A plea to Alba: look before you leap

I was contacted today by a Scot Goes Pop reader who is very concerned that Alba have just selected a candidate for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, which was very narrowly won by the Liberal Democrats in 2019, but which apparently is notionally an SNP seat on the new boundaries.  He makes the point that "the chance of an independence candidate winning this large constituency is now diluted".  

Obviously as an Alba member I have to support Alba candidates once they've actually been selected, and I do, but as I said the other day, the priority has to be to urge the party to slow down and ideally stop the unveiling of more and more candidates in more and more constituencies.  There are already nine listed on the website, and I know of at least three more in the pipeline, who will presumably be announced tomorrow at the spring conference.  I hope it doesn't go much beyond that, and I'm mildly encouraged by this line in the weekly Alba email from Neale Hanvey: "what will be the first chance to see all of our ALBA Party General Election candidates in one place as they are announced".  That can possibly be interpreted as meaning that whoever is announced tomorrow will constitute the final tranche of candidates, and there won't be any more afterwards. That would be a welcome development. If a decision has been made to stand the minimum number of candidates to nab a party election broadcast, then OK, but don't cause needless harm to the independence cause and to Alba's good standing with Yes supporters by going way beyond that minimum.

I've heard two main arguments for why Alba will supposedly not cause harm by intervening in a first-past-the-post general election, but neither of them are remotely convincing.  Firstly, it's said that these are seats that the SNP are going to lose anyway.  Well, if elections really were that predictable, recent history would look radically different.  We knew Iain "the Snarl" Gray was going to be elected First Minister in 2011 until he wasn't.  We knew Remain were going to win the EU referendum until they didn't.  We knew Tyrannical Theresa was going to win a landslide majority in 2017 until she lost her majority altogether.  We may think it's unlikely that the SNP will recover sufficiently this year to become competitive in seats like Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, but we certainly don't know that they won't.  If they do, and if Alba's intervention tips the balance and helps the Lib Dems hold on, there will plainly be a lot of disquiet among independence supporters and probably a greater reluctance to vote Alba on the list in 2026.

Secondly, it's argued that Alba will not be taking votes away from the SNP but will simply be picking up former SNP voters who would otherwise be going to Labour or abstaining.  That's just wishful thinking in my view.  Anyone who cares enough about independence to consider voting for a small party like Alba would be unlikely to vote Labour in the first place.  They might abstain, but if Alba are successful in picking up abstainers with a radical independence message, they'll almost certainly also pick up people who would otherwise be holding their nose and voting SNP.  And if those votes are taken away from the SNP column, unionist victories are undoubtedly made more likely.

A major polling silver lining for the SNP: their leader has a positive net rating, something that would have been unimaginable during the Yousaf leadership

As you'll probably have seen, the Redfield & Wilton poll over the weekend was poor for the SNP, but there were two notable silver linings.  Firstly, support for independence continues to hold up astonishingly well in the context of SNP decline.

Should Scotland be an independent country?

Yes 48% (-3)

No 52% (+3)

The apparent 3-point swing to No is almost certainly just margin of error noise, because the Yes lead in the previous poll was unusual for Redfield & Wilton, so we're probably just seeing a reversion to the mean. 48/52 or thereabouts has been fairly typical.

Perhaps even more important is that John Swinney has a positive net approval rating of +7.  That's pretty extraordinary if you think about it, because we've seen a number of polls over the last year in which every single politician asked about had a net negative rating.  Because perceptions of the leader are so important to election outcomes, that offers a glimmer of hope to the SNP.  Humza Yousaf consistently had dismal net ratings with Redfield & Wilton, so if anything, the assumption had to be that the SNP might perform worse under him than standard voting intentions suggested.  It's now at least possible to construct a scenario in which the moderately high regard that the public hold Swinney in could help the SNP perform better than the polls currently suggest.  The popularity of Kate Forbes should also help now that she's been made deputy in a blaze of publicity.

One important caveat is that the wording of the question about John Swinney was different from the one that has been used for Yousaf over the last year, so it may be that once people are asked about Swinney's actual performance as First Minister, he'll slip into negative territory.  However I doubt his ratings will be as bad as Yousaf's, and as I've said before, I'm pretty confident that when Redfield & Wilton start asking the head-to-head question about whether Swinney or Anas Sarwar would make the better First Minister, Swinney will hold a good lead.  It's also encouraging that 35% of respondents support Swinney becoming SNP leader and First Minister, with only 18% opposed.

