New article, and Somerset stalker update

First of all, I've written today's National Extra piece on the subject of Boris Johnson's suggestion that Scotland won't be allowed a say on its own future for another thirty-four years.  You can read it HERE.  

Secondly, I regret I have to report that my long-term stalker from Somerset has written yet another article about me on his website.  This is at least the 678th time it's happened, and as usual he's howling in barely coherent rage.  Yes, I'm weirded out by his creepy obsession, but I can't deny I do feel slightly sorry for the guy as well.

(For those who don't understand the concepts of irony and sarcasm, I'll explain the above paragraph when I have eight months to spare.)

The trigger for Stuart's fury on this occasion was something I tweeted yesterday - 

"Stuart Campbell's earnest belief that he can get rid of the wildly popular Nicola Sturgeon in the next four months is bordering on comical."

He then set about trying to 'disprove' the premise of my tweet in a really rather odd and counter-productive manner.

"So, for the historical record: I have no belief whatsoever, earnest or otherwise, that I can get rid of Nicola Sturgeon in the next four months.

I’m an idiot..."

No comment.

"...with a website."

This is indisputably true.

"I have no power."

Agreed - hence the word 'comical'.

"This site has for some time called for Sturgeon to resign because it is our belief that she’s going to have to anyway."

So to sum up - you're putting pressure on her to go and actually think she will go, and yet you think that's somehow different from having an earnest belief that you're going to get rid of her.  Well, all I can say is that I admire the exhibition of advanced hair-splitting, but it doesn't change my assessment that it's all rather comical.  Nicola Sturgeon has reached almost unprecedented levels of popularity in public polling, and has taken the independence movement to sustained majority support for the first time ever.  The notion that she's on the brink of being deposed is fanciful in the extreme, and can only really be explained by heavy-duty wishful thinking on the part of people who are blinded with rage towards her.

The rest of the article is an extended, unhinged and utterly unconvincing waffle about the reasons Ms Sturgeon will supposedly no longer be SNP leader in four months' time, which culminates in quite possibly the most bonkers sentence Stuart has ever written in his life - 

"And let’s be clear: the only thing the Unionists fear is Sturgeon going in the next few weeks."

The terrifying thing is that he probably believes that to be true, even though anyone who hasn't lost the plot can see that it's self-evidently the polar opposite of the truth.  Whatever anyone may think of Nicola Sturgeon, she's plainly one of the finest political communicators in the entire English-speaking world, and her opponents would think it was Christmas all over again if they were suddenly facing someone less formidable.

"they’ll celebrate the near-certain avoidance of an SNP/indy majority, aided by the idiotic “both votes SNP” argument (ironically promoted by James Kelly) that ensures hundreds of thousands of pro-indy votes are wasted"

Oh dear.  Don't tell me I'm going to have to remind Stuart yet again of his splendid "both votes SNP" article from the run-up to the 2016 election in which he sagely explained to readers why attempts to game the electoral system were "a mug's game".  You know what?  Some of us understand that the way an electoral system works doesn't magically change just because our feelings towards it change.  Electoral systems are stubborn in that way.

"Information to which I’m privy would get me put in jail if I published it"

Here's the irony of this situation: I'm fairly sure I'm also privy to at least some of the information Stuart is referring to, and it leads me to have great concerns about the events that led up to Alex Salmond being put on trial.  I'm on record as saying that if Mr Salmond were to set up his own party, I would probably support it, which would put Stuart and I on the same side.  But being a supporter of Mr Salmond doesn't preclude me from having a sense of realism about Nicola Sturgeon and the vital role she will have to play if Scotland is to become independent any time soon.

Poll crowdfunder update II

The Scot Goes Pop poll fundraiser is moving tantalisingly close to reaching its target figure of £7500 - as of 7.30 this morning, £6290 has been raised.  Thank you to everyone who has donated so far, or shared the link on social media.

Thanks also for the suggestions for poll questions.  I think it might be helpful, though, if I'm more specific about the types of questions I'm looking for.  As this will be an immediate post-Brexit poll, I think it makes sense for most (not all, but most) of the questions to be directly related to Brexit - for example, the rights that people have lost now that they are no longer European citizens.  Do they want those rights back?  Or do they feel, as Labour and (extraordinarily) the Liberal Democrats apparently do, that we should now accept Brexit and move on?

