It's Fracking Hypocrisy!

This week we saw Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson take the SNP to court and succeed in getting a court order to stop a leaflet that the SNP candidate distributed and which contained inaccurate information and claims about her. The SNP were ordered to withdraw the leaflet, the Royal Mail were to stop circulating it and the SNP pay her legal costs.

The leaflet claimed she had taken £14,000 from a fracking company. Her lawyers argued that it was not from the company, but from one of the directors of the company donating in a private capacity and that the money was used to fund her constituency office. While most people might be tempted to conflate the two, the court seemingly agreed there is a difference, and that the way in which the information had been inaccurately presented by the SNP and used to justify calling Swinson a ‘hypocrite’ was defamatory.

It’s worth noting that the company in question (Warwick Energy) although it holds some fracking licences, is apparently not involved in any drilling in relation to fracking at the moment and that such activities are claimed to make up only a small proportion of the company’s interests. Other activities include offshore wind generation, conventional gas recovery and power generation, offshore drilling and gas storage, may of these things the SNP actively support. Swinson’s lawyer points out that 80% of the company’s energy production is from renewable sources.

(https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/26/jo-swinson-wins-court-order-against-snp-over-election-leaflet)

Now that’s all well and good, you will have your own opinion as to whether Swinson is a hypocrite to oppose fracking but to take a substantial donation from someone who happens to be a director of a company that has had some involvement in the industry at some point and might again. What I’d like to examine here is not Swinson’s position, but the SNP’s own hypocrisy in calling her out on this matter, and as usual with the SNP their own hypocrisy appears to be on several levels.

First there is the matter of being on the receiving end of benefits implied to come from a company involved in fracking. I encountered a number of SNP supporters who in the wake of the court judgment implied that there was no difference in the cash coming from a director than from the company itself (or words to that effect), and that even if the company wasn’t doing any fracking the fact it held licences to do so was bad enough. I’m not making any judgement here on Swinson and whether taking the donation makes her a hypocrite, but many SNP supporters were. 

So let's look a little deeper at the SNP position:

SNP Fracking Hypocrisy Part  1:

As the Green Party handily points out, SNP held a conference earlier this year that included an event sponsored by BP (https://greens.scot/news/snp-climate-conference-sponsored-by-heathrow-and-bp ). They also note that under the SNP another multinational petrochemical company (Shell) is providing funding to Forestry and Land Scotland (snp-reforesting-plan-paid-for-by-oil-giant).

How does that potentially reek of hypocrisy? Well BP have substantial involvement in fracking
(https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-6000769/BPs-8bn-bet-fracking-Oil-giant-snaps-5-500-wells-marches-US.html,
https://www.ft.com/content/beb54fda-a1c2-11e7-9e4f-7f5e6a7c98a2,
https://www.behindthelogos.org/bp-starts-fracking-argentinian-carbon-bomb/).
Shell also have involvement and have made extensive investments to exploit shale gas output (https://e360.yale.edu/features/a-fracking-driven-industrial-boom-renews-pollution-concerns-in-pittsburgh)
Now just like Warwick Energy, fracking related activities are only a minor part of all of BP and Shell's activities, although they maybe can’t claim their energy production to be 80% renewable like Warwick Energy! However their investment and involvement in the fracking industry dwarfs that of Warwick Energy. And here's the SNP actively reaping benefits from them and at same time slagging off the Lib Dems for taking money from an individual who works for a minor industry player while they partner up with two of the biggest players. Rank hypocrisy from the SNP it would seem. 

SNP Fracking Hypocrisy Part 2:

Taking cash from individuals with links to fracking and related industries.

It’s not that long ago that SNP were in the papers for receiving donations from a minor company that had been linked to fracking or potential fracking by journalists:

“Motherwell-based Hydracat Limited donated £3,750 to Neil Gray, SNP MP for Airdrie and Shotts, as well as £17,500 to the SNP.
Electoral Commission records also show the company’s director, Bobby Hill, handed over £6,500 to the SNP’s Airdrie and Shotts branch in 2011.”

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/holyrood/763553/snp-mp-critised-over-donations-from-fracking-company/

And also

“THE former cabinet secretary in charge of planning took thousands of pounds from a family business linked to fracking for his re-election campaign, it has emerged.
Alex Neil accepted almost £3000 in donations from the family behind a leading drilling company that stands to benefit if the SNP allows fracking in Scotland.”

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/14566316.SNP_planning_minister_took_cash_from_pro_fracking_drilling_company/

The details of donations to Alex Neil are interesting: According to official election records, Hydracrat Ltd donated £490 to Neil on March 21, and five members of the Hill family then gave a further £2420 between them over the next few days.
Bobby Hill, the company’s director and sole shareholder, gave £485;
his 80-year-old mother gave £495;
his wife gave £470;
and his 24 and 21 year old sons  gave £490 and £480 respectively.

Given that the threshold for reporting donations to the Electoral Commission is £500, you might be forgiven for wondering if the amounts donated to Neil by the Hill family were specifically chosen to be just below the reporting threshold and you might conclude that it looks for all the world as if someone thought it might be better if a larger donation was broken up to be less prominent and attract less attention. Now why would that be? Nothing to see here? Then why the odd pattern of donations?

SNP Fracking Hypocrisy Part 3:

Just a few months ago the Scottish Government handed out an extension to a fracking licence held by INEOS in Scotland. You may well find this quite bizarre that while with one face the SG are maintaining their supposed opposition to fracking with a moratorium on it, while with one of their other faces they have agreed to extend a licence for exploratory fracking in Scotland rather than just saying 'no' to the renewal request.
One has to question if this is any more or less ‘hypocritical’ than the SNP saying that the Lib Dems have been by claiming to oppose fracking while taking a donation from someone who's company holds some fracking licences they haven’t used. Green MSP Mark Ruskell is somewhat puzzled by this position too: https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/snps-environmental-commitment-called-into-question-after-extending-fracking-licence

SNP Fracking Hypocrisy Part 4:

Here’s what senior SNP minister Mike Russell has to say in his book ‘Grasping the Thistle’ about dodgy underground mining activities in Scotland.  In his vision for an independent Scotland:
“Underground coal gasification is particularly suited for Scotland’s offshore deposits where redundant oil and gas facilities could be converted to drilling and igniting underground coal and piping the gas to shore for electricity generation and hydrogen production”.

