The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


Independence falls behind, surges ahead

Posted on August 02, 2012 by

A recent YouGov survey for the Fabian Society has made a few headlines this week, and justfiably so because it’s rather more interesting than the usual ones we get. It covers a wide range of topics, with a particular focus on Labour, resulting in an entertaining but ultimately not very useful headline in the Scotsman. (Though if the poll had asked respondents to select characteristics for the other parties too, our guess is that the SNP would still have come out on top.)

Other places have chosen instead to highlight the outcome of a curiously-worded question about independence, showing a 54-30 lead for the No campaign with 16% still undecided, while Lallands Peat Worrier breaks down some of the demographics to his usual fascinating effect. But it’s a derivative of one of those breakdowns that produces an intriguing result.

The survey shows a significant closing of the gap in Westminster voting intentions between Labour and the SNP, largely at the expense of the Lib Dems. While the difference between the big two at the 2010 UK General Election was a hefty 22%, it’s now down to 14%. The poll also broke down support for independence according to those voting intentions.

But we suspect the referendum, which will be run by the Scottish Government, is an issue likely to be considered by the electorate as (like Holyrood elections) essentially a Scottish issue rather than a UK one. So just for fun, we took the figures by voting intention and applied them instead to the votes cast at the last Holyrood election.

For simplicity, we’ve assumed that when push comes to shove, the supporters of each party who are currently Don’t Knows will follow the party line, which makes almost no difference to the final tallies. They come out as follows:

SNP

2011 votes: 890,000
89% YES: 792,000
11% NO: 98,000

LAB

2011 votes: 577,000
20% YES: 115,000
80% NO: 462,000

CON

2011 votes: 261,000
7% YES: 18,000
93% NO: 243,000

LIB

2011 votes: 131,000
22% YES: 29,000
78% NO: 102,000

TOTALS

YES 954,000
NO 905,000

(We’ve discounted the 87,000 votes of the Greens, because there’s no data in the poll about which way they’ll split and as far as we can tell it’s pretty even, with a narrow Yes majority.)

That’s a wafer-thin 51-49 win for independence, fairly dramatically at odds with the thumping 40-60 defeat (discounting Don’t Knows) actually suggested in the poll. And given the wildly unscientific premise of our calculations it’s not a prediction.

But with trends showing a substantial closing of the Westminster gap between the SNP and Labour, and the surprising revelation that more Labour supporters back independence than SNP voters oppose it (something at odds with every previous survey we’ve seen on the subject), and factoring in a bit of wiggle room as compensation for YouGov’s very odd formulation of the question, we have a feeling they’re a bit closer to reality than the headline figures.

(Remember, these numbers are based on the current Westminster voting intentions, so they already include most of the effect of disgruntled Lib Dems moving to other parties, which the 2010 General Election ones don’t.)

We’re not calling it psephology. It’s just something to think about.

 

11 to “Independence falls behind, surges ahead”

  1. John Lyons says:

    A Scottish Labour spokesman added: “We knew when we lost the Scottish Parliament elections in 2011 that people wanted us to change. That’s why in the past year, we’ve seen real change in our party that’s helped us get closer to people and communities across the country.”

    Eh?

    Did I miss something?

    Firstly, you should have known you got it wrong in 2007. Secondly what exactly have you changed? Apart from leader Nothing. And finally getting closer to “The peepul!” isn’t anything to boast about!

    I can’t help thinking Labour and the Union are both finished.

    Reply
  2. scottish_skier says:

    I hope people don’t actually take Yougov online panel surveys seriously with respect to Scotland.

    Their Y/N and Devo Max polls have been at odds with all the proper pollsters (who primarily use random telephone methods rather than asking politically active people who’ve signed up to be surveyed as Yougov do) since 2007. Something went very wrong with their weighting methods following the SNP win at that time.
    As I understand it, this is in a large part because they weight according to Westminster party affinity/past voting. This works well in England, but not in Scotland where a large proportion of the electorate votes tactically. This tactical factor became very important post 2007. There is also no weighting by region nor comprehensive demographic weighting.
    Yougov is a really a like a straw poll of people who like being polled and perfect if you are a unionist wanting a N to be the answer. Expect them to use Yougov – ‘the tesco value of polls’ – from now right up to 2014. It is certainly in the interests of independence supporters that they do.
    For 2012, figures are like this:
    Y = 41%
    N = 45%
    Like the idea but unsure = 14%
    Which is not much different and well within error for the period 1998-2012
    Y = 42%
    N = 44%
    Like the idea but unsure = 14%
    Both of which favour a Y given that unsures like the idea and so tend in majority to Y on the day.
    Long term I foresee only 2 outcomes:
    1.     Independence in response to the prospect of another Tory UK government; possibly with a majority
    2.     Devo Max under a UK Labour government
    Just like 1997 all over again; polls then showed a guaranteed Y to independence. This situation is likely to occur again when it becomes clear to the electorate that Devo Max is a pipe dream.

    Note I am currently attending poll addicts anonymous. I think I have every poll since 1997.
      

    Reply
  3. Doug Daniel says:

    scottish_skier – I’m glad I’m not the only one who doesn’t take YouGov polls seriously. I’ve been told I should withdraw a similar comment I made on LPW’s post by the same member of the internet police that demanded RevStu take one of his posts down a few weeks ago.

