Independence is backed by unprecedented 55-45 margin in new Panelbase poll - and that's "decisive", if every BBC report in 2014 is to be believed

As I pointed out last week, the 53% Yes vote in the YouGov poll couldn't be directly compared with the 54% in the two most recent Panelbase polls, because each firm has its own methods. And the thought did cross my mind that the 57% SNP vote found by YouGov - higher than any other firm has reported since the 2016 election - might be a clue that things have actually improved further, rather than stayed steady or gone slightly backwards. Today's latest Panelbase poll for Business for Scotland, showing Yes reaching a new high watermark, might well support that theory.

Should Scotland be an independent country?

Yes 55% (+1)
No 45% (-1)

"Decisive margin" said every BBC report in 2014.  (There was such consistent usage of the word "decisive" by the BBC in 2014 that obviously an edict had gone out from on high.)  "The settled will of the Scottish people" said David Cameron in 2014.  It's happened, folks: Yes now lead by exactly the same margin that No won the 2014 indyref by - and judging from the British establishment's own past words, they should be regarding this development as game over.

To put it in perspective, before this calendar year, only a small handful of Panelbase polls had ever shown a Yes lead, and no Panelbase poll had ever shown a Yes vote higher than 52%.  The last three have now shown Yes on either 54% or 55%.  By any standards, the evidence of a major breakthrough is overwhelming.  Of course the further 1% increase since the last poll is well within the margin of error - if Yes was holding steady at around 54%, you'd expect some polls to show the figure at 53% or 55% (or indeed 52% or 56%), so we'll have to wait for more information before concluding that the upward trend is continuing.  But that should certainly be regarded as a real possibility.

A few miscellaneous points

First of all, congratulations to the poster 'Unknown' who has stolen away Tam the Bam's title of Scot Goes Pop Precious Union Contemplation Diviner after just one day.  He/she correctly spotted that I was contemplating the value of Our Precious Union at the Ness of Duncansby, midway between John O'Groats and Duncansby Head lighthouse.  That's the first time I've been up that way since the age of 10, and one thing that surprised me is that you don't really get the same sense of being at the 'end of the world' that you do in a place like Cape St Vincent in Portugal, because there's land immediately beyond John O'Groats in the form of Stroma, and there's also land not far beyond Stroma which I presume must be Orkney.

Just as I did when I was 10, I went on to walk the coastal path to see the Duncansby Stacks.  I thought it might not be as impressive as I remembered from childhood, but quite the reverse.  Why that walk isn't better known, better advertised, better signposted is beyond me.  You often hear of people going to John O'Groats and being underwhelmed by what they find there, but most of them are probably oblivious to the fact that Scotland's equivalent of the Cliffs of Moher is just a stone's throw away.

Anyway, as you'll have gathered from the last few posts, I've been away for a little while, and one consequence of that is there's been a backlog of emails I haven't got round to responding to.  A couple of people asked about the possibility of making recurring (monthly or quarterly) donations to help support the blog.  I don't have any facility set up for that, but the good thing about the GoFundMe crowdfunders is that they remain open for donations indefinitely, so if you have a sudden random urge to make a contribution you can do so at any time HERE.  However, bear in mind that I'll probably run a proper 2020 fundraiser at some point over the coming months.  (I know I've run two crowdfunders this year, but those were specifically to pay for our exclusive opinion polls.)

There was also a well-meaning email trying to organise a reconciliation between myself and Stuart Campbell, on the basis that we're all on the same side and we need to be pulling together.  What I would say to that is there wouldn't have been any dispute in the first place if we really felt that we're still on the same side.  Stuart's attitude to independence seems much more ambivalent now - it might be useful to ask him whether he'd still want independence if, for example, it meant not getting his way on self-ID and other related issues.  He'd probably evade the question by saying the cause of independence is doomed anyway unless the SNP drop self-ID - but I suspect if he was being honest, his answer would be "no".  (And, by the same token, there are now prominent figures in the SNP who regard their support for self-ID as far more important than independence - it's a really unfortunate situation on both sides.) 

Stuart also has an unrealistically hostile attitude to Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP, which can only be harmful in the long run.  And yes, I know the SNP is not the independence movement, but that's really not the point.  Look at it this way - even if a credible new pro-indy party is set up, and even if it's successful (two very big "ifs"), the most it will be able to do is gain leverage over the SNP by holding the balance of power at Holyrood.  That will still leave the SNP as by far the predominant pro-indy party, which means that whoever is SNP leader will effectively lead the Yes campaign in any referendum that occurs over the next couple of years - and that probably means Nicola Sturgeon, unless she voluntarily opts to stand aside.  If we get to that point, Wings will self-evidently be damaging the cause unless he at least massively tones down his antipathy towards the First Minister.  Is he capable of doing that, or has it all gone too far?  Again, he would probably argue that it's not a valid question because there isn't going to be a referendum if Nicola Sturgeon remains leader.  But that kind of black-and-white thinking is somewhat divorced from the nuances and complexities of the real world.

