Game-changing Ipsos-Mori poll suggests Scotland would vote for independence in second referendum

This is truly historic - the first time that Ipsos-Mori have ever shown a majority in favour of independence.

Should Scotland be an independent country?

Yes 53%
No 44%

It's the first post-referendum poll on independence from Ipsos-Mori, so it doesn't necessarily point to a sudden Yes surge out of nowhere.  To some extent, it could even be said to be in line with recent polls from other firms showing a slender No lead, because all pollsters are agreed that there has been an increase in Yes support since last September.  But Ipsos-Mori's distinctive methodology has seen that increase translate into an outright Yes lead, and one of sufficient size to qualify as "decisive" in BBC terms.

Ironically, Ipsos-Mori were one of the most No-friendly firms throughout the long referendum campaign, which meant they showed a much bigger swing to Yes when the 'Great Convergence' occurred at the death.  But it now seems that was simply a waystation on an unlikely transition, and that Ipsos-Mori are emerging as by far the most Yes-friendly firm (of those that have reported recently).

The biggest issue is probably that they don't weight by recalled referendum vote, or indeed by any recalled vote at all.  Instead, they put all their eggs in the basket of demographic weighting.  That carries the risk of there being too many pro-independence voters in the sample, because those may be the people keenest to answer political questions down the phone.  But that can't wholly explain such a favourable result for Yes - remember that Ipsos-Mori's final poll of last year's campaign (published on the morning of polling day itself) overstated the Yes vote by just 2%.  And the early post-September polls from YouGov, carried out before recalled referendum vote weighting was introduced, showed a Yes lead but a much narrower one than we see today.  The most positive interpretation is that today's poll is a very rare telephone poll, and perhaps a 'real world' approach to data collection is picking up a Yes majority that polls reliant on volunteer online panels are missing.

Either way, the very fact that it's a telephone poll makes it that bit more difficult for opponents of independence to dismiss.  Back in the days when Panelbase were the most Yes-friendly firm, Labour people used to make daft allegations that the Panelbase panel had been "infiltrated".  It'll be a bit difficult to make that claim about Ipsos-Mori, who seek out a completely fresh sample of respondents every time.

What we could really do with now is an independence poll from TNS - the only other regular 'real world' pollster on Scottish political affairs.  They use the face-to-face approach rather than telephone, and if they come close to replicating Ipsos-Mori's finding, it could be hugely significant.  (If they don't, of course, it increases the chances that the online pollsters are closest to the mark.)

Make no mistake, though - today is a game-changer.  Until now, it's been possible to make the claim that the polls are broadly showing a small No lead, and that the occasional exceptions have been caused by normal sampling variation.  Today's poll can't be explained away like that - the Yes lead is too big.  So the new reality is that Yes could be in the lead, or No could be in the lead - we can't say which, not even on the balance of probabilities.  That will obviously have an impact on the debate over the timing of a second referendum.

Apologies for taking so long to complete this post, and also for the fact that it's a bit shorter than usual.  As you've probably gathered by now, I'm away on holiday at the moment.  I blogged about independence polls in some unexpected locations last August, but I think today's was the most exotic so far!  If I ever get rich, I'll aim to blog about a 30% Yes lead from a beach in Goa...

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

George Osborne has a very special treat for Scotland

Just a quick note to let you know that I have a new article at the International Business Times, about George Osborne's grotesque belief that he is 'rewarding' Scotland for voting No by imposing the renewed Trident on us.  You can read it HERE.

I trust you appreciate my dedication to duty, because I wrote it even though I'm on holiday at the moment.  That's not quite as bad as it sounds, because I was on a long coach journey in Italy when I was asked to do it, and I had a few hours to kill anyway.  Feel free to share it on Facebook and Twitter if you like it!

By the way, just to continue burnishing my 'Too Nat' credentials for a moment, I saw a saltire and Lion Rampant fluttering proudly at the sea-front in Ancona today.  I wasn't quick enough on the draw with my camera, unfortunately...

