Labour slump to THIRD PLACE in Scottish subsample as Burnham's YouGov horror show continues

An audio podcast version of the above video can be heard HERE, and will soon be available on Apple Podcasts HERE.

*  *  *

If you'd like to help Scot Goes Pop to continue, please check out my Ko-Fi page, where you can either set up a small recurring monthly donation, or make a one-off donation of any amount.  Many thanks to everyone who has already contributed.

Burnham U-turns on the U-turn: after just 24 hours, he reverts to the previous policy that Scotland *doesn't* have the same right to democratic self-determination as Northern Ireland for "historical reasons". Is that code for "the UK government is punishing Scotland for being impeccably peaceful", Andy?

An audio podcast version of the above video can be heard HERE, and will soon be available on Apple Podcasts HERE.

*  *  *

If you'd like to help Scot Goes Pop to continue, please check out my Ko-Fi page, where you can either set up a small recurring monthly donation, or make a one-off donation of any amount.  Many thanks to everyone who has already contributed.

Burnham's REVOLUTIONARY U-turn as he accepts Scotland can have an independence referendum if it wants one - but is this sudden outbreak of democracy FOR REAL?

An audio podcast version of the above video can be heard HERE, and will soon be available on Apple Podcasts HERE.

*  *  *

If you'd like to help Scot Goes Pop to continue, please check out my Ko-Fi page, where you can either set up a small recurring monthly donation, or make a one-off donation of any amount.  Many thanks to everyone who has already contributed.

Burnham suffers more Scottish poll MISERY as SNP enjoy 17-point lead in YouGov subsample

An audio podcast version of the above video can be heard HERE, and will soon be available on Apple Podcasts HERE.

*  *  *

If you'd like to help Scot Goes Pop to continue, please check out my Ko-Fi page, where you can either set up a small recurring monthly donation, or make a one-off donation of any amount.  Many thanks to everyone who has already contributed.

A de facto referendum on independence would self-evidently not be "bonkers" - although you'd be forgiven for wondering if an edict has gone out to gaslight us into believing that it would

There has been just one occasion in history in which an integral part of the United Kingdom became an independent country, and it did not happen as the result of a 2014-style agreed referendum.  Instead, a scheduled election used by a pro-independence party as a de facto referendum provided the necessary mandate.  OK, there was the small matter of a war in between the de facto referendum and the securing of independence, but nevertheless when that war was over, there was no plebiscite held because all sides at least tacitly accepted that Sinn Féin's overwhelming victory in the Irish portion of the 1918 general election constituted an unambiguous mandate for Ireland - or at least the lion's share of it - to leave the UK.

You'd think that this key lesson from history, ie. that a de facto referendum in 1918 succeeded where an agreed referendum failed in 2014, would at least lead to the idea of a de facto referendum being treated with proper respect throughout the independence movement, and that it certainly wouldn't be wrongly dismissed as "crazy" or "bonkers" - but nevertheless that's precisely the message we've been hearing over the last couple of weeks from the former SNP MPs Stewart McDonald and Tommy Sheppard.  Mr McDonald has always been something of an outlier in the stridency of his opposition to those who seek to win an independence mandate by any non-London-approved route, but it's more concerning to hear the same sort of rhetoric from Mr Sheppard.  It may be a symptom of a climate that the SNP leadership are trying to foster within the party - one in which the whole idea of using a scheduled election to win a mandate for independence is deligitimised and placed beyond the bounds of acceptable or reasonable debate.

Straw men, misdirection, and wildly inaccurate claims abound in Mr Sheppard's article.  He tries to make out, for example, that a unilateral declaration of independence would inevitably have to follow any victory in a de facto referendum, and that this is partly what makes the whole plan "bonkers".  Well, it's true that some - but not all - proponents of a de facto referendum would want UDI afterwards, but by the same token there are some opponents of a de facto referendum (most notably Craig Murray) who just want to go ahead and declare UDI without any sort of mandate at all.  A de facto referendum and UDI are self-evidently two completely separate things, and conflating the two is nothing more than a misleading debating tactic.  It's perfectly possible to have a de facto referendum on a consultative basis and to simply use any successful result as powerful leverage to bring the UK government to the negotiating table.