I've also got one left-field, non-Brexit question that I hope to ask if there's enough room.  In addition, I know there's always demand for a "Plan B" question, and I'm not totally opposed to that idea, but only if there's a way of asking it that adds some value.  Remember that all three polls I've run so far have had a Plan B question - the first asked about legislating for an independence referendum without a Section 30 order and allowing the courts to decide whether it can go ahead, the second asked about using a scheduled election to double as an indyref, and the third asked about the general principle of whether there should be some sort of Plan B if London keeps saying no.  All three questions produced positive results, so there's no point in duplicating them.  Is there a possible question that is sufficiently different to be worth asking?  Some of you want a question specifically about whether this year's Holyrood election should be used as a plebiscitary election - but there are two potential problems with that.  One is that the SNP leadership have clearly already decided not to go down that road, and even the best poll result is unlikely to change their minds.  The other problem is that I suspect that we wouldn't get a positive result anyway, because people would think we'd be jumping the fences too quickly.

To be honest, I'm still attracted to tacking on a question about whether Douglas Ross should give up refereeing in order to "get on with the day job", so to speak.  When I floated that idea last time, there was a very mixed reaction, and Craig Murray in particular thought it would demean the whole exercise of the poll.  Frivolous question though it may be, I do think it could prove extremely embarrassing for Ross - however, I suspect I'll probably let it go again in favour of more important questions.  

Click here to visit the fundraiser page.

Crowdfunder Update

The response to the fundraiser so far has been nothing short of incredible - after less than 48 hours, £5367 of the £7500 target figure has already been raised.  I'm grateful to Paul Kavanagh and The National for helping to publicise it - in fact the running total jumped from £2000 to £3000 within just one hour of The National's article appearing.

Hopefully we can keep the tempo up, but in the meantime feel free to suggest questions for the poll, because I might be able to get something underway early next week.  Unfortunately I've had to switch pre-moderation back on, due to our tiresome troll turning up again after a long gap.  But I'll approve comments as soon as I can.  

Click here to visit the fundraiser page.

CROWDFUNDER: A new opinion poll to test support for independence now that the Tories' Hard Brexit has become a cold reality

Click here to go straight to the fundraising page. 

Hi, I'm James Kelly, and I write the pro-independence blog Scot Goes Pop, which has a particular emphasis on opinion poll analysis. Over the course of 2020, I commissioned three Panelbase polls with your help. All three showed pro-independence majorities, and they were all landmark results in their own ways - the one at the start of the year put Yes on 52% for the first time since the summer of 2016, the one in June was the first to show that the events of the pandemic had pushed Yes back into the lead, and the one in November saw Yes soar to an all-time high in Panelbase polls of 56%. 

The time is now ripe for another poll. After four and a half years, the terms of Brexit are finally known and will become a harsh reality within just hours. Extraordinarily, and without a shred of evidence, the Conservatives are claiming that Boris Johnson's last gasp, minimalistic trade deal is some sort of monumental setback for the independence movement. They also seem to believe that the public have been successfully hoodwinked into believing that the SNP "voted for No Deal" - when in fact it was only the Conservatives themselves that put us all at severe risk of a catastrophic No Deal outcome. Who knows, perhaps the public are reacting in the way that the Tories want them to react - but that seems highly unlikely somehow, and they should probably be allowed to speak for themselves. 

As before, if the crowdfunder is successful, I will commission an opinion poll from a firm affiliated to the British Polling Council. It will ask the standard independence question, ie. 'Should Scotland be an independent country?', plus a number of supplementary questions of interest to the Yes movement. I'll ask for your suggestions before deciding on the final list of questions. Bear in mind that there's never any guarantee that we'll get the results that we want - but anything is better than unionist parties presuming to speak for the people of Scotland at such a critical juncture in our national story. 

