Even on a non-binding vote, Yousaf's job would be on the line

OK, this is my fourth post of the day, but I'm having to do this just to keep up with the pace of events.  Two things have changed since my last post - to my surprise, it turns out the Greens will vote in favour of the motion of no confidence, leaving Alba and Ash Regan holding the balance, and the vote will be a non-binding vote of no-confidence in Yousaf as First Minister rather than a binding vote of no-confidence in the government.  Some people are interpreting the latter point as meaning that the whole process is a sham, and an indication that the Tories don't really want to bring the SNP government down, because an early election would cost the Tories themselves a lot of seats.

I don't think it's as simple as that.  A non-binding motion is easier to vote for (which may be why the Greens signed up so quickly) but it's still very hard for Yousaf to ignore if it goes against him.  In that event, there would be three possible outcomes - 

1) Yousaf respects the vote and resigns as First Minister, but does not resign as SNP leader.  This would almost certainly result in an early election, because the SNP would presumably not be willing to nominate an alternative First Minister, and no unionist government would be arithmetically viable.

2) Yousaf respects the vote and resigns as both First Minister and SNP leader.  This would be a highly desirable outcome from the point of view of the independence movement, because it would allow a more popular and credible SNP leader to become First Minister without an early election being held.  If we could be sure this is what would happen, it would make sense for Ash Regan to vote for the motion of no confidence.

3) Yousaf refuses to respect the vote and tries to stay in office.  The opposition parties wouldn't be able to leave it at that, because he would be defying the will of parliament.  A binding vote of no-confidence in the government would surely follow swiftly - even if the Tories ran away from it for self-preservation reasons, Labour and the Lib Dems would step into the breach and the Tories would look ridiculous if they abstained.  The Greens might turn the screw by saying they'll have no choice but to vote for the motion unless Yousaf stands aside to allow fresh leadership to take over - at which point he probably would.

So whichever way you look at it, the outcome of the vote next week (assuming it's held) does matter enormously.

*  *  *

It's getting close to the last-chance saloon, but there's still time to help Scot Goes Pop continue through this general election year.  Donations can be made via the fundraiser page HERE, although if you have a Paypal account, a better way to donate is by direct Paypal payment, because the funds are usually transferred instantly and fees can be eliminated altogether depending on the option you select from the menu.  My Paypal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Now that Alba have gained the balance of power, they'd probably be unwise to throw that enviable position away the very next week by forcing an immediate election

Since writing my previous post about Alba's enviable new position as holding the balance of power at Holyrood, I see that Stuart Campbell is trying to coax the party into voting against the SNP government when the vote of no confidence is held next week, even though "an extremely well-placed source" (very possibly meaning Alex Salmond himself) has told him that won't happen.  Mr Campbell is assuming that if he gets his way, the government will fall and an early election will be held.  I think that's a false premise - my guess is that the Greens will express their anger by abstaining on the vote, thus allowing the government to survive whatever Alba do.

But I can't be sure of that, so this is an important question, and it's taken me a little while to work out what I think about it.  I didn't even think an early election was a possibility until a few hours ago, so all of this is a completely new consideration.

I have argued repeatedly in favour of using an early election as a de facto independence referendum.  So really the question is whether forcing an early election in June (probably) would achieve that goal.  The answer is probably not.  It would depend on the SNP's own attitude, and with their famed over-caution, they would probably say "not this time, but maybe in 2026".  (Remember under the Scotland Act, an election will still take place in 2026 even if there is an early election this year.)  And they might even have a point just for once, because they would be starting so much on the back foot in a forced election right now that it wouldn't be the most promising circumstances to win independence.  A plebiscite election campaign needs at least a little bit of planning and preparation if it's going to succeed.

So if an early election in June isn't going to achieve independence, might it be a stepping stone to it by producing a breakthrough for Alba?  It's possible, but I suspect the odds are against it.  One of my internal battles within Alba, especially during my time on the NEC in 2021-22, has been to try to inject a degree of realism about where the party stands with the public, because I cannot see much evidence at all from opinion polls, or from the 2022 local elections, or from local council by-elections since 2022, that Alba have gained significant support since they fell well short of winning list seats in 2021.

Mr Campbell acknowledges that an early election might backfire for Alba by losing them their only seat, but he still argues that they have much less to lose than the SNP in 1979, who were defending 11 seats (they ended up losing 9).  But that misses the point about 1979 - the problem wasn't just the seats the SNP lost, it was also the fact that they set themselves up to take the blame for Mrs Thatcher coming to power.  If Alba are seen to be the decisive factor in forcing an election, and if an election produces a unionist majority (which on polling evidence is the most likely outcome), independence supporters might never forgive Alba for that, and the SNP won't be slow to issue constant reminders.