It's telling, incidentally, that Mr Murray himself uses a mirror image of Mr Sheppard's straw man argument.  In a recent tweet, Mr Murray said: "The SNP have started stating, as a matter of principle, that Independence MUST only be achieved with the agreement of Westminster."  If the SNP are stating that, they're just stating the obvious, and they're even stating something that logically Mr Murray must agree with, because why else would he be arguing for independence supporters to lay down their lives by standing unarmed in front of British tanks and waiting to be crushed?  It must be because he thinks that Ghandian tactics will lead to London accepting Scottish independence - which means he tacitly agrees that London's acceptance will eventually be needed.  So the problem is not that the SNP leadership are correctly saying that London's agreement will ultimately be needed for independence - it's that they're wrongly saying that London's agreement will be needed for us to seek or win a mandate for independence, which in reality is plainly something we can do entirely constitutionally and legally without London's consent.

Mr Sheppard and Mr Murray agree on pretty much nothing other than their opposition to a de facto referendum, so the fact that they're both trying to gloss over the absolutely fundamental distinction between unilaterally seeking an outright mandate for independence and unilaterally declaring independence ought to set some pretty massive alarm bells ringing.

The most jaw-dropping double-standard in all of this is the endlessly-repeated claim from the 'caution' faction that a de facto referendum strategy must by definition be a dud strategy unless its proponents can show how it would automatically lead to Scotland becoming an independent country.  If that same logic were to be applied to the 'caution' faction's own strategy of seeking a mandate for a Section 30 order, that strategy would already have been proved beyond doubt to be a dud on a galactic scale, because by my count we have won no fewer than five clear-cut mandates for a Section 30 order since 2016, but a Section 30 order has never actually followed.

Oh, but wait: Mr Sheppard goes on to argue that we can still "force" London's hand by "driving public support for independence to much higher levels".  In other words, a majority in favour of independence, which we already have in an average of all opinion polls, is woefully insufficient and we instead need some sort of eye-wateringly fantastical supermajority.  Not only does that abandon the entire principle of democratic self-determination (by implicitly saying that Scotland should be forced to remain in the UK if only a 'narrow' majority of its people wish to become independent) but it's also magical thinking.  The idea that London will refuse a referendum when defeat for the No side is merely likely, but will suddenly agree to a referendum when defeat for the No side becomes certain, is for the birds.

Mr Sheppard prays in aid the lower support for pro-independence parties than for independence itself as an additional reason for believing a de facto referendum would be unsuccessful.  But that looks at the problem the wrong way round.  The reason that independence support has become decoupled from SNP support is that some voters no longer believe that independence is on offer if they vote SNP.  Change that perception, as you would do pretty much automatically by seeking an outright mandate for independence, and many of those voters would come flooding back.

Perhaps most dodgily of all, Mr Sheppard claims that the SNP conference has already roundly rejected the concept of a de facto referendum.  Well, I was a delegate at the SNP conference last October, and I therefore know that we were invited to reject a de facto referendum specifically for this year's election on the basis that we could trust the leadership to win a single-party overall majority and then use it to force a Section 30 order out of the UK government.  As that entire premise turned out to be bogus, it's plainly an open question whether conference would back a de facto referendum for future elections, if given a chance to do so.

The puzzling thing is this.  The SNP leadership are not remotely squeamish about questioning the UK government's democratic legitimacy in ignoring repeated mandates for Scotland's right to choose.  Well, success in a de facto referendum would strengthen our hand in questioning the UK government's democratic legitimacy, because by that point London would be ignoring a mandate for independence itself, not just a mandate for a referendum.  Why suddenly become squeamish about that, when the principle is identical?  As I said a few days ago, it's almost as if some people in the independence movement do not want to live in a world in which the No vote from 2014 has been clearly overturned, and would prefer to continue living in a world in which London still has the 2014 result to fall back on to provide some cover for its obstructionism.  That's a psychological phenomenon which should perplex and trouble us all.

*  *  *

If you'd like to help Scot Goes Pop to continue, please check out my Ko-Fi page, where you can either set up a small recurring monthly donation, or make a one-off donation of any amount.  Many thanks to everyone who has already contributed.

"Well THAT one was worth waiting for!": SNP have DOUBLE Labour's support in delayed YouGov subsample

RevStew can squeal but *of course* the SNP have done the right thing by ruling out a deal with Reform UK

The most dispiriting aspect of the controversy surrounding Dave Doogan is that it's given the controversial Somerset-based "Stew" blogger an excuse to yet again trot out his barking mad fantasy about how the SNP supposedly turned down a chance to get an independence referendum in the 2017-19 parliament by refusing to do a deal with Theresa May to support her Brexit deal.  To reiterate yet again, such a deal would have been completely impossible, because:

* The SNP couldn't have delivered the goods for May arithmetically.  There were still many Tory MPs who were obeying the whip on Brexit votes at that point out of standard party loyalty, but for whom a deal with the SNP potentially paving the way for Scotland to become an independent country would have been the final straw.  May would have been left with fewer votes for her Brexit deal, not more.

