Friday, July 18, 2025

Now that Starmer is taking a zero tolerance approach to any suggestion that there can be hierarchies of racism, it seems clear that Labour must disband itself for its racist refusal to accept Scotland's right to exist and to defend herself

I remember in my days on Political Betting, aka 'Stormfront Lite', I used to sometimes get into heated discussions with the right-wing Tory hordes about whether it was possible for Scottish people to suffer racism from people elsewhere in the UK.  "Scotland is a region not a race" was the basic message I would often hear, although that was somewhat undermined by the precedent set by a court case at the time in which someone was found guilty of making racist comments that were specifically about Andy Murray's Scottishness.

I presume an inescapable logical extension of Keir Starmer's ludicrous decision to remove the whip from Diane Abbott yet again, and of his reasons for doing so, is that any Labour MP who ever questions whether it's possible for Scots to suffer racism that is of equal severity to the racism suffered by non-white populations will automatically be booted out of the Parliamentary Labour Party.  Indeed logically it must be racist to deny Scotland's right to exist as a sovereign state.  It must be racist to deny Scotland's right to defend herself.  There can be no hierarchy of racism here.  Starmer must take a zero tolerance approach to all Jockophobic denials of Scotland's right to exist and to defend herself, which inescapably means, I'm afraid, that the Labour party must now disband itself after decades of shockingly severe breaches.

I had actually been thinking about Diane Abbott in recent days, because if hypothetically she was to follow Jeremy Corbyn into the new left-wing party, that might boost its electoral chances quite considerably.  And yet I remember her saying a number of times over the years that "the left doesn't leave the Labour party, it's always the right that walks away", which I take to mean that she would never leave herself.  But could Starmer have just stupidly put her in a position where she has absolutely nothing left to lose?  She was thinking about retirement even before the last election, so presumably she intends this to be her final term in parliament anyway.  With no real incentive for her to spend potentially years grovelling to get the whip back, she might just conclude that a more constructive use of her time is to help get a viable alternative to Starmerism off the ground.

*  *  *

The running total in the Scot Goes Pop 2025 fundraiser currently stands at £3100, meaning it is 46% of the way towards the target figure of £6800.  If you'd like to help the blog keep going, donations by card are welcome HERE, or alternatively you can cut out fees altogether (depending on which option you select from the menu) by making a direct donation via PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Wednesday, July 16, 2025

Hammerblow for Starmer as YouGov poll shows he is less popular than Jeremy Corbyn, Reform UK's lead has trebled, and the SNP have yet another handsome lead in the Scottish subsample

Starmer's decision today to withdraw the whip from four Labour MPs is a sign of weakness, not of strength, because if it's a disciplinary matter to organise a partly successful rebellion that clearly attracted the sympathies of the majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party, then the leadership is unambiguously at war with those who sustain them in office.  Without some humble pie being eaten to pave the way for a reconciliation, the chances of Starmer being deposed during this parliament have surely increased.  Which may be no bad thing for the Labour party as a whole, because yesterday's YouGov poll was an unmitigated horror show for them.

GB-wide voting intentions (YouGov, 13th-14th July 2025):

Reform UK 28% (+2)
Labour 22% (-2)
Conservatives 17% (+1)
Liberal Democrats 16% (+1)
Greens 12% (+1)
SNP 3% (-)
Plaid Cymru 1% (-)

Scottish subsample: SNP 33%, Reform UK 22%, Labour 18%, Liberal Democrats 12%, Conservatives 7%, Greens 6%

Recent YouGov polls had shown a narrowing of the gap between Reform and Labour, opening up the possibility of a 're-crossover' that might put Labour back into the lead for the first time since the spring.  But most other polling firms haven't really corroborated that trend, and now YouGov have returned to the pack and dashed Starmer's hopes by suddenly showing a trebling of the Reform lead from two points to six.

The Scottish subsample isn't quite as good for the SNP as last week's, but it's still plenty good enough to be getting on with, and continues their run of favourable results since the Hamilton by-election.  The Tories' dire fifth-place showing in Scotland may seem scarcely believable, but in fact it's been a pretty consistent pattern for months now.  We may at last be seeing The Strange Death of Tory Scotland.

Net ratings for party leaders and potential party leaders:

Ed Davey (Liberal Democrats): -6
Nigel Farage (Reform UK): -31
Kemi Badenoch (Conservatives): -35
Jeremy Corbyn (Independent Alliance): -37
Keir Starmer (Labour): -44

So Starmer now has an inferior net rating to Jeremy Corbyn, and Corbyn is also ahead in terms of the percentage of respondents who view each individual positively (25% for Corbyn and 23% for Starmer).  Remember that when Starmer replaced Corbyn as Labour leader five years ago, it was supposed to be a no-brainer that Labour had just acquired a much more electable leader.  That theory may now be tested to destruction, with Corbyn looking set to lead or co-lead a party in direct competition with Labour.

Incidentally, one of the suspended Labour MPs is Brian Leishman, who represents Alloa & Grangemouth.  That means the number of Scottish Labour MPs has been for the time being reduced from 37 to 36, leaving the party with 63% of Scottish seats at Westminster.

*  *  *

The running total in the Scot Goes Pop 2025 fundraiser currently stands at £3100, meaning it is 46% of the way towards the target figure of £6800.  If you'd like to help the blog keep going, donations by card are welcome HERE, or alternatively you can cut out fees altogether (depending on which option you select from the menu) by making a direct donation via PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Stew told you about Rachel Reeves

It's quite true, you know - Stew did tell you about Rachel Reeves.  Alas, the main thing he told you was: "it's 4th July 2024, it's general election day, and you know what you have to do, alert readers - vote for the party of Rachel Reeves and make her Chancellor of the Exchequer for the next five years".

I'm sure Stew will be putting the flesh on the bones of his top-secret masterplan, and explaining exactly how helping to elect this wretched Labour government has brought us closer to independence, very soon.  Like, you know, any day now.

Yay!  Get in there!  SANDIE PEGGIE!  NHS FIFE!  

OK, so it turns out the explanation of the top-secret masterplan will have to wait a while, because Stew has nabbed himself actual TICKETS.

It's the HOTTEST TICKET IN TOWN and Stew has GOT IN.   Do NOT mention the genocide to this man over the coming days, because he has a lifetime dream to fulfil and he intends to ENJOY it without distraction.

We're all so happy for you, Stew.  I mean, SANDIE PEGGIE and NHS FIFE.  It's like being able to say you were at Woodstock.

Oh, and I'm glad to hear that you've only been relentlessly stalking me to keep yourself amused, because I've heard it suggested in some quarters that stable individuals probably wouldn't write two thousand word articles, with borderline-psychopathic headlines like "Anatomy of a Lunatic", in which they tie themselves up in knots trying to frantically explain how demanding that people must vote tactically on the list is simply their way of expressing their opposition to tactical voting on the list.  Calm individuals in full control of themselves, I've heard it suggested, probably wouldn't shriek "you are IDIOTS if you don't vote tactically on the list, and you are IDIOTS if you somehow think what I've just said means I've reversed my opposition to tactical voting on the list".

So it's a relief to hear that appearances have been so deceptive on this occasion and that it's just been a purely recreational thing for you.  A bit of fun, rather than something you've felt compelled and driven to do because you're, y'know, a bit rattled.  Just goes to prove what I've always said - perceptions of who is "squirming" and "fuming" are very much in the eye of the beholder.

In any case, that's all behind you now, Stew, because from this day forth you are officially LIVIN' THE DREAM.

SANDIE PEGGIE.

NHS FIFE.

It's not just the top tier of entertainment, it's the top tier of human experience.

I know I speak for all Scot Goes Pop readers when I say I am green with envy.



Tuesday, July 15, 2025

Why Wes Streeting isn't singing "Oh Jeremy Corbyn" anymore

Just a quick note to let you know that I have a new article at The National about the Find Out Now poll suggesting the new Jeremy Corbyn / Zarah Sultana party could have as much public support as the Labour party itself.  You can read it HERE.

Eh Stew, tu?

I said yesterday that it looked like all we were going to get by way of a response from the controversial "Stew" blogger on the issue of tactical voting on the list was his half-hearted "oh you just didn't understand the complexity and subtlety of my insights, never mind, let's get back to my 24/7 commentary about Sandie Peggie and NHS Fife".  But thrillingly, he did respond further yesterday, albeit just to have another generic whinge because I ignored his attempted framing of the issue as being all about "falsehoods" and "miserable lies".


