The fundamental plank of the devolution settlement is the Sewel Convention, which states that the Westminster government will not interfere with the powers of the Scottish Parliament or intrude upon devolved competencies without the consent of Holyrood. This convention is vital if devolution is to work in a British constitutional system which fetishises the absolute sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament and whose unwritten constitution provides for no clear separation of powers and places no restrictions on the power of the leader of the party which enjoys a majority in the House of Commons.
Devolution can only work if the governing party in Westminster agrees to abide by the self-denying ordinances of the Sewel Convention. Without it, devolution is a dead letter. The importance of the Sewel Convention to the operation of the devolution settlement is such that during the 2014 Scottish independence referendum campaign the Better Together parties pledged to elevate the status of the Sewel provisions from a ‘convention’ reliant upon the willingness of the Westminster government to abide by it to statute and to enshrine it in law, giving Scotland a legal guarantee that the devolution settlement was sacrosanct and it would be placed beyond the ability of any Westminster government to meddle with it or undermine it.
This promise was one of the most important made by the Better Together Campaign, allowing them to assert to Scots that after a No vote, the future of devolution would be assured and legally protected, as such it was instrumental in swinging a No vote in the independence referendum.
As we all know now, there are lies, damned lies, and Westminster promises to Scotland. The provisions of the Sewel Convention were indeed written into the revised Scotland Act passed in the wake of the referendum, but within a couple of years the Conservative government of Theresa May sought and obtained a ruling from the UK Supreme Court stating that the relevant provision of the Scotland Act had no force in law as it went against the very English constitutional doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament, a Westminster government can be urged to respect the Sewel Convention but it cannot be legally compelled to do so and it will suffer no legal consequences if it chooses to ignore it.
Since then, the Conservative government in Westminster, which has always been hostile to the devolution settlement has breached the Sewel Convention on not one or two occasions, but on eleven.
Speaking to Westminster’s Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Permanent Secretary John-Paul Marks, the head of the civil service in Scotland, told MPs that the UK Government has repeatedly broken the Sewel Convention.
Marks said that while there were instances of Scotland’s two governments working well together, this came amid a “disrupted and quite regularly contested environment.
He said the Internal Market Act – which effectively gives the UK Government a veto over some Scottish laws – had created a “different operating environment to devolution compared to what went before”.
He explained: “You see that evidence in the Sewel convention and legislative consent. So up to 2018, the Sewel convention – whereby the UK Government would not legislate without consent from devolved governments in devolved areas – was always observed and there were no circumstances where that consent was not granted, where the UK Government would legislate without consent. But since 2018 there has been 11 occasions where that convention has not been followed. And so to an extent that reflects the changing nature of the political contexts post-Brexit.”
The Conservatives are using something that a majority of Scots do not support, Brexit, to undermine and hollow out something that a majority of Scots do support, a Scottish Parliament that is able to exercise its powers without Westminster interference.
The Rubicon has been crossed, not only does the Westminster government now feel that it can trash the Sewel Convention with impunity, the Scotland Secretary has also used the powers of the hitherto unused Section 35 order giving Westminster’s Scottish viceroy the power to unilaterally veto legislation passed by Holyrood that relates to a devolved matter.
The devolution settlement now stands naked and unprotected, with no defence against a power hungry British Government determined to brook no opposition from Scotland. This dire situation will only worsen if Scots allow the Labour party to win the largest number of seats in Scotland at the Westminster general election expected later this year. That will only embolden the British nationalist parties who will crow that the ‘threat’ from Scottish independence is over.
Just this week Gordon Brown broontervened to day that the ‘threat’ of Scottish independence had not gone away, and that the so called union was on borrowed time. The trashing of the Sewel Convention is a good reason why that is the case. If the British parties cannot be trust to honour the promises they make to Scotland then obviously Scots are going to look for an alternative. What exactly is the point of continuing to allow ourselves to be governed by parties which make fine promises when they want our votes but traduce their promises the second the ballots are counted. There is no point.
The fact is that a ‘convention’ that has been breached eleven times in the course of six years is no longer a convention, it is breaching it that has become the convention. This is the new normal in the devolution settlement, what was once unthinkable has become the established political reality. The Tories have given a future Labour government carte blanche to continue with the pattern of contempt for the principles of the devolution settlement that they have set in place.
You’d be a fool to imagine that a government led by Keir Starmer would behave any differently. The one constant in Starmer’s political career is his thirst for power and his willingness to lie and deceive in order to get it then having done so he ruthlessly neutralises any potential threat from those who opposed him or who might stand in his way. This is not a man who will tolerate a strong and powerful Scottish Parliament which might stand up against him.
Labour has already been giving some alarming signals about what it has in store for the Scottish Parliament should, as seems likely, Starmer becomes Prime Minister after the Westminster general election expected later this year. Anas Sarwar has been talking about what, in typically Labour Newspeak style, he is wont to call ‘real devolution’.
This will consist of stripping powers from Holyrood and giving them instead to local authorities which are both more likely to be controlled by a Labour administration and far less able to withstand an overweening Prime Minister. What Sarwar means by ‘real devolution is giving power to the Labour party. This will be done despite the fact that control of local government in Scotland is devolved and irrespective of what Holyrood might say. If Scotland is foolish enough to allow the Labour party to take power in Holyrood, a Labour controlled Scottish Parliament will willingly collude in its own neutering, but even without that, the convention that the Sewel Convention can be ignored is already well established.
