Sunday, July 20, 2025

Exploding the myth that Alex Salmond "doubled independence support when he was First Minister"

One of the most obvious signs of the contempt that Stuart "Stew" Campbell has for his own readers was the way he kept using his fraudulent "independence support is flatlining" graph for years on end, even after it had been debunked umpteen times.  Basically he had cherry-picked a tiny number of polls from the hundreds of independence polls that had been conducted since 2014 to make it look as if support for Yes had remained absolutely static at 47%, thus completely misrepresenting the fact that an average of all polls showed a steady year-on-year increase for Yes until 2020, and that even in 2021 and 2022 support remained higher than in any year up to and including 2019.  

At some point, however, he finally got bored with that graph and replaced it with a new one, which has now had several outings.  I can't even call the new one misleading - it's a downright lie in most respects.  It claims the following -

* That support for independence stood at around 25% at roughly the time Alex Salmond became First Minister in May 2007.  (No exact number is given, but it appears to be halfway between 20% and 30%.)

* That support had doubled to 50% by the time Salmond was replaced by Nicola Sturgeon in November 2014.

* That the Yes vote had dipped slightly to the high 40s when Sturgeon was replaced by Humza Yousaf in May 2023.

* That the Yes vote remained unchanged in the high 40s when Yousaf was replaced by John Swinney in May 2024.

* That the Yes vote remained unchanged in the high 40s in May of this year.

The idea, of course, is supposed to be that Alex Salmond dramatically increased support for independence but that all of his successors have failed to build on that golden legacy.  And it's not hard to see why Wings readers find that narrative so seductive, but there's just one little snag - there's not actually a shred of truth in it.

The claim about May 2025 is the easiest to deal with because it's so recent.  There were exactly two independence polls in that month: one from Survation that had Yes on 49% and one from Norstat showing Yes on 54%.  So what has Stew done to produce his high 40s figure for the month?  He certainly hasn't used an average of the two polls, because that would have got him to around 51% or 52%.  So has he just used one and ignored the other?  If so, what possible justification does he have for doing that?  Before anyone suggests that maybe he's been sticking to Survation polls throughout the graph for the sake of consistency - nope, Survation didn't even exist in 2007.

And it's that 2007 figure which is by far the most problematical.  Unsurprisingly Stew doesn't give any source for it at all, but unlike the figures for the other years it clearly doesn't come from a straight Yes/No poll on independence with Don't Knows excluded, because that would imply the numbers were around Yes 25%, No 75%.  No poll even remotely like that has been published at any point in the 21st century.  By far the most likely explanation is that he is instead using the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey for that year, which had a complex multi-option format and did not exclude Don't Knows.  To say that he's made an apples-and-oranges comparison does not adequately convey the absurdity and fraudulence of what he's done - it's more like an apples-with-tractors comparison.

So what were the directly comparable Yes/No polls on independence showing in 2007?  There weren't very many independence polls being conducted back then, and most that did take place were conducted by TNS / System Three (last heard of under the branding Kantar).  It looks like there were two polls from the firm in 2007 - one showed Yes and No level on 50% apiece, and the other had No ahead by around 57% to 43% if Don't Knows were excluded.  So if we're ultra-generous and use the more favourable poll for No as the baseline, Alex Salmond increased support for independence by around seven percentage points during his tenure as First Minister - light-years short of the 25-point increase implied by Stew.  If we're not generous, and if we use the more favourable poll for Yes as the baseline, Salmond as FM did not increase support for independence at all.

Some people may be genuinely astonished to learn of this, because the mythology of Salmond doubling independence support has been so deeply ingrained into them.  But that's mainly because Salmond himself was such an effective propagandist, and it wasn't in his own interests to draw attention to the existence of several polls showing an outright Yes lead before he even became First Minister.  During the period of Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition rule from 1999 to 2007, it was in fact reasonably common for TNS / System Three to show a majority for independence.