Well, as my post yesterday was in response to a tweet from Stew that literally didn't say anything at all, there wasn't really much I could do except rapidly move on to a different subject, and Palestine seemed as good a choice as any.  "How can you waste time talking about the most horrific genocide of the 21st century when there's SANDIE PEGGIE and NHS FIFE going on?"  Yes, I know, Stew, I know...but hang on, what's this?  Didn't you spontaneously raise the issue of Palestine yourself yesterday?  OK, it was only to complain that the Palestinian people's attempts to survive the genocide are just as tiresome  and tedious as Israel's perpetration of the genocide, and that "both sides" (yes, the BOTH SIDES KLAXON has sounded) should be annihilated with nuclear weapons so that they stop annoying you with distractions from the all-consuming NHS Fife issue.  But even so.  

Specifically, Stew was furious with the attempts of Palestinian children slaughtered by Israel to "emotionally manipulate" him from beyond the grave, because Hind Rajab has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.  Although just as a thought-experiment, would it be OK for NHS Fife changing-room martyrs to emotionally manipulate us with their own Nobel nominations?  I suspect it would.

OK, Stew, here's the deal.  You don't have any sort of monopoly on "issuing challenges", so if I humour you and provide a point-by-point rebuttal of the supposed "ten falsehoods", will you take a moment to explain how your claims to think tactical voting on the list is "almost impossible" are reconcilable with your demands that people should vote tactically against the SNP on the list, and your claims that they are "idiots" if they don't?  

Sound fair?  Great stuff.  Thanks in advance.

OK, let's get into it, as the least trendy YouTubers always say...

"FALSEHOOD #1":  Stew is saying I lied by claiming that he issued advice to his readers about tactical voting on the list.  But as noted above, he has repeatedly issued such advice and told his readers they'd be "idiots" not to take it.  So no falsehood there.  Next!

"FALSEHOOD #2":  Stew is saying I lied by claiming he had talked up Fergus Ewing's chances of defeating the SNP in Inverness & Nairn.  As evidence, he points out that before Mr Ewing had announced his independent candidacy, a post on Wings had said that Emma Roddick was likely to hold the seat for the SNP.  But I wasn't referring to anything that Stew said before Mr Ewing announced his candidacy.  I was instead talking about the multiple tweets Stew posted after the candidacy was announced, in which he did indeed talk up Mr Ewing's chances.  So no falsehood there.  Next!

"FALSEHOOD #3": Stew is saying I lied by claiming he had stated that the SNP would definitely win no list seats at all next year.  But he in fact made that statement numerous times, most notably in his blogpost "The blindness of hatred".  So no falsehood there.  Next!

"FALSEHOOD #4":  Stew is saying I lied by claiming that he has changed his position over the last ten years from opposing tactical voting on the list to supporting it.  He insists that in fact his opposition to tactical voting on the list has remained resolute and unchanged, and it's just that the physical possibilities of the universe have expanded to allow him to support tactical voting while opposing it.  I've already dealt with this mind-bending gibberish at considerable length, and pointed out that it's an insult to the intelligence of every single one of his readers.  There's no falsehood here.  Next!  

"FALSEHOOD #5":  Stew is saying I lied by claiming he had stated that the SNP were guaranteed to win at least 65 constituency seats - meaning they would win a single-party majority in the Scottish Parliament without requiring even a single list seat.  Stew did indeed make that statement in his blogpost "The blindness of hatred".  He even helpfully supplied maps showing precisely which 65 seats the SNP were guaranteed to take, embarrassingly including both East Lothian and Hamilton.  So no falsehood there.  Next!

"FALSEHOOD #6":  Bizarrely, this seems to be an exact repetition of number 5, which I've already dealt with and wasn't a falsehood.  Next!

"FALSEHOOD #7":  I'm not sure even Stew himself knows what the falsehood is supposed to be here - he just seems to object to me speculating about how his sales pitch on tactical voting will evolve in the less conducive post-Hamilton context.  Speculation about the future self-evidently can't be a falsehood, so...next!

"FALSEHOOD #8":  Stew is saying I lied by claiming he had gone in the blink of an eye from stating that all SNP list votes in the Highlands would definitely be wasted to stating that people could vote for Fergus Ewing safely because the SNP would get a compensatory list seat in the Highlands.  He did indeed say in his blogpost "The blindness of hatred" that all SNP list votes in the Highlands would definitely be wasted, and he did indeed say in a tweet after Fergus Ewing announced his candidacy that voters could back Mr Ewing safe in the knowledge that the SNP would be compensated with a list seat.  So no falsehood there.  Next!

"FALSEHOOD #9": Stew is saying I lied by implying that his tweet about the compensatory list seat in the Highlands constituted tactical voting advice.  This is more mind-bending gibberish along the lines of "Stew only advocates tactical voting to oppose it", and I've already dealt with that.  There's no falsehood here.  Next!

"FALSEHOOD #10": Again, I haven't a scooby what the falsehood is supposed to be in this case, because all Stew actually says about it is "Hoo boy".  Answers on a postcard, folks.  Next!

Oh, there isn't a next.  I've dealt with all ten, and not a single one was a falsehood.  I should have started this little exercise with the great man's "This won't take long" catchphrase, because it really didn't take long.

Monday, July 14, 2025

Find Out Now poll shows left-wing voters are gonna withdraw their Labour of Love, they're gonna strike for the right to get into Keir's cold heart, they ain't gonna vote for Keir no more

With apologies to Pat Kane (who I've just remembered I did a podcast with *twelve years ago* - where does the time go?), but I can't think of more appropriate words for a poll that for the first time shows a plausible route by which the Labour party could, essentially, be on the way out.  Craig Murray made an interesting point a few weeks ago - he said that at the end of this period of flux Britain would end up with two leading parties, one of which would be right-wing and one of which would be progressive, but there was no particular reason why those two parties would necessarily be Labour and the Tories.  They could just as easily be, for example, Reform UK and the Liberal Democrats.  As this poll shows, another possibility is Reform UK and a radical left party, or Reform UK and a Green/radical left alliance.

Hypothetical voting intentions if a Corbyn/Sultana left-wing party is set up (Find Out Now, 9th-10th July 2025):

Reform UK 34%
Conservatives 17%
Corbyn Party 15%
Labour 15%
Liberal Democrats 9%
Greens 5%

This poll suffers from the same problem as all hypothetical polling - although I haven't seen the question wording, it'll almost certainly have had to draw special attention to the Corbyn party to explain the options that were being provided, which may well have artificially boosted the party's support.  But I still think this is bad news for Labour, because it vividly demonstrates which parties stand to suffer if Corbyn gets above non-trivial levels of support.  Those parties are Labour and the Greens.  It might just be enough to put the next general election beyond Labour's reach.

That said, one reason to be sceptical about these numbers is that they show Reform doing markedly better than in Find Out Now's conventional polling, and I can't think of any obvious reason for that.  As far as I know the data tables haven't been published yet, and a touch of caution may be warranted until they are.

*  *  *

The running total in the Scot Goes Pop 2025 fundraiser currently stands at £3080, meaning it is 45% of the way towards the target figure of £6800.  If you'd like to help the blog keep going, donations by card are welcome HERE, or alternatively you can cut out fees altogether (depending on which option you select from the menu) by making a direct donation via PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Never mind the fifty other countries - can Campbell even name ONE other country which is witnessing a crime against humanity as grave as the one Netanyahu is inflicting on the people of Gaza?

A few days ago, I posted my detailed response to Stuart "Stew" Campbell's blogpost 'Anatomy of a Lunatic', in which he had set out the latest radical revision of his ever-changing set of reasons for insisting that everyone must vote against the SNP on the list ballot next year.  (I'm the person he's referring to as a "lunatic", by the way, in case anyone is worrying he's been overdoing the tough love for Andy Ellis again.)  The main point I made was that it was quite simply incredible that anyone could keep a straight face at Stew's sudden decision to self-identify as an 'opponent of tactical voting on the list' while he continued to make all of the stock arguments in favour of tactical voting on the list and demanding that people must do it - in fact he said they would be "idiots" if they didn't.  It's rather akin to saying "I just think some ethnic groups are inferior, and I like dressing up in paramilitary uniforms and giving Roman-style salutes to our great leader, so what part of 'I am not a fascist' do you not understand?"

Stew has now posted his own reply of sorts - it's pretty threadbare, but it looks like this is all there's going to be...

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Stew's heart just doesn't seem to be in it anymore.  He's barely even trying.  What you see above is the rough equivalent of Rowan Atkinson in The Curse of Fatal Death answering every inconvenient question with "I'll explain later".  Presumably we're supposed to infer that if we were all as intelligent as Stew, we'd understand why it's perfectly possible to rabidly push the case for tactical voting on the list while somehow being a resolute opponent of tactical voting on the list.  But as we're too stupid to understand, that's on us and not on him.  Explanations would be futile.  He exists on a higher plane of understanding and that's all there is to it.

