Taking the plunge
Isn’t it weird how since we did this, everyone’s suddenly started asking much more interesting questions in opinion polls about independence?
After months with almost no polling at all, and what there was being restricted to boring Yes/No affairs, there’s been an explosion in surveys conducted by every conceivable pollster for everyone and his dog, and nearly every one has followed our lead in digging below the headline response and trying to find out what makes Scottish voters tick when it comes to their views on the constitution.
Today has two new sets of data to chew over, with fascinating results.
The less interesting one is that commissioned from ICM by Scotland on Sunday, though it still has one very noteworthy aspect to ponder.
We already know from our own poll how many people believe that scenario – a whopping two-thirds of Scots think that voting to stay in the UK will result in the status quo, or worse, for Holyrood. (And there remains no mistaking the number of Scottish voters who want extra powers – in line with our own findings, ICM say nearly 60% want all taxation and welfare powers brought home to Edinburgh.)
We’ve been saying for months now that getting Scots to understand the reality of what a No vote means in terms of additional powers (ie that there’ll be none) is one of the two key planks of winning the referendum, and the more polls are conducted the more solid the data backing up that assertion gets.
Over, then, to the Panelbase poll for the Sunday Times.
The headline numbers are pretty much in line with Panelbase’s usual results – a 10% advantage for the No side. But two more intriguing findings lie underneath. When the pollster pushed those currently registering as “Don’t Know” to pick a side, they split two-to-one in favour of Yes, reducing the gap to just 52-48.
With the standard error margin of 3%, that’s within an ace of the recent poll the same company conducted for the SNP which showed Yes 1% ahead. And the crucial factor is that Panelbase weighting only counts people who are very likely to vote, so those Don’t Knows aren’t going to stay at home. They’re going to jump one way or the other come next September, and currently – before the independence white paper has even been released – they’re jumping to Yes.
But why are Panelbase polls consistently more favourable to the Yes side than those of other polling firms? A particularly intriguing calculation by the company casts some light on that question, one that’s been clung to tenaciously by the No camp when trying to discredit the firm’s findings over the last couple of years.
Panelbase weight their samples according to Holyrood elections, while others (eg YouGov) use Westminster voting intentions. If you apply Westminster loyalties to the Panelbase results, the numbers shift dramatically towards No, from 47-37 (a 10-point gap) to 53-31 (a 22-point lead, broadly in line with most non-Panelbase polling).
There are two good reasons to believe that the Holyrood-weighting approach is more reliable. One is that the referendum is more likely to be seen by voters as a Scottish issue than a British one. And the second is the massive distorting effect of the first-past-the-post system used in Westminster elections.
We won’t be popular with certain sections of the independence movement for saying this, but a vote for the SNP in UK general elections is, politically speaking, pretty much a wasted vote. (Obviously it might still be wise in terms of the merits of the specific person you were electing.) Even in the miracle scenario of Scotland returning 59 SNP MPs out of 59 to Westminster, they’d have almost no chance of achieving anything, outnumbered as they’d still be 10-to-1 by MPs from the rest of the UK.
Most UK governments have majorities of more than 59 (since 1983, only John Major has commanded a majority lower than that), so the Nats would almost never have a chance of holding the balance of power even if they were to be supported by every other opposition MP (which there would be no chance of). The SNP has to stand for Westminster elections for the sake of appearances, but all they really represent is a drain on its resources of both money and talent.
FPTP ensures that Westminster is a two-horse race, and hugely reduces the power and value of any vote cast for anyone except the Tories or Labour. At Holyrood, on the other hand, the near-proportional Additional Member System means that people can vote for who they actually want to vote for, safe in the knowledge that every vote is counted. So it’s a far truer picture of party loyalties.
Of course, we also know that – despite the strident protestations of the No camp who desperately want to paint it as solely an interest of the SNP – independence isn’t a straight party-political issue. Substantial minorities of SNP voters will vote No, and Labour, Tory and Lib Dem voters will side with Yes. But according to most polls, those minorities very broadly cancel each other out, so we can treat party affiliation as a decent rule of thumb.
Panelbase’s study, then, explains the polling gap, and thereby may also explain why Yes Scotland seems increasingly confident about the numbers, while the No camp – which ostensibly ought to be calm and relaxed, given its apparent huge lead in most surveys – has taken on a startlingly nasty, shrill and vicious tone in recent weeks.
It was never a coincidence that the Unionist side wanted a rush referendum as soon as the SNP secured a majority in 2011. It was never a mystery to those of us in the independence movement why. They know now, as they knew then, that a campaign of fear, uncertainty and doubt simply couldn’t be sustained for three and a half years. Today’s figures show in stark clarity why they’re panicking.
I agree with the analysis.
The only way that the NO campaign can secure a victory now is for ALL the unionists parties to back Devo-Max and to commit to that proposal BEFORE the referendum.
Otherwise ……………………………….
The only reason for returning 59 SNP MPs is to fuck off labour 🙂
Don’t further devolved powers have to agreed on by Westminster? Why would they give Scotland more powers if we vote NO?
“Don’t further devolved powers have to agreed on by Westminster? Why would they give Scotland more powers if we vote NO?”
Well, indeed.
“Give me the money or I’ll shoot you with this gun!”
“Well, maybe, but give me the gun first.”
“Okay. Here you are. Now hand over the money.”
“Why would I do that? You don’t have a gun, and I do.”
It seems astonishing that Panelbase are the only company who thought to weight according to Holyrood elections rather than Westminster, for what is clearly a uniquely Scottish-centred issue – are the others just lazy…..or a bit slow to think it through?
But failing any wildcards from the white paper, a year out, this is a fairly comfortable position – if we were leading more obviously in the polls, then our heads would be more above the parapet, and it would be an intensely nasty year ahead with ‘No’ ramping up the ‘SNP eat babies’-style rhetoric. Which will no doubt come, of course, during next year, but I’d rather not have to ride out such dietary accusations for a full twelve months, if at all possible…..
Steady as she goes.
I’m not sure saying that 59 SNP Mps returned to Westminster would be useless. I think you might be comparing this scenario to Labour’s ‘Fighting Fifty’ which did so much to protect us from the worst excesses of the Thatcher years. (Only kidding.)
One great reason for returning a majority of SNP Members would be that then we could have a referendum on Independence *oh, wait…*
Very close there Rev,
“Give me the money or I’ll shoot you with this gun!”
“Well, maybe, but give me the gun first.”
“Okay. Here you are. Now hand over the money.”
“Pardon? Now you hand over your money” (while intending to shoot anyway)
“The only reason for returning 59 SNP MPs is to fuck off labour”
Which is intensely worth doing. The only significant unionist force in Scotland is Labour. They’re also the only significant right-wing force.
We won’t be popular with certain sections of the independence movement for saying this, but a vote for the SNP in UK general elections is, to be frank, pretty much a wasted vote.
Unless of course, you want independence. That’s the platform the SNP stand for each UKGE. It’s what Scots have been told for decades by Westminster: ‘If you want independence, vote SNP’. If the SNP get a majority, then they can go ahead and negotiated Scotland’s departure in theory.
if scotland gets a no we will be crucified if whats happening now bothers us a no vote will destroy our beautiful country as london is their only concern any one north of london is deemed worthless
Of course, a vote for Labour in Westminster elections is a bit of a waste of time too, as first exemplified by the Feeble Fifty in the 80s.
It’s wide open. No wonder the Unionists are bricking it.
BTW, I never feel my SNP vote is wasted in Dundee. I couldn’t vote for a Unionist party, even if I lived in a Unionist stronghold.
A cunning plan – introduce a promise, a commitment if you prefer, to introduce Devo-Max as a Unionist referendum campaign pledge.
The referendum in September 2014 returns a No vote, the voters persuaded by the Devo-Max commitment. Negotiations on Devo-Max implementation rumble on inconclusively. Next up the UK general election in 2015, a new government announces “We cannot be bound with the commitments offered by previous governments”.
Good bye independence. Goodbye Devo-Max. Hello you niave Scots suckers.
“If the SNP get a majority, then they can go ahead and negotiated Scotland’s departure in theory”
Except we know from experience that the minute the SNP get elected, we get told “Ah, but it WASN’T a vote for independence”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7070299.stm
The notion that Westminster would react to that by granting even a referendum, let alone independence, is wishful thinking (based on even more wishful thinking, because the idea that any party could ever win 100% of seats in a democracy is barking mad). But it’s irrelevant anyway, because we achieved the referendum via Holyrood. SNP Westminster MPs weren’t needed.