I suspect Alex Salmond's strategic mind will be telling him that if you gain the balance of power unexpectedly, you don't throw it away the very next week.  You keep what you've got and milk it for all it's worth for a while.  There may be a correct tactical moment to force an election before May 2026, but I doubt if it's right now.

Just one caveat, though: if an early election was bad for the SNP, it might be the only way of ejecting Humza Yousaf before the Westminster election, and a new leader might just save the independence movement's bacon at that Westminster election.  But sacrificing the movement at one election for an unproven chance of salvaging the movement's hopes at another election would be an incredibly risky game to play.

*  *  *

The most dangerous narrative for Humza Yousaf that is taking root today is that he "cannot be trusted".  If he needs a coalition partner after the next election, whenever it is held, the Greens are likely to laugh in his face, because they'd know that their position in government would never be secure.  Even if Yousaf says on a Wednesday that a coalition deal will be honoured, it could be scrapped without warning on the Thursday morning.  What's more, his SNP colleagues will know that the necessary trust can only be re-established with a new leader, so he's just made his own early departure even more likely.  For the life of me, I don't understand why he's made the decision unilaterally like this and taken all the blame - he could have been cannier by nudging the Greens towards voluntarily leaving government, perhaps by means of certain unpalatable ministerial appointments.  

*  *  *

There is one thing in the SNP's favour.  Unionist parties are forever telling us that a referendum would be too expensive, and is unwanted and unnecessary because "we've only just had one" (ie. a decade ago).  Well, an early election would cost money, wouldn't it?  It's unnecessary, isn't it, because we had one as recently as three years ago and there's going to be one in another two years anyway?  What's the difference, chaps?

*  *  *

It's getting close to the last-chance saloon, but there's still time to help Scot Goes Pop continue through this general election year.  Donations can be made via the fundraiser page HERE, although if you have a Paypal account, a better way to donate is by direct Paypal payment, because the funds are usually transferred instantly and fees can be eliminated altogether depending on the option you select from the menu.  My Paypal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Humza Yousaf has just handed Ash Regan the balance of power in the Scottish Parliament - at least some of the time

The Bute House Agreement was not signed until August 2021, which meant that for three months after the May 2021 election, the SNP continued with what was billed as a "minority government".  That was technically inaccurate language, because excluding the non-voting Presiding Officer, there were 64 SNP MSPs and 64 MSPs from all other parties combined.  It was therefore impossible to bring down the government as long as all of the SNP MSPs turned up.  A tied vote on a motion of no-confidence would simply have led to the Presiding Officer using her casting vote to defeat the motion, in line with convention.

However by breaking off the Bute House Agreement today, Yousaf is not reverting to that status quo ante, and the reason is Ash Regan's defection last autumn from the SNP to Alba.  There are now five opposition parties in the Scottish Parliament, and they outnumber the SNP by 65 seats to 63.  So in theory the government can be brought down, but in practice I struggle to imagine the Greens risking the wrath of the independence movement by "doing a 1979" by bringing about an election at such an unfavourable moment.

However, the Greens now seem to hate Yousaf's guts far more than Alba do, which would have seemed an impossible state of affairs only yesterday.  It seems almost inevitable, then, that they will find specific issues on which to vote with the unionist parties on, and the only way in which Yousaf will avoid defeat is with Ash Regan's vote.  (Remember the convention on how the Presiding Officer breaks a tie will not always work in the government's favour - it's about backing whatever is the status quo, not about automatically backing the government line.)

This is, then, kind of the arithmetical scenario Alba were looking for when they stood on the list in 2021, and it should give them some limited leverage with the government, albeit any informal deals will have to be done on the quiet given the antipathy between the SNP and Alba.  And if by any chance the Greens are crazy enough and angry enough to try to force an early election, it will be entirely up to Ash Regan and Alba to decide whether that happens.  Right now might not be the ideal moment for the early plebiscite election we all want, but that doesn't necessarily mean the ideal moment won't arrive before 2026.

Current state of the parties:

SNP 63

Conservatives 31

Labour 22

Greens 7

Liberal Democrats 4

Alba 1

Presiding Officer 1

GOVERNMENT: 63

OPPOSITION: 65

Why has the coalition been ditched, and what now?