Well, I don't know about you but I'm convinced.  Perhaps he could direct his great wisdom towards answering a question on another topic, though.  He angrily told us a few weeks ago that no-one should have the arrogance to pollute his Sacred Gaze with images of death and destruction in the Gaza Strip, because such an act is to invite him to care about the genocide more than he does about Sandie Peggie and NHS Fife, which would be an offence against nature given that what Netanyahu is doing is entirely routine and humdrum, and no worse than what is going on in "fifty other countries" right now.  For the uninitiated, there are fewer than 200 UN member states, so Stew was basically claiming that horrors on a par with Gaza are going in about one-quarter of the world's countries.

I took him to task about that claim at the time, because even leaving aside the issue of genocide, I could only find a handful of current conflicts with a death toll comparable to Gaza's, and with only a handful of countries involved in those conflicts - certainly nowhere even close to 50.  But since then, the situation in Gaza has worsened further, and Israel has inched closer to implementing its own "Final Solution to the Palestinian Problem", which is a kind of hybrid between the Nazis' Final Solution and their earlier aborted scheme to deport Europe's entire Jewish population to Madagascar.  It seems that the population of Gaza will be herded into a concentration camp - dubbed a "humanitarian city" in suitably Orwellian terms, which is something Stew should be highly sensitive to given his repeated professions of admiration for Nighteen Eighty-Four.  Anyone who stays on the outside will be assumed to be Hamas and will be slaughtered, while those on the inside will not be allowed to leave unless they accept expulsion to a foreign country.  The ethnic cleansing of Gaza will then be complete, and the territory will be ready for annexation and usage as Lebensraum for Israeli settlers.

Never mind the fifty other countries, Stew - can you name even one other country in which a crime against humanity of this gravity is occurring?  Because frankly I can't. 

Sunday, July 13, 2025

Viva España! YouGov poll shows massive Spanish support for an independent Scotland rejoining the EU - exploding the hoary old myth of a Spanish veto

The estimable Mr Wheecher on the previous thread drew my attention to the latest Eurotrack poll from YouGov, which was mainly about attitudes in both Britain and the continent towards the idea of the UK rejoining the European Union, but also has a question tacked on about attitudes to Scotland rejoining the EU as an independent country.

If Scotland voted for independence from the rest of the UK and asked to join the European Union, would you support or oppose allowing it to do so?

Respondents in France:

Support: 63%
Oppose: 13%

Respondents in Germany:

Support: 68%
Oppose: 10%

Respondents in Denmark:

Support: 75%
Oppose: 6%

Respondents in Spain:

Support: 65%
Oppose: 13%

Respondents in Italy:

Support: 64%
Oppose: 11%

Is this just an unremarkable result, because EU countries tend to take an attitude of "the more the merrier" to the accession of new member states?  Well, not necessarily - there would be plenty of opposition to Turkey joining, and I suspect there might also be some ambivalence to a few specific eastern European countries, such as perhaps Albania or Georgia.  One of the many eccentric hobby-horses of Alba's expelled Expeller-in-Chief Chris McEleny is that the EU should bar its doors to eastern European countries like Georgia and start admitting North African countries instead.  (In which case why is it called the European Union, Chris?!)

What leaps out the most, of course, is that the result in Spain is bang in line with all of the other countries, which doesn't lend much support to the age-old unionist scare story that Spain would veto an independent Scotland's EU membership to prevent Catalonia and the Basque Country from getting any ideas.  OK, it's the Spanish government rather than the Spanish people that would be making the decision, but the idea of a veto never made much sense anyway - even the former right-wing Spanish government pointed out that if Scotland ever got to the point of applying for EU membership, that would mean the UK had recognised its independence, and thus the situation wouldn't be comparable to Catalonia because the Spanish constitution forbids the recognition of a Catalan state.  The latter bit is democratically indefensible, but it does mean Scotland is highly unlikely to ever suffer because of Spain's domestic politics.  Remember that Spain did not veto the EU accession of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which were all part of the Soviet Union until 1991.  It did not veto the accession of Croatia and Slovenia, which were both part of Yugoslavia until 1991.  And it did not veto the accession of the Czech Republic (now called Czechia) and Slovakia, which were both part of Czechoslovakia until 1992.

Incidentally, in the British sample (which of course is roughly 85% comprised of residents of England), there is a plurality in favour of allowing Scotland to rejoin the EU if it wishes, but it's much lower than in the continental countries -

Respondents in Great Britain:

Support: 46%
Oppose: 32%

Presumably this lower support reflects a deep-seated resentment against Scotland in certain quarters of the English public - ie. 'why should those whinging wretches be given anything?', etc, etc.  Curious, isn't it, that unionists tell us that our most natural partner for a political union is the country that arguably dislikes us the most.

The poll's main questions give the lie to any notion that there is a realistic path to the UK as a whole rejoining the EU.  On the face of it, there is overwhelming support among the British public for EU membership, but the follow-up question about whether Britain should be allowed to resume its former opt-outs shows an even bigger majority in favour of the opt-outs - which I suspect will be interpreted in European capitals as meaning that any resurgence in pro-Europeanism in England is only skin-deep, and that if the UK ever rejoined, the campaign to leave again would start on day one.  There's hardly going to be much enthusiasm on the continent for putting Europe through that kind of torture all over again.

Among the five continental countries polled by YouGov, only Denmark is in favour of allowing Britain to rejoin on the basis of its previous opt-outs - which makes perfect sense, because Denmark has its own bespoke opt-outs, negotiated after the 1992 Maastricht referendum.

*  *  *

The running total in the Scot Goes Pop 2025 fundraiser currently stands at £3065, meaning it is 45% of the way towards the target figure of £6800.  If you'd like to help the blog keep going, donations by card are welcome HERE, or alternatively you can cut out fees altogether (depending on which option you select from the menu) by making a direct donation via PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Saturday, July 12, 2025

Could Labour end up in third place in the polls due to the new Corbyn / Sultana party?

In 2007, Archie Stirling (the husband and father of the actresses Diana Rigg and Rachael Stirling respectively) set up a fringe party called Scottish Voice for that year's Holyrood election, and used his wealth to commission a YouGov opinion poll which purported to show that around 20% of the Scottish population would consider voting for the party.  That was around a hundred times higher than the 0.2% of the public that actually voted for Scottish Voice at the election itself.  The point being, of course, that it's very easy for people to try to look reasonable by saying they'll "consider" doing something, but actually doing it is another matter.

Ever since then, I've used the term "Archie Stirling poll question" when someone about to set up a political party cynically uses that type of question to give the false impression that the party will be wildly popular.  The classic example, of course, was the controversial and increasingly far-right Somerset blogger "Stew", who asked an almost identical question to Stirling's (and got similar results) when he was toying with the idea of setting up a Wings Party.  And he knew exactly what he was doing, because several people had warned him in advance that he needed to ask a more credible question, and explained why that was so important.

YouGov may have found an elegant way of squaring the circle with the prospective new Jeremy Corbyn / Zarah Sultana left-wing party, though.  They've asked respondents whether they would consider voting for the party, but they've also asked the same question about all the other established GB-wide parties, thus allowing what might be a more meaningful comparison to be made.

Percentage who will consider voting for each party (YouGov, 6th-7th July 2025):

Labour 30%
Liberal Democrats 28%
Greens 28%
Reform UK 28%
Conservatives 24%
Corbyn 18%

If you apply that sort of differential to the current polls, it's at least imaginable that a Corbyn party could start off with 8-10% of the vote.

Assuming people answered the question honestly, Labour's absolute maximum vote at the moment is 30%, which I've tended to assume would not be enough to win an election for them, because the right-wing vote will consolidate behind Reform or the Tories.  But as you can see, the supposed maximum vote for either Reform or the Tories is actually slightly below 30%, implying there are a lot of Reform voters who hate the Tories and vice versa.

However, even if the right-wing vote does give an assist to Starmer by remaining helpfully split, Labour still stand to suffer far more from a Corbyn party than their main opponents.  As many as 31% of Labour voters from last year's general election say they will consider voting for Corbyn's outfit, compared with only 2% of Tory voters.  If Labour do slip any further in the polls, they could end up in third or fourth place with less than 20% of the vote.

*  *  *

The running total in the Scot Goes Pop 2025 fundraiser currently stands at £3065, meaning it is 45% of the way towards the target figure of £6800.  If you'd like to help the blog keep going, donations by card are welcome HERE, or alternatively you can cut out fees altogether (depending on which option you select from the menu) by making a direct donation via PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Friday, July 11, 2025

Your cut-out-and-keep guide to how Stuart Campbell is literally treating his readers as idiots with his ever-changing, crazy-paving set of "reasons" for voting against the SNP on the Holyrood list ballot

As promised, here is my detailed response to the controversial "Stew" blogger's latest 'radical reimagining' of his arguments for tactically voting against the SNP on the Holyrood list ballot - and by goodness was a hurried reimagining required, because the result of the Hamilton by-election drove a coach and horses through his previous argument, which he presented to us only a few weeks ago and which hinged on the SNP being supposedly 'guaranteed' to win at least 65 constituency seats, of which Hamilton was one.  In a similar way, his previous argument of last autumn that you should vote against the SNP on the list because there was supposedly "zero" chance of a pro-independence majority in Holyrood was blown apart within a matter of days by opinion polls showing that we were on course for, you've guessed it, a pro-independence majority at Holyrood.  Whenever Stew makes a confident prediction and predicates his arguments on it, there's often good money to be made by betting on precisely the opposite outcome.