I see that Flipper has asked that the First Minister debate wih him. Now, why would anyone want to talk to the monkey when it’s the organ grinder who distributes the nuts and gets the money?
Understood that 50 odd SNP MP’s would be a waste but have to say this,it would make Scottish Questions in the HofC a damn site more relevant as well as the Scots Affairs Commitee!
Have to agree with SS above, re voting SNP for Westminster. Before the Scottish parliament, voters in Scotland were quite clearly told over and over again, that a majority of SNP MP’s elected to Westminster (out of Scottish MP’s) would be an indication for independence. In addition, it also sends a very,very strong message in the face of the clowns in Westminster, that the SNP ARE the voice of Scotland. It would also at a stroke end the Westminster troughing by the likes of Curran, Davidson, Brown and Darling.
So, I have to disagree with REV, as voting SNP at Westminster is most definitely NOT a wasted vote. Voting Labour for Westminster however, means very little for Scotland.
In the unlikely event of a NO vote next year, winning a majority of Scottish Westminster seats for the SNP would have to be the priority in the 2015 UK GE. Justification for UDI?
Except we know from experience that the minute the SNP get elected, we get told “Ah, but it WASN’T a vote for independence”
Aye, but by your own logic above – that voting SNP for westminster will have no influence on the UK government – then what possible reason can you have for voting SNP for Westminster other than wishing independence.
I agree that the reopening of the Scottish parliament changed things; certainly prior to this a vote for the SNP for Westminster was accepted as a vote for independence.
Anyway, I’ll continue to waste my vote on the SNP in UKGE’s, although I suspect I won’t get another chance to do this…
😉
Yes, I’d noticed that poll questions have been a bit familiar – clearly they have been copying what was in the first WoS poll because of the interesting results it turned up.
As for GE voting intentions, I suspect that a lot of people who voted Labour in the UKGE in order to keep the Tories out, where they might normally vote SNP at Holyrood, will not bother with Labour ever again should (God forbid) we ever have to suffer another UKGE in Scotland.
BTW, regarding the Radio Scotland programme this morning with Ken MacDonald (whatever it’s called) the words ‘Labour’ and ‘disarray’ were used repeatedly in the same sentence (there’s an article in the Observer apparently), and particular attention was drawn to Sawar and Baillie saying one thing on the bedroom tax and then getting slapped down by London Labour. Happy days.
Labour won’t win 2015.
The Lib Dems will lose a lot seats in 2015
The Tories will win with a small but working in majority in 2015.
But with the prospect of another Tory government Scots will vote for independence.
It is that reality that polls are all highlighting, and is now beginning to exercise unionists minds. So what to do?
Scots fear the Tories more than independence, so scaremongering will not work. Smears, disruption and intimidation are not working either. A positive case for the union seems as far off as ever, sound bites and platitudes won’t do. With an independence white paper the Yes campaign will have substantive arguments to go forward with to persuade voters. So where does the NO campaign go from here? The headlights of independence are bearing down on Better Together who seem to be frozen to same spot. Any promises of jam tomorrow now or a day before the referendum are very likely to be rejected, we have been here before. The No campaign lacks substance and are losing credibility.
Devo-Max has become a life raft for the unionists, but will they all get on board?
I love it – Salmond Break up Poll; was this organised by Ellon Academy? (Only kidding)
Very interesting explanation and informative analysis Rev. (Well explained on NO side wanting to rush things – that will be useful.
First time that I would say I take a total counter position from the good Rev on the following issue. (There had to be one …. no sorry 2, never seen any point to the Liberal Party way too wishy washy for me)
An SNP vote is never a wasted vote in the pursuit of independence. It’s the only reason we are having this referendum in the 1st place (the only reason) regardless of what parliament, constant pressure and chipping away is what has got us here. After 2014 maybe new parties to fit Scotland’s Socio – Political make up will evolve (I hope so)
In fact Salmond deserves the utmost respect in this one instance (from all sides), without him the YES side would never have got to this point and for the No side they finally have a chance to celebrate all things United and prove the value of Britain, (difficult as that may be in Scotland for the most part).
On the point that comes up a lot in the Polls (SNP No voters ?)
I have never ever come across this personally (so maybe its just my good fortune).
If any SNP supporter (more likely a plant really) cares to come forward and put the case for a No vote ( or Why I don’t believe in Scotland’s future) then I (and many others likely) will be happy to give them a welcome similar to that given to a concentration camp ‘Kapo’ by his former pals!
Is this SNP no vote a serious factor ? (genuine question)
I should also note that I have something like this for Scots UKGE intention:
SNP 45%
LAB 32%
CON 14%
LIB 6%
This happened almost simultaneously with the 2011 rise. 2010 was a last gasp attempt by a section of the electorate to maintain the status quo: Labour in Westminster with the SNP in Holyrood. It failed, and the Tories came back. This triggered the end of Labour as the major force in Scottish politics both at Holyrood and for Westminster. SNP dominance is now the status quo.
The irony is, a narrow no vote (if it is No, it would be very narrow) will end the careers of many Labour and Lib MPs as much as independence would. They’d be better backing independence and standing for Holyrood in 2016…
Although I vote SNP at general elections I tend to agree with the Rev that other than making a statement it is a wasted (low impact) vote…..however the same could be said for all votes cast in Scotland at UK general elections…..unless you are a Tory of course.
Back away from the Devo Max ! Ruth Wishart was on about it this morning.
This must be hammered – ITS NOT ON THE PAPER !!!, they want the public (and us) to be wasting our time talking about this – its a red herring !
Voting Labour for Westminster however, means very little for Scotland. (Now that is Spot On)
I couldn’t vote for a Unionist party (nor could I)
Very O/T
BBC TV doing its best for the Union
Science Britannica is not the only BBC programme putting its provenance up front: there’s Rip Off Britain, Street Patrol UK and Britain’s Broken Families (BBC1); Fake Britain, Britain’s Big Wildlife Revival, Great British Menu, Seven Ages of Britain, James Martin’s Food Map of Britain, Hairy Bikers’ Best of British, The Great British Bake Off and more Street Patrol UK (all BBC2), plus Britain on Film (BBC4).
And that’s just Tuesday. What is going on?
Bit of a hostage to fortune, dismissing as useless 59 SNP MP’s at Westminster. Every front in this ‘war’ is important and that importance fluctuates with the electoral cycle.
Should NO win the referendum with a slim majority (god forbid), after lies are told and promises made by the betterNO campaign, then a strong victory by the SNP at the Westminster Elections once those lies and promises have become obvious to the electorate and they are facing up to the reality of a decade or two of Tory/UKIP rule, may well be an equally effective (if marginally slower) route to full Scottish independence.
Such victory at Westminster and continued control over Holyrood would powerfully speak to the Scottish population and their sovereign power of self determination, not to the delegated powers of Westminster or the UK.
Why undermine it? I don’t understand.
I was asked by an aquaintence yesterday if I was going to the ‘SNP Rally on the 21st’. This from a YES person but who like many people still think that Independence is an SNP crusade, and not about Scotland as a country no matter which party leads in Holyrood. She looked quite perplexed when I said I didn’t know there was an SNP rally on the 21st. It took a tiny bit of explaining to inform her of what the rally is actually about.
@Linda’s back
It’s almost like there’s a war on (or soon will be).
I bought a Sunday Herald today for the 1st time in 4 years, because of the front page…which portrays Cameron’s contribution to the referendum debate as 130 words – most of the page is white space to accentuate the dearth of argument from chief Tory. It continues in a similar vein inside. If the media start to portray this as an SNP v Tory debate then the argument is nearly won.
BBC TV doing its best for the Union
I was going to say its subtle but …….
“Even in the miracle scenario of Scotland returning 59 SNP MPs out of 59 to Westminster,”
“Most UK governments have majorities of more than 59 ”
This paints an intresting scenario. If Scotland votes no on the promise of devo-max and westminster returns nothing, how would people vote in a general election?
A vast wave of SNP MP’s being returned to Westminster? Emagine that the SNP possibly holding the balance of power and having control over English policy. A recipe for major constitutional change.
@Linda’s back.
Don’t forget the daily doses of the BBC weather forecasts telling us the UK/Britain is a country/nation etc.
Further to my 12:28 post; Maybe a question for the opinion poll?
The ‘Forget Devo Max’ message needs to be pushed and pushed. I can remember the aftermath of 1979 once Callaghan’s failing government had been replaced by Thatcher. She realised that a majority of voters could not be bothered to turn out, were too feart or were blinkered unionists so she could trample all over us … and she did! There are plenty (if not most) of the BT crowd are equally as vindictive as Thatcher was so a NO vote is quite likely to end up with Devo Min.
