When I see a headline in The National breathlessly declaring Scotland to elect pro-independence majority in 2026, poll finds, my first reaction is to check the date lest I have somehow lighted upon the same or similar story from last week, or the week before.
which is exactly why 1) they need more funding IN Scotland (all of it), and 2) set up their own party. They have 11 days and less than 2 hours to do it for the 2026 election.
"Billionaire brothers Easdales in bid to shape Scottish politics" (6 figure donation to Labour)
They run a great bus service, and actually invest in Scotland as well as staying here. Maybe at last we'll get a genuine Scottish Labour Party funded in Scotland, by Scots, focusing on Scotland; and fuck the SNP and their "progressive" waffly shite at the expense of the economy and regular folk.
Read it carefully to understand WHY I like it. It brings new hope.
edit: to make it clear - if Scottish Labour came out supporting Independence I'd vote x2 for them
OMFG. I just wasted my valuable time on a piece that was clearly orchestrated to push the risable narrative that Anas Sarwar is not Keith Stammers bag man in Jockland and will do a great job standing up for North Britain.
"they felt that Mr Sarwar was intent on taking Labour in
a specifically Scottish direction with Scottish solutions for Scottish problems. "
Have you completely lost your ability to interpret what is going on?
If you think that electing Anas Sarwar of British Labour in Scotland as head of the devolved executive would not be a disaster waiting to happen for the restoration of Scotlands Independence, you really do need to stop and think.
If that was not enough for you, the ludicrous idea that he really gets business on account of he inherited a business and the attached millions, and his first constituency seat, from his Daddy.
Up until now I did not have you pegged as one of those hard-of-thinking so-called 'centrist' neoliberal sheep.
What kind of idiot gives any credence to an article that opens with a blatant lie? John Swinney DID NOT say "he may be compelled to send Scottish troops to Ukraine."
As to your pish about this implying 'Scottish' Labour might come out in support of independence, it's even more pish than I thought:
"James [Easdale] adds: “We’re not pro-independence...""
Do you see the three dots at the end of the quote? It's called an ellipsis. It tells any moderately well-educated person that there is more following. It is not selective quoting. It is partial quoting. Quoting the part that is relevant.
The Easdales are "not pro-independence". Yet you are positing the idiotic notion that two businessmen who are not pro-independence are going to use their money to buy whatever magic potion would be required to make British Labour become "truly Scottish".
I'm sure readers will not have failed to notice that, like a typical SNP apologist, you make a big fuss about me leaving out the irrelevant part of a quote, but have nothing at all to say when Kevin McKenna blatantly lies about what John Swinney said on the subject of Scottish troops in Ukraine..
The point is you totally missed the context. The Easdales are not pro-Independence with the thought of the SNP being in charge after Independence. I know many NO voters who are exactly the same. They hate the SNP.
The question therefore is - could they become pro-Indy or at least neutral, if there was a very good chance we'd get a Labour Government after Indy?
The Easdales are not pro-independence at all. That is what they said. They are funding British Labour. British Labour is a Unionist party. It can't be anything other than a Unionist party. Because it is a British party.
If you had any kind of grasp of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty you might not talk such utter pish about British Labour becoming a pro-independence party.
FFS! 'Scottish' Labour is not an autonomous political party. The name is just a registered descriptor for the British Labour Party. The British Labour Party in Scotland cannot support Scottish independence unless the British Labour Party does. Because they are the same party! It is all one party!
The British Labour Party is NEVER going to support ending the Union. I'll happily explain why once you get your silly wee head around the fact that 'Scottish' Labour is NOT a political party.
The two of you are talking like died in the wool SNP sycophants: "branch office" :-)
Two things stop Labour becoming truly Scottish. One is the party elders (as Dugdale found out) who are getting - very old, and being killed off by Rachel Reeves.
Second is money - they are / were tied to Westminster's purse-strings). Six figures is enough at least to get them started being Scottish at last, and if they do they'll start to get more union money again - and potentially STUC endorsement - again.
Either that or Labour die in Scotland.
Now, read the article again - without prejudice. There are plenty of clues there. It's one of young Kevin's best, and think for yourself, not like an SNPer. It's your mindset.
. . . . . . . .
"James and Sandy were impressed with Anas, but had then been disappointed with Rachel Reeves’ autumn budget, which they both felt was inherently anti-growth" (just one clue)
Idiot! British Labour "becoming truly Scottish" is one of those things - like a Section 30 referendum leading to independence - that can only happen in your imagination. The kind of demented imagination that can liken me to "an SNPer". You are the only SNP apologist here.
