A Catastrophic Collapse and a Holyrood Majority
A couple of weeks ago, we outlined the absurdity of the mass consensus that Anas Sarwar had told everyone that his leader was dreadful: Actually, this is brilliant – Bella Caledonia.
Since then, some of the media faithful have doubled-down. Here [Sarwar spiked SNP’s guns and finally we have a Scottish campaign], perplexed scribe Kenny Farquharson wrote:
“Last week Anas Sarwar, leader of Scottish Labour, called on Starmer to resign. Amid the chaos that ensued in a febrile Westminster, it was perhaps understandable that one consequence went largely unremarked. Sarwar had scuppered the SNP’s core campaign message. The Nationalists’ entire strategy for the Holyrood election had been undermined.”
“A catastrophic collapse in Labour support is set to hand the SNP a Holyrood majority which would place the future of the United Kingdom in peril, a “mega-poll” suggests.”
“The first MRP poll for the Holyrood elections, conducted by the company which most accurately predicted the results of the 2024 general election, found that the Scottish Nationalists are poised to win 67 seats in a historic landslide.”
Oh dear.
As I laid out in Actually, this is brilliant – the idea – the cosy consensus that telling your voters that you thought your own party was shit in government, was, somehow, a winning ploy – was garbage, has proven to be a bad idea! Who would have known?
Fox un-shot. Scone un-stolen.
It gets worse.
As The Times top-team suggest:
“The SNP has said an outright majority — a feat achieved only by Alex Salmond in 2011 which led to the independence referendum of 2014 — would deliver an undeniable mandate for a second vote on breaking up the UK.”
“All conventional polls so far have suggested that John Swinney, the first minister, is likely to fall short of what is seen as a highly ambitious majority target. However, the seat-by-seat analysis conducted by Stonehaven, a global strategy and research firm, predicts that tactical voting is set to prove the decisive factor in delivering a stunning majority win for the Nationalists.”
The Times reporting, if true, would be a travesty for the case for Sarwar’s mini-coup. Sanderson, and Allegretti write:
“Stonehaven predicted the results of the UK general election within a margin of 38 seats with its MRP model. It predicted that Labour would win 420 seats, just above the final tally of 411.”
“Its first MRP poll for Holyrood predicts that the SNP would win a majority in constituencies alone, sweeping 67 of Holyrood’s 73 first-past-the-post seats, while winning no regional seats. Labour would win only one constituency, the Western Isles, and the Lib Dems five.”
If these polls played out, they would be a travesty for Red and Blue Tories, The Times top columnists again lay out the bleak consequences:
“The Stonehaven projections, if accurate, would mean a dramatic reversal of the Scottish Conservatives’ revival a decade ago under Ruth Davidson. It would go from the main opposition at Holyrood, with 28 MSPs currently, to the joint smallest party in the Scottish parliament in what would also be their worst result.”
If Reform behave in their usual way (sackings, resignations, defections) combined with a lack of experience in any sort of government, there is every chance that the third-placed party will end up as the official opposition.
How do you mean Paul?
“it doesn’t matter how you vote, you’ll stay in the Union”
Anyone who didn’t know that from the day after the indyref “No” result came in should have their vote taken off them.
The only route to indy is by breaking the law and daring WM to do something about it.
Anyone advocating otherwise is not an advocate for an Indy Scotland. They’re a fool or a unionist.
“They’re a fool or a unionist.”
Great.
Wonderful.
What’s that line from Chernobyl, ‘they should put that on our money’.
Thanks
I dare you to describe a credible democratic and lawful route under WM without embarrassing yourself.
I double dare you.
You won’t be able to bring yourself to even try, I guarantee it.
And you’ll prove me right.
“If you’ve got that straight, it doesn’t matter how you vote, you’ll stay in the Union. That’s British Democracy.”
Correct.
And this is precisely why no begging questions should be asked of Westminster. That, plus the act of requesting ‘permission’ from Westminster grants the latter a veto over Scottish popular sovereignty.
There must be no British state interference with, influence over, or involvement in, the process to restore Scotland’s independent statehood.
The polling would appear to indicate that the entry of Reform UK (an avowed UK nationalist party) into Scottish politics is potentially going to help deliver an SNP majority government on a reduced vote share.
In addition polling also indicates the possibility of a Reform government at Westminster significantly increasing support for independence.
Both of these outcomes will increase the pressure for another independence referendum and the likelihood of independence supporters winning any subsequent referendum. It is ironic that it the current rather depressing status quo (stalemate) in Scottish politics could be broken by a political party with little interest in and in all probability a high level of hostility to Holyrood. It is even more ironic that a British nationalist party with UK in its name may trigger the break up of the United Kingdom as currently formed.