Bit of a strange referendum poll article in the English Independent today which starts off as a Braveheart men vs rational women thing and then wanders off. Even the rally next week gets mentioned a couple of times. The comments were in general mostly favoutable to YES.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/independence-referendum-its-the-braveheart-tendency-vs-the-women-of-scotland-8816908.html
There are two good reasons to believe that the Holyrood-weighting approach is more reliable. One is that the referendum is more likely to be seen by voters as a Scottish issue than a British one. And the second is the massive distorting effect of the first-past-the-post system used in Westminster elections.
Unfortunately these don’t really apply. Firstly voters will by definition see the referendum as a Scottish and a British issue. Even if some Yes voters see it more Scottish, No voters may see it more British, and there seems to be more of them at the moment.
Westminster tactical voting might be a problem, though by definition it should even itself out. But even if not, Panelbase appear to weight by Holyrood constituency vote, which will therefore have all the same tactical-voting disadvantages as weighting by Westminster.
So neither reason applies. In fact Westminster weighting[1] may be the less-bad alternative for a reason you don’t mention. More people voted for them in 2010 (63.8%) than for Holyrood in 2011 (50.0%). So you should be able to adjust for more people in the sample.
There’s also an additional problem with Panelbase referendum polls in that they weight referendum turnout by likelihood to vote for Holyrood rather than likelihood to vote in a referendum[2]. But if you think that more than 50% of people are likely to vote in a referendum[3] then you’re going to miss out a lot of people who will vote in the latter.
With both these points it’s probably that those who vote for Westminster and not Holyrood (one in eight of all voters) are more likely to be No voters They’re showing which they think more important by that choice. Those who normally vote in neither but might in a referendum could well be similar.
[1] Incidentally YouGov don’t weight by past vote in 2010 but by what their panellist’s party-id was then. This should get round the tactical vote problem as say an SNP supporter who tactically voted Lib Dem would still counted as SNP (or vice versa).
[2] Presumably because Mr Murdoch’s minions are unwilling to pay for an extra question.
[3] The Panelbase tables aren’t up yet (that’s the trouble with Sunday polls) and will show a lot more more than 50% saying they are likely to vote (78-83% last time). But people who respond to opinion polls (especially online ones) are more likely to be the sort of people who vote in all elections, so you always get a large over-estimate of turnout.
GrahamB says:
The ‘Forget Devo Max’ message needs to be pushed and pushed
Im with you brother ….. trust the regionalist UK parties ?
I dont think so; (my post of 12.13pm its not on the PAPER !)
“Unfortunately these don’t really apply. Firstly voters will by definition see the referendum as a Scottish and a British issue.”
A matter of opinion, and I think yours is rubbish in this case. The rest of the UK doesn’t give a toss. This is a Scottish matter, and even pro-Union Scots understand that. The campaign to get votes for expat Scots lasted about a minute.
“Westminster tactical voting might be a problem, though by definition it should even itself out. “
That’s a complete fundamental misunderstanding of the point. Westminster FPTP diverts votes from small parties to the two big ones, BOTH of whom are Unionist. So how does that balance anything out in the context of the referendum?
“More people voted for them in 2010 (63.8%) than for Holyrood in 2011 (50.0%).”
That’s hardly relevant, since all polls are based on 1000 people, not the whole electorate.
@Roger Mexico
Yougov have been way out from all the other polls since 2007. It is only by coincidence that the recent peak for No (late 2012) showed numbers similar. Go an plot them all up and you’ll see.
Panelbase are actually a far better match with all the other polls (which don’t do past election weighting) in the long term, albeit slightly more favourable to Yes.
In the recent Yougov devoplus poll, you can clearly see the weighting to 2010. Little to no adjustment was required for Tory and Lib shares, however a major down-weighting of SNP respondents and up-weighting of Labour respondents was required. Yougov should be asking why this is so commonly the case? Why do unweighted Tory and Lib numbers look near enough, but Lab and SNP way out?
The only explanation I can see is that a fair section of people responding SNP for 2010 actually voted Labour and are either false recalling due to then voting SNP in 2011, or in denial in the sense they wanted to vote SNP in 2010 but at the last minute voted Labour tactically, then voted SNP in 2011 and are lying about 2010. This would fit with the Scottish polls which showed huge surge for Labour ahead of (starting as 2010 approached) 2011 which then vanished in a matter of weeks.
Yougov are completely out on their own. That’s all we can say for sure though. The average gap since 2007 for all polls bar Yougov is around -9 points for Yes. For yougov, it’s -25 points.
I think that as the referendum approaches people WILL see it as a Scottish vote, whether to have its own government solely responsible and accountable to Scottish residents or for Scotland to remain within the uk form of government (not the same as remaining British Roger) and it will be an enormous turn out because it is a unique vote.
I see no reason to compare the turn out to any elections, perhaps a comparison to the vote for a Scottish parliament but that is the only realistic comparison and that one was 60.4% and the enormous pro Yes took everyone by surprise since we read nothing but shite from politicians and the media and Tony Blair and Brown were dragged kicking and screaming to it……none to keen.
Oh, and panelbase normally only eliminate ~20% as unlikely to vote. The remainder is where they get their Y/N/DK numbers from.
DevoAnythingMore is off the agenda because only Westminster can deliver it and they don’t have the time to do so before the referendum next year,even if they wanted to.Lamont suggested to her MPs that income tax should be devolved to the Scottish parliament which was immediately shot down by them,so we can see that the chances of anything being agreed cross party by Westminster are zero.Should there be a No vote then Westminster will say,the Scots are happy with their lot so no need to do anything,just carry on as usual.
Roger Mexico – What is your position on the referendum, most are willing to state, are you happy to share ?? Are you for Devo Max ??
Firstly voters will by definition see the referendum as a Scottish v British issue full stop ….. what is your point, it would be better if you just said.
(If you trust and ‘support the UK state polls’ then just come out and say so and be done with it, then we know where you stand)
Tho’ it was a long time ago, it was always my understanding that in the event (however unlikely it seemed way back when) the SNP won 50% + 1 of Scottish Westminster seats, they would have seen that as the green light for negotiating independence. Indeed, I seem to recall the argument being made by some that this would be the case irrespective of whether those seats represented >50% of the popular vote.
Whilst I accept that many things have changed since the re-establishment of a parliament in Holyrood, I still don’t see why (in the event of a No vote in 14, followed by unionist failure to deliver on devo-whatever jam tomorrow promises) the election of an SNP majority in Scottish Westminster seats doesn’t simply result in de-facto independence? The SNP fight the ’15 UK GE on the platform of “now you can SEE devo is dead, give us a Westminster majority and we’ll consider that a mandate to start independence negotiations”.
Should have added to my 12:33 post that we could end up with a Tory/UKIP coalition after the next Westminster election. Can’t see the Tories getting a clear majority, LidDems should get hammered for their sell outs and Labour are in too much disarray, not that they would be better than the Tories anyway.
When I see the word ‘poll’ in and article, I think Noddy and Big Ears … and hand it to my 5 year old Grandchild! Polls serve only one purpose and since we are not in the arena where that purpose can be enacted …. they are pointless and only result in muddying the waters . Move on please!
Good old BBC:Straight from page 11 of today’s Mail on Sunday.——————BBC’s £325M plan to keep broadcasting.Secret plans are being drawn up to ensure the BBC is still available in Scotland if it votes for independence.Alex Salmond’s plan to break up the corporation and replace it with a new Scottish channel could see viewers miss out on shows, such as East Enders. Doctor Who and Miranda.But is has emerged that senior BBC chiefs have raised the prospect of the Corporation continuing to provide all it’s services if Scots vote for separation – in return for it being allowed to to keep the £325M a year license fee income raised in Scotland.The proposal is backed by YES Scotland chief executive Blair Jenkins, a former head of news at BBC Scotland. But Scottish Secretary Margaret Curran said ’This is more evidence the Nationalists can’t offer any certainty on the BBC’s future.——————————————————————-I vote for a new Scottish Broadcasting Service. You will still be able to get the usual rubbish anyway as do the Irish and many parts of the European continent.£325M in fees and I saw previously only about £120M spent in Scotland.As for Curran she can’t even be certain she’ll be required in Scotland after 2016 so her and her pals will soon be like Baillie jockeying for position when the dust settles.
Here’s an old Gaelic proverb to cheer you all up:
An uair as teinne an taod, ‘s ann docha e bristeadh.
(The rope is at its tightest just before it snaps.)
Well in the event of a no vote I will be putting my house on hearing again
“We made a pledge, we did not stick to it, and for that I am sorry.”