Use your noddle. The only way Scottish Labour can become truly Scottish is to break away completely from the UK Labour Party and register themselves as a separate party - perhaps the Labour Party of Scotland.
For this election they have until 30th January to do that, though there's probably little chance this time. They'd need this as a catalyst to get in 2 weeks 5 times the level of donation the Easdales are giving them - of which, if you read the article, you'd see 50% is conditional on them indeed, becoming more Scottish. THAT on it own would be good for Scotland, and business here, particularly micro-entities. Plus as preparation for the inevitable Independence.
The Scottish Conservatives talked about breaking away; so far it hasn't happened.
Keep up at the back. It's not all about your SNP and your hero Swinney!!!
Good grief! What does it take to get it through your dopey head that 'Scottish' Labour does not exist as a political party. It is not a discrete entity that can "break away completely from the UK Labour Party". IT IS THE UK LABOUR PARTY!
Your closing sentence marks you as even more of an idiot than the rest of your drivel. Either you aren't aware of what a fool you make of yourself with these puerile remarks, or you get some sort of gratification out of being such a tedious clown.
This critique cuts deep. The cycling through nominally pro-independence majorities with zero strategic movement is the exact trap movements get stuck in when electoral success becomes the end instead of the means. I've seen similar patterns in other governance debates where parties grab mandates but never actualy use them to change the underlying power structure. The point about Swinney tying the mandate to a majority that won't happen is particularly brutal becuase it preloads the excuse for inaction.
Agree with your comment. As long as we have the following hurdles in Scotland we will NEVER
become a FREE nation again.
1. Devolution... the ultimate con set up by the foreign english to remove any important powers from Scotland's hands that would make it possible for us to escape this toxic prison we are in.
2.A deceitful devious foreign english media that feeds the Scottish nation absolute SH*TE...and we believe it...the ultimate tartan mushrooms.
3 .300 years of abuse , culture destruction, theft and outright lies.....takes its toll...that's why we are still prisoners to the sh*tty foreign english union....300years is a long time...
4.Quislings and traitors that the Bruce would have executed.
5. A treacherous Scottish government intent on keeping their sinecures and putting self interest before Scotland's FREEDOM...wonder what the Bruce would have had in store for them.
6. Non stop invasion by the foreign english..270,000 last year till September...( Ref Believe in Scotland)..grabbing what they can...while the b*st*rds vote for the toxic. union.
7 And most important of all..the Scots huv'ne a scooby whit's goin' on. They think voting for swiney will achieve independence....no..it means we crawl AGAIN tae westminster and meekly beg for a referendum that will be refused....AGAIN. Then we start all over AGAIN....SIGH....
8.Don't trust 'the National'.....
9. Don't worry cos if the foreign english and americans get their way we will be annihilated on the battlefield that Scotland will become allowing our foreign 'friends' to attack anybody they please..WITHOUT even asking us.
But then who would ask us - we have no self respect.
Wha's like us?....naebody..everybody else is free.
One glimmer..the sh*tty foreign english are turning on each other...fingers crossed.
The answer?..make oor country a very HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT for any who would stand in the way of our INDEPENDENCE.....
I'm totally happy to agree with this. If the SNP have to rely on the Greens it'll be GRRB2, DRS2, Heat pump poverty and hypothermia 2 for those like me in an old (19th century) house, BanCars2, BankruptScotland2.
It needs to be an overall SNP majority for even the slightest chance, and if the SNP - all of them including the idiot from Shetland - don't campaign whole-heartedly for Indy during the election campaign - at least 50% of the leaflets content and TV and media waffle, they don't get my vote - nobody does; and Gibson my MSP is one of the better ones which would be a shame.
Anyways, that's my message to the SNP.
I'm probably going to leave you to it as our friendly pleasant exchanges are a distraction from your mission which at least in part is to hold the SNP feet to the fire on Independence and not let them off the hook. Which part I totally support.
This is an Independence election or they can all get stuffed.
Another National opinion poll headline, another Groundhog Day.
I'm not sure whose worse - the National using hyperbolae to generate clicks or the SNP/Alba/etc for using the constitutional question to garner election votes.
What the reportage in the newspaper seem to have missed is this from Damian Lyons Lowe, chief executive of Survation:
"A projection using these polling figures, based on a version of Ballot Box Scotland's nominal 2021 figures and proportional swing, would yield an SNP seat count of 61 seats with Labour and Reform on 18 seats each, the Conservatives on 12, Lib Dems on 11, Greens on 9 and no seats for other parties, including Alba."