It won't surprise you to learn that there are yet again massive logical errors in the latest iteration of the Stew Tactical Voting Instruction Manual.  But although I'm going to cover some of those errors in detail, I first of all want to make a couple of broader-brush points.  It should be a statement of the obvious that Stew has been intellectually dishonest for months in claiming to be answering the question "how should independence supporters attempt to maximise the number of pro-independence MSPs?", because by his own admission his goal is not to maximise the number of pro-independence MSPs.  In fact it's pretty much the reverse of that.  He wants to destroy the SNP, and first went on record in the Wings comments section a few weeks ago by saying that his advice to his readers is going to be to vote for whichever party is best placed to defeat the SNP in any given constituency.  That means by definition that he will be telling his readers to vote for unionist parties almost across the board, because there are only two constituencies in which it can even be plausibly argued that the main challenger to the SNP is a pro-independence party or candidate.  And one of those two is Glasgow Kelvin, where the Greens are the potential challenger, so it seems phenomenally improbable that he will be urging a pro-indy vote there either.

So by banging the 'pro-indy tactical voting' drum so loudly for months, all he's actually been doing is presenting his back-up argument for those among his readers who understandably don't want to hear his primary message that the time has come for a Scottish Parliament that opposes Scottish independence ("to win independence we must first kill independence", etc, etc).  He's effectively been asking those people to trust him to give an honest and dispassionate assessment of how to achieve the opposite outcome from the one he wants.  And while I suppose it's technically possible that a man who has been demonstrably consumed by unreasoning hatred of the SNP for the best part of a decade might be capable of setting his agenda aside to give that type of honest advice, I'd gently suggest that it's also possible, and arguably far more likely, that he is in fact not doing so, and that he understands perfectly well that persuading his readers to throw their list votes away on no-hoper fringe parties can only increase the chances of a unionist majority at Holyrood - ie. precisely the outcome he craves.

The second broad-brush point is that if anyone is trying to 'hack' the Holyrood voting system, there are two sides to that equation - both the constituency ballot and the list ballot.  Essentially the goal is to take the current state of public opinion, in which pro-independence parties have only a minority of the popular vote between them, and use the voting system to distort that and to produce a pro-independence majority in terms of Holyrood seats.  To achieve that aim, by far the most important part of the equation is that the SNP must have a large enough lead in the popular vote on the constituency ballot to produce a massive 'winner's bonus' in terms of constituency seats. John Curtice made that very point at the Holyrood Sources event a couple of weeks ago.

So to the extent that tactical voting can play a role, it would have to primarily consist of iron discipline among independence supporters in voting tactically for the SNP on the constituency ballot.  What happens on the list ballot is of much less importance, and by inviting you to fixate on the list, Stew is trying to get you to not see the wood for the trees.  That's not to say the list doesn't matter at all - a pro-indy seats majority without a popular vote majority will probably also hinge on the Greens doing well enough on the list to retain their current handful of seats.  But at the moment it seems highly likely that they will do at least that well, which means that if independence supporters get behind the SNP in big numbers on the constituency ballot, that should be enough to do the trick.  List votes for Alba and Liberate Scotland, who have almost no chance of winning any seats, have literally zero role to play here.  But no prizes for guessing why Stew doesn't want the penny to drop with people that SNP constituency votes are actually the really important bit.

All of that said, though, let's go through some of the detailed points in his latest 'psephologist cosplay' post.  I do love it when he uses words like 'divisor' as if he knows what he's talking about.

"Because it’s #1 of very many straightforward, barefaced lies in The Lunatic’s piece. Wings has offered no “tactical voting advice” to anybody, in Highlands or elsewhere. Tactical voting on the list is, as we noted many years ago, almost impossible to do."

Well, this is brazen.  I've pasted the above in plain text, which means that you can't see that he's linked to one of his posts from the run-up to the 2016 election, in which his position on tactical voting on the list was the polar opposite of what it is today.  Back then, he was on exactly the same page as me in saying that it was a mug's game, whereas now he's arguing that it's somehow possible to know in advance, before a single vote is cast, that the SNP will perform so well on the constituency ballot and so poorly on the list ballot that they will win no list seats at all, and therefore that any SNP list votes will be wasted, and you must vote for another party.  That, Stew, is advocacy for tactical voting on the list.  It is a matter of supreme indifference to me whether you admit to that or whether you call it by some Orwellian name to attempt to obscure its nature.  I'm interested in what the thing is, and not in what you claim it to be.

I suspect that Stew's contortions and contradictions on this issue have now been pointed out often enough that he feels the only option he has left is to try to hide his hypocrisy in plain sight, ie. to indignantly insist that there is a seamless join between his commendable anti-tactical voting stance in 2016, and his pro-tactical voting stance of today.

"so votes for either Unionist parties OR the SNP will have the same result: lots of Unionist MSPs."

If this is intended to disprove the notion of a Plan A / Plan B approach, ie. Plan A being "vote against the SNP on the list because a unionist majority is desirable", and Plan B being "but if you're stupid enough to want a pro-indy majority, you should vote tactically against the SNP anyway", then it's not doing a very good job, is it?  If you thought Plan A was sufficient, Stew, you would dispense with the lie that voting SNP on the list produces unionist seats.  Why are you psychologically incapable of dropping the crutch of that lie, Stew?  Because you are an advocate of tactical voting on the list, while farcically claiming not to be.

"FALSEHOOD #2. Wings has at no juncture “talked up” the likelihood of Fergus Ewing holding Inverness & Nairn. A few days ago we said it was unlikely."

The operative words there are "a few days ago", which was before Ewing announced he was standing as an independent.  After that announcement, Stew could barely contain his excitement and repeatedly tweeted about the supposedly good chances of Ewing defeating the SNP.  For the purposes of Stew's rant, it seems, those tweets must be condemned to disappear down the ever-trusty Wings memory hole.

"FALSEHOOD #3. Wings has never said any such thing."

He's claiming here that he never said that the SNP were definitely not going to win any list seats at all - something he has in fact said on multiple occasions, most notably in his blogpost "The Blindness of Hatred" (surely the most un-self-aware title in history).  That blogpost was published on 11th May 2025 - exactly two months ago.  So not so much a "falsehood", Stew, as well, y'know, the other thing.

It was also in the same blogpost that you claimed the SNP were assured of winning at least 65 constituency seats - ie. that they would have a single-party overall majority in the parliament without requiring even one list seat.  You also supplied maps showing Hamilton and East Lothian as being among those 65 nailed-on certain constituency wins for the SNP.  Embarrassing, I know, but the internet never forgets.

"More to the point, though, the actual argument we’ve made is that they’ll win fewer list seats than would be won if their list vote was redirected to other indy parties – something The Lunatic has never actually attempted to refute."

I've not only "attempted" to refute it, I have refuted it on umpteen occasions.  The most succinct way of putting it is that the SNP have an established track record of winning list seats in every single Holyrood election they've ever fought, and with their constituency vote seemingly having dropped sharply since the 2021 election, it's unlikely that track record will change - because of course the fewer constituency seats a party wins, the more scope it has to pick up compensatory list seats.  By contrast, Alba would need to at least double their current list vote share to have an outside chance of winning even a single list seat, and Liberate Scotland would probably need to multiply their current support, which at the moment is so microscopic that it cannot even be measured, by several hundred times.  Neither of those possibilities are credible, meaning that even if it was somehow possible to "redirect" some SNP list votes to "other indy parties" (he's talking about those votes as if they were pieces on a chessboard), it would most likely have the effect of reducing the overall number of pro-indy seats and increasing the number of unionist seats - the polar opposite of his claim.  

The only exception to that would be if he is referring to a 'redirection' of SNP votes to the Greens - because unlike Alba and Liberate Scotland, the Greens will almost certainly have enough list votes to win seats.  But if the Greens are what Stew means (and let's face it, they're not - he hates them), he should spell that out and make clear that 'redirecting' SNP list votes to any indy party other than the Greens would have a counterproductive effect.  The reason he doesn't spell that out is that he's deceiving you.  Intentionally.

