…as the Scottish Government releases its Brexit impact paper.
(Panelbase, Scottish adults, fieldwork mid-December 2017)
Ruth Davidson appeared on Good Morning Scotland today as part of their series of interviews with what they call “the leaders of the larger parties in Scotland”, which for some reason is also including the Lib Dems and Greens.
You can listen to the piece – which showcased the usual evasive, time-killing waffle technique Davidson employs as standard, noticeably uncomfortable only when Gary Robertson pressed her on welfare-cuts suicides – for yourself if you want, but in our Panelbase poll last month we discovered a difference between Davidson and Nicola Sturgeon we thought was quite interesting, so we’re going to talk about that instead.
The Scottish media has been operating at what former BBC journalist Paul Mason once called “full propaganda strength” for the last few weeks, trying to inflate some pretty standard seasonal fluctuations into a “WINTER NHS CRISIS”.
One of the more egregious examples came yesterday when the state broadcaster’s Scotland editor Sarah Smith announced to the nation that 100,000 patients had waited more than four hours at A&E departments last week – a pretty impressive feat since in reality only a quarter of that number actually visited A&Es in Scotland last week, and four-fifths of those were seen in under four hours.
The 100,000 figure in fact refers to an entire year, not a week. Depending on how you look at it, Smith misrepresented the reality by either 2,000% or 5,200%. Yet at the time of writing we’re not aware of the BBC having issued any correction or apology for this, well, let’s be generous and say “error”.
The stats record the time taken for patients presenting at A&E to be dealt with (that doesn’t just mean “seen”, but seen, assessed, and then either treated, admitted or sent home). For the whole of 2017 the figures for Scotland were:
Patients dealt with in four hours or less: 93.1%
In eight hours or less: 99.2%
In 12 hours or less: 99.9%
Which doesn’t sound like too much of a crisis.
Alert observers will of course be aware that this is all entry-level basic operating mode for the media. Even if they weren’t trying to whip up politically-motivated “SNP BAD” material – and most of them are – it’s a deep journalistic instinct to exaggerate and hyperbolise everything into the worst news possible in order to drive traffic and clicks.
But does it work?
The gigantic-clown-shoed bunglemuppet that is Scottish Tory MP Ross Thomson was galumphing around social media yesterday, quoting a notoriously dim-witted Yoon troll to the effect that the Scottish Government could (and therefore presumably should) use its own money to compensate the “WASPI women” – a group who’ve been robbed of years of rightful pension payments by the UK government changing the rules after they’d already qualified for their pensions.
Which throws up a whole series of questions.
In some little-noticed news slipped out last Friday, it was revealed that Kezia Dugdale is to take up a position on the governing body of the Scottish Parliament.
Our favourite thing was her quote on the nomination:
“I’m very pleased to be Labour’s nominee for the SPCB. Having argued for gender balance, I’m glad that at least two of the five positions will now be held be women.”
…which suggested that she was unhappy exact gender balance hadn’t been achieved by placing two-and-a-half women on the board. (Unless she was getting at some sort of alternative solution, we suppose.)
But since the Herald raised the subject, it seemed a good time to take a look at voters’ opinions as to whether she might be a fit and proper person for such a role.
As if we hadn’t had enough controversy this week, it’s time to tackle the big issues.
The Scottish Sun’s been running stories for the last couple of days about the heresy that’s shortly going to be committed against Scotland’s most legendary iconic brand.
Penny-pinching Cumbernauld drinks giant AG Barr – which carefully avoided getting involved in the independence referendum so as not to upset anyone – is about to slash most of the sugar out of Irn-Bru despite there already being two low-sugar versions of it available, and the paper has called in a few consumers to decry the move.
But how does the wider public feel? Well, as it happens we’ve got poll data on that too.
On a number of previous occasions we’ve highlighted the weird discrepancy between the undivided loathing of the Offensive Behaviour (Football) Act in the Scottish media and the Act’s overwhelming popularity with the Scottish public.
You will struggle to ever hear a voice anywhere in the media in favour of it, yet there has never been a law in the history of the Holyrood parliament that is as universally backed by the electorate as the OBFA. Support for it crosses party lines, unites men and women, the old and the young, the rich and the poor, Yes voters and No voters, Celtic fans and “Rangers” fans, football lovers and football haters, and pretty much any other groups you can think of.
Despite their own voters wanting to retain it, however, the combined opposition parties may well succeed in having the Act repealed this year, for reasons of their own that we can’t begin to rationally explain.
Meanwhile, every party at Holyrood – this time including the SNP – looks as though they may be preparing to come together and implement the LEAST-wanted legislation (in terms of public opinion) that the Parliament will have ever seen.
But which legislation are we talking about?
More data from our latest poll:
Almost 30% of No voters still believe the decision on whether Scotland should vote on independence again should be a matter for the Scottish Government (which already, as we know, has a Parliamentary mandate for it), not the UK government in London.
Very nearly half of 2017 Labour voters (excluding DKs), and almost 40% of Lib Dems, also think their own parties should butt out and leave it to the government Scotland chose, not the one England chose.
And among demographic groups, men divided a pretty close but still clear 54/46 in favour of the Scottish Government, with women a much stronger 61/39. Young people were an overwhelming 75/25 for Holyrood, with middle-aged and over-55s cancelling each other out by splitting 56/44 and 44/56 respectively on the issue. The wealthier ABC1 demographic were 50/50 and less well-off C2DEs a thumping 65/35.
The argument has been won, just like the vote in the Scottish Parliament. All that remains to be seen is whether the UK government continues to play by Madrid Rules.
In the Guardian today:
If only we had some data on that oh wait of course we do.
In our latest Panelbase poll, as usual we took the opportunity to ask various social-attitudes questions as well as political ones, and some which span both categories. One of the most controversial posts ever on Wings addressed the subject of Gaelic, and having given everyone two-and-a-bit years to calm the hell down we thought we’d see what the Scottish electorate thought.
That’s a pretty tight call. Let’s have a wee delve in the data depths.
Not too many surprises here. (Except, perhaps, the 18% of respondents who claimed to be football fans yet also said they had no interest in the World Cup.)
Excluding the disinterested the numbers were:
England 24%
England’s opponents 38%
Others 40%
And for people actually born in Scotland the figures came out at
England 20%
England’s opponents 41%
Others 39%
And that’s pretty much the natural order of things. If you’re a “Rangers” fan and you cheer for Celtic when they play (let’s not say “compete”) in the Champions League, or a Celtic fan who backed “Rangers” in the Petrofac Training Cup, you’re the weirdo.
Wings Over Scotland is a (mainly) Scottish political media digest and monitor, which also offers its own commentary. (More)
