Thursday, November 28, 2024

It's an obvious truth but an important one: if the SNP reverse Labour's winter fuel allowance cuts, it's the SNP who will get the credit at the next election

80% of the time I disagree with Andy Maciver's centrist, affluent take on Scottish politics, but his verdict on the Daily Record story suggesting the SNP will reverse London Labour's cut in winter fuel allowance chimes with the way I've been thinking recently - 

"Labour will learn the hard way that Westminster governments don’t get the electoral credit for Barnett consequentials…"

I cannot understand what Sarwar's thinking was in announcing that a Scottish Labour government would reverse its own party's cuts, because once people stopped laughing at the preposterous "vote Labour to stop Labour" messaging, there was only ever going to be one reliable effect.  The SNP couldn't allow themselves to be outflanked, so if they hadn't already been planning to reverse the cut themselves, Sarwar's stunt guaranteed that they would do so, and we knew that it was probably affordable due to the Barnett consequentials generated by the Budget's spending increases in England.

And now the SNP will get the sole credit.  In the real world, people don't say "oh, this is thanks to #PressureFromScottishLabour", and nor do they give credit to London Labour for incidentally providing the funds necessary to reverse a cruel cut that London Labour made in the first place and needn't have done.

*  *  *

Over the last few weeks, I have been causing fury in certain quarters by pointing out that Labour's string of local by-election wins in Scotland is not what it superficially seems, because they have taken place mostly in wards that are unusually favourable for Labour - a lot of them have been wards where Labour won the popular vote in 2022, at a time when the SNP were well ahead nationally.  The swing to Labour has generally been small enough to suggest an ongoing SNP national lead, perhaps even quite a substantial one.

In a state of exasperation, someone said to me the other day: "OK, if that's the case, where are all the wards that the SNP would be expected to win?"  Well, there are two more by-elections taking place today, and I've checked the wards in question and it's a continuation of the same story: both wards were unusually favourable for Labour in 2022 at a time when Labour were well behind the SNP nationally.  So doubtless Labour will easily win both by-elections, and certain people will once again refuse to accept that such results can be anything other than stonkingly wonderful for Labour, but that's the reality.  The numbers don't lie.  Sometimes weird patterns do just occur randomly and lots of Labour-friendly wards come up for election all at once.

Wednesday, November 27, 2024

Dugdale may want Labour to form a coalition with the SNP, but it's highly unlikely Sarwar would ever entertain that prospect

Apologies for disappearing for a few days - it was mainly because I spent much of Monday composing my written submission in response to the so-called "disciplinary" action that Chris McEleny has taken against me, and that will at long last be heard by Alba's Disciplinary Committee next Thursday evening.  It took me about five or six hours to write it, so I was still mentally exhausted yesterday!  For months now, I've had to live with the very real possibility that Mr McEleny will succeed in persuading the Disciplinary Committee to expel me from the party - because if that is his aim (as I suspect it is), I know all too well that he'll be pushing at an open door due to the committee's rock-solid leadership-loyalist majority.  Since the early part of this year, the committee has effectively functioned solely as a rubberstamp for Mr McEleny's deepest desires, which have had nothing to do with punishing genuine wrongdoing by Alba members, but have been almost exclusively about weaponising the party's disciplinary machinery against anyone who has irritated or angered the leadership.  Those who have drawn attention to the disturbingly irregular nature of last year's internal Alba elections have been a particular target for the leadership's campaign of revenge.  In my own case, I seem to be in the firing line mainly because of the strong stand I've been taking in favour of democratisation of the party.  That suspicion is not allayed by the almost comically threadbare nature of the official charge sheet against me - I'm effectively facing trial-by-vagueness, or trial-by-please-someone-fill-in-the-blanks-because-we-can't-actually-think-of-a-plausible-official-reason-for-expelling-this-guy.