Specifically, the two words "... proportional swing ...". This approach assumes that the relative change at national level is reflected at the constituency/region level. So, for example, if the Conservatives vote share had been 20% in 2021 and was projected to be 10% in 2026, their indicative vote share would be half of that achieved across all constituencies/regions in 2021.
As far as I am aware virtually all mappings from indicative vote shares to projected parliamentary seat composition use "uniform swing". This method assumes that the absolute change overall is reflected across all seats. In the prior example the indicative Conservative vote share would be reduced by (20% - 10% =) 10% in all voting areas.
The seat projection in each case is based on which party has the higher projected vote share in 2026 (after adjusting their respective 2021 actual vote shares achieved).
Nobody knows whether the swing will be uniform or proportional. (And, importantly, whether the assumption of consistency across the constituencies and regions will hold.)
But when there is substantial change in the polls - as there is now when comparing 2021 to indicative 2026 - and you have the flux caused by the likes of Reform the actual election results could be difficult to predict and might well throw up a few surprises.
Not that the point scoring snipers below the line on the article in the National would care, even if they had noticed the nuance in Mr Lowe's comments on the poll.
They are more concerned with debating whether their tribe's preferred flawed and failing strategy isn't as flawed and failing as the other tribe's flawed and failing strategy.
You paint a gloomy picture, Peter, unfortunately you're 100% correct. But how many people in the independence movement actually buy and read The National? A very small proportion, I would guess.
"Scottish Labour ads paid for by London bosses, data reveals"
https://archive.is/C8nyx
which is exactly why 1) they need more funding IN Scotland (all of it), and 2) set up their own party. They have 11 days and less than 2 hours to do it for the 2026 election.
Meanwhile the Greens "independence strategy" is absolutely nothing of the sort. It's all about Devolution and maybe getting more powers.
https://archive.is/nwa3z
at least it clears the decks for the SNP to go hell for leather. Or, of course, the Labour Party of Scotland ...
Enjoy your sunny sunday!
This is major news, I'd say mega. Everyone should read this article. Twice.
https://archive.is/SpIwv
"Billionaire brothers Easdales in bid to shape Scottish politics" (6 figure donation to Labour)
They run a great bus service, and actually invest in Scotland as well as staying here. Maybe at last we'll get a genuine Scottish Labour Party funded in Scotland, by Scots, focusing on Scotland; and fuck the SNP and their "progressive" waffly shite at the expense of the economy and regular folk.
Read it carefully to understand WHY I like it. It brings new hope.
edit: to make it clear - if Scottish Labour came out supporting Independence I'd vote x2 for them
OMFG. I just wasted my valuable time on a piece that was clearly orchestrated to push the risable narrative that Anas Sarwar is not Keith Stammers bag man in Jockland and will do a great job standing up for North Britain.
"they felt that Mr Sarwar was intent on taking Labour in
a specifically Scottish direction with Scottish solutions for Scottish problems. "
Have you completely lost your ability to interpret what is going on?
If you think that electing Anas Sarwar of British Labour in Scotland as head of the devolved executive would not be a disaster waiting to happen for the restoration of Scotlands Independence, you really do need to stop and think.
If that was not enough for you, the ludicrous idea that he really gets business on account of he inherited a business and the attached millions, and his first constituency seat, from his Daddy.
Up until now I did not have you pegged as one of those hard-of-thinking so-called 'centrist' neoliberal sheep.
What kind of idiot gives any credence to an article that opens with a blatant lie? John Swinney DID NOT say "he may be compelled to send Scottish troops to Ukraine."
As to your pish about this implying 'Scottish' Labour might come out in support of independence, it's even more pish than I thought:
"James [Easdale] adds: “We’re not pro-independence...""
Disgraceful SNP-like selective quoting :-( The full quote is:
"We’re not pro-independence, but we wouldn’t be unhappy about it if we could be confident that the country was being run competently."
" ... BUT we wouldn’t be unhappy about it if ..."
Do you see the three dots at the end of the quote? It's called an ellipsis. It tells any moderately well-educated person that there is more following. It is not selective quoting. It is partial quoting. Quoting the part that is relevant.
The Easdales are "not pro-independence". Yet you are positing the idiotic notion that two businessmen who are not pro-independence are going to use their money to buy whatever magic potion would be required to make British Labour become "truly Scottish".
I'm sure readers will not have failed to notice that, like a typical SNP apologist, you make a big fuss about me leaving out the irrelevant part of a quote, but have nothing at all to say when Kevin McKenna blatantly lies about what John Swinney said on the subject of Scottish troops in Ukraine..