By the way, Stew, claiming that 'redirecting' SNP list votes would produce a greater number of pro-indy seats is not really consistent, is it, with your claim not to have changed your view that tactical voting on the list is "almost impossible to do".  In fact, let's be blunt: it drives a coach and horses through that claim.  It means, yet again, that you are saying the complete opposite of what you were saying ten years ago.  You were right ten years ago, and you are wrong now.

"FALSEHOOD #4. As noted above, Wings remains of the view that TACTICAL voting on the list is all but impossible. What we want is not voting SNP on the list, which is something very different. And the point about that is that it doesn’t change whether or not you care about how many pro-indy MSPs are elected on the list."

What does he mean by "it doesn't change"?  He means that if you share his view that there should be a unionist majority ("to win independence we must first kill independence", etc, etc) you should vote against the SNP on the list because the SNP are baaaaaaad, but if you want a pro-indy majority you should still vote against the SNP on the list because doing so will supposedly produce a greater number of pro-indy seats (spoiler alert: it won't).  In other words he's saying that tactical voting on the list is possible, despite only a couple of sentences earlier insisting it was impossible, and he's advocating that you should do it, in spite of angrily denying that he's a tactical voting advocate.

Make. It. Make. Sense. Stew.

"Any and every SNP list vote will therefore, as a simple measurable empirical fact, be worth less – at least 50% less and up to 91% less, in fact – than a list vote for a party with no constituency seats."

Oooh, "up to 91%" sounds impressive, Stew.  I can't remember being so impressed by a number since Tony Blair claimed Saddam Hussein could deploy weapons of mass destruction "within 45 minutes".  I take it that, just like Blair, you've got a "dossier" to back up this claim?  Answer: yes you do, you've got a little table, and it's full of numbers that you've thrillingly rounded to two decimal places to make them look as if they must be important.

But I must admit I'm far more interested in the fundamental principles than in the decimal fractions.  Why does Stew insist that the supposed low value of an SNP list vote, and the precision of his claims about how low that value is, constitute "a simple measurable empirical fact"?  Why, that'll be for one of two reasons:

Option A: Opinion polls are pinpoint accurate.  There is no history in this country of significant opinion poll error, and late swings of public opinion never occur after the final polls of an election campaign are conducted.

Option B: Time does not progress in a linear fashion, and it's possible to have foreknowledge on polling day of the election results that will be announced the following day.  In other words, when you cast your vote, you already know how everyone else will vote on both the constituency ballot and the list ballot.

Now, you may think both of these options are self-evidently nonsensical.  But think again, because Stew says this stuff is EMPIRICAL FACT, so it looks like the known laws of science are about to be revised radically.

Back in the real world, of course, opinion polls do have a history of significant inaccuracy, late swings do frequently happen, and foreknowledge of election results on polling day is not possible.  At the moment you cast your vote, you won't have a sodding clue how many constituency seats the SNP are going to win, you won't have a sodding clue how many people are voting SNP on the list, and you therefore won't have a sodding clue what the likelihood is of an SNP list vote translating into SNP list seats.  Your chances of not having a sodding clue on any of these points is not "up to 91%" but are in fact an extremely round 100%.

The whole point of giving you two votes is, of course, this very lack of foreknowledge.  Two votes provides you with a crucial back-up.  If your first-choice party wins your constituency seat, then great, but if it doesn't, you still have a chance of winning representation for that party as long as you voted for it on the list.  If you instead voted "tactically" on the list for your second-choice party, the d'Hondt formula will ignore your constituency vote and will regard your second-choice party as your first-choice party - it's as simple as that.  The seats distribution will be calculated on exactly that basis.  That's why tactical voting on the list is a mug's game, that's why it has such a high risk of backfiring catastrophically, and that's why it can produce such perverse outcomes.  The much more sensible Stew of 2015/16 (the man who had not yet become twisted with bitterness because Nicola Sturgeon refused to back him in his vanity court case against Dugdale) told you exactly that.

"If you want the maximum number of “pro-indy” MSPs elected on the list, and if you consider the SNP “pro-indy”...then you’d be an idiot to give the SNP your list vote, because you’ll definitely get fewer pro-indy MSPs that way, whether it’s actually 0 or just close to 0."

I'll tell you who the only "idiots" are here, and that's the people who can read the above without recognising it as crystal-clear, unambiguous advice to vote tactically on the list - something which Stew has only just said is impossible to do and which he has only just angrily insisted he would never advocate.

Stew thinks his readers are idiots, doesn't he?  He literally thinks they are idiots.

Thursday, July 10, 2025

Reform lead in latest poll for the Welsh Senedd - but could that translate to the Plaid Cymru leader becoming First Minister?

So I'm just catching up with the latest Welsh voting intention poll, which comes from More In Common, who don't seem to have done any full-scale Welsh polls before.

Senedd voting intentions (More In Common, 18th June-3rd July 2025):

Reform UK 28%
Plaid Cymru 26%
Labour 23%
Conservatives 10%
Liberal Democrats 7%
Greens 4%

It's obviously disappointing that More In Common haven't corroborated the two YouGov polls showing Plaid in the outright lead, but in one sense that may not matter.  Progressive parties have a majority of the vote between them, which ought to mean that the Plaid leader would become First Minister on these numbers, at the head of a 'keep Reform out' coalition.  Admittedly it would be in Labour's power to scupper that, and to allow a minority Reform government to take office - but how would they do it without being seen to do it?  How would they do it without suffering massive reputational damage as a result?  I think they would have to swallow their pride and let Plaid take the reins.

*  *  *

The running total in the Scot Goes Pop 2025 fundraiser currently stands at £3065, meaning it is 45% of the way towards the target figure of £6800.  If you'd like to help the blog keep going, donations by card are welcome HERE, or alternatively you can cut out fees altogether (depending on which option you select from the menu) by making a direct donation via PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk


Wednesday, July 9, 2025

What's in an accent?

 

I thought I'd take the above screenshot as a souvenir, because when I was growing up in Kilsyth, although I used a decent sprinkling of Scots words like 'doon' and 'hoose' and 'didnae' and 'how?' and 'gallus', I nevertheless had a Frankenstein mid-Atlantic accent that made everyone at school think I was either Australian or Irish.  It became much more Scottish from the age of about twelve onwards, but if you listen very carefully you can still hear the occasional very faint trace of American here or there. 

So when I took the accent test, it was with a due sense of trepidation, and I was half-expecting to be told I was from New Zealand or somewhere.  But nope, it came back as 82% Scottish.  If you're in a quiet room and have a microphone enabled, have a go yourself and let me know your results.

SNP hit fabulous forty per cent in YouGov's colossus of crossbreaks

GB-wide voting intentions (YouGov, 6th-7th July 2025):

Reform UK 26% (-)
Labour 24% (-)
Conservatives 16% (-1)
Liberal Democrats 15% (-1)
Greens 11% (+1)
SNP 3% (-)
Plaid Cymru 1% (-)

Scottish subsample: SNP 40%, Labour 20%, Reform UK 17%, Liberal Democrats 12%, Conservatives 5%, Greens 4%

This is the second consecutive YouGov poll to have Reform's GB lead over Labour at 'only' two points, and although there can't be any direct link, it somehow seems in keeping with the latest evidence of the age-old truth that every party led by Nigel Farage always starts disintegrating after a period of time.  If you ever feel bored, a fun game to play is "guess how many Reform MPs there are today", because the number is never what you think it is.  At the moment, as far as I can see the answer is four, even though they started off with five last July and have since won an extra seat at the Runcorn & Helsby by-election.  At one point I thought it was pretty likely that Reform would overtake the SNP as the fourth-largest Commons party during this parliament due to defections, but that seems a lot less probable now.   If anything, the SNP may be at greater risk of being overtaken by the Corbyn/Sultana party-that-is-not-yet-a-party.

The SNP's excellent run of subsamples continues with a rare instance of them breaking the 40% barrier, and with double the support of their nearest challenger.  Although YouGov structure and weight their subsamples correctly, the small sample size means any individual subsample must be treated with a dose of salt.  But an average of several correctly-weighted subsamples over a period of time will give you a better idea of the state of play, and that average is looking pretty healthy just now.

*  *  *

The running total in the Scot Goes Pop 2025 fundraiser currently stands at £3065, meaning it is 45% of the way towards the target figure of £6800.  If you'd like to help the blog keep going, donations by card are welcome HERE, or alternatively you can cut out fees altogether (depending on which option you select from the menu) by making a direct donation via PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Tuesday, July 8, 2025

Corbyn is not a "diminished figure" - his reputation has grown and grown as the Gaza genocide has shown him to be on the right side of history

I had a look at Political Betting (aka Stormfront Lite) for the first time in ages today, and there's a post from the site's editor TSE, who I believe self-identifies as a "moderate" or "centrist" Tory, and which makes me wonder if the political Right even inhabit the same planet as the rest of us.  

