Questions to which the answer is 'do you know what, I would LOVE to answer your question, but I've just remembered I've got to read Anna Karenina, and there isn't a second to lose'

As has been pointed out by several people already, Labour's excuse for dozens of their MPs (including their deputy Scottish leader) failing to show up in the Commons to vote against the Bedroom Tax doesn't actually make sense. The rules stipulate that the pairing arrangement with the Tories cannot be used on votes of great importance. So that leaves only two possibilities - either Labour are saying that the Bedroom Tax is not a matter of importance (which would utterly destroy their credibility in the eyes of many Scots), or those MPs should have turned up to vote.

But it's always a huge mistake at a time like this to underestimate the inventiveness of Scottish Labour's one-man online presence Duncan Hothersall. When all the plausible excuses have run out, have no fear, Dunc will still find an implausible one to cling to with all his strength. Here's what he dreamt up for the occasion this time -

Duncan Hothersall : No surprise; when the Tories and the Lib Dems vote in favour of the #bedroomtax, in Scotland it's Labour who get the blame. #brokenpolitics

Natalie McGarry : There is no other commitment an MP has at the moment more important than voting against #bedroomtax - even if Unwinnable.

Duncan Hothersall : How much public money are you prepared to spend on transit for an unwinnable vote? Money that could pay for public services.

Now let's try and suppress our guffaws for a moment (I must admit it was the '#brokenpolitics' hashtag that really cracked me up), and do Duncan the courtesy of working his point through to its logical conclusion. The thing is, of course, that the vast majority of votes at Westminster on contentious government policies are 'unwinnable' for Labour. (The reason they're unwinnable, let's not forget, is the Neanderthal tribalism displayed by the likes of Duncan's hero Tom Harris, who helped to sabotage any possibility of cooperation between Labour and the Liberal Democrats in the days after the 2010 general election, thus ushering into office a majority Tory-led coalition.) So, according to the Dunc Dinktum, all Labour members outwith the immediate vicinity of London should be saving valuable funds for public services by not attending any of those votes.

Simple question, Duncan - why don't they do that? And if you actually believe what you say, why aren't you angry that they don't do that?

Simple answer - because you don't believe what you say. Not one word.

The Donaldson files

Back in the halcyon days when, by sheer luck, I hadn't yet been banned by the delightful Stormfront-lite website Political Betting for the heinous crime of being both left-wing and Scottish (I'm merely one of the many offenders who were eventually weeded out), I used to be repeatedly taken to task by the rather more upstanding contributors, who to this day continue to prove their indispensable value to the site by displaying the wholesome PB virtues of abusiveness and casual racism. One point they often used to make was that I am, let's face it, a bit of a Nazi - because I'm both a "nationalist" and a "socialist". (Yes, their jibes were that original.) It's a fair cop, guv - so that'll be me, Clement Attlee and Mahatma Gandhi, all happily goose-stepping together in the Nazi gang.

Their favourite piece of supporting "evidence" for this 2 + 2 = 22 theory about the nature of Scottish nationalism was the extremely brief internment without trial in 1941 of future SNP leader Arthur Donaldson. A few militant anti-independence publications have also occasionally experienced flurries of excitement about this obscure historical episode, but it's never really gone anywhere, because the inconvenient fact they can't shake off is that Donaldson was released after just six weeks on the order of Scottish Secretary Tom Johnston, who seems to have been distinctly unimpressed by an internment that was provisionally authorised without a shred of credible evidence. But Donaldson was, of course, the easiest of targets for an authoritarian London government that had suspended habeas corpus - he opposed conscription, supported neutrality, and wanted to see the democratic dissolution of the British state. That hardly made him a Nazi, but it did offer a flimsy pretext for the detention of someone who the establishment had every interest in putting out of the way.

By contrast, it was psychologically very hard for the establishment to send any of their own to jail - and yet they did so, and for much, much longer periods than Donaldson's six weeks, because they really had no choice. If you want to know which high-profile British politicians were authentic 'National Socialists', you won't find them in any SNP membership lists. You will, of course, find them in both the Tory and Labour ranks -

Archibald Ramsay was Conservative (or technically Scottish Unionist) MP for Peebles and Southern Midlothian. He was the founder of the antisemitic and explicitly pro-Nazi 'Right Club'. He came within a whisker of costing Britain the war through his association with Right Club member Tyler Kent, who stole documents from the US Embassy which, if publicised, would have destroyed the credibility of Roosevelt and made limited American support for the war effort impossible. Ramsay was arrested in the nick of time, and interned for over four years - but throughout that time remained an MP.

