The remaining question

Well, perhaps I'll indulge in one more brief return to Chekov-watch, since the 'Three Thousand Versts' blogger has returned to the issue of Scottish nationalism. He, refreshingly, does not dismiss the idea of letting the Scottish people decide their own future out of hand, but rehearses the usual spurious objections about timing, 'rigged questions', etc. Once again, is it too much to point out that complaining about the principle of a multi-option referendum is a touch peculiar given that a single-option referendum is the SNP's clearly stated preference, and the multi-option vote is merely a proposed compromise?

Chekov's own suggestion for a 'clear, unambiguous, definitive' question is "Do you wish Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom?". This is at least an improvement on the standard proposal for a 'neutral' question from the likes of Alan Cochrane, ie. "Do you think Scotland should become completely separate from the rest of the United Kingdom?". But I think Chekov really needs to explain why the simple question "do you think Scotland should become an independent country?" is any less 'clear, unambiguous or definitive' than his own suggestion. The idea that anyone does not realise that independence would entail leaving the UK is risible - and if anyone is going to argue that case, I could just as easily make the point that Chekov's question is absolutely not unambiguous, because 'leaving the UK' could in the literal sense imply joining another country (Norway for instance?) every bit as much as it could imply becoming an independent state.

Final thought - what does it say about a self-styled 'liberal unionist' when he finds himself in so much agreement with Alan Cochrane? Cochrane is a unionist, certainly...

Ipsos-Mori sensation : SNP lead Labour in Westminster voting intentions

On this blog I normally focus only on the Scottish subsamples of UK-wide polls, because the relatively rare full-scale Scottish polls are widely covered elsewhere. But the results of this particular full poll from Ipsos-Mori deserve to be shouted from the rooftops by everyone sympathetic to the SNP, because it blows the prevailing media narrative of recent days and weeks utterly out of the water. The SNP's hopes of even modest gains at the general election were, we were told, fading fast. But here we have a poll that not only shows a decent SNP lead in Holyrood voting intention (which will ease the jitters caused by the two recent YouGov polls), but also - remarkably - shows the party retaining a slender lead over Labour for Westminster. Here are the full figures -

Westminster

SNP 34% (+1)
Labour 32% (+5)
Conservatives 15% (-3)
Liberal Democrats 12% (-2)
Others 6% (-2)

Holyrood (constituency ballot)

SNP 36% (-2)
Labour 32% (+7)
Liberal Democrats 12% (-3)
Conservatives 12% (-3)
Others 8% (+1)

There do not appear to be any voting intention figures for the Holyrood list vote. The fieldwork concluded just over a week ago, which crucially places it well after Glasgow NE.

Mixed fortunes for SNP in new polling subsamples

Two new Scottish subsamples of UK-wide opinion polls were revealed yesterday. The detailed figures from the YouGov poll published on Friday night indicate that Labour have reopened a decent gap on the SNP, having previously seen their lead shrink to just one point. (However, the Labour lead is still a little smaller than that implied by the recent full-scale Scottish poll conducted by YouGov.) But, by contrast, in the new ComRes subsample, the SNP have actually retaken the lead. Here are the full figures from both polls -

YouGov

Labour 36% (+6)
SNP 25% (-4)
Conservatives 22% (+2)
Liberal Democrats 13% (-4)
Others 4% (-)

ComRes

SNP 30% (+5)
Labour 28% (-12)
Liberal Democrats 17% (+8)
Conservatives 17% (-4)
Others 6% (+2)

The YouGov figures are notable for being the first subsample in several weeks to record a decent showing for the Scottish Tories - but in ComRes the party continues to flatline.

Massive evidence of weapons of mass destruction related programme activities

A rare treat to see Melanie "Wrong But With Conviction" Phillips give this old classic a spin on Question Time last night. It received its first outing way back in President Bush's first State of the Union address to Congress after the Iraq invasion. Just for a few seconds he appeared to have a huge revelation up his sleeve that was about to turn the media narrative completely on its head - "already the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction..." Really? No, not really. Sadly for Bush, he hadn't finished his sentence, with the remaining words being "related programme activities". Which begged the obvious question - what exactly is a weapon of mass destruction related programme activity, and how precisely does it differ from an actual weapon?

