Do only 3 in 10 believe poll suggesting 7 in 10 believe First Minister should resign?

A Panelbase poll funded and scripted by Wings over Scotland suggest that 68% of Scots think that Nicola Sturgeon should resign if it is found that she lied to Parliament.

My quick twitterpoll is not intended to be taken as reliable evidence, especially given its self-selecting sample method akin to that favoured by the BMA, but in a sample of 1 250 from 5 200 following Talking-up Scotland, the lack of trust in the results of the Wings poll does seem interesting, perhaps surprising.

Like the four Survation polls for Scotland in Union, showing support for staying in the UK, this was funded and scripted, at least in part, by someone with a very strong agenda to expose alleged illegal acts by the First Minister. Surely, that raises doubts?

Let me say, at the outset, if she is found guilty of that charge, she should resign and, if that was the case, I feel sure most Scots would expect her to do so and, indeed, she would choose to do so herself.

However, commissioning this survey seems gratuitous. Given the disclaimer, ‘if she she was found to have misled Parliament’, is anyone surprised by the result of the poll? More important, is this not also likely to contaminate the case against the First Minister? Innocent until proven guilty?

I know that the previous First Minister was not treated fairly in this respect, with accusations leaked to the press by civil servants, but that does not mean that there there is anything to be gained by a campaign to condemn her before the inquiry into an alleged breach of ministerial conduct has concluded.

21 thoughts on “Do only 3 in 10 believe poll suggesting 7 in 10 believe First Minister should resign?”

  1. John – “innocent until proven guilty” is all very well, but when the inquiry is clearly being obstructed from doing its job properly by the SG and its lawyers, the same SG who promised full co-operation and disclosure, then you have to wonder why an innocent party would have to resort to doing this, and reach the inevitable conclusion.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Who has most to gain from division in the Independence movement?
    Keep asking yourself that along with the “Innocent until proven guilty…beyond any reasonable doubt”

    We have the Wngs disciples pushing the nudge, nudge, wink, wink evidence. (such as demonstrated above)

    I never believed Alex Salmond was guilty and a court established that.

    Why should I condemn the FM until conclusive evidence is produced.

    An accusation against Alex or Nicola is NOT evidence as demonstrated in the former case.

    The most important point I can make is that no individual is more important than an Independent Scotland. That does not mean that people should not be held to account if wrong doing is uncovered. It means let the process take it’s course before sections of the movement call for a lynching.

    …who has the most to gain from this dissent.

    Liked by 10 people

    1. ‘It means let the process take it’s course.’
      So you think now that the process is taking its course?
      Liz Lloyd, Geoff Aberdein and now Sturgeon’s testimony is being suppressed. We need a judge led inquiry because right now we are not getting to the facts. If we don’t cut out the rot we are choosing to give weapons to the unionists.
      The most depressing thought i read today was from Richard Murphy who reminded me why Joanna Cherry has been blocked.
      Apart from all the unnecessary deaths since the summer i can never forgive NS on Marr recently and then again last week trying to make out that is all about Salmond acting inappropriately. I have no loyalty to AS but i hate dishonesty. Those remarks by NS was her showing her true colours.

      Like

  3. I’m for independence. Sturgeon, right now, is the best placed to get us there.
    I had hoped Alex Salmond would have done it, but he did a lot of the hard yards.
    Whatever the truth is in this affair (and I think the civil service folk need looking at), I would go for a pint with Auld Nick, if it would advance the cause—and I dont mean Nick Robinson (spit)!

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Exactly! Gavin.

      Nicola Sturgeon has gained a lot of brownie points over the course of the pandemic. She is more popular with the electorate than Eck was in the run up to the 2014 Indy Ref. (Perhaps ever)
      Her popularity came about due to a rare event . . . The pandemic. And her skillful handling of things.
      Those who blog daily to remove Nicola Sturgeon aim to remove our very popular leader or severley damage her reputation with the public before the coming election.
      Not the action of Independence supporters.