Sir Oswald Mosley was a Conservative MP between 1918 and 1922, and a Labour MP between 1924 and 1931. As Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, he was arguably the most senior non-Cabinet minister in Ramsay MacDonald's second Labour government. Just one year after leaving Labour, he was leading an openly fascist movement that went on to call for Britain to become an ally of Nazi Germany. He was interned without trial for three-and-a-half years during the war (and subsequently placed under house arrest), because his parliamentary experience with both of the major London parties made him the obvious candidate to lead a puppet government after any successful German invasion.

In complete contrast to Arthur Donaldson, both men listed above could perfectly reasonably be described as 'National Socialists', because, quite simply, they were fascists. Both Labour and Tory parties seemed to be breeding grounds for such beliefs in the 1920s and 30s.

* * *

As regular readers will know, Marcia and her friend Tom helped me a few weeks ago to look through the files relating to Arthur Donaldson's internment that are held at the National Archives in Kew, and also some other historical documents relating to farcical government snooping on the SNP and the wider national movement. My original plan was simply to transcribe the highlights, but then I got cold feet because I wasn't 100% sure about the copyright rules. My next plan was to write a post summarising the story that the files tell, but that would be an enormous undertaking, and I've been putting it off for so long now that I'm beginning to think I might never get round to it. So I'm going to go back to Plan A. I've read up on the copyright rules as best I can - as far as I can see, the files are covered by crown copyright, and it's allowable to reproduce crown copyright material without seeking specific permission, as long as the National Archives are listed as the source and the document reference given. However, if anyone reading this has good reason to think I'm wrong about that, I beseech you to let me know as soon as possible. I'm thinking about prescheduling a whole batch of these (I might even space them out between now and the referendum date), and the last thing I need is to get myself into an unnecessary pickle!

Letter from Tom Johnston to Arthur Donaldson's wife (11/6/41) -

My Secretary wrote to you on the 2nd June, promising that I would let you have a reply in a few days to your letter of the 10th May about your husband's detention under Defence Regulation 18B.

I have gone very fully into all the circumstances of the case, and after careful consideration I have, as you will know by the time you receive this letter, come to the conclusion that I would not be justified in ordering your husband's continued detention under Regulation 18B. I am proposing to make a statement, of which I enclose a copy, to this effect in the House of Commons tomorrow.

Yours faithfully,

T.J.

Letter from Tom Johnston to the Earl of Rosebery (11/6/41) -

I am writing in confirmation of our telephone conversation to let you know that, after the most careful consideration and examination of all the available material, I came to the conclusion that I would not be justified in ordering the continued detention of Arthur Donaldson under Regulation 18B. For the reasons with which you are familiar, the decision in this case was a particularly difficult one to come to, and, in the end, I had to choose between compromising a police informer on the one hand, with a fair presumption that by so doing the Advisory Committee would still not recommend Donaldson's continued detention, and on the other hand releasing him from prison. I hope you will agree, that in the difficult choice, I reached the right conclusion.

Undated document -

Sir David Petrie.

Case of Arthur Donaldson.

You are familiar with the history of the recent case of Arthur Donaldson, against whom the Scottish Regional Commissioner made an Order of Detention under Regulation 18B which, on consideration of the case in consultation with the Home Secretary the Secretary of State for Scotland did not feel able to confirm. The case raised a number of points of unusual difficulty and, as I think you know, caused, and may still cause, a certain amount of Parliamentary trouble in addition to a good deal of protest on the part of people in Scotland with Nationalist sympathies.

The Secretary of State for Scotland has been in communication with the Home Secretary about the position; and with the concurrence of the Home Office I am writing about two special aspects of the case, which we feel ought to be followed up with a view to preventing a recurrence of the same kind of difficulty.