Rev, it isn’t necessary to get 59 SNP MPs. No democracy requires 100% to win! 30 MPs would be a majority, so 30’s all we need.
As I have said before on here just recently, I have voted Labour once in my life. The year was 1979 and I was attempting to keep Thatcher out of 10 Downing Street, I failed along with millions of others. However my failed vote taught me a lesson i.e. a Labour vote in Scotland means nothing, it is in effect a wasted vote, it sends no sort of message to Westminster. On the other hand a vote for the SNP always sends the message that Scots should not be taken for granted; it says that there are people in Scotland who are confident enough in their own ability to govern themselves. In my opinion a vote for the SNP is never wasted, it always sends a message that the unionists do not want to hear.
It is of course a simple case that if all unionist parties are 100% committed to more powers then those powers could be through parliament unopposed before Christmas.
But we only get more powers if we vote No…… absolutely no logic. they are dependant on half the undecideds either being too stupid to work that out or too scared, hopefully they are neither (i’m a bit pessimistic about that tbh)
Nick reported in the Observer/Gurdian (and on Marr’s programme) talking again about devo max:
Nick Clegg: what Scottish people want isn’t on referendum ballot paper. Lib Dem leader says ‘devo-max’ is ‘where I think we need to go as a nation – as a United Kingdom and as Scotland’
Nick Clegg has admitted that the Scottish people will not be given a chance to vote on their main preference in the independence referendum that is to be held in just over a year’s time.
As David Cameron issued a warning that a vote for independence would lead to a “leap into the unknown”, the deputy prime minister said that greater devolution “isn’t exactly on the ballot paper”.
Speaking in Glasgow on the second day of the Liberal Democrat conference, Clegg said there was a consensus in Scotland for “devo-max” – handing most powers to the Scottish parliament bar defence, foreign policy and sterling.
And then at end
But Clegg indicated that the Scottish people would be given a second vote, to allow them to decide on “devo-max”, if they vote to remain in the UK in the referendum that will be held a year on Wednesday.
Aye right, Nick, like that’s ever going to happen
Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
15 September, 2013 at 12:52 pm
“That’s a complete fundamental misunderstanding of the point. Westminster FPTP diverts votes from small parties to the two big ones, BOTH of whom are Unionist.”
Can’t accept that, If you are naturally a conservative, (And there’s a lot more of them than most people would have you believe) you are most likely to vote for whoever you think will defeat Labour. Leaving aside the Lib Dems those are generally the `no voters who also voted SNP for Wesminster
I understand that Better Together internal polls are showing they have a base support of only 25%. Only 1 in 4 Scots will be certain to vote No.
The Unionists don’t have a natural majority. Now that is telling and highlights how soft the NO vote currently is.
gillie
It would be great to know where that nugget of information came from. I wish it were a known fact. Both camps try and keep that sort of information buried in the vaults.
I believe the YES vote is higher than currently believed and can only go up as the debate exposes the unionist cause. Yes people are very likely to vote while the DK’s are hedging their bets until very late and will not really look at the issues until the summer of 2014.
If the ‘jam tomorrow’ issue will becomes stronger in the next few months then it is certainly because the YES is too close to a successful outcome.
The SG papers will be coming out soon and they better be good and carefully costed which I am sure they will be — ‘facts’ will squash unionist bluff and bluster.
One thing about this article that I disagree with is the idea that an SNP vote is a wasted vote. It ignores the effect of the individual constituencies where people are actually voting, and the cumulative effect of a high overall support for the party even if that isn’t translated into seats.
My vote was in Motherwell and Wishaw. If I didn’t like Labour, what good would a Tory vote have done? None. I remember a long time ago (1987 election) my mother saying, well they say an SNP vote is a wasted vote. I said, so you’re going to vote Labour then? She recoiled in horror. I said, OK, who are you going to vote for then? She said, I thought I’d give the Liberals a chance. I said, so you think the Liberal candidate has a chance in this constituency? No, none, she admitted. I then asked her in what way that wasn’t a wasted vote. Job done.
I then launched into a speech about what an SNP vote could do. It was our only opportunity to register our desire for independence. Labour were going to win in our constituency, and there was bugger-all we could do about it. In that situation, I chose to cast my vote to record my support for independence.
And in no way was that a wasted vote. It was exactly that vote, and all the rest of them cast for the same reason (including my mother’s, and a few neighbours as well to whom she had repeated the speech) that got us the Holyrood parliament, that got us the SNP Scottish government, that got us the referendum. That’s going to get us independence.
The Yes campaign are claiming as reported in the Sunday Post that they have info on Better Together internal polling showing only a 25% base support.
Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
“[…]voters will by definition see the referendum as a Scottish and a British issue”
The rest of the UK doesn’t give a toss. This is a Scottish matter, and even pro-Union Scots understand that.
I think we’re probably talking about different things. Independence is by definition about the relationship between Scotland and the rest of Britain. Of course people outside Scotland are going to be less interested as it is indeed a Scottish matter. But for those in Scotland it is indeed an issue about both Scotland and Britain.
“Westminster tactical voting might be a problem, though by definition it should even itself out. “
That’s a complete fundamental misunderstanding of the point. Westminster FPTP diverts votes from small parties to the two big ones, BOTH of whom are Unionist. So how does that balance anything out in the context of the referendum?
Actually in overall vote terms (which is what weighting is about) the Westminster 2010 vote has Labour (42.0%) and SNP (19.9%) as the ‘big two’ – the Conservatives came fourth with 16.7%, not much more than their Holyrood figure (13.9%). It’s only the Labour vote that is affected much by the difference (Holyrood 31.7%). By balancing out I was thinking more of people picking an Anyone But Tory candidate as my footnote[1] suggests.
But the point about first past the post is that you can’t claim that it distorts things when you use the Westminster figures but the Holyrood equivalent is OK. It’s either a bad system to use to weight by or it isn’t. And if you do use it, you’re better off using figures where you can assign a weight to more people. Which leads us to:
“More people voted for them in 2010 (63.8%) than for Holyrood in 2011 (50.0%).”
That’s hardly relevant, since all polls are based on 1000 people, not the whole electorate.
I genuinely don’t know what you’re saying here. Any representative sample should contain about 25% more people who voted in 2010 than who voted in 2011. If you are going to weight by some form of past vote or political-id, then one that applies to more people seems best to me, especially when you want to look at something you expect a high turnout for.
But the point about first past the post is that you can’t claim that it distorts things when you use the Westminster figures but the Holyrood equivalent is OK.
Erm, yes you can. Why don’t you ask people on here if they’re ever voted both Labour and SNP. SNP because they want independence or devo max potentially, and Labour to stop the Tories. You’ll find there are lots. Labour up here still use ‘a vote for the SNP is a vote for the Tories (under FPTP), even though it’s not true any more.
When you vote for Holyrood, you know it’s PR-type so you don’t need to vote tactically. The fact that the first vote is FPTP is made largely irrelevant by the second vote in the AMS system. It’s just there to give people a constituency MP. There may have been a few Tories that voted Labour in an attempt to stop the SNP, but they’d have done so even with their second vote.
Westminster is a whole different kettle of fish. Traditionally, a vote for the SNP could possibly allow the Tories to win by eroding the Labour vote. And Labour used this well historically. For Scots, the best way to stop the Tories at Westminster was to vote Labour as Labour had the best chance of forming a majority. You saw that happen in 2010 where the Labour vote went up in 2010 in Scotland when it dropped massively across the UK. That was a last gasp attempt in Scotland to stop the Tories. It failed.
Polls indicate that the SNP are now on the same for Westminster as they are for Holyrood 45% or more, with Labour down to just over 30% at best. So those who voted Labour have readily dropped them since 2010. Or rather, they’ve found the tactic failed just as it did under thatcher and so finally given up on it.
Panelbase simply weight to make sure their demographic matches the result of the most recent general election in Scotland and one where tactical voting is little to non-existent. Being the most recent one, there is little issue with false recall. Weighting to the election before that as per Yougov immediately puts a potential spanner in the works on recall before the complexities of the SNP+Labour voter issue is considered.
Like I said, plot up all polls and you’ll see post 2007, when Labour started to lose 10-12% to the SNP, Yougov goes off on one by a huge margin compared to all the other polls which don’t past vote weight (it used to agree pre-2007 with them). As the gap between SNP share at Holyrood and Westminster has grown, so has the gap between Yes and No for Yougov (r2>0.81). No such relationship exists for the other polls (r2 = 0.06). Yougov is basically bollocks. Either that, or every other pollster using a variety of methodologies is completely wrong and Yougov are spot on. I think not…
I’ve voted in three Westminster elections, and the only time I voted SNP in any of them was when I was in a constituency where the SNP were the party with the best shot at beating Labour. That was Glasgow Central in 2010, although thankfully I left Glasgow a few weeks later, so I didn’t have to suffer Anas Sarwar being my MP for long.
