Just a quick note to let you know I have an analysis piece in The National today about last night's Find Out Now MRP poll - you can read it HERE, and it's also in the print edition.
There was some discussion in the last thread about whether a projection of 40 seats for the SNP can really be considered a "landslide" given that it would be a drop of eight seats, and whether a projection of 13 seats for Labour can really be considered a "flop" given that it would be a gain of twelve seats. This is an example of how the expectations game changes the supposed "meaning" of election results. The 2017 result was objectively excellent for the SNP by historical standards, but the media were able to treat it as a disaster because everyone was expecting better. At present, expectations for Labour in Scotland have gone sky-high, and thus if they fall well short of becoming the largest party, it's going to look like abject failure. Conversely, 40 seats for the SNP would now strengthen rather than weaken Humza Yousaf's position. I still don't think that's at all likely to be the outcome, especially not after an 'away fixture' campaign dominated by London media coverage of London parties. But there's no doubt that there's now a genuine and important difference of opinion between different pollsters on the current state of play in Scotland.
I’m the one who quibbled about the meaning of a "landslide" in the last thread.
ReplyDeleteIt all goes back to the election night coverage of 2001. It was, as you'll probably remember, a remarkably eventless night compared to 1997. Labour was still in total command of UK politics. The election saw them keep 412 of their seats, only losing 6. This was bang on expectations.
As a student at the time, I followed it most the night in any case. In a quiet moment between declarations, I remember John Curtice and David Dimbleby disputing whether the emerging picture really counted as a landslide. I don't recall which one of them made the point that a "landslide", going by the word itself, is surely a massive change event, where things tumble en masse. You expect a lot of fury and tumult. 1997 was a perfect example of a landslide. But what was 2001? "A static landslide?" I stroked my chin and concurred that this was an irritatingly good point. It wasn't even that Labour fell short of expectations, there just wasn't much of a *change* at all.
Mind, the next time more than a hundred seats changed hands was 2010 when Gordon Brown lost but Cameron didn't quite win. Was that a landslide? It didn't feel like one because where was the majority? So I accept the metaphor breaks down in close contests.
On second thought: I’m pretty sure it was Dimbleby who made the pedantic point. Curtis wouldn't dare!
DeleteI guess a big factor is whether the away fixture element that James emphasises is truly an advantage for Labour or whether it highlights Labour policies that might be expected to be seen as a negative by the Scottish electorate e.g. Gaza. Could be those disaffected with the SNP decide the alternative isn't worth their vote either and just stay at home?
ReplyDeleteThat's actually a very good point right now. Starmer's cowardice is sensible so long as people are looking at the Tories, but the more Labour's in the focus, the higher risk his strategy becomes. Winning by default isn't something you can secure for yourself.
DeleteHaving just read your National piece, James, would it be fair for me to imply that you're worried about Alba's 12 seats strategy? This bit made me think:
ReplyDelete"But the reality is that the positive polls for the SNP do not actually differ all that much from the negative polls in terms of the popular vote. Humza Yousaf finds himself firmly in the scary zone where just a few percentage points in either direction will be massively magnified by the first-past-the-post voting system and have huge consequences in terms of seats."
Alba have taken a democratic decision to stand in 12 or more seats, so if that remains the position I have to accept it, but I've made no secret of the fact that I believe it's a strategic mistake, both for Alba itself and the wider independence cause. It would make far more sense to stand in just the two Alba-held seats, and concentrate all the available resources in those two seats plus in the Western Isles in support of Angus MacNeil.
DeleteI agree, in fact I think if things had gone differently in previous elections they could easily have eschewed WM, saving themselves for SP.
DeleteAs it is, we could see this election as a pretty much non event for the SNP/Independence movement. It's going to be relatively bad, just who knows how bad. In those circumstances maybe Alba thinks now's as good time as any when little is at stake. I feel if there truly was a defacto vote, the only reason it would be a thing is if the SNP are strong to propose it. Therefore Alba would probably stand aside.
I don't want there to nothing at stake this year but the fact is, it's not a defect referendum and the SNP/Independence will still exist as a movement in any case.
The way I look at it is: do we want Humza Yousaf and his Continuity Squad leading us down the swanny after this election? That's what's at stake.
DeleteThere's no passion and no plan for independence with this current leadership. Why that dismays me is because the SNP are de facto the public's chosen embodiment of the Yes movement. When the SNP's lost direction, so have we all.
