Many thanks to Paul Kirkwood for pointing out to me that the independence numbers from the Find Out Now poll have been published in the print edition of the Herald on Sunday, where they're presented almost as an afterthought. I don't know whether they've been published online - I certainly didn't see them on the Herald website last night.
Should Scotland be an independent country? (Find Out Now / Herald, 15th-20th January 2025)
* * *
I launched the Scot Goes Pop fundraiser for 2025 last weekend, and so far the running total stands at £831, meaning that 12% of the target of £6800 has been raised. If you'd like to help Scot Goes Pop continue with poll analysis and truly independent political commentary for another year, donations are welcome HERE. Direct Paypal donations can also be made - my Paypal email address is: jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk
That’s all very well and nice but Swinney and all who support him say we need an unspecified level of overwhelming support to take independence forward. So back in the day when independence polls said 30% yes and we needed 51% we were 21% short. Today the SNP have moved the goalposts and we don’t even know how far short we are!!!
ReplyDeleteWhen did Swinney say what you claim he said? Exact quote and date please. If he didn’t say it what does that make you?
Delete"but Swinney and all who support him say we need an unspecified level of overwhelming support to take independence forward"
DeleteThat's wrong. Many who support Swinney will be perfectly happy with 50%+1, AND want a referendum or a de facto one NOW (2026). And even Swinney is the other way around - he doesn't say we need that overwhelming support, he does say it will advance Independence, which clearly it will.
Yesindyref2 - here we go again with the same old rewriting what SNP leaders have said.
DeleteI've said it for a long time, years. It's the Independence movement needs a fact checker; some of the partisan claims are absolutely wild and do us no good at all.
DeleteYesindyref2 Swinney said we needed an overwhelming majority just to progress independence. So if you want a referendum now and 51% is fine then you do not agree with him but you support him anyway. Supporting Sturgeon/ Swinney/ Blackford/ Yousaf for the last 10 years got independence where - nowhere.
Delete1.14pm He did say it and that makes you an Idiot for SNP. James even referred to it in one of his posts.
DeleteSpitting Anon at 3:01 PM and at 3:03 PM
DeleteLiar liar pants on fire 🤣🤣🤣
Yesindyref2 there's no such thing as 'advancing independence' there is only independence or dependence and as we have seen over the past ten years Mr. Swinney and his chums are more happy with dependence
Delete@WT - you're quoting me, and I didn't even watch the BBC thing, I'm roughly translating what the National said which is roughly what Swinney said. Here's what the National said, and note, this is them reporting what they think he said:
Delete" Swinney replied: “I think everybody knows John Swinney well enough to know that he’s committed to Scottish independence and wants to deliver it as an urgent priority for the people of Scotland.”
Asked specifically how he would achieve this, Swinney said it was crucial to build “political support for independence” so that it is a “compelling proposition to the people of Scotland”.
Pressed further on what exactly this meant, the First Minister said independence would only come about if “two things happened”.
He said this was a high level of support for the SNP and “if people are convinced by the merits and the arguments for Scottish independence”.
“And that’s what I intend to make sure is at the heart of SNP campaigning and at the heart of the SNP manifesto,” he added. ".
Swinney should only be criticised for what he said, not for what he said she said they said the BBC said someone else said he said.
3.29pm - Swinney said it on the BBC’s Sunday Show when being interviewed. So away you go calling people liars when you are wrong. You are an ignorant and unpleasant person.
DeleteNo he didn't. Stop telling lies or I'll scream and scream till you're sick!
Delete“This is them reporting what they think he said.”
DeleteYes exactly but you have posted it in “…… “ as if it is the actual transcript. So that is wrong.
That is also only a small excerpt from the interview on the subject matter by the National to spin it in a positive way. The interview lasted much longer on the subject. The word overwhelming was used by Swinney and he refused to quantify what it meant.
Of course this would not be an issue if the SNP actually had a written policy that they stuck to and didn’t have their politicians continually saying differing things. Exactly the same trick Sturgeon used to use.
5.07pm put your dummy in and put your tablet down.
DeleteAnon at 6:48 PM
DeleteYou said: "Yes exactly but you have posted it in “…… “ "
It's in quotes because, as I said, it's "what the National said". Some of it is presumably a small transcript of what Swinney said, some if it is what the National writer says he said.
"That is also only a small excerpt from the interview on the subject matter by the National"
The interview was NOT "by the National"; the National is quoting and reporting small excerpts from a BBC interview.
Your problem is not with me; if anything it's with the National.
But all that is needed is for someone to provide a URL to somewhere with the full interview, and a time index of where this supposed quote was, errrr, said. Then, if anyone can be bothered they can check its veracity and context itself.
This is made even more confusing by the fact that in the opening quote Swinney for some reason talks about himself in the third person
DeleteAnon - seems you want to move the goalposts to deflect. This is good news for those of us wanting independence. I do think we need on HR election ballot paper “For Independence”.
ReplyDeleteAnon 11.14 is having a wee greet. SNP predicted to have maist seats in 2026, and no seats for ISP and NSP
DeleteSomething wrong with you two if you are really independence supporters Anon at 11.14am is only stating the facts.