Oh dear, does that make him a hypocrite, given that his party sort of oppose this sort of activity? (I say sort of, because sometimes you wonder).
Coal gasification is where you drill into a coal seam and set it on fire, the ensuing combustion (which can continue for years) produces all sorts of gasses which can then be pumped up and utilised, clearly there are all sorts of environmental question marks over it, and it's potential to affect underground water and other things, just like fracking....

For more on Mike’s interesting views and their stark contrast with claimed SNP policies see my previous article: when-grasping-thistles-be-careful-of.html

Summary:

Those are four potential examples of why the SNP might be deemed a wee bit hypocritical for attacking Jo Swinson on this issue. I don't suggest that anyone has done anything wrong, as far as I know all donations were perfectly legal, but you can judge for yourself what it tells you about those involved. 
However whether you agree with fracking, vehemently oppose it, or are undecided, I hope you’ll agree that not every issue is as simple as politicians and parties think we are. 

When Grasping Thistles, be careful of the pricks....

There is a commonly held belief that the SNP are left-wing, after all, they frequently tell us they are; lots of progressive virtue signalling as they decry the big bad Tories with their nasty privatisation and free market agenda, 'ready to the flog the NHS to the highest bidder'.
And yet there is evidence past and present that the SNP's socialist credentials are more of a thin veneer on some of their members than any deeply held key values.
The SNP were once known as ‘the Tartan Tories’ ( a phrase coined by Willie Ross, Harold Wilsons Secretary of State for Scotland) but they have worked hard to expunge that meme essentially by stealing Scottish Labour’s cloak of mild mannered socialism as it was hanging on the peg during Blair and Browns sojourn at number 10. Although the process started forty years ago with the ’79 Group’ agitating within the party for a more left-wing approach to policy (to the objections of some more established members), something that then developed through the late 80's and continued when Salmond took control in the 90’s, although Salmond then veered off rightwards, but without really giving up claim to the progressive left label.

Many who have looked at SNP policies and practice have pondered just how left wing they really are, and if this claimed progressive left position is really a carefully considered sham designed to poach all those old labour voters to the cause. The fact is that the SNP contain a wide group of people of quite differing views but who all share a desire to see an independent Scotland and are prepared to a greater or lesser extent to hide their true political leanings to present a united front. While this is to some extent true of most parties I believe the degree to which it accurately describes the SNP is much greater. Jim Sillars and Fegus Ewing are a paired example of the dichotomy of the SNP, one of the socialist left and the other considerable further right, both pretending to be in the middle, (although Sillars rarely plays ball these days) with only a shared goal of independence binding their like together.

It matters a lot because this united front is unlikely to survive much beyond any success in a future referendum, once their shared goal is achivied then all bets are off on policies for a new nation. Within a couple of elections, if not a lot sooner, I would expect to see a significant split perhaps with far left SNP coming together with some from Labour, SSP and perhaps Greens, the right wing of the party would have more in common with Tories, and the middle ground of the party with the Lib Dems. The question is really how many in each loose group. Voters should consider this if they are tempted to vote for independence on the basis of being promised some sort of cuddly socialist utopia, the differences are so great they may not withstand the opportunity to shape the policies of a new state, and there is a significant chance that what emerges is a party of the right that is able to dominate a slightly smaller centrre party and a a slightly smaller again party of the left.

In the past when I’ve expounded this idea that there are right-wingers hiding out within the SNP I’ve been told I’m talking mince and that there is no evidence.  Thus I present exhibit one in the case that exponents of right right-wing conservative politics are lurking within the SNP biding their time and biting their tongues, just waiting to enact their vision of Scotland:

Michael Russell is a major figure in the SNP, he was chief exec of the party for the latter half of the 1990’s and was first elected to Holyrood in 1999, losing his seat at the subsequent election before reappearing in 2007. Since then he has held a variety of ministerial roles under both Salmond and Sturgeon and since 2016 has been the Cabinet Secretary for Government Business and Constitutional Affairs, which means we see him on the telly whining about Brexit a lot. In times gone by some even saw him as a possible future leader of the nationalists, I suspect his time has passed, but make no mistake, as one of the party’s ‘elder statesmen’ he still has a fair amount of influence and support within.

It’s time we examined what Michael Russell’s vision for a future independent Scotland is, as set out in his 2006 book, co-authored with the Late Dennis MacLeod (that's mining millionaire Dennis Macleod). Let’s see if it matches up to the vision that so many in the ‘YeSNP’ movement say sets them apart from the Conservatives and their evil Tory ways.

The book is called Grasping the Thistle: (2006 ISBN 1902831861) just in case you fancy getting a copy, although you’ll be lucky, I got mine when it was withdrawn from library circulation after only three people borrowed it in well over five years!

For simplicity I’m just dealing with topics as they crop up in the book, but rather conveniently given Russell’s current position it’s the topic of the EU that first raises its ugly head.

• The EU (page 13): Russell makes a rather telling comment in the introduction that hints at his own view of the EU, and it appears somewhat at odds with the SNP’s current perceived position: “ We have as a country, to put it simply, traded away far, far too much of our own sovereignty first to the UK and then to the EU”, does that sound like a man who will quickly be looking to cheer Scotland back into the EU on a similar basis to the UK, but with fewer opt-outs and veto powers plus a compulsion to join the Euro? Now that doesn’t mean he’s a Eurosceptic, because he isn’t, but it shows that his thinking may not be so far from that of many UK citizens (and over one third of Scots) who voted to leave the EU, they weren't all racists, some just thought they were taking back sovereignty!

