With 10 weeks to go to the Holyrood election new Scottish poll has the SNP down to lowest point since GE2019 – politicalbetting.com
Probably the biggest elections taking place in the UK on the first Thursday of May are for the Scottish Parliament where a majority for the SNP could be important plank in its effort to have another referendum on the country being independent.
@ Leon FPT: Altered Carbon: 2 seasons of a cyberpunk TV series in which the basic idea is that you can back yourself up onto a disk (and for extra protection into the Cloud on satellites), and 're-sleeve' yourself into a new body as many times as you like. Stripped of the sci-fi and cyberpunk atmospherics, it is a standard whodunnit.
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
Note on the list vote the SNP is already below the 41% it got in 2016 now at 38% on this poll.
On the constituency vote it is still up on the 46.5% it got then but if Labour under its new leader Anas Sarwar makes inroads even that could be under threat
... and also, of course, the SNP do not have a majority in the current term of the Holyrood Parliament, despite widespread belief on PB ('one party state' and all that).
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 (given the 2016 election was before Brexit) and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
I think you have misunderstood./ Brexit IS the material change in circumstances. Sufficient in itself.
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 (given the 2016 election was before Brexit) and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
.. and you are moving the goalposts yet again. Suddenly a majority of pro-indy MSPs isn;'t good enough?
Note on the list vote the SNP is already below the 41% it got in 2016 now at 38% on this poll.
On the constituency vote it is still up on the 46.5% it got then but if Labour under its new leader Anas Sarwar makes inroads even that could be under threat
I must admit I don't really have a good answer for why the gap between constituency and list votes for the SNP (regardless of the overall level) differ so much, much more than at the last election.
Note on the list vote the SNP is already below the 41% it got in 2016 now at 38% on this poll.
On the constituency vote it is still up on the 46.5% it got then but if Labour under its new leader Anas Sarwar makes inroads even that could be under threat
I must admit I don't really have a good answer for why the gap between constituency and list votes for the SNP (regardless of the overall level) differ so much, much more than at the last election.
Any thoughts on whether that gap is real?
Not sure what you mean, it's been a feature for some time. The problem is the gerrymandered d'Hondt system - some folk think it is a waste of your vote to vote twice over for a party which is likely to win in the constituency so if they vote SNP [edit] on the constiotuency they vote Green on the list. Or else, Greens vote SNP or Labour (or LD) rather than Green in the constituency. Combination of the two I'd say.
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 (given the 2016 election was before Brexit) and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
Not so. If the pro-Independence parties maintain a majority then the material change of Brexit is more than enough justification for a referendum. They will have both the electoral support and the material reason to call one. Whether they will win is another matter but that is for the Scottish people to decide. They deserve to be given that chance.
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
I think you have misunderstood./ Brexit IS the material change in circumstances. Sufficient in itself.
I think he does understand.
For those that want a referendum in the near future Brexit is a valid reason for why there is no need for a generation +1 gap between referendums.
For those that don't want a referendum Brexit isn't a sufficient significant reason and there needs to be a generational gap.
The fact that Boris is both the reason behind Brexit and the reason why Scotland would vote for independence is neither here nor there.
Personally I do think there needs to be an Royal Commission to investigate independence so that the difficult questions (Government debt, currency, oil, nuclear deterrent) can't be sidestepped in the referendum as the awkward topics were last time around.
Were the UK Government to present the SNP with a long set of hard to answer and currently unanswered questions independence would be far harder than it currently is.
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
I think you have misunderstood./ Brexit IS the material change in circumstances. Sufficient in itself.
If the SNP fail to win a majority after Brexit it clearly for most Scots is not
I'm loathe to comment on Scottish politics because the usual suspects just abuse anyone who isn't 100% Scottish and 100% on favour of independence, however I'm going to anyway.
The most interesting result will be if the direction of travel continues and with better leadership both Labour and Tory pick up wavering unionist voters that are now looking at what kind of country the SNP are building.
The way the SNP leadership have used the power of the state to persecute a political enemy has been a real eye opener for me. The lack of separation between the political process and state processes is a huge concern for me in the UK, but in Scotland there doesn't really seem to be one.
When the government lose court cases (as with A50 and the prorogation) it strengthens our nation to have a part of the state that is independent from political persuasion and forces the government to seek democratic mandates.
Honestly, I understand that independence is a hugely important aim and were I Scottish I'd be in favour of it. However, I'd also be very worried about the SNP turning into the ANC of Scotland and just ruining the country with corruption and state targeting of political rivals. Honestly, I'd rather stick with an imperfect Union than risk that outcome.
What, to me, looked like a formality a few months ago (SNP majority, independence) now looks less and less likely. Using the state apparatus to target people is just wrong and it's going to turn people away from the SNP and their cause. It's a real red line.
Note on the list vote the SNP is already below the 41% it got in 2016 now at 38% on this poll.
On the constituency vote it is still up on the 46.5% it got then but if Labour under its new leader Anas Sarwar makes inroads even that could be under threat
I must admit I don't really have a good answer for why the gap between constituency and list votes for the SNP (regardless of the overall level) differ so much, much more than at the last election.
Any thoughts on whether that gap is real?
Not sure what you mean, it's been a feature for some time. The problem is the gerrymandered d'Hondt system - some folk think it is a waste of your vote to vote twice over for a party which is likely to win in the constituency so if they vote SNP [edit] on the constiotuency they vote Green on the list. Or else, Greens vote SNP or Labour (or LD) rather than Green in the constituency. Combination of the two I'd say.
