Not Scexit but Scenduk

Over recent months there has been a concerted attempt by the frothier – read ‘deranged’ – end of the “Rule Britannia, God Save the King, Keep out migrants, we hate nationalism when it’s Scottish” types in social media and newspaper comments sections to get the term ‘scexit’ established as the preferred term for Scottish independence. This is getting more insistent as opinion polling continues to show that support for independence is in the lead and the British nationalist troll account which calls itself ‘The Majority’ is in fact ‘The Minority.’ Today the fifth poll in succession gave a lead to Yes, with now even the traditionally No-friendly YouGov putting support for independence up 4% on 53% once don’t knows are excluded.

The moon howlers of British nationalism use the term ‘scexit’ because they see it as a pejorative. The word independence has positive connotations and the diehard supporters of Anglo-British supremacism cannot permit anything that might portray a Scotland that is in charge of its own affairs in a positive light. Naturally they seek to use a term which is Anglocentric not Scottocentric. Independence centres Scotland and Scottish aspirations, ‘Scexit’ like ‘separation’ centres the British state. It implies that the important consideration is the act of ‘leaving’, not the end state of independence. It’s like describing emigrating to a better life in the sun as a trip to the airport. It’s a term which puts Scotland in a subordinate position, the very antithesis of what independence is all about.

It is however richly ironic that the same people who champion Brexit are trying to get a term derived from the word Brexit established in Scotland as a negative alternative to the standard term independence because they understand that Brexit is widely reviled in Scotland and is seen by a large majority to be a dismal failure. But then logical consistency is not the strong suit amongst people who take to social media accounts bedecked with flags and declarations of loyalty to a monarch in order to tell us all how much they hate nationalism.

However the preferred neologism of the staunch mob will however never catch on beyond the narrow confines of GB News – which apparently stands for Gammon Bampot News, and the RANDOM capitalisations of the Express, a publication which regularly and knowingly publishes misleading and false stories – such as an interview from beyond the grave with the ghost of Princess Diana – and yet still insists that it’s a newspaper.

In no small measure this is because independence is the standard English word for the state a nation finds itself in when it ceases to be a political dependency of another country, no one talks about the Ausxit of Australia or the American declaration of Usaxit. The idiotic word Scexit attempts to make out, entirely falsely, that independence for Scotland is somehow conceptually and qualitatively different from the independence of any other nation that takes the step of becoming an independent state. It’s a bit like insisting that a bus is no longer a bus because it is carrying a Scottish set of passengers, everyone can see that that would be a nonsense, and a nonsense is exactly what the word Scexit is.

But even on its own terms the word fails. At its core it attempts to draw an equivalence between the UK leaving the European Union, and Scotland becoming an independent state once more. Yet the equivalence fails. The British state wields far vastly greater power over Scotland than the European Union ever did over the UK. The UK could and did negotiate opt outs from EU policies which it found politically unacceptable, such as the single currency or the Schengen Zone. Scotland gets no opt outs from what Westminster determines, it just has to, in the words of Alister Jack, “suck it up.”

The UK was already an independent state prior to Brexit and did not need to seek the permission of Brussels in order to hold a referendum on the question of British membership of the EU. Scotland, as the proponents of Brexit are very fond of asserting, does require the permission of Westminster in order to hold a referendum on independence. The EU is a voluntary union of nations in which each member has equal status and a voice in making decisions which affect them. The UK is not. The UK is a unitary state which lies about being a voluntary union of nations and in which the smaller nations do what the largest nation decides .

Another crucial distinction is that when the Brextremists hijacked the narrow leave vote to impose their hardline version of Brexit, they stripped European citizenship from all British citizens, leavers and remainers alike. Scottish independence will not strip British citizenship from residents of Scotland who are currently British citizens. The parliament of an independent Scotland does not have the power to decide who is or is not a British citizen, only the British government can do that. In the exact same way the government of an independent Scotland cannot decide who gets to be a Danish or a Greek citizen, only Denmark and Greece can make those decisions. If, following Scottish independence, British citizens in Scotland lose their right to British citizenship, that can only be as a result of a decision made by the British government, not the Scottish one. Unlike Brexit, Scottish independence will not result in anyone being stripped of their citizenship against their will.

The use of the joke word Scexit is a crude and blatant attempt by Anglo-British nationalist supremacists to gaslight Scotland into fearing that an independent Scottish Government will behave exactly as the English nationalist Brextremists of Westminster have done.

But there is yet another reason why the word Scexit is an idiocy and anyone who uses it to argue against Scottish independence should be dismissed as a fool. The departure of the UK from the European Union left the EU down one member but still intact. Scotland becoming independent does not leave the UK intact. Scotland becoming independent does not mean ‘leaving’ the UK, it means ending the UK. The polity that remains after Scottish independence can call itself what it likes, but it is no longer the United Kingdom in any meaningful sense. The United Kingdom was so called because two kingdoms united, the Kingdom of Scotland, and the Kingdom of England and its crown dependencies. After Scottish independence all that is left is the Kingdom of England, trying to tell itself it is still the United Kingdom, even as Wales thinks of following Scotland’s example and Irish reunification gets ever closer. After Scottish independence there is no UK any more.