So I've had plenty of time to ponder which political party I would apply to join (or to try to help to set up) if Alba do expel me next week - I very much hope it doesn't come to that, but I want to have a contingency plan in place in case it does.  Unfortunately it's not a straightforward decision - there are pros and cons attached to each option.  But Kezia Dugdale's latest controversial column for the Courier, in which she argues for an SNP-Labour coalition government after 2026, may flag up one of the strongest arguments in favour of applying to rejoin the SNP.  Although the SNP leadership would be under no obligation to consult party members on forming a new coalition, it would be very difficult for them not to do so, due to the precedent set by the 2021 consultation on entering into the ill-fated coalition with the Greens.  OK, that consultation was an example of rule-by-managed-plebiscite, because from memory it produced an almost North Korean/Alba-style 80%+ vote in favour of coalition.  But I suspect there would be a much more competitive vote if the proposition was coalition with a unionist party.  It goes without saying that if I was an SNP member I would vote against coalition with Labour, except in the very unlikely circumstances that Labour made substantive concessions on progress towards independence.

I remain highly sceptical about whether such a coalition will even be seriously discussed after the 2026 election, let alone come into being.  The only reason we have to treat Ms Dugdale's column with a touch of seriousness is that she's married to Jenny Gilruth, the SNP Government's Education Secretary, and it's therefore possible that Ms Gilruth may share her views.  But not necessarily - if the two of them agreed about absolutely everything they would be members of the same party.  And I certainly see no evidence that Ms Dugdale's views are shared by the Labour leadership - if anything her column seems to be a despairing plea for her own former party to change its attitude.  The overwhelming likelihood is that Anas Sarwar will be looking for one of two outcomes in 2026 - either a) to form an exclusively unionist coalition government with himself as First Minister, or b) to become the hardline Brit Nat opposition to a significantly weakened SNP minority government.

Sunday, November 24, 2024

Why is it that every time the SNP pointlessly chuck away a precious parliamentary seat, they get patted on the back as if they've just done something really sensible and mature?

When it emerged that Stephen Flynn wanted to challenge a sitting SNP MSP for a place in Holyrood, but also wanted to retain his Westminster seat until the next general election if he was successful, I made the point that the one thing the SNP needed to avoid at all costs was a needless Westminster by-election in Aberdeen South.  In other words, there had to be one of two outcomes: either a) Flynn had to be persuaded to abandon his plan to switch to Holyrood and instead rededicate himself to his important role as leader of the fourth largest group in the Commons (by far the most preferable option), or b) his critics had to accept his temporary dual mandate through gritted teeth.

The SNP making strategic mis-steps has become such an established pattern in recent years that it's no great surprise to me that after only a few short days they've managed to end up with precisely the worst-case scenario I warned against.  They've persuaded Flynn to abandon his plan to have a dual mandate, but not to abandon his plan to switch to Holyrood.  That makes a by-election almost inevitable - unless of course Flynn fails in his bid for Holyrood selection.  But that seems highly unlikely, because we all know what this is really about - the leadership faction want Flynn in Holyrood so he can be the next leader.  I was asked last night how long I thought John Swinney would stay on as leader, and I said "at least two more years, because the ruling faction want him to hang on until they can replace him with Stephen Flynn, preventing Kate Forbes from becoming First Minister is the one thing they care about above all else".  And the person I was speaking to gave me a look of total bafflement and said "WHY?"  I had to think about that for a moment, but eventually I said "well, because she's an evangelical Christian, and because she has certain private views about abortion...", and then I sort of tailed off and thought to myself "yeah, this doesn't really make any sense, does it?"  The SNP have got to stop tearing their own house down for factional reasons.

What does surprise me, although it probably shouldn't, is that having needlessly got themselves into this by-election mess, the SNP are receiving a big pat on the back from certain sections of the independence movement.  "Stephen Flynn got this one wrong, but the important thing is he's accepted that and put things right."  Well, no, actually, he's now got things even more wrong than before.  Far, far more wrong.  It reminds me of when prominent independence supporters both inside and outside the SNP were enthusiastically urging people in Rutherglen to sign the recall petition against Margaret Ferrier.  "Here's a helpful map showing you where you can sign, and don't forget to wrap up warm, now!"  Those sterling "efforts" led to a landmark by-election gain for Labour, which in turn generated momentum that led to the SNP's defeat at the general election.

Make no mistake - if the SNP stupidly bring about a by-election in Aberdeen South, they're likely to lose it and see their representation in the Commons cut from nine seats to eight.  It's not a natural SNP constituency.  Flynn only held it in July because the unionist vote was split down the middle, but in a by-election context it's likely that unionist voters would coalesce more behind one party, possibly the Tories.  Heaven only knows what momentum that might generate and what the long-term consequences might be.