And now the rest

• Currency (page 99+):  On the issue of currency “A country without its own currency is a country not only without a steering wheel, but also without brakes and an accelerator” a statement that should make it quite clear where Russell stands on keeping the pound or joining the Euro. The indication from the book is that a Scottish currency initially pegged to the pound is desirable. There is even talk later of deliberately devaluing a new Sottish currency against the pound, although a footnote states that this is the suggestion of MacLeod and that Russell ‘as an SNP candidate asserts the SNP view that devaluation wouldn’t be required’. This is interesting on two points, firstly the wording suggests that Russell might actually agree with MacLeod, but secondly as an SNP candidate he better cover his back in case he gets a leathering from Salmond for saying embarrassing stuff…. Which makes it all the more surprising that most of the other suggestions in the book don’t come with such a disclaimer so we can assume MR is in full agreement with them, or indeed they are his opinions, and also that they are less likely to upset the SNP high heid yins!

• Deficit (page 131) They discuss Scotland’s deficit, (even back then we were spending way more than we took in, and to a greater degree than UK), after adding some oil income and massaging the figures by deducting Scotland's share of UK debt repayments MR admits the figure is still too high So comes up with a number of solutions on the following page, here are the most interesting four :

1. “Freezing and cutting government expenditures including freezing of recruitment by government and quangos”: Known to most people as ‘austerity’ and something the SNP have shouted the loudest against when practiced by UK government since 2010.
2. “Boosting growth by reducing corporate and personal taxes” : Sounds like they just mugged a tory and stole a policy
3. "Improving government efficiency by exposure to the market economy": yeah the book really does suggest this, even some Tories might baulk at this!
4. “Building the number of economically active citizens by facilitating the transfer of civil servants to the private sector as well as boosting immigration”: Last bit is fine, the first bit is a hilarious euphemism for ‘privatising parts of government’, something the SNP have continually slammed UK governments for or have fear-mongered about Tories doing.

• Defence (page 135): As the book struggles to work out how to balance the finances it proposes reducing defence spending from the current (at the time of the book’s writing) 2.7% down to 1%. No word about how that might sit with NATO.

• Subsidies (agriculture, fishing etc) (page 135): There is some discussion of removing all subsidies to these sectors, although another footnote states that MR supports the SNP policy of retaining them but that an ongoing debate is essential. Given Russell’s constituency he clearly didn’t want to frighten the sheep, or the voters… Interestingly there is no discussion of how such a policy would sit within the EU framework, but then there isn’t much discussion of the EU and one is left with the impression that MR an DM might have assumed that the newly independent Scotland ain’t in it.

• Corporation tax (Page 137): The book discusses the taxation of capital and states: “One means to address this problem is not just to cut corporation tax, as has already been correctly suggested by the SNP, but to go further by eliminating it entirely”.  Hallelujah say all the big businesses, Tories nod enthusiastically in agreement.

• Inheritance tax (Page 139): Russell clearly buys into the old chestnut that (as he puts it): “Inheritance tax is a tax on monies that have already been taxed” (pretty much every tax is, because as money circulates it is constantly taxed). But they don’t like it at all as this indicates “ It is a tax aimed at preventing the build-up of wealth in the hands of the people…”. Er most people in Scotland don’t actually have enough assets in their estate to pay one penny of income tax, so one assumes that the “people” that Russell and MacLeod are concerned about are other moderately wealth and very wealthy top 10%ers like themselves. So what do they propose to do with inheritance tax? They clearly state “It should have no place in a country like Scotland”, jolly good that’s their personal wealth protected then.

• Capital Gains and other taxes (Page 139): Inheritance tax isn’t the only tax they aren’t keen on, the same page details their distain for aggregates tax, capital gains tax, air passenger duty and agricultural levies. And they say “elimination of such taxes is also necessary as a step towards an ultimately simpler tax system”. Simpler in that wealthy individuals like Michael Russell and Dennis MacLeod would have to contribute less you’ll note, for the rest of us probably just a few quid saved on a holiday abroad once a year. Oh and the appearance of aggregates tax first in that list was the authors order, I’ll remind you that DM made his money in digging stuff out of the ground so clearly he’d of been really keen on scrapping that one, for the good of the country of course….

• NHS (Page 155): This particular snippet has had a bit of exposure via Twitter as it reveals Michael Russell as holding beliefs pretty much diametrically opposite of those the SNP claim for themselves, how many other SNP’s MSP, MP’s and party apparatchiks concur with him is impossible to say, but he’s definitely not alone. Here’s what his book has to say on NHS provision: “We would encourage the private sector to compete with established NHS hospitals, clinics and other services. We would encourage NHS management and staff to buy out existing NHS facilities and services under favourable financial terms and join the private sector”. Sounds like the sort of thing Sturgeon constantly fear-mongers that the big bad tories will do if you don’t vote for independence NOW, and yet here’s one of the most senior members of the SNP and Scottish Government proposing it (and the book has no caveat footnote with this either!). But Russell goes further he then says: “We would require NHS facilities that remained in government ownership to be run at a profit however modest”, yes you read that right, and maybe you’re wondering ‘what happens if they aren’t profitable?’, well Russell has a solution for that: “Those that failed to maintain profitability over a reasonable period of time would be privatised”, He goes on but you get the idea. If vouchers for paying for your health treatment at competing private clinics sounds like something you fancy, Mike Russell’s yer man.