DeleteNo he is interpreting negativity. When even the Sunday Herald predicts SNP gains and winning you know something has changed.
DeleteAnon at 1.13. Well said.
DeleteAnon 1.13pm just what do you not understand about SNP 31% on constituency and 25% on list. The SNP may be the largest party but that is only because Labour and the Tories are shite and Reform is taking votes from people pissed off with all the other parties.
DeleteA wee reminder that the SNP and Greens will have had a majority in Holyrood for 5 years when the 2026 election comes up. What have they done with that majority all that time for independence - nothing.
What have you done? Nothing thing but greet. Still your probably a wee Labourite Brit.
Delete2.38pm Idiot for SNP. The SNP claim they are the vehicle for independence but do nothing. Still you probably have an IQ under 50 if you can’t see that.
DeleteTruly sick of these anons and you yesindyref2 trying to rewrite what the SNP leaders have said about independence.
DeleteJames in his article Monday 13 Jan 2025 says:-
" I will be arguing the case for the SNP to start accepting that 50% + 1support for Yes is enough and to push for the endgame on independence on that basis, rather than waiting endlessly for some mythical " overwhelming" support that is highly unlikely to ever arrive."
Swinney clearly said nothing would happen on independence until there was overwhelming support. He said it on television.
IFS - James isn't John Swinney you numptie!
DeleteThe National reports what it said he actually said to the BBC in a bit more detail:
Deletehttps://archive.is/hPHqo
But to hear what he really said you'd have to listen to it on iPlayer if it's there. Frankly my dear, I can't be bothered. But so many people hear only what they want or expect to hear, rather than what's actually there. Hence why Labour got elected to Westminster, and why Reform UK do well in the polling.
If media made a full transcript available it would be a lot more honest - people could interpret what was actually said rather than what he said she said he said he said.
And that is how we are not Independent yet. Media trickery.
Anon at 3.34pm what are you rambling on about. You are the only one suggesting James is Swinney.
DeleteYesindyref2 - so we are at the stage where Swinney says it straight and crystal clear on TV but people who don't want to believe it convince themselves he didn't say it - madness is now rampant among SNP supporters. You cannot debate with people who prefer self delusion to the actual facts.
DeleteI saw him personally say it on the TV live at the time.
It's like 1984 on here with these delusional SNP nutters.
Just keep telling yourself vote SNP and all will be well just like the last 10 years - are we really an independent country and those who say we are not are liars. That's the mad direction of travel by SNP nutters.
Nutters ? Hows about Alba and the iSP ?
Delete"Just keep telling yourself vote SNP and all will be well just like the last 10 years"
DeleteTHIS is what makes you so unreliable a witness. I've never said that, nor would I. You've totally misrepresented my poistion as oft times before. Read what I did say below. Oh - you did - you even replied to it. Did you only read what you wanted to read?
Nobody has actually quoted Swinney himself, in context, with the relevant question, and with a URL for iPlayer or youtube, with a time index. Which means nobody can check it out.
You should have gone to Specsavers :-)
Yesindyref2 - delusional stuff - all the people who saw that programme heard him say that and be questioned about it. There was no possibility of misunderstanding what he said. Why do you think James referred to it in his blog. Is he an unreliable witness as well. You can take a hike with your unreliable witness crap.
DeleteYou cannae even read properly. That sentence you quote " Just keep telling ........ " was not directed at you. I never said you said that. I make that clear when I say that's the mad direction of travel by SNP nutters. Unless you have recently joined the SNP that is not you. It's you who get things wrong. So why don't you tell me where I have misrepresented your ever changing position. Go on exact word and verse, dates, times in context etc etc if you cannae do that you are an unreliable witness by your standards. Take your time only your own high standards of evidence will be acceptable.
Specsavers jibe - more crap - I HEARD him and saw him say it so did many others. How many times have the SNP changed their position on independence over the last 10 years - a lot - do I need to detail in triplicate for people like you when, who where etc to understand that fact as well.
Are you currently being medicated? If not, why not? He'll aye!
DeleteAnon6.27pm - if you can get anti gibberish pills you should buy a large supply and then recommence posting.
DeleteIFS: "Yesindyref2 - delusional stuff - all the people who saw that programme heard him say that and be questioned about it."
DeleteProve it. And provide the exact quote, and the question it was a reply to. And a link with a time index so people can check it out.
Perhaps somebody below has taken the trouble to do so ...
... nope. Nobody has even tried to prove their version. So all we have is one named baseless assertion, and a couple of anonymous ones.
DeleteAnd lastly IFS as I've done with you for now, the bit you quoted from the SGP article:
Delete" I will be arguing the case for the SNP to start accepting that 50% + 1support for Yes is enough and to push for the endgame on independence on that basis, rather than waiting endlessly for some mythical " overwhelming" support that is highly unlikely to ever arrive.""
Doesn't even mention Swinney, so it does NOT support your argument that Swinney said it or that James agrees with you. It doesn't mean he didn't say that, but his article does not help your argument against Swinney at all.
There have indeed been prominent SNP bods who've said about the "overwhelming support"; that's their opinion and one I totally disagree with. Some of the members also do unfortunately.
