Shock poll portends weather boffin coup threat for Atlas chief Lyon

You've probably seen the propaganda poll from yesterday that the hapless Alliance to Liberate Scotland, aka "the Atlas", commissioned from Find Out Now.  It used the infamous Archie Stirling question, ie. "would you consider voting for party X at the election?", which in the case of Stirling's party Scottish Voice overestimated their potential support in 2007 by a factor of 200.  It said that 20% of the population would "consider" voting for them on the Holyrood list, whereas in the event only 0.1% actually did so.

Atlas' own poll yesterday found that only 8% of people would consider voting for them, so if the "Stirling devisor" is applied, that would imply they are on course to take just 0.04% of the list vote.  I personally think that's a bit of an underestimate, simply because Tommy Sheridan does still have some residual support in Glasgow - you could imagine him getting around 1-2% of the vote there, while in the other regions Atlas may hover around 0.1% or 0.2%, producing a national figure of around 0.3% or 0.4%.  That would obviously still leave them light-years short of winning seats.

But it was interesting that they were concerned enough about not registering in the polls at all that they were willing to shell out for a propaganda poll, because it must have cost them around 10% of the relatively modest amount they've crowdfunded for their election fund.  (Although there again, as someone pointed out in the comments section of this blog the other day, they must also have "private means" simply to be able to pay for their election deposits, and perhaps that explains why they've been so willing to get into bed with a far-right party.)

Given what we know about the Mafia-like internal politics of these fringe parties, it perhaps isn't a surprise to find that not only has money been spent on a polling astroturfing exercise for Atlas as a whole, but that someone appears to have also paid for a poll to try to put one particular faction of Atlas into the ascendancy.  It's not hard to guess who may have commissioned this morning's new poll from OpinoSpa:

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: Hazel Lyon, the leader of the Alliance to Liberate Scotland, has been a failure because she is unknown to the public and has been unable to boost the party's profile? (OpinoSpa, 25th-27th March 2026)

Agree strongly: 21%

Agree slightly: 37%

TOTAL AGREE: 58%

Disagree slightly: 11%

Disagree strongly 4%

TOTAL DISAGREE: 15%

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: the former STV weather presenter Lloyd Quinan, who was a member of the Scottish Parliament for four years, would be a better leader of the Alliance to Liberate Scotland than Hazel Lyon because he would get the party more attention?

Agree strongly: 23%

Agree slightly: 45%

TOTAL AGREE: 68%

Disagree slightly: 7%

Disagree strongly 2%

TOTAL DISAGREE: 9%

Hold on to your hat, Hazel: strong gusts are forecast as a Quinan coup attempt comes in from the west.

Let's get the awkwardness out of the way - I have a new title

Not everything in life makes sense, and one example is that Scottish political bloggers seem to be judged by their clerical titles, or lack thereof.  Stuart Campbell has styled himself a "Reverend" since entering the fray a decade ago, and although he's always insisted that's a genuine title, he's nevertheless been coy about how he acquired it.  A Google search suggests the answer may be the "Universal Life Church", which bills itself as "the world's leading online church" (whatever that means), and which allows anyone to be ordained as a priest within minutes simply by filling in a form.  No fee is even required.

The suggestion that Campbell's title comes from this rather dubious source was made several years ago by a well-known Brit Nat troublemaker.  But I can't find anything that contradicts it, and it has the ring of truth to it, because it's hard to think of any other religious denomination that wouldn't have cast Campbell out of the priesthood long before now due to his repeated foul-mouthed tirades.  The Universal Life Church has no standing whatever in the UK, but it does have limited recognition in the US, and there are a few US states that for some reason even recognise marriages conducted by its "Reverends".  So if you want to live in wedded bliss but only in Texas or South Carolina, Stu is your man.

Naturally I couldn't allow myself to be outdone by this, so I had a look to see if the Universal Life Church also offer titles that outrank a Reverend, such as Bishop, Cardinal or Pope.  I couldn't see any sign that they do, so I looked elsewhere.  There actually are plenty of "online churches" out there that offer an array of ranks, but most of them have no legal standing anywhere in the world.  What I was looking for was a church that allows its clergy to officiate at legally recognised weddings, even if only within a very limited jurisdiction.

As is often the case in situations like this, the answer was to be found in the South Pacific.  There is a small church, consisting of little more than a webpage, called the Pirate Mercator Communion.  It nominally worships the sea, and it seems to have a cosy financial arrangement with the government of the Cook Islands.  Anyone it ordains can indeed conduct weddings, but only in the Cook Islands.  Crucially it also allows anyone to become a Bishop for a nominal fee of 17 New Zealand dollars.

Reader, the deed is already done.  On Wednesday, I was ordained as a priest (by email) and on Thursday I was consecrated as a Bishop (by Zoom call, but it only took three minutes).  The fantastic thing is that I was able to select my own Bishopric, and although most of Scotland had already been nabbed, I was able to put together a distinctly squiggly looking and non-contiguous Bishopric consisting of Speyside, Tranent, Yetts o' Muckhart, Milngavie and approximately five-eighths of Benbecula.

I am advised that the correct form of address for a Bishop is "Your Excellency" or "Your Grace".  Suck it up, Stu.

