SCOT goes POP!: 2024-12-22

Saturday, December 28, 2024

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

Friday, December 27, 2024

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.

* * *

Thursday, December 26, 2024

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.

* * *

Wednesday, December 25, 2024

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.

* * *

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.

* * *

Tuesday, December 24, 2024

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.

* * *

Monday, December 23, 2024

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.

* * *

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.

Sunday, December 22, 2024

"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%.

* * *