One of the many plus points of the ICC ruling is that it's exposed Stephen Daisley as an unhinged extremist who would happily tear down the entire international system just to prevent a war criminal he admires from facing justice

Part of Stephen Daisley's basic schtick is to present himself (in spite of his rather extreme right-wing views on many topics) as the voice of mainstream common sense and to make a great show of being amused by supposedly 'unsensible' people.  For example, when Nicola Sturgeon was at the height of her powers and SNP members and SNP-supporting commentators were tending to get a bit carried away and to show her excessive adulation, he wasn't shy about using the ironic #NotACult hashtag.  He regarded it as a great "hoot" that he unexpectedly got to see the "unelectable" Left in charge of the Labour party for a few years, having been too young to remember the last time around in the early 80s (although it's safe to assume he must have been shocked to his core that the 2017 general election result didn't resemble the 1983 result in the way he imagined was absolutely inevitable).  And of course he's a tremendous fan of lecturing the SNP on how they should concentrate on "the day job" and the delivery of public services, rather than constitutional obsessions that real people supposedly don't care about.

So it really is a rare old treat to see how the issuing of arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant has led him to instantly lose the plot utterly, and very visibly turn into exactly the sort of destructive ideological hothead that he professes to have such disdain for.  Even more delicious is that he seems gloriously unaware of what he's doing and how ridiculous it's making him look.  No, of course he doesn't want any sort of disproportionate reaction against the world's highest court for taking one decision he personally dislikes, he just wants it destroyed completely, if necessary by means of a US military invasion of the Netherlands.  He wants Trump's America to go full rogue state (not that they'll need much encouragement on that score) by freezing the ICC's bank accounts, preventing its staff from travelling, and forcing US allies to choose between rogue US leadership and the rule of international law.  In short, Daisley quite cheerfully wants to bring the whole international system crashing down because of his single-minded determination that two wanted war criminals must go free at all costs.

In defence of this barking mad prospectus, he runs through the stock points of pro-Israeli gaslighting - ie. Israel doesn't deliberately target civilians, it always issues warnings, it's responsible for lavish amounts of humanitarian aid reaching Palestinian civilians who are frankly living as princes.  It's almost pointless to try to take issue with such nonsense, because the entire purpose of Israel preventing journalists from reporting inside Gaza is to stop conclusive proof emerging that civilians are being targeted for intentional and industrial-scale racial extermination.  That conclusive proof has come out anyway, but Daisley and his ilk can pretend not to see it because it comes from the 'wrong' sources.  

But on one point he's just objectively and irrefutably wrong.

"The ICC has no jurisdiction over Israel, which is not a party to the Rome Statute."

The ICC is not claiming jurisdiction over Israel.  Its relevant jurisdiction is over the Palestinian territories, which is the geographical location where Israel has committed the war crimes.  

"A state can invite the court to rule on a matter related to its territory and volunteer to accept its jurisdiction, which the Palestinian Authority has done as part of a long-term strategy to gain a foothold in international bodies and use it to wage diplomatic warfare against Israel. However, the Palestinian Authority is not a state and exercises no meaningful sovereignty over Gaza, which is run by Hamas. The ICC has involved itself because doing so suits its institutional politics and preferences."

The Palestinian Authority may not be a state, but the State of Palestine is very much a state - the clue is helpfully contained within the name.  What the hell is a state if not an entity that declares itself to be a state within defined geographical boundaries and attracts international recognition for its declaration? The State of Palestine is currently recognised by 146 of the 193 member states of the UN, or just over three-quarters.  That number includes several western countries including Sweden, Spain, Norway and Ireland.  It doesn't matter a damn that there isn't yet 100% recognition, because a great many other countries are not universally recognised either.  Israel itself, for example, is not recognised by 28 UN states, around 15% of the total.  Some countries still do not recognise the People's Republic of China because they prefer to have diplomatic relations with Taiwan, but no-one would seriously suggest that this means China is not a sovereign nation.