I was basing my view off the 2016 (and earlier) results, in which a gap of 5 points is the maximum (save for the Greens, who play for second votes, but even then that's a 6% difference). Not 12% as here, if we believe it.
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
I think you have misunderstood./ Brexit IS the material change in circumstances. Sufficient in itself.
If the SNP fail to win a majority after Brexit it clearly for most Scots is not
Compared to England where the Tories are now massively dominant now thanks to Brexit? The divergence between the two nations is already much worse than it was.
And you are moving the goalposts yet again. You need to include the Scottish Greens, too.
I'm loathe to comment on Scottish politics because the usual suspects just abuse anyone who isn't 100% Scottish and 100% on favour of independence, however I'm going to anyway.
The most interesting result will be if the direction of travel continues and with better leadership both Labour and Tory pick up wavering unionist voters that are now looking at what kind of country the SNP are building.
The way the SNP leadership have used the power of the state to persecute a political enemy has been a real eye opener for me. The lack of separation between the political process and state processes is a huge concern for me in the UK, but in Scotland there doesn't really seem to be one.
When the government lose court cases (as with A50 and the prorogation) it strengthens our nation to have a part of the state that is independent from political persuasion and forces the government to seek democratic mandates.
Honestly, I understand that independence is a hugely important aim and were I Scottish I'd be in favour of it. However, I'd also be very worried about the SNP turning into the ANC of Scotland and just ruining the country with corruption and state targeting of political rivals. Honestly, I'd rather stick with an imperfect Union than risk that outcome.
What, to me, looked like a formality a few months ago (SNP majority, independence) now looks less and less likely. Using the state apparatus to target people is just wrong and it's going to turn people away from the SNP and their cause. It's a real red line.
I still think SNP and their little helpers the Greens will get a majority between them.
But IF an independence vote follows - which I don't think will happen in the short term - then whoever is leading SNP at the time will end up disappointed!
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 (given the 2016 election was before Brexit) and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
Not so. If the pro-Independence parties maintain a majority then the material change of Brexit is more than enough justification for a referendum. They will have both the electoral support and the material reason to call one. Whether they will win is another matter but that is for the Scottish people to decide. They deserve to be given that chance.
No. There was already an SNP and Green majority at Holyrood even before the Brexit vote. If the SNP cannot even match the majority they got in 2011 before the 2014 referendum after Brexit there is absolutely zero grounds for any indyref2 and this Tory government will correctly and easily refuse a legal indyref2 and the 2014 'once in a generation' referendum will be respected.
Just as with US politics, I don't really comment on politics in Scotland - if the people want to leave then that's a shame but fine by me.
But one thing I think is certainly the case - that Brexit was indeed a material change of circumstances. And hence a new indyref should be held on that basis.
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 (given the 2016 election was before Brexit) and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
Not so. If the pro-Independence parties maintain a majority then the material change of Brexit is more than enough justification for a referendum. They will have both the electoral support and the material reason to call one. Whether they will win is another matter but that is for the Scottish people to decide. They deserve to be given that chance.
No. There was already an SNP and Green majority at Holyrood even before the Brexit vote. If the SNP cannot even match the majority they got in 2011 before the 2014 referendum after Brexit there is absolutely zero grounds for any indyref2 and this Tory government will correctly and easily refuse a legal indyref2 and the 2014 'once in a generation' referendum will be respected.
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
I think you have misunderstood./ Brexit IS the material change in circumstances. Sufficient in itself.
If the SNP fail to win a majority after Brexit it clearly for most Scots is not
Compared to England where the Tories are now massively dominant now thanks to Brexit? The divergence between the two nations is already much worse than it was.
And you are moving the goalposts yet again. You need to include the Scottish Greens, too.
No we don't, the Greens are not an explicitly nationalist party like the SNP, it was only the SNP majority in 2011 which led Cameron and the UK government to even consider allowing the 2014 independence referendum. If no SNP majority at all the UK government will of course refuse to even consider allowing a legal indyref2
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 (given the 2016 election was before Brexit) and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
Not so. If the pro-Independence parties maintain a majority then the material change of Brexit is more than enough justification for a referendum. They will have both the electoral support and the material reason to call one. Whether they will win is another matter but that is for the Scottish people to decide. They deserve to be given that chance.
No. There was already an SNP and Green majority at Holyrood even before the Brexit vote. If the SNP cannot even match the majority they got in 2011 before the 2014 referendum after Brexit there is absolutely zero grounds for any indyref2 and this Tory government will correctly and easily refuse a legal indyref2 and the 2014 'once in a generation' referendum will be respected.
I think this may be an argument you've put forward before.
At the last election the SNP and Scottish Greens — who support independence — won an overall majority, with 69 seats. If the unionist parties can win a majority this time itll be a pretty significant achievement.
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
I think you have misunderstood./ Brexit IS the material change in circumstances. Sufficient in itself.
If the SNP fail to win a majority after Brexit it clearly for most Scots is not
Compared to England where the Tories are now massively dominant now thanks to Brexit? The divergence between the two nations is already much worse than it was.
And you are moving the goalposts yet again. You need to include the Scottish Greens, too.
No we don't, the Greens are not an explicitly nationalist party like the SNP, it was only the SNP majority in 2011 which led Cameron and the UK government to even consider allowing the 2014 independence referendum. If no SNP majority at all the UK government will of course refuse to even consider allowing a legal indyref2
The Greens are in support of independence. To argue that they should be ignored is a remarkable piece of intellectual tergiversation. And not one to be encouraged in rational debate, above all on PB where people's bets depend on rational analysis free of moving goalposts.