But if they insist on silly made up words for Scottish independence, then at very least be accurate about it. It’s not Sc.exit, it’s Scotland will not be exiting the United Kingdom, it will be ending it.


albarevisedMy Gaelic maps of Scotland are still available, a perfect gift for any Gaelic learner or just for anyone who likes maps. The maps cost £15 each plus £7 P&P within the UK. You can order by sending a PayPal payment of £22 to (Please remember to include the postal address where you want the map sent to).

I am now writing the daily newsletter for The National, published every day from Monday to Friday in the late afternoon.  So if you’d like a daily dose of dug you can subscribe to The National, Scotland’s only pro-independence newspaper, here: Subscriptions from The National

This is your reminder that the purpose of this blog is to promote Scottish independence. If the comment you want to make will not assist with that goal then don’t post it. If you want to mouth off about how much you dislike the SNP leadership there are other forums where you can do that. You’re not welcome to do it here.

You can help to support this blog with a PayPal donation. Please log into and send a payment to the email address Or alternatively click the donate button below. If you don’t have a PayPal account, just select “donate with card” after clicking the button.

Donate Button

100 comments on “Not Scexit but Scenduk

  1. Paul, you surpass even yourself with this piece.
    I doubt that BBC STV or SKY will use ‘Scexit’ ever again.
    Job Done.

    We ask no one’s ‘permission’ to take our country back.
    least of all ba’ faced wee Nobodies lurking about in Holyrood, or in the Northern Territory sub offices of the English Blue Red and yellow English parties.

    There is no going back now.
    And, boy, do they know it.
    It’s -5 degrees in England as I type.
    Watch the fur fly when Middle englanders get their next fuel bill.
    We are heading for a UK GE early next spring.
    We play their FPTP game.
    If pro independence parties return a majority of MPs, that’s the settled will of the Scottish People.
    Brexit was foisted on all 4 nations on the back of a 43% Blue Tory 88 seat majority ‘landslide’.
    That’s the bench mark.
    Of course the Colonial power will still say No…
    Puis le déluge.
    Excellent editorial, sir.

    • keaton says:

      If pro independence parties return a majority of MPs, that’s the settled will of the Scottish People.
      Brexit was foisted on all 4 nations on the back of a 43% Blue Tory 88 seat majority ‘landslide’.
      That’s the bench mark.

      You think Brexit would have happened if Leave had won less than 50% of the UK-wide vote in 2016?

      • Och, keaton, everybody loves a trier.

        I’m not disputing that England voted to Leave the EU; we didn’t by the way.

        My point was that the Far Right Johnson Government imposed a hard Brexit on all of us…no FoM, No free trade, 1.3 million essential EU workers driven from england by Patel’s hostile environment’, and the systematic bonfire of rules and regulations designed to keep us safe, our food no longer subject to rigorous quality tests, and so on.
        We are now held under House Arrest by an English Tory Government for which we did not vote.
        David Mundell is England’s NZ Trade Minister, out there undercutting the farmers in his own constituency..and so on.

        Scotland voted 62% Remain.
        Kinda illustrates our pressing need to dissolve the union with England?

        You know of course that even the xenophobes of England are experiencing buyers’ remorse.

        The logic is sound.

        A FPTP majority of Pro Independence seats, and we dissolve the Union.

        Even Thatcher and Baroness Rape Clause conceded that.

        Otherwise, Sunak’s and Starmer’s cosy little FPTP danse macabre two step falls.

        We are being denied a referendum by an the lawyers of the English Overlord.
        So we are now playing by their rules.

        Ergo, the next UK GE is a de facto plebiscite, London-style. FPTP, and that’s it.

        I refuse to sit around the pot belly stove with you spitting on the hot plate and pointlessly watch it sizzle any more.

        People will die because of inaction.

        There is no going back for their precious union.

        We are, no really we are, taking our country back.
        Have a nice day.

        • Golfnut says:

          51% didn’t represent 51% of those entitled to vote, in fact at least a third of voters didn’t actually vote.

          • Exactly, Golfnut.
            If there were a referendum to bring back hanging and only one million voted, and the capital punishment side won 51% to 49%, would we reintroduce the death penalty?

            ‘The British people’ didn’t vote to leave the EU. 52%(ish) of those who bothered to vote decided.
            PR is the only, well nearly, democratic system.

        • keaton says:

          Ergo, the next UK GE is a de facto plebiscite, London-style. FPTP, and that’s it.

          Well, that’s not really it unless the SNP agree to declare independence on a minority of the vote. Good luck persuading them, I guess.

          • Finished yer homework already, keaton?