Unlike you I try to provide URLs to make it easier for people to check things out - or even show me where I went wrong if I did. Yrtis:
https://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2025/01/back-to-future-i-have-rejoined-snp.html
Yesindyref2 - for years I told you and your fellow SNP/WGD numpties that Sturgeon would never deliver Indyref2 never mind actual independence. You and your pals on WGD said she would and called me a Unionist. You were wrong. Now that was my opinion and that was your opinion. None of you have the good grace to admit you were wrong. Unless of course you believe in fairytales like Dr Jim on WGD that Sturgeon is going to come back and deliver independence.
DeleteSwinney stating on the BBC that only with overwhelming support would there be progress on independence is not an opinion or forecast it is fact.
You don't like this as it is a problem for your own personal fairytale that Swinney is suddenly going to announce a de facto or some referendum equivalent just months before the Holyrood election. The very same guy who was deputy leader under Sturgeon. That is delusional stuff.
I never said James mentioned Swinney so you really are the champion of erecting straw men. So you think James may have said what he said on the basis of assorted SNP people saying that and not the party leader. Fair enough believe that if you want. It disnae change the fact.
Like David Francis you are delusional and facts/evidence are not allowed to interfere with delusions. Also like Francis you are great one for insisting others prove everything in great detail but you ignore requests to do the same.
So you think I should have access to a recording of a TV show or go through iplayer just to keep you happy. I would need a massive recording of all the TV shows where SNP leaders have said something about independence - all of it carrots for numpties.
I challenged you to give me all the details of where I have misrepresented your position - you ignored it. You also did not have the grace to apologise for your wrong assertion when it was directed against SNP nutters and not you.
I have to prove everything in detail to you but you don't - take a hike.
Did you ask The National to prove their version? I doubt it. It was only a fraction of the interview. There was also discussion about the N. Ireland referendum process and Swinney's view on Scotland re this.
The National according to your post says Swinney said "a high level of support" - what does this mean then? 55% 60% 65% 70%
75% 80% 85% - is it the same as overwhelming support? Who knows. It is meaningless shit dressed up as carrots for numpties to munch away on and feed their delusional fairytales. That would be you yesindyref2. You ain't learned much over the last 10 years but never mind you are not the only one.
Jan 13 2025 at 10 .44pm as part of a post I stated:-
Delete" I asked David Francis on a number of occasions what will be different in the next 10 years when compared to the last 10 years to make independence happen. His acceptance of Swinney's overwhelming support statement shows that nothing will be different."
Not one person on SGP queried the comment re Swinney's overwhelming support statement. Not even you yesindyref2.
Jan 13 2025 James post called Reform UK overtake the Tories............
DeleteJames says : " .......will be to persuade John Swinney, and indeed, Kate Forbes, to drop the nonsense about how independence can only happen with "overwhelming " support and to revert to seeking a simple 50% +1 majority for yes. If they insist upon the
" overwhelming " route, .......
There you go yesindyref2. It's clear you do not read James's articles. Now take a hike and stop being a bloody nuisance who cannae keep up with events.
So that would be a no then; you made an assertion and can't back it up, but attempt meaningless centre of your own universe deflections instead. Same old.
DeleteYesindyref2 - you really really cannae read can you. Left school early. I’ll spell it out for you once again and then away and sit in the corner like the dunce you are.
DeleteRead my post at 11.02pm again. It says James in his article refers to not only Swinney but also Forbes and overwhelming support on multiple occasions.
So is James an unreliable witness? Just go and sit in a corner and stop wasting my time.
Your quote from that article:
Delete"to drop the nonsense about how independence can only happen with "overwhelming " support"
It still doesn't prove Swinney said what you said at 3:10PM he said:
"Swinney clearly said nothing would happen on independence until there was overwhelming support. He said it on television."
Do you not understand the complete difference between:
" independence can only happen" (with "overwhelming " support)
and
"nothing would happen on independence" (until there was overwhelming support)
Obvs not!
You are a real piece of work yesindyref2. The overwhelming support point was discussed by James as a key problem in at least two of his blogs in January and was not disputed by anyone weeks ago as a fact but here you are and your silly semantics just because you are unable to accept being wrong even when it’s bloody obvious you are.
DeleteThe interview with Swinney is on YouTube. It’s title is:
DeleteFirst MinisterJohn Swinney was on
the Sunday Show - 12.1.25
Swinney does use the word overwhelming.
Yesindyref2 - runs away. The guy has no class.
DeleteHi IFS im yet another anon. Bang the drum, bowler hat, play the flute eat yer beans.
DeleteGood poll result which puts independence into the lead happened under the SNP's watch and shows that John Swinney's leadershsip with Kate Forbes of the SNP is bringing success .
ReplyDeleteSNP 31% constituency and 25% list. You SNP nutters are delusional.
DeleteAnon at 12.33. Get an adult to explain it to you.
DeleteAnon 1.16pm clearly you cannot explain anything and that’s why you can only post childish comments like that.
DeleteYou call people nutters because you are too stupid to understand what is being said. That’s your problem. Toddle off silly wee billy boy. Your flute practice awaits.
DeleteHappy Days.
ReplyDeleteVote SNP.
🤣🤣
DeleteLOL.