He feels the need from the outset to defend himself from the ridicule he expects from his peers, because he has placed a bet on Jeremy Corbyn or Zarah Sultana to become Prime Minister at odds of 100/1.  He stresses this is merely a "trading bet" (with the unspoken implication that it might make a profit simply because other people will in future be stupid enough to start thinking Corbyn or Sultana could win an election), and states as a fact, as if it's something that everyone just "knows", that Corbyn is a "much diminished figure since 2017" because of his reaction to the Salisbury poisonings.

I mean, what?!  When I think of Jeremy Corbyn, there are probably about 500 things that would pop into my head about him long before I'd even remember anything to do with his reaction to the Salisbury poisonings.  He's quite clearly not a diminished figure, his reputation has in fact grown and grown as he's been shown to be on the right side of history in respect of Israel and Palestine, and as his detractors during the confected "anti-semitism crisis" have been shown to be on the wrong side of history.  His spectacular success in defeating the Labour machine in Islington last year has also greatly enhanced his track record as an electoral winner.

But if you said to someone like TSE that Corbyn's principled stance on the gravest crime against humanity of the 21st century might possibly have some relevance to his current public standing, you'd just get a blank look.  The notion has probably never even occurred to TSE, who it appears shut down all thought after the Salisbury incident, which is as fresh in his mind as if it happened yesterday.

TSE even tries to pour cold water on Corbyn's electoral achievement in 2017, when he became the only Labour leader to top 40% of the popular vote in a general election since 2001.  Apparently that doesn't really count for anything because the Tories "ran the worst campaign in living memory" in 2017.  Well, that's a subjective call, but I very much doubt that any alternative Labour leader would have reached anything like 40% of the vote that year, because Corbyn was gobbling up Green and other radical leftist votes that a centrist leader would never have been able to reach.

I don't think it's particularly likely that Corbyn or Sultana will become Prime Minister, but for a 100/1 bet to be considered value, the real probability only needs to exceed 1%.  Given that Zack Polanski seems to be open to an electoral pact with Corbyn/Sultana, and that it's reasonable to suppose that such an alliance might attract 15% of the vote at a time when the leading party is usually only in the 20s, it seems entirely logical that one of the leaders of that alliance could well have a better than 1% chance of forming a government.  It's a perfectly sensible bet - not even as a trading bet, but just on its own terms.

*  *  *

The running total in the Scot Goes Pop 2025 fundraiser currently stands at £3065, meaning it is 45% of the way towards the target figure of £6800.  If you'd like to help the blog keep going, donations by card are welcome HERE, or alternatively you can cut out fees altogether (depending on which option you select from the menu) by making a direct donation via PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Monday, July 7, 2025

Munificent MRP poll shows the SNP on course to win almost THREE-QUARTERS of Scottish seats at Westminster

I thought I'd take a belated look at the new MRP seats projection from More In Common, which I believe was published yesterday or possibly the day before.

Seats projection (More In Common MRP poll, 13th-30th June 2025):

Reform UK 290
Labour 126
Conservatives 81
Liberal Democrats 73
SNP 42
Greens 7
Plaid Cymru 4

Unlike the recent YouGov MRP poll, the fieldwork for this one took place entirely after (and indeed well after) the Hamilton by-election on 5th June.  So the evidence is becoming ever stronger that the Hamilton setback did the SNP no lasting harm at all, except for the obvious point that it reduced their number of seats in the current Scottish Parliament by one.

This is another MRP poll pointing to a hung parliament, but not one in which the SNP would hold the balance of power, because Reform and the Tories between them would have a very comfortable blocking majority preventing any centre-left government from being formed.  (Although doubtless Stew would say that all the SNP have to do is offer Reform a deal on withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights and Farage will instantly cave in and give them an independence referendum.)

There are some strikingly sharp differences in the details of the More In Common and YouGov MRPs.  YouGov had Reform winning three Scottish seats, all in the south and south-west of the country, but More In Common still have Reform on a big fat zero in Scotland.  They're not even close in the southern seats - in Dumfries & Galloway, for example, they're on just 8% of the vote, and in Ayr, Carrick & Cumnock they're on just 14%.  There's also the odd phenomenon of Labour being projected to gain a couple of seats even as they suffer crushing losses to the SNP elsewhere in Scotland.  One of them is Dumfries & Galloway, and yes, that's not totally impossible - the southernmost seats have not been particularly fertile territory for the SNP in recent decades (with the obvious exception of 2015), so if the Tories collapse it might be Labour that's left to pick up the pieces.  But the other projected Labour gain is Dundee Central, and that makes no sense whatsoever - something freakish must have happened in the sampling.  I rarely make hard predictions, but I can say with confidence that if the SNP win 40+ seats at the next election, Dundee Central will be one of them.

On the other hand, More In Common show Na h-Eileanan an Iar as an SNP gain, even though many other MRP polls have had it as a Labour hold.  In fact, Labour aren't even projected to be in second place in the seat - they're a distant third behind the SNP and Reform.  

The Lib Dems are projected to hold all five of their Scottish seats, but the SNP are breathing down their necks in three of them - Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross (Lib Dem 30%, SNP 30%), Mid-Dunbartonshire (Lib Dem 35%, SNP 28%) and North-East Fife (Lib Dem 36%, SNP 29%).  

The Tories would be reduced to just two Scottish seats, both in the Borders/south.  The SNP are the main challengers in both, and are around 8 or 9 points behind.  

*  *  *

The allegedly fake cleric in Somerset, who claims not to be stalking me, tweeted about me for the 7489th time this year earlier today, and it was a weird delayed reaction to something I said last week.  All I had done was point out the indisputable fact that the SNP's relatively low Holyrood list vote in the polls is not a major problem for them if their lead in the constituencies holds up, but that if the SNP's lead on the constituency ballot is reduced to low single figures, the voting system will then start working in Labour's favour and the SNP may be reliant on list votes to remain the largest single party in the Scottish Parliament.  I'm sorry, Stew, but that's just a statement of the bleedin' obvious, and facts are chiels that winna ding and all that.  Look at the 2007 election result as a good example - the SNP were one point ahead on the constituency ballot, but took a hammering in constituency seats.  In fact Labour took 37 of the 73 constituency seats, meaning they would have had a slim overall majority if the election had been conducted solely by first-past-the-post.  But once the list seats were added, the SNP just barely came out on top, with 47 seats to Labour's 46.  That was only possible because the SNP took 31% of the list vote.  If they had fallen short of that, perhaps because a small percentage of voters had abandoned them on the list for so-called "tactical" reasons or for any other reasons, they would have ended up as only the second-largest party despite winning the popular vote on the constituency ballot, and it's entirely possible that Jack McConnell would have remained First Minister.

That's correct, isn't it, Stew?  So what's your point?

*  *  *

The running total in the Scot Goes Pop 2025 fundraiser currently stands at £3000, meaning it is 44% of the way towards the target figure of £6800.  If you'd like to help the blog keep going, donations by card are welcome HERE, or alternatively you can cut out fees altogether (depending on which option you select from the menu) by making a direct donation via PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Sunday, July 6, 2025

The last days in the bunker: Alba's leader channels Comical Ali as he insists "Relationships in the party are COLLEGIATE and HARMONIOUS! We will win SIXTEEN list seats next year!"

Kenny MacAskill is one of the few people in the upper echelons of the Alba Party who I still have respect for.  Even he has far too authoritarian a mindset (he once told someone that new people were welcome to join the Alba Party, but only if they "accept direction from the party"!), but he is at least a genuine conviction politician on policy matters, ie. he's not a cynical opportunist like Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh.  All the same, it's hard to keep a straight face when he says in his interview with the Herald today that relationships within the party are "remarkably collegiate and harmonious".

If he truly believes that, he's descending into a world of fantasy.  He's talking about a party, let's not forget, which over the last couple of years has had one of the highest per capita rates of Mafia-style backstabbing and bloodletting of any political party in western Europe.  And there are two very recent events that are more than a tad difficult to square with the "collegiate and harmonious" line -

* As I mentioned the other day, there are strong indications that a very senior member of Alba, possibly even one "of Salmond blood", tried to get the police involved in her bitter vendetta against an NEC colleague who resigned from the party after being relentlessly bullied.  This incident apparently happened only around a month ago.

* The Electoral Commission website still shows that Alba's Nominating Officer, ie. the only individual who is ultimately responsible for approving Alba election candidates, is none other than Chris McEleny - the man expelled from Alba two months ago.  It's hard to think of a less "collegiate and harmonious" state of affairs than to have an expellee in such a pivotal position.  And under the rules, it's almost impossible to get rid of him unless he voluntarily resigns, which apparently he has refused to do.  This is an almost unprecedented situation in British political history - I say "almost" because something similar happened to George Galloway's former party Respect.  (By a strange coincidence, Alba's delightful Yvonne Ridley was heavily embroiled in that Respect clusterbourach - if you do a Google search, you'll even find a newspaper article from the time which tries to determine whether or not she was technically the Respect leader.)