          • Golfnut says:

            I don’t see why the people of Scotland or even the party’s that intend to run on a withdrawal from the union vote should be held to a different standard to westminster. Brexit and the hardest of brexit non deal was implemented on a minority vote. The SNP, just 1 of three party’s advocating removing ourselves from the union will no doubt tell us in due course how they intend to run their campaign, it will be up to us to decide whether or not we agree with their stategy.

          • yesindyref2 says:

            Recognise these words Keaton?

            There are some pretty extreme posters on there, intermittently fantasising about violent insurrection or arguing that we should declare independence on a simple majority of FPTP seats. It’s a bit bemusing that they’re so supportive of the middle-of-the-road SNP.

      • Bob Lamont says:

        Why is it you only turn up here to comment when the UK establishment is bricking it ?

      • Ken says:

        Brexit 49%/51%
        Lie upon lie. Black money. Cambridge Analytica. All illegal. EU citizens not allowed to vote. Paying taxes but not allowed to vote. No taxation without representation.

        Some guy living outwith UK giving Johnston £Million. Living outside UK for 20 years. To try and influence Brutish politics.

  2. James Mills says:

    The use of Scexit by the more feral unionists is in the same vein as ‘separatist’ which is a common vituperative used to denigrate independence supporters .
    Their constant references to independence by the likes of DRoss , claiming that WE never stop talking about it , is a sign of their increasing anxiety .

    The abusive terms will continue and become more virulent as the polls continue to defy their expectations ….dissidents , subversives , agitators , terrorists , Scots !

  3. If 52% was ‘overwhelming’ in 2016, what’s 54%*?

    *Post UKSC case average Yes)


    Professor John Curtice said the Supreme Court judgement – which ruled that Holyrood could not hold a referendum without the consent of Westminster – had “not done unionism itself any favours.”

    He told the paper: “On this evidence, just saying ‘no’ to another ballot does not look like a viable long-term strategy for maintaining public support for the Union.”

  5. Scindy? Screedom? ScEU? Scedaddle?

  6. Hamish100 says:

    Still on bbc no mention of a group of polls on independence.

    It is almost if there is a conspiracy of censorship with the state broadcaster.
    Have they never heard of the internet and the www? We can get information from other sources.
    With over 50% of the electorate pro independence makes you wonder how much dark money keeps the britnat papers producing their bile.

  7. Welsh_Siôn says:

    Work in progress …

    God* save us from Yookay

    God save us from Yookay
    God preserve us, okay?
    God save us all!
    Send us victorious,
    Happy and joyous,
    To indy uproarious.
    God help the Yookay!

    * With apologies to atheists and fellow-agnostics

    • Golfnut says:

      Could I suggest ‘ Deil tak the yookay’ as the last line.

      Obviously no fee involved.

      • Welsh_Siôn says:

        AS I said – work in progress. Always grateful for improvements and constructive criticism. (It shows I’m read, at least.)

        Now sing it!

        • Golfnut says:

          Well the Gstq is a bit of dirge and since binning the union is a joyous occassion I’m trying to find a wee tune to fit.
          Suggestions from fellow duggers, please.

          • yesindyref2 says:


            Everybody out the club
            All eyes on us
            All eyes on us
            All eyes on us

            I wanna scream and shout and let it all out
            And scream and shout and let it out
            We sayin’ oh we oh, we oh, we oh
            We sayin’ oh we oh, we oh, we oh
            I wanna scream and shout and let it all out
            And scream and shout and let it out
            We sayin’ oh we oh, we oh, we oh

            • Golfnut says:

              I was thinking more along the lines of a good Scottish marching time like
              ‘ Johnny comes matching home, hurrah, hurrah.
              But that didney fit.

  8. yesindyref2 says:

    If Alister Jack looks like a Scenduk, waddles like a Scenduk and quacks like a Scenduk, then by golly, he IS a Scenduk.

    Vote Scenduk! You know you want to 🙂

  9. I’d imagine that Union Jack has doubled security around the perimeter fence of his 1200 acres now that turnips and carrots are more valuable than gold.

  10. The state of this lol.

    Alex Massie: Scots want independence, just not right now

    ‘Ok, fair enough, you do want indy, but we’ll say no to any ref because we’ve decided you don’t want it right now. ‘

    • Dr Jim says:

      Yeah but no but yeah but no

      Good old Herr Hauptmann Alex Massie still pretending to be a journalist

    • basically, he’s there to spray his readership’s hankies with eau de cologne, and waft it under their twitching noses and whisper, ‘there there, the Jocks don’t know what they want, don’t worry, I’ve got this.’
      He is a dreary wee scribbler…

    • Pogmothon says:

      Tell me y’ll saw this little snip-it in the oh so plausible drivel he wrote.
      “As it is, public spending in Scotland in a typical year already amounts to almost 50
      per cent of onshore GDP.”
      And immediately asked yourselves “okay where’s the other 50% go, and the 100% of Offshore profits where’s that”.
      See the best lies are built around a piece of truth “occam’s razor” is a useful tool whenever a Yoon disturbs the force.