Welcome to the Scot Goes Pop April Fool for 2023

Every year since 2010, with the sole exception of three years ago when the Covid emergency was at its peak, Scot Goes Pop has published an April Fool.  You've fallen for some of them, you haven't fallen for others, but all of them have been suitably outlandish.  Two of my favourites can be read HERE and HERE.

This year, like every other year, I've tried to dream up the most outlandish and improbable thing I can think of.  Here's what I've come up with -

In 2016, the SNP promised the people of Scotland that they would not be dragged out of the EU against their will, and that they would definitely get a vote on whether or not Scotland should become independent to avoid Brexit.

In 2022, after years of humming and hawing and setting dates for referendums and then scrapping them, by which point Scotland had been long since dragged out of the EU against its will, the SNP finally brought matters to a head by asking the Supreme Court to rule on whether a referendum could be held without Westminster's permission.  This was a serious and solemn step, not to be taken lightly, because if the court ruled in the wrong way it would be a crushing setback for the independence cause unless a credible Plan B was in place.  Luckily it was - an integral part of the SNP's plan was that a de facto referendum would automatically follow any court defeat.  This part of the promise was practically signed in blood, and was taken seriously - because having marched their troops to the top of the hill and back down again so many times, it seemed inconceivable that the SNP would do so again when the stakes were so incredibly high.

The Supreme Court then ruled against the Scottish Government, and the SNP naturally indicated that they would press ahead with the second part of the plan by holding a de facto referendum.

After a few months, the SNP suddenly said "you know what, let's not bother with the second part of the plan, actually, let's do nothing instead".  This instantly transformed a plan that was supposed to have been a means of ensuring Scotland definitely had a vote on independence one way or another into a Scotland-randomly-shooting-itself-in-the-foot exercise.  The only effect of pursuing the first part of the plan was now to remove forever one key strategic option for pursuing independence that the Scottish Government had previously always had in reserve.  Nothing had been gained, and a huge amount had been lost, all because of a loss of nerve and yet another betrayal of trust.

The SNP members then narrowly voted to support this act of abject surrender, mainly because they'd somehow been hypnotised into believing that to do anything else would be "socially conservative" and "transphobic".

So there you go, that's the most unlikely and ridiculous thing I can think of this year.

Unfortunately, it's just happened in real life.

(Luckily, there are still grounds for hope.)

Happy April Fool's Day.

STV for dummies

So no, this is not a reference to Scottish Television dumbing down even further, it's about the other STV, the Single Transferable Vote system which will be used to elect our local councillors in just over a month from now. Several people have asked me if I'll be writing another "idiot's guide" as I did in 2017, because STV has a reputation for being far more fiendishly complicated than just about any other electoral system.  However, that does it a disservice.  The real complexity is actually at the counting end of the system - as a voter, it should be relatively simple to use.  So here's my step-by-step guide to using STV, all the way from deciding your voting choices in advance of polling day, through to how to actually cast your ballot in the polling station.

1) STV is a preferential system, which allows you to rank as many of the candidates as you wish in order of preference - and if you want to maximise the impact of your vote, it's vital to rank as many of them as you can bear to (the "vote till you boak" principle).  That being the case, it's far more important than in other types of election to know how many candidates are standing in your ward, who they are, and what party - if any - they're standing for.  So find the name of your ward (which can often be the toughest part of the process!) and search online for the full list of candidates.

2) Look carefully to see whether each candidate is a Red Code or a Blue Code candidate.  Blue Code candidates are relatively rare these days, but it's important to identify them because the quotient that applies to them is different.

3) If a candidate is Blue Code, they are required by Electoral Commission rules to incorporate a QR code into their election literature.  So when they send you a leaflet, scan the code and it will take you to a website setting out the quotient.  Alternatively, you can search for it manually.

4) On polling day, take your polling card to a polling station and hand it to staff - either that or just tell them your name and address.  (Thankfully, the Tories don't control this election and there will be no ID requirement.) 

5) The staff will then give you a ballot slip.  It will be colour coded if there are both Red Code and Blue Code candidates in your ward.  If there are only Red Code candidates, it will be white.

6) Take your ballot paper to a booth, and start by applying the quotient to all Red Code candidates.

7) If there are Blue Code Candidates, apply the Blue Code quotient separately.  The colour coding should assist you here, but to ensure your preferences for Blue Code candidates are correctly counted, you must ensure that each quotient is applied accurately.

8) Indicate your insistence.

9) Fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box.

10) Leave the polling station.

11) As an extra precaution to ensure that no mistakes have been made, re-scan the QR code, and if the quotient has been correctly applied, you should be taken to a page displaying a green "W" and a magenta "7".  

12) Excise the coupon.

And that's it, you're done. 

The Bairns of Boris Bridge

People have complained that I've been spending too much time promoting the Alba Party and not enough time attacking unionists, so I'll just take a brief interlude to nod towards the barking mad story in the Telegraph suggesting that there might be a 'Union Island' midway across any bridge or tunnel connecting Scotland with Northern Ireland.  The idea is that a small maternity unit will be constructed on the "island" to give patriotic expectant mums the opportunity to give birth to babies who are "not Scottish, not Northern Irish, not English, not Welsh, but quite simply British".