By all means, keep digging. This is hilarious.
The point is you totally missed the context. The Easdales are not pro-Independence with the thought of the SNP being in charge after Independence. I know many NO voters who are exactly the same. They hate the SNP.
The question therefore is - could they become pro-Indy or at least neutral, if there was a very good chance we'd get a Labour Government after Indy?
The Easdales are not pro-independence at all. That is what they said. They are funding British Labour. British Labour is a Unionist party. It can't be anything other than a Unionist party. Because it is a British party.
If you had any kind of grasp of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty you might not talk such utter pish about British Labour becoming a pro-independence party.
FFS! 'Scottish' Labour is not an autonomous political party. The name is just a registered descriptor for the British Labour Party. The British Labour Party in Scotland cannot support Scottish independence unless the British Labour Party does. Because they are the same party! It is all one party!
The British Labour Party is NEVER going to support ending the Union. I'll happily explain why once you get your silly wee head around the fact that 'Scottish' Labour is NOT a political party.
Stet.
The two of you are talking like died in the wool SNP sycophants: "branch office" :-)
Two things stop Labour becoming truly Scottish. One is the party elders (as Dugdale found out) who are getting - very old, and being killed off by Rachel Reeves.
Second is money - they are / were tied to Westminster's purse-strings). Six figures is enough at least to get them started being Scottish at last, and if they do they'll start to get more union money again - and potentially STUC endorsement - again.
Either that or Labour die in Scotland.
Now, read the article again - without prejudice. There are plenty of clues there. It's one of young Kevin's best, and think for yourself, not like an SNPer. It's your mindset.
. . . . . . . .
"James and Sandy were impressed with Anas, but had then been disappointed with Rachel Reeves’ autumn budget, which they both felt was inherently anti-growth" (just one clue)
Idiot! British Labour "becoming truly Scottish" is one of those things - like a Section 30 referendum leading to independence - that can only happen in your imagination. The kind of demented imagination that can liken me to "an SNPer". You are the only SNP apologist here.
Use your noddle. The only way Scottish Labour can become truly Scottish is to break away completely from the UK Labour Party and register themselves as a separate party - perhaps the Labour Party of Scotland.
For this election they have until 30th January to do that, though there's probably little chance this time. They'd need this as a catalyst to get in 2 weeks 5 times the level of donation the Easdales are giving them - of which, if you read the article, you'd see 50% is conditional on them indeed, becoming more Scottish. THAT on it own would be good for Scotland, and business here, particularly micro-entities. Plus as preparation for the inevitable Independence.
The Scottish Conservatives talked about breaking away; so far it hasn't happened.
Keep up at the back. It's not all about your SNP and your hero Swinney!!!
Good grief! What does it take to get it through your dopey head that 'Scottish' Labour does not exist as a political party. It is not a discrete entity that can "break away completely from the UK Labour Party". IT IS THE UK LABOUR PARTY!
Your closing sentence marks you as even more of an idiot than the rest of your drivel. Either you aren't aware of what a fool you make of yourself with these puerile remarks, or you get some sort of gratification out of being such a tedious clown.
Got to be SNP 1 ALBA 2. If only to rid us of the list unionists who do nothing but disrupt our parliament.
UDI is our Only way out. It will never be gifted to us. Cheers Peter.
So long as you don't imagine this voting strategy achieves anything for Scotland's cause.
This critique cuts deep. The cycling through nominally pro-independence majorities with zero strategic movement is the exact trap movements get stuck in when electoral success becomes the end instead of the means. I've seen similar patterns in other governance debates where parties grab mandates but never actualy use them to change the underlying power structure. The point about Swinney tying the mandate to a majority that won't happen is particularly brutal becuase it preloads the excuse for inaction.
I like the phrase "preloads the excuse for inaction." Very apt.
Agree with your comment. As long as we have the following hurdles in Scotland we will NEVER
become a FREE nation again.
1. Devolution... the ultimate con set up by the foreign english to remove any important powers from Scotland's hands that would make it possible for us to escape this toxic prison we are in.
2.A deceitful devious foreign english media that feeds the Scottish nation absolute SH*TE...and we believe it...the ultimate tartan mushrooms.
3 .300 years of abuse , culture destruction, theft and outright lies.....takes its toll...that's why we are still prisoners to the sh*tty foreign english union....300years is a long time...
4.Quislings and traitors that the Bruce would have executed.