• Schools (page 161): Having accepted the case for universality in education the book says: “Nonetheless some competition is essential to get the best out of our tax revenues”. It then brings up education vouchers saying: “These would provide the full cost of education on an annual basis for all those who eligible [sic], at every educational level. The consumer - the child along with his or her parents, the student seeking to go to college or university and the mature student, seeking to improve his or her qualifications - would be able to force new provision onto the market by means of their purchasing power, provided by the state”. So there you have it, Mike Russell see students as ‘consumers’, education as a ‘market’ and wants the state to provide ‘purchasing power’ Not exactly the usual language of the SNP when pontificating about education is it? But wait for it, MR goes further, on the subject of private education where currently parents pay for both that, and via taxes, for state education that they don’t use, he says: “These vouchers would be issued to all, indeed to do so is only fair. Parents who wish to continue to use their own resources to fund private schooling might also have them, and will therefore no longer be paying for the cost of education twice”. So there he is, suggesting saving the wealthy the cost of private education, again maybe not a policy that most SNP voters are thinking of when casting their ballot

• Universality (page 164): Having accepted that universality is a good thing in education (after all it’ll save wealthy people like Mike and Dennis a packet if they want to send kids to private school), as a general principle Russell’s book frowns upon it: “Put bluntly universality - one size not only fits all, but will be given to all - now drags down both quality of service that can be provided to those most in need, and the ability of government to provide such services. However our political parties do not have the courage to address the issue for fear of losing votes”. At this point the needle on my ironyometer is springing into the red zone! Given the SNP’s predilection for handing out/promising free stuff. On the next page after suggesting a universal basic income Russell and MacLeod say: “…we should say clearly that we want means testing as at present to be abolished” Thus ensuring any handouts are available to even the wealthiest!

• Infrastructure and private funding (page 167): by now it will come as no surprise that Russell is a fan of private companies and the market. On funding, building and operating infrastructure such as roads the book says “…we would wish to see a much increased role for pension funds and other such investment vehicles and particularly our proposed National Pension Fund. By such means our citizens would have access to long-term stable investments, indeed they would be a large part of the ‘private’ in what would be in essence PPP projects, but with a much wider economic base and a much wider sharing of profits”. Hmmm PPP, (Public Private Partnership), well the SNP have had plenty of criticism of that when it was practiced by Westminster governments, although truth is they’ve overseen a fair bit themselves ( SNP Hypocrisy ). You’ll note that Russell doesn’t say what benefits accrue to pension funds if the project or service isn’t profitable, a problem a number of ‘Private’ components of existing deals have encountered. Also if you think having a National Pension Fund pumping its cash into such infrastructure projects is a great idea then you may want to consider the dangers of ‘Dutch disease’ and the additional risk of future politicians using it or pressuring it to fund projects that other more savvy providers wouldn’t touch with a bargepole.

• Coal gasification (page 175 to 176): Given the background of Russell’s co-author in mining it’s no surprise that they’ve got lots of plans for exploiting holes in the ground. They are particularly keen on Scotland’s “vast reserves” of coal, especially underground gasification.  A process, which while not quite ‘fracking’ does have similar environmental question marks: essentially drill into a coal seam, set it on fire underground, then pump out the gas that is produced. Here’s what they say: “Underground coal gasification is particularly suited for Scotland’s offshore deposits where redundant oil and gas facilities could be converted to drilling and igniting underground coal and piping the gas to shore for electricity generation and hydrogen production”. Anyone who obtains their water supply from underground aquifers may be rightly concerned, although to be honest Russell and MacLeod ‘ignited’ this proposal while energy prices were high, they are possibly not so viable now, lucky we didn’t spend a fortune developing it perhaps?

That’s just a selection of the proposals in Michael Russell’s book, he may when questioned claim he’s changed his mind on some or all of those topics since it was published. However you may wish to ponder if it's more likely that he's realised it’s expedient to keep his trap shut for now in the hope that if a united SNP front can achieve independence by pretending to be a left of centre progressive party then all bets are off and he and others of similar mind can push for their right-wing market led vision of Scotland the moment the mask is whipped off.

For a more general essay on the SNPs left/right split personality I suggest: Heart on the left, head on the right by David Torrance: SNP left and right

I don't disagree with all of Russell's proposals, I do disagree with some, but what I really want to draw attention to is what may lie beneath the SNP's left of centre facade, if people are considering voting to support their claimed vision in a referendum on the basis of getting a progressive socialist utopia. Remember there's no money back guarantee with votes, even when they promised you money back....

The Merry Mystery of the Missing Marchers

Another month another march. The group calling itself AUOB (All Under One Banner) that has been organising marches in support of independence recently held an event in Edinburgh. Claims for attendance have been all over the place from those taking part but with one common theme, they are rather ridiculously high.

The Background

It is pretty much standard practice for people organising marches, particularly political ones, to overstate attendance as it makes their cause seem more important and probably massages their ego too, but AUOB seem to be taking this approach to extremes. Often their numbers are quoted by the press as if they are factual accounts rather than pure guesswork, grossly over-optimistic delusion or indeed intentional big fibs (pick your interpretation) This rather unquestioning acceptance of the exaggerated figures seems to have emboldened AUOB to increase the estimates to new and ridiculous levels.

AUOB have been around a while, for much of the last year or so they seemed to be a slightly chaotic group of debatable competence.  There were questions being raised by people from both outside and within about how they operated, in particular where donations from marchers went and what they were used for (Refs 1,2,3). But after a split between some of the main players things seem to be running slightly less chaotically (although not completely, as a recent 'see you in court’ response to a bill from Aberdeen council shows! [Ref 4]).

Attendance figures at most of their marches have been questioned at some point, in 2018 they claimed 100,000 in Edinburgh but the Council later estimated that there was around 20,000 (Ref 5). More recently those who oppose their separatist message have started to look a bit more closely at the marches and indicate where observations and evidence don’t seem to support the supposed attendance figures. The two most recent examples being the March in Aberdeen in August 2019, as examined by Roger White (Ref 6), and the March in Perth where a couple of videos of the whole March passing through the city  suggested it to be much smaller than the organisers would have had you believe (Ref 7).

The Edinburgh March

Saturday the 5th October 2019, AUOB have been trailing this event well in advance suggesting that 100,000 were expected to attend, and then as if that wasn’t enough upping their predictions as high as 250,000! Newspapers gladly repeated the predictions (Refs 9 & 10).

AUOB also told of another plan by some activists, to do something ‘record breaking’; “the worlds biggest human saltire” no less! All it required, apparently, was 44,000 folk to gather in Holyrood park and stand in a formation marked on the grass (Ref 11). This was going to be interesting….

The result was somewhat underwhelming given the amount of promotion it had received on social media, one couldn’t help but be unimpressed. It was also perhaps the first real sign that actual attendance might be far short of what had been touted.