  11. Capella says:

    The Treaty of Union is the only written constitution the UK has. As Paul points out it is an international treaty between the kingdoms of Scotland and England. As such it can’t be a reserved matter because England can’t be the sole arbiter of the terms of the TofU or even whether it is repealed. England is only one party to the Treaty and as some judge (whose name I forget) pointed out the concept of the “Crown in Parliament” is peculiar to the English parliament which was dissolved by the TofU. This has no counterpart in Scottish law and the freedom of Scottish law is preserved by the TofU for “all time coming”.

    We can vote to repeal the TofU any time we choose. No more UK.

  12. yesindyref2 says:

    Okey-dokey, courtesy of a well-known btl poster on Wings, I’ve just started reading it.

    ejiltalk is the “Blog of the European Journal of International Law”

      • yesindyref2 says:

        OK I get it:

        The actual issue for Scotland is therefore not whether it somehow fits into the category of constitutional self-determination. It clearly does. The actual question is whether the central government can unreasonably withhold from such an entity the opportunity to actualize that right through a referendum.

        Basically speaking we’ve misinterpreted the UKSC judgement, all it did was deny a colonial right, NOT the constitutional one. So you could say its integrity emerged intact – except for the usual oath us plebs might have to take:

        “I swear to tell the truth, THE WHOLE TRUTH and nothing but the truth”.

        So actually, it did fail to make a proper judgement, not by what it did say, but by what it omitted.

        Boo, hiss 😦

        • yesindyref2 says:

          I would actually say that the ScotGov, or an MSP, should go ahead and inroduce the Bill anyway, and let the UK Government try to get it struck down. I think they might well fail.

        • yesindyref2 says:

          The thing is also that the constitutional self-determination route is something the UK Government can do absolutely nothing legal about. It could change the Scotland Act as much as it wanted willy-nilly you might say, and it would make absolutely no differemce.

          I also disagree wtih both articles where he suggest the ScotGov and SNP made a mistake with their case and submissions. Constitutional self-determinatio exists, and can not be given away lightly.

          Hdre endeth the Oracle of his bathtub 🙂

        • Golfnut says:

          Nope, the actual question is ‘ can one party to a Treaty lawfully prevent another party to the same treaty from leaving ‘ the answer of course is no.

          • yesindyref2 says:

            That works too.

            Ultimately, the mechanics probably require the repeal of the Acts, and ending the Treaty (probably replacing with a rather more normal and fair one).

            Note the word “fair” …

            • Legerwood says:

              Difficult perhaps to repeal the Acts that ratified the Treaty of Union since the Parliaments that ratified them no longer exist. However, if the Acts are still on the statute books then might be possible but would be drawn out process not least because it would be Westminster that would have to remove them.

              • Welsh_Siôn says:

                Don’t forget Westminster HAS removed (‘repealed’) the so called Acts of Union 1535 and 1542 (aka Laws in Wales Acts) which ‘united’ England with Wales in the 16th century under Henry VIII. (See Schedule 2 Welsh Language Act 1993 – coming into force on 21 December 1993 and 1 February 1994).

                Now, obviously, these particular ‘Acts of Union’ were passed by a solely English Parliament. It was the 1535 Act which gave Wales Westminster parliamentary representation for the first time. The 1542 Act tidied up a few lose ends.

                Now if Westminster PRE-devolution can sign off ‘our’ so-called Acts of Union with a stroke of a pen, then it should be possible for similar ‘Acts of Union’. (The Act of Union 1800 between Great Britain and Ireland has not been repealed in its entirety in the UK – but obviously, the mirror legislation Act of Union (Ireland) Act 1800 – which was passed by the old Irish Parliament – has no status whatsoever in the Republic having been repealed by the Dail.)

            • Golfnut says:

              I agree legerwood, difficult and possibly unlawful. The Union Parliament didn’t attempt any kind of legislation to bring the Acts of Union within its scope by ratifying both acts of union, possibly there were legal difficulties with that and in any case the Treaty and the Acts gave limited authority to the new parliament regards changes to certain sections of the Acts themselves. That’s the bit everybody misses, the Treaty limits the authority of the union parliament which may well have been the motivation for Dicey’s work around.
              Paul’s right of course, a yes vote ends the union and it ends the union parliament. I’ll stop there otherwise the whole thing will become unreadable.

          • grizebard says:

            Yes. Too many people for far too long have let the shared monarchy and the messy implementation back then befuddle the issue. With intent.

        • grizebard says:

          It was quite clear that the SC hid ingloriously behind a tunnel-vision interpretation of one particular UK law. But if this fatuously-named “supreme” body can’t or won’t address constitutional issues that desperately need resolving, not least when given a heaven-sent opportunity to rise to the occasion, who can? Ultimately, it rests with “we, the people”. Just as in 1776.

      • Dennis Smith says:

        Many thanks for posting this. This is by far the best commentary on the SC ruling that I have seen – intelligible to non-lawyers with a bit of judicious skimming.