Obviously recent developments will attract a lot of interest and people will want to express their views. However I must remind people that Scotland has very strict laws about contempt of court and you must exercise extreme caution in what you post. Ideally it is best to say nothing. I must also warn you that you are personally responsible for any comments you make.
___________________________________________________
My 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 weegingerbook@yahoo.com (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 Paypal.com and send a payment to the email address weegingerbook@yahoo.com. Or alternatively click the donate button below. If you don’t have a PayPal account, just select “donate with card” after clicking the button. You can also donate by PayPal by using my PayPal.me link PayPal.Me/weegingerdug
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/weegingerdug
Wee Ginger Dug 
The unionists councils already join up to thwart the good intentions of the Scottish Gov. Spend and borrow too much on empty shops and offices instead of affordable homes and schools. STV.
More people need to go out and vote SNP. The ones that support Independence.
If I remember correctly the word ‘normally’ is present in the section about the Sewell Convention and its application The presence of that word in the context of the working of the Convention is the UKGov’s get out from when it wants to block the SG.
I think this was pointed out in one of the UKSC judgements – Gina Millar appeal on Article 50 perhaps.
Of course, Baron Sewel himself had a rather colourful career. The Sun “newspaper”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sewel,_Baron_Sewel
Is there nothing about the Westminster system that stands up to scrutiny?
As you correctly observed in the previous article, ” The truth is that the Labour party of Keir Starmer has no interest in offering a radical political alternative or a meaningful redistribution of wealth and power “, and the few in the Tory party who did have been ” removed “.
Conventions which once ruled Westminster have increasingly become ignored where found ‘ inconvenient ‘, lying to Parliament was one of the earliest victims… And let’s be honest about devolution being credited to Labour, so long as they ruled the roost they were in favour, now they are ‘ Gemme ower, gimme ma baw back…’.
With growing discontent in England over the Tory/Labour ‘ stitch-up ‘, it is almost unthinkable that Scots would be daft enough to be swayed by Sarwar’s distortions going into the next GE….
A Pledge is a Vow by another name, anybody remember the last one ?
‘The Last One’ by Murray Foot, SNP CEO.
If Scotland wants Independence they need to vote for it. Vote the unionists out. A higher turnout.
Voting unionists does not support Independence. Unionist Parties do not support Independence.
If people vote unionist they have only themselves to blame.
From the endish bit of the comments on the last post
Eilidh says:
April 18, 2024 at 11:47 pm
So the man who as late as last year was reported to be owed money by the Snp for loans he gave them has been charged with embezzling Snp funds. How bizarre .
My bit,
I really hope so, in a court case to run parallel to any other court activity.
Wouldn’t it just be delicious to watch the “parachuted in english lawyers” and the establishment squirm.
Of coarse there would have to be a robust defence, and there would be so many individual submissions from both sides, that it may drag on for quite some considerable time.
Forgot to add that I would be more than willing to make a donation to the costs for both parties if any such situation were to arise.
At least the nature of our so called union has now been exposed for all to see.
England has never tolerated any threat to it’s dominance within the British Isles and historically has only given up control when faced with violent insurrection.
Devolution was a scam that pretended to give more powers to nations outwith England but,of course,in reality left them completely in control.
So……no surprises about their behaviour.
It is my belief that the nature of the alleged union has been visible for a long time.
There are however “none so blind as those who will not see”, presently and in the immediate pass there are many who have removed the blinkers. And even with the assistance of the worm tongues, it is not possible to re-instate their previous state of blindness.
In exactly the same way that a thing cannot be un-said. Once they accept what they have always known but refuse to acknowledge, they cannot return to blissful ignorance. It’s a one way door that allows no recourse.
Obviously recent developments will attract a lot of interest and people will want to express their views. However I must remind people that Scotland has very strict laws about contempt of court and you must exercise extreme caution in what you post. Ideally it is best to say nothing. I must also warn you that you are personally responsible for any comments you make.
What I liked about Prof Alexander Brodie’s lecture on The Declaration of Arbroath was his explanation that the English king was a thief on a grand sale – he had stolen a country and showed no sign of remorse.
This is the nature of the Union, Grand Larceny. It legitimises the theft of our resources and blocks any attempt to stop the theft or even to publicise the crime. The authors of the Declaration reserved the right to elect a king who would protect them from such thieves. We have to do the same.
Prof Robertson has another great article on the County Lines gangs from English cities which infest Scotland with their misery. Yet the Scottish press show no interest in publicising them. They prefer to blame the Scottish Government for the drug deaths which are a direct result of this illegal activity. Thieving on a grand scale covered up by the press to protect the Union.
https://talkingupscotlandtwo.com/2024/04/19/the-bradford-gang-that-tried-to-spread-misery-into-auchinleck/
I do find it interesting that we live in a country where a court in England ordered Scots that we cannot ask ourselves a question about our future as a country in the world, and today English owned newspapers and TV channel *journalists* who are talking and pontificating about nothing else but the current SNP bad story are telling us the thing they’re all talking about, we the people must not under threat of imprisonment
It’s the British nationalists that have all the independence to say and do whatever the hell they want while the rest of us just take it whisper and cower behind the sofa
All the people that don’t want what we want are in charge of what comes out of our mouths, or else
There’s a name for all of this
The English media cannot speak/write about this case with impunity. Their papers are sold in Scotland and their news programmes broadcast in Scotland. It would not be the first time a Scottish Court has ordered journalists from down south to appear in court in Scotland on charges of contempt.