I was asked on the previous thread whether Reform UK's 4% showing in the poll is implausible and therefore casts doubt on the rest of the results.  The simple answer is no.  There's been a consistency to the way Reform UK have crept upwards in recent Scottish polling, but they remain below their UK-wide numbers, which is what you'd expect based on how their predecessor parties performed.  Remember that Scotland proved itself perfectly capable of electing a UKIP MEP on one occasion, so there is a natural constituency for Reform here.  They could actually do the independence movement a favour by splitting the Tory vote and helping the SNP to win one or two key seats.

*  *  *

After the Eurovision Song Contest on Saturday, right-wing nutters were lauding the UK public for supposedly backing Israel, while left-wingers were bewildered and expressed disgust that the British people had indirectly backed a regime that is committing genocide.  The reality is that both groups are wrong, because the ordinary UK public probably had very little to do with the UK giving maximum points to Israel.  There was a determined internet advertising campaign, seemingly originating from the Israeli state itself, to persuade sympathisers across Europe to vote for the song up to twenty times each, which is the maximum allowed under the rules and would cost as little as £2.  The likelihood is that the vast majority of votes that Israel received in the UK came from a relatively small number of Israeli and American ex-pats, plus those politically sympathetic to Israel.  Just 2000 people could have generated as many as 40,000 votes, and remember with the non-political votes split between 25 different songs, it wouldn't necessarily have taken all that many votes to push Israel into the lead.

How would you prevent that kind of manipulation, which is tantamount to vote-rigging?  The obvious way would be to restrict each person (or each phone number) to only one vote.  But that would ruin the fun for a lot of people, myself included, who like voting for more than one song.

In a first-past-the-post election, the way to further the cause of independence is to unite behind a single candidate in each constituency

And as with any new political party, Alba attracted its share of misfits and opportunists. But three years on, the organisation has shaken down and a team of dedicated local activists and organisers has emerged.https://t.co/zPTwhk0QJm

— Robert Reid (@robertreidALBA) May 13, 2024

This is awful language. Is it intended to refer to people like Eva Comrie in a deniable way? She wasn't a misfit, she isn't an opportunist. https://t.co/ontS8PeEyo

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) May 14, 2024

James, it's a fact that when parties start up they attract a wide range of people, most are great, but some see it as an opportunity to advance their own agenda/profile/opportunity. It's great praise to say after just three years we've distilled down a dedicated team.

— Robert Reid (@robertreidALBA) May 14, 2024

So there you go - that's exactly your own view, so why were you trying the "not my words" excuse? Who are these people and why do you feel so strongly about them? Are they still in the party, and if not, why not? Have they left? Have they been expelled?

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) May 14, 2024

There wasn't really an answer to those questions.  If I had worries about some Alba members in the early days (and I did), it was simply because of their views, either because they had unrealistically radical notions of how independence could be achieved, or because in a very small number of cases they were climate change deniers or whatever.  I also had a specific dispute with those who essentially wanted to exclude most English people resident in Scotland from the franchise for any future indyref.  But I don't think I ever suspected people of joining Alba for opportunistic or careerist reasons, which would have been absurd given that career prospects are obviously far healthier in a large party than in a small one.  (The only example anyone was able to come up with today of a genuine opportunist was Kamran Butt.)  Nor do I think the flurry of recent departures can be explained by people becoming frustrated that their dastardly opportunistic ambitions have been thwarted.  If you actually bother to listen to what the people who have left are saying, in a lot of cases they speak of a toxic culture of bullying, and can often supply convincing details of their claims.

But instead, history is being rewritten with an artificial narrative that "we're better off without these people, who were only in it for themselves".  And in spite of the innocent protestations today, I've heard variations on that line directed at Eva Comrie in particular, which really is crazy given that she gave up a plum spot at the top of the SNP list to join Alba.  I was on the Alba NEC with her for a year, and so I know how passionately committed she was to Alba's success, and how supportive she was of Alex Salmond personally.  If she had criticisms, they were always constructive ones intended to maximise the chances of Alba securing electoral victories.  As far as I could see, if she had driving ambitions, they were for Alba, and for Scotland, and for the independence cause, not for herself.  

I accept that no one person is bigger than any political party, but I do think Eva Comrie was valuable enough that the leadership should at least have seen if it was possible to open up a dialogue with her and address enough of her concerns to persuade her to reconsider her decision to leave.  And if there were one or two key people whose pride was standing in the way of that dialogue, well, they're not bigger than the party either.