Remember: Mrs T herself accepted that a simple majority of SNP MPs in Scottish MPs was sufficient to trigger independence tout court. (not in quite those words, but what other way was there then to obtain a majority statement of intent?)
Just as with US politics, I don't really comment on politics in Scotland - if the people want to leave then that's a shame but fine by me.
But one thing I think is certainly the case - that Brexit was indeed a material change of circumstances. And hence a new indyref should be held on that basis.
For the SNP if it was raining tomorrow that would be a 'material change of circumstances.'
Just as with US politics, I don't really comment on politics in Scotland - if the people want to leave then that's a shame but fine by me.
But one thing I think is certainly the case - that Brexit was indeed a material change of circumstances. And hence a new indyref should be held on that basis.
For the SNP if it was raining tomorrow that would be a 'material change of circumstances.'
I'm sure it would be for them. But I fail to see how anyone can argue that taking Scotland out of the EU, with all the attendant changes of process and status does not constitute a material change.
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
I think you have misunderstood./ Brexit IS the material change in circumstances. Sufficient in itself.
If the SNP fail to win a majority after Brexit it clearly for most Scots is not
Compared to England where the Tories are now massively dominant now thanks to Brexit? The divergence between the two nations is already much worse than it was.
And you are moving the goalposts yet again. You need to include the Scottish Greens, too.
No we don't, the Greens are not an explicitly nationalist party like the SNP, it was only the SNP majority in 2011 which led Cameron and the UK government to even consider allowing the 2014 independence referendum. If no SNP majority at all the UK government will of course refuse to even consider allowing a legal indyref2
The Greens are in support of independence. To argue that they should be ignored is a remarkable piece of intellectual tergiversation. And not one to be encouraged in rational debate, above all on PB where people's bets depend on rational analysis free of moving goalposts.
Remember: Mrs T herself accepted that a simple majority of SNP MPs in Scottish MPs was sufficient to trigger independence tout court. (not in quite those words, but what other way was there then to obtain a majority statement of intent?)
She did not actually say that, all she said in the Downing Street Years was ' “The Tory Party is not, of course, an English party, but a Unionist one. If it sometimes seems English to some Scots, that is because the Union is inevitably dominated by England by reason of its greater population. The Scots, being an historic nation with a proud past, will inevitably resent some expressions of this fact from time to time.
“As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence, no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure.”' Never that a majority of SNP MPs alone would be enough.
However Thatcher is no longer UK PM or even alive, Boris is
Just as with US politics, I don't really comment on politics in Scotland - if the people want to leave then that's a shame but fine by me.
But one thing I think is certainly the case - that Brexit was indeed a material change of circumstances. And hence a new indyref should be held on that basis.
For the SNP if it was raining tomorrow that would be a 'material change of circumstances.'
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
I think you have misunderstood./ Brexit IS the material change in circumstances. Sufficient in itself.
If the SNP fail to win a majority after Brexit it clearly for most Scots is not
Compared to England where the Tories are now massively dominant now thanks to Brexit? The divergence between the two nations is already much worse than it was.
And you are moving the goalposts yet again. You need to include the Scottish Greens, too.
No we don't, the Greens are not an explicitly nationalist party like the SNP, it was only the SNP majority in 2011 which led Cameron and the UK government to even consider allowing the 2014 independence referendum. If no SNP majority at all the UK government will of course refuse to even consider allowing a legal indyref2
The Greens are in support of independence. To argue that they should be ignored is a remarkable piece of intellectual tergiversation. And not one to be encouraged in rational debate, above all on PB where people's bets depend on rational analysis free of moving goalposts.
Remember: Mrs T herself accepted that a simple majority of SNP MPs in Scottish MPs was sufficient to trigger independence tout court. (not in quite those words, but what other way was there then to obtain a majority statement of intent?)
She did not actually say that, all she said in the Downing Street Years was ' “The Tory Party is not, of course, an English party, but a Unionist one. If it sometimes seems English to some Scots, that is because the Union is inevitably dominated by England by reason of its greater population. The Scots, being an historic nation with a proud past, will inevitably resent some expressions of this fact from time to time.
“As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence, no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure.”' Never that a majority of SNP MPs alone would be enough.
However Thatcher is no longer UK PM or even alive, Boris is
The point is
(a) how else would they determine on independence? Other than by a majiroty of FPTP MPs at the time?
(b) it shows just how far you've moved the goalposts. All the way out of Wembley to Epping.
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
I think you have misunderstood./ Brexit IS the material change in circumstances. Sufficient in itself.
If the SNP fail to win a majority after Brexit it clearly for most Scots is not
Compared to England where the Tories are now massively dominant now thanks to Brexit? The divergence between the two nations is already much worse than it was.
And you are moving the goalposts yet again. You need to include the Scottish Greens, too.
No we don't, the Greens are not an explicitly nationalist party like the SNP, it was only the SNP majority in 2011 which led Cameron and the UK government to even consider allowing the 2014 independence referendum. If no SNP majority at all the UK government will of course refuse to even consider allowing a legal indyref2
The Greens are in support of independence. To argue that they should be ignored is a remarkable piece of intellectual tergiversation. And not one to be encouraged in rational debate, above all on PB where people's bets depend on rational analysis free of moving goalposts.