Target figure: I've set a slightly higher target figure of £7500 this time - not because the poll is likely to cost any more than the previous ones, but simply to give us a head start for the spring. It would probably make sense to commission one more poll during the Holyrood campaign proper. 

Click here if you'd like to donate.

I saw the Scottish fishing industry being shafted again on Christmas Eve, on Christmas Eve

It's the "and a half" bit that will look like the final kick in the teeth.https://t.co/eJMTPGGFNA

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) December 24, 2020

Don't be downhearted, Caron. Scotland can - and will - go back in. The Lib Dems can help, if they want.https://t.co/sYxTR5Yxl9

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) December 24, 2020

They say an hour is a long time in politics. https://t.co/R1IudU8Wvv pic.twitter.com/0wdoEE0ZKL

— Cllr Christina Cannon (@GLAChristina) December 24, 2020

"We respect the result"
"One million Scots voted Leave"
"Two million voted Remain"
"Therefore we must Leave"https://t.co/Ghm7IcF5DZ

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) December 24, 2020

Great to have clarity from Sir Keir Starmer that he is not neutral on the question of whether Scotland should be dragged out of the single market and customs union against its will. He is enthusiastically in favour.https://t.co/dnMTVdUdHh

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) December 24, 2020

As a matter of interest, does anyone know *why* the Tories are so hellbent on leaving Erasmus? It's hard to see any natiobal sovereignty implications?

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) December 24, 2020

Alas, no such suspense over whether you and the other five Scottish Tory MPs will skip through the lobbies to shaft the Scottish fishing industry yet again.

Of course you will. https://t.co/eyvuWQiLnA

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) December 24, 2020

The SNP should vote against this wretched deal without a second thought.

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) December 24, 2020

On what planet is a Tory boycott of an indyref, guaranteeing a Yes majority, a bad thing?

I was just catching up with the story in The National from a few days ago about the suggestion that the Tories might boycott a consultative referendum held without a Section 30 order, even if it clears every legal hurdle and has the blessing of the UK Supreme Court.  This, of course, should be a cause for celebration, because it would guarantee a Yes victory, and we'd all have a nice relaxing campaign trying to maximise the scale of the win and the overall turnout.  Whatever mandate is achieved would then be used as leverage to bring us closer to actual independence or at least to an agreed referendum - and leverage is, after all, the whole point of holding a consultative referendum.

Curiously, though, the article finishes with a quote from Malcolm Harvey, who back in the day was one of the leading pro-indy bloggers (he was one of the founding triumvirate at Better Nation, and before that had his own blog Malc in the Burgh).

"Turnout would be about 50% and the thing would be even less legitimate than holding an un-sanctioned referendum in the first place. It's a mad idea."

My jaw dropped to the floor when I realised he wasn't describing the boycott as mad, but the idea that we should hold a referendum that might be boycotted.  Is anyone spotting the slight flaw here?  There'd be nothing to stop the Tories boycotting absolutely any referendum, even one brought about by a Section 30.  It's hard to think of a better definition of 'madness' than giving our opponents a veto on every move we make.

You know the bit at the end of Life of Brian when the Crack Suicide Squad turn up, stab themselves, and say with their dying breath "that showed 'em, huh?" If Malcolm and Pete Wishart had been in charge of the Roman troops that day, they'd have reacted to that seemingly futile gesture by saying "well, that's it then, we can't possibly go ahead with these crucifixions now..."

An average of all twenty-three polls conducted this year puts support for independence at more than 53%

By overwhelming popular demand (well, a couple of people asked) here is an update of this blog's Poll of Polls.  Just a reminder that rather than including all of the most recent polls, it includes only the most recent poll from each individual firm, to ensure that no 'house effect' is given too much weight.  There are six polls in the current sample - one from Savanta ComRes, one from Survation, one from Panelbase, one from Ipsos-Mori, one from YouGov and one from JL Partners.  The percentage changes are measured from the last published update on 10th November.

SCOT GOES POP POLL OF POLLS

Should Scotland be an independent country?

Yes 54.8% (-)

No 45.2% (-)

So no change whatsoever!  Of course there's been movement underneath the surface, but it's cancelled itself out.  Panelbase and Savanta ComRes have shown a swing to Yes (a huge swing in the latter case), while YouGov, Survation and Ipsos-Mori have shown a modest swing to No.

