dictator miliband

All hubris and chutzpah, Ed Miliband on tonight’s Question Time said that he would not form any government reliant on the SNP for support. He made it clear that Scots have a choice to vote Labour or be excluded from the legislative process.

He said a Tory government is preferable to a Labour government tainted by the influence of the SNP, if they are the Scottish people’s chosen representatives.

The effect of this policy will be to disenfranchise the UK’s largest ethnic minority. We take an in-depth look at the thinking underlying Mr Miliband’s statement: THE FINAL SOLUTION TO THE SCOTTISH QUESTION


Breaking news is that he won’t do a deal with Paid either, nor apparently the LibDems. He’s Edda Garbo: “I vont to be alone”. The man seems determined never to be PM.

The Union’s men are still not getting it

by Christian Wright

spectator massie danny

Timely warning for the colonial establishment in an excellent article by Alex Massie in the Spectator. This was penned in response to an article in the Times (“The Australian” reprint is non-paywall) by the noble lord, Baron Finkelstein of Pinner.

This is a thoughtful and accurate analysis by Alex Massie, and clueless troglodytes like his chum “Danny” would do well to listen to him.

Massie: “Heaven preserve us from our friends for, though they mean well, they know not the damage they do. I have great respect for Danny Finkelstein [but]… Viewed from Scotland … this Conservative election campaign has been nothing less than disgraceful. At the risk of some Jocksplaining let me elaborate on this…  Danny Finkelstein sneers at the 1989 Claim of Right and mocks “the sovereign right” of the Scottish people to determine their own future. “

Finkelstein’s polemic is a measure of how reckless and bellicose the Union’s men are prepared to be. Massie seems genuinely to believe they are smart enough to recognise their folly if it is explained to calmly and patiently (and he’s done the best job anyone could do in that respect).

I on the other hand have enormous confidence in their infinite capacity for stupidity, and fully expect them to continue to enable and facilitate our longterm goal of independence.

Danny boy, we’d be hard pressed to do it without you.


by Christian Wright

A recent post in the New statesman

“The pro-union vote was a little over 55%. In a US presidential election (a fair comparison because voters there normally only have two options) this would be a landslide, and if you doubt this just remind me how many of the voting districts chose ‘Yes’.”

So goes the argument.

Cartoon understanding of the process leading to Mickey Mouse conclusions. Time this nonsense was debunked.

Voting districts? Meaningless. The referendum was a nationwide vote where the outcome was based on the popular vote, without reference to “voting districts”.

As for a landslide: This was not a US election. The popular vote does not decide US elections. There is an electoral college which decides the result.

Each state is assigned a number of electors commensurate with its population (and equal to the total of senators+representatives in Congress). The were no subdivisions into winner-take-all-states in indyref as in US presidential elections (not all US states are winner-take-all).

US Presidential landslides are characterised by the lopsided number of states and electoral votes won, which has damn little congruence with the actual popular vote.

A very small movement in some few districts can flip large winner-take-all states like Ohio to one candidate or another skewing the electoral vote count.

The winning candidate in that state gets all the electors even if he/she wins the state by 0.0001%. That is why a win or 51% to 49% in the popular vote in a US Presidential election can produce a landslide in terms of electoral votes and states won.

To equate the result of the independence referendum to a US presidential election “landslide” is to compare apples to moon rocks.

The referendum was a single issue plebiscite decided by the popular vote, where a bit less than half the population voted for independence and a bit more than half the population voted against independence.

It would take a swing of just over 5% to turn that majority NO to YES.

Indeed, over the past months excluding DKs, polls have been evenly split on the issue, with some showing in the range 52-48 for independence and others in the range 48-52 against. All within the margin of error.

That is to say, we have a statistical tie. We know therefore that there has been a definite, sustained shift in sentiment from NO to YES of around 5% since indyref.

Severin Carrell pimps LibDem comfort polls to boost tactical voting


by Christian Wright

guardian libdem tact voting

The headline trumpets: “Lib Dems step up Scottish campaign after polling boost”

Severin Carrell, the Guardian’s resident empty suit and Scotland correspondent, offers another cut’n’paste article constructed from a LibDem press release. Apparently Severin’s goal it to try to encourage pro-Union tactical voting.

In Scotland… the party has increased its funding and tactical support after its own polling suggested they could hold the majority of their 11 Scottish seats… 
the party’s pollsters, Survation, found that 46% of Tory voters and 37% of Labour voters would back the Lib Dems if their own candidate had little chance of winning.
The private polling … suggest the party is in the lead in several constituencies. At least five more seats… could be held because of an upsurge in tactical voting by pro-UK party supporters, the party believes.

All these internal LibDem comfort polls . . . then there’s the reality.

Strange Severin failed to include this health warning from Survation in his article, especially since the Guardian is directly named in it. Must have been an unfortunate oversight.

In reference to polls conducted for the Liberal Democrats, which have been described in the Guardian, New Statesman and others as “private polling conducted by Survation”, we would like to clarify that the role of Survation in these polls was that of “field and tab” only.

Survation were not responsible for drafting the questionnaires used, sampling design discussions or analysis of the results. These polls should therefore not properly be described as “Survation polls”. As a consequence, Survation is not responsible for the publication of these polls under BPC rules. Any member of the public with queries regarding the detail or further information about the mentioned polling work should be directed to the Liberal Democrats.



by Christian Wright

nicola helicopter


Ipsos-Mori poll suggests complete wipeout of Unionist parties

Scottish voting intentions for the May 2015 UK general pie chartelection (Ipsos-Mori, 22nd-27th April) :

SNP 54%
Labour 20%
Conservatives 17%
Liberal Democrats 5%
Greens 2%





New Daily Record Survation poll results support daily record pollTNS poll findings

SNP 51%, LAB 26%, CON 14%, LD 5% other 4%

In seats this translates to SNP 55, LAB 3, LD 1





May 2015 UK general election

SNP 54% (+2)
Labour 22% (-2)
Conservatives 13% (n/c)
Liberal Democrats 6% (n/c)
Greens 2%  (-1)
UKIP 2% (+1)


New TNS poll numbers translated into seats using elec calc predictor:

SNP 57
LD 1

At the world headquarters in beautiful downtown Auchtermuchty we’re discombobulated to the extent of going all silent-order monastic in party music