Last week we warned you to beware of poll questions containing the formulation “Does [X] make you more or less likely to vote in a certain way?”, and this evening Survation have provided us with an example of why.
According to those numbers, the conflict between Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon has caused a staggering 47% of Scots to change their likelihood of voting Yes in an independence referendum. And the bulk of those – 37% – say it’s made them MUCH more or MUCH less likely to vote Yes.
Those numbers break by more than 2 to 1 (23% to 11%) in favour of “much less likely”, which is a margin of change (12 points) bigger than almost any Yes majority that’s ever been recorded in a poll.
In other words, if the poll is to be believed, Nicola Sturgeon’s attempt to neutralise Alex Salmond as a threat to her personal political power has almost definitely turned a Yes vote into a No vote as people have started paying attention to it.
Someone forwarded a Freedom Of Information response to us today. It’s frighteningly illustrative of the kind of Scotland that the SNP are bringing into being.
We’re assuming, naturally, that the First Minister will be duly suspended from the SNP while these shocking allegations are fully investigated, just like Gareth Wardell, Denise Findlay, Neale Hanvey, Mark McDonald, Michelle Thomson, Neil Hay, etc etc etc were.
We’re not, of course. And nor should she be, because “shared a platform with” is the ugly ginger stepchild of fake-outrage cancel culture – lower on the smear scale even than “liked a tweet by” or “linked an article by someone who completely separately had an unfashionable opinion on a completely different subject several years ago”. It’s absolute guff punted only by scumbags.
Nevertheless, the uncomfortable fact is that those are precisely the crimes for which other people WERE suspended and/or ostracised from the party, and we can’t help wishing the SNP’s flagrant hypocrisy about it was just a little bit less obvious and less arrogantly blatant, so that it wasn’t quite so painfully offensive to any decent person, and so that we weren’t having to fight quite so hard to keep believing in independence when we see the grim state of the Scotland that’s taking shape before our eyes.
We took the day off today because we didn’t trust ourselves to watch the Hate Crime Bill debate without doing something violent. By all accounts it was the smart call.
While the debate overran and will conclude with a vote tomorrow, there’s no suspense about the outcome. With the backing of the snivelling, hateful, misogynist Greens (one female MSP out of six, entirely by choice), the bill will pass and Scotland will become a country where almost anything you say could be a hate crime.
The bill is designed to terrify normal people into silence about almost any subject, as an automatic habit. Even in your own home you won’t be safe from denunciation.
And while an amendment by Adam Tomkins of the Scottish Tories – it has come to the stage, readers, where we’re reduced to needing the Tories to try to save us from the SNP – should help a lot of people escape being convicted, that’s not even the point. Malicious, vexatious complaints will have put them through months of worry and fear, effectively punishing them even though they’re innocent, and most people – especially women – will simply hold their tongue to avoid the trauma.
For the last couple of years this site has been critical of the SNP’s failure to make any sort of progress on independence. But this is far, far worse even than that. Because if they somehow miraculously achieved independence tomorrow, we’d be afraid to live in the Scotland they’re creating.
Our country doesn’t have a SINGLE political party remotely fit for government. Voters in May face a choice between the evil, the stupid, and the evil and stupid. And they can’t even be angry about it, because even the politest anger is now a hate crime.
We wish we had a constructive course of action to suggest to you, folks. But we don’t, because democracy has failed you. There is no way you can vote that will fix the ruins the SNP have made of Scotland. We cannot see a way forward. It is becoming nearly impossible to evade the conclusion that all is lost. Nicola Sturgeon has destroyed it.
When we suggested yesterday that the SNP was turning into New Labour, we didn’t expect them to go to quite so much trouble to provide us with a timely illustration.
In happier times, almost seven years ago, a united and focused Yes movement had a bit of fun at the expense of Labour MP Ian Murray when he had a huge pearl-clutching fainting fit over someone putting a couple of stickers on his constituency office.
The SNP has of course denied them, but they also denied our recent leak from the party’s draft manifesto and we know for sure that that was real. The trouble with lying all the time is that nobody believes you even if you occasionally tell the the truth.
Of course, there would be an easy way to prove the numbers were a fake – release the real ones, which is in any case the most fundamental element of transparency in a democratic election. And whatever they are could hardly be any more embarrassing than the rumours, which have candidates topping the list (and likely to get seats) on a shocking 2.4% of the vote.
It brings us genuinely no pleasure at all to report that events in Scottish politics are panning out exactly the way we’ve been telling you they would for nearly two years.
There’s a strange new affliction affecting the SNP: fear of figures.
Now, we should say that we don’t believe for even a second that the SNP has actually had 10,000 new members in the last two days. It’s ridiculous to the point of insulting. But purely for the sake of argument, let’s imagine it was true.
Finally, after an astonishing four and a half days of “counting”, the SNP have released their candidate rankings for the regional list in this year’s Holyrood election. We’ll give you the results first, and then something much more interesting.
Like an old man getting up for the fourth time in the middle of the night, the Scottish Government has squeezed out another little dribble of its legal advice in respect of the conduct of its shambolic investigation into false allegations against Alex Salmond.
And to push that gross analogy to its outermost limit, it must have found releasing one of the documents in particular as painful as passing a rather large kidney stone.