The 'people's saltire'  not exactly a record breaker...

Saltire aside, eventually they were all lined up on the road and ready to go. The bikers all came down Queens Drive from the west and cruised off up Horse Wynd past the parliament,and not long after the crowd sets off behind a pipe band and a couple of transit vans.

There are plenty of videos doing the rounds taken at street level but images or footage that show the extent of the march are few and far between, the best of them is probably one taken by Twitter user Derrick Farnell which was also shown on the BBC website (Ref 12, also SEE NOTE 1 AT END). It is taken from Salisbury Crags overlooking Holyrood and clearly shows the march progressing towards the parliament as it starts off, you can see the two transit vans at the head of the procession appear from behind the trees on Horses Wynd showing where the march (fronted by pipe band) begins and the video also shows the back of the march further along Queens’s Drive almost, but not quite, to the trees west of St Margarets Loch; a length of around 600m. However there are also a large number of people standing around the parliament, many of whom probably join the march and no doubt some people also join on route so while the video probably shows the bulk of the march it is unlikely to show everyone.

UPDATE: Derrick's video was mysteriously deleted (Note 1), however there is some drone footage showing the march just about to start that shows the same view, i.e. Horse Wind/ Qeens Drive Roundabout back to the trees West of the Loch (Ref 20)

My first glance estimate was that there was probably around 10k of people lined up, and allowing for maybe another 5k joining on route and same again going straight to The Meadows that might equate to around 20k attending.

Other people ffered estimates based on some pictures taken from the same vantage point, some were much lower. While reading one of these I discovered a website called Mapchecking.com that has a crowd size estimator, so I had a go. However the difficulty is in choosing the appropriate crowd density, it’s difficult and has to be a guesstimate, although you can use various figures as a guide and there are some helpful websites from experts that explain crowd density in different situations (eg. Ref 13). On reflection the crowd density in Holyrood park is probably reasonably high as most folk are standing waiting to move, however the people who are moving  (i.e. on Horse Wynd) are likely to be at a lower density as they are moving and will naturally spread out causing the crowd to slowly stretch as it sets out, and in fact you can see this clearly in the video (Ref 12 , also SEE NOTE AT END). Hence what begins as a crowd of length 450-500 meters could easily stretch out to double or much more and end up being a kilometre or more long, plus add ons.

Taking a conservative estimate of 2 people per square meter average across the whole area in Derrick’s video (i.e. slightly higher in the stationary crowd, but lower in the moving segment) Mapchecking.com calculated around 16k.  If we allow for the extras seen milling about on the crags and in Holyrood park and around the parliament plus a few late arrivers maybe that would rise closer to 20k actually marching 

I would also assume a good few people joining the march while it’s underway, counterbalanced by a few peeling off, However I suspect a net gain, probably adding a few thousand at any rate, if we generously suggest an extra 20% we get to an estimate of around 24k marchers.

Certainly by the time the march is heading up the Royal Mile the density has dropped considerably. A video shot from above shows the crowd density at this point (Ref 14):  It looks dense when seeing the crowd coming towards or walking away but when you see it straight down from above you realise that it’s actually reasonably loose as most moving crowds usually are.

Now perhaps the static crowd at Holyrood was more dense than 2 per sq m, but realistically maybe not much more, however even if we doubled the density we’d be looking at 32k which with add ons en route might reach 40k of marchers. That still leaves us massively short of the 200k being claimed by many.

Others have tried to calculate the size of the crowd by other quantitative means, such as how long the march took to pass and the sped at which they would have to move, and many of them come out with conclusions in the same ball park as mine (I.e. 15-30k)

However the more optimistic claims for supporters of the marchers tend to revolve around those of the organisers who after the event said there was over 200k in attendance (Ref 5), or was it just 100k (ref 15)? The reports are confused, but perhaps not as confused as MP Joanna Cherry at the front of the march who Tweeted that there was 250k behind her (Ref 16).

Of course maybe the other 60-210k (depending on who you believe) just showed up at the Meadows, interestingly I haven’t seen any pics of the Meadows once they all arrived, more people than Glastonbury, that’d be impressive. (Actually I have seen some Meadows footage now, and it's not very conclusive, but in the high four figures or low five figures at best.

It might also be worth noting that a few days later Scotrail Tweeted that they had 8000 passengers go through Haymarket and Waverley between 11am and 2pm. So it sure looks like most of the alleged 200k didn't come by train! (Ref 18).

All aboard the bandwagon

For what it’s worth I don’t think that the organisers or Joanna Cherry can’t count, instead what is going on here is a deliberate attempt to overstate support for independence to try and encourage the bandwagon effect to do its thing.

The bandwagon effect is a phenomena whereby people are inclined to join a particular group or cause simply because they believe everyone else is. There are a number of psychological explanations for this that you can read about elsewhere but it is a real effect and has been widely studied by social scientists. It has it’s origins in 19th century US politics and the context of this march is almost exactly the situation from which the effect got its name (Ref 17).

It's one reason that political parties get so animated about opinion polls, particularly changing ones, they'll either vehemently deny their accuracy or laud over them depending what the polls say. A rise in our poll rating is portrayed as evidence that people are starting to come to us, and you should too. A falling one is evidence that the polling company got it wrong. It's all about claiming 'momentum'. Political activists always like to portray their support as on the rise and it's in this context that we should view exaggerated march numbers. A march no bigger than last time shows no momentum, and even if there are more folk than last year why not say there's even more, because it makes you look like you've got even greater momentum, and if you've got away with it a few times and the media are reporting your exaggerated figures then hell why not just keep inflating them? Also if you’ve been making ridiculous predictions before the event, to admit you had fewer turn up is going to be embarrassing so in some way AUOB may have painted themselves into a corner.

These numbers matter, if people lie and exaggerate it can have real world effects, which is why they need to be called out and rationally examined. After all, lies and exaggeration are not a good thing to base any momentous and essentially irreversible decision on (look at Brexit!), even if both sides claim that's always what the other side does. So yeah lots of people marched and it was impressive, but nowhere near as many as some would like you believe. 

