WINGS-WATCH: When someone tells you who they are, believe them

The above is a genuine tweet posted by Stuart Campbell nine hours ago in response to the question "You Yes Yet?", and let's be honest - it's not easily reconcilable with his supporters' insistent claims over recent months that he is still somehow full-bloodedly working towards independence, albeit by counter-intuitive and seemingly contradictory means.  

I would guess I speak on behalf of most readers of Scot Goes Pop when I say that I am just as Yes today as I have ever been, if not more so.  No principled dispute with the SNP / Green Government over an individual piece of legislation would ever dent my support for independence, but it appears the opposite - in fact far more than the opposite - is true for Mr Campbell.

The narrative being pushed today by Mr Campbell and certain others is that the Westminster veto of the GRR Bill is fully justified because Scotland's parliament is a second-rate, juvenile, irresponsible institution that needs to be kept on a tight leash by the altogether more sensible, seasoned and mature Westminster parliament, in the best interests of the people of Scotland. To state what should be the bleedin' obvious, that Tory-style narrative is not helping to build the case for independence. It's actually building the case for the abolition of devolution and the reintroduction of direct London rule.  And it's absolutely natural coming from someone who answers "no" to the question "You Yes Yet?" (and who goes on to say in a further tweet that his "conscience" would now prevent him from campaigning for independence).  I don't doubt the sincerity of Wings readers who have practically been mass-hypnotised into believing that by adhering to Mr Campbell's essentially unionist narrative they are somehow - God knows how - following the "only true path to independence", but that just makes it all the more vital that we at least endeavour to bring to their attention the real destination at the end of that path, before it's too late.

I've never bought into the wild conspiracy theory that Wings has been "compromised" and is now serving a new master. But I'd just note that he's currently behaving in the *exact* way that he would if that conspiracy theory were true.

Sticking to a belief in Scottish self-government, even when mistakes are being made by our parliament, is not an endorsement of the awful GRR Bill.  It's not a betrayal of women and girls.  I entirely agree with what Joanna Cherry said today - the GRR Bill is a problem made in Scotland and it should be solved in Scotland.  Solving your own problems as a country is what self-government is all about, and indeed it's what sovereign independence will be all about.  No parliament anywhere in the world gets it right 100% of the time, but the UK Parliament has done far, far more harm to Scotland over the years than the Scottish Parliament ever has.  If we didn't believe that to be true, we would have no logical reason to support independence - and it's no coincidence that Mr Campbell, who doesn't believe it to be true, apparently no longer supports independence (or to use his euphemistic language, he's "the least Yes he has ever been").  His statement today is also entirely consistent with his call for his readers not to vote for pro-independence candidates on the constituency ballot in the 2021 Scottish Parliament election.

If Scotland becomes independent and then passes the GRR Bill, the logic of Mr Campbell's support for the Westminster veto - which he openly admitted to in absolutely crystal-clear fashion last night - is that he would want Scotland to rejoin the United Kingdom so that the grown-ups in London can set us straight once again.  Or perhaps he'd want England to launch a White Knight Invasion and repeal the Bill to save us from ourselves.  That is not the position of an independence supporter.  If you think MSPs have got it wrong, then at the next election you elect MSPs who will put the mistake right.  That's how parliamentary democracy in any self-governing country works.

By the way, anyone concerned at the standard of MSPs such as Emma Roddick and Maggie Chapman should take a closer look at some of the Tory and Labour lobby fodder in the House of Commons before concluding that the grass is greener down in the metropolis. And although I'm certainly no admirer of Ms Roddick myself, I remain deeply concerned at the overtones of some of the attacks on her from Wings and others, which seem to imply that anyone with a diagnosed personality disorder should automatically be regarded with hostility, suspicion and derision, and should have no place in our parliament.

UPDATE: I see that Mr Campbell has deliberately misled his readers today by yet again trotting out his fraudulent and long-debunked graph which falsely claims that support for independence has remained static on 47% since Nicola Sturgeon became First Minister.  To read a detailed explanation of how and why Mr Campbell's graph is a lie, and to discover the real trend on independence support over recent years (there have actually been considerable shifts in public opinion from year to year), please click HERE. 