It's entirely possible that we've now seen the final Scottish poll of 2020, in which case this is also a good moment to calculate an average of all the year's polls - I can always update it later if another poll unexpectedly turns up.  This isn't as straightforward an exercise as it appears, because there's a debate to be had over what should be considered a 'proper' independence poll.  Twenty-one polls this year have asked the standard independence question, while an additional two have asked about independence using non-standard questions.  There's also been a Scotland in Union propaganda poll asking about "leaving the United Kingdom", which as I always point out can't be considered a question about independence, because it's perfectly possible to leave the UK without becoming independent.  (For example, if Northern Ireland ever leaves the UK, it will almost certainly join another existing state rather than become independent.)  So I've excluded the non-indy propaganda poll, but included the two non-standard indy polls for the sake of completeness - which is hopefully fair enough, because one of the two was commissioned by an anti-indy client (Hanbury) and the other by a pro-indy client (Progress Scotland).

2020 average:

Yes 53.2%

No 46.8%

We've never come close before to a whole calendar year in which there was a majority for Yes, so we've broken that duck in quite some style.  (And in case you're wondering, including the Scotland in Union propaganda poll would have made only a minimal difference - Yes would still have been on 52.8%.)

A few people have also been asking already about future crowdfunded Scot Goes Pop polling.  Obviously I have to be careful not to go to the well too often, because there's always a danger of donation fatigue setting in, but if anyone has any strong feelings about timing, let me know in the comments section below.  The two obvious options are at the start of 2021 when people are coming to terms with the realities of Brexit, and at some point in April/early May, during the Holyrood campaign proper.

Truly staggering: support for independence reaches all-time high in an online poll of 58%

The Survation poll published a couple of days ago raised the genuine possibility that Yes support might have fallen back slightly, because it was the third poll out of four to show a 2-point drop.  But that theory has been blown out of the water by a sensational new poll from ComRes that by two clear percentage points puts Yes at the highest ever level of support in any poll conducted online by any firm.

Should Scotland be an independent country? (Savanta ComRes)

Yes 58% (+5)

No 42% (-5)

Even if this poll proves to be an outlier, it's pretty much impossible to reconcile it with a situation in which Yes is moving backwards.  At worst it means that nothing much has changed since the summer, and at best it means we've taken another big step forward.  It's also, of course, the sixteenth poll in a row to put Yes ahead on the standard indy question, and the seventeenth in a row if you add in a Progress Scotland poll that used a non-standard format.

Today's results are from a new series of monthly polls commissioned by The Scotsman - and whatever you think of that publication, it's a very welcome development.  Scotland, at this stage in its political story, is crying out for regular polling, and yet the monthly Herald/System Three series that ran for decades is now a long-distant memory.  Curiously, The Scotsman have opted to slightly blunt the impact of their first poll by billing the 58% Yes vote as merely the joint highest ever - which is true, but only if you count a poll that used a completely different data collection method (an Ipsos-Mori telephone poll in October).

I'm on record as saying many times that if Nicola Sturgeon intends to wait until Yes hits a sustained 60% in the polls before doing anything, she'll wait forever and Scotland will never become independent.  I was asked this morning if the ComRes numbers have changed my mind about that.  As ever, the answer is no: we still haven't reached 60%, and even if we eventually do in the occasional poll, it's unlikely to be on a sustained basis.  But hopefully now we've actually reached these giddy heights, the penny may have dropped with the leadership that we don't need anything over and above this.  And Keith Brown's repeated use of the words "settled will" would appear to support that interpretation.

Scottish Parliament constituency ballot: 

SNP 55% (+5)

Conservatives 20% (-3)

Labour 16% (-2)

Liberal Democrats 6% (-)

Scottish Parliament regional list ballot: 

SNP 42% (+1)

Conservatives 20% (-1)

Labour 17% (-1)

Greens 12% (+1)

Liberal Democrats 7% (-)

Again, these numbers contradict most recent polls which have shown modest movement against the SNP.  However, I would still guess the SNP might be underestimated on the list vote (and the Greens overestimated) due to the Survation-like way in which ComRes pose the list question, which may lead to some people replying as if they were being asked for a second preference vote.