I also get the impression that these two episodes are not entirely unrelated.  Although the story about the police came to me in garbled form, the implication seemed to be that it had something to do with the Alba leadership's panic over the McEleny situation, which made me think I may have been on the right track in wondering whether they're concerned that they may have to nominally re-register the party under a new name, as the only viable way of getting round the roadblock of McEleny insisting on remaining as Nominating Officer.

MacAskill's comments were made in response to a Herald interview with McEleny a week ago, which I hadn't previously seen.  It contains this extraordinary statement - 

"You can't stay a big tent and a broad church but kick out people when they disagree with you."

Are we to take this as some sort of Damascene conversion, Chris?  Or as some sort of long-overdue apology to myself, Denise Somerville, Geoff Bush, Sean Davis and Colin Alexander, all of whom you expelled from Alba (or de facto expelled) for fatuous non-reasons last year?  There is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repenteth, etc, etc.  

McEleny also blasts MacAskill for turning Alba into a "1970s tribute act", which seems at least in part to be code for "he's taking too principled a stance on Gaza".  I don't know if it's Stew's influence, but McEleny does seem to be increasingly flirting with the dark side on Gaza - see for example his ghastly retweet from a few weeks ago which mocked Greta Thunberg for caring too much about the issue, and did so from a firmly right-wing American, genocide-apologist perspective.

McEleny justifies all of this by saying Alba should be concentrating on bread-and-butter issues that matter to voters, but then bizarrely in the next breath he starts banging on like a true ideologue about the vital importance of Ash Regan's "Unbuyable" bill on prostitution law, which is not relevant to the lives of the vast majority of voters and which polling shows is an extremely low priority for them (and indeed polling also shows that voters oppose the principles of the bill in any case).

All of this reminds me that I received another press release from the National Ugly Mugs campaign a few days ago that identified a comment from the Scottish Government's Siobhian Brown which expressed scepticism about the wisdom of Regan's bill.  If the SNP leadership aren't going to lend support to the bill, it's obviously far less likely to pass.  The SNP are in principle sympathetic to the Nordic Model, but it makes perfect sense that if there's ever going to be legislation, they'd want to draw it up themselves, rather than allow Alba's only MSP to railroad it through in a half-baked form.

The Herald have once again drawn attention to Regan's now-notorious literalistic misunderstanding of the term "prostitution being driven underground".  I hadn't seen the full quote before, and it truly is a thing of beauty - 

"If you even think for one second, you cannot possibly drive prostitution underground. If you had a lot of women in underground cellars with a locked door, how would the punters get to them?"

Hopefully somebody will ask Regan if she wants to put clear blue water between herself and the SNP, just to see if she starts looking into the cost of a dinghy.

Reading between the lines of the McEleny interview, it's obvious that his expulsion from Alba has been upheld by the Appeals Committee (assuming he even put in an appeal at all). Given the time limits imposed by Alba's rules, the process must be over by now.

Last but not least, we have MacAskill's delusional claim that Alba could win between eight and sixteen list seats next year.  Eight seats would mean they'd have to treble their 2% list vote share in last week's Ipsos poll.  They'd have to multiply it by six to get to sixteen seats.  Let's get real, Kenny - it's not going to happen.  Alba remain firmly on course for zero seats.

*  *  *

The running total in the Scot Goes Pop 2025 fundraiser currently stands at £3000, meaning it is 44% of the way towards the target figure of £6800.  If you'd like to help the blog keep going, donations by card are welcome HERE, or alternatively you can cut out fees altogether (depending on which option you select from the menu) by making a direct donation via PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Saturday, July 5, 2025

What exactly is "real Yes" when it's at home?

I still intend to take pre-moderation back off at some point, because it's a right pain in the neck for all of us, but at the moment it's not possible because the levels of abuse in some of the submitted comments is just too high - probably because the Stew Fan Club haven't had time to de-frenzy themselves quite yet.  But at least it means that I don't have to constantly deal with the regular allegations that I am an "enemy of independence" because I do not support "real Yes alternatives".

What in God's name is a "real Yes alternative" when it's at home?  It seems to be code for "any pro-independence party that is not the SNP", ie. the idea is that the SNP is no longer 'really' a Yes party, thus giving Liberate Scotland a valid excuse for splitting the Yes vote on the constituency ballot next year, etc, etc.  Well, I can tell you this: I've been to all but one of the local SNP branch meetings since rejoining the party in mid-January.  At first I wasn't quite sure what to expect, because if you listen to some people you'd think the SNP have been completely taken over at every level by identity politics entryists, but that hasn't been my experience at all.  Pretty much everyone at the meetings seems to have joined the party because of independence.  They also care about social justice issues, and some talk about subjects they have particular professional expertise about, but independence is the number one priority for one and all.  

So a question: how can a party composed of literally tens of thousands of genuine independence supporters not be a "real Yes" party?  I suppose the argument might be that there's a disconnect between the "real Yes" members and a "fake Yes" leadership, but even if that was the case, it's surely a statement of the obvious that the party containing the overwhelming majority of the independence movement has the potential to transform itself into a vehicle for independence.  If all else fails, one way that could happen is via the next SNP leadership election, whenever it comes up.

As for the much smaller parties that have been designated as "real Yes", it's a matter of record that I was not only supportive of Alba, I was in fact a card-carrying member of the party for well over three years.  Towards the end I was not at all happy with Alba's direction of travel and I thought the scale of the party's intervention in a first-past-the-post general election was a dreadful error.  But I took the view that this in not America, and in this country you don't (to misquote Katy Perry) "change parties like a girl changes clothes".  If you join a party, you've made a commitment, and if that party goes astray, you don't walk away unless there's a very good reason - you instead roll up your sleeves and try to fix the problems, or at the very least try to push for change.  That's exactly what I did - I got stuck in, stood in the Alba internal elections, got elected to several committees, and did my absolute level best to insist on due process in the Disciplinary Committee and to give the party a real internal democracy via the Constitution Review Group.  All I got for my efforts was to be unceremoniously thrown out of the party on gibberish trumped-up charges that no speaker of any known version of the English language has been able to make head nor tail of.  So it's redundant and bordering on offensive to say with a sense of entitlement that I am not living up to some kind of 'duty' to support the Alba Party.  The Alba Party made abundantly clear that it did not want my support, and it sent exactly the same message to countless other good independence supporters.  

There are two things that Alba is definitely not and never has been.  It is not a participative "member-led" party, and it is not a vehicle for delivering independence.  It is simply a fan club set up to give status, funding and a platform to a small and exceedingly nasty clique centred around Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh.  If you're an independence supporter, do not waste a further second of your time on Alba.  It's never going to deliver what you want.  It's never going to deliver anything worth having.

As for Liberate Scotland, they've disqualified themselves from the off by bringing the nativist party Sovereignty into the fold, complete with far-right policies on withholding citizenship rights from "non-Scots" on some sort of ill-defined ethnicity criteria, a total ban on "economic migration", and withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights.  I don't buy the argument that you shouldn't judge people by the company they keep, because it seems highly unlikely that Barrhead Boy would ever have been so comfortable with an electoral pact with Sovereignty unless he agreed with a fair number of their dodgier policies.  Even during his Alba days, one of his hobby-horses was withdrawing voting rights from English people living in Scotland. When I disagreed with him publicly about that, Alex Salmond phoned me up to say he couldn't have two members of "his NEC" in open conflict with each other (funny that - I thought the NEC was an elected body representing Alba members, but apparently not), but he stressed that he vehemently disagreed with Barrhead Boy about narrowing the franchise and asked me to trust him to "sort it out quietly" in some sort of unspecified way.  Perhaps in a roundabout sense he actually kept his word on that, judging by the fact that the hard core of blood and soil nutters now seem to be in Liberate Scotland rather than Alba.

So if you want to lecture people on the need to support a credible pro-independence alternative to the SNP, first of all you'd have to actually create such an entity, because at the moment it simply doesn't exist.

*  *  *

The running total in the Scot Goes Pop 2025 fundraiser currently stands at £3000, meaning it is 44% of the way towards the target figure of £6800.  If you'd like to help the blog keep going, donations by card are welcome HERE, or alternatively you can cut out fees altogether (depending on which option you select from the menu) by making a direct donation via PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Friday, July 4, 2025

Will Corbyn and Sultana be spoilers for the SNP, or will they pave the way to the Promised Land?