Pro-indy politicians who loathe the GRR Bill should take care not to lose the room by appearing to be on the wrong side of a dispute between Scottish democracy and Westminster diktat

Out of curiosity, I ran a Twitter poll last night to ask whether people supported the UK Government in vetoing a Bill passed by the elected Scottish Parliament.  I wasn't entirely sure what the result would be, because when I've run Twitter polls in the past, it's been clear that my followers are roughly evenly split between sympathies for the SNP and Alba, and of course we know that Alba supporters are generally extremely hostile to the GRR Bill.

The poll still has a few hours to run, but as of 2pm, here are the provisional results -

Regardless of your opinion of the GRR Bill, do you support or oppose the UK Government vetoing a Bill passed by the elected Scottish Parliament?

Support: 14.5%

Oppose: 85.5%

Now, of course this is an unscientific, self-selecting poll, but it does suggest that a very large chunk of committed independence supporters who loathe the GRR Bill are nevertheless opposed to the UK Government vetoing it.  And that shouldn't be a major surprise, because committed independence supporters are first and foremost opposed to London rule in Scotland, and there can hardly be a more extreme example of the exercise of raw London colonial power in Scotland than the vetoing of a Bill that has been properly passed by the elected Scottish Parliament.

I'd suggest there's a timely warning here for pro-indy politicians, both inside and outside of Alba, who are tempted to publicly welcome the veto because of how they feel about the GRR Bill.  We've yet to see polling evidence of how the wider public have reacted to the veto, but if committed indy supporters generally abhor it - which seems to be the case - that's what matters for a party like Alba, because that's the pool in which they're seeking votes.  There's a big danger of losing the room by seeming to be on the wrong side of a dispute between Scottish parliamentary democracy and Westminster diktat.  

Nobody is suggesting that people who hate the GRR Bill, for very good reasons, should dishonestly shed tears for its demise.  But there's nothing to be gained from going to the other extreme and being publicly seen to celebrate or gloat about the outrageously anti-democratic way that the Bill has been thwarted.  You're not going to win over pro-independence converts by indicating that you prefer Tory ministers in London to be making decisions for Scotland, rather than elected Scottish ministers.  Or by giving the impression that you're glad that the Tories are in power to be able to make such a decision.  Or by claiming that the Tories simply had no choice but to do what they did (that's most certainly not true, by the way). Or by asserting that it was somehow the Scottish Parliament's own fault that London overruled it.  Or by saying that the onus is on the Scottish Parliament to sort out the mess by coming into compliance with London's wishes.  That is not going to sound to anyone like the sort of things a pro-independence party would or should be saying.

For my money a much better tack is simply to note that, while it's a good thing that the GRR Bill will not be coming into force, the ends do not justify the means, and the Tories should get their hands off Scottish democracy and let us make our own decisions - including our own mistakes.  And it could also be pointed out to the SNP leadership that they bear some responsibility for this outcome due to their failure to push urgently for independence over the last seven years.  There would have been no Westminster vetoes in an independent Scotland.  

There's actually no downside to saying any of the above, because the Tory veto isn't going to go away just because you condemn it.  You can have the quiet satisfaction of knowing self-ID isn't coming into force for the foreseeable future, while not needlessly taking a hit for being associated with the way in which that happened.  You didn't cause the veto, so why the hell would you want to take responsibility for it?

Everyone knows that I oppose the #GRRBill because it lacks adequate safeguards to protect the rights of women, girls & #LGB people. However, the problem is made in Scotland & should be fixed in Scotland.

— Joanna Cherry KC (@joannaccherry) January 17, 2023

*  *  *

If you'd like to help Scot Goes Pop continue in some form, donations are welcome HERE.

The Scottish Government have used apocalyptic language to justify the absolute necessity of the GRR Bill. Surely, therefore, London's veto of the Bill creates a "human rights emergency" that MUST now be addressed by an urgent push towards independence?

So it's official.  For the first time in the twenty-four year history of devolution, the UK Government will use an obscure power that was generally assumed to be merely theoretical to veto a law passed entirely properly by the elected Scottish Parliament.  Not to challenge it in the courts, but to literally veto it with the flourish of a pen, thus putting Holyrood firmly in its place as a subordinate legislature - a far cry from the post-indyref claim that it was "the most powerful devolved parliament in the world".  And although the veto is potentially subject to judicial review, the smart money is that the courts will uphold it.