In the first place, trouble in connection with the case arose from the publication in the Press of reports of the simultaneous searches, carried out in a number of police areas in Scotland, of the houses or premises of 17 members of the Scottish Nationalist (sic) Party. These searches were, I understand, initiated and concerted by MI5 and while the Scottish Law Officers were aware that a number of them were in contemplation, they were not aware of their full extent. The result of the searches was, I understand, to reveal comparatively little evidence of real value from the security point of view.

We fully appreciate, of course, that in arranging for the searches, MI5 were not directly concerned with the Scottish Nationalist sympathies of the persons involved. It seems clear, however, that police searches on the scale in question against people of known Nationalist sympathies could not have failed to produce a good deal of political trouble for which the Secretary of State, as the Minister responsible for the Police in Scotland, would have to answer in Parliament. In these circumstances it would, we feel, have made the subsequent difficulties very much less for all concerned if the Secretary of State had been informed beforehand of the action proposed and had had an opportunity of making suggestions as to the most circumspect way of handling a situation of some difficulty.

Might I suggest, therefore, that in any comparable circumstances in the future the Scottish Home Department in Edinburgh, through which the Secretary of State's functions in relation to the Police are discharged, should be confidentially consulted in advance before MI5 initiate police action.

The Donaldson case also raised in an acute form the question of giving away the identity of a police agent, and Brooman-White was good enough to send us a copy of the letter you addressed to Newsam of the Home Office on 10th June about this question. We understand it is the view of MI5 that, except in the most special circumstances, the identity of their agent should not be given away to a suspected person as a result of the particulars with which the Chairman of the Advisory Committee under Regulation 18B is required to furnish him. In the case of Arthur Donaldson, it would not have been possible to state these particulars without compromising the police agent, as he and another witness, who was regarded as quite unreliable, were the only two people in a position to testify to one of the main allegations against Donaldson. This was the consideration that caused us the greatest difficulty in dealing with the Donaldson case. Lord Rosebery has asked the Lord Advocate, who advises him in these matters in Scotland, to let him have his views on the lessons of the case, and, after discussion with the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary the Lord Advocate has written to Lord Rosebery in the terms enclosed.

Source : The National Archives.  Document reference : HO 45/23801

Boost for pro-independence campaign as the gap continues to close in latest TNS-BMRB poll

I know that a number of us have separately come to the conclusion that Blair McDougall is a thoroughly objectionable and rather thuggish individual, at least when he dons his online persona. In short, it's hard to think of a more fitting supremo for the anti-independence campaign. But give the man his due, he does offer some precious moments of entertainment along the way. One game I've become fond of playing is "spot the good poll for Yes" - all you have to do is look out for the things that McDougall doesn't say about a poll on Twitter. This was his offering yesterday...

"No bounce for Yes after SNP conference. TNS poll finds support for leaving UK stuck at historic low of 25%."

From which I instantly deduced that the No vote had fallen for a second successive TNS-BMRB poll, which in turn meant that there had also been a net swing in favour of the Yes campaign for the second successive poll by the company. Here are the figures -

Should Scotland be an independent country?

Yes 25% (-)
No 43% (-1)

When compared to the TNS poll conducted in late August, the No vote has slipped by four points from 47% to 43%, and the overall No lead has also dropped four points, from 22 points to 18. As you know, I can't help but roll my eyes at the mainstream media narrative that a small increase in the No lead is always "another blow for Alex Salmond", whereas a small decrease in the lead is always "another no change poll". In spite of the laughable double standard, there might sometimes be a justification for the latter point, because small changes are often just normal fluctuations that will cancel each other out. But I have a severe problem with anyone peddling the "no change" line in this particular case. Not only has the No lead reported by TNS-BMRB dropped by four points since August, but this is also the lowest No lead that TNS have shown for almost two years. At its peak in the autumn of 2012, the lead stood at 25 points, so a drop of seven points since then is clearly statistically significant (ie. it's not a mirage caused by the standard margin of error). Furthermore, the proportion of undecided voters has climbed to a new high watermark for the third successive TNS poll, now standing at an astonishing 32%. How the hell does that constitute a "no change" position, guys?