If they're lucky, they'll hold on in Westminster, and will get a Holyrood election of some difficulty. The way Humza's administration's been going, who seriously expects good news there? They'll lose seats to Labour, they'll lose the Yes majority, and might even lose first place. Once the First Minister is no longer a Yesser—even just on paper, like Humza—then we really have lost our leverage, and de facto Westminster elections would be all we had left. That would need quite a heroic SNP leader then indeed, so it just keeps on getting harder…
So yes, there's stakes all right this year. But not the ones the SNP campaign machine would have you think.
I understand what you mean by the "home" and "away" fixture stuff but I do think it's somewhat over played. I think the key to prominence in the election is whether the SNP is considered a real threat or not. If the SNP are a strong force they are part of the UK discussion at a first rank media level (whether that be Miliband in Salmond's pocket or in a future case a defacto referendum). The headway is upto the SNP's real threat. In Scotland, independence is still a dominant issue and UK elections will not be like the 90s/00s anymore. Less London-centric media is now the norm too in many households.
ReplyDeleteI see Westiminster elections as actually being less burdensome in some ways for the SNP in that it's cleanly about Scotland's place in the Union/stronger for Scotland down there... rather than perceived weaknesses in day to day government policy in HR (which even supporters are wary of blindly supporting election after election). I'm more likely to vote SNP in Westminster elections where no policies but independence are at play, than HR where i'm giving carte blanche to some poor daily decisions. I know i'm not alone.
What do you think of the actual politicians such voting secures for the SNP in London? Do the like of Pete Wishart and Ian Blackford let alone Mairi Black inspire you with any confidence of seeing independence in their or your lifetime?
DeleteI certainly don't see the BBC or the other London media talking about independence like they used to. Everyone's cottoned on that the SNP's not there to settle up, they're there to settle in.
That's a problem about the SNP strategy and verve of politician chosen. not the point I was making.
DeleteFor what it's worth I thought Blackford, Black and Wishart have done well at times. The strategy post Jan 2023 has been wrong and it had to be a united front when a defacto vote was pushed for under Sturgeon. She didn't get that united front, that's the problem. She got useful idiots like Stewart McDonald and others rubbishing the idea for fear of being seen as unreasonable, who ironically will probably now lose their seats because they've stymied the only real reason for voting for them after a decade
... Regan's defacto vote is the right strategy with the wrong person leading it. But the idiots sniping from the sidelines about international recognition before such a vote had even been called and counted have shot themselves in the foot. Without Independence as a real strategy, there's next to no reason for voting SNP in a UK election. "But what would we do if we got a majority of Scots voting for their independence and London didn't recognise!!?? " We'd be in a different ball game! That's what! The grievance machine could be turned to 9 and London would be forced into a response. There would, at least, be some moderates in England suggesting we should be given a vote. Much better than the slow death the so-called pragmatists (I am a pragmatist myself really!) have got us into, where we can't even ask our own people for fear of what others might say. Appalling and self defeating.
The strategy for me has to be something which captures the imagination of Scots to vote SNP, therefore, the threat increases and subsequently media interest.
"We'd be in a different ball game! That's what!"
DeleteExactly. All it takes is the SNP running in a general election on an explicit platform for independence, and for a majority of Scots to vote for it, and we are in a very different political situation.
As we have discovered in recent elections: a mandate is not a magic spell. You can win a majority of Scottish seats in either parliament, or both, and no Section 30 comes trotting up the road. It's magical thinking to believe it does.
But the event of a majority vote of all Scotland for independence is a very different beast to a regular election success. Something made that happen. Scotland itself has been through the journey to Yes and won't soon forget it. It would be 2014 with the outcome reversed. It redefines politics and all that happens onwards.
London can try to ignore it. "Now is not the time for independence" would hardly end the issue, though. The Scotland which votes for independence is on the track to achieving it, as has every land once ruled by London.
^ Delete ;-)
ReplyDeleteAnon at 11:06, sadly for you my comment above is true.
ReplyDeleteI'd engage you—you're all too easy—but these words are going in the trashcan when James deletes your spam.
ReplyDeleteMy words might be going in the trash can, but as I say they’re true.
ReplyDeleteNats don’t like to hear the truth.
Don't you mean "natsis", GWC?