5. A treacherous Scottish government intent on keeping their sinecures and putting self interest before Scotland's FREEDOM...wonder what the Bruce would have had in store for them.
6. Non stop invasion by the foreign english..270,000 last year till September...( Ref Believe in Scotland)..grabbing what they can...while the b*st*rds vote for the toxic. union.
7 And most important of all..the Scots huv'ne a scooby whit's goin' on. They think voting for swiney will achieve independence....no..it means we crawl AGAIN tae westminster and meekly beg for a referendum that will be refused....AGAIN. Then we start all over AGAIN....SIGH....
8.Don't trust 'the National'.....
9. Don't worry cos if the foreign english and americans get their way we will be annihilated on the battlefield that Scotland will become allowing our foreign 'friends' to attack anybody they please..WITHOUT even asking us.
But then who would ask us - we have no self respect.
Wha's like us?....naebody..everybody else is free.
One glimmer..the sh*tty foreign english are turning on each other...fingers crossed.
The answer?..make oor country a very HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT for any who would stand in the way of our INDEPENDENCE.....
For OUR Scotland and her future weans.
"pro-independence majority" - "So what?"
I'm totally happy to agree with this. If the SNP have to rely on the Greens it'll be GRRB2, DRS2, Heat pump poverty and hypothermia 2 for those like me in an old (19th century) house, BanCars2, BankruptScotland2.
It needs to be an overall SNP majority for even the slightest chance, and if the SNP - all of them including the idiot from Shetland - don't campaign whole-heartedly for Indy during the election campaign - at least 50% of the leaflets content and TV and media waffle, they don't get my vote - nobody does; and Gibson my MSP is one of the better ones which would be a shame.
Anyways, that's my message to the SNP.
I'm probably going to leave you to it as our friendly pleasant exchanges are a distraction from your mission which at least in part is to hold the SNP feet to the fire on Independence and not let them off the hook. Which part I totally support.
This is an Independence election or they can all get stuffed.
Another National opinion poll headline, another Groundhog Day.
I'm not sure whose worse - the National using hyperbolae to generate clicks or the SNP/Alba/etc for using the constitutional question to garner election votes.
What the reportage in the newspaper seem to have missed is this from Damian Lyons Lowe, chief executive of Survation:
"A projection using these polling figures, based on a version of Ballot Box Scotland's nominal 2021 figures and proportional swing, would yield an SNP seat count of 61 seats with Labour and Reform on 18 seats each, the Conservatives on 12, Lib Dems on 11, Greens on 9 and no seats for other parties, including Alba."
Specifically, the two words "... proportional swing ...". This approach assumes that the relative change at national level is reflected at the constituency/region level. So, for example, if the Conservatives vote share had been 20% in 2021 and was projected to be 10% in 2026, their indicative vote share would be half of that achieved across all constituencies/regions in 2021.
As far as I am aware virtually all mappings from indicative vote shares to projected parliamentary seat composition use "uniform swing". This method assumes that the absolute change overall is reflected across all seats. In the prior example the indicative Conservative vote share would be reduced by (20% - 10% =) 10% in all voting areas.
The seat projection in each case is based on which party has the higher projected vote share in 2026 (after adjusting their respective 2021 actual vote shares achieved).
The National reports that the SNP and Greens would get 70 seats between them using the proportional approach - a majority. Using the absolute method the total number of 'pro-Independence' MSPs is 63 - a minority. (This can be tested here: https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/swingometer/scottish-parliament?election=2021s&cSNP=33.67&cCON=12.68&cLAB=15.97&cLD=8.92&cGRN=7.95&cREF=19.41&rSNP=27.87&rCON=12.77&rLAB=17.92&rGRN=9.42&rLD=10.86&rALBA=3.06&rREF=17.93&output=seat-gains-and-losses#Scotland).
Nobody knows whether the swing will be uniform or proportional. (And, importantly, whether the assumption of consistency across the constituencies and regions will hold.)
But when there is substantial change in the polls - as there is now when comparing 2021 to indicative 2026 - and you have the flux caused by the likes of Reform the actual election results could be difficult to predict and might well throw up a few surprises.
Not that the point scoring snipers below the line on the article in the National would care, even if they had noticed the nuance in Mr Lowe's comments on the poll.
They are more concerned with debating whether their tribe's preferred flawed and failing strategy isn't as flawed and failing as the other tribe's flawed and failing strategy.
You paint a gloomy picture, Peter, unfortunately you're 100% correct. But how many people in the independence movement actually buy and read The National? A very small proportion, I would guess.