It's difficult to blog about something I don't fully understand.  One of the things that had defined Humza Yousaf's leadership was his cast-iron commitment to coalition with the Greens, and while there was certainly internal pressure within the SNP to ditch the coalition, that came mainly from quarters that Yousaf has always cheerfully ignored until now.  It seems unlikely that the Green leadership played any role in pulling the plug, because they had been engaged in brinkmanship to try to stop their membership from voting to walk away.  Yousaf may have calculated that Green members were highly likely to do just that and thus saw an opportunity to look decisive by getting in first, but if so, there must be a risk that such a sudden and unexpected dumping will poison relations between the SNP and the Greens for years to come, which could have ramifications for the independence cause and also make it harder to avert a Labour-Green (or Labour-Lib Dem-Green) coalition in future.  So answers on a postcard, really.

We'll now see whether the theory that the Greens were a major drag on SNP support had any validity.  I suspect it was wildly exaggerated but there may have been a small grain of truth in it, and even clawing back 1% of support could make a difference in a tight election.  In other circumstances I might be worried about the Greens taking revenge by putting up lots of candidates against the SNP and splitting the Yes vote, but weirdly they had seemed hellbent on doing that anyway.

One benefit we may see is within the 'pro-indy establishment', which extends to small bits of the media and to non-party organisations.  A majority pro-independence government including the Greens but excluding other small pro-indy parties provided cover for the Greens to be given a special status by the pro-indy establishment.  But now that the Greens are an opposition pro-indy party, just like Alba, there may be a balancing-up effect.

No, Sarwar does not lead Yousaf on "best First Minister" polling - that was last month

This is a rare example of me rushing to defend Humza Yousaf, but an element of 'professional pride' kicks in whenever I see Wings deceive his readers about opinion polls - 

"Anas Sarwar is preferred by voters as the next FM (the stat that really tells you who’s going to win elections), but only by a solitary point over the hapless and beleaguered Yousaf – who’s barely enjoyed a single good day in his year-and-a-bit in charge."

That's not true.  Mr Campbell is referring to the March edition of the monthly Redfield & Wilton poll, which showed Sarwar move ahead of Yousaf on the head-to-head "best First Minister" question for the first time, but that result is now out of date.  The April poll showed Yousaf resume his lead.

At this moment, which of the following individuals do you think would be the better First Minister of Scotland? (Redfield & Wilton, 6th-7th April 2024)

Humza Yousaf 35% (+4)

Anas Sarwar 30% (-2)

Nevertheless, Yousaf's leadership is on the ropes due to the fact he represents the Continuity Sturgeon faction, which is an increasingly tarnished brand for extremely obvious reasons. Out of curiosity, I asked my Twitter followers yesterday who they want to be the next SNP leader, and the results were startling - 

Stephen Flynn 62.2%

Kate Forbes 29.4%

Angus Robertson 4.3%

Mairi McAllan 4.1%

I have to say I disagree with that.  We were all impressed by Stephen Flynn when he took on the Speaker, but I still think Kate Forbes is the most voter-friendly option the SNP have, and there's polling evidence to demonstrate that.  The idea floated in the press at the weekend of a joint ticket with Forbes as leader and Flynn as deputy might well be the way to go.  

As for the other idea floated in the press, that the continuity faction will play a slightly longer game in the hope of installing either Mairi McAllan or Jenny Gilruth, words fail me.  McAllan is not ready for the top job yet, and I'm not sure on what planet Gilruth will ever be ready for it.

The case against a small political party treating its own members as the enemy

As regular readers will remember, I was elected at the start of the year to a working group which is reviewing the Alba Party's constitution.  For confidentiality reasons I can't give a running commentary on the progress of that, but obviously having been involved in the process for a few weeks, I've become much more exposed to the main arguments against having a fully-fledged internal party democracy.  In view of that, I think it might be helpful to post an updated version of my own arguments in favour of democratisation, because ultimately it's rank-and-file members who will decide what happens.

First of all, a party which regards its own members with extreme suspicion and constantly tries to work out how to 'protect itself' from them is not in a good place.  What actually is a political party if not its members?  I suppose the alternative conception of a party is as a vehicle for a self-selecting leadership elite who may take members along for the ride but will never cede any real control to them.  That would be analagous to the way in which the powers of the House of Lords were previously used to protect the aristocracy from the voting masses.  It might be fine if the project a party represents is inspiring enough that people are willing to join simply to be part of a passive fan club, but my guess is that if Alba is to thrive, both existing members and potential new members will be looking for a lot more than that.  The problem is that Alba is mainly seeking converts from the SNP, and the obvious question is why would anyone leave a large party of power, one that denies its members much of a say, to join a much smaller party that also denies its members much of a say?  Where is the incentive?  Wouldn't you just think you might as well stick with the larger party which is actually in government?