Everyone should be careful. Read Paul’s statement.
Agreed – There is much mischief afoot in the media on the current issue which should not be discussed, particularly so in Jeremy Vile country – eg Jeremy never once fessed up to repeating the lie over “Digging up Sturgeons garden” or the “luxury motorhome” v camper-van, long after it was comprehensively debunked, but has never yet faced a Scottish Court – I do wish they had brought this arrogant individual to book, but for those north of the border who can’t afford the finest lawyers money can buy, a little respect for due process is in order…..
Respect for the Law is still a thing in Scotland, even if it’s a bit iffy elsewhere, let’s keep it that way despite provocations…
The subject of Paul’s current post is very interesting. It was a good post and makes it clear that Conventions as set up by UK Parliament gives Scotland no protection re devolution or any other constitutional matter. Scotland is a colony no matter what unionists say.
On other issues. I saw on BBC News channel earlier Nicola being doorstepped by that despicable BBC Scotchland propagandist Lorna Gordon who went on to report that Police Scotland have stated that Operation Branchform continues and so does investigations into the two other people arrested and released without charge last year. Maybe the investigation will be concluded by end of the decade but don’t hold your breath
A trip down memory lane seems in order – “Scotland’s referendum: James Cook and Lorna Gordon follow the campaigns” https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29115413 whilst the Spanish Ambassador felt rightly insulted by his blatant lies…
A free trip to america on full pay for James was the only “Vow” honoured in 2014 – Yet now el Suito rejoins Lorna to kid on none remember them.
Oh yes James and Lorna, we bloody well do remember you both….
I can’t be bothered posting on this site as completely normal informative comments get deleted. But the warning by WGD does not go far enough about contempt of court. The official guideline is this:
“You might be in contempt of court if you speak publicly or post on social media. For example, you should not: say whether you think a person is guilty or innocent. refer to someone’s previous convictions.“
That’s guilty OR INNOCENT. Some comments should be deleted. And the blogger CAN be responsible for the comments left undeleted, sadly.
It’s not as clear cut as that.
Where the line or lines may be drawn I haven’t a clue.
Indeed, and there IS no advance knowledge of how a court will deal with it. Only guesses – even by the law professionals. It’s a judgement call, depending on “severity”.
A ‘strict liability’ rule applies to any publication or communication addressed to the public at large, including online publications. Any information published about an active case must not include commentary or analysis of evidence, witnesses or the accused.
How does this affect journalists/broadcasters interviewing people and asking their opinions – and the individuals involved expressing such? And, for that matter, the individuals expressing said opinions?
I noticed how, despite the National’s headline that NS “spoke out”, she actually said
“This is an incredibly difficult time,” she told reporters outside their Uddingston home.
She added: “There is absolutely nothing I can say given the circumstances.
“I’m now going to go a walk if that alright with you. I know you’ve got jobs to do but can I ask you to maybe give my neighbours some peace. There is nothing going to be happening here.
“It’s incredibly difficult, but that’s not the main issue. I can’t say anymore, I’m not going to say any more.”
You are not a moderator it’s up to the mods or Paul re what is deleted.I have noticed two comments at least already have been deleted . I am sure they are well aware of what is likely to be contempt of court regarding yesterday’s events
”you should not: say whether you think a person is guilty or innocent”
=======
That is absurd. It would prevent any of us saying That Murrell is entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty – like any other accused person.
I’d imagine that’d depend on how your opinion’s phrased.
Guilty: The bank was robbed and (s)he did it.
Innocent: The bank was robbed and (s)he didn’t do it.
Innocent till proven guilty: The bank was robbed and I’ll let the courts decide, based on evidence, whether or not (s)he did it.
In the first 2 cases, if this isn’t an opinion and you know something, get in touch with the lawyers and volunteer your information as a witness.
In the last case, you’re right. Everyone, even a hardened criminal, is entitled to have their guilt or innocence decided on the merits of the evidence alone.
The National published an article on Contempt of Court yesterday which is quite a good explainer of what can’t be said in live cases – in case anyone is wondering about it.
https://archive.is/kmBSA
There is another one I found before, when looking at the Craig Murray case. And remember, comments below the line WERE looked at in the court case. Can’t find that legal reference but it even included police, and generally, confidence in law and order. Here’s what I did find:
““‘Scandalizing the court’ is a convenient way of describing a publication which, although it does not relate to any specific judge, is a scurrilous attack on the judiciary as whole, which is calculated to undermine the authority of the courts and public confidence in the administration of justice.”“
https://www.beltramiandcompany.co.uk/news/criminal-defence/the-law-on-contempt-of-court
It’s really really stupid anyone risking it, not just on their own behalf, but of that of those who write blogs.
Paul does say “Ideally it’s best to say nothing” and that is what I plan to do.
I’ve been subtly nudged by mods that this the best course of action too, even if I’ve tried to be very careful in posts!
Just to labour the point, AND use the National to support it:
https://www.thenational.scot/news/24264268.comments-blocked-stories-peter-murrell/
“It would not necessarily only be the commenter who is liable, but the newspaper which runs the website where the comment appeared as well.
This is especially true if a comment which may prejudice a case is flagged to the website owner but is not removed.“
Why take a risk on a fine or even imprisonment? Just ban comments on it, and enforce the ban. People who put you at risk, are not your friends, as I posted on the Craig Murray site long long ago. In vain.
Talking of Mr Murray, I see he is standing as a candidate in the next election in Blackburn, Lancs for the Workers’ Party and is moving to England. Same Party as George Galloway in Rochdale.