ReplyDeleteGWC was definitely wittier. He'd have Nessie up to something with "Knickerless"
ReplyDeleteThe people of Scotland will never support genocide, that clown Starmer will find a big surprise at the polls
ReplyDeleteI was expecting Rishi to call the general election in May, to coincide with English local elections he was going to lose. The idea being that the bloodbath in the locals would trigger revolt in his party, especially in parliament, and make his final months ungovernable. Might as well just get it out the way, and hope for some unity in the push.
ReplyDeleteBut if there really is a turn in the polls, that idea is out the window. May's locals then become the acid test of his chances.
James, any comment on Wings poll charts today. He still uses the flat line one you have discredited before, but he does seem to have run a wider spectrum of polls as well and the results still seem pretty static. Is there anything to be said for his argument that nothing much has changed or will change without an active campaign via a de facto referendum
ReplyDeleteHis post-Sturgeon graph is just as rigorous as the "all polls included so long as their result is 47" one before. He can't even be arsed with scale line marking 50%. Hard science!
DeleteThe real situation is the more complex plot he includes from What Scotland Thinks. Zoom it out enough, though, and everything looks flat.
I'm not talking about his post Sturgeon graph but the one which goes back to June 2016. If accurate, support for independence
Deletestill seems pretty static when nobody is actively campaigning but I'm no expert on the subject.😁
I can't be bothered properly reading his latest rambling epic, but having skimmed through it there appears to be three graphs. The first is the 'static at 47%' graph which I've debunked umpteen times by providing the actual yearly averages of Yes support in all polls, for example here -
Deletehttps://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2022/11/wings-watch-ive-calculated-average.html
The second appears to be a 'satirical' graph purporting to show that support for independence has shot up since Nicola Sturgeon departed, and in fairness he indicates pretty clearly that it's not meant to be taken seriously.
The third looks like a screenshot from John Curtice's What Scotland Thinks website, so in that sense it's probably highly accurate, but the problem is that we're looking at the trend line from such an absurd distance that it's difficult for the naked eye to make sense of the changes. Remember that we were starting from 45% support in 2014, so we only needed a five point increase to get over the line. That sort of change, especially when achieved gradually and with fluctuations along the way, will not look particularly dramatic when viewed from the distance of the moon.
That said, the average at present is still slightly below 50% on most measures, but it's well above 45% however you measure it.
The days of 30% and 2:1 in favour of union are gone. That in itself shows Yes had increased, not by enough but it's the direction of travel potentially. Not sure but I tend to think the No are dying faster than Yes. I think this is the slow progress we're seeing.
DeleteMeans for nought if SNP don't inspire people to vote for them as the vehicle tho.
"Not sure but I tend to think the No are dying faster than Yes."
DeleteI implore people not to fall for the 'demographic inevitability' delusion.
Absolutely. It's a myth. *Migration* is very real in Scotland—both here in Edinburgh and everywhere I go in the Highlands—and the people who come here are by and large from England. (The richer the neighbourhood the richer the mix of native English, but most of my neighbours here are migrants who formerly lived in England and freely use that name for where they now live.) Post-Brexit, this is only likely to increase over "foreign" Europeans.
DeleteLook at Wales for a preview of Scotland's future. It only gets harder with more migration from your intimate neighbour.
DeleteAnon at 8:43, I have to correct you. People moving from another part of the UK to Scotland are not migrants.
Delete@ 8:51
DeleteAnd you are no supporter of independence, I see. Being British means being anti-separatism.
By the way: I speak as someone with an English mother, myself. She voted Yes in 2014, but sadly died in Nicola's wasted years of opportunity since. So I know what a myth the idea of Wait For Indy can be.
DeleteEnglish Yes supporters are quite a rare bunch. Her compatriots voted something like 90/10 against independence in 2014, as I recall from the study after the referendum. Being English in Scotland tends to make you wary of the border, especially if you don't embrace Scottish identity as she did.
Anon at 10:30, you’re bloody right I’m no supporter of independence.
DeleteAs a leading economist said in the lead up to the 2014 referendum “independence is the economics of a madhouse “
Anon at 8.51am - you are correct they are not migrants they are colonial settlers.
DeleteIfs, LOL.
DeleteAnon at 11.17am - that would be a Britnat economist. The same type of person who said in 2014 that the oil would run out in ten years time as the Britnats proudly issue many many more licenses for new oilfields.