You really have to worry about people who think it's normal to say that sort of thing out loud.  Years of talking to themselves about "Our Precious Union" have caused them to lose touch with reality.  Rory Stewart's madcap "let's link hands on top of Hadrian's Wall to raise Union awareness" plan suddenly looks quite sane and restrained in retrospect.

*  *  *

You can catch up with Episode 5 of the Scot Goes Popcast, with special guest Len Pennie (Miss PunnyPennie) HERE.

*  *  *

If you find Scot Goes Pop's coverage of polls helpful and would like it to continue, I'm currently running a fundraiser HERE.

In a post-ideological world, what brings politicians together in a common endeavour? Apparently, it's the name "Alexander".

You might remember that after the launch of the Independent Group a few weeks ago, Chris "in the works" Deerin penned a notorious article that revealed the breakaway Labour MPs understood full well that they would need a "different strategy in Scotland" and that they had even invited Ruth Davidson to be their leader.  Obviously they had made the schoolboy error of believing the journalistic propaganda that Davidson is some kind of "centrist" bridge-builder, rather than the tribalistic zealot we all know and love.  Having got nowhere with an obviously doomed Plan A, we now know what the wacky Plan B for a "different strategy in Scotland" is - and it looks suspiciously like putting four political has-beens in a room together and calling them a political party.

Today's Scotsman reveals that Labour siblings Douglas Alexander and Wendy Alexander (former Shadow Foreign Secretary and Scottish Labour leader respectively), their Lib Dem namesake Danny Alexander (former Chief Secretary to the Treasury), and the former Tory MEP Struan Stevenson, have all left their parties to form a loose new grouping known temporarily as "the Scottish Independents", which will now seek formal registration with the Electoral Commission as a fully-fledged party, with a permanent name to be determined.  The Scotsman piece is predictably breathless in portraying the new outfit as more "heavyweight" than the Independent Group, boasting as it does two former UK Cabinet ministers and a former party leader.  Well...up to a point, Lord Copper.  What matters far more is that none of them are current elected representatives, which makes the whole "breakaway" concept a bit phony and very easy for the general public to ignore.

Douglas Alexander, who appears to be the group's unofficial spokesman/leader, has innocently dismissed any suggestion that they are a Scottish front organisation for the Independent Group, but admits that they were "inspired" by the actions of Chuka and co, and that it would be "prudent" for the Independent Group and the Scottish Independents to avoid standing candidates against each other, and that "it may be appropriate to consider" a CDU-CSU type relationship.  Decoded, that appears to mean that in the unlikely event that the Scottish Independents get candidates elected as MPs, they would sit as part of the Independent Group in parliament, but would be free to pose as a nominally separate party in their occasional forays home and in election campaigns.

As you'd expect, Alexander has also provided some vacuous, waffly quotes about people from different political "traditions" coming together to break free from the shackles of "increasingly outdated ideologies", although it appears the one dated ideology that hasn't yet outlived its usefulness for him is rabid British nationalism.  You do have to wonder: if these self-styled centrists truly believe we're living in a post-ideological world, what is the common denominator that will in future bring politicians together under the same umbrella?  In this case 'having the same surname' seems to be the only obvious commonality - which must leave poor Struan Stevenson feeling like a second class citizen.

My ears pricked up when Alexander mentioned a specially commissioned YouGov poll that supposedly shows considerable public appetite for a new centrist, anti-independence party in Scotland.  I've managed to track the poll down in an obscure corner of the YouGov website, and you won't be surprised to hear that the results are not quite as Alexander portrays them - just 18% of respondents say they would "consider" voting for the Scottish Independents, while 52% would not.  That's strikingly close to the percentage of people who said in a similar poll back in 2007 that they would "consider" voting for Archie Stirling's Scottish Voice party.  If you've never heard of Scottish Voice, there's a good reason for that.

I was particularly tickled by this supplementary question...

There is currently a fashion for the names of new political parties to echo the names of their founders.  For instance, the French governing party En Marche has the same initials as Emmanuel Macron, and the new British party Change UK has the same initials as Chuka Umunna.  Which of the following names for Scotland's new party do you prefer?

DA Party: 4%
Alexandria: 7%
Alexanders the Great: 2%

I do not believe that the name should be a nod to the fact that two of the party's founders have the initials DA, or that three of them share the surname Alexander: 61%

I have to say the Alexanders would be well advised to listen to the public on this one.  If they're crazy enough to call themselves "DA Party", they'll be inevitably dubbed "yer da".  And as for "Alexanders the Great"...well, where do you even start?

*  *  *

Just a quick note to let you know that you can see a sneak preview of my column for the latest issue of iScot, along with information on how to purchase a digital or print copy, by clicking HERE.

Winning With Willie: The Naked Truth

It's amazing how often a full-scale Scottish poll has been published on Easter Sunday, and this year is no exception, courtesy of YouGov.  Unfortunately, however, the poll doesn't have any voting intention numbers (unless those are to come later) - it just asks about the strange recent trend of Scottish opposition politicians taking part in reality TV.

In recent months, a number of Scottish political party leaders have participated in reality TV programmes or game shows.  Before today, which of the following were you aware of?  (Select all that apply.)