Really? I suppose he is a former British ambassador.
Yes , infeed
This Alba Party member is now shoulder -to -shoulder with Gorgeous George, who fought the last HR election campaign on an anti-independence ticket, alongside Alan Sked, the founder of UKIP.
Well I look forward to the court prosecuting Elon Musk owner of X aka Twitter for the blatant breaking of contempt rules there. I stated the facts as a BBC Reporter reported them without any mention of names etc. I am assuming the BBC have decent lawyers in that respect. Craig Murrays situation was in regard to reporting of events from ongoing court hearings which is a different situation entirely
“<i>reporting of events from ongoing court hearings which is a different situation entirely</i>”
NO, IT IS NOT
From that Beltrami link I suggest you read – they are Glasgow solicitors:
“Common law contempt of court imposed a strict liability upon any publication, whether the proceedings were active or pending, which gave rise to a real possibility of prejudicing a trial.” (my bold)
I am from Glasgow I know that firm of solicitors well. I am entitled to my opinion whether you choose to disagree with it or not
Not if the blogger is daft enough to listen to you, rather than Beltrami.
It’s all just great isn’t it, not a word now not a titter or whisper, but thanks so much to the BBC in Scotland for showing the make model and number plate of the FFM Nicola Sturgeon’s private car who’s house was practically stormed at one point by over 40 people all over her street, so much so she was forced to ask them to back away so she could reverse her car away from her front door
It must have been terribly difficult for the press to take a picture of the person involved in the case either going into the police station or coming out of the police station, or anywhere in between mustn’t it, and that’s because that isn’t who they were interested in was it, and a picture of the person charged obviously was just not British newsworthy enough was it
We know who and what they’re doing and why
The neighbours should’ve called the cops and had the lot of them shifted pronto
Will there be a Show Trial, I wonder?
Somebody tell her not to reverse on to a major road or they’ll do her for dangerous driving.
Reverse of the road into the parking space / driveway / property.
In case anybody has not noticed Labour have rejected a proposed freedom of movement deal for young people in Europe
A Labour spokesperson said “Labour has no plans for a youth mobility scheme”
So there ye are youngsters Labour are sticking by the agreed no deal Brexit as not negotiated by Boris Johnson and not to be renegotiated by Sir Kier Labour Johnson
I’ve wished for a few years that one or more of the “Lawyers for YES” would offer some free help to pro-indy bloggers. NOT to say an article or comment is OK, but to give one of two quick opinions:
“No comment or no idea”
or
“Safer to delete”.
Unfortunately what happened in one case elsewhere is that the – naive I think – blogger, was egged on below the line by people who wouldn’t suffer themselves. “Good, for you, don’t give in” or similar.
And that’s all I have to say about THAT. TGIF.
Good.
Oh let’s hope so
Well we survived yesterday. Phew!
Back to business – the Scottish Indypodcasters blog too. They tackle some interesting topics. For instance:
Hot Topic: Gove’s Gagging Order – the Economic Activities of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill
Includes a video with Tom Arthur’s speech in Holyrood setting out why the Scottish Parliament refused consent.
UK-wide, Labour are on 44% of the just 50% certain to vote in the coming UK election. This means are still on just 22% of the CTV electorate, which is what they got in 2019; their worst defeat since 1935.
I will take the opportunity in this period of quietness to remind folks that for Scotland to become independent as soon as possible, such as by 2026, we need at least the polls right now to come true. That is, Starmer wins a majority of seats in England, but without a popular democratic mandate due to a mass boycott. In Scotland, it would great if ~7/10 of Scots vote against his New English Conservatives as polls show, likewise on a historically low turnout, as Scots, en masse, reject London rule. This is where we are right now, and it’s been like this for a year. The only things that have changed are Starmer / Sarwar’s ratings falling steadily while Yousaf’s edge up along with support for independence. We are barrelling towards a hated English Labour government that Scots didn’t vote for. One stripping Scotland’s resources while subjugating her people. It will break the UK.
Yousaf will be judged by his performance only, as will all other candidates standing. The SNP as a party will likewise; on their polices and record in government, taking into account how hamstrung they are by London. After all, that’s exactly why people support independence, i.e. so that our own government no longer operates with its hands tied behind its back by England.
The British / English parties and their press focus on scandal and smear. It is all they have left when Starmer is offering exactly the same as Sunak, just with a fake smile rather than a sneer. But that just turns voters off, as could not be more stark from certain to vote levels UK-wide.
I can guarantee you that not a single former SNP voter will move to Labour in response to recent events. None did a year ago, and none will now. It was the same with Salmond. In fact, if anything his day with destiny in early 2019 led to the SNP’s strong recovery at the ballot box later that year. Reality was however, that the two had nothing to do with each other, as will apply again. That’s just not how these things work.
Labour are offering Yes voting / leaning Scots absolutely no reason to vote for them, so none are going to NET. That does not mean they’ll turn out and vote SNP again. Nope, the SNP need to offer them something. While it’s better to have a loud voice than a pathetic whimper in Westminster, Scots have learned since 2015 that we will never be allowed a say in the running of the UK, no matter how loud a voice we have. It’s why Scots now want independence. So the SNP need to give these a good reason to send SNP MPs down to London again. It doesn’t have to be a defacto iref quite yet, but it needs to be a way to express support for independence and move this forward in a meaningful way. It has to say ‘Get ready for departure, because it’s imminent’ to the UK establishment / wider world.