Vote SNP for devolution. There you go fake David Francis corrected it for you.
DeleteChildish Anon at 12: 30 pm .... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ....
DeleteThis Francis impersonator must think we’re all daft.
DeleteAny Tom Dick or Harry can create a Google account under any name. Certainly ain’t fooling me.
Tom Jones, Dick Emery and Harry Worth often create Google accounts under any name. They're terrible and I'm nobody's fool. Neither is that so called nutter in charge of things.
DeleteThere spoondrifters one in all.
DeleteForget nasty Alba. Labour are being punished and SNP rewarded.
ReplyDeleteConsider that over 75s may see their road tax rise in April just because they’re over 75 and not wanted on the roads despite the 17 to 25 young men having the worst driving records
The triple lock on pensions in now gone
The statement reads from memory something like “the old are getting rich before they’re old instead of the other way round, demographically Britain cannot afford to keep this up” Labour spin doctors
OK but afaik the triple lock is still there.
DeleteAnon at 12:36.
DeleteImpossible to 'fool' a Cretin like you, pal.
Wouldn't even try.......
That is absolute crap. The triple lock is still there, any talk about that is for the Isle of Man only. And there is no talk about increasing motor tax for the over 75s except in your head.
DeletePlease do not act like a ninny I beg of you.
DeleteThe Heralds front page is something to note. The poor Sunday Mail and Post try deflections away from the pro SNP polling.
ReplyDeleteI think many ALBA will decide the SNP is the best choice
ReplyDeleteYes. SNP is clearly better than ALBA.
DeleteBest choice to keep things as they are?
DeleteI think the ideal situation for 2026 would be the SNP flat out for Independence and probably a de facto referendum, at least 65 SNP MSPs elected on this basis, probably 66 or more if they had one taken away as Presiding Officer. And then the ScotGov declaring Independence with the intention of proving it with a referendum.
ReplyDeleteWith Labour having gone from 38 MSPs to 24 to 22 and now possibly 16, and remembering that Dugdale wanted Labour to have a free vote on Independence, if they had the common sense to be at least neutral on Indy reflecting that 30% or whatever of their voters support Indy, then that would help. But it's not essential.
By people coming out and supporing SNP under John Swinney this can happen.
DeleteOnly if the SNP put Independence front and centre for the 2026 GE. And it's chicken and egg - which came first. If the SNP DON'T put Indy front and centre, many, many people, myself included, won't vote for them.
DeleteI expect John Swinney will put it on line one page one.
Delete"I expect John Swinney will put it on line one page one."
DeleteDefine "it".
They did that for the 2024 General Election manifesto - and then the whole party including Swinney totally ignored it in the actual campaign and leaflets. Hence why 500,000 voters stayed away in disgust at the betrayal.
DeleteJohn Swinney has attended pro-independence events.
DeletePutting our own hopes and wants aside do we realistically John Swinney to do someone as bold as that?
DeleteHis whole political career and personality scream "don't rock the horses" and he's even admitted to advising Sturgeon when she was FM to not utilise Brexit to progress the case for independence.
I don't feel like it's helpful to create fantasies or fictionous versions of politicians.
Swinneys leadership hs been marked by a steady hand.
DeleteI don't know if Swinney can be bold.
DeleteBut he needs to be. A lot of people are fed up waiting for Indy.
Yes, but roughly 8% of the Cons, 30% of Labour and LibDems and even 25% of Reform would vote YES, last time I looked (needs to be corrected from the tables).
ReplyDeleteIndy just needs to be made the top issue in the election - by early next year though. Still time for Swinney to clean up the rest of the debris left behind by the previous SNP.
Anyways, looking at the overall forest rather than the trees, this was a fantastic headline from the Herald:
ReplyDelete"2026 Holyrood election
Exclusive Herald poll predicts dramatic shift in Scottish political landscape"
THAT is a real eye-catcher for the general public, if they saw it. Maybe good for a hoarding and banner or three.
The Herald headline is very encouraging for SNP.
DeleteNo. That headline is encouraging for anyone who wants change.
DeleteThe raw volumes are not posted but the turnout-adjusted percentages show YES on 49.5% and NO on 45.2%. Excluding don't knows and refusals this converts to 52.3%.
ReplyDeleteFOW have published 11 polls on the 'Scottish Question' since March 2021:
9 have YES @ 52% (rounded) and 2 @ 54% (rounded) and average of 52.4%.
So nothing much has changed in 4 years according to this survey firm.
Very encouraging.
DeleteThanks duncanio
DeleteIt does suggest Sarwar may have to consider the House of Lords with Baillie and co.
ReplyDeleteAre Jackie Baillie, Anas Sarwar and Ruth Davidson the same person?
DeleteSNP Constituency Ballot: 31%
ReplyDeleteYes Support: 51%
Why is there a 20% gap?
Do we need to shout more and put more words in all Caps that they're the only viable pro-indy Party?
No they just have to come up with a plan for independence - and stop lying
DeleteSo what you're saying is calling that 20% morons and imbeciles won't win them round?
DeleteDamn, someone better tell David Francis.
“ someone better tell David Francis “ but which one? All of them?