Let me put this to the Scottish Government.  You didn't think the loss of freedom of movement with European countries was a big enough emergency to warrant an urgent push towards independence.  You didn't think the loss of access to the EU Single Market was a big enough emergency to warrant an urgent push towards independence.  You didn't think Scotland's enforced exit from the EU customs union was a big enough emergency to warrant an urgent push towards independence.  You didn't think the post-Brexit power-grab of devolved powers was a big enough emergency to warrant an urgent push towards independence.  You didn't think London's disastrous mishandling of Covid, which needlessly cost hundreds of thousands of lives, was a big enough emergency to warrant an urgent push towards independence.  You didn't think the importance of getting the post-Covid recovery right was a big enough emergency to warrant an urgent push towards independence.  And you didn't even think the UK Government's grotesque priorities in the face of the cost of living crisis was a big enough emergency to warrant an urgent push towards independence.

But you've used some pretty apocalyptic language about the GRR Bill.  Although it would have conferred legal rights that have never previously existed at any point in history, you have argued that, from this point on, the absence of those rights would be totally incompatible with basic human rights and basic human dignity.  You have also argued that voters felt so strongly about the importance of those rights that they marched to the polling stations in May 2021 with the specific intention of rejecting the "bigoted" politicians who opposed the Bill.  And yet without independence, there now seems to be no prospect of those rights ever reaching the statute book in the form that you want, especially in view of the cold water that the London Labour leadership have been suddenly chucking in your direction.  Can we therefore assume that we now at last have a big enough emergency to warrant an urgent push towards independence?  In your own terms: an emergency of the withholding of "basic human rights"?  An emergency of the denial of "basic human dignity"?  A democratic emergency where voters' "rejection of bigots" has been reversed by remote control from London?  Surely it is now unconscionable to wait until 2026 to address these unprecedented emergencies?

A Westminster veto on gender self-ID, combined with Starmer becoming a born-again sceptic on the issue, could be the perfect storm that radicalises the SNP and Green leaderships on independence

In a small way, I was involved in the campaign against legally-recognised gender self-ID, via the Panelbase poll I commissioned just over a year ago.  The hope was always that an opinion poll with balanced, non-leading questions would help wake some MSPs up to the extent of the gulf that had opened up between themselves and public opinion on the gender topic.  But given the scale of the pro-self-ID majority in Holyrood, which extended well beyond the ranks of the SNP and the Greens, it always seemed an extreme long shot to imagine that the campaign would end in self-ID actually being defeated.  When the GRR legislation finally passed just before Christmas, I was left (like many others) with the empty feeling that we needn't have bothered, which I suppose inevitably follows any campaign that ends in failure.  Admittedly there was still the small consolation of feeling confident that we had been (ironically) on the right side of history, and that time would eventually prove that to be the case.

Now, in the ultimate plot twist, it appears from today's Financial Times front page that our campaign may have succeeded after all, and that the legislation will not be permitted to go forward for Royal Assent - and yet that just makes me feel emptier still.  Regardless of what some people might say, it does matter how you achieve your political objectives.  For anyone using perverted logic to suggest a Westminster veto is somehow upholding the will of the Scottish people, please understand that way of thinking simply isn't consistent with a belief in self-governing Scottish parliamentary democracy.  If a mistake is made by the Scottish Parliament, no matter how grievous, the place to clear it up is in the Scottish Parliament.  The solution is not for a colonial master to intervene as some self-appointed God that enforces the will of the people as expressed in opinion polls, but only when it happens to feel like doing so.  The place-man Alister Jack acting as colonial Governor to veto a Bill of the elected Scottish Parliament by means of nothing more than the flourish of his pen will be an unprecedented tragedy for the cause of democratic Scottish self-government.

That said, there may be side-benefits, as I noted the other week.  A veto is likely to radicalise supporters of self-ID on the subject of independence.  Maggie Chapman, perhaps the very worst of the MSP zealots, is quoted in Pink News hyping up the narrative that Sunak is on the verge of triggering a constitutional crisis.  I had previously thought this effect might be tempered by the knowledge that a Starmer government is probably just around the corner and will introduce self-ID across the UK - but the ground is suddenly shifting on that point too.  Having been a fully paid up adherent of the Stonewall ideology, Starmer suddenly seems to be rowing back a little, and is giving every impression of having just been alerted to private polls and focus groups suggesting that his stance could cost him votes. His refusal to even state that he opposes a veto on the legislation is particularly astonishing given that Scottish Labour full-bloodedly supported the Bill, and given that Labour MSPs have been queueing up to state that a veto would be an attack on devolution.  Suddenly Scottish Labour looks once again like a mere branch office of the "whole party", to use Starmer's own withering words.