I read that large donations to the SNP, such as from businesses are down over the past year. This is a good thing. I have never been comfortable with big business donating; they must want something in return. That said, it means the party needs its supporters support right now. I just made another donation and will do so again on payday.
Yousaf was my top ranked candidate, but I was not sure he was the man for the job. However, he’s definitely growing on me, and he might yet turn out to be my favourite leader of the party. That said, I’ve never voted SNP for their leader (and definitely not because of ex-leaders!), but for the whole package and what they stand for.
Don’t you mean 22% of the electorate, not 22% of the CTV electorate? I’m confused.
Sorry, yes, it’s 22% of the total electorate, with just 50% of the latter certain to vote. Minced my words somewhat there!
(VI share / 100)*CTV = % of the total electorate certain to vote for a party.
CTV normally averages out across pollsters to actual turnout in final polls. Some see higher CTV, some lower. The average right now is about 50% UK-wide.
So for Labour in the recent 5 or so polls with CTV numbers reported, we have:
(44/100)*50 = 22% of the total electorate.
thx 🙂
Interesting. Starmer has a serious problem with female* voters UK-wide. Men* rate him much more highly and, ex-DK, around 46% of women think he should stand down in favour of someone else.
I’d imagine this is likely because of his increasingly right-wing stance. It’s not that men are inherently more right wing, far from it, rather that you get more right-wingers amongst the male population due to societal conditioning. Men are told they need to be tough, and women are supposed to be care givers etc. So you see this in support for policies. You’ll get more men backing ‘string em up’ type stuff, while more women will back inclusive, left of centre type policies as a general rule.
So the more Starmer acts tough to attract right-wing Tories, the more he’ll lose support from the larger half of the population.
—
*I note this is self-identified sex. All polling, like the census, is. You are never asked for your birth certificate; it’s pure self-id. Just struck me when looking at this data that there’s an amusing irony in the fact that people opposed to gender self-id use polling entirely based on gender / sex self-id to try and make their case.
Prof Robertson criticises Sir Professor John Curtice shilling for Labour in The Telegraph with lies about the Scottish NHS and a Labour “revival”. Read TuS for the facts.
https://talkingupscotlandtwo.com/2024/04/20/sir-professor-john-curtice-lies-barefaced-about-nhs-scotland-and-comes-out-as-fully-labour/
The unionist party share of the total electorate is less than in 2019 when you factor in turnout projection (certain to vote level). Here’s the latest. They’ve actually fallen a bit more over the past could of months. Was 35.5% last time I updated in February. This ties in with the steady movement to Yes and falling unionist party leadership ratings.
I added 2021 to the series (triangle) as it was the first time a turnout for a Scottish national election matched or exceeded previous turnouts for UK union elections. This was the Rubicon being crossed, i.e. Holyrood now was seen as more important than the UK parliament.
You will still tend to find that unionists favour union elections as that’s their parliament, so will tend to get a higher level of total electorate planning to vote for them in these than for Holyrood. Hence 2019 vs 2021 vs current Westminster polling.
You can expect the above patter to be entirely unaffected by recent events as its driven by forces far to fundamental to be undone by the actions of individuals. As you can see, it goes back to the 1970’s! It’s the same multigenerational decline in unionism that’s now put an Irish republican first minister into Stormont. That would have been completely unbelievable 50 years ago.
Unionists continue to put people off unionism, so unionism continues to decline. The only people that could have any hope of reversing this is unionists, but they won’t. If they’ve not addressed a problem that’s been getting bigger every year for 55 years or so, they’re not going to start now.
As for Curtice, he knows turnouts are looking low, but doesn’t talk much about this. He has noted that Lab have not really made any meaningful gains from the SNP in Scotland. The reality is they’ve made none NET, but you need to factor in turnout. I’ve also not seem him talk about the other elephant in the room, namely why panel polling shows Yes parties down on a very low turnout, but telephone show them on exactly the same support as 2019 even with a low turnout hit. That needs explaining. Two very different sampling approaches giving two very different answers.
If we had other telephone pollsters people might flag this more. However, since IPSOS are on their own here, they’re being averaged with the panel pollsters; something that is statistically incorrect in the case of major discrepancies. If you don’t know which is right, you at least give equal weighting to both methods. So you keep hearing low numbers from panel polls, but the reality is you should hear just one for every telephone result. That would give you a truer perception of the current polling picture, even though it would not tell you which approach is more correct. Only time will tell that. IPSOS haven’t been wrong yet, and called most elections correctly ahead of everyone else. They were the first to say the SNP were going to win 2011 in their mid Feb poll when the others were insisting on a Labour win, even majority, right into late March.
On the subject of ‘inconvenient’ conventions, I see the BBC are sticking with their NEW convention of blinding those without UK IP addresses to what is distinctly Scotland News and Scotland/Politics the UK public can….
David Wallet-Locked-Hard is nevertheless sticking with BBC Scotland convention of ignoring their role in the abuse with ” Can the SNP catch a break after a bruising week? “, and yes I can see it is filed as https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-68858376
It’s a priceless piece really and worth analysing, ‘the news where you are’ if you’re inside the propaganda bubble, but ‘jest mair shite fae BBC Jockland’ to the public – I mean seriously, consider DWLH’s ” Reports to police dropped by around 75% this week compared to last. It appears the initial turbulence around this legislation may calm down as it beds in ” – Ehm naw David – The public knew over a week ago who was orchestrating this fake news and who was amplifying it, they knew 5 days ago that BBC Scotland were ignoring PS’s latest figures showing the drop, the only thing bedding in that the Tory trouble-makers and their facilitators at the BBC have failed, yet again – Let THAT bed in David Wallet-Locked-Hard ..