What actually happened was that Yes support remained high until it became clear that the referendum was really going to happen, and then it was as if reality hit home for a lot of people and the Yes vote dropped like a stone, falling to as low as 33% at one point in 2012-13 (although never going close to Stew's fictional 25% mark).  Over the course of the referendum campaign there was an impressive recovery, but that essentially just got us back to where we started.  The best that can be said is that the 50% Yes vote in late 2014 had a lot more depth and substance to it than the 50% Yes vote of 2007, because people had properly thought about the issues by then.

*  *  *

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

34 comments:

  1. Actually, on Wings it's an apples and ("Tractor" - Ed)s comparison.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As for the pre-Scotgov independence polling, I too remember those days quite well. Independence was a lovely "what if?" scenario, rather than a realistic proposition, as the unionist parties were in control and always had been. You'd hear the independence number tossed off rather flippantly on Reporting Scotland, or the naughty wee Scots desk at Newsnight, purely for amusement. Despite being a fundamental matter of the form of government chosen by the Scottish people, it was treated like an unserious numpty question along the lines of JFK theories and general alien visitation.

    Oh, I often grumble about where we are now, but I’m glad we're not all the way back then. Salmond didn't singlehandedly raise support for independence up from the fringe to the very centre of Scottish politics, but he certainly did force the issue to the table, where, like it or not, it still remains.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well if there is no agreement on what the polls have said in the past on independence how the hell is there ever going to be agreement in the future on Swinney’s overwhelming support condition.

    Mind you it won’t matter as Swinney is still wanting to have a section 30 gold standard referendum and that will NEVER be agreed by Westminster.

    Just keep voting SNP for more social engineering.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Remember, Swinney is the man who advised against indyref2 when support was as high as it is now and the political landscape was massively in our favour. It is extremely likely that was our best and last chance.

      Delete
    2. "Well if there is no agreement on what the polls have said in the past on independence"

      There doesn't have to be agreement. What the polls said is a matter of record. If some people tell the truth about what they said, and other people lie about what they said, you don't have to find some sort of compromise between those two positions. It's the facts that matter and nothing else.

      Delete
    3. Just keep voting SNP...and the alternative to the SNP is ? Labour, Reform, or any of the wee diddy pro-indy parties who fruitlessly struggle to be relevant (and save their electoral deposits) ?

      Delete
    4. 12.58 Or abstain. Give up on the whole wretched lot of them and go back to creating and exploiting the opportunities within your own sphere of influence to better your own circumstances, unfortunately still within this stinking Union, and probably for the rest of our lifetimes. It's a shite state of affairs and no amount of 11 point plans or 3 pronged approaches are going to change it.

      Delete
    5. Sir Keir will thank you.

      Delete
  4. Rubbish. You can’t see the future so the idea it was the last chance means you give up and join a Brit nationalist party. As an aside the Labour English Environment minister stated on Kuensberg today that Scottish water is worse than Englands turd laden water. A complete lie and he should be called out to apologise. Complete shit if ever I heard it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wales, Scotland shouldn’t have to pay for their clean up either. I am sure we could think up a slogan. “ you’re in the shit, you pay for it!”

    ReplyDelete
  6. I see that the you can’t criticise SNP or you’re a unionist brigade are out in force. Their stupidity is astonishing. When a unionist grouping of labour Tory and reform effectively destroys devolution the responsibility will be squarely on their shoulders. Will they accept responsibility? Not a bit of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The 'Movement' will save Scotland. If they ever get off their collective arses.

      Delete
    2. I see the Brit nationalist party brigade are out again sowing doubt but claiming they are not.

      Delete
    3. 1.51pm so you think Westminster will at some point in time grant a section 30 gold standard referendum. A yes or no will suffice.

      If you answer yes when will this happen?

      If you answer no please explain why the SNP think they will.

