Credible witnesses
As regular readers will know, we very rarely bother reporting opinion polls on this site, for a whole raft of reasons (the main one being that opinion polls two years out from any possible vote are basically meaningless). But today we were doing a little digging into one and came up with something modestly interesting.
The SNP issued a press release earlier this afternoon citing a poll which put it ahead of Labour in Westminster voting intentions by 39% to 33%. That was something of a surprise, with most polls this year on the subject having shown Labour well in front. YouGov in March, for example, had Johann Lamont’s party leading 42-30, and another by the same pollster five months later stretched the advantage to 14 points, 43 to 29.
A huge 10% swing to the SNP after its recent troubles would be quite a story, so we set off in search of the full results (which, as is its annoying regular habit, the SNP homepage hadn’t bothered providing any sort of link to). We never did find them, but the SNP release stated that the poll had been conducted by Conservative peer Lord Ashcroft, which led us to his polling sub-site.
The Scotland category had only one entry, probably because the survey cited by the SNP was a UK-wide one, albeit with a far larger Scottish sample than usual (over 700). It was the poll reported extensively by the media earlier this year when the Scottish Affairs Select Committee claimed that the SNP’s proposed wording of the independence referendum question was “biased”.
What can we conclude from this information? Well, if Lord Ashcroft’s methodology is good enough for the Scottish Affairs Committee to use as prima facie evidence, then presumably it must also be acceptable for other results. YouGov, on the other hand, has a rather chequered history in Scottish polling, tending to over-represent Labour votes. (Four days before the 2011 Holyrood election, for example, it put the SNP just 8% ahead in the constituency vote, rather than the 14% the Nats actually won by. Just a month earlier it had the gap at only 1%.)
We’re not drawing any conclusions from a single poll with a sub-1000 sample. All we’re saying is, it’d be interesting if the Unionist parties rubbished its findings after putting such faith in Lord Ashcroft back in May. And that perhaps it’s wise to get your polling from more than one source if you don’t want to get a nasty shock.
This is about right. I have the SNP slightly higher for Westminster intention but the above figures would be within variance.
Labour’s strategy appears to be to work towards securing a NO vote in 2014, and then win back most of their lost support from the SNP, prior to the general election in 2015. They seem mightily confident that the toxic effects of siding with the tories will quickly wear off, and that even the 20% of their core support that favour independence, will forgive and forget by 2015. I’m not so sure.
Encouraging.
Any dates for the questioning, i.e. where were they in relation to EuroshambleslyingbastardSNP-gate?
Oh, I see 7% for others. You never get this on election day under FPTP; rather Labour and the SNP will pick up 5% (leaving 2% others) of that likely proportional to their fractions, i.e. putting the SNP on 42% and Labour on 35%.
link to scotlandvotes.com
Would deliver an SNP majority of MPs for Scotland.
Been saying this re the Tories and Scotland being an increasing annoyance. The above would really take the biscuit if the SNP held the balance of power. I’d not campaign too hard for the union if I was a Tory; could scupper them once again in 2015 but this time by SNP MPs, not mainly Labour.
Iain
17th-28th Oct
“Any dates for the questioning”
Tsk. Does anyone ever actually click the links I go to so much trouble to include?
“Fieldwork: 17th-28th October 2012”
Geez Rev, you’ve had a busy week. From nutters issuing public threats to oh wait, another nutter being offensive in FMQs. Long lie down this weekend? 🙂
Anyhoo on topic, I tend towards skier’s view on this one, the more wildly negative the opposition’s campaign becomes, the more likely it’ll backfire. People just aren’t seeing the the carnage, corruption and lies described by Labour and their media cronies on the the subject of the SG. They’re not seeing the SG partake of expenses scandals, PFI schemes ALEOs etc, etc, etc ad infinitum. On the other hand they do take note of Westminster’s. Polls will reflect this more and more as time rolls on toward 2014. The cleaner the SG can keep their team the wider and more obvious the difference will become.
@Luigi
Sounds v. plausible to me.
I said a long time ago, that after Labour’s UK GE defeat Scotland was the bolthole, where Labour would regroup. They see the indy referendum as an inconvenience on their path to UK re-election, SLab at Holyrood are just cannon-fodder for UK Labour strategy.
I don’t think UK Labour thinks an indy ‘yes’ result is likely, SLab know better – that’s why they look and act in such despair; they’ve been sent over the top, expendables all.
@Rev. Stuart Campbell
Found it in the end once I’d worked out it was the Operation Red Alert poll. So the EU stuff happend in the middle of the fieldwork. Let’s hope they got to Scotland last.
If the day ever comes in a Westminster election that the SNP get more seats in Scotland than Labour you can expect a UKIP or Tory landslide in England.
A split of that size would be a the signal for what would in all likelihood be a permanent change in the political landscape. Unimaginable sitting here today but would be amazing to watch the fallout that followed.