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

This door needs a good scrub, not an alternative voting system

As you can see from this photo I took this morning in northern Italy, the No 2 AV campaign still haven't got over it.  (I know, I know, I've got a very creepy shadow.)

"No TAV" are actually a campaign against high speed rail.

In other news, I see that Tony Blair is comparing Jeremy Corbyn's 'baffling' success with Bernie Sanders (who is bad because he can't win), Donald Trump (who is bad because he can't win), the SNP (who are bad because they did win), and Syriza (who are also bad because they did win).  Is losing bad or is winning bad, Tony?  Get it sorted, man.

I think the idea is that the left have to abandon their principles to win, but the right mustn't abandon their principles even if it means being defeated by the left, because the left are wrong, and that's a principle.

*  *  *

Without getting into the rights and wrongs of Craig Murray's rejection as a potential SNP candidate for Holyrood, I do agree with him that it would be crazy to get into the mindset that we have to wait until Yes are at 60% in the polls before holding a second independence referendum.  That would be like trying to score the perfect goal, and never actually shooting.  It's to all intents and purposes an argument for never having another referendum.  Are we really saying that a steady 55% Yes would be an argument AGAINST going to the country again?

My own view is that the trigger for Indyref II will be an event (like Brexit, but it could be something else), rather than polling numbers.

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Why build another wall? Oh why build another wa-all?

I travelled through Calais yesterday.  At first it looked much the same as ever, but it soon became clear that the maze of security fences has been vastly reinforced since last year.  And then I saw 'the Jungle'.  Obviously I've seen pictures of it before, but it's quite a shock to the system to see it in real life, partly because of its sheer scale, and partly because it's so out of context with its surroundings - there are middle-class residential houses just behind it.

It really has to be asked - where are Malcolm Offord and 'Vote No Borders' when you need them?  It's high time they went to Calais to remake their life-affirming 'Why Build Another Wall?' video, this time featuring Syrian refugees on the French side chopping their way through the security fences with hacksaws, and Tory councillors from Buckinghamshire doing their bit on the UK side with cutting torches.  When they meet in the middle, they high-five each other, embrace, then hold hands as they joyously jog through the Channel Tunnel, before having a picnic together in the beautiful Kent countryside.

I'm sure Mr Offord would agree that his inspirational 'no borders' vision is for the whole of humanity, not just the Jocks.  Why SHOULD Tory councillors from Buckinghamshire be prevented from spending quality time with Syrian refugees, just because of another bloody wall?

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

What a relief to get away from Scotland and all that "narrow nationalism"

London Victoria station this morning...

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Joining us now is North Britain's most impartial Tory

Spare a thought today for the media.  It was stretching credulity for them to wheel out Adam "IT'S THE LAW!!!!" Tomkins as an 'impartial expert' when he was working for the Tory party.  It was even harder for them to do it when he became a special adviser to the Secretary of State for Scotland.  But can they still pull it off now that he's planning to stand as a Tory candidate in next year's Scottish Parliament election?  Rest assured that they'll give it a go.

Tomkins' announcement of his intentions comes in possibly his funniest blogpost to date.  He tells the story of how he became a Tory, and it basically consists of : "I offered my services to all the unionist parties, and it was the Tories who wanted me unconditionally, so clearly their instincts are correct." 

I do also enjoy Tomkins' running commentary on whether election outcomes are "deserved" or not.  You might remember a few months ago we learned from him that the No campaign didn't just win the referendum, they did so "deservedly".  Today it turns out that although the SNP may be heading for victory in the North British Legislative Council election, they "do not deserve to be".  It's reassuring to learn that the electorate can be wrong as well as right - it would be downright weird if they were as infallible as Tomkins.

My favourite bit of all, though, is when he prays in aid the UK Supreme Court's view that the Scottish Parliament's powers are "ample" and "generous".  Who better to assess whether the whingeing Jocks have been given enough...sorry, whether the Scottish people's aspirations have been adequately met, than judges sitting in London?  It would be interesting to know what their justification was for issuing commentary on what is self-evidently a matter of political judgement, rather than of legal interpretation.