* It would never have got to that point anyway, because May herself would never have entertained a deal with the SNP.  The sanctity of "Our Pweshus Union", as risible as it seems to us, was one of her few core beliefs and she would never have compromised on it.

To turn to the potential deal with Reform that Dave Doogan was asked about, it's true that we can't say the arithmetic wouldn't work this time because the question is predicated on purely hypothetical arithmetic.  But even if a deal was arithmetically possible, think about what it would actually entail.  It wouldn't be a 'once and done' affair of voting to install Nigel Farage as Prime Minister - paradoxically that's the one vote that wouldn't be necessary, because under the UK system Prime Ministers are appointed by the King, not elected by Parliament.  It would mean SNP MPs voting day in, day out to implement Reform's far-right agenda for potentially three or four years, or however long it takes to hold an independence referendum and subsequently negotiate an independence settlement.  Even a more limited confidence-and-supply deal would mean voting in favour of the main essentials.

Now, of course we all know why Stew is utterly baffled as to why there is any problem with that - he's gone full fascist and thinks implementing far-right policies is a completely normal thing to do and that no reasonable person could possibly disagree with it.  But that's certainly not the centre of gravity in Scottish public opinion, and if in the run-up to any independence referendum the main party of independence becomes associated with implementing soft fascism...well, whisper it gently but that might just possibly have a detrimental effect on the Yes vote, because voters will make inferences about what the values of the politicians running an independent Scotland will be.

By the same token, the chance to escape an impending Reform government is one of the USPs of the independence movement at present (again, Stew may find that baffling but it's true just the same) and it's a statement of the obvious that the SNP failing to rule out propping up a Reform government would mean throwing that advantage away.  So of course Dave Doogan has done the right thing by clarifying his remarks.

*  *  *

I still urgently need to make Scot Goes Pop financially sustainable if I'm going to continue with it.  My recent promotional blitz had the aim of either increasing the number of regular monthly supporters from the high teens to around 60, or attracting around £1500 in one-off donations.  The first target was nowhere near to being met, but the second one was just over halfway met.  Even if I could hit that second target of £1500 in the near future, it would allow me to continue for the time being.  Many thanks to the person who sent a very generous donation after my previous post, and to everyone who has contributed so far.  Donations are welcome via my Ko-Fi page - you can choose to either set up a small recurring monthly payment or a one-off donation of any amount of your choice.  A wide variety of payment methods are accepted, including PayPal

The refusal to allow a debate and vote on independence strategy at the SNP conference is reprehensible, and leaves a vacuum where strategy should be

I initially assumed that the timing of the publication of a draft indyref bill was directly connected to the news having just broken that this year's SNP conference is being effectively blocked from debating independence strategy - in other words the leadership were saying to party members: "OK, we're not giving you a debate or a choice but just look at how we *are* progressing the cause of independence".   But our regular commentor "yesindyref2" pointed out that if the draft bill was to appear within the first 100 days of this latest SNP administration, it would have had to be this week - so maybe there is an element of coincidence.

The bill is welcome, but it is no substitute for open debate within the SNP on the way forward.  It might have been an adequate substitute if there had been a time limit attached to it - in other words a deadline for the UK government to agree to the transfer of powers for the bill to actually be passed, and a commitment that if the deadline wasn't met, the Scottish government would then say to voters "we have very clearly exhausted every single avenue for attempting to bring the UK government to the negotiating table, their rejection of democracy is definitive and permanent, we are therefore moving forward to using a scheduled election to seek an outright mandate for independence".  There is overwhelming opinion poll evidence that the electorate will be receptive to that message if it is presented to them correctly.

But no deadline means no credible strategy for bringing an independence mandate about in actuality, or for bringing independence itself about, and therefore a vacuum now exists that only open debate within the SNP can fill.  It shouldn't be forgotten that at last year's conference John Swinney staked a great deal of his personal authority on his ability to secure an outright SNP majority, which I always thought was practically impossible (a 1 in 200 chance was my estimate, which I'd suggest was borne out by the constituency results in May).  But he said he would do it and use it to force the UK government to agree to a referendum.  "Challenge accepted" he said in respect of the target of an overall majority, which means in brutal arithmetical terms you'd have to now say "challenge failed".