DeleteNorway's independence having a more than trillion pound wealth fund and a poverty rate of 0.5% of the population when set beside Scotland in the union has no wealth fund and 19% poverty rate gives the lie to your silly post.
Aye, once we get independence we’ll have a standard of living similar to Norway in no time.
DeleteHappy days ahead!
I think y'all need to get behind a de facto referendum. If there ain't one PRONTO, there gonna be civil unrest.
ReplyDeleteSure thing, bud.
DeleteAye you have to wonder why the SNP SG haven’t gone for the de facto referendum. All they need is even just a slim majority of seats for pro Indy parties, then declare independence. Job done!
DeleteIt's called democracy, I guess. It might even catch on.
DeleteAre there results going to take the gass of the pedal for the SNP? Truly bad polling would result in more effort in the campaign
ReplyDeleteHumza recently warned against complacency in an interview on BBC1.
DeleteAn example of his "sureness of touch" and of how he is "growing into the role", "we can all agree", etc, etc, etc.
DeleteOh I wouldn't worry about that, Mike, there'll be plenty enough bad polls for the SNP to come. The monthly poll from Redfield & Wilton has been consistently poor for them.
DeleteSqueaky bums time shall resume soon enough. Not that it’s spurred them to actually *do* anything so far. They seem to be as short of ideas as they are money.
DeleteHumza and the SNP have had a good week for sure. The party now is riding high in terms of Westminster seat projections while my impression is that Humza has gained standing for his leadership on Gaza and on the domestic economic policy space.
DeleteHQ calling minion, HQ calling minion: would you PLEASE remember to always mention his "sureness of touch" and how he is "growing into the role". We don't pay you to leave out the key lines.
DeleteWings over Scotland inadvertently makes the point that on Humza's leadership the position of independence has held up and arguably increased in the polls since Nicola Sturgeon stepped down. Not to be sneezed at, when you consider that Sturgeon was widely praised as one of the very best political communicators in the business.
ReplyDeleteWhich probably indicates that support for independence has got very little to do with what the SNP or Yousaf are doing. Support for the SNP no longer correlates anything like as strongly as it did with support for independence.
DeleteGiven the variances in the polls I fail to see how they can be taken with less than a very large pinch of salt.
ReplyDeleteYes, I must admit I am deeply sceptical about Redfield and Wilton results, they're too far out of line with credible pollsters like Ipsos and Find Out Now. I totally agree with you.
DeleteSo do I.
DeleteDE FACTO NOW
DeleteYes, it's the democratic way. The future of any country should be decided by majority vote, not minority veto.
DeleteI am resigned to independence happening within the next two and a half years, and yes, a de facto referendum is probably the way it will happen.
DeleteIt has to be a de facto referendum now these bloody Tories have denied us our democratic right to a referendum.
DeleteWe have to give Nicola so much credit for coming up with this brilliant idea and I really hope she’s there with Humza when the celebrations kick off.
Very much enjoyed this piece and the thread. So refreshing that, at least among vocal activists, the 'trust the acolytes of St. Nicola' line seems to be dying off.
ReplyDeleteIf I allow myself to be highly optimistic for a moment and we are on a road towards an expressed, democratic will for independence then the question becomes what next to get there ?
I freely admit to having slid onto the edges of things in the past few years due to age and reduced energy but it seems to me that having a strongly organised movement separate from the parties is going to be essential. At present the only credible one that I'm aware of is 'Believe in Scotland'. Nothing is perfect but it seems to be organised, active and independent of the malign, trougher atmosphere around our 'politicians'.
I use my tiny influence to encourage people towards it - with their eyes wide open.
We need to be able to pressurise the careerists !
I went on the Believe in Scotland march in Edinburgh last year. It was quite an event. I've never seen so many Greens on an indy march, or so many SNP branch banners. The demographic was younger than I’m used to, indeed the whole crowd was quite distinct from the usual faces I march with on AUOBs. I hardly saw a single Estrella, and certainly zero Wings banners, Siol nan Gaidheal or Alba. Instead: the First Minister gave a speech at the rally at Holyrood. The first time I've ever seen that waiting at the end of a march!
DeleteI had hoped to compare it to AUOB Edinburgh a month later, but that one was called off in a storm.