@Braco
Bit of a hostage to fortune, dismissing as useless 59 SNP MP’s at Westminster. Every front in this ‘war’ is important and that importance fluctuates with the electoral cycle.
Should NO win the referendum with a slim majority (god forbid), after lies are told and promises made by the betterNO campaign, then a strong victory by the SNP at the Westminster Elections once those lies and promises have become obvious to the electorate and they are facing up to the reality of a decade or two of Tory/UKIP rule, may well be an equally effective (if marginally slower) route to full Scottish independence.
Such victory at Westminster and continued control over Holyrood would powerfully speak to the Scottish population and their sovereign power of self determination, not to the delegated powers of Westminster or the UK.
Agreed. If there is a slim No vote next year then a very strong vote for the SNP at the 2015 general election would be important for a number of reasons. Firstly, it would show that the constitutional issue in Scotland is not going away. It would also deprive SLAB’s careerists of their seats, which is what they are fighting to retain. Secondly, it would be pychologically very important, as it would demonstate that the SNP would still be a major force in Scotland, despite the adverse result of a No vote in the independence referendum.
Thirdly, there is still the possibility that the result of the next general election maybe similar to the last one, with nobody getting an overall majority. The SNP would have more clout if it did really well. I think this possibilty is not impossible, but still unlikely.
Basically, the importance of a strong SNP performance in the 2015 general election, following a slim No vote, boils down to a few things:
Helps boost morale, prevents the election of SLAB’s careerists at Westminister (which is their positive case for the Union), makes it clear the constitutional issue has not been settled, and would be a great launchpad for the 2016 Holyrood elections. Therefore, I disagree with you Rev Stu that a vote for the SNP would be wasted for the Westminister elections.
Roger Mexico :
I genuinely don’t know what you’re saying is that a ‘Yay’ for independence ?
I just vote SNP at EVERY election.
Most UK governments have majorities of more than 59 (since 1983, only John Major has commanded a majority lower than that), so the Nats would almost never have a chance of holding the balance of power even if they were to be supported by every other opposition MP (which there would be no chance of).
Stuart, you may have forgotten that there was a move within a few days of the 2010 UK election to form a Labour-led coalition, in which the SNP would have held the balance of power. This appeared to collapse when Labour decided it would be preferable to be in opposition post-crash, and sent the Lib-Dems off to speak to the Tories.
Things may have been quite different now had that coalition taken power.
Perhaps I’m not paying enough attention to this discussion but I’m not aware of the UK government offering Devo-Max recently. I’d wager though that should the voting intentions start to indicate strong support for independence then the red button will be pressed in Downing street and a double-speak Devo-Max proposal offered up for the gullible.Possibly in the Spring of 2014 and nicely timed to cause disruption.
Don’t forget, its Perfidious Albion we’re dealing with.!
As others above have said, your vote indicates your preference and so voting for the SNP for the Westminster parliament is your statement of support for independence and so it is not a wasted vote. Is attending the rally next Saturday a waste of your time? Or is it a statement of support for independence? And the larger the attendance the stronger the signal.
O/T Alex Salmon is objecting to Scotland’s 8.4% of the Post Office being sold off, wants a moratorium till after the referendum.Westminster’s response should help focus some minds undecided on voting Yes or No.
@Bob Duncan.
Yes, Labour preferred to inflict a Tory government on the UK, rather than work with the SNP.
“Stuart, you may have forgotten that there was a move within a few days of the 2010 UK election to form a Labour-led coalition, in which the SNP would have held the balance of power.”
That’s a bit of an exaggeration. About six parties would all have held “the balance of power”. And the reaction from Labour to that proposed coalition shows what the real chances of them working together with the SNP are.
“But the point about first past the post is that you can’t claim that it distorts things when you use the Westminster figures but the Holyrood equivalent is OK”
You can, for the reasons SS and I have both explained. Tactical voting for Westminster distorts people’s “true” allegiance, Holyrood voting (which has no need to be tactical) doesn’t.
1979 Labour inflicted Maggie on us rather than work with the SNP on devolution. Said it was turkeys voting for Xmas.
2007 Labour let the SNP try to run a minority Government rather than work with the SNP to promote a left wing Scotland.
2010 Labour inflicted the Tories on us rather than work with the SNP.
2011 The declaration of the Willie Bain principle – we never support the SNP
2014 Labour become irrelevant
“Rev, it isn’t necessary to get 59 SNP MPs. No democracy requires 100% to win! 30 MPs would be a majority, so 30?s all we need.”
If you think 30 SNP MPs at Westminster would be enough to secure independence (or even a referendum if we weren’t already having one), you might want to check if your watch needs a new battery, because it’s WAY too early to be drunk on a Sunday.
Even the Supreme Court acknowledges that the settled will of the Scottish people is a constitutionally sound principle in the UK. I have supported the SNP for more than 50 years on that basis after Westminster ignored the Covenant.
If Scots elect a majority of Westminster MPs supporting independence, especially after a close No vote, then we will have shewn Westminster in Westminster’s terms that we want better. Can Westminster offer further Devo? There are 550+ rUK MPs to reason not.
The rest of the world would be interested to see the Scots demand for independence actually voted down in Parliament which could put us among the oppressed people for whom the UN have a care. So yes 30 would be enough.
I disagree that voting SNP is wasted – it depends on the constituency. Certainly 11 SNP MPs in the 70s concentrated Labour minds.
However, after seeing the depths that Labour will go to in indy campaign, even if there is (God forbid) a No vote, I will never vote for them again. The interests of their constituents are the farthest thing from most Labour MPs’ minds. There may be honourable exceptions – others will know their own local MP. Mine is Alastair Darling, so I need have no consideration of possible integrity.
Another feature, and I hope the Peoples’ Assembly movement in England pay attention, is getting more people onto the electoral register. In how many seats do the unregistered/unvoting outnumber the parliamentary majority? In the event of a NO vote, my sole consolation in the 2015 General Election will be campaigning among this new group of voters.
I hope it won’t come to that!!
Roger Mexico – What is your position on the referendum ?
Is the above question what sent Roger away ?
scottish_skier
I think you’ve missed my point about FPTP. While I’m sure there have been many SNP voters who chose other Parties for Westminster in the past there may also be many non-SNP voters who picked them to keep another Party out. I suspect such people may be statistically under-represented on this forum though.
If we are to weight by Holyrood I would think that the regional vote would provide a truer indication of where people are politically for adjusting the sample, but no pollster seems to do that. However there is still the problem of the lower turnout if, as we expect, the referendum has perhaps 70%+ of those eligible voting.
And those extra people turning out are quite likely to be No voters, either because the they don’t think Holyrood important enough to be “worth” voting for or because they are people with a lowish degree of political awareness and such people tend to vote conservatively in referendums. Using Holyrood past vote or likelihood to vote as criteria means you miss such people.
With regard to YouGov, as we discussed before, the main problem is that they have so few recent Scottish polls of any type that it’s difficult to judge them with so little evidence. I suspect that their method of weighting to historic Party-id is basically a good one and should get round the tactical vote problem[1]. But a problem arises with what targets you weight to.
Although YouGov start with the a target of the 2010 results and weigh the 2010 Party-ids of the panellists to that, a problem arises with new people who join the panel since then and give a Party-id on joining. If the newbies have a different political make-up from the 2010 base it could be that (a) the underlying political composition of the country has changed or (b) the people joining the online panel are unrepresentative. Weighting back will get rid of any such change, which is good if it is caused by (b) but not by (a).
YouGov have had this problem with UKIP (where probably both (a) and (b) are true) and have recently adjusted their targets to try to take account of the (a) component and this has lead to an increase in the reported voting percentage of UKIP by an average of a bit under 1 point. I suspect that a similar situation may exist with the SNP as well and their target needs adjusting upwards as there has been an apparent rise in their Westminster support since 2010.
I say “apparent” because there is very little recent evidence either way. I have not seen an explicit, separate, properly-weighted (ie to Scottish targets) Westminster poll this year[2]. There have been some figures on cross-tabs in tables, which we’ve all attacked with calculators, but we’ve not had anything properly laid out that we know has been processed in the normal manner. They do suggest a big rise for the SNP at the expense of Labour and especially the Lib Dems, though possibly not to Holyrood levels.