The UN finally accepted the State of Palestine as a non-member observer state in 2012, which put its status as a state beyond all dispute, and allowed Palestine to become a full member of many other international organisations including the International Criminal Court.  Palestine has not, as Daisley claims, "invited" the court to rule and "volunteered to accept its jurisdiction".  Palestine is simply a state party to the ICC on exactly the same basis as the UK and over 100 other countries, and the ICC's jurisdiction is therefore automatic within Palestine's sovereign territory.  The ICC is not "involving itself" due to its "institutional preferences", but because it is compelled to be involved by the terms of its founding treaty, which gives the citizens of all states parties, including the State of Palestine, exactly the same protections as each other.

Nor does the fact that the territory of the State of Palestine is illegally occupied by a neighbouring country detract from the rights and responsibilities of the government of the State of Palestine in international bodies.  If that was the case, the fact that 10% of the territory of Ukraine is occupied by Russia would put at risk Ukraine's membership of the UN, but that would be plainly ridiculous.  Daisley's subtext is that Israel's occupation of Palestine gives Israel a veto on Palestinian statehood, rather as if Israeli rule in the West Bank and Gaza were an international "mandate" like the one Britain used to enjoy in the same region.  But of course the opposite is true - numerous UN resolutions dating back to the 1960s stress that Israel has no legitimate right to be in the West Bank and Gaza and should leave immediately.

On one point I do half-agree with Daisley, though - it might be a good thing in the long run if Trump forces countries to make a straight choice between the US and the international system, because many US allies will choose the international system, no matter how painful they find it to be faced with such a dilemma.  We've already seen that with the likes of Canada.  Only a week ago, Trudeau was shamefully parroting Israeli propaganda about a "pogrom in Amsterdam", presumably because the US told him to, but as soon as the ICC actually issued the arrest warrants, there was no ambiguity - Trudeau swiftly made clear that Canada would abide by its international obligations and arrest Netanyahu if he set foot on Canadian soil.

Friday, November 22, 2024

By the time my so-called "disciplinary" hearing finally takes place in December, I will have been arbitrarily suspended from the Alba Party for TWO AND A HALF MONTHS purely at the whim of one man: Chris McEleny

The Disciplinary Committee hearing, which was originally due to take place in October, has at long last been rescheduled for December.  Now, I fully appreciate that the circumstances over the last few weeks have not been normal or foreseeable.  However, I would note that Alex Salmond's death has not prevented Alba from running full-throttled local by-election campaigns in recent weeks, so there was clearly no particular reason why a Disciplinary Committee meeting could not also have taken place.  If it was decided to postpone the meeting for much longer than was really necessary, I would suggest the onus was firmly on the leadership to lift my supposedly "temporary suspension pending the hearing" while the delay dragged on, because by the time the hearing actually takes place, I will have been suspended from the party at the sole whim of Chris McEleny for around two and a half months.  That is entirely contrary to the principles of natural justice.  Alba have continued to charge me on a monthly basis for membership that I have not actually had - I can't even access the party website.  That's created real practical problems, because the party constitution, the Code of Conduct and the social media policy can only actually be found in the members-only part of the website, so I practically had to beg to be sent the full text of the Code of Conduct to give me a realistic chance of defending myself properly.

A few hours ago, I sent another email to the powers-that-be in Alba to make a number of points.  I won't quote the whole email in case somebody tries to argue that doing so indirectly reveals confidential information.  But what I am going to do is quote a few lines from my opening paragraph, because there's nothing confidential in them, and they contain a point that very much needs to be put firmly on the public record - 

"As far as any patience on my part is concerned, my view is that the delay has been of such excessive length that it was self-evidently indefensible to leave me suspended from the party on one man's whim pending the delayed hearing.  I appeal to you and Mr McEleny to belatedly do the decent thing and lift that suspension immediately.  I have no doubt that appeal will fall on deaf ears, as all appeals for fairness, due process and constitutionality invariably do when Mr McEleny is making the decisions, but I would nevertheless like it noted that I have made that appeal and that I did not at any stage accept an arbitrary suspension of almost *two-and-a-half months* as remotely reasonable or acceptable."

Since Alex Salmond's tragic death, it has been claimed a number of times, and by a number of different people, that Mr Salmond was so profoundly affected by his own brief expulsion from the SNP in 1982 (for membership of the proscribed 79 Group) that he ensured that essentially nobody at all was expelled from the SNP during his combined total of twenty years as party leader.  The one and only exception was apparently Bill Walker, the former MSP for Dunfermline, who was well on his way to being convicted on twenty-three charges of domestic violence.  