*  *  *

Re-trial TV : Interesting that with 60 minutes to fill, Kirsty didn’t have time to interview just one defence witness. Perhaps one day a @BBCScotland spokesperson will finally admit to the people of Scotland “that I wish on my life the BBC had been a better broadcaster”.

— Douglas Chapman MP 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 (@DougChapmanSNP) August 17, 2020

Just watched the Salmond trial prog. Clearly commissioned before the trial, all set up and shot for a guilty verdict which didn’t happen. Screeching brakes and desperate attempts to redirect to fit a changed narrative. Tone supportive of complainants despite the verdicts.

— Derek Bateman (@DerekBateman2) August 17, 2020

Hi @KirstyWark , when is part 2 of your documentary airing, you know, the part that shows the actual defence evidence by 7 women that resulted in a jury of his peers (majority of which were women) acquitting Alex Salmond of all charges in “ The Trial of Alex Salmond” ?

— Christopher McEleny (@ChrisMcEleny) August 17, 2020

I'm not for or against Salmond, I'm glad NS is leading the SNP , but by god that BBC documentary was trying its hardest to convince people the Salmond was guilty of something a court of law said he was innocent of.
I can't get over what I just watched.

— G man (@gdog2010_john) August 17, 2020

Our Precious Second Readers' Contest

Congratulations to Tam the Bam, who I can officially crown Scot Goes Pop Precious Union Contemplation Diviner after he was the first to correctly state that I was contemplating the value of Our Precious Union at the Corran ferry.  (Stravaiger later came in with more detail, but I think in fairness Tam was specific enough, and he was first.)

But can YOU steal Tam's crown straight away?  This one is from a few days ago - where was I channelling Matt Hancock?  It's in Scotland, obviously. People only ever contemplate the value of Our Precious Union in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.  In England they just get on with being English or Johnny Foreigner.

Our Precious Readers' Contest

A quick readers' contest (and I may have one or two more of these): where was I contemplating the value of Our Precious Union last night?  There's no tangible prize, but the winner takes the coveted title of Scot Goes Pop Precious Union Contemplation Diviner.

21% of the electorate is more than enough to win seats in a proportional system

Just to deal briefly with the Herald piece from the other day suggesting that Alex Salmond's hopes of regaining control of the SNP were "forlorn" in the wake of a poll showing that 21% of respondents have a favourable view of him, and 63% have an unfavourable view.  There are two obvious points: firstly, I'm not aware of any suggestion that Alex Salmond actually wants to become SNP leader again, so as far as any leadership change is concerned, he'd be more interested in the personal ratings of whoever the alternative leader might be.  Secondly, there's also the option of a new Salmond-led party, and under a proportional representation system 21% approval is plenty enough to win seats, as long as enough of those people are enthusiastic enough.  I haven't changed my view that a Salmond party would probably gain some representation in Holyrood.

Analysis of that sensational YouGov poll

Just a quick note to let you know that I've written some analysis for The National of the YouGov poll showing Yes support soaring to a record-breaking 53%.  You can read it HERE.

Incidentally, just to address the complaint Peter A Bell has left in The National's comment section: no, support for indy has not "soared from 54% to 53%".  That's an apples-and-oranges comparison between a Panelbase poll and a YouGov poll.  The last comparable YouGov poll had Yes on 51%, so it's a two-point increase.

Support for independence hits record-breaking high with YouGov

Should Scotland be an independent country? (YouGov, 6th-10th August 2020):

Yes 53% (+2)
No 47% (-2)

Scottish Parliament constituency voting intentions:

SNP 57% (+3)
Conservatives 20% (-3)
Labour 14% (+3)
Liberal Democrats 6% (-2)

Scottish Parliament regional list voting intentions:

SNP 47% (+2)
Conservatives 21% (-2)
Labour 14% (+2)
Greens 6% (-2)
Liberal Democrats 6% (-1)

Scottish voting intentions for the next UK general election:

SNP 54% (+3)
Conservatives 20% (-5)
Labour 16% (+1)
Liberal Democrats 5% (-1)
Greens 2% (n/c)
Brexit Party 2% (+2)

Housekeeping note

The trolling and spam on this blog has got completely out of hand in recent times, particularly over the last month, so to attempt to apply a brake I've temporarily changed the settings to only allow comments from people signed in to a Google account.  The final straw has been a torrent of pornographic spam - you may not even have seen it because it's mostly been on old posts, but it's been happening more than a dozen times per day, and every comment needs to be deleted individually, which is a major chore.

I'll try reversing the change in a few days to see if our friend has taken the hint.  But even once things are back to normal, I would urge people to post more constructively than has often been the case of late.  Cut down on the swearing and other inappropriate language.  Don't post defamatory claims about named individuals.  And if you want to spend half your life posting ad hominem attacks on me, then by all means do so, but not in the comments section of my own blog.