Remember: Mrs T herself accepted that a simple majority of SNP MPs in Scottish MPs was sufficient to trigger independence tout court. (not in quite those words, but what other way was there then to obtain a majority statement of intent?)
She did not actually say that, all she said in the Downing Street Years was ' “The Tory Party is not, of course, an English party, but a Unionist one. If it sometimes seems English to some Scots, that is because the Union is inevitably dominated by England by reason of its greater population. The Scots, being an historic nation with a proud past, will inevitably resent some expressions of this fact from time to time.
“As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence, no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure.”' Never that a majority of SNP MPs alone would be enough.
However Thatcher is no longer UK PM or even alive, Boris is
Yes, but she is more of a PM when long since dead than Boris Johnson is while still very much alive.
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
I think you have misunderstood./ Brexit IS the material change in circumstances. Sufficient in itself.
If the SNP fail to win a majority after Brexit it clearly for most Scots is not
Compared to England where the Tories are now massively dominant now thanks to Brexit? The divergence between the two nations is already much worse than it was.
And you are moving the goalposts yet again. You need to include the Scottish Greens, too.
No we don't, the Greens are not an explicitly nationalist party like the SNP, it was only the SNP majority in 2011 which led Cameron and the UK government to even consider allowing the 2014 independence referendum. If no SNP majority at all the UK government will of course refuse to even consider allowing a legal indyref2
The Greens are in support of independence. To argue that they should be ignored is a remarkable piece of intellectual tergiversation. And not one to be encouraged in rational debate, above all on PB where people's bets depend on rational analysis free of moving goalposts.
Remember: Mrs T herself accepted that a simple majority of SNP MPs in Scottish MPs was sufficient to trigger independence tout court. (not in quite those words, but what other way was there then to obtain a majority statement of intent?)
She did not actually say that, all she said in the Downing Street Years was ' “The Tory Party is not, of course, an English party, but a Unionist one. If it sometimes seems English to some Scots, that is because the Union is inevitably dominated by England by reason of its greater population. The Scots, being an historic nation with a proud past, will inevitably resent some expressions of this fact from time to time.
“As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence, no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure.”' Never that a majority of SNP MPs alone would be enough.
However Thatcher is no longer UK PM or even alive, Boris is
The point is
(a) how else would they determine on independence? Other than by a majiroty of FPTP MPs at the time?
(b) it shows just how far you've moved the goalposts. All the way out of Wembley to Epping.
They determined on independence in the 'once in a generation' 2014 referendum
Note on the list vote the SNP is already below the 41% it got in 2016 now at 38% on this poll.
On the constituency vote it is still up on the 46.5% it got then but if Labour under its new leader Anas Sarwar makes inroads even that could be under threat
I must admit I don't really have a good answer for why the gap between constituency and list votes for the SNP (regardless of the overall level) differ so much, much more than at the last election.
Any thoughts on whether that gap is real?
It seems atypically high but one factor is that the Greens generally don't stand in any constituency and the vast majority of their supporters tend to vote for the SNP in the constituencies as a result.
Edit this is also because a lot of "Green" support is in fact SNP supporters who are smart enough to realise that their party will not get list seats so they vote for a different independence party on the list.
Just as with US politics, I don't really comment on politics in Scotland - if the people want to leave then that's a shame but fine by me.
But one thing I think is certainly the case - that Brexit was indeed a material change of circumstances. And hence a new indyref should be held on that basis.
For the SNP if it was raining tomorrow that would be a 'material change of circumstances.'
Just as with US politics, I don't really comment on politics in Scotland - if the people want to leave then that's a shame but fine by me.
But one thing I think is certainly the case - that Brexit was indeed a material change of circumstances. And hence a new indyref should be held on that basis.
For the SNP if it was raining tomorrow that would be a 'material change of circumstances.'
" It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known" as Swinney might have said on losing his job to make sure that Roddy Dunlop QC's advice cannot be used to crucify the blessed Nicola on Wednesday.
I know that there is back-filling still to come but that decline remains stunningly linear...
It was also very linear the last time it fell away after the first wave, IIRC.
It just means that if it continues we should be at single figure deaths in about a week... which I'm not really expecting btw - it just keeps confounding me by not turning yet.
Just as with US politics, I don't really comment on politics in Scotland - if the people want to leave then that's a shame but fine by me.
But one thing I think is certainly the case - that Brexit was indeed a material change of circumstances. And hence a new indyref should be held on that basis.
For the SNP if it was raining tomorrow that would be a 'material change of circumstances.'
Question: does a vote of confidence in an individual minister have any effect in the Scottish Parliament? It might be embarrassing, but is his boss required to listen and sack him off, or is the only sure fire means of deposing Swinney to VONC the entire Government?
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 (given the 2016 election was before Brexit) and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
Not so. If the pro-Independence parties maintain a majority then the material change of Brexit is more than enough justification for a referendum. They will have both the electoral support and the material reason to call one. Whether they will win is another matter but that is for the Scottish people to decide. They deserve to be given that chance.
No. There was already an SNP and Green majority at Holyrood even before the Brexit vote. If the SNP cannot even match the majority they got in 2011 before the 2014 referendum after Brexit there is absolutely zero grounds for any indyref2 and this Tory government will correctly and easily refuse a legal indyref2 and the 2014 'once in a generation' referendum will be respected.