      Delete
    4. 29th June Jim Sillars gave a somewhat surprised response to Taz Ah-Sheikh with his 4 steps to independence which seemed to cut out 2026 but aiming instead for the next General Election. 1. Building and solidifying vote 2. Take advantage electorally at Westminster vote - then have moral authority to get referendum. 3. Win referendum. 4. Negotiate treaty with England and should have negotiating brief compiled now. NOW - build and consolidate national campaign.

      Finished off with usual negative epithets about John Swinney and SNP being mediocre, 3d rate, Swinney's one objection according to Sillars being to survive in ministerial office 2026. FM parochial, no truck with anyone else etc. When Taz asked about Fergus Ewing and Alba driving independence over the line- Sillars waxed lyrical about being easy to stand, enormous logistics, don't know where your vote lies and that Margo and Canavan employed force of personality. Said Alba need to push with Scottish state interests.

      Declared he was not sectarian and met with other party bods from unionist parties and said unionists can sideline the SNP even if SNP have minority and that unionists already telling him they are already thinking about this.

      So pretty much putting off going for big independence push for 2026. Taz looked surprise. Sillars is not the only alleged independence 'influencer' (if he is REALLY for independence) who seems to favour a bad SNP 2026 result and more looking for a rainbow cross-party Holyrood. Fergus Ewing was talking about 10 years. Other indy movement personalities have recently been punting wait 5-10 years.

      So it looks more like the priority is to use any narrative to get rid of John Swinney, dilute the SNP chances for Holyrood by any means - and then build up the movement to get more bods down into Westminster and that seems to be Sillars strategy. Given that some people don't want Scotland to be sending MPs into Westminster - how are they reacting to this looking to get a majority of MPs elected and back down into the brokerage house? Of course, he didn't seem to say get SNP MPs, Alba MPs - just MPs.

      Looks like for Sillars for Holyrood it's anybody but SNP - although he'd probably change his mind if 'bods' manage to oust Swinney and try to bring in the movement's favourite chums which seems to be the current movement strategy anyway.

      Delete
    5. Thank you for watching 'Tas Is Still Talking' so the rest of us don't have to.

      Delete
    6. I posted at 12.52. And true to form an idiot appears at 1.51 to accuse me of being a unionist. He calls me a Brit nationalist. If he knew me he would know that applying the description Brit to me is as personally offensive as it gets, but it does further highlight his absolute stupidity. He really doesn’t get it, and as I say, he will be at the forefront of those in the SNP claiming it wasn’t their fault when the unionists do get power and dismantle devolution. He will be reading this. Here is the simple question for him. What is the actual plan for Independence recently announced by J S? Tell us all. There has to be one, and as an SNP disciple, you must know it. Now please.

      Delete
    7. Jim Sillars and Alba? Taza T V? What planet are you on? Alba is to all intents and purposes dead. Jim Sillars! Really? No one with a genuine interest in securing Independence is in the slightest interested in Sillars or his divisive vitriol. I Ditto Alba. I can’t decide if your post was intended to be some form of very nuanced satire. In any event, try to get it deleted and save yourself further embarrassment.

      Delete
    8. It would have been better if Sillars had remained in the Labour Party. His contribution to the independence cause is vastly overrated.

      Delete
    9. Anon at 12.52 , what's YOUR plan for independence ?

      Delete
    10. LOL! I posted the long post about Sillars/Ahmed Sheikh because I assumed that all the old worthies who usually back Sillars tended to have rushed to join Alba when Alba was formed. Because Sillars seems to back up what the Yes movement influencers always punt about Swinney/SNP - I just assumed that those in the 'movement' loop of contacts must back Sillars views on most things. I was just wondering what people thought of his 'advice' to Ahmed-Sheikh.

      No I don't make it a habit to watch the Taz show - someone had mentioned Sillars was punting a plan for independence and gave me the link to see what I thought about it. I agree with people who think Sillars should have stayed with Labour. He seems very much 'wish it was like the auld days' and after the loss of Margo, he seemed to drift into more utter hatred of the SNP, partly to do with that past and partly to do with his backing the Salmond was done in by the SNP conspiracy narrative.