Note 1: 

When I was finishing off this post I discovered that Derrick Farnell's Twieet  had disappeared, along with his video! how bizarre... Perhaps he was a supporter of independence and suddenly realised that his video exposed the exaggerations around attendance at the March so removed it (and all of his tweets it seems). The embedded tweet on the BBC website also disappeared. Maybe there's nothing sinister going on, but it sure seems like an attempt to erase the evidence. You can see that the tweet with video was still appearing in Google's Cache, but clicking on the link just resulted in a "that page does not exist". 

Note2:

Roger White has also written about the exaggerated numbers, but has used a different method calculate a broadly similar figure. He published his while I was writing this. (Ref 19)

Ref 1: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-independence-movement-war-each-13214292

Ref 2: https://randompublicjournal.com/2018/10/16/something-stinks/

Ref 3: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/indy-group-cash-row-founder-18788456

Ref 4: Aberdeen Independence march organisers sent £6,000 bill ...https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk › news › local › aberdeen-independence...

Ref 5: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-45770801

Ref 6: https://mercinon.wordpress.com/2019/08/19/the-auob-aberdeen-march-an-amazing-scene/

Ref 7: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fheK-hCAyU (AFFG video of Perth March)

Ref 8: https://livestream.com/IndependenceLive/CAM5-AUOBPerth/videos/195975058 AUOB’s own video footage

Ref 9: https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/politics/edinburgh-set-for-100-000-independence-supporters-for-biggest-ever-march-1-5015453

Ref 10: https://www.thenational.scot/news/17933145.edinburgh-independence-march-set-biggest-one-yet/

Ref 11: https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/march-independence-edinburgh-largest-ever-17034120

Ref 12: https://twitter.com/derrickfarnell/status/1180457691849875456ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1180457691849875456&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-49932819

Ref 13: http://www.gkstill.com/Support/crowd-density/CrowdDensity-1.html

Ref 14: https://twitter.com/byrnesong/status/1180493487566983169

Ref 15: https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/05/thousands-demand-scottish-independence-march-edinburgh-10867318/

Ref 16: https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1180470736655396864

Ref 17: https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/stronger-the-broken-places/201708/the-bandwagon-effect

Ref 18: https://twitter.com/ScotRail/status/1181560722406424578

Ref 19: https://mercinon.wordpress.com/2019/10/06/plain-speaking-is-needed-auob-lie-about-the-size-of-their-marches/
Ref 20: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dfZTC5JjzHM&feature=youtu.be

In Denial

Its the tail end of August, the kids are back at school, the evenings are drawing in, there’s a wee chill in the air of a morning and the GERS deniers are in full flow.

For the last few years we’ve witnessed the publication of GERS (Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland) and then seen the nationalist twitterati go into overdrive to rubbish it. Meanwhile Scottish ministers under whose governance these statistics are complied, calculated and published remain uncharacteristically quiet, and disappointingly undefensive when even their own MP’s discredit the work, and smear the SG employees who compile the data.

GERS was of course fine when the figures played into nationalist hands but as soon as they didn't they apparently were all part of a grand conspiracy.

One particularly idiotic meme spread this year by a number of GERS deniers was the idea that somehow the GERS figures showed that Scotland's share of defence spending was so ridiculously high that therefore the figures must be rubbish, this spread across Twitter and even made it into the letter pages of the Courier, the Tayside regional paper (ref1), but unfortunately it appears to have originated with someone unable to use Scotlands actual GDP figures (or do arithmetic) and thus coming up with completely the wrong answer, see example:

As it happens Scotlands GDP is approx £180 billion (ref 2), and thus a defence spend of £3.2 billion is equivalent to just under 1.8%, in other words pretty much exactly the same as the UK as a whole. You'll note that the letter in the Courier also then veers off into the 'port of export fallacy' something which has been proven false numerous times but keeps reappearing as a nationalist meme because it's easy to repeat and simple to grasp and fits right in with the nationalist world view, kind of along the lines of "who cares if it's wrong, it sounds like it must be right"!

However the SNP can usually scrape up something positive to spin about, but this year's spin was particularly poor as this tweet from the SNP official account (and retweeted by the First Minister) shows:

But actually when you look at the figures for the entire accounts (excluding oil, i.e. the 'onshore revenue the SNP are talking about) (Ref 3) you'll see for example that the UK's 'net fiscal balance' decreased from -2% to -1.1% a decline of 45% between the two figures. Whereas Scotlands fell from -9.6% to -8.5% a decline of 11.5%. In other words the UK overspend almost halved whereas Scottish overspend decreased by less than 1/8th. Why did the SNP claim this was "faster" well because the percentage of GDP fall was 0.9% in UK but 1.1% for Scotland, that's more right, so it's "faster"?. But the speed of deficit reduction is actually relative to the size of the deficit. Think about it, if I reduce my borrowings by 45% of the original starting amount per year then I'll be borrowing free by the early part of year three, if I reduce it by 11.5% a year it will be well into year eight; who is borrowing free the quickest?

Meanwhile esteemed nationalist rant-mag 'The National' really tried to confuse it's readers as it both promoted the positive spin, and trashed the figures in the same week:

Apparently the figures both made the case for independence, and were 'mince', mind you if they'd actually meant that the figures made the case for independence out to be mince they might be on to something, perhaps that's why Angus B MacNeil, SNP MP for the Western Isles tweeted it, who knows...

Ref 1 https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/opinion/readers-letters/966132/gers-dont-reflect-real-economic-position/ (letter from an economically confused independence supporter)

Ref 2: https://www2.gov.scot/Resource/0054/00548034.pdf GDP Quarterly National Accounts Scotland 2019 Quarter 1  (Published by Scottish Government)

Ref 3: https://www.gov.scot/publications/government-expenditure-revenue-scotland-gers/pages/1/ (Page two table S1. of .pdf)

Political Sleaze and Scottish (SNP) exceptionalism

Politicians, what are they like, eh?