If Starmer no longer looks like he can be 100% relied upon to deliver full-fat self-ID, then forget about Peter A Bell - it could be Maggie Chapman who will be the keenest proponent of UDI going forward.

*  *  *

If you'd like to help Scot Goes Pop continue in some form, donations are welcome HERE.

A warning from the future

Fresh constitutional chaos as no-one can agree on whether Scotland has just voted for independence or not

by Pamela Molly Bannatyne

- Edinburgh, Friday 3rd May 2024

Hopes that yesterday's general election could resolve the long-running constitutional stand-off over Scottish independence took a knock early this morning as results came in.  The Scottish National Party (SNP) defied the expectations of many pundits by surging to 51 seats north of the border - even more than the 48 they won in their 2019 landslide.  They also increased their share of the Scotland-wide popular vote from 45.0% to 47.4%.  Crucially, two other pro-independence parties, the Scottish Green Party and Alex Salmond's Alba Party, grabbed 2.4% and 0.6% of the vote respectively, meaning that the combined vote for pro-independence parties slightly exceeds 50%. Since all three parties had declared the election to be a "de facto referendum on independence", First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is expected to claim later today that a mandate for independence has been secured, and to demand that the UK Government enter into immediate negotiations on an independence settlement.

However, unionist parties have already rubbished this claim.  Their objections are mostly centred upon the SNP's insistence prior to the election that votes for the Alba Party should not count towards the pro-independence tally.  This appears to have been intended as a tactic to deter independence-supporting voters from drifting away from the SNP in the small number of constituencies where Alba had put up candidates.  But it may have backfired badly, because Alba's modest vote effectively holds the balance, with the SNP and Greens alone only having secured a combined vote of 49.8%.  Pamela Nash of anti-independence group Scotland in Union was dismissive of what she described as "Nicola Sturgeon's attempt to shift the goalposts after the game is already over".  She pointed out that the plan to exclude Alba votes had been indirectly announced by the SNP's National Executive Committee as long ago as 14th January 2023.

But Mike Russell, President of the SNP, angrily retorted that the constitutional future of Scotland was not a game.  "Independence is a matter for the people of Scotland," he commented.  "It's not a private cricket match between a closed group of politicians who can decide 'the rules' between them.  There can be no credible doubt that the people who voted Alba yesterday intended to express their backing for independence, every bit as much as the people who voted SNP and Green.  That's what matters, not the minutiae of what individual politicians may or may not have said before the election."

There were also growing signs of recriminations from independence supporters who feel Nicola Sturgeon's vendetta against her predecessor Mr Salmond has led her to make a "catastrophic unforced error" which may have needlessly called into question what would otherwise have been a clear-cut mandate.  But some SNP parliamentarians seemed almost relieved that the UK Government may now have a ready-made excuse for disregarding the pro-independence majority.  One MP, who asked not to be named, said he hoped the election outcome would come to be seen as "a small but important incremental step in a long-term process that may eventually result in independence one day".  He added: "The last thing we should be doing now is forcing the issue.  Remember the tortoise beat the hare in the end.  Let's keep the heid!"

SNP activist Marcus Carslaw agreed.  "Gradualism has served the Yes movement extremely well over the last eighty years, and frankly I can't wait for the next eighty. Slowly slowly catchy monkey."

Controversial Wings Over Scotland blogger Stuart Campbell reacted furiously. "Women can't have beards," he thundered.

Meanwhile, many Scottish political commentators are speculating that independence will now be an issue settled by the 2029 general election.  "That's what we expected all along," said one prominent columnist, although his recollection was disputed by a colleague sympathetic to independence, who suggested that journalists had been predicting for several years that whichever election happened to be "the next but one" would be decisive.

If presented with a straight choice between the two options that the SNP's NEC set out today, I would without doubt choose Westminster 2024 as the de facto referendum, in spite of the disadvantages of a limited franchise. Waiting until 2026 - an entire decade after the EU referendum - would be totally unacceptable.