PS – Get the ” enhanced eyes ” in the photo 🤣 Jeezo, the only thing missing is an overdub of “and he said nothing…”.
I thought PM’s eyes looked weird…!
Is there going to be an inquiry into who did this, and why?
For Inquiry read ‘long grass’… – It’s systemic arrogance commonplace in multiple extensions of HMG – They believe themselves untouchable…
Agreed.
But if the ‘Waleses’ can’t get away with it in a family photo, why should anybody else? (Rhetorical)
🤣
I particularly like this quote:
It’s definitely problematic.
Aye, it’s always going to ‘problematic’ when BBC Scotland insists on promoting it – eg a UK/Politics piece for a straight 12 hours on the Scotland page because it mentions Danny Alexander https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68721389 …
Even were you not aware of author Becky Morton’s Scottish political disconnect, it becomes obvious in her opening “When Douglas Alexander lost his seat in the House of Commons to 20-year-old Mhairi Black in 2015 it was one of the biggest shocks of the night” – To whom, those who were not listening ? No mention of the eruption of applause over the result from the electorate to be finally rid of the clown. Now he’s become the ‘East Lothian question’….
It’s definitely problematic.
That’s what the media want you to believe, but ask yourself, in what way? Nobody currently in the spotlight is standing for election, nor holds any sort of prominent place in the SNP, nor the Yes movement. They stopped holding these a long time ago. Things have moved on massively since then.
The current situation doesn’t create a reason for people not to vote for their local SNP MP/MSP, nor the current leadership, nor the wider party, it’s aims and manifesto policies.
The British media had such fantasy wet dreams over Salmondgate, particularly when he was charged. That was supposed to be ‘tearing the SNP apart etc’. Yet the latter went on to make a big post-2017 election recovery in 2019. And everyone actually knows Alex Salmond; he was synonymous with the SNP for decades, not back office staff that nobody had ever heard of. The media basically made out that Salmond was the independence movement, then him and Sturgeon, then her. They still punt Alba for that reason, and are fixed on Sturgeon, even though she’s just a backbench MSP. Unionists believe they just need to take out the leader, and job done. Yet here we are with both taken out and Yes just keeps on climbing, while support for unionism hits new lows. The decline of unionism began in the 1970s because the decline in British identity in Scotland was already under then amongst those coming of voting age. You can just take out a leader and 6-7 decades of fundamental change in national identity (Ioss of Britishness) goes away.
Unionist fixation of SNP leaders is good as it means they’ll not stop indy. It will happen and they’ll never understand why. The indy movement wasn’t Salmond nor Sturgeon. They were both competent and popular former leaders, but their time in that post is over, so the public place no importance on them now because they are of no importance. They’d only be so if they were elected leader again. How people will vote in the next election or two will have absolutely nothing to do with Sturgeon nor any other former senior SNP. None at all. Salmond actually will be more influential as he’s got his wee 2% Alba thing going on.
The question for Scots is whether they like the look life in parochial, inward looking, economically declining greater Englandshire under Starmer’s New Conservatives, or does indy look more attractive? They may factor in Yousaf a bit here, but not past of leaders of the SNP; that would be nonsensical. For Yes Scots, my opinion is that they may see little point to this election of it does not offer a way to progress indy. A second, weaker bounce of the 2017 dead cat is what the polls say right now. The current situation won’t change that one bit.
I think the SNP can boost themselves and indy, but they need to not get caught up in this unionist media frenzy and grasp the thistle.
Looks like it was a good day in Glasgow.
https://archive.ph/VTjum
Scottish independence in Glasgow: Pictures of the Yes crowd
Decent speech from Yousaf, particularly as it appears pretty much totally ad lib. How could it not be given the speed of events in the past day or two!
I like him. I like him because he’s a totally real person and a nice guy, but no pushover. He’s not afraid to stand alone on his morals, for example with Gaza.
Total opposite of Starmer, who comes across as a total fake ‘I will pretend to be what you want me to be’. A plastic Tory that chops and changes on whatever he apparently believes in based on the latest opinion poll / focus group outcome.
And 5 mins after I posted that, I read this…
https://archive.ph/o2iRA
Labour shifts poll tactics to target fearful Tory over-65s
Labour is to wage a new campaign to win over Tory-supporting pensioners in an attempt to neutralise one of the government’s last remaining electoral strengths…
…A private focus group run by Labour in the past week convinced its most senior officials that the announcement by Hunt is a huge blunder. Insiders said that “pensioner hero voters” – those who backed the Tories last time but who may switch to Labour – compared the move to Truss’s doomed plan for £45bn in unfunded tax cuts during her brief prime ministership.
Labour doing the weather vane thing to target the hardest of gammon Brexiters.
Every six minutes Scotland’s paramedics and ambulances are attending drunk and incapable persons on our streets
Drunk and incapable is a criminal offence by Police Scotland are denying their service to the attending medics causing the queues we know that build up outside our A&E departments
In the time it took me to write this another drunk and incapable person was attended by a paramedic or ambulance
The BBC have no report on the march yesterday. But they were there and interviewed Hamza Yousaf about the Bute House agreement while ignoring the march completely. What a bizarre organisation. All the news on the Scottish website is a day old. Not new news.