If you don't think Brexit was a material change then why have you spent the last 4 years so adamant that it should be enacted? You and I both know that the Unionist side campaigned strongly on the fact that the only way to secure the future of Scotland within the EU was to vote against independence and now that we have Brexited, against the wishes of a very clear majority of Scots, it is only right that the question should be revisited.
You may not wish Scotland to become independent but to deny them that choice is thoroughly undemocratic.
" It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known" as Swinney might have said on losing his job to make sure that Roddy Dunlop QC's advice cannot be used to crucify the blessed Nicola on Wednesday.
To have one former leader of the SNP embroiled in all sorts of legal shit may be regarded as a misfortune. To have it happen to both of them looks like carelessness.
Question: does a vote of confidence in an individual minister have any effect in the Scottish Parliament? It might be embarrassing, but is his boss required to listen and sack him off, or is the only sure fire means of deposing Swinney to VONC the entire Government?
Swinney can style it out if Nippy wants him to stay
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
I think you have misunderstood./ Brexit IS the material change in circumstances. Sufficient in itself.
If the SNP fail to win a majority after Brexit it clearly for most Scots is not
Compared to England where the Tories are now massively dominant now thanks to Brexit? The divergence between the two nations is already much worse than it was.
And you are moving the goalposts yet again. You need to include the Scottish Greens, too.
No we don't, the Greens are not an explicitly nationalist party like the SNP, it was only the SNP majority in 2011 which led Cameron and the UK government to even consider allowing the 2014 independence referendum. If no SNP majority at all the UK government will of course refuse to even consider allowing a legal indyref2
The Greens are in support of independence. To argue that they should be ignored is a remarkable piece of intellectual tergiversation. And not one to be encouraged in rational debate, above all on PB where people's bets depend on rational analysis free of moving goalposts.
Remember: Mrs T herself accepted that a simple majority of SNP MPs in Scottish MPs was sufficient to trigger independence tout court. (not in quite those words, but what other way was there then to obtain a majority statement of intent?)
She did not actually say that, all she said in the Downing Street Years was ' “The Tory Party is not, of course, an English party, but a Unionist one. If it sometimes seems English to some Scots, that is because the Union is inevitably dominated by England by reason of its greater population. The Scots, being an historic nation with a proud past, will inevitably resent some expressions of this fact from time to time.
“As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence, no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure.”' Never that a majority of SNP MPs alone would be enough.
However Thatcher is no longer UK PM or even alive, Boris is
Yes, but she is more of a PM when long since dead than Boris Johnson is while still very much alive.
Question: does a vote of confidence in an individual minister have any effect in the Scottish Parliament? It might be embarrassing, but is his boss required to listen and sack him off, or is the only sure fire means of deposing Swinney to VONC the entire Government?
Swinney can style it out if Nippy wants him to stay
I doubt if she wants him to stay - he would be a useful sacrificial lamb given his abject performance in both his roles - but equally I doubt if she can afford to lose him at this moment.
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 (given the 2016 election was before Brexit) and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
Not so. If the pro-Independence parties maintain a majority then the material change of Brexit is more than enough justification for a referendum. They will have both the electoral support and the material reason to call one. Whether they will win is another matter but that is for the Scottish people to decide. They deserve to be given that chance.
No. There was already an SNP and Green majority at Holyrood even before the Brexit vote. If the SNP cannot even match the majority they got in 2011 before the 2014 referendum after Brexit there is absolutely zero grounds for any indyref2 and this Tory government will correctly and easily refuse a legal indyref2 and the 2014 'once in a generation' referendum will be respected.
If you don't think Brexit was a material change then why have you spent the last 4 years so adamant that it should be enacted? You and I both know that the Unionist side campaigned strongly on the fact that the only way to secure the future of Scotland within the EU was to vote against independence and now that we have Brexited, against the wishes of a very clear majority of Scots, it is only right that the question should be revisited.
You may not wish Scotland to become independent but to deny them that choice is thoroughly undemocratic.
No it isn't, it is entirely in accordance with the Scotland Act 1998 in which Union matters are reserved to Westminster.
We Tories have a majority at Westminster, have been clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote and will not therefore allow a legal indyref2.
If it was such a material change anyway Yes would be over 62% given 62% of Scots voted Remain in 2016, not just 43% ie even less than it got in 2014
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 (given the 2016 election was before Brexit) and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
Not so. If the pro-Independence parties maintain a majority then the material change of Brexit is more than enough justification for a referendum. They will have both the electoral support and the material reason to call one. Whether they will win is another matter but that is for the Scottish people to decide. They deserve to be given that chance.
No. There was already an SNP and Green majority at Holyrood even before the Brexit vote. If the SNP cannot even match the majority they got in 2011 before the 2014 referendum after Brexit there is absolutely zero grounds for any indyref2 and this Tory government will correctly and easily refuse a legal indyref2 and the 2014 'once in a generation' referendum will be respected.
I think you may be dancing on pinheads. If the Scottish people vote in the SNP, absolutely ghastly though the SNP are (the genuine nasty party), they know what they are voting for. Those that don't want the risk of the upheaval of independence know it is best not to vote for the SNP. I think it will be politically impossible and counterproductive for Bozo to think he can play the part of Cnut, though he does look the part!
I trust this Downing Street briefing is to announce a successful drone strike on Pascal Gaüzère?