We hear often enough about how corrupt and self serving our politicians are, how mired in sleaze and scandal they are; liars, cheats and scoundrels the lot of ‘em. Well maybe not quite all, but certainly a fair number of them.

There’s a bit of truth in it, politics like a few other professions seems to attract a bit more than its fair share of dodgy characters, some of whom later get found out, and although many seem to brush it off, a few occasionally get their comeuppance.

In the run up to the 2014 independence referendum, chief Yes-man Alex Salmond frequently intimated that Westminster was full of sleaze and scandal but that an Independent Scotland a would allow us to escape that and would offer some kind of more honest and decent alternative. It’s a meme that still has legs on Twitter and elsewhere to this day among those who oppose the Union. The implication being made is often that British politics is corrupt but Scottish politics is not, and certainly won’t be in the bright new future they promise. It’s just another form of Scottish exceptionalism as frequently practiced by the SNP and some others who campaign for independence. I put it to you that the reality is somewhat different.

Corruption and dishonesty in UK politics

Some of us may remember the big stories of those lying and cheating British politicians such as Tories Jonathan Aitken and Jeffrey Archer both of whom were convicted of perjury. Or more recently Lib Dem Chris Huhne, convicted of perverting the cause of justice along with his (ex)wife over lying about speeding points. A similar conviction took place fairly recently of Labour MP Fiona Onasanya.

Then on the morally dubious side there’s the ‘cheating’, Cecil Parkinson and his secretary, or Paddy Ashdown (‘Pantsdown’) for same, John Major and Edwina Currie at it on the Downing Street desk while the Tories bleated on about morals and ‘back to basics’.  Financial dealings: Labour’s Peter Mandelson and his failure to disclose loans, Tory Derek Conway and his suspension over payments to his sons. There was cash for questions (Tories 1994) and cash for influence (Labour 2008)  and number of other stings by journalists, Oh and let’s not forget the expenses scandal, when it became obvious just how much piss was being taken by our elected representatives. No I won’t argue that British politics doesn’t suffer from sleaze, the issue I have is with the idea that this is somehow unique to Westminster or indeed that Scottish politics or the SNP is uniquely free from this. *

Evidence from around the world rather rather suggests that many other parliaments and governments are far worse than Westminster, and I’m not just talking about the upfront dictatorships.  In terms of world leaders in recent years Jacques Chirac, Silvio Berlusconi and Donald Trump are just three high profile leaders of mature advanced democracies about whom there are serious questions of probity. A few hours on Google would turn up many many more allegations and indeed convictions regarding wrongdoing and sleaze from all levels of government around the world, MPs, Senators, mayors, councillors and regional assemblies. But if we accept that varying degrees of corruption and sleaze are part and parcel of most governmental structures around the world, does the evidence support the idea that the UK is a cesspool of corruption or that Scotland and the SNP are a beacon of upstanding righteousness? Well let’s see…..

Transparency international create an annual index of corruption perceptions (based on the perceived level of public sector corruption as seen by experts and businesses that operate globally) For 2018 the UK appears at 11 in their ranking of 180 countries (Denmark is number one, i.e. least corrupt, and poor old Somalia is 180th). I’m not sure that being perceived as less corrupt than around 94% of countries is something to be ashamed of, although clearly there is some room for improvement (note that the UK’s score has been improving over the last few years (but fell from last years peak), again not the impression you get from the Scottish nationalist twitterati. (www.transparency.org/news/pressrelease/corruption_perceptions_index_2018 )

So what about Scottish politics?

Let’s tackle the idea that Scottish politics, be it MPs, MSPs, MEPs or local councillors, and those who stand for election as such along with their activists and campaigners are somehow sleaze free.

Party Leaders

The Scottish Parliament has been with us almost 20 years. In that time we have had five first ministers, one of whom had to resign while in office over a minor financial scandal. 

That’s a 20% scandal attrition rate for First Ministers

Of the various leaders of the four major parties we’ve had, if I recall, eight Labour leaders at Holyrood, two of whom resigned their post over financial problems (including above first minister)

Three Tory leaders, one of whom resigned from post over an expenses scandal. 

Three SNP leaders and four Lib Dems.

That’s almost a 17% scandal attrition rate for major party leaders.

I can’t remember anything similar among the UK party leaders or PM’s while in office.

Obviously ex SNP leader Alex Salmond himself is currently facing twelve charges relating to sexual or indecent assault, including two attempted of rape. It could be a year or more before that makes the courts so lets leave it for a judge and jury to digest for now. Once it’s over we can draw our own conclusions on Salmond’s behaviour on whatever evidence is presented.

Convictions and rulings against SNP elected representatives, or those standing

So we can see that the record of Scottish party leaders has been less than impressive in the last 20 years. We can take it as read that Scottish Tories and Labour are bad 'uns, (Eric Joyce anyone?), after all that's what SNP activists tell us. But Is it just Labour, Tory and Lib-Dems? Well my main question is whether there is any evidence that the SNP might be just as sleazy or dodgy as their counterparts at Westminster or indeed any other parliament. Well funnily enough, there is…. (You knew there would be).

First there’s the downright bad eggs:

Lets start with ex SNP MP Natalie McGarry who recently pleaded guilty of embezzling many thousands of pounds from various groups she was associated with, including, apparently,  cash intended to go to a foodbank. Will she go to jail? We wait to find out…. ( https://www.holyrood.com/articles/news/natalie-mcgarry-admits-embezzling-£25000-independence-campaign-groups )

Then there’s Bill Walker, notorious violent wife beater and MSP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Walker_(Scottish_Nationalist_politician)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-24173669

Alex McLeod convicted of electoral fraud and sentenced to community payback, then breached it and was sentenced to more community payback:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-25666781

https://www.northern-times.co.uk/News/Former-North-councilor-in-expenses-fiddle-spared-jail-after-flouding-court-order-14052015.htm

Craig Melville convicted racist

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/former-snp-politician-convicted-sending-12954654

https://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/fp/former-dundee-snp-councillor-has-conviction-appeal-for-sending-racists-texts-to-lover-rejected/