DeleteIt's hard enough to get us all together tbh. We've all got lifes you know!?!
DeleteGot a luxury campervan trip planned myself.
John Swinney appears to have been an effective leader for the SNP, providing stability and continuity during his tenure.
ReplyDeleteHis leadership has been marked by a steady hand.
He has generally been a unifying figure within the SNP.
When did any country ever gain its independence by having a leader with a steady hand providing stability and continuity.
DeleteThat's a a recipe for more of the same - devolution.
Good leader for SNP perhaps but useless for independence
DeleteWe need the reverend to come back to Scotland
DeleteAnon at 5.32pm - you are correct he is a politician. The trouble is he is supposed to be an independence politician not a British state politician. You are the one introducing soldiering - why?
DeleteWhen John Swinney willingly accepted his invitation to be on level pegging with the Mayor's of England at Starmers 'Council of the Nations and Regions in Edinburgh' that should have said it all.
DeleteIt was obvious what Starmer was doing but did Swinney protest declaring that Scotland was a nation not a region? No he didn't. He was all smiles having his title reduced to a regional Head.
swinney does pegging?
Deletewouldn't surprise me with this lot - you don't change the name to Stonewall Nonce Party without some rum business going on
@IFS You really are a tiny dick
DeleteYou said willy! Tee hee!
DeleteDude, you said "Free".
DeleteHur, hur.
I can't see that happening yesindyref2, he's not that interested. There's too much for them to lose to do anything radical and I'm afraid that's what we need now, but these guys are stuck in the 'please could you see your way to giving consideration to our weak proposal's for...blah blah' The SNP is a nightmare these days.
ReplyDeleteWe could do with some nationalist propaganda to offset the Britain propaganda. I'm not referring to unionist propaganda - I'm referring to the delusional mindset of a country that still thinks it has some stature in the world while the rest of humanity looks at it with a smirk
ReplyDeleteHe's still on my timetable. Spend time undoing the severe damage the Bute House Agreement caused, move back to competent government, and THEN just in the last few months, put Indy back on the hob with nothing else taking the heat.
ReplyDeleteThen we're cooking with gas!
And if that doesn't happen I won't bother voting at all. I'm not voting for what would then be provably, career politicians pretending to be Indy supporters.
Tickled your fancy innit?
ReplyDeleteYesindyref2 - it's been provable for years.
ReplyDeleteAnd now for something completely different, and perhaps something nearly all of us would be able to support fully, apart from the nerds that is:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/glasgow-banksy-spotted-west-end-30914889
You are still an irrelevant wee suck up
DeleteAren't we all, sweetie.
Delete7.23pm and when the polls are consistently near the 60% you will come on here and say just to be safe we really need them to be consistently near the 65% because you are a unionist.
ReplyDeleteLol.
ReplyDeleteAnd STILL the poor, wee Albaist trash are furiously typing away and talking to each other in their insignificant wee Alba Echo Chamber - but are being resolutely ignored by almost everyone else.
Satisfying.
Agreed, pathetic imbeciles the lot of them!
DeleteThe SNP can win independence perfectly well on 31%
Awa and dinnae spout pish, Davey pal and Daveyboy. The SNP can secure independence without a SINGLE VOTE from the ALBAIST SCUM that infests the internet and the darkest corners of my mind. They’re a bunch of knickers wearing, nose breathing, nasty wee malcontents and can GTFA before I send Jamesy on their case.
DeleteSCUM! The 20% don’t deserve the vote! Let alone the SNP.
(i love you)
David - do you actually want independence? Your dismissive nature toward supporters of independence who don't happen to vote SNP (or perhaps Green) is in direct conflict with trying to get this country free of Westminster. If this is the way you think of supporters of independence what on earth is your attitude towards unionists - you know the people you need to attract towards YES? You're turning politics into the tribalism of football fans.
DeleteThat was in response to the real David Francis
DeletePutting aside trolling for the moment, polls keep telling us that around 20% of indy supporters aren't currently backing the SNP.
DeleteIsn't it better to try and understand why that is and win those people round rather than demean them and calling them imbeciles for not currently supporting the "most powerful" pro-independence Party?
And pander to THEIR concerns? Guff like delivering policies? Those BASTARDS just won't shut up about the bloody FERRIES! Honestly, what true supporter of INDEPENDENCE ever rode on a ferry in their whole life? It's just PATHETIC pandering to the CHUCHTERS and their made-up names and places. It's all a BRITNAT roose. It makes ma stomach bile.
DeleteNEVER!
Alba will lose their one seat and disappear without trace and the SNP will win massively with or very close to a majority
ReplyDeleteThis poll is a piece of nonsense and nobody should pay the slightest attention to it
The wild fluctuations between the different pollsters on Alba is striking. Where do the firms who place Alba on close to zero score current support for independence?
DeleteHas anyone said Rubicon yet?
ReplyDeleteMe! I said it at 20 past 8. Do I get the prize?
DeleteAnother headline in the Herald:
ReplyDelete"Grand Theft Auto studio took £73m in tax relief while paying huge dividends"
The clue is in the name.
Well come up to Scotland and visit Loch Ness. You'll have a great holiday and people there will introduce you if you behave yourself.