Wales v England referee Pascal Gauzere admits he got both tries wrong
The Frenchman has come under severe criticism after Saturday's Six Nations clash, with World Rugby's Head of Match Officials now saying Gauzere has admitted his mistakes
Well, makes sense, right? You can't have a white person translate words written by a black poet, any more than you could have a chart topping white rapper or a successful black golfer
Other than the inauguration stuff, I'm not familiar with Gorman's work. If much of it is about being young and black in America then you could imagine that the ideal translator might be a young, black Dutch-American as that person might pick words that better convey some of the bits between the lines* (in the same way that a Dutch farming almanac might be ideally translated by someone with farming experience). But it's far from a certainty.
*depending on experiences, a better translator might be a White Dutch American growing up in a similar area, rather than a Black Dutch person with no experience of America.
" It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known" as Swinney might have said on losing his job to make sure that Roddy Dunlop QC's advice cannot be used to crucify the blessed Nicola on Wednesday.
To have one former leader of the SNP embroiled in all sorts of legal shit may be regarded as a misfortune. To have it happen to both of them looks like carelessness.
I think in this case it is what the bookies call a related contingency.
Note on the list vote the SNP is already below the 41% it got in 2016 now at 38% on this poll.
On the constituency vote it is still up on the 46.5% it got then but if Labour under its new leader Anas Sarwar makes inroads even that could be under threat
I must admit I don't really have a good answer for why the gap between constituency and list votes for the SNP (regardless of the overall level) differ so much, much more than at the last election.
Any thoughts on whether that gap is real?
There seems to be almost as big a pollster variance (on the list votes at least) as the recent Welsh polls.
Starmer has 2021 to turn that around, or he is toast....
Starmer will be thanking his lucky stars the Tories won the 2017 county council elections by 11%, thus even 8% behind on the new Survation he can still claim a 'swing' and council seat gains from the Tories in May.
If it was just the 2016 local seats up again, when Labour and the Tories were neck and neck, the headlines would likely be Labour going backwards.
Note on the list vote the SNP is already below the 41% it got in 2016 now at 38% on this poll.
On the constituency vote it is still up on the 46.5% it got then but if Labour under its new leader Anas Sarwar makes inroads even that could be under threat
I must admit I don't really have a good answer for why the gap between constituency and list votes for the SNP (regardless of the overall level) differ so much, much more than at the last election.
Any thoughts on whether that gap is real?
There seems to be almost as big a pollster variance (on the list votes at least) as the recent Welsh polls.
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
I think you have misunderstood./ Brexit IS the material change in circumstances. Sufficient in itself.
If the SNP fail to win a majority after Brexit it clearly for most Scots is not
Compared to England where the Tories are now massively dominant now thanks to Brexit? The divergence between the two nations is already much worse than it was.
And you are moving the goalposts yet again. You need to include the Scottish Greens, too.
No we don't, the Greens are not an explicitly nationalist party like the SNP, it was only the SNP majority in 2011 which led Cameron and the UK government to even consider allowing the 2014 independence referendum. If no SNP majority at all the UK government will of course refuse to even consider allowing a legal indyref2
The Greens are in support of independence. To argue that they should be ignored is a remarkable piece of intellectual tergiversation. And not one to be encouraged in rational debate, above all on PB where people's bets depend on rational analysis free of moving goalposts.
Remember: Mrs T herself accepted that a simple majority of SNP MPs in Scottish MPs was sufficient to trigger independence tout court. (not in quite those words, but what other way was there then to obtain a majority statement of intent?)
She did not actually say that, all she said in the Downing Street Years was ' “The Tory Party is not, of course, an English party, but a Unionist one. If it sometimes seems English to some Scots, that is because the Union is inevitably dominated by England by reason of its greater population. The Scots, being an historic nation with a proud past, will inevitably resent some expressions of this fact from time to time.
“As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence, no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure.”' Never that a majority of SNP MPs alone would be enough.
However Thatcher is no longer UK PM or even alive, Boris is
Yes, but she is more of a PM when long since dead than Boris Johnson is while still very much alive.
That poll has the nasty, grinding-rock feeling of the Great British electorate starting to decide that SKS is a bit of a dud. That tends to only go one way, once it sets in.
I trust this Downing Street briefing is to announce a successful drone strike on Pascal Gaüzère?
Wales v England referee Pascal Gauzere admits he got both tries wrong
The Frenchman has come under severe criticism after Saturday's Six Nations clash, with World Rugby's Head of Match Officials now saying Gauzere has admitted his mistakes
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 (given the 2016 election was before Brexit) and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
Not so. If the pro-Independence parties maintain a majority then the material change of Brexit is more than enough justification for a referendum. They will have both the electoral support and the material reason to call one. Whether they will win is another matter but that is for the Scottish people to decide. They deserve to be given that chance.
No. There was already an SNP and Green majority at Holyrood even before the Brexit vote. If the SNP cannot even match the majority they got in 2011 before the 2014 referendum after Brexit there is absolutely zero grounds for any indyref2 and this Tory government will correctly and easily refuse a legal indyref2 and the 2014 'once in a generation' referendum will be respected.
I think you may be dancing on pinheads. If the Scottish people vote in the SNP, absolutely ghastly though the SNP are (the genuine nasty party), they know what they are voting for. Those that don't want the risk of the upheaval of independence know it is best not to vote for the SNP. I think it will be politically impossible and counterproductive for Bozo to think he can play the part of Cnut, though he does look the part!
If the SNP fail to get a majority but only scrape back again with the Greens the Scots will not even be voting majority SNP anyway
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
I think you have misunderstood./ Brexit IS the material change in circumstances. Sufficient in itself.