“In addition polling also indicates the possibility of a Reform government at Westminster significantly increasing support for independence.”
The same polling indicated that the advent of Brexit and Boris Johnson as PM would have the same effect. When these things actually came to pass neither had any impact on Yes sentiment.
Beware survey responses to hypothetical questions.
I wrote it was a possibility I didn’t say it would definitely happen.
Polling also shows that Reform are running second in 2/3rd of constituency seats and that is liable to lead to tactical voting to beat Reform candidates. In most cases this tactical voting will benefit SNP. There was no such tactical voting to defeat Tories in 2021 indeed if there was tactical voting it was on pro Union parties to defeat SNP. This would indicate that Reform are disliked by those that don’t support them to a much greater degrees than even Tories were. In addition there was a not insignificant section of independence support from 2014 who also wanted to leave EU which would have balanced out the increased support from voters changing to Yes side due to Brexit. There is no indication of a similar trading off in support for independence being applicable to Reform. A Reform government (unlike Labour, Tories, Liberal)at Westminster would prove to be a significant break from UK political status quo which may make some independence opponents review the ‘better the devil we know’ approach to independence.
The polling and my view on how it may affect the upcoming election and independence may be wrong or may be right. One thing is sure though a positive outlook is going to be required if we are going to convince wavering voters of the case for independence. Negativity and cynicism is not going to help convince any one to support independence.
Pointing out that that the same failed predictions of increased support for Independence due to hypothetical events that actually came to pass is not “”Negativity and cynicism”. It is reality.
It is not meant to help convince any one to support independence.
Your comments, on the other hand, are simply more wishful thinking.
But you fantasise if you want to.
Sorry Duncanio – to someone who is open minded your comments come over as negative, cynical and arrogant,
I might seem optimistic and naive to you but I can assure you that your attitude will neither convince any wavering voters (of which there are many) to support independence or advance the independence cause one iota.
Heh ho no worries as long as you are happy in your self importance nothing else matters.
As I have stated before, I am not trying to convince “wavering voters” Mr Snowflake.
You are not naive, merely stupid having obviously learned nothing in the last 12 years. You have no argument, merely your own speculation as to how people may or may not view Reform so you resort to infantile accusations when confronted with a sobering dose of reality.
In 2016 it was Brexit that would break the Union. It didn’t. In 2019 the same clowns said that Boris would sound the death nell of the UK. It didn’t. Now clowns such as you conjure up another magical solution, in the shape of Reform UK being the next British government, that will end the Union.
It is your silly attitude latching on to external events in the vain hope that they will cause the return of Scotland’s nation-state status which is killing any chance of restoring Scotland’s full self-government.
The happy, clappy campaign of 2014 is over. It failed.
Maybe in another 12 years you will have noticed. But I doubt it.
Duncanio – I will ignore your disrespectful personal comments and outline below the basis for my opinion :
I support independence because I think it would be more democratic and improve the lives of my fellow citizens in Scotland. I do not support it out of any fundamental nationalistic impulse – I leave that for my visits to Hampden & Murrayfield. I have been a passionate supporter all my life who has attended World Cup Finals (not young either obviously!)
I also think that because I personally support independence as a fundamental democratic principle it should only become a reality if the majority of the electorate in Scotland support it. (If you don’t agree with this there is nothing else to discuss from my perspective)
I also think that the best way of establishing how the electorate in Scotland think about this issue is via a referendum. The high turnout at 2014 referendum supports this assertion. The majority of Scottish electorate also consider this the best way to establish support for independence. All elections have a variety of competing issues while a referendum concentrates on the one issues and provides clarity.
I accept that Westminster intransigence makes holding another referendum difficult and the greater the risk of Yes winning the more Westminster is liable to resist.
Ultimately if Westminster keeps resisting another referendum the Yes movement will have to look at other peaceful options to achieve independence. To reach this point support for independence would need to be overwhelming (>66.%) in which case I personally think that Westminster would no longer be able to resist a referendum and any referendum would be clearly won – the best outcome in my opinion for a successful independent country.
I also think that an agreed independence settlement with Westminster is far preferable to a rupture with no agreement with an adversarial Westminster. The first few years after independence will be challenging to an independent Scotland (&rUK) and international support will be especially helpful during this period. A separation that Westminster doesn’t recognise will be unlikely to engender much international support unless there is proven overwhelming support for it amongst electorate in Scotland and demonstrable continued Westminster intransigence to ignore the democratic wishes of Scottish people which is clear to other countries. Without international support a hostile Westminster could and possibly would try and damage the prospects of a fledgling independent Scotland. This is an outcome which would be detrimental to my fellow citizens of Scotland and harm the medium term prospects of an independent Scotland.
