Scottish politics - the recent drop in the opinion polls for independence.

 After over twenty opinion polls in a row, support for independence would seemed to have fallen substantially. Indeed, two recent polls have now indicated a majority, although a small one, for staying in the UK (with one in between these two still showing a slight lead for independence). It also has to be admitted that polls towards the end of 2020 and the start of 2021, while still showing a majority for YES, had indicated that support for independence had fallen from a high point of about 58% to about only 53%. Why should this have happened?
I suspect that one reason, the earlier one, was due to some people reconsidering independence, and rejoining the EU, due to the COVID vaccine situation. About the only thing the UK government has got right in the battle against COVID was getting early vaccine supplies ordered - while the EU made a total mess of obtaining vaccines and getting them distributed. This might have left some ‘soft’ independence supporters thinking that independence, and rejoining the EU, was not such a good idea, after all. That is not to say that an independent Scotland could not also have obtained early supplies of the vaccine but, as an EU member, it is more likely it would have stuck with the EU program and been far behind where it is now in vaccine roll out (and, therefore, escaping from lockdown sooner rather than later). I suspect that this issue could well account for some of the drop in support for independence from around 58% to around 53%. Some people might also have been persuaded that an independent Scotland would have been unable to fund the fight against COVID if not still a part of the UK. (although there is no reason why an independent Scotland could not have borrowed, as the UK did, in order to achieve a similar outcome).
As for the more recent drop in support for independence, from around 53% to just above 49%? I suspect that that is down to the stooshie between Salmond, Sturgeon and her government. This has been an unmitigated disaster for the SNP and supporters of independence. To be clear, while an SNP member, I have had, for several years, concern about how Sturgeon and her inner circle have controlled the SNP with a grip of iron. For example, the shutting down, at conference, of a debate on a plan B (should the UK government have continued to refuse approval for a section 30 order to allow the Scottish government to hold an official second independence referendum). Then we have the last minute change of the rules which prevented Joanna Cherry from standing for Holyrood. Sturgeon, or at least her inner circle, did not want either to happen - and neither did. Having said that, I have great admiration for Sturgeon and the way she operates in all other respects.
I am satisfied that Sturgeon explained what happened, and why (with regard to it’s contesting of Salmond’s judicial revue about it’s handling of the complaints made against him) - and that she managed to refute all his accusations. That is not to say she did not make some poor decisions and made some errors (it looks like she did both) - but she did explain the background to the new disciplinary procedure and why it had been introduced in the wake of the #MeToo movement. Sturgeon claimed that it was not the procedure itself that was wrong but the way it was handled. It was also clear that the Scottish government did not realise until late on just how much contact Judith McKinnon, the Investigating Officer, had had with the two women (who had made the complaints against Salmond) prior to her being appointed as IO. All of that seems to make sense - but someone (the permanent secretary, Lesley Evans?) made a mistake in not checking that appointing Judith McKinnon the IO was sound. Note: see the section at the very end of this post for a fuller explanation, as I understand it, of why this new procedure was developed and what it hoped to achieve.
However, a good part of the SNP’s support has been down to it appearing competent and reasonably open. This sorry affair has indicated, in this issue at least, that that is not the case. The Scottish government would appear to have made many mistakes in how it handled the issue - and that has indicated a lack of competence. It has also appeared to have been less than open with the investigating Holyrood committee (in not releasing evidence to this committee in a timely fashion or, indeed, in trying to withhold some of it) - or, alternatively, it has been totally incompetent in recording everything it should have. One way or another, by it’s actions, it has damaged it’s own reputation in both competence and openness.
I am not going to judge whether Sturgeon or Swinney should resign (or, for that matter Peter Murrell or Lesley Evans): I will leave that up to the ongoing investigations to reach conclusions and report accordingly.
What is clear, however, is that the SNP now have a difficult fight to win the overall Holyrood majority it seeks in May - and even if it does it then needs to win back the majority support for independence before another referendum is held. There would be no point in holding another referendum without the polls indicating that a YES vote will win as, if YES does not win second time around, then any chance of a third referendum, and therefore independence, vanishes, in my opinion, for many years (although I would not promise that that would be the case - just as neither Salmond nor Sturgeon made any such promises back during 2014).


Note that the disciplinary procedure used to investigate the complaints against Salmond was a new one developed specifically for sexual harassment - this arising out of the #MeToo movement. The existing procedure was for bullying and harassment of a general nature. The new procedure was developed to prevent a powerful person (usually a man but not necessarily so) using their position to bury any complaint against them and therefore avoid a possible criminal charge (or to persuade another such powerful person to intervene on their behalf). This required three specific differences from the existing procedure to investigate bullying and harassment.
Firstly, it allowed for historical complaints to be investigated. This because it was felt that complaining against a current, senior employee or minister was unlikely to be made as anyone doing so could be putting their career at risk - and that, therefore, only allowing for a historical investigation could ensure that anything historical could, at least, be looked at later - and not just swept under the carpet.
Secondly, the new procedure deliberately did not include arbitration or mediation. This because it was felt that neither were appropriate in a case of sexual harassment - that the complaint was either not substantiated or that it required a criminal investigation.
Thirdly, no minister, including the First Minister, would be involved in the investigation. This was the aspect that prevented Sturgeon, even if she’d wanted to, from getting involved. It could be argued that Sturgeon, in just meeting Salmond (on April 2nd 2018), breached this - but it would appear that Sturgeon seems to be claiming that she only met Salmond out of courtesy for their history together but that she knew, despite the impression she might have given Salmond, that she would not get involved. This also seems to be why Sturgeon claims she did not advise the Permanent Secretary, Lesley Evans, about this meeting. She feared that anyone knowing about this meeting might feel that she had become involved and that this could ‘colour’ the investigation if it became known. This might also be why Sturgeon did not properly record this meeting as, in knowing she would not become involved, she felt this was not government business? I find this explanation a bit weak as I feel she could have informed Lesley Evans but assured her she was not getting involved and not to tell anyone else involved in the investigation about this meeting in case it was felt that she had become involved. Doing that would, at least, have ensured this meeting had been recorded and therefore helped reduce accusations about any possible cover up. I have to make it clear that the above is only my understanding of the background to this new procedure and how the Scottish government handled it - I do not pretend to have a definite knowledge of this.