Lastly, I'm bemused by Tomkins' observation that if the SNP win next year, their spell in power will be extended to fourteen years, longer than Mrs Thatcher was in office.  So what?  Mrs Thatcher was an individual, not a party.  After she left office, her party - Tomkins' party - continued in power for a further six-and-a-half years, bringing it to a grand total of eighteen.  Let's compare like with like, shall we, Adam?  IT'S THE LAW!!!!

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

A few Edinburgh Fringe mini-reviews

I'm a bit late with these, but the Fringe still has a few days to run, so maybe they'll be of some use to somebody out there...

I AM BEAST : I made a point of going to see this because I had such fond memories of the same company's The Girl With No Heart, which was a mesmerising fable about the effect of nuclear warfare on children.  This one perhaps doesn't quite scale the same heights, but it touches the heart in much the same way.  It's about a girl who loses herself in a comic book fantasy after the death of her mum.  Looking at it objectively, there are a few flaws - for example, the first twenty minutes or so are awfully repetitive, and the story only gets going properly after that.  But by the end, I found myself getting so involved that I completely lost interest in picking fault.  And I must just mention the background music - it's very simple but really gets under your skin.  RATING : 8/10

I LOVED YOU AND I LOVED YOU : I took a bit of a punt on this one, because it's only running at the tail-end of the festival, and so there were no reviews to be found at all.  But judging from the promotional material it had the look of quality about it, and just for once my instincts proved right.  It's about the life of Morfydd Owen, a brilliant female Welsh composer who died in bizarre circumstances in 1918 at the age of just 26.  It's billed as a cross between a dance show and a play, but it's more the former than the latter - there's some speech, but not a huge amount.  The music is mostly Owen's own compositions, and there's live piano-playing and vocals.  I don't really have the vocabulary to properly describe a show like this, but the music is beautiful, the dancing is spellbinding, and I totally recommend it.  The only disconcerting thing was that I was sitting next to someone who was studiously taking notes throughout the performance.  She was obviously involved in the production, and every time she jotted something down I imagined she had spotted some minor flaw, or scope for improvement.  I can't imagine what that would have been, though.  RATING : 10/10

THE GOOD DOCTOR : The annual outdoor play in Duddingston Kirk Manse Garden is a very special experience.  It's surely the most atmospheric venue in the entire Fringe, with Arthur's Seat right behind you and Duddingston Loch right in front of you.  A long play always seems to be selected (at least two hours), which means you drift pleasurably from daylight into darkness.  You'd think word of mouth would lead to huge crowds every night, but not a bit of it - there's quite often only three men and a dog there (figuratively speaking).  It would be interesting to know why that is - maybe it's because the production style is old school (although that suits the surroundings perfectly), maybe it's because of the midgies (although they generally only get about halfway up your nostrils), or maybe it's simply because Duddingston is well off the beaten track for festival-goers.  Suffice to say that people are missing out.  This year's play is Neil Simon's comic tribute to Chekhov, and the standard is as high as ever.  RATING : 8/10

AN AUDIENCE WITH JIMMY SAVILE : This is every bit as uncomfortable to watch as you might think, but not always in the way you expect.  It's a very funny play in parts, and it's really quite disturbing when you realise that you're laughing with Savile, rather than laughing at him or (as would be more appropriate) not laughing at all.  It's a reminder of the charm that was such a big part of his success in getting away with crimes on an unimaginable scale for decades.  Obviously the play becomes darker as it progresses, although the funniest part is actually just a few minutes from the end, when Savile makes a delusional comment about being responsible for the Israeli-Egyptian peace deal in 1979.  By that point you're laughing at him, though.  As many people have noted, Alistair McGowan absolutely owns the title role, and from memory he hasn't really toned down the impersonation he used to do for light entertainment shows - perhaps that wasn't such a caricature after all.  RATING : 8/10

FOXFINDER : It's bound to happen sooner or later, but in my few years of going there I've yet to see a bad Fringe show at the Bedlam Theatre - they've all been either outstanding or very good.  This one falls into the latter category.  The basic idea is really clever - the humble fox is blamed for England's economic collapse, but even after the species has been hunted to extinction, government-sanctioned paranoia still reigns.  At the end of the play, you suddenly realise that there are indeed still "foxes" out there to be found - it's just that the meaning of the word has changed.  RATING : 8/10