Another curious thing that the mainstream media seem to be doing with their reporting of this poll is ignoring TNS' own designated headline figures, and instead zeroing in on the figures for those certain to vote. Presumably this is an attempt to put the maximum possible glitter on the figures for the No campaign ("nearly half of Scots support the union" is the predictable line warbled by one or two publications), but in this case they may be shooting themselves in the foot, because the No lead has in fact slipped even further among definite voters -

Yes 29% (+1)
No 47% (-3)

That's a net swing of 2% to the Yes campaign since last month. With the lead down to 18 points on both measures, TNS have effectively joined ICM and Angus Reid in the group of pollsters showing a middling lead. YouGov are also not too far away from that group as well, assuming their last poll wasn't a blip. And at this point, I must break the habit of a lifetime, and actually give YouGov some credit. I was away on holiday when their last poll came out, and consequently I didn't realise until a few days ago that they had finally started to get their act together, by replacing their notoriously biased preamble, and by weighting the figures by recalled Holyrood vote. I use the word "started" advisedly, because the Scottish sample in their daily poll still seems to be weighted under the old system, producing the usual fantastical results. But as far as referendum polling is concerned, let's hope they've permanently laid to rest the spectre of cretinous Cochranism. The methodology in their September poll was absolutely fine as far I can see, and in those circumstances it was scarcely surprising that the No lead tumbled by a whopping ten points.

So that leaves Panelbase as the outlier on one end of the spectrum showing very modest No leads (and in one case an outright Yes lead), with Ipsos-Mori now alone as the equivalent outlier on the other extreme showing a large No lead. I exclude Progressive Scottish Opinion from that equation because I don't regard them as a credible pollster (their 'mad as a bucket of frogs' polls for the 2007 Holyrood campaign will explain why). Ipsos-Mori aren't so easily dismissed, and it is slightly troubling that they are now showing a No lead much larger than in their poll in early 2012, which was a notable high watermark for Yes. There's no obvious explanation for that movement, unless the company have introduced a significant methodological change over the last eighteen months. But I would be much more worried about that if other pollsters, and especially ICM, had detected the same trend - and, quite simply, they haven't. We do still have to be a little cautious, because it may yet turn out that Ipsos-Mori are right and all the others are wrong - but it's just as likely that will turn out to be true of Panelbase.

To finish off, here are a few interesting nuggets from the details of the TNS poll -

* 35-44 year olds are the age group most likely to back independence.

* The 'West' (excluding Glasgow) is the region of the country with the biggest proportion of Yes voters, although Glasgow itself is where the No lead is at its lowest - just seven points.

* Liberal Democrat voters are the least likely to be loyal to their own party's constitutional stance - just 51% of them currently plan to vote against independence.

The Rangers vote

A quick story for your delectation. I was on the same bus last night as a group of four ever-so-slightly drunk Rangers supporters. A soldier stepped onto the bus in full uniform, prompting a chorus of cheers. He mumbled something sheepishly, which given the reaction it caused, I presumed to be something along the lines of "actually, I support Celtic". The Rangers fans were undaunted : "Aye, but you're still in the BRITISH Army. In fact, that's even better!"

For some reason, the conversation turned a few minutes later to the independence referendum. Given the mood-music, I wasn't expecting too many signs of encouragement - but I was wrong. Out of the four, there was just one definite No, one extremely soft No, one definite Yes, and a Don't Care. The Yes supporter was even offering some rather impressive lines of argument that will be familiar to all of us - this isn't about keeping Alex Salmond in power, we'll still be Rangers supporters, we can still feel British as well as Scottish, this is simply about Scotland doing what's in its own national interest, and so forth. There were, admittedly, a few inexplicable references to "Gerry f****** Adams", but on the whole the standard of discussion was startling high, especially given the amount of alcohol that had presumably been consumed.

If this is remotely typical of the Rangers support, we're not doing at all badly.

Things the No campaign say that don't actually make sense, no. 5921

I see that the ever-reliable Duncan Hothersall has offered a measure of support for Ian "Ah'll gie ye a doin' after ah bayonet ye" Davidson's extraordinary call for a clause to be placed in an MoD contract that would automatically make thousands of shipyard workers redundant if the Labour/Tory "Popular Front" don't get the referendum result they want -

"I said explicitly the decision is not going to be based solely on #indyref, it is just one consideration."

"It [the referendum] has to be a factor. It's part of reality."