And yet as someone who has served as an elected member of Alba's Disciplinary Committee since January, I'm as well-placed as anyone to know that expulsions have been taking place in Alba, and for much, much less serious reasons than domestic violence.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that people have been expelled from Alba despite having done absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever, unless you count displeasing the leadership as a form of wrongdoing.  That would suggest Alba is a fundamentally different beast from the Salmond-led SNP.  It's much more authoritarian.  Much more illiberal.  That's a very odd path for a much smaller party to choose to go down, and I'm not going to pretend to fully understand why it's happened.  

Until recently, I would have been cautious about making any reference to Mr Salmond's "no expulsions" policy in the SNP, because I didn't know for sure whether it was true.  However it's mentioned as a key point in a recent article written by Professor James Mitchell, and while I often disagree with many of Professor Mitchell's views, I don't think anyone would dispute that he knows his modern Scottish political history - not least because he's witnessed much of it first-hand.  So it's probably safe to assume the "no expulsions" policy was indeed a real thing.

In which case it's reasonable to ask why on earth I find myself in my current situation, and in particular why Yvonne Ridley boasted that she had inside knowledge that the Alba leadership made a secret decision to expel me from the party several months ago.  For those who have not been following this saga, it's important to stress that I am not accused of violence, or racism, or any of the other very serious things that might normally lead to expulsion from a political party.  Instead, I seem to be facing potential expulsion simply because the leadership bristled at this blogpost I wrote in April, which criticised the undemocratic impulses that I had detected within certain quarters of the party.  I would encourage you to read that blogpost and see if you can spot anything at all in it that would even begin to warrant the most severe sanction that any political party can impose on any member, and that would justify putting me in the same bracket as *Bill Walker*.  I must confess that I am totally baffled, and deeply hurt.

On a separate matter, you might remember that I recently wrote a blogpost expressing my disquiet that the Alba leadership were taking a leaf out of the authoritarians' play-book by cancelling the party's internal elections, and by instead holding a plebiscite on extending the current NEC's term of office by several months.  Members were practically instructed to vote Yes to the proposition, with no viable alternative option presented.  I predicted that this North Korean style tactic would produce a North Korean style vote of 90%+.  That turned out to be an underestimate - Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh apparently announced today that it was 94%.  If anyone thinks that's some sort of "achievement" to brag about, they couldn't be more mistaken.  Alba now finds itself in a very dark place, with Alex Salmond's death being used, frankly, as an excuse to put practically all aspects of the party's internal democracy and internal politics into the deep freeze for an indefinite period.  I'm not sure there's any real intention to ever reverse that process, or at least not in full.

That said, I welcome the rescheduling of the disciplinary hearing, if only because I strongly suspect Yvonne Ridley's boast will prove to be well-founded.  If expulsion has already been decided upon, it's better that it happens in December, rather than me being left in purgatory for several more months.  And if the Alba leadership are hellbent on forcing me to make a fresh start in a new political home (and they would be forcing me to do that, because I didn't ask for any of this nonsense to happen), I look forward to finally getting on with that process by January at the latest, once my appeal is presumably rejected.  To be honest, though, I'm still genuinely 50/50 about whether I will apply to rejoin the SNP in that circumstance, or whether I will try something completely new.

SNP finish second in Fort William & Ardnamurchan by-election

The fourth and final by-election result for this week was released a few hours ago, and it's impossible to deny that it's a very good one for the Liberal Democrats.  By the same token, it can't be denied that the Lib Dems have been polling fairly poorly in many other recent by-elections, which speaks to the factor that is both their greatest strength and their most serious weakness - ie. they're becoming ever more ghettoised in specific geographical pockets, which pays handsome dividends in first-past-the-post elections and even in STV by-elections, but which will make it very hard for them to get back to the type of broad national strength they had in the days of Jim Wallace, before they made hardline British Nationalism such a key part of their identity and branding.