From what I saw, Believe in Scotland are much, much closer to the SNP and Green leadership than AUOB has ever been. Whether that's a good thing for being able to convince the higher ups is debatable.
Absolutely. Grass roots activism is much needed. Anything that makes the SNP and others feel pressurised to bring Indy up the list of priorities and to encourage them to work together must be done . Even petitions / demands by email etc.
ReplyDeleteto ask them to work with Alba and allow them a clear run in their two seats. They will keep fanying aboot otherwise. Probably will anyway.
The SNP might actually listen to the movement? That would be a first!
DeleteNo, I think the next SNP leadership election will be the pivotal moment. If you want a say: maybe join up in expectation of a vote?
Probably not but if some sort of declaration was made saying: we demand all MPs , MSPs sign a document that Scotland is Sovereign and parliament has the right to self-determination it might concentrate their minds . Also it could be demanded that sitting MPs that support Indy should not be opposed. Or they would be boycotted.
DeleteThe folk have lost heart they see no way forward . Anything is worth a try.
Wasn't that The Stirling Declaration?
DeleteA sterling example of our own powerlessness, outside of the organised structure of the party.
I think it’s pretty obvious there’s a majority in favour of independence now.
ReplyDeleteI just don’t understand why the SNP haven’t declared the upcoming GE a de facto referendum. Maybe they’ll have a change of heart given this latest poll, and especially if future polls show similar results.
You’d think it would be a no brainier. If this poll is at all reliable, independence would be pretty much guaranteed with a de facto.
Agreed. The problem has never been public opinion - support for independence is there, as polls from the more credible polling companies like Ipsos consistently show. The sole problem has been the SNP's timidity.
DeleteI agree up to a point. There seems to be a couple of polling companies consistently showing a majority in favour of independence, however most do not. However I do agree this latest poll is very encouraging for the SNP and independence in general.
DeleteA de facto isn't "once in a generation", either, as James has consistently written. If I were advising the SNP, I'd put the de facto referendum clause in big bold letters bang at the top of the manifesto, then follow it with the usual wider slate of policies (which we're permanently powerless to enact in that foreign parliament, anyway). That way they can have their cake and eat it. Every election is a de facto, and if at first you can't succeed, try try try again.
DeleteElections are regular, by law. They don't pose the problem of "Neverendum" as special referenda do.
"There seems to be a couple of polling companies consistently showing a majority in favour of independence, however most do not."
DeleteMost do not? How are you defining 'most'? Are you including Mickey Mouse polling companies like Redfield? The credible polling companies have Yes ahead.
Cherry picking polls now? You learned a thing or two from perfect flatline Stu!
DeleteAnon at 9.00am says:- " I don't understand why ......" let me help you anon. The SNP under Sturgeon's gang are happy with devolution and that makes them Britnats. Judge them by their actions.
DeleteEveryone should be judged by their actions, you're quite right. Whether they're the Scotgov, Labour, Russia or Israel. The truth of you is what you *do.*
DeleteYes, it's really important not to cherry-pick polls. Credible pollsters like Ipsos consistently have Yes ahead. That would suggest Redfield are outliers, and those who cling to the No leads in Redfield polls are probably guilty of wishful thinking.
DeleteI'll point out that polls are snapshots, not predictions. The event of a de facto referendum would change the political reality that's being measured by the polls. When you force it into the coverage, into the debate, and into people's minds, people change their view. I'd be pleased to start from just below 50 where we may well be now.
DeleteI’m thinking the problem with a de facto referendum might be Westminster not accepting it in the event of a majority of pro Indy seats.
DeleteOr do we just declare independence regardless?
Majority of seats is no good. We already crossed that threshold before. You're hardly on firm footing for the ultimate act of politics when you've just lost seats you held before!
DeleteIt's a de facto *referendum*. Referendum rules apply. A majority of votes is the winning line. That's what gives it authoritative, democratic power.
Norway 0.5% of the population in poverty. Scotland 19% in poverty.
ReplyDeleteNorway a massive trillion pound wealth fund. Scotland no wealth fund.
Aye unionists its just fandabidossey being a colony of England.
Excellent point.
DeleteWe have to have a de facto referendum, let’s get independence done.
I agree, these wretched Tories have denied us our democratic right to a referendum. The SNP need to declare the GE a de facto referendum. We’ve waited far too long.
Delete