When the Tories completed their "taking stock" exercise in 1993, presenting a ragtag collection of cosmetic procedural changes (mostly involving the Scottish Grand Committee) as an answer to the Scottish people's desire for political devolution, Canon Kenyon Wright memorably replied as if he was marking an exam paper: "Interesting, but appears to have misunderstood the question."  Those words popped into my head today when I saw the outcome of the SNP's NEC meeting.  The SNP leadership would probably argue that they've listened to the concerns of those who think using a Westminster election as a de facto referendum would be a mistake, on the grounds that it would exclude 16 and 17 year olds, EU citizens, plus anyone who falls foul of the outrageous new photo ID rules.  So an alternative to the main plan has now been proposed, which would see a Holyrood election used as the de facto referendum instead - but crucially, it would wait until the next scheduled Holyrood election in 2026.  That's no use at all to the people who were actually arguing for a Holyrood de facto referendum, because they almost uniformly expected it to be a snap election held this year.  There was never any intention that it should be used as an excuse for yet more delay.  

Although I firmly believe that it is strategically wiser to use a Holyrood election, if I was confronted with a straight choice between the two options the SNP have set out today, I would undoubtedly choose the Westminster 2024 option, in spite of all the disadvantages of a narrower franchise.  By far the most important consideration is to ensure a timely vote.  If we wait until 2026, it means the people of Scotland will not be given a choice on independence until a full decade after they learned they were to be dragged out of the EU against their will.  None of us should consider that remotely acceptable.

However, there are two big plus points here.  Firstly, the NEC paper embraces the possibility of amendments at the special conference - so, in theory, delegates may yet be able to bring the option of a snap Holyrood election to the table, although given the control-freakery that the SNP leadership have become known for, I'll believe that when I see it.  And secondly, in spite of the way some people are reacting tonight, there has at least been no climbdown from the principle of a de facto referendum - both of the main options would see a de facto referendum take place, albeit in one case it would take place far too late.

By far the weakest part of the paper is the nonsense built into the alternative option about the 2024 Westminster election being used to obtain yet another mandate for a referendum (that would be the fifth!). Only if that mandate is ignored would the 2026 Holyrood election be used as a de facto plebiscite.  That creates a completely unnecessary additional hurdle.  There's no reason why the 2026 election can't be used regardless of the outcome of the 2024 election.  2026 will be a standalone election and its result will speak just as powerfully no matter what happened in 2024.  Why muddy the waters if the SNP win a majority of Westminster seats in 2024 but not a majority of the popular vote?

And there's also a needless sentence in the paper about how votes for other pro-independence parties will be counted towards the 50% + 1 target in a plebiscite election, but only if the SNP have entered into a pre-arrangement with those parties.  That caveat is obviously only there to exclude Alba, and it really is idiotic beyond words.  As you know, I don't think Alba should be intervening and risking a split in the vote in a plebiscite election conducted under first-past-the-post, but if they do, they could potentially take 0.5% or 1% of the vote, and excluding that from the pro-indy tally could needlessly convert a victory into a defeat.  Talk about the SNP shooting the independence campaign in the foot.

*  *  *

If you'd like to help Scot Goes Pop continue in some form, donations are welcome HERE.

WINGS-WATCH: Campbell yet again trots out his dodgy graph falsely claiming Yes support has flatlined on 47% since the indyref - even though it has been comprehensively debunked multiple times

Stuart Campbell is back to blogging about opinion polls today, which - as inevitably as night follows day - means that he's trotted out some cynical lies.  Fortunately, our much-requested Wings-Watch fact-checking service is on hand to set the record straight yet again.

Once again we must start with Campbell's Lib Dem-style dodgy graph which falsely claims that support for independence has remained absolutely static on 47% since just after the independence referendum.  I've comprehensively debunked that graph many times before, but it looks like I'll just have to keep doing it every so often, because he's determined to treat his readers with utter contempt by telling them the exact same lie over and over and over again.  Below you'll find the real figures for independence support in recent times, which as you can see actually show substantial changes from year to year.  The annual averages for conventional polling are now updated with the final average for 2022, which saw Yes fall shy of the 50% mark by just 0.2 percentage points.

Yearly support for Scottish independence in the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey:

2014:  33%

2016 (a):  39%

2016 (b):  46%

2018:  45%

2020:  51%

2021:  52%

Average yearly support for independence in conventional opinion polling:

2016:  47.7%

2017:  45.3%

2018:  45.5%

 

2019:  47.6%

2020:  53.0%

2021:  49.6%

2022:  49.8%

(For the sake of simplicity, the above figures use any poll included in Wikipedia's main list of independence polls.  There are up to five surveys for the Scottish Election Study - two from 2022 and three from 2021 - that arguably should be in Wikipedia's list but aren't.  However, there may be sound reasons for excluding them which I'm not aware of, so I'll just stick with the list.)