THE CLOCK STRIKES NOON : This is part of the Frontier trilogy set in a chapel in (I think) California.  Two desperate armed men are confused to find themselves negotiating for their lives with a very calm and collected young woman.  As someone once said of the Blake's 7 episode Project Avalon, this has more twists and turns than a twisty-turny thing, and both the script and acting is exquisite.  Just a word of warning, though - the venue is unbearably hot.  RATING : 9/10

I realise I haven't given any of them a bad rating - perhaps that means I'm getting better at guessing what I'll like in advance!

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

No, I don't think the Greens are "evil", or that they shouldn't exist

Thanks to Morag (Rolfe) for pointing me in the direction of a fan letter from someone calling themselves Green Pedant -

"James Kelly is totally deluded. He is the most tribal SNP supporter I have met. He is totally opposed to the Greens/RISE even existing. What he says about voting for the Greens being dangerous is just bollocks. He says that tactical voting doesn’t work, but then screams at any Green voter that they have to vote tactically for the SNP. He is just a hypocrite.

Wings has taken the sensible position, that the D’Hondt system doesn’t work tactically but that doesn’t mean that voting for the Greens is wrong, it just means it isn’t a magic, vote rigging silver bullet. Wings first article showed that increased Green vote never reduced the total number of Pro-Yes MSPs.

James Kelly thinks that all Greens/RISE members are evil vote splitters and shouldn’t exist. Which isn’t impartial it is just tribal. What happened to Yes movement solidarity?"

Do I hate the Greens?  Do I think they shouldn't exist?  If so, I behaved somewhat out of character in the run-up to the 2012 local elections when I tried to persuade people to use their lower preferences for the Greens and other pro-independence parties, and was in a state of despair at the realisation that many people simply didn't understand how the voting system worked and had convinced themselves that a lower preference for the Greens would somehow "dilute" their first preference vote for the SNP.  But that's the thing - the STV system used for local elections lends itself to "solidarity".  The AMS system used for the Scottish Parliament doesn't.  A vote for the Greens on the Holyrood regional list isn't a second preference vote, it's a first preference vote.  It's a vote against the SNP as much as it is a vote against the unionist parties.

I've no idea whether Green Pedant actually has "met" me in a literal sense - it seems unlikely, because I don't really move in political circles (unless it was at the Common Space launch party, or the Political Innovation conference about a billion years ago).  But if I am the most tribal SNP supporter he's ever met, he needs to get out more.  I've only been a party member for eleven months.

If I have any minor problem with the Greens at all, it's that one of their candidates for next year's Scottish Parliament election once subjected to me to mindless online abuse.  It ranged from the pathetic ("Wings-loving tube", "Cybernat") to the deeply offensive ("misogynist", "you obviously don't care for women very much").  If a parliamentary candidate is trying to appeal to "Yes solidarity" and to win hearts and minds for his party, it might be best to refrain from throwing around nasty personal insults of that sort, especially without a shred of justification.  And I'm scarcely the only victim of that particular individual.  But my working assumption has always been that James Mackenzie is just a single bad apple (although admittedly he did work at a very senior level in the party).  If I really thought it was rational to vote "tactically" for the Greens on the list, that incident wouldn't be enough to put me off - unless I was voting in the region where Mackenzie is standing, but from memory that's the Lothians, and I'm in Central Scotland.

And of course it's simply untrue to say that I've ever called the Greens "vote-splitters", or said (let alone "screamed") that Greens should vote tactically for the SNP.  On the contrary, I've positively encouraged people to vote Green, as long as the Greens are their favourite party.  It's simply tactical voting on the list (for the Greens or for any other party) that I've pointed out doesn't work.

The other inaccuracy is the suggestion that an increased Green vote can never lead to a net decrease in the number of pro-independence MSPs.  The north-east result in 2011 gives the lie to that notion - SNP supporters voting "tactically" for the Greens or the SSP were perilously close to handing the SNP list seat to the Tories.