My attitude to the prospect of a new Corbyn-led or Corbyn-founded or Corbyn-backed party of the left has been "I'll believe it when I see it", and in a strange way that hasn't changed as a result of the announcements of the last couple of days, which seem to have been more about individuals jostling for position before the launch of a party rather than getting on with the actual business of setting a party up.  However, presumably the talk has gone sufficiently far by this stage that some sort of new party, and one that will have a parliamentary presence, is highly likely to emerge in some form.  The only thing that might stop it would be if Keir Starmer is forced out of office in the near future and replaced by someone from the soft left, who then seeks reconciliation with the Corbynites.

We sometimes fall into the trap of thinking of events like this potential breakaway as taking place in another country and as being only of indirect interest to Scotland.  But in fact there was an opinion poll a couple of weeks ago that suggested the SNP was one of three parties that would suffer if a Corbyn-led party is set up, with the others being Labour and the Greens.

Hypothetical voting intentions if a Corbyn-led "populist" left party is formed (More In Common):

Reform UK 27% (-)
Labour 20% (-3)
Conservatives 20% (-)
Liberal Democrats 14% (-)
Corbyn Party 10% (n/a)
Greens 5% (-4)
SNP 2% (-1)

In this case the percentage changes are calculated from the standard voting intentions numbers in the same poll.  Now, to put it in perspective, the SNP vote in the Scottish subsample only drops from 28% to 24%, and that's based on a sample of only a couple of hundred respondents.  So the apparent appeal of Corbyn to SNP voters may just be statistical noise.  On the other hand, the Corbyn party is on 18% in the Scottish subsample, and it's hard to believe that a party of the left could perform anything like that well in Scotland without harming the SNP to at least some extent.

I'm reminded of walking around Glasgow in the days leading up to the 2017 general election and overhearing people spontaneously talking about how excited they were about Corbyn and how he was persuading them to turn back to Labour.  Those were almost certainly people who had voted SNP in 2015 and Yes in 2014.  So we'd be naive not to think that the new party could have broad appeal in Scotland, although the flipside of the coin is that Labour performed extremely poorly in Scotland under Corbyn in the 2016 Holyrood election and the 2019 general election.  Perhaps it was only when he had momentum in England that Scots thought he was worth taking a look at.

There was a write-up of the poll in the New Statesman with a very odd headline dismissing Corbyn as a "phantom" menace.  That didn't tally up with the contents of the article, and it certainly didn't tally up with the actual results of the poll, which suggest Corbyn would take one-third of the combined Labour/new party vote.  That makes him a figure of considerable significance, not the fringe irrelevance that London establishment folk like to portray him as.  And taking three percentage points off Labour could easily be enough to change the outcome of the next general election.

But to actually win or prosper in that general election, rather than to be just a disruptor, Corbyn will need more than 10% of the vote.  And there's one obvious way he might get it, which is by going into an electoral pact with the Greens.  Such an alliance could be greater than the sum of its parts, and might just be strong enough to overtake Labour in some polls during this parliament.  That would be a huge psychological moment, and would be difficult for centrists within the Labour party to wrap their heads around.  There's some speculation that Zack Polanski might be open to a pact if he becomes Green leader, although whether he'd be able to sell it to his party is another matter.  If he can't, the Greens and the new party might cancel each other out and leave the left in an even worse position than they currently find themselves, although it's interesting that the poll implies Corbyn could take votes away from Labour that the Greens currently can't seem to reach.

As Donald Rumsfeld might put it, here are some of the other 'known unknowns' about the new party, ie. 'things that we know that we do not know' - 

* Will other Labour MPs, with or without the whip, cross the floor and throw in their lot with Corbyn and Sultana?  It's hard to imagine Corbyn and his former Shadow Chancellor being in different parties from each other, but it might well work out that way due to John McDonnell's cultural loyalty to Labour.  But I speculated a few weeks ago that if there was even the slimmest of slim chances of an early general election before 2028, it would probably depend upon the partial disintegration of the Parliamentary Labour Party, and even a modest number of MP defections to the Corbyn party could conceivably end up looking like the first step in that process of disintegration (although it would almost certainly have to eventually involve right-wing Labour MPs searching for a very different sort of alternative political home, maybe even in Reform UK).

* Will George Galloway and the Workers Party want to join the new Corbyn project?  And perhaps more to the point, will the people around Corbyn want Galloway now that he seems to have lost the plot completely and started chasing the openly racist vote?  He always claimed he was talking about the Iraqi people, and not Saddam Hussein, when he "saluted your indefatigability", but he didn't mention at the time that he wanted the UK borders closed to all indefatigable people without pale skin.

* If Zarah Sultana foresees the new party having a conventional leadership structure with herself (or herself and Corbyn) at the top of that structure, will all the Independence Alliance MPs still be happy to join up?  They've got very used to having full parity of esteem with Corbyn in their current set-up.

* Is it possible that the new party could take a slightly more enlightened stance on Scottish independence than most London parties do?  Outright support for independence is far too much to hope for, clearly, but is there a chance of a neutral position, and perhaps no closing of the door on a referendum?  Corbyn would be personally sympathetic to at least being neutral, I suspect.  As Labour leader he indulged in plenty of Nat-bashing, and even trotted out the hoary old "you can't eat flags" line, but I suspect that was one of the compromises he felt he had to make (along with campaigning for Remain) to shore up his position.  My guess is that a London party will always revert to type and go Brit Nat.  But who knows - a Corbyn/Polanski alliance open to an indyref and polling at 15-20% might just be the sort of black swan event that unexpectedly opens the door for independence.

Incidentally, I was on Facebook last night and I saw that a friend of the family had changed his profile picture to a photo of Zarah Sultana, overlaid with a quote from her Twitter announcement yesterday.  She really has become a folk hero for a lot of people in a very short period of time, and the new party will be blessed to have her as an alternative figurehead if Corbyn, who has always seemed to be in two minds about whether he wants to be a party leader again, opts for a lesser role.  I've got to be honest, I'm a big fan of hers too, and if I was a voter in England I'm pretty sure I'd be thinking this is the most exciting thing to happen in politics for years.  Give me a Sultana over a Swinson any day of the week.

*  *  *

The running total in the Scot Goes Pop 2025 fundraiser currently stands at £3000, meaning it is 44% of the way towards the target figure of £6800.  If you'd like to help the blog keep going, donations by card are welcome HERE, or alternatively you can cut out fees altogether (depending on which option you select from the menu) by making a direct donation via PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Thursday, July 3, 2025

Was Rachel Reeves weeping for the failure of her political project, or for the shame of knowing it was never worth fighting for in the first place?

It now appears (although we'll have to wait for people's memoirs to know for sure) that Rachel Reeves' tears at PMQs yesterday may have been triggered by something that loveable ol' Lindsay Hoyle said to her.  But when it seemed more likely that she was weeping for the political failure of both herself and the Labour government, and in particular for the gutting of the welfare reform legislation, I couldn't help but think it perfectly summed up the tragedy of the modern Labour party.  To try to transform society for the better, and to fail, as many progressive politicians have done in the past, would be something to take immense pride in.  But to be so bereft because you betrayed everything your party once was by trying to make life worse for the most vulnerable people, and were thwarted, speaks to a kind of hollowing out of the British left's soul, which will leave Reeves' generation of Labour ministers with a sense of total emptiness when they reach the end of their careers.  What they fought for wasn't worth having and they didn't get it anyway.  I suppose the flipside is that the flame of Labour values does continue to burn, albeit as no more than a dull flicker, among the wider PLP - but unfortunately the only positive practical effect of electing a Labour majority to parliament is that it might sometimes be able to resist the right-wing excesses of the very Labour government that it pointlessly sustains in office.

There was an extraordinary quote on Tuesday from an anonymous Labour loyalist, attacking the welfare rebels: "What did they think the job was? They all think they're JFK because they delivered some leaflets while Morgan McSweeney won them the election."  If the job description of Labour MPs has been revised from creating a fairer society to total unthinking loyalty to the unelected Morgan McSweeney, then I think it's high time this modern day JFK was subjected to some proper public accountability, because I'm not sure I've ever even heard the sound of his voice.  I presume he still has a southern Irish accent, which would be rather jarring given what he's come to represent.  On the face of it, he strikes me as a total political dud, for three reasons -

* He forced Labour to abandon all of its values on the premise that doing so would increase the party's popularity, but ended up with roughly the same share of the vote that Jeremy Corbyn took in 2019, and a significantly lower share of the vote than Corbyn took in 2017.

* His strategic advice has led to the Starmer government's popularity plummetting further and faster than any other newly elected government in British history.

* He purged the PLP as best he could of all free thinkers and replaced them with drones to ensure that his right-wing programme would face no substantive resistance, and yet the Starmer administration with its landslide majority has still ended up functioning like a minority government that cannot carry its business without negotiations and massive concessions.

Now that really is political failure.  To misquote Senator Lloyd Bentson: "Morgan, you're no Jack Kennedy...although let's hear what your voice sounds like just to be sure."