Fort William & Ardnamurchan by-election result on first preference votes (21st November 2024):

Liberal Democrats 58.9% (+21.4)
SNP 25.5% (-8.0)
Greens 6.0% (-3.6)
Labour 4.5% (n/a)
Conservatives 4.4% (-5.7)
Scottish Libertarian Party 0.6% (n/a)

It's impossible to calculate a swing from SNP to Labour in this ward, because Labour didn't put up a candidate last time around.  So the average swing to Labour in this week's round of by-elections remains at a modest 3.9%, which if extrapolated to the national picture would leave them around 4.5 percentage points behind the SNP, very much in line with recent opinion polls.

Although the eight-point drop in the SNP's vote is obviously not great, it's actually a smaller decrease than they suffered in any of the three Glasgow by-elections yesterday.  The Tories have had another appalling result, although in fairness the reason may be different in this case.  In the Glasgow results they were probably losing votes to Reform, but in Fort William there was no Reform candidate, so the Tories may have suffered from a more conventional anti-SNP squeeze as unionist voters coalesced behind the Lib Dem candidate.

Small average swing in Glasgow by-election triple-header suggests SNP have a national lead over Labour of around 4.5% - bang in line with recent polling

Labour are fibbing yet again on Twitter - they're claiming to have "gained" three Glasgow City Council seats in by-elections yesterday, whereas in fact they were defending all three seats, and in two of the three wards they had even won the popular vote in 2022 (at a time when the SNP were still well ahead nationally).  

Maryhill by-election result on first preference votes (21st November 2024):

Labour 35.9% (+1.9)
SNP 29.2% (-12.9)
Reform UK 12.7% (n/a)
Greens 12.1% (-0.2)
Alba 4.2% (n/a)
Conservatives 3.2% (-5.0)
Liberal Democrats 2.7% (+0.3)

Drumchapel & Anniesland by-election result on first preference votes (21st November 2024):

Labour 34.3% (-3.8)
SNP 26.3% (-11.6)
Reform UK 12.8% (n/a)
Independent - Kerr 9.4% (+4.2)
Greens 8.3% (+2.3)
Conservatives 5.8% (-3.7)
Liberal Democrats 2.9% (+1.3)

Glasgow North-East by-election result on first preference votes (21st November 2024):

Labour 34.3% (-9.7)
SNP 32.2% (-10.4)
Reform UK 18.3% (n/a)
Conservatives 5.4% (-3.3)
Greens 4.2% (+1.2)
TUSC 3.7% (+2.5)
Liberal Democrats 2.0% (n/a)

Although the SNP vote is significantly down in all three wards, what matters as always is the swing from SNP to Labour, and in only one case (Maryhill) would that be sufficient to just about put Labour ahead nationally.  The average swing across the three wards is just 3.9%, which assuming a uniform national swing would point to a national SNP lead over Labour of approximately 4.5% - pretty much bang in line with what the new full-scale Scottish poll from Survation shows.

However, there was also a by-election in Fort William & Ardnamurchan yesterday, and the votes have yet to be counted, so we'll wait to see if that one shows anything radically different.

One thing that's striking about the results we do have so far is the consistency with which Reform UK seem to be leaving the Tories in their wake in Glasgow.  During Ruth Davidson's leadership there may have been hope for some sort of limited Tory renaissance in the city, but the Reform UK factor seems to have snuffed that out completely, at least for the foreseeable future.  Reform are now very much the party of the right-wing vote in Glasgow.

Thursday, November 21, 2024

Fresh misery for Labour in Scotland as SNP storm back into the lead in *Westminster* voting intentions, according to sizzling new Survation survey

Progress Scotland have been impressively fast in getting the data tables up for their new Survation poll - faster than Survation themselves, as it happens.  Probably the most important news is that the SNP have broken out of their deadlock with Labour in the only other post-election Survation poll (conducted in September), and now have a clear lead in Westminster voting intentions.

Scottish voting intentions for the next UK general election (Survation/Progress Scotland, 1st-15th November 2024)

SNP 31% (-)
Labour 28% (-3)
Conservatives 15% (+1)
Reform UK 13% (+2)
Liberal Democrats 6% (-3)

It's a similar story on the Holyrood constituency ballot - the SNP and Labour were level in the previous Survation poll and the SNP now have a clear lead, although the swing is bigger than on the Westminster ballot.  On the Holyrood list, the small SNP lead remains unchanged from the previous poll, although that doesn't prevent the constituency swing improving the SNP's showing on the all-important seats projection.