Former Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale's appearance on I'm A Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here!:  61%
Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson's appearance on the Great British Bake Off: 34%
Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie's forthcoming appearance on Celebrity Naked Attraction: 7%

Willie Rennie, leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, has agreed to appear in a celebrity edition of Naked Attraction, a Channel 4 show in which contestants vie for a date by taking their clothes off.  Do you think Mr Rennie has made the right decision?

Yes 4%
No 56%

Willie Rennie has made clear that his appearance on Celebrity Naked Attraction will be tasteful, and that his modesty will be protected at all times.  Knowing this, do you feel more or less sympathetic towards his decision to take part?

More 9%
Less 2%
No Difference 61%

Willie Rennie says that he is appearing on Celebrity Naked Attraction as a light-hearted way of raising money for charity, and to help increase young people's interest in politics.  Do you think young people will become more or less interested in politics as a result of Mr Rennie's participation in the show?

More 3%
Less 21%
No Difference 57%

Does Willie Rennie's appearance on Celebrity Naked Attraction make you feel proud to be Scottish?

Yes 5%
No 48%

Do you think Willie Rennie's appearance on Celebrity Naked Attraction will make it easier or harder for you to take him seriously as a politician in future?

Easier 7%
Harder 65%

And there's the rub.  I have to say I think the man has taken leave of his senses.  We may be used to seeing him indulge in publicity stunts such as sheep-wrestling, but this is in an entirely different category.  As George Galloway proved by "being the cat", there are some mental images the public can't easily dispel.

Why I Did It

A guest post by Glasgow Working Class

First of all, I want to sincerely thank James Kelly for allowing me this opportunity to set the record straight and to very briefly bid you all farewell.  I can imagine what a difficult decision it must have been for him after the trouble I've caused on his page.

As some of you know, "Glasgow Working Class" was a persona I created when I was working at Better Together headquarters in 2014.  I had several personal problems at the time, and my self-consciousness at being forty years older than most of the spotty teenagers in the building wasn't helping.  It was all too tempting to seek the easy way out, and when Blair McDougall went into hysterics after I introduced him to my new character who would taunt Cybernats with catchphrases like "Nat Sis" and "Mein Gott, up yer lederhosen", I saw a golden chance to continue paying off my mortgage without doing any more hard work.  I knew Rob Shorthouse would approve.  They agreed to pay me £1 for every ten words of trolling on nationalist blogs, with no maximum daily limit.  I even got a bonus when I made a Cybernat really lose it.  I had genuinely found my vocation.

All good things come to an end, but even when BT was no longer around to support me in the manner to which I had become accustomed, I found that I just couldn't let go of GWC.  Far from stopping, or posting less often, I was posting more and more.  I descended into a world of fantasy in which I almost became the monster I had created out of desperation.  Even during the rare moments when I was "back in the room", I could still hear McDougall's helpless cackles and was convinced the silent majority found my contributions equally hilarious.  It's only really been in the last three or four weeks that I've recovered my self-awareness, realised that I am extremely unfunny, and decided to stop for my own sanity and for yours.

To anyone I've hurt, offended or simply bored rigid, I want to say I'm sorry.  I truly mean that.  You have my word that I will not be posting on this blog again.  Thank you for reading this, and best wishes to you all.

Hoots man ra noo we British are still around ye ken ra noo. Scots wae Hae.

Glasgow Working Class was a regular commenter on this blog until April 2017.

"David Coburn, leader of UKIP Scotland"

It's probably not unusual for political parties to commission private polling which tests how voters react to a set of fairly extreme propaganda statements.  However, it's certainly quite rare for us to ever get a look at that polling.  One of the few examples I can think of was a YouGov poll conducted for Archie Stirling's vanity project "Scottish Voice" in the run-up to the 2007 Holyrood election.  The decision to publish it was baffling, given that it showed only around 20% of voters were responsive to even the most absurdly leading questions.

Stirling did of course have the excuse of being a political amateur, but there's no such alibi for UKIP's extraordinary decision to allow Populus to publish a hugely embarrassing private poll that seemingly hoped to establish that the people of Scotland view David Coburn as the second coming of Jesus Christ.

Please read the following statements and tell us whether you agree or disagree with them.

I am personally very angry that David Coburn, leader of UKIP Scotland, has been excluded from the STV leaders' debate this week.

Agree 3%
Disagree 54%

David Coburn, leader of UKIP Scotland, hasn't received the recognition he deserves for helping secure a No vote in the independence referendum.

Agree 2%
Disagree 57%

I would despair of Scottish politics if it wasn't for the new hope provided by David Coburn, leader of UKIP Scotland.

Agree 2%
Disagree 68%

My admiration for David Coburn, leader of UKIP Scotland, has increased over the last twelve months.

Agree 3%
Disagree 63%

The world needs more strong leaders such as Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and David Coburn, leader of UKIP Scotland.

Agree 1%
Disagree 81%

I would be proud to walk down the street wearing a T-shirt featuring an image of David Coburn, leader of UKIP Scotland.

Agree 0%
Diasgree 77%

That's not a typo, by the way - ZERO per cent of respondents fancied bearing an image of Coburn on their chest.  I am quite simply dumbfounded - what possible utility does anyone in UKIP think there is in letting people know that these barking mad questions were even asked in the first place, let alone what the answers were?  Perhaps someone just pressed the wrong button - we'll know for sure that's the case if the poll mysteriously disappears from the Populus website by mid-morning.