Incidentally, there's no alibi of ignorance for Campbell in repeating his discredited claim.  He's almost certainly seen the previous posts in which I debunked his graph, because he occasionally attempts to leave comments on Scot Goes Pop, and did so as recently as two or three nights ago.  (The comments are invariably abusive, so I tend to leave them in the moderation queue.)  Oh, and for his two adoring fans who tried to question my mental stability this week because of what they seemed to think was my absurdly improbable claim that Campbell was attempting to leave anonymous comments and that I could tell it was him from his writing style - nice try, guys, but he freely confirmed his identity in the final comment.

Not content with just one dodgy graph, Campbell also presents us with a second, which purports to show that support for independence was around 24% in May 2007 when Alex Salmond became First Minister (although that was almost three years after Mr Salmond started his second stint as SNP leader), rose to 50% by November 2014 when Mr Salmond handed over to Nicola Sturgeon, and slightly declined to what appears to be around 48% or 49% in November 2022.  The latter figure is an outright lie - every poll conducted in November 2022 had Yes over 50% once Don't Knows were excluded. Campbell can't use the sleight of hand of saying he left Don't Knows in, because that would make a nonsense of the graph's claim that Yes was on 50% in November 2014 - no poll conducted that month had Yes higher than 46% prior to the exclusion of Don't Knows.  And chucking in the 24% figure from 2007 is an absolutely fatuous apples-and-oranges comparison, because it comes from the Social Attitudes Survey, which cannot be compared with conventional polling because it uses a completely different methodology, including a multi-option question format.  It has always produced wildly different results, and indeed wildly different yearly trends, from conventional polling.  If Campbell's graph had been consistent by following up the 2007 figure with the comparable Social Attitudes Survey results from 2014 and 2021 (the latter being the most recent survey), it would have shown a rise from 24% to 33% under Alex Salmond between 2007 and 2014, and then an even bigger rise from 33% to 52% under Nicola Sturgeon between 2014 and 2021.  

The other way Campbell could have achieved consistency in the graph is by using conventional polling throughout.  That would have meant using a far, far higher starting point for Yes in 2007.  An average of TNS polls in 2007 had Yes on around 47% with Don't Knows excluded, or around 39.5% with Don't Knows left in.

Campbell sometimes styles himself as a "journalist", and indeed his supporters often laud him to the skies as "the best journalist in Scotland".  Well, I'd invite you to check everything I've said above.  It's all in the public domain and you'll be able to verify that the points I've made are accurate.  Then be honest with yourself about whether or not Campbell's graphs can be considered "journalism".  If you think they can, I'd gently suggest the only type of "journalism" you can really have in mind is the grotesque parody of the profession that has left the credibility of the mainstream Scottish media in tatters over recent years.  The sole purpose of the graphs is to deliberately convince people that a lie is true.  And, what's more, it works.  Many Wings readers regularly parrot Campbell's lies about polling as if they were indisputable gospel.  I make no apology whatever for confronting Wings readers with the factual reality - even though in some cases they really, really don't want to hear it.

Alister Jack's direct lie that "Scotland does not want to be part of the European Union" is so brazenly at odds with every available piece of polling evidence that it's almost comical

I see that Alister Jack has claimed that "Scotland does not want to be part of the European Union" and "there's no desire in Scotland to have membership of the EU".  This made my ears prick up, because a couple of years ago I decided to use one of the Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase polls to ask an incredibly simple question.

Should Scotland rejoin the European Union? (Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll, 1st-5th June 2020)

Yes 60%

No 40% 

I don't know how else to put this, other than that Scotland clearly does want to be part of the European Union, there plainly is a desire in Scotland to have membership of the EU, and that therefore it is beyond dispute that Alister Jack has told a direct lie.  What makes it more incredible is that Jack was responding to a question from Philippa Whitford in which she cited even more recent polling evidence that support for rejoining the EU is close to 70% in Scotland.