The level of outrage and handwringing could be used to run a small town for a year. I’m laughing thinking about all those torn faces as the results came in…my god.
Scottish Skier,
I am a tad confused, what’s new?
There appears to me to be a ‘bottom line’ for the Conservative Party for UK General Elections in Scotland. It seems to hover around the 16% mark. Are you assuming that their vote would crumble to around 2%? I doubt you are, so perhaps you could explain it for us that haven’t been on a Nate Silver course in psephology.
What numbers did you put into the Shandwick thingy?
Swing of Westminster voting intentions to 39% SNP/ 33% Lab from 29%/43% in March this year. So swing is purely Lab to SNP. That is how I read it.
It’s a big Scottish sub sample – but still a sample that isn’t weighted to the Scottish democraphic. Quantitatively better, though not necessarily qualitatively better than a Scottish sample of 43!
Still, the numbers do let us have a look at some political movement within this sample of Scots.
Between 2010 and now, Tories have lost 20% of their support. LDs have lost 62% of theirs. Lab have lost only 4%, it seems BUT the poll also tells us that Lab have only kept 74% of their 2010 voters, it’s just that they have been joined by Unionists deserting Con/LD. 23% of their current support come from “Unionist right wingers” who find a natural home in SLab
There is no similar analysis for Con & LD, but the overall figures show movement from all 3 UK parties to the SNP, and SLab consolidating its position as the main Unionist party.
Scottish politics appears to be going through a significant process of redefinition!
Kenny,
Thanks for that.
I applied S_S: 42% SNP, 35% Labour, 16.4% Conservative and 6.6% Liberal to the Shandwick predictor.
I think I’m away for a wee lie down. That would give the good guys an overall majority of Scottish MPs. 32 to 27.
That, of itself, was supposed to trigger independence was it not?
Maybe it’s only wishful thinking on my part, but i can sense the first signs of some kind of line being crossed. Nothing major, but something feels like it has changed.
I’m not getting carried away but its cheered me up no end regardless of accuracy 🙂
Juteman – I think I know what you mean. For no real reason at all, it’s starting to feel like a Yes vote is becoming inevitable. It just feels unthinkable that people would vote for the rubbish that has been fed to them so far. Every day, the unionist mask slips a bit further, revealing the true nature of the union.
As so often happens when a complacent person is suddenly forced to justify their position.
For all those wishing to have a wee lie down the DARKENED ROOM is open 24/7. 😆
Exactly Doug. I don’t know why, but all of a sudden i feel that a Yes vote is inevitable. It’s as if the last few weeks of negative bile has breached some kind of dam.
The No camp only have negativity, and the Emperor has just been arrested for public indecency. 🙂
Steady guys! Independence is certainly looking more achievable each day, but it’s not yet in the bag. It will require a huge effort by all of us over the next two years, make no mistake.
Juteman,
Hmmm….
This is a very long game we are playing here. I keep trying to look beyond the highs and the lows of this referendum chatter before 2014. Because, meantime, I think, that that is all it is, chatter.
I doubt that many people who are not political anoraks – like the good people here and I include myself in that – are even aware of the nuances of the debate that we indulge in.
They will make their minds up on the believability of the two economic cases and a certain distance from the UK consensus on what politics is actually about.
The former because that is the way it always is, and the latter because, despite everything that Westminster has chucked at us, we are a little bit different.
How else does one explain our solitary move away from the Westminster consensus that there is no society?
It seems odd – to me at least – that there is a consensus in Scotland for doing things differently from Westminster.
Whether there has been a ‘Road to Damascus’ moment over the last wee while, I’ll leave for others.
I would love to believe it, truly I would, but we are still a long way short of winning.
Hail Alba.
I can only speak for myself, obviously. The major emotion i’ve been feeling recently is a mixture of anger and depression at the tactics of the Unionist camp. Today i started laughing at them for the first time. Genuine laughter.
Is that all they have?
Felt rather gloomy this week: “too wee” and “too poor” arguments have been sent packing, but sadly, too many of our parliamentarians seem hell bent on proving we’re “too stupid”. This poll, however sketchy, begins to restore some faith by drawing attention to the group that matters most in the referendum, the electorate.
Juteman,
You say:
“Is that all they have?”
It appears so.
——————————————
I am not knocking what you have to say. Indeed there are straws in the wind in the general direction of splits within the various pro UK parties that are very heartening.
Frankly, as Old Nat said:
“Scottish politics appears to be going through a significant process of redefinition!”
Which I profoundly hope is true. Because independence needs to break away voters or significant factions from parties that are Unionist, for want of a better word.
And, if we achieve that, we win.
Not the SNP.
Us.
You and I.