Jamie Rae sentenced to 15 months in jail for nine counts of mortgage fraud to tune of £151k and falsely claiming £16.5K of housing benefitshttps:

www.heraldscotland.com/news/12077637.swindler-quits-council-snp-man-in-mortgage-fraud/

Bill Holman convicted of kerb crawling for prostitutes in Glasgow red light district: https://www.scotsman.com/news/councillor-fined-for-seeking-prostitute-in-glasgow-1-2951543

Then there’s also the incompetents

Alex Salmond’s ‘buddy’ Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh guilty of professional misconduct by solicitors tribunal (former-perthshire-mp-tasmina-ahmed-sheikh-guilty-of-professional-misconduct). But Tasmina seems to have form for incompetence as evidenced by previous proceedings: 14970256.tens-of-thousands-in-unpaid-paye-triggered-bankruptcy-case-against-snp-mp

How about Humza Yusef, despite being Transport minister he somehow managed to get stopped driving without insurance, or maybe he was doing it because he was transport minister and didn’t think the rules applied to him, who knows? transport-minister-humza-yousef-embarrassed-driving-without-insurance

There’s plenty other dodgy goings on though:

Lewis Ritchie assault and sexual harassment claims

https://stv.tv/news/east-central/1408730-snp-councillor-leaves-party-amid-sexual-harassment-claims/

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-councillor-suspended-over-alleged-12032151

Innes Nelson Charged with assault, then claimed charges had been dropped, it was then discovered that he had paid the victim £200 to drop the charges!

https://www.greenocktelegraph.co.uk/news/15616158.councillor-quits-snp-group-over-greenock-traffic-warden-assault-allegation/

https://www.greenocktelegraph.co.uk/news/17362106.calls-have-been-made-for-a-councillor-to-stand-down-after-admitting-assault/

And then there’s the activists

Convicted bigot Sonja Cameron (Dr). who has a conviction for plastering anti-english propaganda across Deeside and also had links with SNLA terrorist Andrew Macintosh was approved by the SNP to stand for selection to be a council candidate, thankfully she didn’t win selection, but wtf were they thinking? 

row-over-stirling-council-candidates-9904680

Brian Gillies convicted rapist

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/north-east/1632988/prominent-independence-campaigner-from-peterhead-jailed-for-12-years-after-conviction-for-historic-charges-including-rape-and-assault/

General miscellaneous Dodgy dealings and hypocrisy

Dealings with Cambridge Analytica revealed as their MPs tried to badger other parties about their links to the firm!

https://www.scotsman.com/news/snp-accused-of-hypocrisy-over-links-to-cambridge-analytica-1-4725946

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16181377.second-key-snp-figure-caught-up-in-cambridge-analytica-row/

Angus MacNeil.  Cheats on wife at taxpayer expense with several people including young girls

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/sleaze-mp-my-shame-at-3-in-bed-teen-950312

Deputy leader Stuart Hosie cheats on wife

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/stewart-hosie-quits-as-deputy-snp-leader-amid-sex-scandal-1-4134867

Mark McDonald, ‘resigns’ as a minister over sexual misconduct and then suspended

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/16/snp-suspends-mark-mcdonald-after-new-information-emerges

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/enough-enough-victim-sex-shame-12165509

Caroline Stephen, ran up £4k of council tax debts and then SNP bailed her out using members subs so that she could take part in a vote.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2313817/snp-paid-off-councillors-4000-debt/

Steve Cardownie, failure to declare links to lobbyist in regard to planning proposal

http://www.reekieleaks.org.uk/announcement/herald-scotland-ex-snp-edinburgh-leader-faces-questions-over-links-to-lobbyist/

Jim Orr, Standards commission found he had breached code of conduct in writing defamatory allegations about the deputy provost.

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/politics/ex-councillor-jim-orr-censured-over-demeaning-blog-1-4537635

Andy Doig, suspended from SNP after homophobic comments.

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/09/06/snp-councillor-suspended-due-to-homophobic-email/

Then there’s expenses…

During one particular period Alex Salmond claimed £116,000 in expenses as an MP even though he only turned up at Westminster six times (includes £14,000 flat rental and £18,591 incidental expenses).

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/alex-salmond-claimed-116k-expenses-972571

In another examination of his records Alex Salmond was found to have claimed the full (unreciepted) monthly food allowance of £400 as an MP including two months when parliament was in recess and despite spending most of his time on FM duties at Holyrood.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5299733/Alex-Salmond-claimed-800-for-food-on-MPs-expenses-during-recess.html

Alex Salmond spent £259 of taxpayer cash on some tartan trousers then his staff went to extraordinary lengths a year and a half later to avoid admitting he hadn’t paid it back, while he then hastily did so https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10359238/Alex-Salmonds-secrecy-battle-over-250-tartan-trews.html

There's an entire book to be written on the expenses claims of both MPs and MSPs (and no doubt councillors too) and that includes the SNP, but sometimes the claims aren't s excessive, For example some people on the gravy train claim for the most petty things, I’m sure some of us remember Labour MP Jim Murphy’s pounding from SNP over a quite legitimate (if petty) £1.30 claim for Irn-Bru. Ironically the SNP aren’t above similar claims as Richard Lyle’s claim for a £1.80 bag of chips shows: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-backbencher-richard-lyle-billed-4411584

To Sum Up

Basically at whatever level you examine it Scottish politics and the SNP has its fair share of dodgy, self-serving sleaze, and frankly voting for independence is unlikely to change the nature of some of those who are attracted to politics as a job. SO next time someone tells you independence means sleaze free politics, remember the delightful Scottish politicians and activists above. Oh and especially remember the hounding that Charles Kennedy received prior to his death and Ian Blackford MP's role in that: snp-s-ian-blackford-accused-of-disfiguring-last-months-of-charles-kennedy-s-life-1-4776721

* NOTE strangely  at the time of looking the wikipedia page on UK political scandals seems to have had all SNP scandals edited out, almost like someone doesn't want you to know about them!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_scandals_in_the_United_Kingdom