I’m not sure that I would describe YouGov’s polls[3] as “basically bollocks” and their more recent figures have what few referendum results they have done in line with most other pollsters. The ones out of line have been Panelbase (which is not to say they are wrong, just different). Panelbase seem also to be aware of this according to one of the latest entries on John Curtice’s blog (I assume Panelbase sent him the tables) and they asked both Holyrood and Westminster past votes. Holyrood seemed to get better recall and ICM found similar, though as Curtice also points out YouGov don’t use recalled vote anyway (You need to read the whole piece, as this comment is already far to long for me to add quotes).
If there is a consistent recall problem, it’s possible that for a telephone pollster such as ICM, recalled Holyrood might be the less-worse option, though if you have online panellists’ data, Westminster might still give more accurate results. However there is still the problems relating to turnout level and non-Holyrood voters possibly being more inclined to No.
For what it’s worth I suspect the discrepency between Panelbase and the other pollsters has less to do with their political weighting[4] and more to do with using LTV for Holyrood for the referendum[5]. There may also be hidden differences due to panel make-up.
[1] There may also have been a specific distortion in 2010, where three years of attacks on Gordon Brown often for just being Scottish, may have caused the swing to Labour our of sympathy or offended patriotism. But again this won’t affect weighting by Party-id though it would be 2010 vote.
[2] All contributions gratfully accepted.
[3] While I think on, the ‘latest’ Lord Ashcroft polls were not done by YouGov, as I think you assumed, but by a company called ORB who are BPC members but don’t seem to do much political polling in the UK
.
[4] Though obviously not using any political weighting like TNS doesn’t help either.
[5] Of course YouGov don’t use any LTV at all except in the run-up to polling day. So given that at the moment using LTV seems to increase Yes votes by a few points, that also needs to be taken into account
Roger Mexico –
OK I’ll try again…..
What is your position on the referendum ?
Roger said,
“And those extra people turning out are quite likely to be No voters, either because the they don’t think Holyrood important enough to be “worth” voting for or because they are people with a lowish degree of political awareness and such people tend to vote conservatively in referendums”
I think you are 100% wrong there, Roger. Speaking to folk I know, non-voters tend to be of either the ‘what’s the point, nothing will change’ variety, or not on the electoral roll at all.
This referendum certainly doesn’t fall under ‘nothing will change’, so the Yes voters will come out and vote. Most folk I know that stay off the electoral roll do so for economic and social reasons. Trying to stay clear of past debts, away from bad family relationships, etc. The second group will vote Yes if they can be encouraged to register.
Roger Mexico – Hi Roger, I had been bumping my gums recently about being in YouGov for years and having never been asked about anything remotely related to political events in Scotland. You were kind enough to give me some info on how YouGov construct their business and the relative likelihood of being asked. ¡Qué casualidad! Last night, YouGov asked about my voting intentions on the referendum – hurrah. As the Rev indicated – a busy time for polling!
Morag – well done for tormenting your mother, now off to Stranraer with you, and torment mine. She’s 80 and has never voted – ever! I’ve been pleading with her to think about her great grand-daughter’s future (age 3) and I think I have moved her slightly, but I need some more determined support (after all, I’m still feart for her after all the lug boxing I got down the years).
Major BN – Mrs Dram (despite the moniker, inherited from me) likes a large G&T – happy to meet you next week for one.
Rev, I’ve lived in this ward in Edinburgh since 1975 and voted SNP at everything since then. At the last Council elections we got an SNP councillor for the very first time and at the national elections an SNP MSP for the second time – I consider my vote to be the drip of water that wears away the rock. The only fly in the ointment is, for the UK elections, Flipper got voted in – but I’m working on that!
In the meantime I was part of small, but happy band, on the YES PENTLANDS stall at Balerno yesterday. We chatted to a couple of visitors from Slovakia and told them about the march next week. They were fascinated by what was going on here and promised to come up to the Royal Mile to see the event. And in support of that, a number of local people were also interested in attending, along with assorted wee scones in prams.
In terms of the discussions regarding yes – they follow the trends already discussed here – some folks very up for it (mixed ages), some people anti (generally younger women (with family) and older women with some men disallowing discussion from their women folk with us) some outright NO and some initially NO but then following discussions, taking away the literature to reflect on it.
So, lots to do, but not as gloomy as some may be tempted to think.
@Juteman
This referendum certainly doesn’t fall under ‘nothing will change’, so the Yes voters will come out and vote. Most folk I know that stay off the electoral roll do so for economic and social reasons. Trying to stay clear of past debts, away from bad family relationships, etc. The second group will vote Yes if they can be encouraged to register.
They do not have that much time left if they do want to register. They will have to decide pretty quickly I would imagine. Does anyone know when the deadline to be able to register for the referendum is?
@Muttley
The register is updated every month, so plenty time yet.
http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/how_do_i_vote/registering_to_vote.aspx
Interesting
https://twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/379319422202019840
For as long as nothing daft happens in the ‘Yes’ camp, and we have no major financial crash of the Banks again (which would cause a panic), then I believe that the percentages will climb 1% every 1 to 2 months for the ‘Yes’ camp.
It may even gain speed next summer and jump up higher to 4 or 5% if people do read the White Paper, understand it, and decide that Independence is the way.
For the ‘No’ camp, all they have left is spreading Fear. It is almost ‘Game Over’. Salmond predicted that the ‘No’ camp would use up everything that it could throw at the ‘Yes’ camp by September. Now, we are seeing it. The polls even indicate it!
The thing that I now wonder about the ‘No’ camp is this. What ‘can’ go wrong for them, and it’s not beyond the pale to see that just a couple of things could cause a crash in the percentages for them…
1. Britain continues to get involved in the ‘Arab’ Spring, and before we know it, we are slowly getting sucked in. Scots will be pretty peed off if we suddenly get involved in another expensive military conflict, especially if it turns into another Iraq or Afghanistan.
2. The Tories (smiling and knowing exactly what they are doing), persist with policies designed to rile the Scots. A slashing of military spending in Scotland, with some more Soldiers being laid off, will almost certainly antagonise the Scots.
Even bringing out another hated tax would push many folk towards ‘Yes’. Keep belting folk with taxes, and you will push them towards the exit.
3. Lamont loses the plot, and royally screws up. As a head member of the BT mob, it would be a complete disaster for them.
4. BT start fighting inwardly. Gordon Brown antagonises Darling, and then we have splinter groups; all at each others throats. BT suddenly look dreadful and really useless.
5. A top member of the Tories, Lib Dems or Labour realising the writing is on the wall, and that their seat is in jeopardy in the future, jumps ship. They say they intend to vote ‘Yes’. Outbreak of panic amongst BT. Others may also jump soon after.
There are probably others that could be used, but the point is, I see more of a car crash on the ‘No’ side than the ‘Yes’ side. The only way I can see the ‘Yes’ side crashing is if the oil really does run out …say, by Wednesday this week!!
blunttrauma says:
I just vote SNP at EVERY election.
—————–
So do I mate. Voted for them in every election, no matter if it was local or general. To me, wasted or not, it means that I put Scotland before anything else, because she is our Mother Country. It is this land and the people within her that made me what I am.
I will never, ever vote for a Unionist Party. You might say in American terms …I am a Patriot!
No matter how the various polls are spun in the MSM, WoS’s first crowd-funded poll certainly jerked the others (MSM, political parties, campaigns) out of their stupor, so it was our money well spent.
Looking forward to the next WoS poll!
Juteman
I think there’s actually three different groups of Holyrood non-voters here.
The first is the one on eight registered voters who vote for Westminster but not Holyrood. These either think the Scottish Parliament doesn’t really matter or will tend to be the sort of people who mainly consume the London media and only remember to vote when reminded by it. Most of these will be natural No voters.
The second group is the third of all registered voters who don’t vote in either or indeed any elections. As you say most of them will remain apathetic and/or cycnical to vote. But if turnout goes over 70% then it will because some of these group have voted and I suspect they will tend to vote No by default. They have to be given a reason to vote Yes – and they’re probably difficult people to reach and persuade.
The third group, which I hadn’t been referring to, are the unregistered. I suspect you’re right in that they are more likely to be Yes voters than average (we know that people from lower-ranked socio-economic groups are more likely be unregistered and to be Yes voters). It’s uncertain how many there are, the latest Electoral Commission report I could find gives a figure of around 18%, but that incudes people who may be registered in a different area but then moved. Of course a lot of those who haven’t registered will be in group 2 if they do and still probably won’t vote.
Incidentally people can register to vote anonymously if they have a good legal reason to do so (for example escaping domestic violence).
@ Roger
Exactly why Yougov are so far off all the other polls is an interesting question. However, it doesn’t detract from the fact they are.