If the SNP fail to win a majority after Brexit it clearly for most Scots is not
Compared to England where the Tories are now massively dominant now thanks to Brexit? The divergence between the two nations is already much worse than it was.
And you are moving the goalposts yet again. You need to include the Scottish Greens, too.
No we don't, the Greens are not an explicitly nationalist party like the SNP, it was only the SNP majority in 2011 which led Cameron and the UK government to even consider allowing the 2014 independence referendum. If no SNP majority at all the UK government will of course refuse to even consider allowing a legal indyref2
The Greens are in support of independence. To argue that they should be ignored is a remarkable piece of intellectual tergiversation. And not one to be encouraged in rational debate, above all on PB where people's bets depend on rational analysis free of moving goalposts.
Remember: Mrs T herself accepted that a simple majority of SNP MPs in Scottish MPs was sufficient to trigger independence tout court. (not in quite those words, but what other way was there then to obtain a majority statement of intent?)
She did not actually say that, all she said in the Downing Street Years was ' “The Tory Party is not, of course, an English party, but a Unionist one. If it sometimes seems English to some Scots, that is because the Union is inevitably dominated by England by reason of its greater population. The Scots, being an historic nation with a proud past, will inevitably resent some expressions of this fact from time to time.
“As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence, no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure.”' Never that a majority of SNP MPs alone would be enough.
However Thatcher is no longer UK PM or even alive, Boris is
Yes, but she is more of a PM when long since dead than Boris Johnson is while still very much alive.
Oh don't be so stupidly partisan. For one, I wasn't comparing Bozo with Starmer (he is leader of Labour btw, and is as yet largely untested!), I was comparing Johnson with Margaret Thatcher, who was, love her or loathe her, a colossus. The only thing about Boris er er er Johnson is his stomach, and the colossal consequences of his incompetence ("oh but the vaccines the vaccines" you will no doubt nauseously and obsequiously cry in your inability to point to anything else he has got lucky with while in office).
Just generated this meme. The EU trying to decide how to learn lessons from Britain's vaccine rollout.
What do you think? Apologies if its not original text.
The thing is, this isn't as much about the EU any more. They're now receiving 2.5-3 million doses a day between AZ and Pfizer. Now, that's a lot less (proportionately) than the UK, but it's a very similar number to the US.
There is nothing, really, more for the EU Commission to do. Increasing numbers of vaccines will arrive. They will be later than the UK, but they're coming.
Can you explain the 2.5 - 3 million vaccine doses being delivered daily, please?
The prediction a couple of weeks ago was 55 million in March, which is about 1.6 million per day. And at that time I could not see anything else that would boost it before April.
Unless AZ have sorted their plant quickly or diverted from elsewhere, or Pfizer really ramped up.
The EU Commission - whilst UVDL is President - need to save UVDL's backside .
I trust this Downing Street briefing is to announce a successful drone strike on Pascal Gaüzère?
Wales v England referee Pascal Gauzere admits he got both tries wrong
The Frenchman has come under severe criticism after Saturday's Six Nations clash, with World Rugby's Head of Match Officials now saying Gauzere has admitted his mistakes
Interesting header; of course, the Scottish Greens (who are slated to do well, much better than the LDs) are also a pro-independence party, so it's not just a matter of the SNP.
It is, if there is no change to the current SNP and Green majority at Holyrood then the SNP have zero grounds to claim a 'material change in circumstances' due to Brexit for indyref2 and in 2011 it was only the SNP majority Salmond won that led to the 2014 independence referendum
I think you have misunderstood./ Brexit IS the material change in circumstances. Sufficient in itself.
If the SNP fail to win a majority after Brexit it clearly for most Scots is not
Compared to England where the Tories are now massively dominant now thanks to Brexit? The divergence between the two nations is already much worse than it was.
And you are moving the goalposts yet again. You need to include the Scottish Greens, too.
No we don't, the Greens are not an explicitly nationalist party like the SNP, it was only the SNP majority in 2011 which led Cameron and the UK government to even consider allowing the 2014 independence referendum. If no SNP majority at all the UK government will of course refuse to even consider allowing a legal indyref2
The Greens are in support of independence. To argue that they should be ignored is a remarkable piece of intellectual tergiversation. And not one to be encouraged in rational debate, above all on PB where people's bets depend on rational analysis free of moving goalposts.
Remember: Mrs T herself accepted that a simple majority of SNP MPs in Scottish MPs was sufficient to trigger independence tout court. (not in quite those words, but what other way was there then to obtain a majority statement of intent?)
She did not actually say that, all she said in the Downing Street Years was ' “The Tory Party is not, of course, an English party, but a Unionist one. If it sometimes seems English to some Scots, that is because the Union is inevitably dominated by England by reason of its greater population. The Scots, being an historic nation with a proud past, will inevitably resent some expressions of this fact from time to time.
“As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence, no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure.”' Never that a majority of SNP MPs alone would be enough.
However Thatcher is no longer UK PM or even alive, Boris is
Yes, but she is more of a PM when long since dead than Boris Johnson is while still very much alive.
Oh don't be so stupidly partisan. For one, I wasn't comparing Bozo with Starmer (he is leader of Labour btw, and is as yet largely untested!), I was comparing Johnson with Margaret Thatcher, who was, love her or loathe her, a colossus. The only thing about Boris er er er Johnson is his stomach, and the colossal consequences of his incompetence ("oh but the vaccines the vaccines" you will no doubt nauseously and obsequiously cry in your inability to point to anything else he has got lucky with while in office).