If a leader asks his party conference to give its backing to his preferred strategy on the basis that he will get it to work, and if it then fails, I don't think it's unreasonable for party members to expect that they will then get the opportunity to review what went wrong and to decide what new and more effective strategy will be put in its place.  Given the circumstances, how can the leadership even begin to justify blocking that opportunity? I recall a great deal was made last year of the fact that strategy is the exclusive domain of the party leader, and that John Swinney should be commended for voluntarily consulting conference when he didn't actually have to.  If the message is now going to be "the leader consulted conference once, but he didn't actually have to do that and he has no plans to do it again", I don't think I'll be the only person to see the parallels with the UK government saying "you'll have had your democracy in 2014".

How can SNP members make their views heard on using a scheduled election to bring about independence if the leadership are going to block all future debates and votes on the subject? Well, it's not easy, is it.  The blocking is done via the Conferences Committee, which is a predominantly elected body, but it's elected by conference delegates rather than by the wider membership. In practice that means the selectorate contains a disproportionate number of what is sometimes referred to as "the payroll vote", ie. people who inevitably hold a particular loyalty to the leadership's stance. In an ideal world that system would be reformed to put members properly in charge, but in reality that's a non-starter because any reform proposal would have to get through the same gate-keeping machinery.

Ultimately the leader is an elected position, and is elected by all party members, so in theory the next leadership contest will offer an opportunity for members to take control of the situation and introduce a credible independence strategy.  However, that big chance could be several years away, because John Swinney gives the impression of a man who is going nowhere.  And in every other sense apart from independence strategy that's a very good thing, because now that Kate Forbes has departed the stage, Mr Swinney is undoubtedly the best leader we have available.

Remember also that when he was elected leader in 2024, there was no contest at all and therefore no debate.  Considerable pressure was put on his only opponent (Graeme McCormick)  to withdraw on the grounds that an election would have been too costly - which is always the worst and most indefensible excuse for avoiding democracy and democratic debate.  The system has since been changed to make it even harder (much, much harder, in fact) for democratic leadership elections to be triggered.  I would gently suggest that both of those factors severely weaken the leadership's moral position when they now refuse to "voluntarily" permit internal votes and decisions on strategy.

The National have quoted the former MP Stewart McDonald as effectively saying "what a pity we're not going to let you have a vote, because it would have been such fun to defeat your crazy de facto referendum idea which cannot possibly lead to independence" (that's a paraphrase, let me stress).  Well, two points on that.  Firstly, there are again unfortunate parallels with unionist politicians who ludicrously say things like "in a way it's a shame we're not going to let you have a referendum, because you would undoubtedly lose again".  A good rule of thumb is that if you're confident in the popularity of your own position, you allow the vote, you don't block it.  As for the idea that a de facto referendum won't directly lead to independence?  Even if that's true, the uncomfortable truth for Mr McDonald is that would give it a great deal in common with the "let's pretty much do nothing instead" strategy that he seems to prefer.  But the obvious sense in which the de facto referendum strategy *is* superior is that it can directly lead to an outright mandate for independence coming about, which Mr McDonald's strategy cannot.  The weirdly visceral nature of the opposition to a de facto referendum in certain quarters strongly suggests to me that some people are actually frightened of living in a world in which there is an outright mandate for independence, and would actually prefer to live in a world where the 2014 mandate has not yet been overturned and is still providing the UK government with a veneer of democratic cover.  That is not a psychological phenomenon that I can easily understand or explain.

Incidentally, Mr McDonald is also in the news today because he's come out in support of BBC Scotland's utterly random attack on Radio Sputnik's Edinburgh operation - which ceased to exist several years ago!  Again, I struggle to understand those who believe that a defunct radio station that at its peak had an audience consisting of two men and a penguin is a bigger threat to Scottish democracy than the BBC itself, which pumped out blatant anti-independence propaganda and disinformation to millions of viewers and listeners in the run-up to referendum day in 2014.  But each to his own, I suppose.

As always, I do want to finish by stressing that the SNP (and to a lesser extent the Greens) remain the only game in town for delivering independence.  It may be hard to see the way forward at present, but if we are persistent enough a path will emerge.  Don't give in to frustration and start listening to the siren voices of the Stuart Campbells of this world who want you to lash out and try to destroy our only vehicle for independence.  It would be literally impossible to destroy the SNP anyway, and a civil war in our movement will just set the cause back decades.