Angus Reid points to eight-point Labour lead over SNP

The third in the new series of UK-wide polls conducted by the Canadian firm Angus Reid Strategies for PoliticalBetting.com continues to show remarkable stability in its Scottish subsample. Labour has extended its lead over the SNP from five to eight points, although that still falls well short of the fifteen-point Labour lead for Westminster seen in yesterday's full-scale Scottish poll for the Telegraph. Here are the full figures -

Labour 33% (+1)
SNP 25% (-2)
Conservatives 18% (-2)
Liberal Democrats 16% (+5)
Others 8% (-)

On one point these figures are in absolute agreement with the Telegraph poll - in placing the Conservatives on a dismal 18%. The spectre of a majority Conservative government taking power with perhaps as few as one or two seats in Scotland - which many people in their heart of hearts thought was impossible - appears to be moving a little closer with every passing week.

Memo to Lib Dems - don't be the change, make the change

Mike Smithson of PoliticalBetting.com is a Liberal Democrat, albeit one who's never been (to put it mildly) slavishly loyal to the leadership, so his views on developments within his own party are always particularly interesting to read. One point that he's made repeatedly over recent months, and returned to in his latest post, is that it would be logically inconsistent for a party that believes in proportional representation to consider doing a deal with a party that has won the most seats in an election, despite having been defeated in the popular vote. (The speculation is that Labour could conceivably find itself in such a situation shortly, if the latest Ipsos-Mori poll is not a blip.)

I have to say that strikes me as an astonishingly misguided interpretation on more than one count. Firstly, I'm wondering if Mike has fully taken on board what PR actually means in practice. As a Lib Dem it would seem odd if he hasn't, but my vague impression is that his own allegiance to the party has little to do with any great interest in electoral reform. Internationally, PR systems quite routinely result in coalitions that exclude the party that has won the most seats, let alone the most votes. So, even if they wanted to be seen to be adhering to "best PR practice", there would be nothing hypocritical about the Liberal Democrats keeping all options open.

But the more salient point surely is that the job of a party that believes in PR is not to eccentrically go around acting as if PR is already in operation when it isn't (is Mike saying to the Lib Dems in Ghandian terms "you must be the change you want to see"?), but instead to take every opportunity to actually bring PR about. That might well involve a deal with a Labour party that had lost the popular vote, because the chances of the Tories making the slightest concession on electoral reform in the next parliament are literally nil. If the current generation of Lib Dems turn down a golden opportunity to finally bring about a fair voting system, and indeed to hold a share of power on a regular basis from that point on, how on earth will they justify it to their successors twenty years from now? "We had to turn down proportional representation, because it was far more important for us to act proportionately". Yes, that'll sound good. It's the philosophy of a pious, self-denying, proportionality-worshipping monk, not of a serious political party.

In truth, if Labour are the largest single party in the next parliament without the mandate of the popular vote, that situation will have been directly brought about by politicians - to a large extent Tory politicians - who have stubbornly insisted on maintaining the rotten first-past-the-post electoral system all of these last few decades. It's not the responsibility of the Liberal Democrats (or of the SNP and Plaid Cymru for that matter) to artificially create a lead in seats for the Tories, when the very electoral system the Tories are determined to uphold has failed to deliver that lead for them. Mike Smithson is putting the onus on the wrong players - if the Conservatives think the electoral system has thrown up a result that does not accurately reflect the popular will, it's up to them to accept changes to that system. Otherwise, they ought in conscience to be prepared to just lump it.

Back to the future (or forward to the past)

Quite amusing to see a Scottish Labour spokesman (don't worry, it's not Baron George, he's always "a senior Labour MSP" - the only one in existence apparently) leap on Jim Sillars' suggestions for changes in the SNP's stance on defence and foreign affairs as representing "a split in the separatist movement". That's analogous to saying the fact that David Cameron and Gordon Brown can't bury their differences is tantamount to a split in the "unionist movement".

Sillars' prescription is a baffling mixture of some proposals that would arguably bring the SNP more into the 'mainstream' (in the sense that it would bring them into line with the grey uniformity of the three unionist parties on issues such as Trident and NATO), and others that would take the party straight to the lunatic fringe without passing Go. Why start talking up the possibility of a "Scottish pound linked to sterling" when the SNP has already accepted that sterling itself could be retained until euro membership is possible? I can only assume that Sillars hasn't even noticed that. And the notion that switching from the long-held "independence in Europe" pitch to a proposal to join EFTA would somehow represent a 'modernised' stance is, to put it kindly, a touch eccentric. It's EFTA that's an institution of the past, not the EU. Its membership presently stands at an almost embarrassing four - one of which is Liechtenstein. And if, as seems fairly likely, Iceland shortly jumps ship to join the EU (as so many other countries have done before it), people will surely start to ponder whether the organisation is even sustainable at all.