@douglas clark
I just reduced the ‘others’ share to typical historical election shares and assigned this to the big two (as normally happens); the SNP and Labour to give:
SNP 42%
Lab 35%
Con 16%
Lib 6%
Under FPTP, this should give a majority of Scottish MPs as SNP.
Do the Rangers get back into the SPL in an independent Scotland ;o)
Kenny Campbell,
As Rangers are deid, then no. But I imagine the tribute act could!
O/T, but this wee Youtube clip – brought to my attention by those Nice Yes Scotland people on Facebook, is very very funny. The thing is we know that Al Murray’s a comedian, but how many others will take this at face value….
The biggest problem in achieving an independence vote is the relentless anti SNP propaganda churned out daily by the entire media machine. Make no mistake it will have a serious effect unless challenged. But how do you do that.
Curious. It’s not Lamont’s Labour party though that’s being voted for Westminster, it’s Milliband’s. It’s perhaps a measure of how effective people think Labour is being in opposition to the Tories, and how they think Labour will represent htem there. So it’s not a direct endorsement of independence, more that they think the SNP will represent them better at Westminster, than Labour.
But, and it’s a big but, in the past voters have perhaps been afraid of voting for SNP because the SNP are seen as being Independence only. Now, people are happy to vote SNP because they have been seen to have policies, but also people who would vote for them for Westminster ARE NOT AFRAID OF INDEPENDENCE, even if they don’t – currently – support it.
Just my 2p worth.
On this fecht for oor Fredome we essayit nocht hou vile oor enemies wad be in their endeavouris tae fruster us: tae wit, the depth o their ill-will tae their ain fowk and their ain Countrie surprisit us, an cut us intil oor very sauls.
We hae tholed it for lang eneuch. They hae laft us nae chuse, an nou we maun feenish thaim for aye – for Scotland’s sake.
And they maun drie their sair, sair weird.
Ronald Henderson,
Did you not write for one by the name of Robert Burns?.
(`cause I’m buggered if I can read it, but there again I am but
a daft Fifer!.)
Ronald I love your fine Scots language…
Ronald HENDERSON,
Got it, after reading a page or two from a 16th century Scottish book!.
(even though in the book the “s” looks like a “f”).
@Ronald
Aye, taxi for Lamont, Fffoulkes, Darling & Co. – destiny Westminster; one-way.
Interesting quote from Salmond at his Snow conversation:
<i>”He claimed the Edinburgh Agreement, signed with the UK government to allow the referendum, confirmed that Scotland would not be seceding from the UK if Scots voted Yes, but that the UK would be dissolved, leaving both parts with the same, ongoing relationship with the EU.”</i>
So at least we have the “official line” in other forums.
sandy armstrong says:
“The biggest problem in achieving an independence vote is the relentless anti SNP propaganda churned out daily by the entire media machine. Make no mistake it will have a serious effect unless challenged. But how do you do that.”
No one seems to come up with an answer to that question yet have they ?
deewal,
As things stand, it is going to have to be through new media and face to face debate with friends and colleagues. To some extent, the fact that sites like this one have a rising readership is highly encouraging. If you like, the fact that you and I are reading it is big positive.. For that, alone, means that we are well armed when it comes to those face to face encounters.
You could almost see the web of sites on the internet as a sort of samizdat press, which is said to have had an impact almost because it was ‘underground’. We should also remember that there are major events yet to come that will get publicity, the publication of the Scottish Governments’ White Paper will be a major news event and ought to concentrate minds.
Just my thoughts.
It is of interest, perhaps to watch this:
link to video.stv.tv
We are directed by some to watch the last half of this video, as if that was what Hollyrood was about. And the cut and thrust of that is quite fascinating.
But the earlier, more boring, part of the video suggests that the set pieces of Hollyrood confrontation are not how our Parliament actually conducts itself.
There are back bench Labour MSP’s asking sensible questions, there are MSP’s trying to get a commitment out of the Scottish Government for positive things. By and large, they appear to walk away satisfied.
It is only when Lamont, and to paraphrase the Speaker, Lamont, turn up that it becomes a gladatorial contest. Neither of them appeared to me to land a blow on the First Minister.
Should it not be the case that any MSP that misspeaks ought to offer a correction? I know, I know, that that could become boring, but the correction should only be about complete innaccuracies, else they would be there all day long.
Why is it that the First Minister, who did correct an innaccuracy, be the only member of the chamber to come under that sustained pressure? The leaders of the other Parties are, presumeably, trying to persuade us of their case.
Lies should be no part of our democratic process.
I’d have thought that that was the minimum standard we should expect of our politicians…..
I for one will not be counting my chickens before they are hatched. However there is no doubt that Lamont’s behaviour is turning voters off. All of the Labour voters I have spoken to (including some die-hards) have been appalled and disgusted by the way she conducts herself in parliament.