The road to independence for Scotland - and the road to nowhere for Douglas Ross

So a couple of 'quick notes' for you tonight.  I have a new article on The National's website about whether Douglas Ross is likely to keep his promise to Michelle Ballantyne to be "Boris backing, Brexit positive, anti-Nat".  You can read it HERE.  Also, I'm quoted (along with John Curtice and Mark Diffley) in Chaminda Jayanetti's new piece for politics.co.uk entitled 'The road to independence: How Covid and Brexit pushed Scotland from the Union' - you can read that HERE.

It's time to democratise the SNP's NEC

Earlier this evening, I had a brief but interesting Twitter exchange with the former SNP MSP Andrew Wilson, who incidentally I voted for back in the day no fewer than four times - twice when he was the SNP candidate for Cumbernauld & Kilsyth in 1999 and 2003, and twice when he was a Central Scotland list candidate in the same years.  (He was elected on the list in 1999, but missed out in 2003 due to his ranking on the list being too low - ironically as the result of something of a stitch-up.)

With all due respect to Andrew, the problem here has been caused by the attempted stitch-up on the NEC, not by people calling out that attempted stitch-up on social media. And I suspect he privately knows that.https://t.co/bHIRKVG2PV

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) August 2, 2020

Decoded, this tweet means "Joanna Cherry must be blocked from standing for a Scottish Parliament seat otherwise THE BAD GUYS WILL HAVE WON". Come off it, Andrew. You're playing the power politics game here, not promoting civility.https://t.co/bHIRKVG2PV

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) August 2, 2020

I completely disagree. https://t.co/uXUCZdSsXh

— Andrew Wilson (@AndrewWilson) August 2, 2020

Could you elaborate on that? Are you disagreeing with my interpretation that you want Joanna Cherry to be (to all intents and purposes) blocked from standing? If so, would you encourage the NEC to reverse their decision?

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) August 2, 2020

I have no locus in any of this. I would ratherJC stood and dont understand why she cant. I think NEC has badly handled it all. You haven’t met me so why you cast aspertions? This is what I am getting at.

— Andrew Wilson (@AndrewWilson) August 2, 2020

And you haven't met me, but that doesn't seem to be precluding a moral judgement in the opposite direction either. I'd gently suggest this could be resolved quite easily if you explain what the "placation of the gallery" that you fear so much would actually look like?

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) August 2, 2020

Happy to meet anytime

— Andrew Wilson (@AndrewWilson) August 2, 2020

And I'd be happy to as well, but is there a reason why you can't explain in a public space? If you fear you're being misunderstood (and perhaps you are), then being so elliptical is unlikely to help.

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) August 2, 2020

Now, in fairness, what Andrew says about being unhappy with the NEC decision does check out - I had a look through some of his earlier tweets and he had made the same point before. So I'm happy to apologise to him for getting the wrong end of the stick. (I know some cynical souls will suggest that we may simply be seeing a tactical retreat after the NEC decision had already proved to be unsustainable. But we have to take what people say at face value in the absence of contrary evidence.)

Nevertheless, it's also reasonable to point out that I gave Andrew the opportunity to explain exactly what he did mean by the comments I misconstrued, and as you can see he very studiously avoided doing so. There presumably must be a reason for his reluctance to publicly explain what "placating the gallery" is getting at.  Off the top of my head, I can only really think of a small number of demands that people have been making on social media - one is that the decision to block James Dornan be overturned (that's already happened), one is that the decision to block Joanna Cherry be overturned (Andrew says he'd support that), and one is that people should think more carefully about who is placed on the NEC and the process by which they end up being placed there.  Is it the latter demand that Andrew is concerned about?  This is not an attempt to "cast aspersions", but when an explanation isn't forthcoming, all that can fill that gap is a process of logical deduction, and I'm struggling to think of any other possibilities.

If I'm right, it's little wonder that Andrew is unwilling to spell out what he means, because the calls to reform the NEC are a simple matter of democratic accountability.  To the limited extent that the NEC is elected at all, it's elected by an indirect method, and that's bound to cause great concern if the end result is a body taking decisions that are alien to the wishes of the wider party membership.  As for the observation that those who do have the opportunity to elect NEC members should take the process more seriously in future, that's an affirmation of a democratic principle too.  If you feel that any person you've helped to elect has let you down or acted inappropriately, of course you should reflect on that before you cast your next vote.

In the overall scheme of things, it wasn't all that long ago that even the SNP leader wasn't directly elected - there was election-by-delegate instead.  That wouldn't be considered acceptable now, and an unelected NEC really ought to be seen in exactly the same way as an anachronism.  And it can no longer even be said that it's an "anachronism that works".

Incidentally, none of this should be seen as a criticism of Angus Robertson, who would be an excellent MSP for Edinburgh Central, every bit as much as Joanna Cherry would.  (I regard Robertson and Cherry as two of the four most likely successors to Nicola Sturgeon, along with Humza Yousaf and Kate Forbes.)  But we must have a fair process, and an end to factional control of the SNP's internal structures.