As you may have seen, Stuart Campbell took a little time off from poker and Gaelic-bashing last night to leave a comment on this blog about his views on ‘gaming the voting system’, and went on to demand a point-by-point reply from me. There’s been a bit of a recurring pattern in the past that if I accede to his demand for a detailed reply, he then uses the fact that I replied as evidence that I am “dementedly obsessed” with him. I asked for an assurance that he would not play the same tedious game again, and he gave it. I have every confidence he will stick to his word this time (ahem). Here goes…
“But you’re quite right, I have changed my mind. I don’t regard that as being anything to be ashamed of when circumstances change.”
But circumstances haven’t changed. The arguments against ‘gaming the system’ in 2011 and 2016, including the arguments that Stuart advanced himself, were based largely on the nature of the voting system and the laws of arithmetic. Neither of those things have changed.
“The difference is that unlike Mike [Small], I’ve clearly and repeatedly explained WHY I’ve taken a different position this time – tiny wee parties nobody’s ever heard of have no chance. But Wings has very high recognition with the Scottish public, especially among Yes voters – in the real world, not on social media”
This appears to mean that the “changed circumstances” Stuart is referring to essentially amount to his exceptionally high opinion of himself – and, if so, a few unkind souls might say those circumstances haven’t changed much either. But he seems to be deadly serious about this point, so I’ll give a serious answer. As far as I can see, he’s convinced himself that he’s super-famous largely on the basis of Panelbase polling which asked the general public whether they’ve read or have heard of his website. As I’ve explained many times before, that’s the sort of question on which online polling is bound to produce a less reliable result than telephone polling, simply because volunteer online polling panels contain far more politically engaged people than you’d find among a random sample. Every single time there’s a Panelbase poll in the field, at least two or three readers of this blog mention that they were among the 1000-strong sample who took part. The chances of that happening during the fieldwork for a telephone poll would be much slimmer – in fact, in the whole twelve years I’ve been blogging, I could probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of times someone has mentioned being polled by telephone. Conclusion: people who respond to online polls are considerably more likely to have heard of Scot Goes Pop than the population at large, which almost certainly means they’re considerably more likely to have heard of Wings too. In a nutshell, Stuart has a distorted notion of his own fame due to polling numbers that he should have taken with a heavy dose of salt.
“So either of us might actually have a shot, and I also regard it as something worth doing for other reasons, which I’ve also explained at length.”
The “either of us” refers to himself and Alex Salmond. Many people will be utterly incredulous that he’s mentioning himself in the same breath as the former First Minister of Scotland, but that does seem to genuinely be the current state of his thinking. All I can say is that, to put it mildly, I disagree with him that his own name recognition is even vaguely comparable with Mr Salmond’s.
“And even more so because I don’t share your apparent complacent certainty that current polling will continue until next May. I remember the SNP being on 62% about this far out from the last election, and then dropping about 15 points and losing their majority, and that was WITHOUT the trainwreck that the Salmond inquiry is going to be.”
That’s a straw man argument on a couple of counts. Firstly, if he’s read what I’ve written on this subject (and presumably he’s implying that he has) he’ll know that, far from being complacent, I’ve repeatedly stressed that an inflated SNP lead is unlikely to come through a bruising election campaign totally unscathed. It’s also the case that I was one of the few people in 2016 itself who flagged up the danger that the SNP might lose their overall majority if they shed too many list votes. That warning was greeted with disbelief in many quarters.
But the more important point is that the dangers of mucking about with attempts to game the system would be much greater if the SNP poll lead dips sharply. Stuart seems to be implying that we should be more willing to take risks with the pro-indy majority if the polls tighten, whereas self-evidently the reverse is true.
“This isn’t a very remarkable opinion – you completely agree with it in principle, and you think it could work for Salmond”
I’ve said that it might work for Alex Salmond due to the public’s massive familiarity with him, but that it would not work for any other person I can think of. To characterise that crystal-clear assessment as “you agree in principle that a Wings party would work apart from some minor detail” is so grossly misleading as to be indistinguishable from outright dishonesty.
“you just think that because I swear sometimes and I’m ‘controversial’ nobody would vote for a Wings party. You’re perfectly entitled to that view, however obviously stupid and wrong it is – controversy and being disliked by a lot of people didn’t seem to stop Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and Donald Trump winning. Nor Alex himself, come to that. And I do still find it hilarious that you think the Scottish public has great fainting fits over swearywords like you do, because you’re apparently from 1932.”
This is something I’ve noticed with Stuart before – when he imagines Scotland, he imagines a pub full of male, working-class football supporters. A very substantial minority of the Scottish electorate does indeed look like that – but the operative word is “minority”. As it happens, though, I think Stuart is getting a bit muddled here. I believe he’s harking back to the iScot article from a few months ago that he had such a meltdown over. As far as I can recall, what I actually said in that article is that Stuart’s online persona would make it difficult for the SNP to work with him if he held the balance of power at Holyrood. I do not regard that scenario as remotely likely or even plausible, but the point I was making is that if it does happen, that could lead to the SNP doing a deal with a unionist party instead – which would be the worst of all worlds.
Oh, and you’ll note that having previously mentioned himself in the same breath as Alex Salmond, he’s now doing it again with Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and Donald Trump. No comment.
“Still, be as mental as you like. But to pretend that I’m the same as Mike Small is a bit below the belt even for you.”
Count your blessings, sunshine. I could have compared you to Kevin Williamson.