As for RISE, I haven't said anything at all about them yet.  I was planning to ask whether they're related to the defunct Channel 4 breakfast show of the same name, and if so, whether they'll be reviving the tradition of viewer exit polls on Big Brother evictions.  (If I'd known Cameron Stout was destined to become the figurehead for Better Together Orkney, I'd definitely have voted to keep Nush in.  Ah well, live and learn.)

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

This is your conductor speaking

"Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, welcome aboard the 2130 ScotRail shuttle service from Glasgow Queen Street to Edinburgh Waverley.  The train will call at Croy, Falkirk High and Haymarket, due to arrive in at Edinburgh Waverley at 2225.  First class accommodation is located at the front and rear of the train, this is for the use of first class ticket holders only.  If you wish to upgrade to first class, you can do so for £4.20.  Female accommodation is located in the middle of the train, this is for the use of female ticket holders only.  If you're not a woman, you can upgrade if you really want to, but this should not be done lightly, and ScotRail recommends counselling as a preliminary step."

In the unlikely event that Jeremy Corbyn's female-only rail carriages plan ever sees the light of day, I trust there will be male-only carriages by way of compensation.  Otherwise, men will be much less likely than women to be able to find a seat on a busy train.  That would be a form of gender-based collective punishment, and I'm not sure that's really on.

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Daisley, the neocon link list, and the 1967 "liberation" of East Jerusalem

As a small addendum to the previous post, I've just noticed somebody on Twitter pointing out that Stephen Daisley used to write for the Times of Israel, where his mini-biography describes him as writing "from a centre-right perspective". It also reveals that he has (or had) a blog called The Eclectic Partisan. Having looked it up, what I found most immediately fascinating is the contents of his link list -

CiF Watch (a website devoted to finding anti-Semitism in The Guardian regardless of whether it is there or not)
Commentary Magazine (self-described as the "flagship of neoconservatism")
David Frum (speechwriter for George W Bush)
Harry's Place (blog that mostly bashes the Left)
Janet Daley (yup, you know who Janet Daley is)
Jerusalem Post
Jewish Chronicle
John Rentoul (arch-Blairite who had no hesitation in saying he preferred Cameron as PM to Miliband)
Julie's Think Tank (now a protected blog, but from what I gather appeared to follow a neocon line)
Martin Bright (formerly of the "Tony Blair Faith Foundation")
Melanie Phillips (yup, you really, really know who Melanie Phillips is)
National Review's The Corner
The New Criterion
Nick Cohen (the neocons' favourite ex-leftie)
Rob Marchant (member of the Blairite Progress group)

Now, admittedly, you can't necessarily judge a man by his link list - I have one or two blogs on my own list that I often profoundly disagree with. But it has to be said there is a fairly consistent ideological theme running through Daisley's list like a stick of Blackpool rock.

There's nothing wrong with being a "centre-right" admirer of neocons if that's what floats your boat. But I really, really struggle to reconcile this more authentic version of Daisley with the image he's tried to project of himself in his STV articles, which is presumably self-consciously tailored for a Scottish audience. His fervour for Tony Blair and Liz Kendall suddenly makes a lot of sense, but not necessarily in the context of his supposed "inchoate" attachment to Labour as a "transformative left-of-centre political force".  Anyone voting in the Labour leadership election might want to be a tad suspicious about the motivations for his relentless assault on the radical left - is he really, as he presents himself, a man rooted in Labour values who is simply trying to help rescue the party from itself?  Probably not.

Incidentally, you might be interested to know that Daisley said on his blog a couple of years ago that Israel "liberated" Jerusalem in 1967 (ie. by conquering the Arab-dominated East Jerusalem). By any standards, that is a grotesque and - to use one of his own favourite words - unhinged interpretation. There comes a point where you just have to conclude that a man has utterly lost all sense of perspective on his favourite subject, and that he has forfeited any right to be taken seriously when he writes about it, regardless of the quality of his prose.

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest