One subsample to rule them all, and in the brightness grind them

As you probably saw in the comments section of the previous post, yesterday was a red-letter day for the SNP in the latest GB-wide YouGov poll.  They hit 4% of the GB vote, which hardly ever happens, and were above 40% in the Scottish subsample.

GB-wide voting intentions (YouGov, 15th-16th June 2025):

Reform UK 27% (-2)

Labour 24% (+1)

Conservatives 17% (-)

Liberal Democrats 15% (-)

Greens 10% (-)

SNP 4% (+1)

Plaid Cymru 1% (-)

Scottish subsample: SNP 41%, Labour 23%, Reform UK 13%, Liberal Democrats 10%, Conservatives 7%, Greens 5%

Although YouGov are unusual in structuring and weighting their Scottish subsamples correctly, the margin of error in any subsample results is still enormous due to the small sample size.  So the SNP are unlikely to really be in the 40s, but this is the second post-Hamilton YouGov subsample in a row to have them with a big lead over Labour, which makes it more likely that they've effectively got away with their defeat in the by-election.  The only real danger of that setback was that it might produce a snowball effect threatening the SNP's national lead, and if that hasn't happened, we may end up looking back on the by-election as a noisy irrelevance.

The Britain-wide figures are consistent with the recent pattern of the gap between Reform and Labour narrowing.  I'd put that down to a combination of Reform's breakthrough in the local elections gradually fading from memory, and Labour winning back a small percentage of lost voters with the U-turn on winter fuel allowance.  Morgan McSweeney may even think this means his masterplan for winning the next general election for Labour is gradually coming together, but I am very sceptical that Labour will be able to win the election if they merely recover to the high 20s or low 30s.  There's always the potential for the right-wing vote to coalesce behind (probably) Reform to defeat Starmer.

*. *. *

It's trite to point out that Somerset's controversial "Stew" blogger often directly contradicts himself, but nevertheless it's startling to see him being brazen enough to do it in back-to-back blogposts.  In his last-but-one post, he blasted John Swinney and Kate Forbes for taking part in the "Scotland 2050" conference because this supposedly implied Scotland would still be part of the UK in 2050.  But when it became clear that Swinney would in fact be using his speech at the conference to say that he envisaged Scotland being independent well before 2050, Stew wrote another post expressing his outrage about that, because it's supposedly 'carrots'.

Whatever anyone may think of John Swinney and his excessive caution, it's fair to say that, as far as his participation in the conference was concerned, he simply couldn't win with Oor Stew.  Anticipating that Scotland will be independent is bad, anticipating that Scotland will not be independent is bad.  Maybe Swinney was supposed to channel his inner Peter A Bell and declare UDI on the podium.  

*  *  *

Poll commissions, poll analysis, election analysis, podcasts, videos, truly independent political commentary - that's Scot Goes Pop, running since 2008 and currently the third most-read political blog in Scotland.  It's only been possible due to your generous support.  If you find the site useful and would like to help it to continue, donations by card payment are welcome HERE, or alternatively donations can be made direct by PayPal.  My PayPal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Scot Goes Fundraiser 2025: An Update

Well, I've given Scot Goes Pop readers a good long break from the constant irritating reminders of the fundraiser at the bottom of each blogpost, but I'm now going to have to get back to that grindstone.  The year is almost half over, the fundraiser is still only around one-third of the way towards its target figure, and I'm getting dangerously close to the 'running on empty' scenario once again.  

As I always say, writing Scot Goes Pop is not a full-time job, but it is the equivalent of a very time-consuming part-time job.  To be able to put in that kind of commitment of time requires either a) private means, or b) successful crowdfunders.  And alas, I don't have private means, so the only way the blog can continue is if I hit the annual fundraising target, or at least get pretty close to it.  

It's no secret that this blog has some rather severe detractors who would very much like it to disappear in a puff of smoke - and to that end they pursue the narrative that "nobody reads it" and "nobody funds it".  The irony is that those people are obsessed with traffic comparison sites and know as well as anyone that Scot Goes Pop is the third most read political blog in Scotland - ahead of, for example, Bella Caledonia, Robin McAlpine and John Robertson.  But it's true that SGP's fundraising has lagged behind other sites in recent times - I've raised enough to keep going, but only barely, and it's been a constant struggle from around 2021 onwards.  And it's also true that ultimately "the market" will decide whether SGP is valued enough to remain part of the alternative media eco-system.

