At the risk of tempting fate by complimenting a journalist too much, STV's Colin Mackay has often been noted for making an effort to be more even-handed than some of his peers in the Scottish broadcast media, and he proved that again today by ignoring a hostile Tory audience to put Jeremy Hunt on the spot over the utter nonsensicality of the leadership candidate's 'reasons' for saying he will attempt to block an independence referendum. Hunt tried to make out that he was "listening to the people of Scotland" and that "in the last poll he read" three-quarters of Scots were opposed to a referendum. That is almost certainly an intentional lie, because it seems phenomenally improbable that the very recent Panelbase poll showing a clear majority in favour of an early independence referendum wasn't at least brought to Hunt's attention, even if he didn't want to hear about it. And even in the highly unlikely event that the Panelbase poll has somehow completely escaped his notice, his characterisation of the "last poll he read" would still be profoundly and intentionally dishonest, because no poll has ever shown anything even close to 75% opposition to an indyref. (One possibility is that it's a reference to an Ipsos-Mori poll which showed that 22% favoured an indyref as soon as Brexit takes place...but that in total 41% wanted an indyref at some point before 2021. To claim that a poll showing that 41% of Scots want a referendum within the next two years somehow shows that three-quarters of Scots don't want a referendum at all is pretty brazen, to put it mildly.)
I've expressed my concern before that the Conservative party, which down the ages has long rubbished opinion polls and said that "the only poll that matters is on polling day", is now trying to turn Scotland into an opinion poll democracy - in other words, a country in which you can ignore the way in which people actually vote because a YouGov poll of 2000 people is supposedly a more accurate representation of what they want. Hunt tried exactly that line today - he said that it didn't matter that a majority of the Scottish Parliament wanted a referendum, and that it didn't matter that people had knowingly voted for the parliament to have a pro-referendum majority. All that mattered is that a poll from God knows how many months or years ago supposedly shows that MSPs are going against the wishes of their constituents. Mackay pointed out that the most recent poll in fact shows that a majority are in favour of a referendum - to which Hunt feebly replied "there are lots of polls, Colin". So now it seems that Scotland isn't so much an opinion poll democracy as a "the last opinion poll that a British Prime Minister conveniently bothered to notice" democracy.
Except it gets even worse than that. When Mackay sardonically summed up Hunt's hypocrisy with the words "so your poll counts but mine doesn't?", Hunt effectively abandoned his belief in the overriding importance of polls and started waffling about how "people I talk to in Scotland" (ie. Tories) don't want a referendum. So in the space of two minutes, Scotland had been downgraded twice from an opinion poll democracy to a vague anecdote democracy.
As an aside, it's worth noting that Hunt's statement today that he will attempt to block an indyref even if the SNP win an absolute majority at the 2021 election flatly contradicts what he said on the subject only a couple of weeks ago. If I was a Tory member, and even if I agreed with Hunt's revised stance, I'd be a bit worried that the 'flexibility' of his views means that he can't be trusted to keep his word on other subjects. How can he be trusted to stick to his promises on Brexit, for example?
Friday, July 5, 2019
Monday, July 1, 2019
Calling all Wikipedia editors
Until very recently, Wikipedia's list of UK opinion polls was immaculately inclusive - it had a separate column for each party that enjoyed a non-trivial level of support. So the Greens, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, UKIP and Change UK were all there. I was shocked to discover last night that the SNP and Plaid have been arbitrarily removed, with their voters instead lumped together into an "others" column. What makes this change particularly perverse is that UKIP and Change UK still have their own columns, even though they both routinely poll significantly lower than the SNP. To put it in perspective, the SNP's support in GB-wide polls always falls in a range between 2% and 6%, and almost always falls in a range between 3% and 5%. By contrast, Change UK have been on either 0% or 1% in all of the last ten polls, and UKIP have only been as high as 2% once in the last ten polls. There can be no conceivable justification for taking the SNP out if Change UK and UKIP are to be left in. And let's face it, there'd be no conceivable justification anyway. The SNP are the third largest party in the House of Commons and the largest party by far in one of the constituent nations of the UK. Those facts alone should put an end to any dispute.
Now, before anyone trots out the standard response of "anyone can edit Wikipedia, so don't complain, just put it right yourself", it isn't quite as simple as that. Someone has already attempted to reverse the edit, but within literally one minute the SNP and Plaid were removed again, with the following 'explanation' appended to the edit history -
"Please see the discussion on talk - strong consensus for removal of at least some columns, namely SNP/Plaid among most"
So I checked the Talk page, and as I suspected, this "strong consensus" turned out to consist of an in-group of only about six or seven people, all enthusiastically agreeing with each other based on their shared Anglocentric trance that it somehow makes perfect sense to remove the SNP but to retain parties that have far less support than the SNP. Before you look at the discussion, I should probably put a health warning on it, because it dismisses the SNP and Plaid as "regional" parties who should only ever be mentioned in the context of their own "areas" and who are "irrelevant" to the "national" picture. Someone quite reasonably points out that similar pages for other countries manage without any great fuss to include separate columns for ten or more parties, so there's no actual need for the UK page to be artificially edited down to seven. But that argument was shouted down on the basis that other countries have proportional representation and we don't, meaning that parties with relatively low percentage support can't hope to win seats. Which is a bit of a circular argument, because if the requirement for inclusion is the ability to win seats, how can you possibly exclude a party whose support is so geographically concentrated that it currently holds 35 seats under first-past-the-post and looks set to win considerably more in the next general election?
The only way of getting this ridiculous decision overturned is to change the "consensus" on the Talk page. I've made my point there already, but I'm only one voice. So if you're a Wikipedia editor and if you feel as strongly about this as I do, I would recommend that you leave a comment there and help to break the Anglo groupthink. If you're not familiar with commenting on Wikipedia Talk pages, you need to hit the edit button in the top right hand corner as if you were editing an article, and then simply add in your own comment in the appropriate place. You then 'sign' your comment by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of it.
Now, before anyone trots out the standard response of "anyone can edit Wikipedia, so don't complain, just put it right yourself", it isn't quite as simple as that. Someone has already attempted to reverse the edit, but within literally one minute the SNP and Plaid were removed again, with the following 'explanation' appended to the edit history -
"Please see the discussion on talk - strong consensus for removal of at least some columns, namely SNP/Plaid among most"
So I checked the Talk page, and as I suspected, this "strong consensus" turned out to consist of an in-group of only about six or seven people, all enthusiastically agreeing with each other based on their shared Anglocentric trance that it somehow makes perfect sense to remove the SNP but to retain parties that have far less support than the SNP. Before you look at the discussion, I should probably put a health warning on it, because it dismisses the SNP and Plaid as "regional" parties who should only ever be mentioned in the context of their own "areas" and who are "irrelevant" to the "national" picture. Someone quite reasonably points out that similar pages for other countries manage without any great fuss to include separate columns for ten or more parties, so there's no actual need for the UK page to be artificially edited down to seven. But that argument was shouted down on the basis that other countries have proportional representation and we don't, meaning that parties with relatively low percentage support can't hope to win seats. Which is a bit of a circular argument, because if the requirement for inclusion is the ability to win seats, how can you possibly exclude a party whose support is so geographically concentrated that it currently holds 35 seats under first-past-the-post and looks set to win considerably more in the next general election?