Douglas Clark – please spell Holyrood correctly – hate to correct anyone, but if we can’t get the name of our own parliament correct…. (apart from the fact that every time I read your posts I think of Hollywood.)
O/T, but it is this type of thing that does matter to the voter.
link to bbc.co.uk
NHS in Scotland ‘in good health’
You can sense the general unhappiness the BBC have with running the story and of course they throw in a few we negatives but in the end it’s good news compared the fate that awaits the NHS elsewhere in the UK.
tarrtan fever,
Apologies. I have been spelling it that way without correction for a very long time.
Single ‘l’?
OK.
Point taken.
At least you read my comments. They are not exactly Hollywood stuff.
@Douglas clark
You need to say it correctly too, i.e. Holy-rood with holy as in church; rood being cross, i.e. Holy cross (in Scots, it’s haly ruid I understand).
Otherwise, you will not qualify for a Scottish passport and potentially be refused one of those ‘one way tickets to freedom’ the BT lot are handing out.
😉
@scottish_skier
Well I was brought up just round the corner from Holyrood, and it’s pronounced “holly”
@AFG
Lol. I think it should be debated in the chamber as a matter of priority. It is vital the public know the truth. If it turns out the FM has misled parliament by pronouncing it incorrectly, then he should resign immediately.
Scottish Skier,
You are quite correct. My pronounciation of Holyrood – did I get that correct – has veered towards the Hollyrood an in Hollywood pronunciation. My bus pass is probably about to be withdrawn. You can take my bus pass, but you can never take my freedom! Err….
I am about to vote ‘No’ on the grounds that a society controlled by the spelling police is kno plaice fir reel piple.:-)
@scottish_skier
I do believe he pronounces it correctly, in which case he should resign for being an arrogant big headed know-it-all. Ye cannae trust a single word he pronounces anyway.
It’s always about that Alex Salmond at the end of the day, AndrewFraeGovan, Why can’t it, just occassionally be all about me!
Here, Holyrood, See I can learn.
Anyway.
I agree, being competent is a sin against humanity. It is a disgrace to be right!
Indeed.
We demand incompetenance, that is our right!
Shit politicians! In! In! In!
🙂
Elizabeth: Grateful thanks. Moran taing agus buidheachas.
Albaman: Well done on your research. There is no such thing as a daft Fifer though, apart from the unionists.
Translation for those interested:
‘On this current fight for our freedom we wrongly judged just how vile our enemies would be in their endeavours to frustrate us. To wit, the depth of their hatred towards their own people and their own Country surprised us and cut us to our very souls.
We have tolerated it for long enough. They have left us no choice, and so now we must finish them for good – for Scotlands sake.
And they will have to suffer their sore, sore fate.
There is a vaguely serious point that I ought to make.
It seems to me that we are seeing a possible high spot with the Scottish Parliament, and in general terms. we quite like it.
It is that that a negative vote will remove from us.
I am of the – if you live here then you are part of us – view of who we are. Indeed I would argue, given our emptyness, if you want to come here you, too can join us.
Whether or not you agree with all of that, it seems to me that Scottishness is inclusive rather than exclusive.
I think that is important.
Ronald Henderson,
Bugger me, I was right, you DID write for Robert Burns!!,(how many bus passes
do you qualify for?)
Albaman: Ha ha ha! Jist the yin!
MSM propanganda: some of its helps the Independence cause.
Today’s I paper:
“Left takes on Salmond over independence”. The Left referred to is the Radical Independence Conference being held in Glasgow today. Of the same ambition as “Salmond” but a bit more radical?
Turn to the sports section on Rugby – England are treated to 1 and 1/2 pages, then another 1/3 page. Wales are covered by 1/3 page. Ireland just 1 and 1/2 column inches. Scotland zero.
Yesterday’s I paper featured a test of a new Range Rover:
“Back in Britain you are more likely to see one in west London than tearing up the turf in Wales or in the Highlands”. The Highlands of …Wales does he mean? Or are they finding it difficult to write of or mention Scotland?
There was an article where some earnest woman was concerned over the vote for women bishops for Britain’s Church.
in my defense, i buy the I paper as it only costs 20p weekdays and 30p on a Saturday. I need my crosswords and puzzles you see. I only speed read the articles meaning I miss the message of the article i suppose, but then i’m no more interested in their Church or their football, or team GB than they are about their better half in this damned Union.
And no, I’m not reading up on Range Rovers with an intention to purchase. I did recently buy a Lifeboat series Landrover with trailer and inflatable dingy for my grandson. He is delighted with it. £5.99 well spent as half the cost goes to the Lifeboat funds.
@dadsarmy
“So at least we have the “official line” in other forums.”
I remember us having a wee chat about that on Cif once. We weren’t sure at the time what the preferred mechanism was going to be. Dissolution…………. interesting. Basically dissolving the treaty.