There's also a really striking paradox in simultaneously saying that the leader should be trusted but the members should not be (because they might be a bunch of filthy infilitrators or whatever).  If you to try to protect the party from its own members (which again I think is a contradiction in terms) by substituting internal democracy with a system of patronage and leadership control, you're then putting all your eggs in one basket, because you're forgetting that the party leader himself is directly elected by precisely those awful members who you regard with such suspicion.  If the members are potential infiltrators who can't be trusted to elect the NEC or other committees, there clearly must be a fair chance that they will install an interloper as leader - and then having spurned the opportunity to introduce a democratic system of checks and balances, you'll be powerless to resist the absolute control of that one person.  That's exactly how the Sturgeon leadership of the SNP, once it had its feet under the table, was able to essentially ditch independence and replace it with an identity politics agenda.

It also does matter whether all party members are allowed to take decisions or only a tiny minority of members.  Alba's Conference Committee is an extremely powerful committee acting as a veto on issues reaching the floor of conference, which is supposed to be the body through which members exercise supreme control over the party.  In other words, members can only exercise control over the party via conference if they first have control over the Conference Committee - and they don't. The idea that party members are somehow in control of the Conference Committee because everyone on the Conference Committee is a party member is a bit like saying the system of rotten boroughs empowered the populace because the tiny number of people who could vote in them were all citizens.

Given its massive gatekeeping power, the case for the Conference Committee being directly elected by all party members is overwhelming. And any political party which uses its disciplinary machinery to suppress dissent among members must give members direct control over the composition of the committees which make the decisions on disciplinary matters.  That seems to me to be an indispensable safeguard, and without it individual members are helpless to protect themselves from arbitrary ill-treatment at the hands of an over-powerful leadership.

Last but not least, I never cease to be astounded that in the 21st Century people are still making the argument that the franchise for internal party elections should be restricted to a tiny minority of knowledgeable or experienced members, on the grounds that the wrong people will be elected otherwise.  That's essentially identical to arguing that the vast bulk of the public are too stupid or uneducated to be allowed to vote in general elections.  Nobody would ever dream of making that argument about elections to public office, so why it suddenly becomes OK in the context of the internal structures of a political party is beyond me.

On the whole, it would be a relief if the Greens withdraw from the coalition

As long-term readers may recall, I initially supported the idea of an SNP-Green coalition after the 2021 election.  The unionist establishment and media were rather implausibly arguing at the time that the SNP falling one seat short of an overall majority somehow tarnished the mandate for an independence referendum, and it seemed to me that putting together a government with a clear parliamentary majority comprised of two parties that both had commitments to independence and to a referendum in their manifestos was a powerful way of making the point that the mandate was in fact watertight.  There was also quite a bit of harmony between the SNP and Greens on non-independence matters, and although I passionately disagreed with both parties on some of those points of harmony, it seemed to me there was no harm in the independence movement benefiting from a strong basis for cooperation.

However, that logic only held true if the Scottish Government was actually going to do something about independence during this five-year parliamentary term.  Clearly they intend to instead let yet another mandate expire, in which case the underscoring of how clear the mandate is no longer has any great relevance, and all we're really left with are the downsides of the Bute House Agreement.  Fergus Ewing is probably overstating the case when he says the public will heavily punish the SNP for association with the "extremist" Greens, but it's undoubtedly the case that the agreement has left the SNP with far less flexibility than they otherwise would have had in reacting to disquiet on a whole range of policies the public have found objectionable or irritating.

It therefore ought to be something of a relief for SNP members if the Greens do the hard part for them by breaking off the agreement.  That's probably the only way it would ever happen, although it's unlikely to happen even that way given that Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater sound extremely keen to be allowed to remain in ministerial office.

The one caveat I'd add is that there is - amazingly - one key policy on which I think the Greens are completely right, and both the SNP and my own party Alba are completely wrong.  That's the Green opposition to the heavily ideological (some would say "woowoo-based") Nordic Model on prostitution law.  Although that subject is excluded from the Bute House Agreement, it's probably fair to say that Green involvement in government has helpfully put the brakes on any move towards introducing the Nordic Model in Scotland.  But that benefit perhaps isn't enough to outweigh the bigger picture.