Scottish Parliament constituency ballot:

SNP 32% (+1)
Labour 27% (-4)
Conservatives 14% (+1)
Reform UK 10% (+1)
Liberal Democrats 9% (+1)
Greens 6% (-)
Alba 1% (-)

Scottish Parliament regional list ballot:

SNP 27% (-1)
Labour 25% (-1)
Conservatives 15% (+1)
Reform UK 11% (+1)
Greens 10% (-)
Liberal Democrats 9% (-1)
Alba 3% (-)

Seats projection: SNP 42, Labour 34, Conservatives 18, Reform UK 14, Liberal Democrats 11, Greens 10

So the 'mainstream' unionist parties would have 63 seats in combination, two short of an overall majority.  The pro-independence parties would be well behind on 52, but in my view the SNP as the largest single party would be well-placed to cling on as some sort of minority government, given the difficulty Labour would face in cobbling together a coalition involving both the Tories and Reform UK.  Even if they were prepared to destroy their own credibility by attempting that, I doubt if Reform UK would play ball, or not without naming an impossible price.

It's noteworthy that the replacement of Douglas Ross with Russell Findlay hasn't had a transformative effect on Tory fortunes - at best Findlay has very slightly steadied the ship - and Reform UK remains a bigger problem for him than for anyone else.  Alba are once again flatlining at a level that would be unlikely to win them any list seats at all, a fact that isn't really compatible with the repeated claims from the party leadership that they're making big breakthroughs and closing in on multiple list seats.  It's true that Alba's by-election results have become more respectable in recent weeks, but they've done that by choosing their battles and concentrating their resources.  It's not really any indication that their underlying support has increased nationally.

Although the headline result from the poll was a non-standard, multi-option question on Scotland's constitutional future, the standard Yes/No question on independence was also asked, and the results lend some support to the evidence that there may have been a recent uptick in Yes support.

Should Scotland be an independent country?

Yes 48% (+2)
No 52% (-2)

Will the issuing of an arrest warrant for Netanyahu force European countries into a reluctant parting of the ways with the US?

In retrospect there can't be much doubt that when Jeremy Corbyn was at the height of his powers as Labour leader, when he had recently achieved a miracle result at the 2017 general election and looked impossible to dislodge, a number of right-wing figures within Labour got together privately and tried to work out how on earth they could turn the tide and get the party back under their control, and what they settled on was the construction of a largely fake 'anti-semitism crisis'.  As Machiavellian strategies go, that one would have seemed particularly unpromising if it had been set out in advance, and it really is quite astonishing how comprehensively it worked.  Doubtless there was the occasional example of genuine anti-semitism on the Corbynite left, as there is in all walks of life, but generally speaking what the supposed "crisis" was about was legitimate criticisms of the Israeli state being repackaged as "anti-semitism".  Too many people who might reasonably have been expected to be sensible enough to see through the stunt proved all too credulous, probably due to their own underlying disdain for the Corbyn project.  The momentum behind Corbyn, which briefly made him look like a Prime Minister in waiting, was put sharply into reverse, and once again he was back to being dismissed as an abnormal figure outside the bounds of political acceptability.   The tactic undoubtedly contributed to the scale of his defeat in 2019, paving the way for his replacement by Starmer, who was emboldened enough to remove his predecessor from the party on bogus grounds of anti-semitism - an act of unprecedented cynicism and arrogance.  And yet the political and commentator class continued acting as if nothing was amiss.

Having seemed for ages to get away with all of this Scot-free, it's hard to escape the supreme historical irony of the fact that Starmer and co were - unbeknown to them - concocting their "anti-semitism crisis" at a moment in time just before the State of Israel was about to commit the worst genocide of the 21st Century so far, thus unexpectedly putting Jeremy Corbyn very publicly on the right side of history as one of the minority of politicians who had consistently refused to accept Israel using accusations of anti-semitism as a shield to allow them to get on with oppressing a neighbouring people.  By contrast, Corbyn's tormentors like Margaret Hodge and David Lammy were left as the ones being seen to have cosy selfies taken with genocidal war criminals like Isaac Herzog and Benjamin Netanyahu.  The Labour leadership's initial reaction to this problem seemed to be to double down and join with Israel in accusing anyone trying to impede the genocide, or even to identify its existence, of anti-semitism.  But can you really do that with the International Criminal Court, now that they have issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu?  