The only way of getting this ridiculous decision overturned is to change the "consensus" on the Talk page. I've made my point there already, but I'm only one voice. So if you're a Wikipedia editor and if you feel as strongly about this as I do, I would recommend that you leave a comment there and help to break the Anglo groupthink. If you're not familiar with commenting on Wikipedia Talk pages, you need to hit the edit button in the top right hand corner as if you were editing an article, and then simply add in your own comment in the appropriate place. You then 'sign' your comment by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of it.
Sunday, June 30, 2019
Boris Johnson's hapless attempt to blackmail Scotland over Brexit
As we all know, a potentially decisive factor in the outcome of the first independence referendum was the message from the No campaign that "a Yes vote puts Scotland's EU membership at risk, while a No vote guarantees EU membership". I wonder how the voters who were swayed by that cynical deception would have reacted if they'd been given a glimpse into the future and realised that, five years down the line, the prospective Prime Minister of the UK would be boasting about how he was going to take Scotland out of the EU against its will and make it so difficult for Scotland to rejoin that nobody would regard independence as a solution. Basically, Boris Johnson is claiming that the prospect of adopting the Euro, joining the Schengen passport-free zone, and giving up "Scottish control of fisheries" means that Scottish voters will have little choice but to stick with the dubious delights of Brexit Britain, rather than trying to get back into the EU via independence. There are, of course, just a few enormous snags with that line of argument...
An independent Scotland would not be forced to join the euro. The Channel 4 "Fact Check" (sic) notoriously claimed a few weeks ago that it would be, which led to the comical spectacle of other Fact Check services demonstrating conclusively that the Channel 4 "Fact Check" was riddled with factual inaccuracies. The theoretical requirement for new EU states to move to adopt the Euro in the long-term is a legal fiction and everyone in Brussels knows it. No state can be forced to take the steps that would be necessary to switch currencies, as Sweden has been helpfully demonstrating in the sixteen years since it rejected Eurozone membership in a referendum.
An independent Scotland would not be required to join the Schengen Zone. The UK and the Republic of Ireland are both current EU member states, but neither are members of Schengen and instead have their own Common Travel Area. Whether or not there is a hard border after Brexit, Ireland is highly unlikely to be joining Schengen, and it's blindingly obvious that the EU would agree that any arrangement that is appropriate for Ireland as an EU state would also be appropriate for Scotland as an EU state.
Scotland will not "control fisheries" after Brexit. Fisheries was one of the key devolved powers that was subject to the Westminster power-grab last year, so control will in fact lie in London or more likely in Brussels - because we know that Scottish fishing communities have always been regarded by London as expendable in any horse-trading with the EU. Although it's true that many Scottish independence supporters do regard the Common Fisheries Policy as the worst thing about the EU, the reality is that we won't be "taking back control" of fisheries under Brexit, and that we'd therefore be sacrificing little by rejoining the EU as an independent state.
You see, that's the thing, Boris - if you want to blackmail a nation into submission, the threat actually has to be credible.
* * *
2019 Scot Goes Pop Fundraiser: This is Day 31 of the fundraiser, and so far £8370 has been raised. That's 98% of the way towards the target figure of £8500. A million thanks to everyone who has donated so far, and I'm also extremely grateful to all the people who have left a kind comment with their donation. You can visit the fundraising page HERE.
An independent Scotland would not be forced to join the euro. The Channel 4 "Fact Check" (sic) notoriously claimed a few weeks ago that it would be, which led to the comical spectacle of other Fact Check services demonstrating conclusively that the Channel 4 "Fact Check" was riddled with factual inaccuracies. The theoretical requirement for new EU states to move to adopt the Euro in the long-term is a legal fiction and everyone in Brussels knows it. No state can be forced to take the steps that would be necessary to switch currencies, as Sweden has been helpfully demonstrating in the sixteen years since it rejected Eurozone membership in a referendum.
An independent Scotland would not be required to join the Schengen Zone. The UK and the Republic of Ireland are both current EU member states, but neither are members of Schengen and instead have their own Common Travel Area. Whether or not there is a hard border after Brexit, Ireland is highly unlikely to be joining Schengen, and it's blindingly obvious that the EU would agree that any arrangement that is appropriate for Ireland as an EU state would also be appropriate for Scotland as an EU state.
Scotland will not "control fisheries" after Brexit. Fisheries was one of the key devolved powers that was subject to the Westminster power-grab last year, so control will in fact lie in London or more likely in Brussels - because we know that Scottish fishing communities have always been regarded by London as expendable in any horse-trading with the EU. Although it's true that many Scottish independence supporters do regard the Common Fisheries Policy as the worst thing about the EU, the reality is that we won't be "taking back control" of fisheries under Brexit, and that we'd therefore be sacrificing little by rejoining the EU as an independent state.
You see, that's the thing, Boris - if you want to blackmail a nation into submission, the threat actually has to be credible.
* * *
2019 Scot Goes Pop Fundraiser: This is Day 31 of the fundraiser, and so far £8370 has been raised. That's 98% of the way towards the target figure of £8500. A million thanks to everyone who has donated so far, and I'm also extremely grateful to all the people who have left a kind comment with their donation. You can visit the fundraising page HERE.
52% of Scots demand an early independence referendum in landmark Panelbase poll, as Tory myth dies
You might have noticed that for weeks now, when a journalist or Tory politician has erroneously claimed that "there is still no appetite in Scotland for an independence referendum", I've been pointing out to them that the most recent poll on the subject actually found that 50.2% of the public are in favour of an early independence referendum and only 49.8% are opposed. Admittedly one thing that made it slightly hard to get that point across is that, after rounding, the published figures were 50% in favour and 50% opposed.
Well, that's no longer a problem, because the Sunday Times have today published more details of their sensational Panelbase poll from last weekend, and it turns out there is now a clear pro-indyref majority even after rounding. 52% are in favour of holding an early independence referendum (up 2 points on the last poll), and 48% are opposed (down 2).