But if we buy into this notion that Alba has shaken off the "undesirables" and has now been "distilled" (what a euphemism) into a smaller "dedicated team", what is the dedication towards?  What's the goal of this small vanguard party on which iron discipline is being imposed?  If it's to win list seats in 2026 and use that as leverage to help bring about independence, that would make absolutely perfect sense.  But the vote to bring down the SNP government a couple of weeks ago was not consistent with that interpretation, because it's likely to have alienated independence supporters who might otherwise have been tempted to give their list vote to Alba.  The same problem applies to the recent flurry of announcements of Alba candidates for the Westminster general election, which will be conducted under first-past-the-post, and thus any votes Alba take away from the SNP will simply help unionist parties win seats.

I make no bones about it - this is something I disagree with Eva Comrie about as much as I disagree with the Alba leadership.  With Labour on the verge of a major comeback, the independence movement needs to be united behind one candidate in each constituency in any first-past-the-post election.  It's extremely unfortunate that the SNP turned down the proposal for a cross-party Scotland United slate of candidates, but that boneheadedness is not an alibi for smaller pro-indy parties or independent candidates to behave destructively by splitting the vote in an emergency situation for our movement.  In my view, what should have happened, and what should still happen, is Alba and other small parties taking a leaf out of Tommy Sheridan's book.  In 2015, Solidarity didn't put up candidates in the general election, but made clear they would put up list candidates in the 2016 Holyrood election and in the meantime urged their supporters to vote for the SNP in the first-past-the-post election for the greater good of independence.  That was a unilateral decision - no deal with the SNP was required for Solidarity to do the right thing.

Over the weekend, Redfield & Wilton published a full-scale Scottish poll that showed the biggest Labour lead for Westminster so far - 

Labour 38% (+5)

SNP 31% (-1)

Conservatives 14% (-3)

Liberal Democrats 8% (-)

Greens 4% (+2)

Reform UK 4% (-1)

Alba 1% (-1)

What would that 1% for Alba actually achieve?  It's not going to win independence, but it may well gift one or two seats to Labour or even the Tories.  If that happens, many independence supporters may take note and withhold their list votes from Alba in 2026.  It would make much more sense to tell Alba supporters to bide their time until 2026, and to unite behind SNP candidates this year as the best chance of stopping Labour.  The Alba 1% suddenly can make a big difference if they're asked to use their votes to make a dent in Labour's seven-point lead over the SNP - to state the obvious, it would solve one-seventh of the problem, which is far from nothing.  

The logic of the situation might be different if the SNP were cruising to a landslide victory and independence supporters had the luxury of doing something different with their vote without causing any damage, but that's not where we are.  It's the total opposite of where we are.

So my advice to the Alba leadership is to slow down the rush to unveil Westminster candidates, and to give serious consideration to actively endorsing SNP candidates in the vast majority of constituencies.  That is without doubt the best strategy for keeping the independence cause alive.  There's not much use in having a tightly disciplined party if the imposed discipline is directed towards a counterproductive strategy or the wrong goal.  I'm not interested in Alba using the general election to settle old scores with John Swinney or with Nicola Sturgeon.  I'm only interested in achieving independence, and vote-splitting in a first-past-the-post election makes that less likely to happen, not more so.

I know that a lot of people won't like this blogpost, but if there was ever a moment where some home truths are urgently required, I'd suggest this is it.

Scot Goes Popcast: Eurovision 2024

For those of you planning to watch the Eurovision tonight, I've recorded a short podcast with some scene-setting thoughts, which you can listen to below.

James Kelly · Scot Goes Popcast Episode 22: Eurovision 2024

Does 2 become 1?

First of all, a quick note to let you know that I'm quoted in Alasdair Soussi's profile of John Swinney on the Al Jazeera website, which you can read HERE.  I'm both critical of Swinney and complimentary towards him, so there's something there for everyone!

Secondly, I can't resist taking the bait from Stuart Campbell, because this line is provably absurd: "And the office of Deputy First Minister is ceremonial – it’s very much the exception rather than the rule if the DFM ever becomes the actual FM."

In fact, prior to Kate Forbes, there had been five Deputy First Ministers: Jim Wallace, Nicol Stephen, Nicola Sturgeon, John Swinney and Shona Robison.  Two of those (Sturgeon and Swinney) went on to become First Minister, and one (Jim Wallace) had spells as Acting First Minister.  What's more, Wallace and Stephen were not eligible to become First Minister because they were only in government as the leader of the junior coalition party, so of the three Deputies who were able to become First Minister, two actually did so.  That doesn't seem particularly "exceptional" to me.