      Liked by 4 people

  4. I find myself feeling umpteen contradictory thoughts on this issue. I was a strong supporter of Wings until the main focus of posts turned to trans issues and then an all out attack on NS/SNP despite the Westminster mess and opps for dissecting what was going on there. I feel his relationship with AS has pushed him into taking sides regardless of circumstances and now wonder if this tendency to see black or white was always there

    I always thought AS was a good politician well able to argue his points and moved us a long way in the indy direction. And, while I know he was found innocent of all charges against him, I’m old enough to be ambivalent about what constitutes sexual harassment – I think the timing following Harvey Weinstein and the Me Too movement forced the more zealous into pursuing the case unwisely here. It did feel like a stitch up and as we know mud tends to stick. He wasn’t the first to fall foul of the higher standards which seem to apply here (Mark McDonald seemed particularly unfairly treated) and it all seems so hard when you see what Westminster politicians are getting away with

    I do admire NS, not just for her management of Covid but because her principled approach to governing for the whole country, not just yessers, has rightly earned her steady support and world wide acclaim. I don’t however think she is perfect and sometimes is hoist by her own lofty principles but she does seem like our best asset just now. To be honest I see what I would call a white lie (if it is that) about a meeting a very minor & very human error when trying to deal with a very tricky dilemma and balancing loyalty to her old friend and mentor with her feminist principles and new policy expectations. I know nothing off PMs role in this – he may well have disliked AS or wanted to protect NS but I can understand why folk find his emails distasteful.

    I can comfortably accommodate all these contradictory opinions without losing sleep – it won’t affect how I vote or my desire for independence. I do agree with Julia though when she asks who has the most to gain from this rumbling on. I can’t help hoping the key figures here will find away to resolve this without destroying each other, the SNP and our chance of becoming independent – that would indeed be unforgiveable in my eyes. The press & the opposition parties will continue to push any angle of this story which might weaken the independence movement so it is up to the key figures to sort themselves out and stop allowing a rift (however genuine) to tear everything apart.

    Liked by 6 people

  5. I wonder if the absence of evidence from Mr Aberdein and Ms Sturgeon to the Committee looking into the handling of hrassment complaints suggests the possibility that such evidence will now be presented to a court.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. That is interesting and i haven’t heard it before.
      It makes sense. They will be one step ahead.
      Plan A failed (civil action against AS), Plan B failed (criminal action against AS), Plan C failed (the cover up) so they are preparing for Plan D.
      If NS really cared about Indy and the SNP she would resign now.

      Like

      1. Stand back from your presumed guilty summary and read the @sam observation again, I had to read it twice before the penny dropped.

        The Courts are a very different animal to what is currently examining two quite different strands of this AS business. The Court decision over AS demonstrates an unwillingness to bend to mafia rules, the SG tactic may well be to force legal examination which none can influence…

        There can be little doubt COPWS are up and beyond their necks in what has gone on over the AS affair, by placing this before the Scottish judiciary, it becomes a very different affair, recorded for posterity even if immediate portions can be sealed from public view.
        Clever if the mafia don’t back off, cheers sam, didn’t think of that…

        Liked by 1 person

  6. All politicians lie. Polls regarding politicians resigning always fall into the ‘the politician should resign’ half. Always.

    Anyone asking that question of Sturgeon more than once has an agenda that they are trying to put into the public minds.

    “Did she lie?”
    “She must have, because they all do.”
    “She should go.”

    It’s that simple. Did the anon witnesses/alleged victims lie? Did Salmond lie?

    Probably, if the media tell the story.

    Like

  7. To those who say ‘i don’t read Wings any more because …’ i would suggest that this is wilful blindness. You don’t have to agree with his views but you have to deal with his evidence somehow you can’t just ignore it and then say he is wrong. How could you possibly know if you don’t read it.
    To those that say Indy first, i have no words.

    Soon this is going to get through to the wilfully blind. Putting it off might cushion the blow. If you can’t stomach Wings try:
    Gordon Dangerfield

    Richard Murphy (Tax Research UK)
    Mandy Rhodes (Holyrood magazine
    e.g. https://www.holyrood.com/editors-column/view,shifting-blame
    Gareth Waddell (Grousebeater)
    Roddy MacLeod (barrheadboy)
    Jason Michael (Jeggit)
    Iain Lawson (Yours For Scotland)
    Denise Findlay (perhaps not for snowflakes)
    Craig Murray (not him if you want truth)
    Mark Hirst (he must be a wrong-un for sure)

    all unionists no doubt.

    I can’t think of one thinking person who can give counter-arguments to any of the above except outright denial and an acceptance of corruption.

    Bye i have stayed long past my welcome.

    Like

  8. Sorry to disappoint you, Bob. I am thinking of the possibility of another JR raised by AS against the SG claiming, perhaps, that the withholding of evidence central to the JR, subsequent criminal trial of AS and the inquiry by the parliamentary committee is contempt of court, past and present.

    We are in agreement, I think and hope, that it isimportant that the truth, whatever it is, comes out (and soon).

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.