You're in severe danger of running out of excuses, Ruth.
Saturday, June 29, 2019
Explaining democracy to unionist politicians
It strikes me that the "reasons" offered by unionist politicians for blocking an independence referendum are becoming increasingly bizarre and hard to defend. But as we have a mainstream media that doesn't even bother asking them for a defence, I thought it might be worth casting an eye over some of the most recent gems.
Jo Swinson says that London should attempt to block an indyref because the SNP lost ground at the last general election. As Lesley Riddoch has pointed out, this means that if the SNP gain seats at the next general election (as opinion polls currently suggest they will), the Liberal Democrats would be morally obliged to support and facilitate an indyref. But that rather satisfying piece of inescapable logic shouldn't distract us from the nonsensical nature of Swinson's statement. Democracy would grind to a halt if majority parties that happened to lose seats at the most recent election were not regarded as having a mandate to act. In both 1987 and 1992, the Conservative government won an outright majority but suffered a net loss of seats. According to the Swinson Doctrine, then, the Thatcher/Major government should have been prevented by some mechanism from implementing its programme for ten of the eighteen years that it was in office.
Which begs the obvious question: if the majority party didn't have legitimacy to govern, who had legitimacy in its place? Should a minority party have been able to govern instead because it had forward momentum? In other words, should Labour's 229 seats have somehow been regarded as outcounting the Conservatives' 376 seats, because the 229 represented a net gain of 20 and the 376 represented a net loss of 21? And if so, how on earth would you have got such a system to work in practice? Lock up 200 Tory MPs so that Labour could outvote them?
Or, just to float the only other alternative I can think of, should nobody have been allowed to govern at all between 1987 and 1997?
And there are other questions too. If the only decisive factor is whether a party gains or loses seats at the most recent election, shouldn't the SNP's massive stride forward at the European election only last month mean that there is now an open-and-shut case for an indyref? If Swinson's answer to that point is "ah, but that was only a European election, not a Westminster election", how does she explain the fact that her own party in coalition government regarded the SNP as having a mandate to hold an indyref in 2014 based on its success in a Holyrood election rather than a Westminster election? (The SNP had a mere 6 Westminster seats at the time.) At what point did Westminster elections take over from Holyrood elections as the designated democratic event in which these matters are decided? Were the electorate informed of this abrupt change, and indeed of the reasons for it? Would it be unkind of me to suggest that Swinson appears to be making this stuff up as she goes on?
Jackson Carlaw says that London should attempt to block an indyref because a majority of parties (three out of five) in the Scottish Parliament are opposed to the idea. What I'm about to say is so blindingly obvious that it shouldn't need saying, but apparently it does: the crucial point in a parliamentary democracy is who can command a majority of seats, not who can command a majority of parties. If it worked the way Carlaw wants, his own government at Westminster would be powerless to act, because it's supported by only two parties in the House of Commons (the Tories and the DUP) and opposed by six (Labour, the SNP, the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru, Change UK and the Greens). Indeed, the Carlaw Doctrine would instantly make elections completely redundant - all you'd have to do is round up all the random bods who have registered a party with the Electoral Commission and ask them for a show of hands. Carlaw could find himself outvoted by seventeen splinter communist parties.
It's also worth mentioning that the Carlaw Doctrine flatly contradicts Ruth Davidson's recent arbitrary "ruling" that a pro-independence majority at Holyrood is only valid if it's a single-party SNP majority and not if it's a multi-party majority comprising the SNP, the Greens and possibly others. So which is it to be, guys? Do you want broad multi-party support for a referendum, or are you insisting it has to be a go-it-alone SNP effort? I don't see how you can have it both ways.
Carlaw also says that the Tories are "not dictating to the people of Scotland" because the people of Scotland do not actually want a referendum. But he knows full well that the evidence on that point is mixed: the most recent poll on the subject (conducted in May by Panelbase) found that 50.2% want an early independence referendum, with 49.8% opposed. For reasons that aren't clear, YouGov polls have tended to show a more negative picture. When evidence on the state of public opinion is contradictory, you have two options: you can either make the decision yourself, in which case you are dictating to the people, or you can put opinion polls to one side and allow the people to resolve the ambiguity by means of an election. And, as it happens, the people have already done that: they elected a government in 2016 that had a manifesto commitment to an indyref in the event of Brexit. Why is Carlaw ignoring their verdict?
Rather confusingly, Carlaw spent a large chunk of his debate with Keith Brown the other night demanding that Brown should "name the day" for a referendum and commit to bringing out a White Paper - the pretty obvious subtext being that the SNP are running scared of holding the vote and the Tories want them to "bring it on". If I may gently say so to Jackson, it's rather hard to make that line of attack stick when in the next breath you're bellowing: "THE SNP ARE HELLBENT ON CALLING AN INDEPENDENCE REFERENDUM, BUT WE SAY NO, NO, NEVER!!!!"
* * *
2019 Scot Goes Pop Fundraiser: This is Day 30 of the fundraiser, and so far £8290 has been raised. That's 97.5% of the way towards the target figure of £8500. A million thanks to everyone who has donated so far, and I'm also extremely grateful to all the people who have left a kind comment with their donation. You can visit the fundraising page HERE.
Jo Swinson says that London should attempt to block an indyref because the SNP lost ground at the last general election. As Lesley Riddoch has pointed out, this means that if the SNP gain seats at the next general election (as opinion polls currently suggest they will), the Liberal Democrats would be morally obliged to support and facilitate an indyref. But that rather satisfying piece of inescapable logic shouldn't distract us from the nonsensical nature of Swinson's statement. Democracy would grind to a halt if majority parties that happened to lose seats at the most recent election were not regarded as having a mandate to act. In both 1987 and 1992, the Conservative government won an outright majority but suffered a net loss of seats. According to the Swinson Doctrine, then, the Thatcher/Major government should have been prevented by some mechanism from implementing its programme for ten of the eighteen years that it was in office.
Which begs the obvious question: if the majority party didn't have legitimacy to govern, who had legitimacy in its place? Should a minority party have been able to govern instead because it had forward momentum? In other words, should Labour's 229 seats have somehow been regarded as outcounting the Conservatives' 376 seats, because the 229 represented a net gain of 20 and the 376 represented a net loss of 21? And if so, how on earth would you have got such a system to work in practice? Lock up 200 Tory MPs so that Labour could outvote them?
Or, just to float the only other alternative I can think of, should nobody have been allowed to govern at all between 1987 and 1997?