Kate Forbes is upsetting all of the right people

I didn't write about it at the time because I didn't want to tempt fate, but when the announcement was made that Kate Forbes had been appointed as Deputy First Minister, the first thought that went through my head was that the appointment was not automatic, and that it was actually quite hard to see where the parliamentary arithmetic was going to come from to get her approved.  So the outcome yesterday was a tremendous relief, and for that we have to partly thank the Liberal Democrats for constructively abstaining.  

But why did they do it?  Logically they would have stood to gain from an early election.  In the past, when they were led by serious figures like Jim Wallace, Malcolm Bruce or Russell Johnston, there would have been no difficulty in believing they were just doing the right thing and putting the national interest ahead of party interest.  But they're now led by the ultimate cynical opportunist Alex Cole-Hamilton, so it's hard not to believe there was an ulterior motive.  Could there have been an informal deal with the SNP government behind the scenes?  Or are the coffers relatively empty and they don't want to risk fighting two elections in one year?

The most Machiavellian explanation is that the opposition party that has most to lose from an early election is the Tories, so perhaps the Lib Dems were acting on the Tories' behalf, allowing Douglas Ross the free hit of voting against Forbes without having to live with any consequences.  But quite what the Tories would have been able to offer the Lib Dems in return is anyone's guess.  Maybe helping Douglas Ross out is simply Cole-Hamilton's comfort zone, who knows.

Now that Kate Forbes is in harness, she seems to be upsetting all the right people.  That may seem like a brutal thing to say, but given the extremist ideology that many of her critics represent, and their belief that anyone who disagrees with them should be shunned by civilised society and lose their livelihoods, the sign that the SNP was moving into a better place was only ever going to be proper meltdowns from those people.  Kelly Given said in her column that the party used to be a "safe space" for her and her fellow travellers, by which she meant they were able to run a reign of terror in which the SNP was an intolerable space for those with other views.  

The mask really slipped, though, when Given suggested Forbes was not acceptable as Deputy First Minister because she once said she could never conceive of having an abortion herself.  Just think about the implications of that.  The standard pro-choice position is that women have a right to privacy when making reproductive decisions, and a right to control over their own bodies.  That's not really consistent, is it, with lecturing a prominent female politician about how she has no place in public life until she states she would actively consider, as she would see it, killing her unborn child.  That's not only intolerance, it's downright bigotry.

If Given and co will give Forbes credit for nothing else, can they at least give her credit for being a fluent Gaelic speaker who simultaneously holds the second highest office in the land and the post of Minister for Gaelic?  Nobody else, surely, could be better placed to protect the language before it's too late.

I was very pleased to hear that Alba had voted in favour of Forbes while the Greens were busily voting against her.  That will repair some, but probably not all, of the damage to Alba's reputation done by the vote to bring down the SNP government.  It also sets my mind at rest because I was starting to anecdotally form the impression that Alba were lining Forbes up to be the latest designated traitor.  We've already got more than enough of those.  A small party that puts up walls around itself and says in George W Bush fashion "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists" will not only make itself look ridiculous, it will also quickly discover just how small it is.  Whereas if it doesn't act like a narrow sect, and allows the borders of the party to be porous, it'll find a lot more independence supporters under its roof.

First Savanta survey since Swinney swept in shows sizzling 48% support for independence

Looking back at the dates, it seems to have been 2nd May on which it became obvious that John Swinney was the next SNP leader, so as this poll didn't start until the 3rd, it can be seen to all intents and purposes as the first published poll of the Swinney era.  That said, things can be a little bit different once the public actually see a new leader in the role, rather than just anticipating it, so it'll still be important to see the first polls entirely conducted after Swinney was officially sworn in.

Should Scotland be an independent country? (Savanta, 3rd-8th May 2024)

Yes 48% (-1)

No 52% (+1)

As was the case under Yousaf, the independence numbers appear to have become completely decoupled from trends in SNP support.  Which is just as well in this instance, because the SNP have taken another significant hit in the Westminster voting intention numbers.