You may not much like Boris but there is no doubt that in my lifetime there have only been 3 globally recognised UK PMs, Thatcher, Blair and now Boris. He is a huge personality and presence both in the UK and on the world stage.
Comments
Ah, the Sunday Rawnsley ...
It is always worth hearing incisive commentary on Scotland from a man who rarely leaves South-West London.
On the constituency vote it is still up on the 46.5% it got then but if Labour under its new leader Anas Sarwar makes inroads even that could be under threat
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1366338126097055744?s=20
Any thoughts on whether that gap is real?
For those that want a referendum in the near future Brexit is a valid reason for why there is no need for a generation +1 gap between referendums.
For those that don't want a referendum Brexit isn't a sufficient significant reason and there needs to be a generational gap.
The fact that Boris is both the reason behind Brexit and the reason why Scotland would vote for independence is neither here nor there.
Personally I do think there needs to be an Royal Commission to investigate independence so that the difficult questions (Government debt, currency, oil, nuclear deterrent) can't be sidestepped in the referendum as the awkward topics were last time around.
Were the UK Government to present the SNP with a long set of hard to answer and currently unanswered questions independence would be far harder than it currently is.
The most interesting result will be if the direction of travel continues and with better leadership both Labour and Tory pick up wavering unionist voters that are now looking at what kind of country the SNP are building.
The way the SNP leadership have used the power of the state to persecute a political enemy has been a real eye opener for me. The lack of separation between the political process and state processes is a huge concern for me in the UK, but in Scotland there doesn't really seem to be one.
When the government lose court cases (as with A50 and the prorogation) it strengthens our nation to have a part of the state that is independent from political persuasion and forces the government to seek democratic mandates.
Honestly, I understand that independence is a hugely important aim and were I Scottish I'd be in favour of it. However, I'd also be very worried about the SNP turning into the ANC of Scotland and just ruining the country with corruption and state targeting of political rivals. Honestly, I'd rather stick with an imperfect Union than risk that outcome.
What, to me, looked like a formality a few months ago (SNP majority, independence) now looks less and less likely. Using the state apparatus to target people is just wrong and it's going to turn people away from the SNP and their cause. It's a real red line.
From case data
From hospitalisation data
And you are moving the goalposts yet again. You need to include the Scottish Greens, too.
But IF an independence vote follows - which I don't think will happen in the short term - then whoever is leading SNP at the time will end up disappointed!
But one thing I think is certainly the case - that Brexit was indeed a material change of circumstances. And hence a new indyref should be held on that basis.
Moving goalposts
Moving goalposts
Remember: Mrs T herself accepted that a simple majority of SNP MPs in Scottish MPs was sufficient to trigger independence tout court. (not in quite those words, but what other way was there then to obtain a majority statement of intent?)
https://twitter.com/addicted2newz/status/1366122708812111875
In fact on the latest poll Yes is only on 43%, even below the 45% it got in 2014 despite Brexit, when you include don't knows
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1365978299265150978?s=20
“As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence, no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure.”' Never that a majority of SNP MPs alone would be enough.
However Thatcher is no longer UK PM or even alive, Boris is
(a) how else would they determine on independence? Other than by a majiroty of FPTP MPs at the time?
(b) it shows just how far you've moved the goalposts. All the way out of Wembley to Epping.
Edit this is also because a lot of "Green" support is in fact SNP supporters who are smart enough to realise that their party will not get list seats so they vote for a different independence party on the list.
News from Gen Z, or, the revolution eats its own
Not had to guess what why they'll swing on that one.
You may not wish Scotland to become independent but to deny them that choice is thoroughly undemocratic.
-If it isn't, it'll do until the mess gets here"
https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1366433148373004288
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1366433463675609092
We Tories have a majority at Westminster, have been clear 2014 was a once in a generation vote and will not therefore allow a legal indyref2.
If it was such a material change anyway Yes would be over 62% given 62% of Scots voted Remain in 2016, not just 43% ie even less than it got in 2014
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1365978299265150978?s=20
Wales v England referee Pascal Gauzere admits he got both tries wrong
The Frenchman has come under severe criticism after Saturday's Six Nations clash, with World Rugby's Head of Match Officials now saying Gauzere has admitted his mistakes
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/wales-v-england-referee-pascal-19938253
The only equitable solution is to replay the match and never let a Frenchman referee an England match.
Other than the inauguration stuff, I'm not familiar with Gorman's work. If much of it is about being young and black in America then you could imagine that the ideal translator might be a young, black Dutch-American as that person might pick words that better convey some of the bits between the lines* (in the same way that a Dutch farming almanac might be ideally translated by someone with farming experience). But it's far from a certainty.
*depending on experiences, a better translator might be a White Dutch American growing up in a similar area, rather than a Black Dutch person with no experience of America.
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1366351772147671040?s=20
If it was just the 2016 local seats up again, when Labour and the Tories were neck and neck, the headlines would likely be Labour going backwards.
Can you explain the 2.5 - 3 million vaccine doses being delivered daily, please?
The prediction a couple of weeks ago was 55 million in March, which is about 1.6 million per day. And at that time I could not see anything else that would boost it before April.
Unless AZ have sorted their plant quickly or diverted from elsewhere, or Pfizer really ramped up.
The EU Commission - whilst UVDL is President - need to save UVDL's backside .
The latter tries only came about due to England having to take the risks which opened up the game.
Matt Hancock saying admissions to ICU in the 80+ group are down to single figures.