James on Ain’t it funny how things change?: “So. The WALLOPERS have spoken. Take note, Scotch folk; you’ve never had it so good. Scotchland is the richest country…” Jul 25, 21:07
James on Ain’t it funny how things change?: “So. Precious tactics failing, the new 77th tactic is “swamping”? Endless reams of unionist “shite” vomited up ad nauseam by…” Jul 25, 20:53
James on Ain’t it funny how things change?: ““Please note: “The Vow” did not break the law.” “Analysts from the Scottish Parliament Information Centre concluded that the fiscal…” Jul 25, 20:43
James on Ain’t it funny how things change?: “I wish someone would get a grip of you, ya AI unionist walloper…Westminster apologist, tosser of the first order…for years…” Jul 25, 20:30
Northcode on Ain’t it funny how things change?: “Captain Caveman @3:42 pm Once again you’ve raised several points, so I’ll address them in the same way as before.…” Jul 25, 19:50
sam on Ain’t it funny how things change?: “Alf, raising taxes in an independent Scotland.A study by Jim Cuthbert which I have edited to reduce its length “Fiscal…” Jul 25, 19:49
factchecker on Ain’t it funny how things change?: “Some good news today. “…a spokesman for the Scottish government said: “Our economy is one of the best performing parts…” Jul 25, 18:41
Spartan 117 on Ain’t it funny how things change?: “Few things worse in life than “Socialists” who at the slightest sniff of power dig in and engorge themselves at…” Jul 25, 18:23
Hatey McHateface on Ain’t it funny how things change?: “@Alf Re your wish list at 4:08. Surely the most third-rate economist would understand that the feasibility and profitability of…” Jul 25, 18:11
Hatey McHateface on Ain’t it funny how things change?: “Some great comments today. There remains but for Wally W. Walrus to expectorate partly masticated rotting fish guts over it…” Jul 25, 17:50
Young Lochinvar on Ain’t it funny how things change?: “On a cheerier note. Listening to Smooth Radio the hourly newsreader had me smiling, for all the world her rendition…” Jul 25, 16:37
Aidan on Ain’t it funny how things change?: ““ By definition, it is surely a rhetorical question also, since I am hardly likely to have published work on…” Jul 25, 16:32
Aidan on Ain’t it funny how things change?: “@Alf – firstly, that is a description of (in your own terms) how GDP growth could be delivered, it’s not…” Jul 25, 16:29
Alf Baird on Ain’t it funny how things change?: ““Scotland’s output would double” Near neighbour high-GDP sovereign states with similar or far lesser resources illustrate that a major increase…” Jul 25, 16:08
Captain Caveman on Ain’t it funny how things change?: ““So who do we believe?” 😀 😀 😀 And on that bombshell, time for a Negroni I think. Saluti! 🙂” Jul 25, 16:02
Aidan on Ain’t it funny how things change?: “Indeed Dan – it’s a case of: – the independently audited figures show one thing; – the (former) head of…” Jul 25, 15:51
Aidan on Ain’t it funny how things change?: “Indeed Dan – it’s a case of: – the independently audited figures show one thing; – the (former) head of…” Jul 25, 15:51
Captain Caveman on Ain’t it funny how things change?: “@Northy “First, questioning someone’s published work isn’t a demand for credentials; it’s very often a request for clarity about the…” Jul 25, 15:42
Dan on Ain’t it funny how things change?: “Waiting on new boys CC and AIdan pulling up Stu for posting this “shite” back in the day… https://wingsoverscotland.com/on-our-own-two-feet/” Jul 25, 15:33
Aidan on Ain’t it funny how things change?: “@Alf – I’ve published work on a range of subjects, but my work, unlike yours, isn’t written starting with the…” Jul 25, 15:02
Aidan on Ain’t it funny how things change?: “@Alf – Scotland’s GDP per capita is around the same as neighbouring countries like Finland and Belgium, and above almost…” Jul 25, 14:49
Aidan on Ain’t it funny how things change?: “@Confused – comedy gold from someone who thinks that incorporating a network of companies makes any person or enterprise “tax…” Jul 25, 14:44
Captain Caveman on Ain’t it funny how things change?: ““So that’s a big ‘naw’ then, ye’ve nivver published hee-haw aboot onythin.” Heh. Well, I’ve written countless landmark technical reports…” Jul 25, 14:35
Captain Caveman on Ain’t it funny how things change?: “@Alf What has per capita GDP got to do with being “rich”? Especially if comparing the UK (and by extension…” Jul 25, 14:32
Alf Baird on Ain’t it funny how things change?: “““the rich”” i.e. normal developed sovereign countries (GDP per capita, 2025, US$: Statista): Ireland – $130,650 Switzerland – $115,620 Singapore…” Jul 25, 14:08
sam on Ain’t it funny how things change?: “Jim Cuthberts academic qualifications, his work experience in the Scottish office and elsewhere puts him head, shoulders, torso, pelvis, legs…” Jul 25, 14:06
sam on Ain’t it funny how things change?: “This is what I said above in my reply to Factchecker. “His point is not that more powers have been…” Jul 25, 13:38
Alf Baird on Ain’t it funny how things change?: ““I never claimed to have my own work” So that’s a big ‘naw’ then, ye’ve nivver published hee-haw aboot onythin.…” Jul 25, 13:24