ReplyDeleteIs it interesting or relevant that that same pollster is the one consistently putting Reform in tied or actual 1st place? In any case, they are, and it's a picture that makes sense.
ReplyDeleteI mean in the UK general election polls, d'oh.
DeleteThe only time polling for Scotland is ever close to being accurate is five minutes before a UK general election, the rest of the time it’s total made up mince, eh, and Alba will be more than fortunate to retain the one seat they stole
ReplyDeleteOnly Dr Jim can contradict himself in one short sentence. Jimbo claims polls are total made up mince except for the polling about Alba. How does anyone take this guy seriously but he is good for a laugh.
DeleteHe makes you make an arse of yourself proving you only exist to bad mouth others because you have no contribution of your own on anything to do with independence
DeleteJust a trolling wee fud
The comment above is not true. I for one find the charitible invective of l' indépendence pour l'Scotland to provide the belly laughs most frequently and assured. Vive l'Écosse!
Delete“ Just a trolling wee fud.” says Dr Jim who is getting more and more senile and angry every day.
DeleteSo, first politics show I've bothered with for ages, I prefer written stuff it's 10 times as fast to read what's there as listen.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, BBC iPlayer for another 8 days, The Sunday Show, Series 4: 12/01/2025. For context the independence bit of that starts at 8:38 with Geissler (G) - Sturgeon says Independence is off the agenda, Swinney (S) says no I don't think it is. G says Westminster says NO to a ref, S says blah blah Brexit, EU, migration. G may well deliver good results you take to Westminster but the supreme court have told you that's the only route. Now the transcript, E&OE, I didn't bother much punctuation.
S: "We can't in a democracy have the perpetual saying of NO and I made comments last week -
G: but we have, for 10 years
S: It's not good enough Martin and it can't go on because what I set out during the week was the fact that we've now got a situation that in Northern Ireland for example there is an accepted means by which the Constitutional status of Northern Ireland can be changed, i.e. there can be a border poll, but there's not apparently the possibility of such an opportunity for a process and a route to exist for Scotland - that's not good enough, and that's not appropriate in a democracy - -
G: Right - -
S: But the but the most important point for me Martin is that what I've got to do is I've got to build public support for Independence because it's only when Independence, becomes an overwhelmingly popular concept in Scotland, that we will be able to make progress on that journey and that's what I'm hoping to do.
G: So are you referring to a clause in the Good Friday Agreement I think that says and I paraphrase here when the secretary of state sees evidence that suggests that the majority of the country are in favour of reunification a border poll will be held, I mean it's there in black and white although it's slightly, actually opaque that wording. Are you now then going to go to Keir Starmer and say I want something in black and white that says, whatever, 3 consecutive polls over 60% and we're on?
S: Well, what we've got to develop is that the whole discussion about what a process looks like, what is the circumstances that can (overspoken)
G: Do you need a threshold, an agreed threshold?
S: Well what we need to do, the priority for me is to demonstrate, beyond any doubt that Scotland wants to become an Independent country, and that's how Scotland will become an Independent country because that's what happened with Devolution. Although we had a referendum in 1997 about Devolution it was plain to anyone's view that Scotland had decided we wanted a Parliament, we wanted a Parliament that was powerful within the United Kingdom and that was absolutely demonstrable and nobody could stand in the face of that and I need to get the Independence arguments into exactly the same shape and that's exactly what I'm doing.
For any discussion about what Swinney said it really does matter exactly what he said, and the full context. For info:
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Scottish_devolution_referendum
"only when Independence, becomes an overwhelmingly popular concept in Scotland"
DeleteCan we get a definition on what that is and exactly why it would make a difference on Westminster granting us a referendum?
It feels like just moving the goalposts with vague notions rather than an actual plan. In reality the situation should be more simple: If a Party is elected on a mandate on the basis to progress independence then they should pursue that mandate by any means.
Thanks YI2 for doing the work you demanded from IFS and others for proof on Swinney's quote.
DeleteNotably: they were entirely correct. Swinney talks about "overwhelmingly popular" support for independence. That's clearly not the words of someone who wants to draw the line at 50%+1, that much is crystal clear.
The fact he doesn't say 60%, two-thirds, or even any number at all, should set off your alarm bells. He's asked and he carefully refuses to ever draw the line. Is there one? Or is "overwhelming support" a workshopped phrase for "never"?
For context: the 1997 devo referendum's result felt and was reported as an overwhelming YES at the time. The figure was in fact just a sliver short of 75%. So is a repeat of that dizzy and unlikely number Swinney's line?
DeleteWouldn't we need an actual vote to determine the real support for independence?
DeleteHypothetical's, polling and speculation don't matter at the end of the day, all that does are votes cast at the ballot box.
Swinney and G are either stupid or deliberately ignoring the fact that the N.Ireland process requires Westminster to approve a referendum. The sec 30 process also requires Westminster to approve a referendum. So when Swinney says we need a process like N. Ireland it is still under the control of Westminster. Swinney is a phoney kicking the can down the road till he retires.
DeletePeople heard the word "support" and then "overwhelming" and put the two together as "overwhelming support", whereas what was said was "overwhelmingly popular concept" which is different and probably even more "overwhelming". They were then probably thinking about that with shock, and missed the reference to "devolution", which was even more than "overwhelming".