Now I suppose this would be the basis of Davidson's defence for his comments (albeit a man who believes in bayonetting the victims may well feel that attack is the best form of defence) - the referendum is a factor in the MoD's consideration anyway, so putting in the mass redundancy blackmail clause might make the contract more likely to be delivered in the first place. But, in the immortal words of Lieutenant Columbo, there's just one thing I don't understand here, sir. We've heard repeatedly that the MoD have made no contingency plans whatsoever for removing Trident from the Clyde in the event of independence, on the grounds that they anticipate a No vote next year. But if they're so astonishingly arrogant as to take the Scottish people for granted in that way when it suits them, how can they possibly justify even taking into account the possibility of a Yes vote when they weigh up whether or not to award this contract?

As ever, answers on a postcard. Duncan may be able to assist you...but somehow I doubt it.

Kilclooney's baloney, part 2

Lord Kilclooney, aka former deputy leader of the Ulster Unionist Party John Taylor, has made yet another stirring 'contribution' to our own independence debate in a letter to the Scotsman -

"As an Ulster Scot I am obviously anxious about the possible outcome of the independence ­referendum next year."

As shall we all be, for as long as one or two of your fellow Ulster Scots are running around demanding an Ulster-style partition of Scotland should the vote go 'the wrong way'. Oh wait - wasn't it you who suggested that, Your Lordship? (And naturally, this would be a get-out-of-jail-free card only available to the No campaign - if Scotland votes No, then Yes-voting regions wouldn't get the consolation prize of their own little statelet.)

"In reply to my parliamentary question this week the Treasury confirmed that some £30 billion of block grant was sent to Scotland in each of the past three years. Of course, an independent Scotland would lose this £30bn with resulting reduction in public funding for education, health, social services and transport. That is unless supporters of independence have a proposal to overcome the loss of this £30bn. I await their answer."

Await no longer, Your Excellency! You see, independence has upsides as well as downsides. On the one hand, we will no longer receive a block grant from Westminster, but on the other hand we will stop sending billions of pounds of tax revenues to Westminster - which is, after all, what the block grant is there to compensate us for at the moment.

Glad we could clear that up so quickly for you, Your Eminence, and please don't hesitate to ask if you have any other nagging doubts (for example, how Scotland will overcome its loss of latitude after independence). Mind you, I do hope you can actually see our answers, what with the Scotsman adopting a Labour Hame-style moderation policy of late.

And I fear that if you seriously think you have a personal stake in these matters (because Northern Ireland would "have to decide" after Scottish independence "whether to remain with England or remain with Scotland"), you may be labouring under something of a misapprehension. You see, we'll be becoming independent from the United Kingdom - and, as you remind us so often, Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom. Not wishing to be unkind, but we'll be becoming independent from you, Your Highness.

Yeah, Blair, what have the nationalists ever done for Wales?

Those ever-delightful anti-independence chaps on Twitter seem to be terribly excited about events in Wales today.

Better Together : Devolution of key powers to Wales is more proof that further devolution is being delivered within the UK.

Which raises a couple of obvious questions - a) how exactly would it be possible to deliver devolution outside the UK, and b) if it's possible to deliver extra devolution to Wales right now, why is it necessary for Scotland to wait until some unspecified date in the future, which will conveniently be long after we've surrendered the bargaining power of an impending independence referendum?

Blair McDougall : By the way, support for leaving UK = 7% in Wales (ICM). So today also blows away idea that it's nationalism that delivers powers.

Yes, Blair, you don't need nationalism to deliver extra powers - well, just so long as nationalists win an election in another part of the UK and hold a referendum on independence, thus making the UK government realise that there is potential short-term tactical gain in making a small "demonstration" concession to the decentralisers. After all, as Mr McDougall so helpfully reminded us just two days ago, the UK government will only be seen to act against the Celtic Fringe after the independence referendum is safely out of the way.

Oh, and it probably also helps if you had a nationalist party - Plaid Cymru - in government between 2007 and 2011, and thus in a position to build some momentum for new powers in the face of total boneheaded intransigence from a Labour Secretary of State for Wales.

But apart from those two minor details, yeah, this is incontrovertible proof that you can trust the Tory/Labour "people's choice" alliance to deliver all the extra powers that you could ever dream of.

Questions to which the answer is "Me!"