        The questions “What constitutes a self-determination entity?” and “Does Scotland meet these criteria”? are clearly central to the ongoing debate. And the omens look promising.

    • grizebard says:

      Oh, finally somebody has a go at grasping the constitutional thistle. Hopefully will just be the start. (And thanks for the ref. Haven’t looked it up yet, but I couldn’t help but read it as ejit-talk!)

  13. (Andrew) MICHAEL Bell says:

    By the High Court’s own logic, the United Kingdom already is no more. If Scotland is not, in fact, a ‘Kingdom’ (a whole other conversation!) in its own right, in voluntary union with the Kingdom of England, then self-evidently there can be no union of the two Kingdoms, and the United Kingdom itself is a fiction.

  14. Some yougov VI data.

    They have Westminster VI, but standard, not plebiscite. I’m holding on this as there’s a muckle 8% ‘other’, which will include Green and Alba.

    Holyrood Constituency:
    50% SNP
    25% Lab
    13% Con
    7% Lib
    4% Other

    40% SNP
    24% Lab
    13% Con
    11% Grn
    3% Alba
    3% Other
    =54% or more for Yes parties

    Do you think Nicola Sturgeon is doing well or badly as First Minister?
    52% Well
    39% Badly
    8% DK
    =+13% well NET

    Sturgeon’s net sat up a couple of % / holding steady.

    Incidentally, if you are wondering why SGP gets slightly lower Yes yearly averages than me, I’m really sure it’s because he’s just averaging all polls. That of course gives bias to pollsters that poll more regularly. I remove such bias and take averages of what e.g. Comres got this year from six polls, then that gets the same weighting as one from R&W.

    This is statistically more correct as not doing it is saying that you believe that pollsters who poll more regularly are more accurate. Polling many times with a method that has a bias to one side does not make this go away, but would make it influence your yearly average.

    One accurate poll from one pollster is worth more than 6 from one which is bit off, so best give all equal weight IMO. This is how rolling PoP’s are also done, normally taking the latest poll from each pollster going back a certain period.

    Will update my plots in time, but yearly averages are now:

    2022 – 51.1%
    2021 – 50.2%
    2020 – 53.8&

    We are back up to 53.8% for our 4 polls post UKSC.

    3 years in a row of settled will now, as per the SSAS three-way.

    • yesindyref2 says:

      As long as a pollster fully reveals methodology, then I think different methods are acceptable, and different interpretations. I, for instance, actually disapprove of the idea of weighting completely – statistical sampling should be random and take as is, unweighted.

      • Sure. Generally they all tend do so ok within error close to the day when they’ve run a few and you average these. I just don’t want to give an average for the year that is e.g. 19% Comres and 3% Survation in terms of make-up. That suggests I trust Comres more without any reason why I should.

        The SSAS doesn’t do political weighting and is a pure random sample, unlike online polls. Ipsos too. It has the best historic match to the SSAS.

    • Dr Jim says:

      The UK of England’s government only views polling as relevant when it reveals negative results, when it reveals positive results for Independence those polls are viewed as *snapshots in time* * no more than indicators of moments* *inconsistent polls not to be taken seriously as a reflection of the settled will of the people* and of course the biggy, which is *the only poll that counts is a general election*

      In England a political party that wins a general election by as much as 38% is viewed as an overwhelming success, whereas the SNP winning in Scotland by a consistent 48% + is seen as completely irrelevant because Scotland is not viewed as a country representing the UK or the *British* people

      The upshot of all this is the Tories claim overwhelming political success when only England votes for them and Scotland Wales and the North of Ireland don’t, and when you think about it Scotland and Wales actively vote against the Tories, whereas the North of Ireland can’t vote for either Tory or Labour, so those guys are screwed, and even the unionists in the north of Ireland are screwed Royally by their own Monarchy in supplying them with only the Democratic Undemocratic Plants

    • yesindyref2 says:

      Okey doke. I decided to cut and paste the wikipedia data for 2022 into 25 rows of 7 columns. I then added a column for YES = YES / (YES + NO) to exclude the undecideds.

      Averaging out that column of 25 percentages, I get 49.66% which corresponds to James’s total of 49.7%

      I then sorted the data (25 rows) by Column B – pollster – which actually seemed to work OK. This meant in another column, I could sum each pollster and calculate the average (total / number of polls). This gave me 10 values. I then added them and divided by 10 which gives – 49.40%, which does not match your value of 51.1%. Here’s my results.

      46.74% BMG/Herald (1 poll)
      47.19% Deltapoll/Sun in Scotland (1 poll)
      54.26% FindOutNow/Electoral Calculus (1 poll)
      53.19% Ipsos MORI/STV or themselves (4 polls)
      49.37% Panelbase/Sunday Times or BfS or Alba (5 polls)
      52.13% Redfield & Wilton Strategies (1 poll)
      49.00% Savanta ComRes/Scotsman or Economist (6 polls)
      47.19% Survation/Ballot Box Scotland (1 poll)
      46.43% Techne UK (1 poll)
      48.47% YouGov/Times or TheseIslands (4 polls)

      49.40% Average of 10

      Are you doing things differently? Did you exlude or reweight the 3 polls with less than 1,000, and 1 with 2,000, 1 with 1650?