It's not all grim for Jim - he has neigh problems with the equine vote

Just before we leave the topic of the ComRes poll entirely, I thought you might be amused to hear about a particularly extreme example of a "control question" that I found buried within the datasets.  Some of you will recall a previous discussion on this blog about a question of that sort - a few months ago, YouGov created a fictitious Cabinet minister (I can't remember the name they used) to help put in context the personal ratings of real politicians.  For example, if 23% of respondents claimed to recognise the bogus minister, that would make Anna Soubry's 27% recognition rating look considerably less impressive.

ComRes appear to have a rather less subtle approach to control questions, though, and have bizarrely asked each respondent midway through the question sequence whether or not they are "a horse".  I can only assume the purpose of this is to make sure that people are actually paying attention to the questions, and aren't just randomly giving any answer to get the survey over with as quickly as possible.  But what makes it particularly strange is that this was a telephone poll.  Non-attentive respondents are generally much more of a danger in online polls, where there is an incentive of a small monetary reward if the poll is completed (usually 50p).  It must have been very awkward for the telephone interviewers to innocently enquire whether or not the person at the other end of the line is a horse - if anything, I'd have thought that would make it more likely that the call would be abruptly terminated.

ComRes poll, 26th-28th March (Labour-held constituencies only) :

Are you a horse?

Yes 2%
No 98%

It's rather alarming that as many as 2% of the sample were dozing off to such an absurd degree, and in a way this calls into question the credibility of the poll's other findings.  However, I suppose it's possible that some people may have been taking the attitude of "a stupid question deserves a stupid answer".  The most entertaining part of all this is that we've ended up with a unique "horse" crossbreak throughout the datasets, meaning that we're able to see how the attitudes of "horses" differ from their human counterparts.  For the most part, there's nothing of any statistical significance, but there is one intriguing exception...

Jim Murphy's net satisfaction rating by group :

Men:  +2
Women:  -5
Horses:  +37

So if things don't quite work out for Jackanory Jim in May, all is not lost.  Perhaps he should take a leaf out of Cliff Richard's book and recognise that there is so much More to Life than naked ambition.  There is, for example, horses.

*  *  *

SCOT GOES POP POLL OF POLLS

Someone asked me yesterday if I was ever going to update the Poll of Polls again.  Your wish is my command (well, within reason).  Today's update is based on eight Scottish subsamples from GB-wide polls - three from YouGov, two from Populus, one from Ashcroft, one from TNS-BMRB and one from ComRes.  Yesterday's Scottish poll from ComRes is excluded, because it's not a national poll - ie. the fieldwork only covered 40 out of 59 Scottish constituencies.

Making its debut (and quite possibly its swansong) in the Poll of Polls is the new Middleland Integrationists party, which somehow managed to register 1% support in a YouGov subsample last week.  It's an eccentric fringe party that was set up last year, having drawn inspiration from Rory Stewart's BBC series about the fantasy kingdom of "The Middleland" (twinned with Narnia).  Basically they want Dumfries & Galloway, the Borders, Cumbria and Northumberland to secede from Scotland and England, in order to form a fifth (and naturally ultra-unionist) constituent nation of the UK, presumably with Rory's cairn as the capital city.  Rory himself has had to disown them, though, because they're planning to put up candidates against the Tories in May.

Scottish voting intentions for the May 2015 UK general election :

SNP 43.6% (-1.7)
Labour 25.5% (n/c)
Conservatives 16.1% (-1.6)
Liberal Democrats 7.6% (+2.7)
Greens 3.4% (+0.2)
UKIP 3.3% (+0.4)
Middleland Integrationists 0.1% (+0.1)

(The Poll of Polls uses the Scottish subsamples from all GB-wide polls that have been conducted entirely within the last seven days and for which datasets have been provided, and also all full-scale Scottish polls that have been conducted at least partly within the last seven days. Full-scale polls are given ten times the weighting of subsamples.)

*  *  *

Many thanks to Brian Nicholson on the previous thread for pointing out the most shocking misreporting of a poll that I've seen in a long, long time.  Both David Maddox of the Scotsman and Magnus Gardham of the Herald have taken the ComRes voting intention figures for Labour-held constituencies only, and pumped them into the Scotland Votes calculator as if they were national figures, thus producing an utterly nonsensical seats "projection" of SNP 30, Labour 27.

Holy Jesus.  Even on a uniform swing, the ComRes poll suggests that the SNP would take 28 of the 40 Labour seats.  Here's the thing, Magnus and David - the SNP already hold six seats.  So if you add 28 to those six, you've already got 34.  Surely that very basic piece of arithmetic ought to have been enough to set alarm bells ringing about your "projection"?  In reality, the SNP would also be winning at least seven of the 11 Liberal Democrat seats, plus Eric Joyce's Falkirk seat, so there's no conceivable national projection based on the ComRes poll that would give the SNP fewer than 42 seats.