In short if you are going to go down any route that doesn’t have Westminster agreement you need the overwhelming support of the Scottish electorate and support from other countries and international bodies. To consider it can be successfully achieved without this support is not only naive but disingenuous and frankly dangerous. We are still currently well short of this level of support at present.
I may well be naive and optimistic in my interpretation of the impact of Reform on Scottish politics as you say but I have a glass half full nature. I would contend that I am not being half as naive as people who think independence can be achieved without the overwhelming support of our fellow citizens.
There is no magic bullet or short cut to independence. It requires hard work, engagement with all Scots and a collaborative approach across Yes movement to try and build support to a higher level where it. becomes virtually inevitable. This requires a political dimension and there is no evidence that, much you and I may criticise the SNP, that there is any other political party that can fill this role in foreseeable future. The electoral failure and demise of Alba clearly demonstrates this. The SNP also need to understand that they are not the independence movement but the political arm of it and need to work more closely with the independence movement. Like it or not the independence movement has to reach out and address concerns of No voters who currently lack confidence in the future prospects of an independent Scotland. That IMO is the route to not only independence but a cohesive, successful country post independence.
Of course there is no ‘magic bullet’. I didn’t say there was.
Your prospectus is just another Manifesto for Stagnation. A mere variant on the failed approaches of the SNP, Alba Party and the rest since 2014.
The restoration of Scotland’s independent statehood requires a plan, one that is practical and pragmatic. And credible. There is nothing in what you say that has not been said many times before by those supposedly pro-Independence political parties. And where has that got us? It hasn’t moved Scotland’s cause one bit: 50% were in favour of Yes by the end of 2014 and that level of support remains stuck there, despite some oscillations in between times.
People have stopped responding to your offers of faith and hope. They’ve heard it all before. so have switched off. ‘Just wait till Reform get into power’ is not a plan. If you are serious about avoiding harm to the Scottish people you would not be waiting for that to happen.
If you want to convert people then show them how to achieve it, not why it should be done.
Finger out rather than fingers crossed.
Duncanio/ thanks for your reply. I personally cannot see how we advance the independence cause, regardless of route, unless we increase public support for independence well above 50%. This means the whole Yes movement need to connect with public and convince them of case for independence rather than obsessing and arguing about the strategy. The SNP are the political wing of independence movement and have failed to do this post independence referendum especially post 2021.
I was merely pointing out how ironic it was that the rise of Reform UK, a British nationalist party, may provide an unexpected opportunity for SNP electorally and Yes movement. I am doubtful Westminster will agree to another independence referendum at present but I see no harm in at least giving it a chance as there is nothing to lose.
Remember we are all on the same side.
Best wishes
You seem to be missing a very important point about Westminster, 2 in fact.
The most significant is that merely requesting the ‘ok’ from Westminster is tantamount to betrayal of Scottish popular sovereignty. That is because this grants Westminster a veto over the people’s right to make a choice (whatever that may be).
Secondly they’ve already said NO. Repeatedly and very loudly. Not that it would matter – Westminster will always set conditions that make it impossible to realise Scotland’s cause. They could even ignore the result, since THEIR referendum would be consultative and non-self-executing rather than determinative and self-executive. As soon as we grant them a veto then they can do what they like. Indeed are bound to, since the Westminster doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty places Westminster at the top of the power pyramid. This is incompatible with Scottish popular sovereignty.
Power is never granted, it’s always taken.
A process outwith the jealous grasp of the British state is what is required.
The “connection” with the public that is required is to demonstrate HOW to exercise our self determination rights not why Scotland should be independent – these arguments have been well worn with nothing to show for it. People need to see a practical path to restoring our full nation-statehood.
None of the political parties have demonstrated this in the last 12 years.
They repeatedly mention “Independence” as a means of harvesting votes at election time in pursuit of the fruits of office. Nothing more.
Duncanio – The gap between support for independence (~50.%) and political parties supporting independence (~40%) could be partly due to the lack of a believable plan for how to achieve independence.
However I have never met a person who wasn’t convinced in why Scotland should be independent that was interested in how this should be achieved.
There is lots that can still be done to convince voters why independence would benefit the residents of Scotland.
To prioritise the strategy of how we achieve independence until we have convinced a significant majority of the electorate of why they should support independence is IMO putting the cart before the horse.
