't their oil rich Muslim neighbours step in to help. Read what I said, not what you want to think I said - no mention of them fleeing Gaza (although it's interesting that the Arab states aren't exactly rolling out the welcome mat in any case).

      Delete
    4. Say what you mean, then. What do you think "other Arab states" should do.

      Besides lobbing missiles and harassing shipping lanes, there's not much they can do. Can't even get aid into Gaza without Israel holding it up.

      Delete
    5. I SAID what I meant! It's you who deliberately misinterpreted it so don't blame me for your mistake. And I've said what the Arab states should do - deliver their own aid program. Do you know that three of Hamas top leaders live in luxurious exile in Dubai - all of them are believed to be billionaires, maybe they could chip in.

      Delete
    6. You do realise it's a man-made famine in there thanks to Israel's blockade, don't you?

      No amount of PayPal is going to get food into Gaza with Israel's choke-hold.

      Delete
    7. Anon at 1.55pm - an aid program does not stop a shell, a bomb, a missile from a plane or a drone killing the children. Incredible I actually have to point this out. The problem with aid is the bombs, missiles and bullets stopping any aid getting in to Gaza. So are you deliberately being thick or just a naturally cold hearted thick person?

      Delete
  24. Anon whose comment I've just deleted: my patience is now wearing a bit thin. I don't want to have to turn pre-moderation back on simply because of one troublemaker with a personal grudge, but neither am I going to let you carry on like this indefinitely. If you want to make defamatory statements about me and perform a character assassination, it's a statement of the obvious that you'll have to find someone else's online space to do it on - you can't expect to do it on my mine. And for the avoidance of doubt, Anon at 9.49 is not me - I don't say things like "tee hee". Someone was trying to make you look like an idiot, and you helpfully fell into that trap by responding as if it was me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dinnae spoil it for the rest of us, anon. Awa' and crank your grievance by yourself!

      Delete
    2. I happened to see your comment before it was deleted and it was trolling. Abusive? Depends on your definition I suppose (no swearing for example) but it certainly wasn't complementary.

      Delete
    3. Of course it wasn't complimentary. Don't deny that one bit. Trolling? Behave. It was a legitimate point if said in harsh terms.

      Delete
    4. Anon: Take the hint. I've deleted four comments from you today, I don't want to have to delete anymore. You are not welcome to post here in the manner you have been attempting to post. End of story.

      Delete
    5. (I am not the person whose posts got deleted). Why post anything uncomplimentary? It is James's forum, it would be rude to post uncomplimentary material about him here.

      Delete
  25. The Britnat troll K C stupidly thinks he will stop me posting by trolling me about going away. I've been trolled/ insulted by bigger idiots than him with no intention of going away. Like all these Britnats they cannae argue for their UK so resort to deceit and trolling. Not sure if K C is an adult but certainly seems to have a low mental age.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. IFS, 🎶🎶🎶🎶(shake, shake, shake) Shake your booty 🎶🎶🎶🎶

      Delete
  26. From the National:

    She [Slater] replied: “The Scottish Greens have been polling higher than ever, ever since we joined the Bute House Agreement."

    Yes, and the SNP have been polling lower and lower. I wonder if there's any correlation between the two things?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m looking forward to the flak the Greens will get when they run their biggest slate of candidates to date, and win precisely bugger all for it. A few of them will inevitably be within the SNP's losing margin. Grab the popcorn!

      Delete
    2. To be fair: the Greens are a separate political party. They are no more honour bound to stand aside for the SNP as we are obliged to wheesht for Indy and vote for them.

      If only the Greens weren’t as daft a bunch of numpties as the SNP these days. I’d like to vote for them in good conscience like I used to.

      Delete
    3. The Scottish Greens are too socially liberal for many voters.

      Delete
    4. I’m pretty liberal. They’re just too *daft* for me. The Greens would do much better to focus on their core issue of environmentalism. Their problems are strikingly similar to the SNP’s.

      Delete
    5. I am pro-environment but I am socially conservative so I cannot vote for them.

      Delete
  27. James: Are the recent Alba committee election results now up yet? After having looked online I cannot find any reference to them currently anywhere on Alba's online website.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The House Of Horrors

    The Tory government is currently giving an Israel and Gaza Statement. The minister is more upset about people daring to use the word genocide than children being blown to bits, other children getting limbs amputated with no pain killers and children being orphaned. A complete house of horrors who are focussing on the 9 people that Israel claim were involved in the 7/10/23 attack. Other Tories make other assorted claims with no evidence to back them up to deflect from the ICJ decision. Some Tory prat wants them to educate Palestinian children to love their occupier/oppressors who murder and lock up other Palestinians on a daily basis. Every one of these MPs should be forced to declare how much money they have received from Israeli and Jewish organisations in the last five years before they speak so that we can see clearly where they are coming from.

    The Tory minister just gave non answers and gaslighting answers to questions.

    For all those Labour MPs, including Corbyn, raising very concerned questions I say a Labour gov under Starmer would just be the same.

    The Palace of Westminster is a corrupt House of Horrors and we should no longer have representatives in that place. I will now not vote for any party that says they will send an MP to Westminster. Sorry James that includes Alba. I have no desire to have anyone representing me there. So I will only vote for ISP if they stand in East Ren as they have a policy of non attendance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How long will it be before the Tories say they will assist in the " voluntary emigration" of Palestinians to that "safe" country called Rwandra.

      Delete
    2. IfS: Do you know whether ISP can grow as a party in terms of the number of voters selecting it on the ballot paper in an election?

      Delete
    3. Question to Tory minister - what action will you take to ensure Israel complies with the ICJ judgements?
      Answer by Tory minister - we have already made representations to Israel.

      Question to Tory minister- does the UK government intend to comply with the legally binding judgements of the ICJ?
      Answer by Tory minister - we comply with international law.

      Question to Tory minister - will you immediately cease selling arms to Israel who according to the ICJ is now on a course of genocide?
      Answer by minister - nae chance.

      Delete
  29. IFS most definitely is a gullible fool. Ooh the prostate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Get it right fucking up your hairy hole, your majesty!

      Delete
    2. Anon please do not use bad language here.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous at 9:52pm, it’s sad if that’s the only way you can react to a bit of banter.

      Delete
  30. "all I can tell you is that a rough recalculation shows that the headline numbers must be either Yes 49%, No 51% or Yes 50%, No 50%"

    The raw numbers seem to be published now on Norstat/Panelbase' website - for a base of likely voters these are:

    YES: 392
    NO: 399

    So YES = 49.6% i.e. 50% rounded.

    The previous Panelbase poll with fieldwork from 2nd-5th October 2023 for a base of likely voters were as follows:

    YES: 409
    NO: 451


    So YES = 47.6% i.e. 48% rounded.

    Therefore a +2% increase for YES on a like for like basis.

    ReplyDelete