Remember a few weeks ago Adam "IT'S THE LAW!!!!" Tomkins panicked a bit at the implications of the Supreme Court verdict and his own knee-jerk triumphalist response to it, and rowed back by insisting that there was still a democratic route to independence in the form of opinion polls?  We didn't need all these new-fangled referendums and elections, he assured us, because we could be sure that if opinion poll evidence showed consistent support for independence, the UK Government would out of Sheer Plain Good Old British Decency acknowledge that reality and act accordingly.  Well, to be blunt, Adam, that theory is not really reconcilable with your own party's Secretary of State for Scotland making "black is white" claims when opinion polls in fact show sustained and overwhelming majority support for Scotland's return to the EU.  The figures are not even close to being within the margin of error.

The only caveat Jack put on his lie was that Scots oppose the EU "when they stop and look at the detail" - which perhaps implies that inconvenient opinion poll results can always be discounted because respondents haven't stopped to look at the detail.  The antidote to hasty responses to opinion polls is of course to allow voters to make considered decisions via referendums or elections.  But if the UK Government isn't going to allow referendums because now is not the time and never will be, and isn't going to recognise election results as valid because opinion polls will suffice, and isn't going to accept the results of opinion polls because poll respondents don't think about things properly like they would if they were voting in an election or referendum, then the Scottish people are trapped in a Kafkaesque world in which democracy no longer exists.

*  *  *

If you'd like to help Scot Goes Pop continue in some form, donations are welcome HERE.

Einstein said the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results - but that won't stop the SNP's NEC considering the possibility on Saturday

According to the Herald, the SNP's NEC will on Saturday consider the following options for "fleshing out" Nicola Sturgeon's plan for a de facto independence referendum -

1) Use the next Westminster election, expected next year, as a de facto independence referendum.

2) Use the next scheduled Holyrood election as a de facto independence referendum - which would mean waiting until 2026, a full decade after Scotland learned in 2016 it was to be dragged out of the EU against its will.

3) Bring about an early Holyrood election well before 2026, and use that as a de facto independence referendum.

4) Use the next Westminster election "to campaign on the issue of Scotland's right to choose how it is governed".

You'll probably have spotted the odd one out here.  Options 1-3 all genuinely flesh out the de facto referendum plan, while option 4 does a screeching U-turn on the plan, abandons it completely, and thus betrays an independence movement which had been given a cast-iron promise that a credible Plan B was in place to cover the danger that the Supreme Court would rule against the Scottish Government.  To state the obvious, using an election to "campaign on Scotland's right to choose" is not a de facto independence referendum, and it's not a remotely credible Plan B because it's already been tried umpteen times and it's proved to be utterly ineffective.  Let's just recap on the previous occasions it's been attempted...

* In 2016, the SNP won a Holyrood election on a manifesto stating that Scotland should have the right to hold a second independence referendum in the event of Brexit.  Westminster ignored this mandate.

* In 2017, the SNP won a Westminster election on a manifesto stating that a majority of seats would complete a "triple-lock mandate" for an independence referendum.  Westminster ignored this mandate.

* In 2019, the SNP won a Westminster election with dramatic seat gains on a manifesto promising to press ahead with an independence referendum.  Westminster ignored this mandate.

* In 2021, the SNP won a Holyrood election on a manifesto making a dual commitment to a referendum and to Scotland's right to choose (the main slogan was "Scotland's Future is Scotland's Choice, and nobody else's").  Westminster ignored this mandate.

Literally the only difference with these previous occasions is that if we seek another mandate for a referendum or for the right to choose, we no longer have the threat up our sleeves that the rejection of a Section 30 order might just lead to a consultative referendum without the UK Government's consent.  So this time the UK Government would be even more relaxed and unconcerned about ignoring the mandate.

And yet in spite of our unprecedented lack of leverage, the proponents of Option 4 expect us to believe, for some unspecified reason, that it'll be fifth time lucky.  So either Einstein had a point, or these people know perfectly well that they are punting a dud option that would be a dead end for the independence cause, and moreover, that is exactly why they are so enthusiastic about it.

If the SNP NEC are foolish enough to scrap the de facto referendum plan by adopting Option 4, I suspect it would be one U-turn and one betrayal too many for a large number of SNP members and voters.  The trust would be gone forever - not trust in the SNP as a party, but in the current leadership.

*  *  *

If you'd like to help Scot Goes Pop continue in some form, donations are welcome HERE.