“To prioritise the strategy of how we achieve independence until we have convinced a significant majority of the electorate of why they should support independence is IMO putting the cart before the horse.”
In actual fact you need a plan/horse before you campaign/cart. A cart full of goodies is of no value if you can’t get it to market.
You are stuck with the mindset of 2014 and that is why I doubt another 30 years of selling Independence as a holiday destination will be your go to ‘strategy’ … for on-going failure/stagnation.
Indeed. It actually doesn’t matter how we vote, until the SNP comes to recognise the importance of Indy supporters who vote for other parties. And then deigns to cooperate with them. 33% will be an unconvincing mandate for a referendum, however many MSPs it generates.
If we take the emotion out of it – and just think rationally – why would the SNP reach out to ‘Indy supporters who vote for other parties’ – which statistically is a tiny amount of people – rather than reach out to a wider public?
The gulf between 33% and 50% isn’t ‘tiny’. The SNP hierarchy has a profound disdain for its own membership let alone Indy supporters in general. Great if you want an SNP government to run devolved Holyrood, but hopeless in advancing independence.
Malcolm – I am sure the lower %age vote is an argument that opponents of independence will make.
Reflect upon the fact that:
1)we live in’s parliamentary democracy.
2)Labour won 2/3rds of seats on 1/3rd of votes at GE. I don’t see Labour supporters questioning whether they should support measures and policies because they don’t have a mandate with 33% of vote. Tories won a majority in 2015 GE with considerably short of 50% of votes but that didn’t stop them having a Brexit Referendum.
3)SNP obtained a higher percentage vote in 2021 than in 2011 but were refused a request for an independence referendum by Westminster with many opponents stating that they didn’t have a parliamentary majority. There was a clear pro independence majority of seats in 2021 and approx 50% of votes for pro independence parties and Westminster refused Holyrood referendum request. It seems obvious that Westminster adopt a ‘heads I win tails you lose’ approach to an independence referendum.
4)In all likelihood the drop in SNP support has little to do with an independence referendum (the Westminster intransigence on a referendum is probably depressing SNP vote) but far more to do with incumbency, poor governance, competence issues and an uncharismatic leader who is basically a retread. It says a lot for their opponents that despite all this the SNP are still favourites to win Holyrood election.
4)Support for independence was polling at around 33% in 2011 and ~50% in 2021 and 2026. Probably the real basis on which Westminster accepts or rejects Holyrood requests.
When there isn’t a level playing field the last thing you do is play by your opponents rules as your comment indicates you are doing – unless you are an opponent of independence?
Lastly I agree the independence movement needs to reach beyond the SNP & Greens (Alba now appears defunct) It would be great to have a Constitutional Convention similar to the one set up to advance the devolution case in 1980’s but the facts are that Labour, Tory (& Liberal?) parties are so implacably opposed to independence they throw out any members who voice even the most timid support for independence. ‘Believe in Scotland’ is a non political organisation that tries to advance independence cause so this avenue is open to the 15-20% of independence supporters who don’t currently feel willing to support the SNP. I would encourage anyone who supports independence but currently feels unable to support the SNP to join this organisation to help advance the independence cause.
‘Believe in Scotland is a non political organization that tries to advance independence cause’
How can an organization trying to advance the cause of independence – or, for that matter, one that defends the unionist status quo – possibly be non political ?
FA – you are correct in highlighting my sentence which doesn’t read correctly. I should have said that Believe in Scotland states that they are a neutral organisation from a political party perspective.
If Labour were to lose the People’s Republic Of Morningside, that’d be a surprise, I think. Ian Murray’s been there a while and voters might be inclined to vote for the man rather than the party.
Derek – is Ian Murray standing for Holyrood in May?
Good question! Apologies; I got mixed up. But there might be a wee bit of support there (I don’t live there, but my mum does).
No problem Derek – I am sure there will be some support for Labour based on Ian Murray’s popularity but that may not be so significant considering how the Labour Party have treated Ian Murray in sacking him as Scottish Secretary?
Agreed, probably not in this election, having thought about it a bit.
I can’t think of any Labour MSP that’s well-liked enough to override dislike of the party.
‘..sweeping 67 of Holyrood’s 73 first-past-the-post seats, while winning no regional seats..’
Well, as you say… this is awkward.
If *that* didn’t justify what I’ve long said about the ‘both votes SNP’ option (in short, our voting system makes it a bloody stupid thing to do unless you live in The Borders).
expect that 67 seat landslide to be reversed next UK general election, the debate is now so repetitive, irrelevant & tedious it is having what the professional ruling class in these islands no doubt desires, i.e., the somnambulic effect