As noted, Yougov used to be bang on the other polls – the majority of which have never used any form of past election vote weighting – pre 2007 SGE. Then they went off on their own course massively distant from all the others. Coincidence brought them closer over the past year, but still well off.
Once again, Yougov Y/N gap since 2007 = 25 % on average. All other polls (ICM, MORI, TNS, panelbase, ICD, Comres, SSAS) = ~10 % average at most.
All the others have shown big ups and downs in line with each other in response to events. Yougov have shown little hints of the same trends, but still remained steadfastly way out on a limb.
My expertise is experimental chemistry. If I measure something using 5-6 quite different methods and arrive at roughly the same answer, I’ll make the conclusion that value is correct. If I use a questionable method (I note you’ve seen Prof C is questioning Yougov as are various polling companies) and it gives something wildly different from all the other different approaches, I’ll conclude it’s highly unlikely to be correct.
And where’s the discrepancy between panelbase and other pollsters?
Most recent polls:
ICM No = 49%
Panelbase No = 47%
Angus Reid No = 47%
Yougov No = 59%
So panelbase is on it’s own huh? Looks like only one poll is on its own here and it ain’t panelbase.
ICM Yes = 32%
Panelbase Yes = 37%
Angus reid Yes = 34%
All within a 6% range (+/-3% variance from mean).
It’s Yougov that all the polls are inconsistent with. Panelbase is just marginally more favourable for Yes. For No – which is most important at this stage – it is well in line.
Rev Stu
Were the SECC sold a pup by the LIb Dems?
“Over 7,000 delegates will travel to Glasgow to attend the conference, which is expected to inject £12m into the local economy.”
http://www.conference-news.co.uk/news/2012/04/04/Glasgow-to-host-Liberal-Democrats-Autumn-Conference-in-2013/4206
Yougov’s Scottish motto:
‘Getting it wrong since 2007’
http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/4928/ce1q.png
Let’s just put this one to bed huh.
I’m intrigued and slighly worried about this “registering to vote” thingy.
Imagine someone, usually totally unpolitical but swept away by the final days of campaigning and going to the polling station on referendum day, only to find out that he/she hasn’t registered to vote, so, sorry, no go.
The Nordic countries have had such good public records since the 15th/16th century (reformation, monarchs wanting to seize church assets and tax the people) that it’s felt normal in the 20th and 21st century that we have central population registers. Nothing Orwellian about it, it’s a centuries old fact and makes public administration run smoothly and efficiently. Saves money on bureucracy, having all public bodies sharing information, and also makes it easier for the citizen, not having to produce all the documents time and again to all different authorities.
The efficient Nordic-style population register also means that you don’t have to register to vote. You will be sent a notification of your eligibility to vote in local/national/Euro elections or any referenda. Complete with instructions what to do if you’re away on polling day. We’re all automatically registered to vote. I think it’s deeply undemocratic if you have to specifically register to vote.
In the late 1980s and into the 1990s it was believed by many people that the authorities were using the electoral register to find people who weren’t registered for the community charge – otherwise known as the poll tax. The word “poll” (simply meaning the top of the head, as in a head count) had misled them into thinking it was a tax on voting. They came off the electoral register, and didn’t go back on. (It wasn’t true. I was on the electoral register at an address where I did not pay the community charge, and nobody questioned it.)
We have lots of different registers, and I imagine someone somewhere (probably in Cheltenham) has collated them all to see who is bucking the system and how. But it gives people an illusion that they’re not on some big population register. If you try to suggest that would be a good idea, within about 30 seconds someone will say that we fought a war to prevent it.
@lumilumi-
You’re right to be concerned.
I’m no expert on this, but illiteracy is a reality across the country – I’ve met a few folk who are all-for whatever petition we happen to have on the go (we’re aye moaning about something or other). It took me a good while before the penny dropped – some people want to sign, but can’t.
If they can’t even write their name and address on a form, chances are they have difficulty reading, and any situation liable to highlight their difficulty (let alone one as stressful as ‘voting’, with all those signs to follow, forms to confront etc) will be avoided phobically.
Only answer I can offer is a massive street campaign, perhaps next summer, where anyone can, in privacy, familiarise themselves with the forms required to register themselves on the Electoral Roll, and have assistance if required.
I don’t know what the latest data says about functional illiteracy in Scotland, or how accurate it is (given the stigma surrounding the subject) but it IS a real problem for a significant chunk of eligible voters who have as much right as anyone else to a say in this historic poll.
We won’t be popular with certain sections of the independence movement for saying this, but a vote for the SNP in UK general elections is, politically speaking, pretty much a wasted vote.
Are you saying that it would have made no difference to the UK government’s actions vis-a-vis Scotland if the ‘feeble 50’ had been SNP instead of that other party – or that, if nobody had ever voted SNP in a UK context, we would still be having an independence referendum next year?
Roger Mexico –
Yes, No …. Undecided ?
morag@1027
If you try to suggest that would be a good idea, within about 30 seconds someone will say that we fought a war to prevent it.
Yes, I’m well aware of this 😀
I think I was trying to point out how fundamentally different the Nordic and British (and that includes Scottish) mindsets are. Nordic countries have had comprehensive, accurate population registers for nearly 500 years so nobody batted an eyelid in the late 20th century when it was all computerised. Especially now with all the data protection laws and all.
The UK system is a mess and lots of money is wasted in public IT projects etc. because none of the public registers necessary to run a modern country are joined up.
The Nordic countries save a lot of public money because of efficient population registers, and, more importantly, the citizens approve. You lose a bit of privacy but win a lot of hassle in everyday life. And you don’t have to register to vote, that right is there for everybody regardless. The state sends you a notification to vote, ffs!
Morag,
Your post at 3.12 pm was brilliant! Thanks.
Re your point about the electoral register. Today many people know from experience that whenever they have needed any form of credit from a bank or credit card company etc. it has been essential for their credit rating, to be on the electoral register. Every credit reference agency makes this very clear.
The unfortunate folk who have fallen foul of that debt system and are now trying to avoid the threatening letters and phone calls from debt collection agencies that those regulated financial institutions sold on their debt to for 5 or 10 pence in the pound.
They are now understandably (and very wisely) now equally weary of the electoral register. They see it primarily as an information gathering tool for the financial system that is harassing them.
Many do not know that there are in fact two registers. One for Government use (voting etc) and one which can be sold by the government to the public and financial institutions via credit rating agencies etc.
Each individual has the legal right to choose not to be registered on the register accessible to the financial institutions, but still be on the voters roll. In this way they stay anonymous. This info must be disseminated widely and explained to the worried.
I would also like to be able to set up an anonymous temporary address to allow folk on the financial ‘run’, or who are unwilling to register at their own address for any other reason, the ability to register their vote in this all important referendum.
I am not sure of the law on this matter, but when I get home voter registration is the area I will be spending most of my time on, so any info from the WOS crowed source would be very gratefully received!
Lumilumi, I agree with you. However, despite all that “we won a war” stuff, the fact is that fundamentally we don’t trust our government. If we did, we’d think as you do.
We don’t trust our government with good reason. This is Britain we’re talking about, perfidious Albion. The track record is not such as to inspire confidence, or project a cuddly “it’s all for everyone’s benefit” image. Most of the people who fulminate against a central register don’t really understand why they’re against it. They just shout that it’s fascism. They’re usually the ones waving Union flags with bulldogs on a leash. They would vehemently insist that Britain is the greatest country in the world – because we don’t have such a register, so “they” can’t control us.
The fact that by holding this view they are implicitly admitting that “they” are not to be trusted, in contrast to the governments of places like the Scandinavian countries, is not something they think about. At bottom, they believe all governments are out to get you.
I don’t trust the British state one inch. Things might change in an independent Scotland, but I think it would be slow, because the public perception on this one runs very deep.
@ianb (10.41)
I never thought about this from the literacy perspective because Finland has near 100% literacy, probably because Finnish is easy to read and write. But you might be horribly right for a small minority because English spelling is a mess.
English has been written for about a thousand years. The pronunciation has changed but the spelling has ossified so letters and sounds don’t match. The only western language with more horrible spelling is French.
Finnish has only been written in any serious way for about 150 years or so, so our pronunciation hasn’t changed that much. Letters and sounds match. (There are all the dialects but I’m talking about “standard” Finnish here). That’s why reading and writing is so easy to learn in Finnish. Kids don’t go to school until they’re seven (by which time many kids know how to read anyway), and by age 9 start to learn a foreign language, usually English. and we learn stupid, erratic English spelling by saying (in our mind) how it’d be said in Finnish. And then learning how to pronounce it in stupid English. 😀
But I cannot imagine any Finn not being able to vote because of a literacy issue, unless he/she was a recent immigrant.
scottish_skier says:
Exactly why Yougov are so far off all the other polls is an interesting question. However, it doesn’t detract from the fact they are.