And there are other questions too. If the only decisive factor is whether a party gains or loses seats at the most recent election, shouldn't the SNP's massive stride forward at the European election only last month mean that there is now an open-and-shut case for an indyref? If Swinson's answer to that point is "ah, but that was only a European election, not a Westminster election", how does she explain the fact that her own party in coalition government regarded the SNP as having a mandate to hold an indyref in 2014 based on its success in a Holyrood election rather than a Westminster election? (The SNP had a mere 6 Westminster seats at the time.) At what point did Westminster elections take over from Holyrood elections as the designated democratic event in which these matters are decided? Were the electorate informed of this abrupt change, and indeed of the reasons for it? Would it be unkind of me to suggest that Swinson appears to be making this stuff up as she goes on?
Jackson Carlaw says that London should attempt to block an indyref because a majority of parties (three out of five) in the Scottish Parliament are opposed to the idea. What I'm about to say is so blindingly obvious that it shouldn't need saying, but apparently it does: the crucial point in a parliamentary democracy is who can command a majority of seats, not who can command a majority of parties. If it worked the way Carlaw wants, his own government at Westminster would be powerless to act, because it's supported by only two parties in the House of Commons (the Tories and the DUP) and opposed by six (Labour, the SNP, the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru, Change UK and the Greens). Indeed, the Carlaw Doctrine would instantly make elections completely redundant - all you'd have to do is round up all the random bods who have registered a party with the Electoral Commission and ask them for a show of hands. Carlaw could find himself outvoted by seventeen splinter communist parties.
It's also worth mentioning that the Carlaw Doctrine flatly contradicts Ruth Davidson's recent arbitrary "ruling" that a pro-independence majority at Holyrood is only valid if it's a single-party SNP majority and not if it's a multi-party majority comprising the SNP, the Greens and possibly others. So which is it to be, guys? Do you want broad multi-party support for a referendum, or are you insisting it has to be a go-it-alone SNP effort? I don't see how you can have it both ways.
Carlaw also says that the Tories are "not dictating to the people of Scotland" because the people of Scotland do not actually want a referendum. But he knows full well that the evidence on that point is mixed: the most recent poll on the subject (conducted in May by Panelbase) found that 50.2% want an early independence referendum, with 49.8% opposed. For reasons that aren't clear, YouGov polls have tended to show a more negative picture. When evidence on the state of public opinion is contradictory, you have two options: you can either make the decision yourself, in which case you are dictating to the people, or you can put opinion polls to one side and allow the people to resolve the ambiguity by means of an election. And, as it happens, the people have already done that: they elected a government in 2016 that had a manifesto commitment to an indyref in the event of Brexit. Why is Carlaw ignoring their verdict?
Rather confusingly, Carlaw spent a large chunk of his debate with Keith Brown the other night demanding that Brown should "name the day" for a referendum and commit to bringing out a White Paper - the pretty obvious subtext being that the SNP are running scared of holding the vote and the Tories want them to "bring it on". If I may gently say so to Jackson, it's rather hard to make that line of attack stick when in the next breath you're bellowing: "THE SNP ARE HELLBENT ON CALLING AN INDEPENDENCE REFERENDUM, BUT WE SAY NO, NO, NEVER!!!!"
* * *
2019 Scot Goes Pop Fundraiser: This is Day 30 of the fundraiser, and so far £8290 has been raised. That's 97.5% of the way towards the target figure of £8500. A million thanks to everyone who has donated so far, and I'm also extremely grateful to all the people who have left a kind comment with their donation. You can visit the fundraising page HERE.
Wednesday, June 26, 2019
Paging Carole Malone: Sorry, Carole, but every single opinion poll this year has shown that support for independence is significantly higher than 45%
I literally can't even force myself to watch the now-notorious clip from the Jeremy Vine Show, in which Princess Diana's former butler, a former Page 3 girl and a tabloid rentagob were invited to speak about Scotland via a direct video link from the 1860s. However, I've read the transcript provided by The National, and apart from the fact that Paul Burrell still doesn't seem to understand the difference between independence and devolution, what leapt out at me was this piece of nonsense from Carole Malone, which went uncorrected by the programme's hosts -
"Every time they do a poll it says that the figures now for staying within the union are higher than they were at the time of the referendum."
What is it about opinion polling that makes people feel entirely comfortable in making something up that they would like to think is true, go on television and present it as fact, and then have it go completely unchallenged? And yes, Fiona Bruce, I'm looking at you. In this case, Carole Malone's claim is not only untrue, it's the opposite of the truth. There have (inexplicably) been only four polls this year that have asked the standard independence question, and every single one of them has shown that support for independence is now significantly higher than the 44.7% recorded in the 2014 referendum. Here they are...
Panelbase, April 2019: Yes 47%, No 53%
YouGov, April 2019: Yes 49%, No 51%
Panelbase, May 2019: Yes 48%, No 52%
Panelbase, June 2019: Yes 49%, No 51%
If you look at the list of polls on Wikipedia, you'd get the false impression that there was also a fifth independence poll this year conducted by Survation using a "non-standard question", which supposedly showed a much bigger No lead. In fact, that wasn't an independence poll at all - it was a propaganda poll commissioned by Scotland in Union which asked respondents about whether they wanted Scotland to "leave the UK", rather than whether they wanted Scotland to become an independent country. "Leaving the UK" covers a wide range of possibilities of which independence is only one. Others include becoming part of another existing state, or becoming a self-governing dependency like Jersey. However, even if you include the Survation poll as an independence poll (and you shouldn't), it would still be the case that four out of five polls this year have shown Yes support at higher than 45%. So Malone's claim is completely untrue no matter which way you look at it.
Incidentally, it's not even the case that Malone's claim used to be true but no longer is. Although support for independence appears to have increased markedly over the last nine months or so, a clear majority of polls conducted over the entire period between September 2014 and now have shown Yes at 45% or higher.
* * *
I've been meaning to mention that I was interviewed down the phone on IndyLive Radio last week. You can listen to the show on catch-up HERE - the bit with me starts at just after the 2 hour mark.
* * *
2019 Scot Goes Pop Fundraiser: This is Day 27 of the fundraiser, and so far £8020 has been raised. That's 95% of the way towards the target figure of £8500. A million thanks to everyone who has donated so far, and I'm also extremely grateful to all the people who have left a kind comment with their donation. You can visit the fundraising page HERE.
"Every time they do a poll it says that the figures now for staying within the union are higher than they were at the time of the referendum."
What is it about opinion polling that makes people feel entirely comfortable in making something up that they would like to think is true, go on television and present it as fact, and then have it go completely unchallenged? And yes, Fiona Bruce, I'm looking at you. In this case, Carole Malone's claim is not only untrue, it's the opposite of the truth. There have (inexplicably) been only four polls this year that have asked the standard independence question, and every single one of them has shown that support for independence is now significantly higher than the 44.7% recorded in the 2014 referendum. Here they are...