      Or did you actually go to the data itself, and use unrounded figures as we all should do to be more accurate?

      • Will get back to you, but with morning coffee before I need to work…

        That Techne UK poll isn’t a Scottish one BTW. It’s a small subsample of a UK poll. They quote a max 8.8% error on it as a result. I only include Scottish polls which Prof C puts on his site.

        I have actually included the Deltapoll one, but it’s for over 18’s only, so isn’t representative, at least for an inref. It’s something of a pear to the other apples, which should all be 16+.

      • A quick coffee break look and I found at least one error in the WST data, and the Wikipedia contains some non-Scottish polls (UK subsamples) and some non-standard question results that Prof C doesn’t. Makes me feel I need to check every original table now! Aaargh.

        Also, if the goal is to gauge support for indy, then you’d include any question that wasn’t leading which indicated support for indy, including the SSAS and even that 61% for Yes via election from Findoutnow post UKSC. If you just want to gauge the standard Y/N tomorrow only, you’d need to exclude non-standard, but now you’d not have an indication of how people would actually vote in the originally planned iref and/or by plebiscite, which is what we ultimately want to know as there isn’t a snap iref being held tomorrow, which is what standard Y/N polls are asking about. People answer what’s being asked. Previous polls have shown for example that some people said they’d vote no tomorrow (if an iref was sprung on them), but would vote yes in the planned 2023 one. ‘I’m not wanting to go to the pub tonight as it’s Tuesday, but Saturday is fine’ effect.

        I do have to keep reminding people that Y/N polls don’t gauge support for independence as that’s not what is being asked. What these do is judge who’s ready to vote Yes tomorrow with no indy plan in place etc. This comprises the baseline ‘lost to the union’ ers like us lot, with waves on top sometimes. 2021/22 was baseline only until the UKSC case. Baseline is the most important as it’s those whose will is settled. That’s around 50%, but you can get an answer slightly each way depending on which polls you count as counting!

        The SSAS three-way is actually the most reliable method of determining what people actually want deep down, and that’s indy at 54% (ex DK) since 2019. However, it might underestimate indy relative the binary question on the day as some devoers judge that max is a pipe dream and opt for Yes, as happened in 2014 (39% ex DK became 45%).

        So a balance between an entirely hypothetical vote held ‘tomorrow’ which isn’t happening, at least not until there actually might be one organised for tomorrow, and other indicators such as the SSAS, election plebiscite intention etc, is probably better for the overall purpose.

        I guess we can produce several averages here!

        • yesindyref2 says:

          Yeah, some are 18+ and some 16+ and some probably exclude EU, like for like is virtually impossible. So a PoP is symbolic rather than being a golden errr, something.

          Removing Techne does bring it closer.

          Important thing is to provide a one-liner to indicate method of producing the PoP – then nobody can challenge the result, just debate the methodology. Which is true for ALL statistical reporting, basically. Some reportage even top and tail for instance, the equivalent with polls being “outriders”.

          And, of course, where along the line, do you round?

  15. Dr Jim says:

    If the people of a country by their own democratically elected parliament cannot ask a question of its citizens by legal order of another country (England ) then it’s not a country but a property or territory ruled by dictatorship of that other country

    The only thing distinguishing England from Russia are the bombs and bullets

    At the moment….

  16. Penny continues to drop.

    Poll swing strengthens SNP’s mandate

    John Curtice – Tuesday December 13 2022, 12.01am GMT, The Times

    Many unionists welcomed last month’s judgment from the Supreme Court that the Scottish parliament does not have the authority to hold a ballot on independence. However, that pronouncement has not done unionism itself any favours…

    • Dr Jim says:

      Indeed it has not done them any favours but in their minds it’s enough to justify what they’re about to do next

  17. Hamish100 says:

    And even the bbc don’t report on their guru sir j curtice view on the polls.
    They will need to bring back Smith from the USA to make up for the gone missing in action cook and co.
    As for the GE. It is to be more than 50% = independence talks not for a referendum. Even Curtice can’t sway that one. The majority of Independence and SNP supporters will not accept anything less.

  18. Ken says:

    People who support independence should get out and vote. SNP/SNP every election. Local council, Holyrood, GE. A higher turnout to vote out the opposition. Council 40% turnout, Holyrood 50%+ GE 50/60% Ref 85%. People who support independence should get out and vote SNP every election. Instead of complaining. To vote out the anti-independence opposition. The power is in people’s hands. Use it or lose it. Simple and easy to vote. Take another one along to vote. Higher turnout – higher support.

    Simple, swift and easy.