Celebrity 'love-bombing' campaign gets serious as Better Together unveils its latest recruit : a boom microphone operator who worked on 1980s soap Howards' Way

Many thanks to occasional commenter Cordon Blah for sending me this utterly jaw-dropping article from the Southampton-based Southern Daily Echo. From the outset of reading it I was already giggling at the thought of a minor actor from a 1980s soap "intervening" in the referendum, but I well and truly lost my composure when I got to the bit about the boom microphone operator.

Even back in the eighties, as a star of hit BBC soap Howards' Way, Henry Gradwell wasn't accustomed to the limelight. His character Trevor Beaston was foreman of the fictional Mermaid Boatyard, and tended only to pop up a few times in each episode to report hitches in boat repairs.

But a quarter of a century after the show sailed off into the sunset for the last time, Gradwell has decided to take centre-stage - to join the fight against Scottish separation.

"I was horrified when I heard about what was going on up there," the veteran actor explains. "At first I thought it couldn't possibly be serious, and then I realised, you know what, this could be serious, and all of us who have some kind of following up in those parts have a duty to do something, however uncomfortable it may be to stick our heads above the parapet, so to speak."

So just how much of a following does Henry actually have in Scotland? He smiles as he recalls a game he used to play in his eighties heyday. "Because I maybe wasn't quite as well known as some of the other actors, I liked to prove to my family that people did recognise me, even though they thought they didn't, so to speak. So if I ever caught someone looking at me with even the slightest flicker of recognition, I would put on my best Trevor Beaston voice and say something like, 'I don't like these new-fangled plastic boats any more than you do, Jack, but that's the way of the world, I suppose.' And 90% of the time they would instantly know who I was and shout back, 'but it's not the way of the Mermaid Yard!' That was one of the catchphrases from the show. It was always such a hoot! I never got the chance to try that in Scotland, but I'm sure it would have worked there as well. The show was phenomenally popular everywhere."

In order to harness the cult of Howards' Way for the campaign to save the union, Gradwell has helped set up "Tarrant Says No", named after the soap's fictional setting. He attended the group's launch on Sunday in the iconic Jolly Sailor pub, where he was joined by Portsmouth couple Pam and Jeff Wheatley, who appeared as background extras in several episodes of Series 3, and Peter Sootham, who operated a boom microphone during the filming of almost every episode of the show.

"Obviously we'd have liked to have some of the bigger stars here with us today," Gradwell admits. "But this is a fantastic start, and I'm hopeful that others will join us soon. I can understand why people are wary of making their views known, though. Look at what happened to Simon Cowell - he begs Scotland to remain part of a big happy family, and ten seconds later he gets called orange on Twitter. It's disgraceful."

Intrigued as to whether this relatively C-list grouping should be considered an official part of the anti-independence campaign, the Southern Daily Echo contacted the headquarters of "Better Together" in Edinburgh. A spokeswoman was non-committal about the exact status of Tarrant Says No, but claimed that the group's emergence was a classic example of the spontaneous desire of celebrities from throughout the British Isles to declare their love for a strong Scotland within a strong United Kingdom. When asked what the most unusual offer of support had been so far, she laughed, and admitted that it would be hard to beat the psychic 'horse medium' who offered the services of Shergar. "But we turned him down," she hastily added. Was that because it would have turned the campaign into a laughing-stock? "Well, only partly. I mean, we've used Jimmy Krankie and Kermit the Frog, so obviously we're open to all offers. But Shergar was under the influence of the IRA for a very, very long time, and there was just no way of being sure what would happen if we put him in front of a camera."

So in the absence of long-lost racehorses, it's left to the foreman of the Mermaid Yard to speak up for the country he loves. What does Henry think Trevor Beaston would say to Scottish separatist chief Alex Salmond, given half a chance?

"I think he'd say, you know what, this divorce malarkey may well be the way of the world. But it's sure as hell not the way of the Mermaid Yard."

Tavish didn't "save our p'lice" - but did he save Rennie's skin?

This seems almost uncannily topical on the day that the merger of Scotland's police forces finally takes effect, but a YouGov survey of leading political strategists and advertising executives has found that Tavish 'Two Hoots' Scott's famous "save our p'lice" TV ad from the 2011 Holyrood election is held in higher regard than most of us realise -

Top five most effective UK Party Political Broadcasts since 1970 (in reverse order) :

5. "Crisis? What crisis?", Conservatives, 1979

4. "24 hours to save the NHS", Labour, 1997

3. "John Cleese explains proportional representation", SDP, 1987

2. "Labour's Tax Bombshell", Conservatives, 1992

1. "Save our p'lice", Scottish Liberal Democrats, 2011

Yes, I'm way ahead of you here. It does appear, to say the least, somewhat bizarre that a component part of a campaign that saw the Lib Dems' representation slashed by more than two-thirds could be considered the greatest party political broadcast of the last four decades. But in his commentary on the poll findings, our old friend Peter Kellner has an explanation (of sorts) -

"The test of the effectiveness of this broadcast is not how many seats the Scottish Liberal Democrats lost, but how many more seats they would have lost without the brilliance of the "save our p'lice" strategy. Former aides to Mr Scott have privately told me that the party had braced itself for the possibility of being left with only two or three seats after the May 2011 election. It's quite probable that Mr Scott's visionary successor would not have been among the successful candidates in that scenario. The broadcast may not have succeeded in saving Scotland's p'lice, it may not even have saved Mr Scott's own leadership, but by saving the skin of the charismatic Willie Rennie, it might just have helped safeguard the Liberal Democrats' long-term future as one of Scotland's top seven political parties.

