While reading the
comments, I noticed the online poll which was on the subject of
“Should the independence referendum be brought forward from 2014?”
It was running at about 61% No vs 39% Yes - much as it had been for
several days.
Interesting, I thought, how this seemed to directly contradict the claims of the UK consultation, which was published that same day and suggested 75% were in favour of an earlier referendum. Even the heavily unionist readership of the Scotsman appeared to be on the Scottish Government's side of this issue.
Interesting, I thought, how this seemed to directly contradict the claims of the UK consultation, which was published that same day and suggested 75% were in favour of an earlier referendum. Even the heavily unionist readership of the Scotsman appeared to be on the Scottish Government's side of this issue.
Later that evening, I
refreshed the page again, and was astonished to see that, while the
No vote had remained static (in numbers), the Yes vote had suddenly
advanced by several thousand and now showed a majority in favour of
an earlier referendum date. By the following morning, this had climbed by
thousands more, showing 72 % support for Yes, and 28% for No.
Amazingly, the poll had swung to support the assertions of the UK
consultation in just s few hours, and overnight at that.
At first I checked the
date, but All Fools Day had long passed so another explanation was
required.
Had the poll been
linked to a proforma on Labour Hame, perhaps? I searched, but I could
find no such link.
Were Scottish Office
staff putting in some overtime to keep Michael Moore happy? But no,
the number of new votes were in the thousands and the slimmed down
Scotland Office surely can't muster those numbers.
Had some BritNat hacker discovered a way to spam the poll and provide some much-needed evidence for the UK government's position? Possibly. This would need further investigation.
Then I discovered an
insomniac blogger with sharper eyes than my own, A
Sair Fecht. He had spotted that, during the wee small hours, the
Yes vote count had been reset to zero for a couple of minutes. This
makes it look much more likely that the fiddling, if that is what it
was, took place inside the newspaper itself, as database access would be
required to reset the count.
In truth, I don't recall witnessing such energetic fiddling since last year's Olympics. I mean the Whisky Olympics in Stornoway, of course, not the expensive distraction of similar name in London.
Whenever I suspect a
conspiracy or fraud, I always look first to see who benefits from it. In
this case, the Scotsman avoids the embarrassment of hosting a poll
which contradicts the UK consultation “findings”. That apparent benefit, along with the
resetting of the count, would seem to point squarely at the staff of
the Scotsman as being the most likel;y suspects.
Think about that for a second. A
major national newspaper blatantly faking the results of its own poll
to back up a discredited consultation, which the Scottish Secretary
is selling as some sort of opinion poll. Has the whole
anti-independence movement dropped to a new, and previously unplumbed
depth? Or is it simply time for me to reach for the tin-foil hat?
You be the judge.
Bob Duncan (from a darkened room)
You be the judge.
Bob Duncan (from a darkened room)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please make sure you view our Commenting Guidelines.