Panelbase, April 2019: Yes 47%, No 53%
YouGov, April 2019: Yes 49%, No 51%
Panelbase, May 2019: Yes 48%, No 52%
Panelbase, June 2019: Yes 49%, No 51%
If you look at the list of polls on Wikipedia, you'd get the false impression that there was also a fifth independence poll this year conducted by Survation using a "non-standard question", which supposedly showed a much bigger No lead. In fact, that wasn't an independence poll at all - it was a propaganda poll commissioned by Scotland in Union which asked respondents about whether they wanted Scotland to "leave the UK", rather than whether they wanted Scotland to become an independent country. "Leaving the UK" covers a wide range of possibilities of which independence is only one. Others include becoming part of another existing state, or becoming a self-governing dependency like Jersey. However, even if you include the Survation poll as an independence poll (and you shouldn't), it would still be the case that four out of five polls this year have shown Yes support at higher than 45%. So Malone's claim is completely untrue no matter which way you look at it.
Incidentally, it's not even the case that Malone's claim used to be true but no longer is. Although support for independence appears to have increased markedly over the last nine months or so, a clear majority of polls conducted over the entire period between September 2014 and now have shown Yes at 45% or higher.
* * *
I've been meaning to mention that I was interviewed down the phone on IndyLive Radio last week. You can listen to the show on catch-up HERE - the bit with me starts at just after the 2 hour mark.
* * *
2019 Scot Goes Pop Fundraiser: This is Day 27 of the fundraiser, and so far £8020 has been raised. That's 95% of the way towards the target figure of £8500. A million thanks to everyone who has donated so far, and I'm also extremely grateful to all the people who have left a kind comment with their donation. You can visit the fundraising page HERE.
Sunday, June 23, 2019
Bombshell Panelbase poll shows support for independence at a three-year high - even without Boris Johnson as PM
You've probably seen by now that there's a new Panelbase poll today suggesting that if Boris Johnson becomes Prime Minister, there will be a majority of 53-47 in favour of independence. But you always have to be just a little bit careful with poll results on hypothetical questions, even when the hypothetical scenario is highly likely to come to pass. In this case, perhaps the biggest problem is that people might feel that the way the question is asked suggests that their response 'ought' to be different if Boris is leader.
So, as ever, what really matters is the result on the standard independence question. But, never fear, that result is sensational enough - Yes have practically drawn level.
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 49% (+1)
No 51% (-1)
No 51% (-1)
To put this in perspective, over the last few years Panelbase have been (along with YouGov) one of the most No-friendly polling firms. For eighteen months between the early summer of 2017 and the autumn of 2018, every poll they published showed Yes on either 43% or 44% - a slightly lower level of support than recorded in the 2014 referendum. Over the last few months, Yes has been creeping up and up in Panelbase polls - and today's 49% is the highest figure the firm has reported since the temporary surge in the aftermath of the EU referendum three years ago. In conjunction with the (relatively) recent YouGov poll that had Yes jumping to 49%, this leaves little room for doubt that Brexit is belatedly helping the independence campaign to gain some traction.
The poll was commissioned by the Sunday Times, and I don't pay the Murdoch Levy, so I'm having to rely on What Scotland Thinks for the Westminster voting intention figures, and unfortunately there seems to be a small discrepancy between the figures on their website and on their Twitter account. But what does appear clear is that, notwithstanding what I said earlier about exaggerated effects on hypothetical questions, there is actually very little difference between the standard voting intentions and hypothetical voting intentions if Boris becomes PM. That's an absolute hammerblow for the Tories. I've been saying for days that a Johnson premiership would be a double-edged sword for the SNP, because although it would help Yes to win an independence referendum, it might also in the shorter term help the Tories hold off the SNP's challenge in the north-seat constituencies, due to Tory voters coming home from the Brexit Party. But the latter doesn't seem to be the case to any appreciable degree.
Scottish voting intentions for Westminster:
SNP 38% or 39% (n/c or +1)
Conservatives 18% (n/c)
Labour 17% (-2)
Liberal Democrats 13% (+3)
Brexit Party 9% (n/c)
Hypothetical Scottish voting intentions for Westminster if Boris Johnson becomes Conservative leader:
SNP 39%
Conservatives 18%
Labour 18%
Liberal Democrats 14%
Brexit Party 7%
The Brexit Party vote does drop 2% on the assumption that Boris is leader, so it could be that those votes are going to the Tories. But there are two problems: a) the Tories would have expected the swing to be a lot bigger than that, and b) it's not actually doing them any good, because presumably (although we'll need to see the datasets to be sure) Johnson is causing existing Tory votes to be lost in the other direction to Labour, the Lib Dems and maybe even the SNP. With or without Johnson as leader, the Tories are on 18%, about twenty or so points behind the SNP, who could expect to win around 50 of the 59 Scottish seats, and leave the Tories with something in the region of 3 (down 10 from the current position).
Incidentally, the finding that there won't be much of a Boris bounce was supported at Britain-wide level by a Survation poll yesterday, which suggested that the Tories would enjoy a net gain of only two points with Johnson as leader, and that the Brexit Party would only slip back four points. The Tories and Labour would be tied for the lead in that scenario.
Panelbase also have Holyrood voting intention numbers...
Scottish Parliament voting intentions (constituency ballot):
SNP 42% (+1)
Conservatives 20% (n/c)
Labour 16% (-2)
Liberal Democrats 11% (+3)
Scottish Parliament voting intentions (regional list ballot):
SNP 39% (+2)
Conservatives 20% (+1)
Labour 16% (-2)
Liberal Democrats 10% (+2)
Greens 7% (n/c)
The SNP's 42% on the constituency ballot is their highest vote share in any Panelbase poll since 2017. In a way it's strange that the Tories are doing a little better in the Holyrood vote than in the Westminster vote, although that may simply be because some voters don't think there's much point in switching to Farage's mob in a Scottish Parliament election.
There would be a very clear pro-independence majority in Holyrood on those numbers, and the SNP wouldn't be far away from an outright majority of their own.
Incidentally, the finding that there won't be much of a Boris bounce was supported at Britain-wide level by a Survation poll yesterday, which suggested that the Tories would enjoy a net gain of only two points with Johnson as leader, and that the Brexit Party would only slip back four points. The Tories and Labour would be tied for the lead in that scenario.
Panelbase also have Holyrood voting intention numbers...