DeleteI'd love to see support for Indy at 75%, and for it to be embraced by the same players as for the 2nd Devo Ref - just about all civic society including even the church, and all parties aprt from the Cons. But I'll need to live to about 102 to see that happen WITHOUT the major incentive of an actual full out campaign. Barring a miracle.
So no, they misquoted it and got it wrong. It's actually worse, far worse than that. The result of the Devo Ref was 75% YES for Devolution.
Confusing "overwhelming" and "support" for "overwhelming support" you say? That's some fine sophistry, YI2.
DeleteWhen does less-than-overwhelming "support" (like the current low fifties we have for YES in polling) become "overwhelming" without being "overwhelming support" exactly? Is it more the way that we say it than just the pure number of us saying it?
Whatever it is, it's not coming any sooner than this political generation's final salary pensions, is it?
YI2 - aye just hide behind it’s not the exact word stuff. You just like an argument. You do not have the decency to say you got it wrong.
DeleteThis interview took place on a Sunday morning and James referred to it in blogs the next day. Not one person said it was wrong that Swinney was advocating overwhelming support was necessary.
It was always on YouTube for you to look at but no you preferred to make accusations against Ifs but not James who posted it in his articles.
Perhaps you ought to note that Swinney also said in another tv programme last year that he advised Sturgeon against holding indyref2 and not to use Brexit as a reason. This was contrary to the SNP’s manifesto at the time. No doubt you didn’t see this programme either.
You got it wrong with your accusation. You should have done the research first.
If you visit the Scotch Lakes James Kelly will take a selfie with you. And manage to ignore Nessie popping up in the background.
ReplyDeleteI represent the Second Circle
ReplyDeleteI represent Celine Gottwald.
DeleteLooks a fairly decent bet, that Nicola Sturgeon will NOT be charged/prosecuted for anything at all, now.
ReplyDeleteBy latest reports, the COMPLETED Police Case was passed to COPFS 6 months ago, without a charge being laid against her and there has been NO restriction placed on her ability to sell the house she shares/has a financial interest in with her husband, unlike the restriction placed on Murrell.
Not definitive of course, but heavily suggestive of no action being taken against her.
Time will tell...........
Must be nice to have the chief prosecutor you hand-picked yourself.
DeleteCOPFS is not fit for function. There's no place for political appointees, in fact cabinet members!, in the judicial process.
I've been pro Sturgoen for years but I just can't shake that she was going about telling anyone "the finances are fine" and not letting any questions be asked. She also took our movement to the British Supreme court without an organised response which was an inevitable consequence of taking that step. She's a great communicator but unfortunately, her legacy has been tarnished for many. I also do not believe she didn't know her husband was coining it in. The situation may have been exaggerated for political gain but they put themselves in that position with a lack of transparency. Has anyone got to the bottomo of just where the money is and why they bought a motorhome for 100k?
DeleteIf she hadn't taken the referendum to the court, the majority polls and SNP resurgence could have led somewhere. She took us up the hill and left us in a cul-de-sac. Poor tactics.
Aye of course you supported the former FM. What was proved is the Supreme Court -set up cos we were in the eu is loaded pro English judges.
Delete"NO restriction placed on her ability to sell the house she shares/has a financial interest in with her husband, unlike the restriction placed on Murrell"
DeleteUm, isn't that the same house?
They did not buy a motor home. It is in the SNP accounts as an asset. Why are you claiming otherwise? And tell us about these sums her husband was coining in. Tell the Crown Office as well because they presently have no evidence for a prosecution. The S C case was necessary to block the possibility of Westminster stalling matters with a last minute court case seeking orders to prevent a referendum, and taking control of the process. The S C judgement has set out the legal position. It is up to the Indy movement to progress Indy accordingly. J S needs to step up here. And there will have to be confrontation to bring about constitutional crisis. I have been pointing this out for years. N S let us all down badly, but not in the manner you claim. You are expressing opinions very similar to those of the fake reverend dullard on WOS.
DeleteIt is a fact in law that British state agents working for the state are immune from prosecution for any criminal acts, even murder, never mind dipping your hands into the till.
DeleteAnon at 10.42. And? Don’t comment on legal issues. Way above your pay grade.
DeleteAnon at 10.46. Bit early for you to be on the sauce. Or is WOS in a different time zone from reality?
DeleteAnon at 10:42
DeleteFrom an newspaper interview with KC Thomas Leonard Ross, yesterday -
'Last month, Ross made headlines with his prediction that Nicola Sturgeon would not be charged after Operation Branchform. Asked if the updated Police Scotland statement firmed up his belief, the KC said: “Well, she's never been charged.
“They took her in, they released her without charge, then went back and charged somebody else.
“In the absence of any contrary information, there's absolutely no basis for thinking she's going to be charged.
“In addition, it was reported the Crown Office are taking steps to inhibit the sale of the house [which she shared with Murrell].
“Now, she has an interest in the sale of the house, but they didn't inhibit her. They didn't make any application to inhibit her from selling the house.
“They could have … but they didn't do that.