I'm sure you know by now what you'll be getting if the fundraiser succeeds - detailed polling analysis from a pro-independence perspective, truly independent political commentary, hopefully the occasional podcast here and there, and if we really start cooking with gas maybe even another poll commission at some point.

If you'd like to donate, the crowdfunder page can be found HERE.

Direct donations can also be made via PayPal.  In some ways this is preferable because the funds are usually transferred instantly, and fees can be eliminated altogether depending on the option you select from the menu.  My PayPal email address is:   jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

I know a small number of people prefer direct bank transfer, so if you'd like to do that, message me at my contact email address and I'll send you the necessary details.  My contact email address is different from my PayPal address and can be found in the sidebar of the blog (desktop version of the site only) or on my Twitter and BlueSky profiles.

Last but not least, there must be at least three or four people who have already donated multiple times to this fundraiser, because the same names have cropped up every few weeks.  If you're one of those people, please ignore this post, because I don't want to bankrupt anyone while trying to stay afloat myself!

FAQs on how the SNP might be able to win independence by using their leverage in a hung parliament

About a week ago, I published a blogpost setting out how there may be a 15-25% chance of the SNP holding the balance of power at Westminster after the next election and being able to use that to win an independence referendum.  As the 15-25% estimate implies, I do not think that's a particularly likely method by which independence can be won, but in circumstances where the SNP leadership have needlessly self-imposed almost impossible thresholds that have to be achieved before any other action towards winning independence can be taken, it may well be that a hung parliament is actually the most plausible remaining hope for progress in the relatively near future.

Even having clearly set out that major caveat, however, it was perhaps inevitable that some people were still going to be triggered by a post suggesting that independence could come about as a result of the SNP negotiating with Westminster parties, rather than by some madcap process involving Barrhead Boy stripping English people who live in Scotland of voting rights, "Liberate Scotland" sweeping to a landslide election victory, and then a grand march to the UN to beg them to decolonise us.  Consequently I received some rather colourful 'feedback', and I thought I'd respond to some of it here...

If using the balance of power at Westminster to win independence is such a wizard idea, why didn't the SNP do that in the 2015-17 parliament when they had 56 MPs?  Hmmm?  Hmmm????

Simple answer: because they didn't hold the balance of power in 2015-17.  There wasn't even a hung parliament during that period.  There was instead a Conservative government with a clear overall majority.  Doh!  Next...

Isn't the Section 30 route to an independence referendum dead?

This is an odd question because I didn't actually mention the Section 30 route at any point.  Because the UK parliament is sovereign, there are two ways in which an independence referendum could happen if the SNP hold the balance of power.  One is the Section 30 route, yes, in which Westminster would delegate powers to the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a referendum.  But the other way is simply Westminster itself directly legislating for a referendum.  The beauty of the latter option is that it means in theory a referendum could happen even if pro-independence parties fall slightly short of a majority in next year's Holyrood election.

But as far as the Section 30 route is concerned, that's only dead just now because the SNP have no leverage to bring it about.  A hung parliament is one of the few situations in which they might regain the necessary leverage.

If independence happened as a result of a Labour-SNP deal to form a government, the SNP seats at Westminster would disappear on independence day and the government would no longer have a majority after that point, so what incentive would there be for Labour to agree to a deal involving an independence referendum?

There are two answers to that.  First of all, Labour might well still think a referendum is winnable for the "No" side.  Secondly, the independence process - not just the referendum but the negotiations that would follow any Yes vote - might well take three years or more, so the SNP seats would remain in place for the bulk of a five-year Westminster parliament.

If the SNP were part of the government at Westminster, wouldn't that mean they'd be negotiating an independence referendum, and a subsequent independence deal, with themselves?