Scottish Parliament voting intentions (constituency ballot):
SNP 42% (+1)
Conservatives 20% (n/c)
Labour 16% (-2)
Liberal Democrats 11% (+3)
Scottish Parliament voting intentions (regional list ballot):
SNP 39% (+2)
Conservatives 20% (+1)
Labour 16% (-2)
Liberal Democrats 10% (+2)
Greens 7% (n/c)
The SNP's 42% on the constituency ballot is their highest vote share in any Panelbase poll since 2017. In a way it's strange that the Tories are doing a little better in the Holyrood vote than in the Westminster vote, although that may simply be because some voters don't think there's much point in switching to Farage's mob in a Scottish Parliament election.
There would be a very clear pro-independence majority in Holyrood on those numbers, and the SNP wouldn't be far away from an outright majority of their own.
* * *
2019 Scot Goes Pop Fundraiser: This is Day 24 of the fundraiser, and so far £7925 has been raised. That's 93% of the way towards the target figure of £8500. A million thanks to everyone who has donated so far, and I'm also extremely grateful to all the people who have left a kind comment with their donation. You can visit the fundraising page HERE.
2019 Scot Goes Pop Fundraiser: This is Day 24 of the fundraiser, and so far £7925 has been raised. That's 93% of the way towards the target figure of £8500. A million thanks to everyone who has donated so far, and I'm also extremely grateful to all the people who have left a kind comment with their donation. You can visit the fundraising page HERE.
Thursday, June 20, 2019
Humiliation for Ruth Davidson as Tory leadership result proves no-one in Westminster is listening to her
What seems like a billion years ago (but in fact it was only a few months), there used to be this crazy notion that Ruth Davidson might be the next Prime Minister. Bookies used to list her as a serious contender. When her fans began to come to terms with the fact that wasn't going to happen, we started to hear about how she was instead going to be the "kingmaker". Well, today has exploded that myth in rather comical fashion. Having failed to persuade her own Scottish Tory MPs to follow her directions, her preferred candidate Savid Javid was easily eliminated at lunchtime. She then immediately transferred her support to Michael Gove, with sources briefing that this was an opportunity for the Scottish Tory leadership to exercise some influence. Well, if there was any influence, it somehow managed to drop Michael Gove down a place from second to third, meaning he was eliminated as well.
Having two endorsements blow up in her face in the space of one day is really quite an achievement for Ruth, and I suspect up-and-coming Tory hopefuls will be asking her to keep her distance from now on. Let's hear no more nonsense from the media about how she has influence or leverage in the corridors of power - she clearly has none whatsoever. Scottish voters should be under no illusions that if they vote Tory in a general election, they're voting for the Westminster Tory party in all its ugliness, and not for Ruth Davidson.
Conservative party leadership election (final ballot of MPs):
Boris Johnson 160
Jeremy Hunt 77
Michael Gove 75
Michael Gove eliminated, Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt proceed to members' ballot.
What does this mean for us? Well, in one sense it might be just as well to see the back of Gove. Even in a contest in which all the candidates were frantically outbidding each other on who was going to crack down the hardest on Scottish democracy, Gove stood out as the most obsessed with "our precious, precious Union", which may well be why Davidson belatedly backed him. Apparently he had been floating some madcap plan to get a "Union Guarantee" written into international law, whatever that might mean. It's also possible that having a Tory leader with a Scottish accent might have been of some marginal help to the party in defending their north-east seats against the SNP, so at least that danger has been averted.
However, I do believe that having Boris in Number 10 is going to be a double-edged sword for the SNP. He'd probably make it easier for Yes to win an independence referendum, but in the short term, I suspect he'll win back votes from the Brexit Party in Scotland as much as anywhere else, which will make it less challenging for the Scottish Tories to retain at least some of their seats.
Johnson v Gove in the members' ballot would have sent a powerful message to the EU, with the only question being which of the two leading members of the Leave campaign was going to be in charge during the Brexit endgame. As it is, we have a Leaver versus a Remainer - but that may not make a whole lot of difference, because if Hunt's words can be taken at face value, he's more open to the possibility of No Deal than Theresa May was.
* * *
2019 Scot Goes Pop Fundraiser: This is Day 21 of the fundraiser, and so far £7555 has been raised. That's 89% of the way towards the target figure of £8500. A million thanks to everyone who has donated so far, and I'm also extremely grateful to all the people who have left a kind comment with their donation. You can visit the fundraising page HERE.
Having two endorsements blow up in her face in the space of one day is really quite an achievement for Ruth, and I suspect up-and-coming Tory hopefuls will be asking her to keep her distance from now on. Let's hear no more nonsense from the media about how she has influence or leverage in the corridors of power - she clearly has none whatsoever. Scottish voters should be under no illusions that if they vote Tory in a general election, they're voting for the Westminster Tory party in all its ugliness, and not for Ruth Davidson.
Conservative party leadership election (final ballot of MPs):
Boris Johnson 160
Jeremy Hunt 77
Michael Gove 75
Michael Gove eliminated, Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt proceed to members' ballot.
What does this mean for us? Well, in one sense it might be just as well to see the back of Gove. Even in a contest in which all the candidates were frantically outbidding each other on who was going to crack down the hardest on Scottish democracy, Gove stood out as the most obsessed with "our precious, precious Union", which may well be why Davidson belatedly backed him. Apparently he had been floating some madcap plan to get a "Union Guarantee" written into international law, whatever that might mean. It's also possible that having a Tory leader with a Scottish accent might have been of some marginal help to the party in defending their north-east seats against the SNP, so at least that danger has been averted.
However, I do believe that having Boris in Number 10 is going to be a double-edged sword for the SNP. He'd probably make it easier for Yes to win an independence referendum, but in the short term, I suspect he'll win back votes from the Brexit Party in Scotland as much as anywhere else, which will make it less challenging for the Scottish Tories to retain at least some of their seats.
Johnson v Gove in the members' ballot would have sent a powerful message to the EU, with the only question being which of the two leading members of the Leave campaign was going to be in charge during the Brexit endgame. As it is, we have a Leaver versus a Remainer - but that may not make a whole lot of difference, because if Hunt's words can be taken at face value, he's more open to the possibility of No Deal than Theresa May was.
* * *
2019 Scot Goes Pop Fundraiser: This is Day 21 of the fundraiser, and so far £7555 has been raised. That's 89% of the way towards the target figure of £8500. A million thanks to everyone who has donated so far, and I'm also extremely grateful to all the people who have left a kind comment with their donation. You can visit the fundraising page HERE.
Tuesday, June 18, 2019
A tentative forecast for the second round of the Tory leadership contest
As my 2016 track record will bear witness to, ballots of Tory MPs are notoriously hard to predict. The classic example was Margaret Thatcher topping the first ballot in 1975 when Edward Heath was expected to easily see off her challenge. More recently, there was the drama of 1997, when William Hague defied expectations of a virtual dead heat on the final ballot to defeat Kenneth Clarke comfortably, and 2001, when ruthlessly effective tactical voting robbed the frontrunner Michael Portillo of his place in the members' ballot by a single vote.