BBC News – ‘I really value the Bute House agreement’ – Yousaf
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68865306
Aye, duly noted elsewhere also – In keeping with Paul’s article, it’s become a ‘convention’ that indy marches are ignored by the BBC in Scotland, they’ve been doing this for years, so not in the least bizarre…..
I see the Sunday Herald has a full-on hatchet job on Humza Yousaf. not if he goes but when he goes apparently. ’Senior figures’ are apparently touting a Forbes-Flynn dream ticket with him playing 2nd fiddle to him. Prof Curtice gets a look in too as he states that polls show the FM’s popularity falling. Article also mentions ‘weeks of controversy over Hate Act’. Weeks??
Anything but mention the March yesterday
Here is a link to the article in question
https://archive.ph/dXWt4
That article was certainly total unionist propaganda. I am beyond sickened by mainstream media. I wonder who their alleged sources in the Snp are.
They won’t have any sources. Since they don’t need to name them, they don’t need to have any.
Ttweedledee and tweedledum I should expect.
Latest Scottish poll:
Keir Starmer
17(-6)% Good
43(+7)% Bad
NET = -26% bad
Anas Sarwar
18(-5) Good
35(+9) Bad
NET = -17% bad
Clearly, both should resign. 🙂
And they should given this is the picture across all polling in Scotland. By contrast, Yousaf’s is a mixed picture. He’s up on when he started, that is for sure, but there’s a lot of volatility, which makes for easy cherry picking. His is one of rising positives, but also rising negative too, making an even more mixed picture. Different from Starmer and Sarwar where positive is falling and negative is rising pretty much across the board.
We also know that polls are oversampling unionist voters. This means the views of Yes voters are literally being invented based on the views of those SNP2019/21 that are responding. These tend to be the small group that have moved from SNP to Lab or DK. There are some, but overall the NET movement is zero. That’s how you end up with polls showing SNP have moved to Labour in terms of %’s and in the cross-tabs, yet when you look at absolute numbers, i.e. real, walking around people, nobody has NET. Hence unionists down as function of total electorate in 2019 in the latest polling.
There’s a lot of crowing about that latest panelbase, where those numbers came from (and where Yousaf didn’t look good).
A reminder of how reliable panelbase (now norstat) is, and that’s with no sampling issues. Their final 2019 poll on the 6th of December, with error on outcome:
38(-8)% SNP
21(-4)% Con
19(-2)% Lab
10(-1)% Lib
Beamer.
IPSOS got 44% SNP on the 25th of November. Pat on the back. Again.
I’d rank Yousaf much higher now compared to Forbes than I did in the leadership contest. It’s not that she’s gone down, but he’s gone up quite a lot in my estimations.
Flynn would need to step down and stand as an MSP to be leader if that ever came about. We can’t have an absentee leader down in London. Might as well vote Labour for that, i.e. having the branch office leader as FM. Nope, to lead the SNP – and therefore Scotland if the latter win our national elections – you need to be able to take up the role of FM. There is no way Sturgeon would have got the ratings she did at her peak if she’d been an MP down in London all the time.
The article was touting Forbes as leader with Flyn at Westminster playing second fiddle. It went on to say once independence was achieved he could come back to Holyrood and, if elected, get a ‘senior government position’. How very gracious of her!
If some idiot triggered a leadership election based on rubbish English pollster mid term polling (only IPSOS is Scottish) rather than real, tangible, key election outcomes (the UKGE isn’t key to indy at all unless Scots can indicate support for indy in it), I’d absolutely vote against them, as would most members. Kate had her chance and may have another in the future, but the members chose Yousaf. If he does poorly, the members take responsibly for that.
As for Flynn (which I like too), he’s Westminster leader, so if the SNP lose seats this year, he shares that blame at least equally with Yousaf. If my team performs badly at work under my leadership, I am to blame, as is my boss for allowing that to happen on his watch.
I note we are not voting for Yousaf this year, that comes in 2026. Yousaf cannot get any new mandate as he’s not at Westminster. As the SNP can never lead a UK government, the only mandate they can get is for outright independence via a defacto indyref vote. The unionist parties can’t get a mandate to undo the 2021 iref mandate as it’s for a different parliament.
Here’s the story our MSM refuse to report.
https://www.irishnews.com/news/uk/thousands-attend-rally-in-glasgow-for-scottish-independence-6SR7HHZBMJO2DMGBYUP4JXESRU/
We get a number for Indy supporters but not for the counter demonstration, not do we get any comment from them, not significant then, manky shirt?
Apparently a vehicle appeared to charge towards the Indy marchers but was stopped by a policewoman stepping out in front of them. They reversed away with the PC hanging on to the door trying to get it open. Mmm. No idea whether the Police managed to apprehend them.
This news was running as a banner across the bottom of a newspaper article posted on FB.
Golfnut
The police have arrested the driver.
Here’s the video of the car and the policewoman stopping it.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/indy-march-horror-brave-glasgow-32635857
More nonsense from MSM and pollsters who always get it wrong. So Hedge Funds can make a killing gambling on elections results.
Millionaire pollsters who always get it wrong wasting £Billions of public and private monies. Then making up excuses. Not acceptable. Breaking electoral Law, trying to influence the result. They should be banned. Politicians and their associates.
Gerrymandering and breaking data protection Laws. Paying Facebook for people’s confidential information. Censored and fined many times. None of them go to prison for gerrymandering. Breaking electoral rules.
The bookies make a better job of fleecing people.