  19. Luigi says:

    Great article. I’m not so sure that only the rabid Brit Nats will use the “Scexit” term, however. After all, it’s so obvious that the unionist media narrative is going to be “Look how damaging and miserable Brexit was/is……do you want to go through all that pain again?” “Scexit will be Brexit on stilts!”. You just know it’s coming. Why? Because they have nothing left. The argument is lost. They really have nothing left.

  20. Ken says:

    The difference between polling and result is turnout. If people who support Independence went out and voted (SNP/SNP) there would be a higher turnout and a higher support ratio. At every election. Local council.- Hokyrood – GE . Referendum. The results for Ibdependence supporting Parties would be much higher. Apathy is the enemy of Democracy.

    Comparing % election results is is unrealistic without qualification.


    Turnout – system, age qualification. FPTP. D’Hondt.

    SNP etc only operate in Scotland. (4 million electorate). Scotland outvoted 19 to 1 in Westminster. Westminster whole UK participation. Dufferent statitics. Different voting systems. Local council STV. Holyrood list. Screws Democracy. A quota. Etc. Not comparing like with like proportionately. Screws the statistics. Polling methods not regulated. Scews the result to make monies. Censored and fined many times. The piper pays the tune. To manipulate the result. Hedge funds bet on it to make monies. Pays to manipulate the result. Discrepancy between polls and turnout. Not compatible. Or comparable without wualification.

    The power is in the peopke’s hands. Get out and vote. Use it or lose it. Turnout to vote. Higher turnout at every election. Higher support for Independence and the mandate, Get another to vote as well. Simple and easy. Turn out or lose it.

  21. Ken says:

    Scotland outvoted 10 to 1 at Westminster. Westminster elections UK vote/turnout. SNP only operate in Scotland. Statistic outcome different, without qualification,Etc, Not comparing like with like.

  22. The key here is publicity. Scots are waiting to see if England will undo the UKSC wrong and show it’s a democratic friend / partner and not an aggressive imperial occupying enemy, which makes immeadiate indy crucial.

    A one line adjustment to the Scotland act could be done in a jiffy. Sunak?

    The goal here is to double or more the 5% boost that the UKSC ruling just gave. Strike while the iron’s hot as the say.

    SNP reveals new plan to secure indyref2 without Westminster backing

    The SNP is pushing for Holyrood to hold its own referendum on independence after the Supreme Court ruled it needed Westminster’s consent.

    With Yes having shot into majority, the UK and wider global media will pay things more attention. And that’s key to getting Scots to pay attention, which is what the purpose of recent SNP/Green moves have been with the court case now this.

    • Alex Clark says:

      So I take it that this is a plan by the SNP in Westminster to attempt to change the Scotland Act by introducing a Bill down there that is certain to be defeated. That point isn’t made very clear at all in the article and I first read it as the SNP was planning to introduce a bill for a referendum in Holyrood.

      • Capella says:

        Alba have tabled an Early Day Motion and invited the SNP to endorse their St Andrew’s Day Declaration. Kevin McKenna has an article abut this in The National.

        Alba have welcomed Flynn’s rapprochement and have urged the SNP group to sign their Early Day Motion endorsing the St Andrew’s Day Declaration.
        This states: “We the people, elected members and civic organisations of Scotland assert that our nation has the right of self-determination to freely determine our political status and to freely pursue our economic, social and cultural development.
        “Mindful of the Scottish constitutional tradition of the sovereignty of the people, we will democratically challenge any authority or government which seeks to deny us that right.”
        The St Andrew’s Day Declaration epitomises what many Scottish independence supporters would regard as the basic minimum of commitment for any politician at Westminster being paid handsomely to represent them and advocate for them.

      • Capella says:

        Oops – just noticed this from Abbi Garton-Crosbie which is more likely what the Sky article is about:

        SNP bid to amend Scotland Act for Scottish independence referendum

        THE SNP group in Westminster is launching a bid to allow amendments to the Scotland Act so that Holyrood can hold an independence referendum.
        The party is set to use its Opposition Day debate on Wednesday afternoon to bring forward a motion which seeks to take over the House of Commons order paper on January 10, 2023.
        If successful, it would allow the SNP to present a Scotland Act 1998 (Amendment) Bill which would seek to change parts of schedule 5.
        Schedule 5 sets out the matters reserved to the UK Government under the legislation, including the constitution.

        • yesindyref2 says:

          Yup, exactly what it needs to do. Good, they are putting on the pressure as hoped.

          Now we all need to support this as much as possible, posts, articles, the lot!

  23. Nice country, this Brexit Brengland.

    Sunak asylum plan violates international law, UN says

    Rishi Sunak’s plan to deny asylum to migrants arriving in small boats violates international law and undermines Britain’s “humanitarian tradition”, the United Nations has said…

    …Critics condemned the measures as “cruel, ineffective and unlawful” while the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) appealed to Britain “uphold its legal obligations”.

    This comes on the back of Starmer’s plan to electronically tag migrants.

    All useful for showing the world why Scotland wants to leave, and quick.