Anyone who stumbles upon the broadcast on YouTube today might be slightly bemused to discover the awe in which it is still held by experts. But it has to be seen as very much "of its time". The techniques pioneered by the ad have since been copied so extensively by rivals that, two years on, it's all too easy to forget the extraordinary impact they originally had. The unconvincing siren noises at the beginning and the end, Mr Scott's endless pacing up and down in front of a stationary Lothian and Borders police car, his struggle with the wind as he attempts to keep his dome-shaped Lib Dem "save our p'lice" postcard in an upright position, his sing-song voice as he outlines all the things that he doesn't want to happen to his p'lice (counterpointed by the shocking force with which he delivers the instruction "AND NOR SHOULD YOU"), his determined failure to pronounce the letter 'o' in the word "p'lice" - these are all things of genius. But, if anything, the broadcast is even greater than the sum of its parts. If there was such a thing as an 'X Factor' for party political broadcasts, I suspect Tavish Scott and "save our p'lice" would have been 2011's Christmas No. 1, and deservedly so."

George Goes Galactic

For years, we were all hopelessly resigned to the impossibility of ever reading a Scotsman article, on any topic under the sun, without at some point being treated to the all-important views of "senior Labour MSP George Foulkes". Even so, it was still a bit of a shock to the system to randomly stumble upon his name in an article on the science news website Sci-Flare -

"Last year, renowned Finnish linguist Dr. Tuija Laatikainen was commissioned by the European Space Agency to make recordings of human voices, with a view to broadcasting them from a deep space probe that is due to be launched from French Guiana in June. Her somewhat improbable brief? To carefully select the voice patterns most likely to reach out successfully to intelligent alien life-forms, wherever in the galaxy they may be hiding.

"I quickly decided to concentrate on native English speakers," reveals Laatikainen, "and to save time I confined my search to the UK. I also realised that another short-cut would be to scour the media for celebrities and public figures with the right kind of voice and then approach them directly, rather than going on an aimless fishing expedition by placing adverts for volunteers."

But how did Laatikainen know which voice is the 'right' voice? Who is to say which celebrity's dulcet tones are most likely to prove seductive to a little green Martian?

"You're right," she laughs. "This is basically a matter of intuition and guesswork. What I was looking for was a voice with an air of warmth and musicality, and yet with a buried hint of menace, and perhaps even cruelty. We don't want a potentially hostile species to think that humanity is a complete pushover, do we?"

And those criteria ensured that, even though Laatikainen was looking for her ideal voices in the land of Shakespeare, she settled upon some unlikely candidates - Stuart Hall, the former host of a trashy TV game show called It's a Knockout, Terry Christian, former host of controversial 'youth' show The Word, and Lord George Foulkes, a former lawmaker from Scotland."

Now I've heard it all. To be fair, I've never had the slightest doubt that George is perfectly capable of forming a connection with aliens. But can he do it deliberately?

'Scottish Labour don't make mistakes, Stevie'

It’s happened at last – a newspaper has finally challenged Labour on its bizarre claim that Iain Gray has "beaten Alex Salmond three-nil" since he became leader. The bad news is that the newspaper in question is the Larkhall Chronicle. Still, it's a start, and in the forlorn hope that it might shame the national papers into doing their job properly, I thought I'd post Steven Brodie's article here in its entirety (it's only available in the print edition of the paper).

A local Labour councillor has launched an astonishing attack on his own party chiefs – for being too MODEST. Gavin McCulloch, elected to South Lanarkshire Council for the first time in 2007, reckons that Scots Labour leader Iain Gray's claim to be leading the SNP’s Alex Salmond 'three-nil' in elections doesn't go far enough.

"The 'three-nil' basically just refers to national elections, like the general election, and the Glasgow North-east by-election a couple of years back," explained Councillor McCulloch at the weekend. "As a local representative I find it typical that local elections are getting scrubbed out of the picture yet again, and I’m slightly ashamed that my party are the culprits! The truth is that if you take local by-elections into account, the score is a sensational eight-nil to Iain Gray. He's a phenomenally popular leader."

Councillor McCulloch later drove the point home by taking to the streets of Larkhall, and handing out stickers featuring a picture of Iain Gray – who didn't appear to be smiling – along with the slogan "Go Go Gray, let's make it nine in a row".

But since then the Chronicle's minions have been doing some ferreting, and have discovered that the 'eight-nil' claim may not be all that it appears. Armed with a dossier of facts, dates and figures, I paid a visit to Labour's headquarters in the town to challenge the councillor on some of his facts. First of all, I put it to him that even the original suggestion that Mr Gray had beaten Alex Salmond three times in a row since becoming leader doesn't really make sense.

Councillor McCulloch seemed bemused. "I was anticipating that people might not be ready to take local by-elections seriously, but even the Larkhall Chronicle can't deny the wonderful results Labour have been enjoying at national level since Iain first electrified us with his visionary leadership."