I struggle to see why that would be any sort of problem - it would actually smooth the process considerably.  But no, any governing arrangement between the SNP and Labour would be unlikely to involve the SNP taking up ministerial office in Westminster - it's much more likely to be a confidence-and-supply agreement with the SNP remaining on the opposition benches.  When it seemed possible in the run-up to the 2015 election that the SNP would hold the balance of power, I personally argued that there was no good reason for them not to get involved in a full-blown coalition if it meant holding the position of Secretary of State for Scotland.  But they seemed allergic to the idea at the time and I doubt if anything has changed since then.

But any referendum won by negotiating with Westminster parties would be another non-binding referendum - that's no use!

This objection makes absolutely zero sense.  The only way a referendum can be binding is if Westminster approves that principle in advance, so if that's the kind of referendum you want, you can only get it via negotiations with Westminster. Any informal vote we organise ourselves, regardless of whether it's a referendum or a scheduled election doubling as a de facto referendum, would by definition be non-binding.  Its purpose would simply be to produce a Yes majority that would pile moral pressure on Westminster to come back to the negotiating table.

Didn't the Tories and DUP in combination have a Commons majority of only one seat in 2017?  (This excitingly left-field question comes from a controversial and increasingly far-right Somerset-based blogger, universally known as "Stew".)

No.  They had a nominal majority of six, but to all intents and purposes it was actually thirteen due to Sinn Féin declining to take up their seats.  No idea why you thought it was only one, Stew - you must have been using your wonky abacus again.

Wouldn't the Tories and SNP in combination have had a much more robust majority of 30 seats in 2017?  (This one also comes from "Stew".)

Wonky Abacus Klaxon yet again: the Tories and SNP in combination would have had a majority of 56 seats in 2017.  So what?  The SNP did not hold the balance of power at any point in the 2017-19 parliament, as can be seen from the fact that the Conservative government successfully sustained itself in office even though the SNP consistently voted against it in no confidence votes.  (Although there was an early election in 2019, that only came about because the Tories themselves voted in favour of it.)  But the idea of the SNP trying to win a Yes vote in an independence referendum in the context of them propping up a Tory government at Westminster is certainly an 'interesting' one, Stew.

And as for Stew's hoary old claim that there was a more limited one-off deal to be done, with the SNP agreeing to vote for Theresa May's soft Brexit plan in return for an independence referendum, I've debunked that umpteen times.  May wouldn't have been interested in such a deal because she was a conviction politician on the issue of "Our Precious Union", and she would have known it would be counter-productive anyway - her own backbenchers would have been so outraged by a deal putting the Union in peril that she would have lost far more votes for the soft Brexit plan than she'd have gained.

No, the only way a deal at Westminster will ever result in an independence referendum is if the SNP are able to offer a stable governing majority to a centre-left administration.

Another heavy blow for the Alba Party as popular senior member quits

I've got to be slightly cagey about what I say here, because I've been given permission to reveal some things, but not others, and there's a grey zone in the middle where I'd better tread carefully.  However, what I can tell you is that yet another very senior Alba member has left the party.  For privacy reasons she's asked to be identified as 'Bingo Wings' rather than by her actual name, but I'm sure many of you will know her well - she was a very popular figure within Alba and has had lots of success in the party's internal elections, including in the latest round of elections a few weeks ago.

I asked her why she left, and she gave me a one word answer: "mince".  That's not very specific but it's heartfelt, and many of us will have a fair idea of what she's getting at.  I gather she's been treated extremely badly in recent weeks.

Among those of us who have left Alba or been forced out, there are wildly varying opinions on the way forward - I and a few others have gone back to the SNP, some have joined "Liberate Scotland" (which I think is yet another dead end but they clearly take a different view), and others are just steering clear of party politics altogether for the time being.  But I think the one thing we'd all agree on is that being part of Alba was just a thoroughly unpleasant experience in a way that we could just never have anticipated when it all started in 2021.  What the Alba leadership (which essentially means Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh and the people around her) have always wanted from the rank-and-file members is basically just an adoring fan club.  If you're willing to play that role, then you may have a positive experience, but if you have any independent ideas of your own, you'll quickly find yourself in a toxic environment.  There's lots of out-and-out bullying and plenty of passive-aggressive nastiness too.

I know some people will say "that's just politics for you, all parties are the same", but I think that's only true up to a point.  There's an Alba-specific problem here - Alba just seems to be a particularly nasty party, as Theresa May once said about the Tories.