    Time to #Scedaddle

  24. Ken says:

    The difference between the Polls and turnout is why the polls are often wrong. Especially in a narrow, tight margin of difference. No one can predict turnout. It is up to the Gods. The past can be predicted but not th3 future or the results. Especially in a tight margin difference. People should come out and vote. Instead of complaining and blaming everyone else. The power is in the people’s hands. Use i5 or lose it. Up to them of power of conviction,

    Instead of constantly complaining. Or patronising,

  25. Ken says:

    Tyos Gremlins in the system. Unclear reply box.

    • Capella says:

      I think we got the message Ken – get out and vote!

      • Legerwood says:

        But make your you have appropriate photo ID before you go to vote!
        I think we may have to have a ‘voter photo ID drive akin to the voter registration drives they have had in the USA over the years if the voter photo ID legislation is in place for the next GE. As it stands this requirement for photo ID and the type that is acceptable disadvantages younger voters.

        • yesindyref2 says:

          Perhaps it needs to be crowdfunded for those that can’t afford to get a photo ID – or don’t have an address they can use.

  26. Capella says:

    Alyn Smith is very upbeat about the new mood following the SCUK decision.

    Stephen Flynn’s time as SNP Westminster leader must be short

    Same as all of us SNP MPs at Westminster, we all want to work ourselves out of the place by building the case for independence in Europe and coming home to build a better nation in real-time.

    To boot, I’ve been reshuffled, for the first time in 18 years in politics! I am now delighted to have an expanded role as the Europe and EU Accession Spokesperson for the group. Where I’ve enjoyed the foreign affairs brief, there’s a lot of it, a lot of time in London and in the Chamber covering things, which I’ve done gladly and thoroughly enjoyed…

    So, I feel positive about the role and positive about where the party and Yes movement is right now. The polls are encouraging, the UK Government floundering from one culture war to another as that is all they have, and Labour is emulating them rather than offering anything different. The SNP and independence in Europe are, I believe, looking better and better.

  27. Alex Clark says:

    Some further detail about the SNP plan for a bill to modify the Scotland Act.

    Scottish independence: SNP announces plans for new Bill on independence vote

    The new plans will be announced on Wednesday and seek to take over the House of Commons Order Paper on January 10 next year, and present the SNP’s new Scotland Act 1998 (Amendment) Bill.

    This new Bill aims to amend Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998, which details what Holyrood can and cannot legislate on, which includes “the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England” and “the Parliament of the United Kingdom”.

    The bid to seize control of Commons business is likely to be vehemently opposed by the Government and therefore stands virtually no chance of success.

    Looks like a bit of mischief making to stir things up a bit.

    • Capella says:

      Haha – I just posted that above – not keeping up this morning! Lot of fun to be had at Westminster this week.

    • Dr Jim says:

      Yeah, it’s a stunt to show the House of Commons up for what it is, the English parliament dictatorship, whether it’ll get the desired publicity? that remains to be seen, my guess is the media will hope to bury it under the latest whatever story, or trivialize it as just another goofy mad brained separatist Scottish notion

      It’s what they do

    • yesindyref2 says:

      Multipurpose I think. As well as stirring thing up, it should shut up those who say the SNP MPs are doing nothing – and a little evidence of that working btl on the National article.

      But also more importantly, it actually forces Westminster to legislatively deny Scotland’s right to constitutional self-determination, by voting against such a Bill. At the moment they’ve been able to hide ahint the UKSC judgement “It wasn’t us” – well, not any more.

    • yesindyref2 says:

      Oh, and if this first attempt at the Opposition day debate, is denied, they need to keep doing it, again and again and again and again, till Hoyle turns blue in the face not just the blood.

  28. Dr Jim says:

    The SUN newspaper lost £51 million this year and its company value has been written down to zero by its owners

    These figures show very clearly that as a business the SUN newspaper is completely unviable yet it still exists and is still funded

  29. Welsh_Siôn says:

    Prof Curtice is spouting on the BBC today:

    Has court ruling boosted support for independence?


    A shift of opinion registered in one poll should always be regarded with caution.

    But when a number of polls all record much the same shift, it is highly likely that something has changed.

    Before the Supreme Court pronounced on 23 November that the Scottish Parliament could not legislate for a referendum on independence without the agreement of the UK parliament, most polls of how people would vote in another independence referendum put No narrowly ahead.

    Five polls conducted in September and October on average put No on 51% (once those saying Don’t Know were excluded) while Yes were credited with 49%.

    However, four polls conducted since the Supreme Court judgement have all put Yes ahead – on average by 54% to 46%.


  30. Dr Jim says:

    Kevin McKenna gets more pathetic with the same article rewording every time he writes it, his inability to disguise his attacks on the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon are a sign of desperation that he’s not succeeding in enlarging divisions within folk who support independence for Scotland must be depressing for him

    Who’s paying him for this garbage I don’t know, is it Tories Labour Alba? whoever it is it’s transparently pathetic and I cannot understand why the National gives him space to scribble the same words in a different order week after week

Comments are closed.