Israel itself is of course already trying to discredit the ICC as an anti-semitic institution, motivated by a wish to distract from sexual harassment accusations against their chief prosecutor.  The incoming Trump administration will doubtless join in with this smokescreen, and will probably take far more sinister actions against the ICC and its staff too.  But given that the UK is a party to the ICC and fully accepts its jurisdiction, how can Starmer go down that road himself?  Indeed, how can he do anything other than denounce those who try to undermine the rule of international law?  In spite of the way the Labour party has mutated in recent years, there are still enough internationalists within the PLP that it's hard to imagine them indefinitely tolerating a leader who favours Trump and a wanted war criminal over the international courts.  

I said a couple of weeks ago that one of the silver linings of Trump's victory is that it might force European countries, however reluctantly, to move away from slavish loyalty to US leadership.  The ICC ruling may mark a parting of the ways whereby European countries will be forced to make a straight choice between loyalty to the US and adherence to an international rules-based system, because the two concepts will henceforth be opposites and fundamentally inconsistent with each other.

Wednesday, November 20, 2024

The Empire Flops Back: 61% of the Scottish public demand powers are transferred from London to the Scottish Parliament

This morning brings word of a new Survation poll for Angus Robertson's Progress Scotland organisation, which goes 1990s retro by asking a multi-option question on Scotland's constitutional future, rather than a straight Yes/No question on independence.  The results have been given as an exclusive to the Daily Record, which is fair enough - if you can get Pravda to report on a bad news story for Labour and their Precious Union, why not?  The only snag, though, is that the Record have - true to character - presented the results in a somewhat garbled manner. But as I understand it, these are the top preferences of voters:

Independence inside the EU: 34%
Independence outside the EU: 8%
More powerful Scottish Parliament inside the UK: 19%
The status quo inside the UK: 22%
Abolition of the Scottish Parliament, return to direct rule from London: 17%

There are two ways of looking at these numbers.  If the two pro-independence options are combined, they come to 42%, and if the three non-independence options are combined, they come to 58%, which is a bigger gap than in conventional Yes/No polls.  But that can perhaps be partly explained by the very fact that there are more non-independence options than pro-independence options - some people without strong views tend to gravitate towards the middle option, no matter what it might be.

On the other hand, the three options that involve a more powerful Scottish Parliament command the support of 61%, compared to only 39% for either the status quo or for fewer powers.  So clearly the "line in the sand" and "enough is enough" narrative from unionists has failed to chime with voters.

*  *  *

Something very peculiar has been going on in the comments section of this blog over the last five days or so.  What appears to be one person has been posing as an army of befuddled and indignant "casual readers", all posting anonymously and all with suspiciously identical writing styles, who purport to be downright *furious* that this blog used the easy-to-grasp concept of swing, introduced by David Butler as long ago as the 1950s, to extrapolate from last Thursday's local by-elections to a potential general election result.  He's tried to dismiss Butler's concept as "hocus pocus" or "not cutting the mustard" - well, good luck with that, mate.  The true reason for his anger is likely to be that the calculation shows that the SNP would have a national lead of around eight percentage points, putting them into landslide territory in Westminster terms.  But he doesn't actually dispute the calculation, and nor can he, because anyone can replicate it for themselves.  Instead, all he's left with is repeatedly spluttering "you can't extrapolate from local elections to Westminster".  

Of course you can.  In doing so, all you're saying is that if people vote in the same way in a general election as they do in local elections, and if last Thursday's results were typical, the SNP would win big across Scotland in a general election.  So is there any particular reason to think people vote differently in general elections from local elections?  Well, yes, recent history shows there is a modest amount of divergence.  But here's the thing - the SNP have actually tended to do less well in local elections than in other types of elections.  So if you make an adjustment to take account of that phenomenon, the SNP's big projected national lead would actually increase in a general election context, not decrease.

As the president of the Donald Trump Fan Club Of Somerset might put it: "what's your point, caller?"