Scottish voting intentions for the next UK general election:

Labour 37% (+2)

SNP 33% (-2)

Conservatives 17% (-2)

Liberal Democrats 7% (+1)

I said the other day that much would depend on whether the early polls under Swinney show the SNP vote holding up, or whether there would be a 'Truss effect' whereby the damage caused by the outgoing leader is so great that the new leadership is powerless to repair it.  What has happened appears to be somewhere in between those two outcomes.  The wheels have not come off, so the SNP so still have hope for the general election, but a four-point Labour lead is significant enough to be a cause for concern, especially bearing in mind that: a) the voting system is essentially biased towards Labour in any close result, and b) Westminster election campaigns are 'away fixtures' for the SNP with Labour enjoying far more media coverage beamed direct from London.  So on the face of it, things are more likely to get worse rather than better.  The hope must be that the Swinney/Forbes team can gradually reverse the Yousaf damage before the official campaign period even begins.

Are things better or worse for the SNP in the Holyrood voting intentions?  It's in the eye of the beholder, but personally I would say worse, because it's the all-important list vote that's the killer.

Scottish Parliament constituency ballot:

SNP 35% (-2)

Labour 35% (+2)

Conservatives 18% (-)

Liberal Democrats 8% (+2)

Scottish Parliament regional list ballot:

Labour 32% (+3)

SNP 26% (-2)

Conservatives 18% (-2)

Greens 11% (-2)

Liberal Democrats 10% (+2)

In a strange way, I'm not as worried about the 2026 Holyrood election as I am about this year's general election.  Leadership polling is often more predictive of election results than the headline numbers, and regardless of whether John Swinney or Kate Forbes leads the SNP into the election, I strongly suspect that either one will have an advantage over Sarwar, who will look like an amateur in comparison.  But as far as the general election is concerned, the SNP have played their last major card, and although they certainly haven't played it to its fullest potential, they're just going to have to unite as best they can and make the new arrangement work.  Hopefully this poll marks the low point and the recovery starts from here.

Hallelujah, Swinney has done the right thing and appointed Kate Forbes as Deputy First Minister - so maybe now there will be some unity

I was a bit sceptical about whether John Swinney would actually go as far as appointing Kate Forbes as Deputy First Minister, because it marks her out so obviously as the most likely successor.  The reports about a succession plan being in place to stop her made me wonder if she'd be sold short with an offer of a lesser Cabinet position.  However, I suppose the likelihood is that the deputy role was part of the price of her support, and having entered into the deal he decided to act in good faith.  

I think that does now leave the SNP in a significantly better position than they were under Yousaf.  There's more to party unity than just reintegrating the Forbes supporters, but nevertheless that's a key part of it, and seems to have been achieved.  And as long as Swinney is sensible enough to allow her to do it, Forbes' charisma can be utilised on TV to try to get the SNP back into a winning position in time for the general election.  That would offer the best of both worlds - Swinney as the reassuring bank manager figure in ultimate charge, and Forbes as the public-facing inspirational communicator.

So I'm slightly more optimistic than I was before, but much now depends on what the next few opinion polls show.  Is there going to be a 'Truss effect'? By that I mean Yousaf may have done so much damage that it's impossible for the leadership team that replaces him to rectify the situation.  But if the polls show the SNP at least holding steady, they may just have something to work with.

When everything realistic has been tried and didn't work, you just have to shrug and say it wasn't meant to be - but at least there's now a quick turning of the page

Without wanting to be overly critical, I think it's probably reasonable to say that Graeme McCormick has behaved slightly oddly, and not entirely fairly to the SNP members who went to considerable lengths to back him.  There's a place for abortive leadership bids that end with a "long and fruitful" chat with the chap who wants a coronation, but that place had already been filled by Kate Forbes.  Realistically the only reason members were nominating a little-known candidate was because they had made up their minds they definitely wanted an election rather than yet more tales of a behind-closed-doors fireside chat, and they must be bemused to have ended up with the latter instead.  However, if it's any consolation to the people who nominated him, if I was in your shoes I'd be saying to myself that at least all the stops were pulled out to prevent a stitch-up. Strenuous efforts were made to persuade Kate Forbes to run, and when she didn't, an unlikely Plan B was found and only failed to work because of one person's rather peculiar decision.  If you genuinely try everything and it still doesn't work out, all you can really do is shrug and say it wasn't meant to be on this occasion.