*  *  *

It's getting close to the last-chance saloon, but there's still time to help Scot Goes Pop continue through this general election year.  Donations can be made via the fundraiser page HERE, although if you have a Paypal account, a better way to donate is by direct Paypal payment, because the funds are usually transferred instantly and fees can be eliminated altogether depending on the option you select from the menu.  My Paypal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

The Murrell development is no cause for celebration - but there may be a silver lining

Of all places, I was at the AGM of Alba North Lanarkshire when the news broke about Peter Murrell last night.  Understandably, a touch of schadenfreude rippled through the group, but personally I didn't feel any cause for rejoicing. As an independence movement, we need the SNP to get out of jail at the general election, and the prosecution of Murrell (especially the timing of it) makes that harder.

On the plus side, a recovery for the SNP is likely to depend on the toppling of the continuity Sturgeon faction, and that also now becomes much more likely - but the problem is that there just doesn't yet seem to be any interest in striking against Humza Yousaf before the general election, so the reckoning may come too late to avoid the worst of the damage.

There's an interesting 'levelling of the score' here, though.  Immediately after Alex Salmond stepped down as SNP leader, the perception was that he remained extremely influential as his successor's mentor.  It would have seemed unthinkable that under that successor's watch, he would come to be regarded with hostility by many SNP members.  That ultimately happened because of his prosecution, even though he was acquitted.  Logically, now that there's been a prosecution within the heart of the former Sturgeon leadership, the SNP membership will start to distance themselves psychologically and emotionally from Sturgeon, just as they did with Salmond before her, even though she had remained popular and influential immediately after her resignation.  There may then be an opportunity for the SNP to finally escape from the baggage of the Salmond-Sturgeon war, and emerge with a fresh leadership that has no special loyalty to either clan.

*  *  *

Ah, my devoted stalker from Somerset, launching his 928,745th unprovoked attack on me on Twitter.  Bless him.

Scotland's "pro-independence" politics blogs the day after the former CEO of the SNP is charged with robbing the party of a £600,000 indyref campaign fund:

1x "Westminster bad!"
2x "Please give us money!"
1x "Bradford gangs and Thames Water!" 😳🤷‍♂️ pic.twitter.com/LnS92YM8IV

— Wings Over Scotland (@WingsScotland) April 19, 2024

I know from long experience that his fan club will defend Mr Campbell almost regardless of circumstance, but I trust they won't on this occasion, because leaving aside the unprovoked nature of the attack, it's also mind-bogglingly hypocritical, nonsensical and illogical.  Let's start with the hypocritical: "please give us money!"  Seriously, Stu?  Would this be the same man who has solicited many hundreds of thousands of pounds from his readers, possibly even more than a million pounds over a ten year period, and including a five-figure sum only a few weeks ago?  I certainly don't criticise him for that, because I know as well anyone that regular, lengthy writing requires funding to be sustainable, but would it be too much to request a touch of consistency from him here?  Or is it fine when he does it, and somehow reprehensible when it's anybody else?  (And would it be unkind of me to point out that a large proportion of what he's raised disappeared into the bottomless pit of his counterproductive vanity legal action against Kezia Dugdale?  He also threatened legal action against me a few years ago - if he had proceeded with that stunt, would crowdfunded money have paid for it?)

Also hypocritical: the inverted commas around the words "pro-independence" when referring to Bella Caledonia, Wee Ginger Dug and Scot Goes Pop.  I've had my disputes with Mike Small and Paul Kavanagh, but I don't think I would ever doubt their belief in independence, especially not Paul's.  Whereas Mr Campbell has openly declared that he will vote Tory at the general election and would abstain in any independence referendum held in the foreseeable future.  I know which blog warrants the inverted commas.

The nonsensical part is criticising me for a blogpost I wrote and published several hours before the news about Peter Murrell broke.  Was I supposed to have premonitory knowledge of what was about to happen?

And the illogical part is lumping me in with Bella, John Robertson and WGD as if I'm some sort of SNP leadership loyalist blogger who is trying to hush up the news.  As previously stated, when I heard about Murrell, I was at the AGM of the Alba North Lanarkshire LACU, where I was elected the LACU's Organiser.  Is Mr Campbell similarly active in a non-SNP, pro-indy party?  No I don't suppose he is.

*  *  *

If you'd like to help Scot Goes Pop continue through this general election year, donations are welcome HERE.