*  *  *

I still urgently need to make Scot Goes Pop financially sustainable if I'm going to continue with it.  My recent promotional blitz had the aim of either increasing the number of regular monthly supporters from the high teens to around 60, or attracting around £1500 in one-off donations.  The first target was nowhere near to being met, but the second one was just over halfway met.  Even if I could hit that second target of £1500 in the near future, it would allow me to continue for the time being.  Many thanks to everyone who has contributed so far.  Donations are welcome via my Ko-Fi page - you can choose to either set up a small recurring monthly payment or a one-off donation of any amount of your choice.  A wide variety of payment methods are accepted, including PayPal.

Another Scottish polling disaster for Burnham: a majority of voters want Scotland to become an independent country, and the SNP have a FIFTEEN point lead over Labour

Someone asked on the previous comments thread whether it was true that a new Survation poll showed that Andy Burnham is the most popular politician among Scottish voters.  Yes, it is true (albeit with certain caveats that I'll come to later) but it seems extremely churlish to focus on that detail when pretty much everything else in the poll is so wonderful for the independence movement and for the SNP.

Should Scotland be an independent country? (Survation / Diffley Partnership, 13th-24th August 2026)

Yes 52% (-)

No 48% (-)

This is the third Survation poll in a row to show a Yes majority, which looks pretty significant given that Survation haven't particularly been favourable for Yes in recent times.  They had No in a clear lead last year, so what we're seeing is consistent with a relatively recent swing in favour of independence.

Scottish voting intentions for the next UK general election: 

SNP 34%

Labour 19%

Reform UK 18%

Conservatives 11%

Liberal Democrats 8%

Greens 5%

Restore Britain 4%

The Westminster numbers pretty much snuff out any hope for Labour that the Burnham bounce has in itself been enough to get them back into the game in Scotland.  The recent Find Out Now poll, which was the only other full-scale Scottish poll of the Burnham era to date, showed very similar numbers.  While one poll could have been leading us wildly astray, it seems much less likely that two polls showing the same thing are both rogue polls.  It's quite possible that Survation's numbers would put the SNP on course for a 2019-style landslide with more than three-quarters of the Scottish seats in the House of Commons.  And remember that we're right in the middle of Burnham's natural honeymoon period at the moment - so if anything you'd expect things to improve for the SNP from here.

As far as the personal ratings for leading politicians are concerned, Burnham is ahead - but these are net ratings which subtract the percentage of respondents who are not satisfied with each politician from the percentage who are satisfied.  That arguably gives Burnham an advantage over someone like John Swinney, who has had a much longer period of time to build up a minority group of voters who are unhappy with him.  It doesn't necessarily mean that voters as a whole prefer Burnham to Swinney.  As you may recall, Humza Yousaf had really poor net ratings during his time as First Minister but generally was still ahead of Anas Sarwar on the straight question "who would you prefer to be First Minister?"  No such direct comparison will ever be made between Swinney and Burnham because they are not in competition with each other for the same political office, but the fact that the SNP are so far ahead of Labour on Westminster voting intentions in particular is not easily reconcilable with the belief that voters prefer Burnham to Swinney.

Perhaps offering some support for the famous Yes Minister scene suggesting that you can get any poll result you want depending on how you phrase the question, there is a supplemtary question in this poll which finds a majority in favour of the proposition that some government powers in Scotland should be held at UK level, which arguably contradicts the majority in favour of independence.  However, the two results are perhaps just about consistent with each other if it can be assumed that respondents felt they were being asked "if Scotland remains in the UK, should the UK government have some powers in Scotland?

*  *  *

I'm still urgently trying to make progress towards my blogging and YouTube videos becoming financially sustainable.  If you'd like to help Scot Goes Pop continue by becoming a supporter, please check out my Ko-Fi page HERE - it accepts small recurring monthly payments or one-off donations of any amount, and it also accepts a variety of payment methods, including card and PayPal.  A million thanks to everyone who has already contributed.

The BBC will ALWAYS be fearlessly neutral and even-handed and ask all the important "valid questions"...except on these four subjects, naturally

*  *  *

I'm still urgently trying to make progress towards my blogging and YouTube videos becoming financially sustainable.  If you'd like to help me continue to create content by becoming a supporter, please check out my Ko-Fi page HERE - it accepts small recurring monthly payments or one-off donations of any amount, and it also accepts a variety of payment methods, including card and PayPal.  A million thanks to everyone who has already contributed.