In fairness to Douglas Ross, his net favourability rating of -9 isn't quite as poor as in other polls, but it's still miles behind Nicola Sturgeon's, slightly behind Patrick Harvie's, and no better than Willie Rennie's.  This is plainly not what the Tories hoped for or expected when they defenestrated Jackson Carlaw.  They'll be particularly perturbed that just 16% of respondents regard Ross as "charismatic".  Presumably he would never have been hand-picked unless he had been expected to be seen as charismatic, so the experiment really isn't working out.

Analysis of yesterday's Survation poll: the fifteenth or sixteenth in a row to show a pro-independence majority

Apologies for not covering this yesterday, but I'm sure most of you are already up to speed with it.  A new Survation poll is the fifteenth in a row (or arguably sixteenth in a row depending on definition) to show a majority for independence.

Should Scotland be an independent country?

Yes 52% (-2)

No 48% (+2)

Three of the last four polling firms to report have now shown a small recent decrease in Yes support - so that might be significant, but it could still be happening by chance.  The exception was of course the Panelbase poll for this blog in November showing Yes climbing to an all-time high of 56%.  

Westminster voting intention:

SNP 51% (-1)

Labour 21% (+1)

Conservatives 20% (+2)

Liberal Democrats 6% (-2)

The changes here don't appear to be of any great significance, as they just revert to the numbers in the last-but-one Survation poll.  Labour's second place seems to be a Survation 'house effect' - it's been seen in all of the last three Survation polls, but not in polls from other firms.

Scottish Parliament constituency ballot:

SNP 53% (-1)

Labour 20% (+2)

Conservatives 20% (+1)

Liberal Democrats 6% (-2)

Greens 1% (+1)

Scottish Parliament regional list ballot:

SNP 41% (-2)

Labour 20% (+1)

Conservatives 18% (+1)

Greens 10% (n/c)

Liberal Democrats 7% (n/c)

As I always point out, the list numbers from Survation polls need to be taken with a pinch of salt, because respondents seem to be influenced by the way the question is posed.  Some pro-indy voters seem to be left with the impression that they're being asked for a second preference, thus leading to a (possible) understatement of the SNP and overstatement of the Greens.

The omelette of strategic naivety

No-one has been clearer than I have that the SNP must have a Plan B ready to go if the UK government continue to refuse a Section 30 order.  But I don't think it's unreasonable to point out that Plan B has to be something that actually has a chance of working, as opposed to, you know, no chance under any conceivable circumstances whatsoever.  Which brings me onto a familiar drum being banged by Wings - 

"For much of last year, this site advocated a rational but unpopular position – namely that the SNP, which at the time held the balance of power in the UK parliament, should offer to support Theresa May’s soft-Brexit deal in exchange for the transfer of powers to hold a second independence referendum."

What's wrong with that sentence?  Well, where to begin.  First of all, the SNP didn't hold the balance of power in the UK parliament - if that had been the case, Jeremy Corbyn would have been Prime Minister, not Theresa May.  Secondly, the position Wings advocated was not "rational but unpopular" - it was in fact popular (with Wings readers) but irrational.  Yes, the SNP could have made Theresa May an offer, but it would have achieved absolutely nothing.  Her reply would have been - 

"Our Precious United Kingdom is not for sale.  We do not do deals with separatists."

You might argue that would have made her crazy when somebody was trying to save her bacon, but nevertheless it's indisputably what she would have said.  And actually from her own point of view it would have made perfect sense, because the SNP weren't in a position to deliver the deal anyway.  They didn't have enough votes to put the matter beyond dispute, and more to the point some of the Tory MPs who voted for the deal would have immediately swung the other way if they knew that "the precious" was at stake.

So by all means criticise the SNP for not doing the things they could have done to bring about independence or a choice on independence.  But don't criticise them for not attempting something that was never in their power, and that would have simply have left them looking a bit foolish, a bit cynical, and above all else strategically naive.