Nevertheless, with the health warning that everything I'm about to say is likely to be proved wrong within a matter of hours, here's how I see the state of play for each candidate going into today's second round.
Rory Stewart: Ah, the pride of "The Middleland". Arch-nemesis of Roman Emperors and their wicked walls. Barking mad though he is, it's impossible to deny that Rory was the clear winner of the Channel 4 debate on Sunday night - he made Hunt and Javid look bland, he made Raab look like an extremist, and he made Gove look like an idiot. He'll also presumably have been boosted more than the other candidates by the departure of Matt Hancock (irrespective of Hancock's opportunistic endorsement of Boris Johnson). I expect Rory to make a big leap today and to survive the cut once again, although the million dollar question is how high up the pecking-order he'll be. Even if he makes it to the final two, though, he doesn't have a hope in hell of actually winning the leadership, because the members' ballot is literally unwinnable for anyone who isn't a hardline Brexiteer. So he's going for the silver medal, in the hope that will leave him well-placed for a future tilt at the leadership once the Brexit kaleidoscope has shifted.
Jeremy Hunt: Solid but unspectacular in the Channel 4 debate. Doesn't seem to be particularly going forwards or backwards at the moment. His hopes of reaching the final two will hinge upon no-one else having sufficient momentum to overtake him.
Sajid Javid: Of the six remaining candidates, he strikes me as being the least likely to make it to the members' ballot. That's not to say he'll be in sixth place today - he may well be higher than that. But it's hard to see his path to reaching the top two, because he doesn't have a big enough natural constituency. Stewart has the pro-Europeans, Hunt has the establishment, Johnson has the careerists and some of the Brexit headbangers, Raab has the rest of the headbangers, and Gove has the kitten-who-thinks-he's-Rambo fan-vote. Who does Javid have?
Michael Gove: I keep wondering if he realises just how ridiculous he's making himself look with the hard man routine. I can only assume he doesn't. But Tories react differently to that sort of thing than the rest of us, so God knows.
Dominic Raab: He's had a poor campaign so far, and he continued to be uninspiring in the Channel 4 debate. But I just wonder if he might be on the verge of a breakthrough in spite of himself. There's a clear incentive for the Brexit true believers to lend Raab a tactical vote in the hope of stopping Stewart, Gove and Hunt. A No Deal v No Deal members' run-off would reduce the temptation for Johnson to "pivot", as the Americans say.
Boris Johnson: Almost certainly the next Prime Minister, and all the rest may be sound and fury signifying very little.
* * *
2019 Scot Goes Pop Fundraiser: This is Day 19 of the fundraiser, and so far £7365 has been raised. That's 87% of the way towards the target figure of £8500. A million thanks to everyone who has donated so far, and I'm also extremely grateful to all the people who have left a kind comment with their donation. You can visit the fundraising page HERE.
Nevertheless, with the health warning that everything I'm about to say is likely to be proved wrong within a matter of hours, here's how I see the state of play for each candidate going into today's second round.
Rory Stewart: Ah, the pride of "The Middleland". Arch-nemesis of Roman Emperors and their wicked walls. Barking mad though he is, it's impossible to deny that Rory was the clear winner of the Channel 4 debate on Sunday night - he made Hunt and Javid look bland, he made Raab look like an extremist, and he made Gove look like an idiot. He'll also presumably have been boosted more than the other candidates by the departure of Matt Hancock (irrespective of Hancock's opportunistic endorsement of Boris Johnson). I expect Rory to make a big leap today and to survive the cut once again, although the million dollar question is how high up the pecking-order he'll be. Even if he makes it to the final two, though, he doesn't have a hope in hell of actually winning the leadership, because the members' ballot is literally unwinnable for anyone who isn't a hardline Brexiteer. So he's going for the silver medal, in the hope that will leave him well-placed for a future tilt at the leadership once the Brexit kaleidoscope has shifted.
Jeremy Hunt: Solid but unspectacular in the Channel 4 debate. Doesn't seem to be particularly going forwards or backwards at the moment. His hopes of reaching the final two will hinge upon no-one else having sufficient momentum to overtake him.
Sajid Javid: Of the six remaining candidates, he strikes me as being the least likely to make it to the members' ballot. That's not to say he'll be in sixth place today - he may well be higher than that. But it's hard to see his path to reaching the top two, because he doesn't have a big enough natural constituency. Stewart has the pro-Europeans, Hunt has the establishment, Johnson has the careerists and some of the Brexit headbangers, Raab has the rest of the headbangers, and Gove has the kitten-who-thinks-he's-Rambo fan-vote. Who does Javid have?
Michael Gove: I keep wondering if he realises just how ridiculous he's making himself look with the hard man routine. I can only assume he doesn't. But Tories react differently to that sort of thing than the rest of us, so God knows.
Dominic Raab: He's had a poor campaign so far, and he continued to be uninspiring in the Channel 4 debate. But I just wonder if he might be on the verge of a breakthrough in spite of himself. There's a clear incentive for the Brexit true believers to lend Raab a tactical vote in the hope of stopping Stewart, Gove and Hunt. A No Deal v No Deal members' run-off would reduce the temptation for Johnson to "pivot", as the Americans say.
Boris Johnson: Almost certainly the next Prime Minister, and all the rest may be sound and fury signifying very little.
* * *
2019 Scot Goes Pop Fundraiser: This is Day 19 of the fundraiser, and so far £7365 has been raised. That's 87% of the way towards the target figure of £8500. A million thanks to everyone who has donated so far, and I'm also extremely grateful to all the people who have left a kind comment with their donation. You can visit the fundraising page HERE.
Monday, June 17, 2019
Memo to Jeremy Hunt: the most recent poll shows a majority IN FAVOUR of an early independence referendum
As you probably saw yesterday, Nicola Sturgeon "slapped down" Jeremy Hunt (to use official Express terminology) and told him that the people of Scotland, rather than random Tory leadership candidates, will decide their own country's future. Hunt's riposte was -
"Yes the Scottish people will decide. In poll after poll they’re telling you no to indyref2. So I won’t give in to your grandstanding."
Which is as much as to say: "Yes, Nicola, the Scottish people will decide, and I will be the sole arbiter of what they have decided, and regardless of what they say my adjudication will be that they have said No. Hope this helps." But there's also another little problem (OK, massive problem) with Hunt's claim that "poll after poll" has shown that the Scottish people are opposed to an independence referendum. The problem is simply that the claim is untrue.