I’ve only looked back at the last 12 months and at the Yes vote – the No vote varies more because of variability in the Don’t Knows. By pollster the figures are:
MORI: 30,34,31
YouGov: 29,30(for Ashcroft),29
Angus Reid: 32,32,34
TNS: 33,30,25
ORB (for Ascroft): 26
ICM: 32
Panelbase: 37,34,36,36,37,37 For SNP 44
Now there are 3 obvious ‘rogue’ polls here. The ORB one where we know little about the methodology and the context; the last TNS where we know there were weighting problems[1]; and the SNP one where it is clear that the question order did make a difference because today’s Panelbase is back to its previous 37%.
But none of these rogues are YouGovs. It is arguable[2] that their average is a point or two lower than the other pollsters. This you might expect as a result of their being the only pollster not to use any form of likelihood to vote, which always seems to increase the Yes vote more than No.
The pollster that does show a discrepency is Panelbase. Every Panelbase poll above is 34% or more. Every other poll is 34% or less. It couldn’t be clearer. All individual pollsters are pretty much internally consistent but even if you ignore the three rogues above, the six Panelbase polls average at 36%, the twelve others at 31%
[1] On a previous thread I did a rough weighting to balance them for Holyrood vote and came up with Yes 32%, No 51%, DK 17%
[2] We’re talking a sample of 3 here – you can’t prove much.
lumilumi and Ianbrotherhood,
within this quarter of the population, 3.6% (one person in 28) face serious challenges in their literacies practices.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Education/Life-Long-Learning/17551
and surprise, surprise,
SSAL found that one of the key factors linked to lower literacies capabilities is poverty, with adults living in 15% of the most deprived areas in Scotland more likely to have literacies capabilities at the lower end of the scale.
let’s vote YES! (please)
Braco says:
Many do not know that there are in fact two registers. One for Government use (voting etc) and one which can be sold by the government to the public and financial institutions via credit rating agencies etc.
I’m afraid this isn’t true. According to the Electoral Commission:
Will my details be used for anything apart from elections?
There are two versions of the electoral register – the full version and the edited version. The full register is used only for elections, preventing and detecting crime and checking applications for credit. The edited register is available for general sale and can be used for commercial activities such as marketing.
Your name and address will appear on the full register but you can choose on your registration form whether to appear on the edited register.
(my bold)
So the edited register may save you from some junk mail, but the credit card companies and their like still have access.
@Roger Mexico
I think one big difference is that the comprehensive population registers in Finland are not available to any commercial activity, inculding credit checks. Banks and other credit givers have to compile their own databases. The Finnish State could perhaps earn a packet by selling all this wealth of information but it won’t because the citizens would be outraged. It’s OK for the state to hold this information for the smooth running of the country but deeply wrong to have it exploited for commercial gain in the private sector.
That’s where the UK problem lies. So many of the various registers have been compromised by commercial exploitation that the populace has no faith in the state holding any information. UK’s bad. [shrug]
Roger Mexico,
Thank you so much for that info. My little willingness to believe, has well and truly been popped.
I will look for and find another way, but unfortunately any loop hole will only ever be a local solution without the kind of care and money usually spent ,by the political system, on the definite vote (whether YES or NO).
I am now (once again) fully re committed to this avenue. Seems that alienation of sections of the electorate is and has always been intentional and actually a very important mechanism in our ‘democracy’.
Thanks again Roger for that sad awakening. You wouldn’t happen to know Titler by any chance, would you?
lumilumi,
bang on!
Rogers said,
“The second group is the third of all registered voters who don’t vote in either or indeed any elections. As you say most of them will remain apathetic and/or cycnical to vote. But if turnout goes over 70% then it will because some of these group have voted and I suspect they will tend to vote No by default. They have to be given a reason to vote Yes – and they’re probably difficult people to reach and persuade.”
I disagree with your reasoning, Roger. The reason they are apathetic is because they believe their vote won’t change anything, and they want change. A Yes vote will guarantee change, so I wouldn’t think they are No voters by default. Quite the opposite.
I’ve only looked back at the last 12 months.
Which is something of a mistake as you can see from the data going back to 2006/7.
And it’s No that’s more important than Yes at this stage. You need the No to soften and move to don’t know. Once they do that, they are then open to Yes.
Yougov just matched the other polls recent by coincidence; for the best part of 5 years out of the last 6-7, it’s been on it’s own.
Personally, I have data right back to 1998 and that’s what I use to base my thoughts. This isn’t an election after all. What people want inside – i.e. whether deep down they’d like independence – is a crucial factor and that doesn’t change massively over short timescales. However, it is crucial to understanding whether the electorate, when forced to chose, will opt for Yes or No.
Anyway, you can see the latest results from the Scotsman ICM show how readily yes can win if the electorate are content the economy would be good under independence. Even if it stayed the same, ICM give just about exactly what panelbase gave for a ‘forced’ referendum tomorrow; nearly parity.
Going on the assumption Roger Mexico will vote No
Well, there’s no law that says you have to be a Yes voter to post here. Which reminds me, what happened to Captain Caveman? He was going to write a piece on the positive case for the union, because he was so sure there was one even though none of the Big Beasts being paid to articulate it could come up with anything. I think he was sincere, but I haven’t seen him post for a while.
No harm at all in articulating a well-reasoned case for a No vote on WoS, if you can find one. What really bugs me is all these people who come here arguing negatively but trying to pass themselves off as Yes voters. Boring, guys.
@Morag
I was wondering about Captain Caveman the other day as well.
I was visualising him in a darkened room with his Rottweiler at his feet the floor covered in balls of discarded paper. (An overflowing recycle bin dose not fit the visual image) puling his hair out in frustration.
I like “Cavey” he is in my recollection the only unionist with a grain of integrity to come on here argue his case in a decent manner. I think that proving the case for the union is turning out to be more difficult than imagined,
Braco
The only other thing I can think of is that I believe there is a provision for homeless people where they can register at a contact address, but you’d need to contact the Electoral Registration Officer for your local authority to see what they would accept.
It’s a difficult balancing act for EROs because too much anonymity in the system would make it easier to commit fraud – especially as most of such people might want postal votes quite legitimately. For some people the anonymous vote might be an option, but usually there has to have been some contact with police, restraining orders or whatever.
Rev,
a little surprised that my post taking the mick out of Jackie Baillie seems to have been removed. Could you tell me why please. It was a good joke and not really in bad taste.
Surely, we are allowed to take the p… out of her, she does it often enough to us?
Morag says:
Dont even know if the guy is articulating a well-reasoned case for a No vote, dont really know where he is coming form. ? Only comments on polls.
It was just a simple question with three options Morag …. was only looking for clarity.
Dont know what would have been hard about saying undecided though ?
Scottish_skier
Interesting though it is, the trouble with going back too far is that companies are changing their methodologies targets etc quite frequently, so the past may not be a good guide to current capabilities. I agree that there are not really enough recent polls to go on though except possibly for the Panelbase ones. But the gap between them and all the other pollsters is clear.
I suspect with the one year starting gun being fired on Wednesday we’ll see a lot more. TNS have announced they’ll be doing a regular poll[1] and judging from what Dramfineday said above there should be at least a YouGov to come.
No may be more important at the moment, but for that very reason it’s more variable and so a less good way of assessing pollsters competence than Yes is. Actually I was surprised how consistent the pollsters were for Yes, though as you’d expect the most variable are those that don’t use any political weighting, TNS and MORI.
But as you say the more important and interesting questions at the moment will be the ones about the intentions of the ‘middle third’ – the Don’t Knows (a category that varies a lot depending how you ask the questions) and the soft Noes rather than the hard core 30% Yes and perhaps 35% No. ICM’s tables aren’t up yet but the details will be interesting.
I’m not sure though that “What people want inside – i.e. whether deep down they’d like independence – is a crucial factor”. That may be true for the hard core Yes and No camps, but what polling there is shows that what will really influence that ‘middle third’ is whether they will be better off in an independent Scotland or remaining in the UK. Economics is the most important thing as the ICM poll seems to suggest – though people will probably judge on what they think their long-term prospects are.
[1] Though their ‘regular’ polls do tend to come and go, so I’m a bit cynical. It does illustrate the problem with the lack of polls in Scotland though when TNS (which incorporates the old System 3) has only done seven Yes/No polls in as many years.