Alternatively, direct donations can be made via Paypal.  My Paypal email address is: jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Scot Goes Pop 2024 Fundraiser update: it's getting close to the last chance saloon, but there's still time to help keep the site going through general election year

In many ways, Scot Goes Pop has been going from strength to strength in recent months.  The number of page views in March was higher than in any month since the Holyrood election month of May 2021.  OK, page view stats can be confounded by bots and so on, but it's a rough guide, and of course the number of comments on many recent posts has been staggeringly high, sometimes exceeding 300.

However, the general fundraiser for 2024 has so far fallen well short of its target.  You might remember that I said at some point last year that if the fundraising fell short, I would just carry on with the blog for as long as I possibly could and then stop.  I'm getting very close to reaching that point now.  Our political opponents may sneer about "grifting" but the reality is that I've been living on a shoestring for the last three years and lurching from mini-crisis to mini-crisis.  It's about just barely staying afloat, not about buying luxury yachts.

As I always say, writing Scot Goes Pop is not a full-time job and I have other sources of income (although fewer than in pre-pandemic times).  But it is the equivalent of an extremely time-consuming part-time job, and to drop everything when a new poll comes out requires time and flexibility.  I know there are some people who think it should be possible to be a prolific blogger as a sort of hobby or 'personal contribution', but all I would say is try it and see how far you get.  Eventually you'll run out of time or money or both.  I can think of at least two high-profile political bloggers who once made a virtue out of the fact that they would never accept donations but who ended up doing exactly that.  It's not about being hypocritical, it's just about learning from experience.

(Incidentally, I know I didn't drop everything on Monday to blog about the Norstat poll when it came out, but that was partly because there was an extremely lengthy Alba committee meeting that required a lot of preparation.)

I recently had a bracing chat with a family member who basically told me that the game was up.  She said she admired the way I had made Scot Goes Pop work for so many years, but that the political situation had changed through no fault of my own, and I had no choice but to move on and spend my time on other things, because sufficient funding was never going to be forthcoming now.  What she was getting at was the so-called "scunnered middle" problem.  In other words, Scot Goes Pop used to attract funding from across the independence movement, but now I'm caught between two stools.  SNP leadership loyalists are annoyed at me for joining Alba three years ago, but the more radical elements don't necessarily give me any credit for joining Alba, because I don't believe the SNP should be totally destroyed or whatever.  The funding base has therefore narrowed to those in the "scunnered middle", or to those who disagree with me on some points but who value a plurality of views in the pro-indy alternative media.

I want to prove my family member wrong, but it's getting close to the last chance saloon.  The frustration is that if everybody who reads this blog over the next week donated just £2, the problem would be solved instantly, but of course the world doesn't work that way.

If you'd like to see Scot Goes Pop continue during general election year, the fundraiser page can be found HERE. 

However, if you have a Paypal account, a better way to donate is by direct Paypal payment, because the payment usually comes through instantly and fees can be eliminated altogether depending on the option you select from the menu.  My Paypal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

I know a small number of people prefer direct bank transfer, and if you'd like to do that please email me and I'll send you the details.  My contact email address is different from my Paypal address and can be found on my Twitter profile or in the sidebar of this blog (desktop version of the site only).

Keir Starmer reels in HORROR as Labour loses its outright lead in Scotland, according to shock new Norstat poll

Apologies to anyone who thought from the title of this post that it's a completely new poll - it was in fact published on Monday, so you may have already seen it.  I was up to my neck that day due to an Alba committee meeting and a few other things, but I thought I'd better bring the numbers to you belatedly.

Scottish voting intentions for the next UK general election:

SNP 32% (-1)

Labour 32% (-4)

Conservatives 16% (-)

Liberal Democrats 9% (+2)

Reform UK 5% (+1)

Greens 4% (n/a)

Alba 2% (n/a)

Labour going from a three point lead to level-pegging may look like possible margin of error noise, but it's worth pointing out that the Greens and Alba were not offered as options for Westminster in the previous Norstat poll (even though Reform UK were), so assuming a lot of the Alba and Green respondents would have plumped for the SNP in the previous poll, the trend may be even better than it looks.

Should Scotland be an independent country?

Yes 47% (-3)

No 53% (+3)

Scottish Parliament constituency vote:

SNP 35% (-1)

Labour 30% (-1) 

Conservatives 17% (+1)

Liberal Democrats 10% (+3)

Greens 5% (-)

Scottish Parliament regional list ballot:

SNP 28% (-2)

Labour 25% (-4)

Conservatives 19% (-)

Liberal Democrats 10% (+3)

Greens 9% (-)

Reform UK 4% (+2)

Alba 3% (-)