The most recent published poll on independence was conducted roughly one month ago by Panelbase. A total of 513 respondents agreed that there should be an early independence referendum, either "while the UK is negotiating to leave the EU" or "when the UK has finished negotiating to leave the EU". 508 respondents said there should not be a referendum in the next few years. In percentage terms, that means 50.2% of the population support an early indyref, and 49.8% are opposed. Have a look at the datasets for yourself if you don't believe me, Jeremy. You'll find them HERE.
But even if Hunt's basic claim wasn't such an obvious falsehood, there would still be something deeply troubling about the way he and other senior Tories seem to want to make opinion polls an integral part of the British constitution. Whatever happened to the pre-election mantra of Tory leaders down the ages: "The only poll that matters is on election day"? If Jeremy Hunt had his way, the new rule would be "we don't need to hold an election because I've just seen a YouGov poll". It wouldn't be so bad if there was the slightest reason to believe that opinion polls can be relied upon to estimate public opinion with an exceptionally high level of accuracy, but we know that's not the case from multiple recent examples. Polling actually seems to be somewhat less reliable than it was a few decades ago (probably due to the demise of the landline phone).
Meanwhile, Hunt's three "tests" for being willing to consider a Section 30 order are as barking mad as might have been predicted. Firstly, he agrees with this week's incarnation of Ruth Davidson that the SNP would have to win a single-party overall majority at Holyrood before a referendum would be a possibility. I can't think of another parliamentary democracy anywhere in the world in which two parties who win a majority between them are not allowed to implement a policy they agree upon. During the Tory-Lib Dem coalition years, you didn't hear John Bercow saying -
"The Ayes to the right, 327. The Noes to the left, 308. But as the Ayes include both Conservative and Liberal Democrat members, the vote is not valid. So the Noes have it. Aw-daaah, unlock."
Secondly, Hunt wants the SNP to run their currency position past him. That's a bit like saying the opposition party will only be allowed to contest an election if the government has given the green light to its manifesto. Hunt's Britain sounds like it would be a bit of a tinpot affair.
And thirdly, he wants Nicola Sturgeon to rule out a "wildcat vote" (sic), which is a bit of a circular argument, because if the Section 30 order was forthcoming, there'd be no conceivable need for a "wildcat vote" (sic), would there?
You know, it's amazing: before Ruth Davidson won her stunning victories in the 2016 and 2017 elections by coming a very distant second to the SNP, the complaint from both the Tories and the mainstream media used to be that Scotland had become a "one-party state". And yet the one sure-fire effect of the Hunt/Davidson insistence that the SNP need a single-party majority will be to deter independence supporters from flirting with smaller pro-indy parties on the Holyrood list vote. If the Tories want to restore the "one-party state", they're going absolutely the right way about it.
* * *
2019 Scot Goes Pop Fundraiser: This is Day 18 of the fundraiser, and so far £7266 has been raised. That's 85% of the way towards the target figure of £8500. A million thanks to everyone who has donated so far, and I'm also extremely grateful to all the people who have left a kind comment with their donation. You can visit the fundraising page HERE.
"Yes the Scottish people will decide. In poll after poll they’re telling you no to indyref2. So I won’t give in to your grandstanding."
Which is as much as to say: "Yes, Nicola, the Scottish people will decide, and I will be the sole arbiter of what they have decided, and regardless of what they say my adjudication will be that they have said No. Hope this helps." But there's also another little problem (OK, massive problem) with Hunt's claim that "poll after poll" has shown that the Scottish people are opposed to an independence referendum. The problem is simply that the claim is untrue.
The most recent published poll on independence was conducted roughly one month ago by Panelbase. A total of 513 respondents agreed that there should be an early independence referendum, either "while the UK is negotiating to leave the EU" or "when the UK has finished negotiating to leave the EU". 508 respondents said there should not be a referendum in the next few years. In percentage terms, that means 50.2% of the population support an early indyref, and 49.8% are opposed. Have a look at the datasets for yourself if you don't believe me, Jeremy. You'll find them HERE.
But even if Hunt's basic claim wasn't such an obvious falsehood, there would still be something deeply troubling about the way he and other senior Tories seem to want to make opinion polls an integral part of the British constitution. Whatever happened to the pre-election mantra of Tory leaders down the ages: "The only poll that matters is on election day"? If Jeremy Hunt had his way, the new rule would be "we don't need to hold an election because I've just seen a YouGov poll". It wouldn't be so bad if there was the slightest reason to believe that opinion polls can be relied upon to estimate public opinion with an exceptionally high level of accuracy, but we know that's not the case from multiple recent examples. Polling actually seems to be somewhat less reliable than it was a few decades ago (probably due to the demise of the landline phone).
Meanwhile, Hunt's three "tests" for being willing to consider a Section 30 order are as barking mad as might have been predicted. Firstly, he agrees with this week's incarnation of Ruth Davidson that the SNP would have to win a single-party overall majority at Holyrood before a referendum would be a possibility. I can't think of another parliamentary democracy anywhere in the world in which two parties who win a majority between them are not allowed to implement a policy they agree upon. During the Tory-Lib Dem coalition years, you didn't hear John Bercow saying -
"The Ayes to the right, 327. The Noes to the left, 308. But as the Ayes include both Conservative and Liberal Democrat members, the vote is not valid. So the Noes have it. Aw-daaah, unlock."
Secondly, Hunt wants the SNP to run their currency position past him. That's a bit like saying the opposition party will only be allowed to contest an election if the government has given the green light to its manifesto. Hunt's Britain sounds like it would be a bit of a tinpot affair.
And thirdly, he wants Nicola Sturgeon to rule out a "wildcat vote" (sic), which is a bit of a circular argument, because if the Section 30 order was forthcoming, there'd be no conceivable need for a "wildcat vote" (sic), would there?
You know, it's amazing: before Ruth Davidson won her stunning victories in the 2016 and 2017 elections by coming a very distant second to the SNP, the complaint from both the Tories and the mainstream media used to be that Scotland had become a "one-party state". And yet the one sure-fire effect of the Hunt/Davidson insistence that the SNP need a single-party majority will be to deter independence supporters from flirting with smaller pro-indy parties on the Holyrood list vote. If the Tories want to restore the "one-party state", they're going absolutely the right way about it.
* * *
2019 Scot Goes Pop Fundraiser: This is Day 18 of the fundraiser, and so far £7266 has been raised. That's 85% of the way towards the target figure of £8500. A million thanks to everyone who has donated so far, and I'm also extremely grateful to all the people who have left a kind comment with their donation. You can visit the fundraising page HERE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)