But, I replied, doesn’t the 'three-nil' claim airbrush from history the European elections of June 2009, which the SNP won by a significant margin? That, after all, was a national election, and therefore surely more important than by-elections. It also took place in between Labour’s victories in Glenrothes and Glasgow North-east, which on the face of it would make it impossible to truthfully claim that Gray’s successes had occurred 'in a row', or indeed that Alex Salmond was on a score of 'nil'.

Councillor McCulloch paused. "Look, Stevie. I’m a local man, I’ve got my roots in this area, I live and breathe Larkhall. I’m not steeped in these strange international elections that involve other countries."

But, I persisted, the European election was a national election, it took place when Iain Gray was leader, every single person in Scotland was entitled to vote, and the SNP won.

Councillor McCulloch sighed. "Well, of course I'd dispute that."

Dispute what, I asked? That the SNP won, or that the election took place when Iain Gray was leader?

"One or the other, Stevie," he replied with a laugh. "As I said, I’m not steeped in these international elections."

In that case, I went on, how could he possibly be sure that the Chronicle had its facts wrong?

"Because Labour are three-nil ahead in national elections, that's something we all know. I'm more interested in making sure we update that figure to take into account how local people up and down Scotland have been saying Yes to Iain and No, No, No, No to that snake-oil salesman Salmond."

But, I countered, people only 'know' that the three-nil figure is correct because Labour keeps repeating it. The Chronicle's dossier has just shown that it isn't true.

"Scottish Labour don't make mistakes, Stevie."

I could see we had arrived at something of a stalemate, so I decided to change tack and ask about the councillor's own claim in relation to local by-elections. I put it to him that, while it was quite true Labour had won a number of contests since Gray became leader, so had other parties, including the SNP. Again, it was hard to see on that basis how Labour could seriously claim to have won eight elections in a row, or that the SNP’s score was 'nil'.

Councillor McCulloch seemed incredulous. "I’d be interested to know which by-elections you think Labour haven't been winning!"

With as much nonchalance as I could muster, I flicked through the pages of the Chronicle’s dossier to find a couple of choice examples for the councillor’s perusal. One was Maryfield, gained by the SNP from Labour six months after Gray became leader, and the other was Kilbirnie and Beith, also an SNP gain from Labour on a huge swing. The latter contest took place just weeks after the very different result in Glenrothes.

Councillor McCulloch tutted. "I've never even heard of Kilbirnie and Beith!"

It's in North Ayrshire, I replied.

"Well, there you go."

It was my turn to be slightly dumbfounded. Was the councillor seriously suggesting that results in North Ayrshire don’t count?

"No," he sighed. "Look, Stevie, what I'm saying to you is that you've come up with a local election result in North Ayrshire. No disrespect to the people there, but it's a bit of a stretch to put that on a par with Labour’s sensational win in Glasgow North-east."

I was confused. Wasn’t the councillor's whole point that local by-elections should count for just as much? And if that wasn’t the case, surely all of Labour’s local by-election wins had to be discounted as well?

A flash of anger crossed Councillor McCulloch’s eyes. "Frankly, I find that suggestion insulting. And, no, It’s not an insult to me, but to the thousands of decent, hard-working people across Scotland who have turned out in local by-elections to show their support and love for Iain, and to send Salmond homewards tae think again."

Except for the 'hard-working' people who had voted for the SNP in Maryfield, Kilbirnie and Beith, and other wards?

"Kilbirnie and Beith is in Ayrshire."

Was the councillor really sure that made such a difference?

"Scottish Labour don’t make mistakes, Stevie."

A strange realisation began to dawn on me. Although the councillor's claims simply didn't tally with the facts, his conviction that what he was saying made sense seemed absolutely sincere. And perhaps that's ultimately what really counts?

I wouldn’t be surprised if the editorial staff of the Record, the Herald and the Scotsman all agree with that closing sentiment. They do seem to regard Labour’s 'conviction' as far more important than the actual facts. The difference is that at a national level it seems somewhat less likely that the conviction is in any way 'sincere'.

Blue Bella?

British politics seemed to have crossed a subtle psychological threshold a few weeks ago when it emerged that Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate Anna Arrowsmith had been a director of 'adult films' in a (not very far distant) past life, and yet survived completely unscathed. Even the Conservatives' Andrew Lansley seemed relaxed about her candidature when asked about it on Question Time. The more cynical side of me did wonder if Arrowsmith would have got off quite so lightly if she hadn't been both a woman and an avowed feminist, but nevertheless it did seem to be a small signal that Britain is leaving some of its traditional hypocrisy behind. Nevertheless, if the rumours swirling around the blogosphere about an unnamed senior female MSP are correct, it now seems that Arrowsmith may merely have been a kind of 'John the Baptist' figure, preparing the ground for an imminent and much greater revelation - the potential consequences of which are truly mind-boggling. The suggestion that the politician concerned may not merely have been involved in the same industry as Arrowsmith some twenty-five years ago, but that the involvement may have been of a more 'in-front-of-the-cameras' variety, truly takes us into uncharted territory.

But what really made me splutter on my corn flakes was reading a couple of dark hints that the MSP in question may in the mid-1980s have been known by the screen name of 'Bella'. Just a piece of blogosphere mischief? Or pure coincidence? Surely????