“If it was two people to be prosecuted and they had a joint interest in the house, the proceedings to inhibit the house would be taken against both people, which in a way kind of gives weight to it.”
Anon 10.49am - typical low life - you know it’s true so you just post abuse.
DeleteAnon at 10:46
DeleteSturgeon is no more of a 'British State Agent' than was Privy Councillor, Ardent Royalist and Close Friend of a Tory Cabinet Minister, Salmond.
Hideous post from anon@10:46am.
DeleteCrazy crazy stuff.
Anon at 10.49. If only you did irony. Toddle off back to WOS.
DeleteJust how does David Francis at 11.06 am know that. Are you a British agent David?
DeletePeter Murrell was on 5 times the median salary of ordinary Scottish people, in what planet is just not "coining it in"?
DeleteHe was taking more than his fair share.
You don't "take control of the process" by initiating a court case and then allowing the London veto to be crystallised in the minds of all Scots, by not having an immediate and agree response.
DeleteIt's taken the movement back years.
O/T. I see the thickos over on WIS are as dumb as the Lib Dem’s and the usual suspects on here. Good stuff.
ReplyDeleteWOS. Good old text predictor. Zzzzzzzz
ReplyDeleteHow are things over on WOS? Silly billy.
ReplyDeleteSurvation, 14th Jan
ReplyDelete“ Westminster Voting Intention (Scotland):
SNP: 33% (+2)
LAB: 24% (-4)
REF: 15% (+2)
CON: 14% (-1)
LD: 9% (+3)
GRN: 4% (-1)
OTH: 1% (-2)
N = 811
F/w 7th - 13th January 2025
Changes vs. 15th November 2024”
Didn’t see the Yes/ No split re. Indy.
In terms of party support for WM, seems plausible to conclude that Lab are leaking more and more votes to LDs and Cons are doing same to Reform.
Only depressing thing is your stupidity. Away home, the rev has made your lunch.
DeleteActually, now that you mention it, KC would have a great time at WOS. The openly proud unionist contingent there is definitely a thing now.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, James will have an even harder job to change things in the SNP than he thought. It seems that Swinney hasn't set the bar at 50%+1, nor has he set the bar at 60%. It's worse than that, he's set it at 74.3%. Something the unionists will gleefully point out when they're ready.
ReplyDeleteYI2 - I think James knew all that but the truth is he never actually stated a figure.
DeleteAnon 1.26pm - you may think it’s reasonable but it is not democratic.
It’s 51%. Not really difficult to understand unless you’re a unionist troll.
DeleteAnon @1:46,
DeleteWell if you’re one of the gullible fools who take Find Out Now polls seriously, we’ve reached 51%.
Yesindyref2 - first of all you claimed James didn't refer to Swinney when he mentioned overwhelming support. I showed you that not only did James refer to Swinney he referred to his deputy Forbes as well.
DeleteNext you wanted direct proof of the original interview. You were told it was on the BBC Sunday Show. You found it on iplayer. Others said it was on YouTube. Now you say it was worse than what I said re the main point of overwhelming support.
Time for you to apologise to me for implying I was lying.
74.3%- so accurate. Not 74.2%. Cobblers. If Scotland votes 55% done deal
DeleteAnon at 1.53. Where do I mention a poll, any poll? Straw man. Toddle off back to WOS.
DeleteAs usual, the insignificant wee Albaists and Wingnuts are doing their usual whining about pollsters they don't like and thresholds they invent.
ReplyDeletePathetic, irrelevant SHITE.
Are you the real David Francis? If so do you think your language reflects well on the SNP. Is the new SNP plan to swear our way to independence?
DeleteFrancis obviously thinks being loud mouthed and abusive is the way to go.
DeleteWell David Francis if you want to meet Swinney's criteria of overwhelming support for independence you best shout and swear even louder and louder if you think that actually helps.
DeleteSpoiler - it disnae.
To Yoon-Plant IFS and all the Albaist greetin-faced wee whiners - go and whine/complain about the obnoxious abuse posted about Sturgeon, Sweeney & Co, rather than getting yer knickers in a twist about my input.
ReplyDeleteTa.
David, I take strong exception to being called a yoon plant. You do more damage to independence than any Unionist. You are being viewed as a cartoon comic figure by more and more people with your obnoxious foul mouthed rants.
DeleteSo David why did you take so long to use a proper blog login?
Still shy about divulging your SNP branch. Could it be you have been expelled from the SNP? You come across as the same type of character as McEleny. Someone who is a foul mouthed bully and thinks they are a hard man.
Really?
DeleteAnd how do you think YOU 'are being viewed by more and more people', IFS???
Wee hint.............on the downside of 'about as credible and useful as a Starmer-Pledge'.
Dry yer wee eyes.
IFS has been proven correct about Sturgeon. Pity SNP supporters like you cannot see the truth as to what the SNP has turned into.
DeleteYou will more than likely die in the British state and it is all down to your own stupidity.
I’m increasingly of the opinion that David Francis is one of these people who likes confrontation, and is on here with the sole purpose of stirring trouble.
ReplyDeleteLol.
DeleteIt's not as if the Anon-Army and some others on here, were already doing that, eh?