The silver lining now is at least we (and by 'we' I mean Scotland and the independence movement) can turn the page on the mistake of Yousaf's leadership immediately, rather than waiting a few more weeks.  John Swinney is not the right person to be leader, but he's less wrong than Yousaf.  If anything, judging from the dismal mood music from him on the Sunday politics shows, he's even less likely to do anything about independence than Yousaf was, but the first priority is to get the SNP and the independence cause out of jail at the general election, because unless that happens everything else is moot.  We'll have to see what Swinney can do about that, hopefully as part of a broad and collegiate leadership team that prominently features Kate Forbes and Stephen Flynn.  The first test will be whether the promised 'key role' for Ms Forbes is actually delivered - if she's shafted with a lesser offer than she was led to expect, Swinney's leadership will be poisoned by bitterness from the word go.  Hopefully he's sensible enough not to do that.

On a personal level, at least, I can congratulate him.  He's been SNP leader before, but only in opposition, and when that stint ended in failure it must have seemed that what he could achieve in the remainder of his career was going to have a ceiling on it.  But no, twenty years later he's made it to the very top, or as close to the very top as is possible in a devolved system, and that's a remarkable story.

Sensational Norstat poll shows support for independence has INCREASED to 48% in spite of the crisis within the SNP

This is a curate's egg poll, so let's start with the good part.  Support for independence has remained impressively untouched by the crisis within the SNP, and indeed has increased slightly since the last Norstat poll, although that may just be margin-of-error noise.

Should Scotland be an independent country? (Norstat / Sunday Times, 30th April - 3rd May 2024)

Yes 48% (+1)

No 52% (-1)

However, as you've probably heard by now, the poll is a lot less good for the SNP themselves. This is one of the rare occasions when the exact dates a poll was conducted are by far the most important part of the equation.  The fieldwork started on 30th April, which was the day after Yousaf announced his resignation, and finished on 3rd May, which was the day after John Swinney emerged as the heir presumptive. 

Interviews for online polls are not evenly spread out through the fieldwork dates - usually they're heavily concentrated in the first 24 hours.  If that's what happened here, it's safe to conclude that the SNP did not benefit from a wave of relief when Yousaf departed the stage, but it remains an entirely open question whether there's been a rebound as a result of the crisis receding due to a new leader having more or less emerged.  In any case, given the choreographed crowing about the poll on Twitter among the usual Labour suspects, I was bracing myself for a Truss-like meltdown that would look unrecoverable regardless of any honeymoon effect for the new leader.  That isn't the case at all - the boost for Labour is relatively modest and still leaves them behind the SNP on the Holyrood constituency vote.  And while a five-point Labour lead for Westminster is bad news, at least it's not twenty or thirty points, and it's thus still just about possible that the new leadership may be able to turn things around in time for the general election.

Scottish voting intentions for next UK general election:

Labour 34% (+2)

SNP 29% (-3)

Conservatives 16% (-)

Liberal Democrats 8% (-1)

Seats projection (with changes from 2019 election): Labour 28 (+27), SNP 15 (-33), Conservatives 9 (+3), Liberal Democrats 5 (+1)

It shouldn't go without note here that one of the main effects of the Labour lead is that the Tories are projected to entirely needlessly gain several seats from the SNP despite their vote share having collapsed since 2019.  Whatever John Swinney's shortcomings, I think it's probably fair to say he won't be a turn-off for rural voters in quite the way that Yousaf was, so he may be better placed to reverse the problem in SNP-Tory battleground seats.

Scottish Parliament constituency ballot:

SNP 34% (-1)

Labour 33% (+3)

Conservatives 14% (-3)

Liberal Democrats 9% (-1)

Greens 5% (+2)

Scottish Parliament regional list ballot:

Labour 28% (+3)

SNP 27% (-1)

Conservatives 17% (-2)

Greens 9% (-)

Liberal Democrats 8% (-2)

Reform UK 6% (+2)

Alba 4% (+1)

Seats projection (with changes from 2021 election): Labour 40 (+18), SNP 38 (-26), Conservatives 24 (-7), Greens 10 (+2), Liberal Democrats 9 (+5), Reform UK 8 (+8)

My fellow Alba members would be unwise to get too excited about the party's boost on the list, for a couple of reasons.  Firstly, the fieldwork took place before the strategically dangerous decision to vote to bring down the SNP government, so it's anyone's guess whether that will have alienated independence supporters and led to a decrease in the Alba vote.  And secondly, as far as I know Norstat have continued to use the same methodology as Panelbase, who were by some distance the most favourable pollster for Alba, often showing them at 5% or 6% in the run-up to the 2021 election even though they ended up with only 2% on polling day.  That overestimation is unlikely to have been corrected for, because Panelbase never introduced weighting by recalled Holyrood vote.

*  *  *

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