Survation's propaganda polling for "Scotland in Dungeon" is BACK - and it shows support for Scotland "leaving the United Kingdom" has held up since September, with the SNP on course for another landslide win at the UK general election

You won't be surprised to hear that the "Scottish" Daily Express has lied through its teeth yet again today about Scottish independence polling.  It's told its readers that a poll shows that support for staying in the UK has "soared", in a "devastating blow" for Nicola Sturgeon - but in fact the poll does not show anything even remotely like that, it actually shows a completely unchanged position since the previous poll in September.  It's the latest in the regular series of propaganda polls that Survation conduct for Scotland in Union (amusingly dubbed "Scotland in Dungeon" by a reader of this blog) using a loaded question intentionally designed to give the false impression that support for independence is much lower than it actually is.

Should Scotland remain in the United Kingdom or leave the United Kingdom? (Survation / Scotland in Union, 22nd December 2022 - 1st January 2023)

Remain: 59% (-)

Leave: 41% (-)

This question always, absolutely always, produces lower support for the so-called "Leave" option than the "Yes" option receives in genuine independence polls.  There are a number of plausible explanations for this phenomenon, and in my view the most likely is that the reference to "the United Kingdom" leads a significant minority of respondents to wrongly think they're being asked a question about the monarchy.  Other possibilities are that respondents are getting mixed up with the Brexit issue due to the "Remain/Leave" formulation, or that they can see that they're not actually being asked about independence at all.  "Leaving the UK" does not automatically result in outright independence (Jersey, for example, is not independent but it's not in the UK either), and there's no particular reason for anyone to infer that independence is the subject of the poll unless the question spells that out.

I've said this before, but I remain baffled as to why Survation have allowed themselves to get embroiled in this type of disreputable propaganda polling.  My impression of them is that they take a particular pride in avoiding loaded, biased or misleading question wordings, and yet that seems to go completely out of the window every few months when Scotland in Dungeon come calling.  Perhaps SiD pay some sort of "push-poll premium", or maybe there's some other explanation, although I can't imagine what it would be.

If anyone feels that the latest blatant lie from the Express warrants a complaint to the press regulator under the accuracy clause of the Editors' Code, here is the form you'll need.  The only conceivable excuse I can see for the Express is that there were fewer Don't Knows in this poll than in the September poll, meaning that in the figures including Don't Knows, both the 'Remain' and 'Leave' vote has risen.  However, the Editors' Code specifies that headlines should be supported by the text of the article, and that isn't the case here - the only version of the figures the Express give in the article is the one with Don't Knows stripped out, which show no increase at all in the 'Remain' vote.

Believe it or not, the poll isn't completely useless, because it did ask for Westminster and Holyrood voting intentions using standard questions (although there's the traditional problem with Survation polls that the SNP always seem to be understated on the Holyrood list vote).

Scottish voting intentions for the next UK general election:

SNP 44% (-)

Labour 31% (-1)

Conservatives 16% (+1)

Liberal Democrats 6% (-)

Greens 1% (n/a)

Reform UK 1% (n/a)

Seats projection: SNP 48 (-), Labour 7 (+6), Liberal Democrats 2 (-2), Conservatives 2 (-4)

Scottish Parliament constituency ballot:

SNP 44% (-1)

Labour 29% (-1)

Conservatives 16% (+2)

Liberal Democrats 8% (+2)

Greens 1% (n/a)

Alba 1% (n/a)

Reform UK 1% (n/a)

Scottish Parliament regional list ballot:

SNP 33% (+2)

Labour 26% (-1)

Conservatives 15% (+1)

Greens 12% (-2)

Liberal Democrats 9% (-)

Alba 2% (+1)

Reform UK 2% (-)

UKIP 1% (-)

Seats projection: SNP 62 (-2), Labour 32 (+10), Conservatives 17 (-14), Greens 11 (+3), Liberal Democrats 7 (+3)

Although pro-indy parties are falling a little short of an outright majority of the popular vote - which of course will matter hugely in a de facto referendum - I think the SNP will be pretty happy with these numbers.  In the context of a massive GB-wide Labour lead, it's pretty creditable for the SNP to maintain a double-digit lead in Scotland.  Labour have made some progress north of the border, but they seem to have been more or less stuck for several weeks, and are perhaps even going backwards very slightly.  There's no sign yet of a really telling Labour breakthrough.

*  *  *

If you'd like to help Scot Goes Pop continue in some form, donations are welcome HERE.