      I just assumed that Sillars, because of his Salmond conspiracy feelings and his utter contempt for Swinney and the SNP, would therefore be considered some kind of ultra popular mentor type within the Yes movement.

      Delete
    11. 2.19. Yes, when Scotland's useful natural resources run out.

      Delete
  7. Sillars is now very much 'yesterday's has-been'.

    Time the stupid old fart was put out to grass.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The same Jim Sillars who donated a few grand to Jackie Baillie's political fund ?

      Delete
    2. Sillars is not so much a has been as a never was. He quit the Labour Party in the 70s and set up his own Scottish Labour - which, surprise surprise, sank without trace. He then joined the SNP where, apart from winning a by-election, has been pain in the arse since. He lost the Govan seat in spectacularly bad grace , moaning that the electorate were '90 minute patriots'.

      Delete
  8. Surely the penny will finally drop one day with nationalists that independence will never happen.
    It’s just endless, and the majority of the Scottish people are sick to the back teeth of it. Give up on the nonsense for pity’s sake!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Surely the way to test that would be through another referendum. There was a clear mandate for another referendum after the 2021xScottish elections.

      Delete
    2. KC @ 5.49pm is running scared of a referendum. Sadly, so is Swinney.

      Delete
  9. Back in 2011 support for the SNP was a good deal higher than support for independence. At the time the SNP got its landslide in 2011 support for independence was around 29%. I well remember leafletting in Banchory on the Saturday before the 2011 election when the polls were looking quite good for the SNP. An older man came to his door just as I was leafletting, took the leaflet and said to me, "Alex doesn't seem to have too much to say about independence these days, does he"? Alex's strategy during that election was very much 'bread and butter' and 'don't spook the horses' issues. It wasn't until Cameron signed up for a referendum that Alex really began to bang the independence drum. If you remember, Alex didn't want a binary Yes/No referendum. He wanted three options on the ballot paper, which Cameron wouldn't wear because he thought a binary choice would kill the SNP stone dead. Alex fought a fantastic campaign during the referendum and the result terrified the British Establishment. A huge number of people who weren't on the Independence bus prior to the referendum got on during it. Many of them are still there, but not necessarily through the SNP. John Swinney really needs to reach out to those people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "If you remember, Alex didn't want a binary Yes/No referendum. He wanted three options on the ballot paper..."

      When Salmond used to phone me up now and again, he regularly claimed the whole multi-option referendum thing was just a huge strategic bluff to get Cameron to agree to what he really wanted. He even claimed to have set up the Devo More campaign himself as a red herring.

      Delete
    2. Which holds the higher proportion of Devo maxers? Yes or No (or DK?)

      Delete
    3. James, Alex was bluffing with you as he spent a lot of time doing in order to take the credit for things the team around him slogged their guts out for - so that he could be presented as the mastermind and top man leader. Cameron called his bluff big time bouncing the referendum 'gift' on him and in Salmond's book and many times after, he had wanted the devo-max option because he thought there was more chance Scotland would go for that rather than take the Yes for an independent country leap.

      Even when Cameron made his shock announcement, which apparently really panicked Alex, as Cameron knew it would, it was Nicola Sturgeon who was the one who wanted to go full on for the referendum - not Salmond. I've quoted it before - but his aides confirmed that Salmond was so unsure about a referendum that the reason he made Nicola Sturgeon the minister for the referendum was 'in case anything went awry'. Alex always had somebody lined up to take the flack for him when he thought his boasting bloviating or freelancing stunts or adolescent behaviour might have landed him in a tricky situation. He did some grand things - but he was a skilled side-stepper, adulation grabber and one heck of an actor when needing to dodge metaphorical bullets or the tiniest hint of criticism coming his way.

      Delete
    4. We'll only know the truth when Sturgeon's book comes out.

      Delete
  10. I suppose it’s nice to reflect but let’s move on.

    ReplyDelete