But then Mr Sillars is an 'out of the box' thinker who sees things that few of us do - generally because they aren't there. After all, this is the man who in 1996 confidently prophesied a Tory victory in the 1997 election.

YouGov : SNP close gap to just one point

After a few days of relative gloom, a small piece of good news for the SNP. The Scottish subsample from the latest UK-wide YouGov poll for the Sunday Times shows the party in a virtual dead heat with Labour, with the Conservatives yet again flatlining at roughly the 20% mark. Here are the full figures -

Labour 30% (-2)
SNP 29% (?)
Conservatives 20% (+1)
Liberal Democrats 17% (-)
Others 4% (?)

The reason the percentage change figures are incomplete is that YouGov lumped the SNP in with the 'others' in their last poll. Unlike the ComRes subsample, the fieldwork for this poll partly took place after the result of the Glasgow North-east by-election was known. However, by all accounts most people respond to YouGov polls within a few hours of receiving the invitation, so the chances are that these figures are relatively unaffected by any knock-on effect from Labour's victory.

Incidentally, this subsample is one of the many that flatly contradicts Mike Smithson's repeated assertions that Labour are faring better in Scotland than in the rest of the UK - the party is down nine points in Scotland from its 2005 level, exactly the same drop as in Great Britain as a whole.

ComRes subsample : Labour retake lead

After last month's unusual ComRes subsample that had Labour languishing in third place, tonight's poll has the party back in a substantial lead over the SNP. The Conservatives slip to third place, with a vote share that, like almost all recent subsamples, gives very little cause for optimism that David Cameron's party will achieve the 24-26% share at the general election that might be seen as vaguely respectable for an incoming party of government. Here are the full figures -

Labour 40% (+18)
SNP 25% (-7)
Conservatives 21% (-3)
Liberal Democrats 9% (-1)
Others 4% (-8)

The fieldwork was carried out on Wednesday and Thursday, so these figures can in no way be seen as a post-Glasgow NE bounce for Labour. In any case, it's always worth remembering that ComRes generally have much smaller Scottish subsamples than YouGov, and the figures are accordingly far less meaningful.

A suitably depressing conclusion to the longest by-election

"The voters are never wrong," mused BBC Scotland's political editor Brian Taylor last night, referring to the near-breakthrough by the BNP in Glasgow North-east. Perhaps it would have been closer to the mark to say "the will of the voters must always be respected". After all, if the electorate is literally never wrong, it's a touch hard to rationalise away Adolf Hitler's elevation to the office of German Chancellor in 1933 on the back of a legitimate democratic victory. Setting off a chain of events that led directly to the most catastrophic war in human history, 60 million deaths and a genocide would appear to be something of a blunder by most standards.

Opinion seemed to be evenly split last night on whether Nick Griffin's Question Time appearance had played a pivotal role in very nearly taking the BNP to third place in the by-election. My strong feeling is that it must have done, but it does not follow from there that Griffin should not have been invited onto the programme. The issue at the time had been incorrectly framed - everyone seemed to be asking "how can the broadcasters help to defeat the BNP?". Some felt that the answer was to deny the party the oxygen of publicity, others suggested that the objective could best be achieved by subjecting Griffin's policies and fairytale assertions to open and intense scrutiny. But in truth it isn't a public service broadcaster's job to fathom a way of extinguishing the threat from a perfectly legal - if odious - political party. All that should have mattered was that the party in question had demonstrated sufficient electoral strength to justify an invitation, and therefore that invitation should have been forthcoming without any consideration of the consequences. Irresponsible? No, it's the very essence of democracy. At first glance Griffin's invitation appeared to suggest the BBC agreed with that interpretation of their role - but clearly they didn't. If they had, Griffin would simply have been asked to comment on the fairly dull issues of the day like any other panellist would have been on any other Question Time edition. Probably he would have given some fairly dull answers, while being suitably frustrated that he wasn't being given a platform to talk about race. Instead, the BBC appeared to take the schizophrenic view that Griffin's democratic mandate was legitimate enough to demand that he be included on the show, but not legitimate enough to demand that he be treated on the same basis as everyone else once he was there. Paradoxically, it was this approach that gave Griffin a platform he could scarcely have dreamed of, bestowing upon him a status that was effectively greater than his fellow panellists. It was, as others have noted, "An Audience with Nick Griffin". The complacent view of many afterwards was that the strategy had paid off handsomely with Griffin making an utter fool of himself - but the electoral evidence of Glasgow NE would appear to paint a somewhat different picture. For extremist fringe parties starting from a very low base of support, there's not really such a thing as bad publicity.