We're all hugely indebted to Andrew Morton for his illuminating report for Wings from behind enemy lines, at the 'launch' (do these things ever have a follow-through?) of Better Together Musselburgh.  The obvious highlight (if that's the right word) was this cringe-inducing question from Tory MSP Gavin Brown -

"What Scottish soldier, proudly serving in the British army, would want to join the Scottish forces and spend their time parading up and down in a kilt in front of Edinburgh castle waiting for tourists to take their picture?"

Leaving aside the obvious point that, regrettably, this particular brand of Brigadoon Separatism isn't actually on offer from anyone, I would imagine the literal answer to Mr Brown's question would go something like this -

"One who wants to be well-paid without facing the risk of being blown to kingdom come in a pointless and illegal war."

Wisdom on Wednesday : Some jokes are truly timeless

"George Robertson says that a semi-detached Scots Parliament will 'kill dead the rump separatist desire'.  Ho, ho, ho."

The former SNP Westminster MP George Reid speaking in 1995, some four years before becoming an MSP in the new parliament, and eight years before becoming Presiding Officer.  Yes, people couldn't help but laugh at Robertson even before he was proved wrong.

Boost for pro-independence campaign in new Panelbase poll

I'm delighted to see that RevStu has included a straight voting intention question in the latest Wings over Scotland poll, partly because it takes away any alibi from Alex Massie and others for making any of the thoroughly daft comments they did last time, but also because it will help enormously in the pursuit of the poll's secondary objective of bolstering the profile and credibility of alternative media. The fact that the poll was apparently discussed on this morning's Headlines programme on BBC Radio Scotland (with full attribution given to Wings) tells you all you need to know.

The figures themselves make encouraging reading for the Yes campaign, with the No lead decreasing by two points since the last Panelbase poll in September -

Should Scotland be an independent country?

Yes 37% (-)
No 45% (-2)

I know those are slightly different from the headline figures used by RevStu, but the only figures that are directly comparable from last month's poll are the ones filtered by certainty to vote.  In any case, the difference isn't significant - with or without the filter, the No lead stands at a modest eight points, although understandably the number of undecided voters falls if less probable voters are removed from the equation.

Incidentally, although the usual suspects will doubtless ignore the two-point drop in the No lead, and dismiss this as "another no change poll" (isn't it amazing how a decrease in the No lead is always invisible, whereas any increase is invariably a "blow for Alex Salmond"?), it's worth pointing out that those same people were all too keen to discredit the Panelbase poll conducted in August showing a lead for Yes.  Well, if we take their views at face value and treat that August poll as illegitimate, then today's No lead is in fact smaller than in both of the last two Panelbase polls, conducted in July and September respectively.

I was also very excited to see that Panelbase have called the bluff of their more moronic critics, and used another polling company's panel for half of the sample in this poll.  The No lead is actually slightly smaller (eight points) in the other company's sample than it is in Panelbase's (nine points).  Not only does that go a long way towards disproving the bizarre Twitter smear that Panelbase have been "infiltrated by Cybernats", but more importantly, it lends credence to Panelbase's own theory that the significant divergence between different pollsters' results is not caused by differences in the raw responses of the voters interviewed, but rather by the filters and weightings that the pollsters themselves apply after the interviews.  That raises the fascinating possibility that polls by companies such as YouGov would be showing exactly the same type of close race that Panelbase polls typically show, if the filtering and weighting of the raw data was done in the same way.  Indeed, it suggests that YouGov and co might even be showing an outright lead for Yes by now, if they also asked the main question after the same two innocuous questions that Panelbase did in their "illegitimate" August poll!

It would be really interesting to know which pollster's panel was used in this poll - the findings would be highly significant regardless of the pollster's identity, but they would be even more significant if it was YouGov, Ipsos-Mori or TNS-BMRB, which are the three pollsters that have tended to be most favourable for No.  (ICM and Angus Reid are somewhere in the middle.)

There was a great deal of theorising in the comments section of Wings this morning about the reason why 18-24 year olds are the least likely to support independence (while, paradoxically, 25-34 year olds are the most likely to support it), but in my view that may have been based on a false premise.  It's only been a few months since an Ipsos-Mori poll showed a huge lead for Yes among 18-24 year olds.  The sample sizes for that age group are extremely small, and when we have such widely varying results, all we can meaningfully say is that we just don't know what the true state of play is.