I’ll keep saying that all the talk about the SNP is a distraction. For independence to be stopped, you need Scots to not support independence, and a majority of the total electorate to back unionist parties.
Coming back to this plot:
You can see that the SNP win in 2007 was inevitable once total share for unionist parties fell below 50%, which it did in 2001, never to go above that again. We have seen 2 dead cat bounces for the union at Westminster level, these being 2005->10 then 2017. In each case this was only happening in UK elections, not for Holyrood, where people don’t vote tactically as they don’t need to due to the PR list. Also the dead cat bounce of 2017 can nowhere near that of 2010. Polls suggest if we are to have another, maybe final bounce of the dead cat, it will be even smaller at just 34.5%, down from 2017’s 41.5%. Barely a 1/3 of Scots are now willing to endorse Westminster rule with a vote for unionist parties. There is no polishing this turd. No amount of media spin will change the reality on the ground. It’s never managed to stop the decline before, and that’s not gong to change.
Which is why I keep saying Labour need a 2010 repeat, complete with at least that 64% turnout, to take some wind out of the Yes sails. But most importantly, they must win Holyrood 2026. Only that would buy them less than one one term of time before e.g. UK2029 could be a defacto indyref within just 3 years. In 2021, they managed to unite just 29.5% of Scots to their union cause, a record low as shown for elections with turnouts at or above typical UKGE levels. They will struggle to improve on this with Yes at over 50% when it’s in a trough.
Ironically, they’d have a better chance of winning 2026 if Labour lost the coming UKGE. Being in No. 10 is a poisoned chalice in England right now, never mind Scotland. Soon, the dire state of the economy will be Labour’s fault, particularly for pursuing with the current hard Brexit. Rising unemployment will be Labour’s fault. Scotland’s budget being slashed will be Labour’s fault. Labour will be blocking iref2, the mandate for which remains alive an well until at least Holyrood 2026…
SNP have had bumps on the road plenty of times, but these have never stopped the march of a the Scottish nation. It’s like trying to stop tectonic plates moving. To use the same metaphor, the movement has been slow recently, and things eerily quiet. This often precedes an earthquake where suddenly things shit massively. Like ahead of 2011 or 2015 where Yes/SNP polling was far worse than it is.
Patrick Harvie is now Nick Clegg, without him there would be nothing
What makes me laugh is Martin Geissler on behalf of BBC Scotland pretending to care about an amount of trans kids you could count on one hand getting medication or not when he represents a British organisation answerable to the Prime Minister of the UK that doesn’t recognise trans people in the first place
As for the current wee climate change pretendy row I refer to my many comments about the Scottish government not really being a government, so any policy they might decide upon can be blocked derailed or just cancelled by the UK government at any given time, our government just has the name government above the door and the Green party need to come clean on that instead of using it to personalise their own campaign ambitions
Scotland can achieve nothing if the UK government will not allow it without independence for our country, everything else is a deliberate sidetracking strategy by the British nationalists in support of their never ending imperial dominance
So Greens, get a grip on yourselves grow up and take a look at the big picture, no country is ever going to get to net zero on any timescale anybody sets, and the likely hood of earth being destroyed by a mile wide meteor thrashing through space at a gazillion miles per hour is more feasible in the shorter term than total destruction from climate change, so you can wave haun knitted woolly rainbow flags at that and complain about the government no daen sumthin and see how that goes
Folk really have to stop being sidetracked by England’s British media encamped in Scotland, they only care about one thing, and that is stopping Scotland from doing one thing
[…] 80 Comments Posted in Uncategorized […]
The Greens never think things through. Waste £Billions.
People do not watch BBC Scotland political shows on behalf of unionism. Few viewers. A few hundred. Most have fallen asleep.
Drugged up driver caught behind the wheel. Not aware of their actions or circumstances. Reckless driving.
Great Match. Celtic-Aberdeen. Cliff hanger. Best.
So who thought the EU elections were important once brits had decided to leave the EU? Did people ever think of them as that important, especially in Eurosceptic England?
In which case, why do people think British Union elections are important now Scots plan to leave the UK? Scots don’t think they are. Just 34.5% of eligible voters are saying they defo plan to go out and vote to be ruled from London by a unionist party right now, and that’s with the poll sampling situation as favourable for unionist parties as it could possibly be. The rest that are planning to vote are all voting against the UK. It’s dire for the union. Historic low support.
The moment that Scots decided they wanted out, this was inevitable. They have given up on Westminster, and the SNP need to as well. The latter need to not think about how many SNP seats they can win, but how they can use the vote to allow Scots to express their wish for independence. The Greens should too, otherwise a lot of these candidates they’re standing will be losing their deposits. Same for Alba. Voting green under FPTP is a waste of time on the best of days due to the British system, but to send a Green MP to London to sit in a corner for 5 years would be an even bigger waste of time. The only route to a greener, more liberal Scotland is via indy.
I will still go out and vote SNP even if I feel it will not progress indy, if simply to try and deny a unionist a seat in their cherished parliament. I don’t want the seat, but if I can stop them having it I will. I will not do so with enthusiasm. Don’t expect all former SNP to do the same. Maybe they will, maybe not. Polls don’t tell us, because a lot of SNP2019/21 are not saying what they plan.
Now if ‘SNP – for Scottish independence’ is on the ballot as is apparently planned, that changes things a lot. Now I can express what I want in the coming union elections, even though, like my fellow countryfolk, I no longer wish to be taking part in these.
[…] Source […]