A new poll reported in The National (for whom I am a columnist) last night showed that support for Scottish independence appears to be growing rapidly:
Only a month ago, another survey run by the same pollster only found a four-point lead for Scottish independence. The ratio of support was 52% to 48% at that time. Excluding don't knows, it is now 55% to 45%.
With Plaid Cymru having now won the Caerphilly by-election by a comfortable margin, the signs are that the demands for independence are growing by the day.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Apologies for what follows: the ratios are similar to the brexit vote, which very succesfully divided the country, made it materailly worse off and has led to the rise of Deform. I’m not saying the same would happen in Scotland, merely that there might need to be wider support (60/40?).
For the avoidance of doubt, I support Scottish independence. There is still much the Scottish gov could do to use as examples to the people of Scotland: “we did this/delivered that, we could have done more but Wezzie stopped us” etc. Energy (nope won’t start that broken record) is one area, transport another, food etc. If a gov is delivering, doing its best, but is “stymied by Starmer” (did you like that?) etc then it will build support for indy ref. What won’t is endless infighting. If the SNP was a stable, solid party/gov perhaps support for independence would be even higher. Feel free to tear me to pieces.
Quite a lot to agree with
Although that margin is good enough for me
And you appear to be basing you comment on the odler data, not the latest
Mike, good points: the SNP is in better shape than any of the other parties, but it needs a more definitive plan for the route to independence. A lot of Indy supporters are rightly angry that little progress has been made, but on the other hand, the SNP has done a fine job of mitigating some of the worst policy choices of Westminster so-called governments. That, after all is what a decent government should do: protect it’s people in hard times.
What is urgently required is a coherent plan that gets the dissidents back on board, which will go a long way to rectify the anomaly of more people in favour of Indy than of the only party capable of delivering it. The 2026 Holyrood election isn’t far off, so another tactic would be to declare that an independent Scotland would be a republic. Polls suggest this would boost the Indy vote by 10 per cent and produce a Yes vote of c65 per cent. Westminster could scarcely brush that aside.
I like the sound of this but worry constantly that Scots will simply join the euro in which case………
I do hope that Scotland’s ‘elite’ are up to the job. It’s all very well wanting not to be in a union with of fascist state called ‘In-ger- land’ which is understandable, but what about afterwards?
I have a blog on Scottish currency coming
Joining the EU would commit Scotland to joining the Euro. However, there doesn’t appear to be a time frame for meeting the criteria. Sweden has been a member state for thirty years, and the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary for over twenty, and each retains their currency. In the absence of pressure to comply, there’s no reason for the post-independence Scottish government to rush into it.
Precisely…
Couple of points, one in response to Mike Parr and the other to PSR. Mike first, the SNPs wins which you suggest should be trumpeted more are pretty trivial, largely due to the financial constraints of devolution (baby boxes, slightly lower taxes, better welfare payments etc.). The big wins can only come with independence, in particular through energy which as you suggest, the SNP and other pro indy Parties should be shouting from the rooftops (highest electricity bills in the UK despite being in energy surplus), the potential uses for that excess energy, e.g. hydrogen production and export. Second point to PSR, you say you ‘hope the Scottish ‘elite’ are up to the job’. That’s a canard that’s been thrown at countless emerging independent States over the years; think of the democracies that came out of the USSR, Singapore and Malta for example. Able people are plentiful in Scotland, particularly given our excellent Universities. Given the right circumstances I’m confident the ‘right’ people will emerge.
I am too
Yes, mind the Euro….
There is never a need for Scotland to join the euro. It just makes sure it never meets the convergence criteria.
There is no need for Scotland to join the EU. EFTA is a much better fit. We have more in common with Scandinavia, and Scotland is small enough to be a member of that club. It would be much better for us to trade on an equal friendly footing with our neighbour to the south than to be swamped by it as has happened for over 300 years. The control has worsened as we seek to escape.
EFTA is definitely the place to start
The Currency Convention last weekend will certainly have addressed all the the issues around economics & currency. I haven’t seen any video clips or press statements yet as I’m currently hospitalised, but maybe Richard could give a summary of content.
The important thing is to show the inner core of the SNP (who I suspect have been brainwashed by neoliberalism) how an independent Scotland could safely run it’s own economy and currency.
Ken, sorry to hear you are back in.
I only took part in Saturday afternoon. Robin McAlpine was on firm, as was Craig Dalzell,and 8 hope I was. Then it was a long presentation of the new currency report. I can tell you no more than that.
I have a blog to post on my presentation.
Get well
I am fairly sure next to none of your correspondents are, ‘from round these parts’, when any discussion of an independently run Scotland comes up on this site.
When we were ‘allowed’ (sic) a referendum, along with dodgy media manipulations (the ‘vow’ anyone?), the result of 55% – 45% (against) was heralded as a ‘resounding defeat’.
All that was left was to ‘bayonet the wounded’, Ian Davidson anyone? No I didn’t think so.
But when the ‘polls’ heavily skewed toward the Westminster side with their 11 year old ‘weighting’ , Mike Parr says that a 45% – 55% (for) isn’t sufficient?
May a god give me strength.
Further, to save posting twice Richard, your post ‘AI won’t save us’ scares me.
Please have a look at this research – Anthropic (which produces ChatGPT-rival, Claude), teamed up with the UK’s AI Security Institute (AISI, a government body exploring AI safety), and the Alan Turing Institute for the test – ‘You can poison AI with just 250 dodgy documents’.
I read it from an anti-malware company’s posting. It doesn’t take much imagination to see how AI can be corrupted by anyone.
Just a thought.
A) There are a lot of Scottish commentators here
B) Do you really think AI will go away? I am talking about how it can be made useful. Hoping it might not happen solves nothing.
(A) Not on this post they weren’t.
(B) I’m not suggesting that AI would go away, too many people are invested in it. That’s an insulting remark.
Did you read the article I referred to? Not written by tinfoil hatted loons, but people who care about what can corrupt ‘AI’, ie the AISI and the Alan Turing Institute.
An example – Musk ‘has launched an online encyclopedia named Grokipedia that he said relied on artificial intelligence and would align more with his rightwing views than Wikipedia, though many of its articles say they are based on Wikipedia itself.’
Presumably to be used by other AI based ‘learning platforms’ so thereby corrupting general AI learning?
(Grok is an old Scots word meaning ‘to vomit with a weak stream which thus lands in your own groin area’).
If it doesn’t worry you. it certainly worries me that so many people, for whatever reason, can and will interfere with the whole AI ‘belief’ system.
Very politely, you’re trolling. Goodbye.