    Stu – not entirely sure about your methodology of mixing up Westminster voting intentions with actual Holyrood results, but I like the result anyway! I actually think the most important voters are going to be the ones who have been staying away from elections, because I expect both sides to get significantly more than 1,000,000 votes. I predict a substantial turnout, and I suspect people who have been turned off by the political process in recent years are unlikely to vote for the status quo…

    Reply
    • Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “not entirely sure about your methodology of mixing up Westminster voting intentions with actual Holyrood results”

      I wouldn’t even dignify it with the term “methodology”, really. Like I said, it was just something to ponder.

      Reply
  4. scottish_skier says:

    For Westminster VI, using all other polls bar yougov Scotland, I have (Holyrood in brackets):

    SNP = 43% (46%)
    Lab = 33% (31%)
    Con = 16% (12%)
    Lib = 6% (6%)

    The funny thing is, Yougov’ recent 43% for Labour at Westminster does not agree with their own UK-wide polls which have the SNP on ~43% (have a look not at the cross-breaks, but the expected share for the SNP of the total – e.g. regular 4/8.4*100 = 47%, 3/8.4*100 = 36%. They group PC with PC but I’ve found their share of the electorate is far too small to make any difference). When you look at Yougov UK this way, you see the same as in ICM, MORI etc expected shares. However, cross-breaks in the latter tend to agree with what they put as total share whereas in Yougov they do not.

    Aye, avoid Yougov unless you are a poll geek!   

     

    Reply
  5. douglas clark says:

    I think it is interesting.
     
    There is no particular reason that a voter, not a party member, not really that interested in politics usually, should see this whole referendum thing as a party political football.
     
    I would imagine that, this summer will see the high water mark of the ‘no’ campaign. It strikes me that, if we are to win this thing, we have to go for the hearts and minds of Labour voters, not their hierarchy: who are lost to us – and to themselves.
     
    There is a pretty rich tradition within the labour movement in favour of independence. It is being fairly effectively suppressed at the moment. At a political level.
     
    I think, over the next couple of years, folk should talk to labour voters who are friends, or work colleagues or relations even, with a view to giving them an empowerment that their leadership sadly fails to deliver.
     
    It might seem obvious to us, but disliking Alex Salmond or Nicola Sturgeon is not what this referendum is about. Voting ‘no’ to independence for that reason would be cutting off your nose to spite your face. For them, the Labour voter, the question ought to be whether an independent Scotland has a greater or lesser chance of applying socialist policies. That discussion would take the debate away from the apparatchiks of the Labour Party and return it to where it really matters, with the people.
     
    At the very least, the ‘yes’ campaign should be encouraging labour voters to ask whether or not the leaders of the ‘no’ campaign care a jot about them. For, as far as I can see, there is no evidence whatsoever that they do.

    Reply
  6. Braco says:

    I agree with Douglas Clark. How can non party politicos project, what without a party superstructure, sounds like revolution? I know my strength can only be my consistant non party support of independence, but how can I deploy this effectively? I am asking for advice. I want to plan for the campaign and can’t help but believe that an informal grouping of non party indy supporters would be a great resource and source of essential support and encouragement. I am also keen to draw roots out (but not away from) the blogisphere. Maybe a regular once a month drink in a geographically reachable pub? I want to talk and argue politics of the future in a secure drunken reality. Does anyone feel the same?
    P.S. To Doug Daniel, I apologise. I have never commented before and was as disgusted by the tone that came across as you must have been, sorry.

    Reply
  7. Marcia says:

    A good few years (decades) ago when I went round the doors I would get the same comment, ‘I would like Scotland to be Independent but it will never happen’. ‘I’d vote for you but you will never win many seats’ How times have changed. For some Labour voters in the early sixties, they would take a sort of pity on you and almost pat you on the head. ‘there, there’ sort of soothing comfort and even offer you a cup of tea. Once we started winning seats, the same people almost spat at you. How dare we threaten them and deprive them of their perceived right. The electorate no longer have those hang ups. The SNP can win and Labour can no longer assume seats will be totally safe bar one or two.

    The referendum won’t be and should not be an SNP campaign but a Yes all party and non-party campaign.   

    There is a sizeable vote that do vote Labour and will vote Yes, there is now since 1997 a sizable section of the public who now don’t vote. From canvassing these people over the years quite a number have stated they would vote Yes in a referendum. We just need to get these people to get up and into the voting booths come referendum day and change from would to will.  It can be done.  

    Reply
  8. Jeannie says:

    I’m amazed at times that so many people I speak to can’t seem to tell the difference between voting for constitutional change in a referendum and voting for a particular political party in a normal election.
      Recently, I’ve heard a few people say they won’t vote “yes” because they don’t like Alex Salmond.  They seem to find it hard to distinguish between voting for a party and voting on an issue.
    As it happens, I like Alex Salmond – but it’s clear to me that voting for independence is not the same thing as voting for the SNP.  And even if it were, Alex may be many things, but he’s not actually immortal.
     
     
     
     

    Reply
  9. Betsy says:

    @Braco,

    The Yes scotland campaign which non partisan is looking for people to start local groups and some have already been set up. It might be worth getting in touch with them

    link to yesscotland.net

    If that’s a bit more formal than you were looking for, you could always organise a get together in a pub to chat indy over a drink or two and promote it using Gumtree, Facebook, Twitter and friendly blogs.

    If you are doing anything keep us updated.            

    Reply
  10. mutterings says:

    Braco, there is in independent independence campaign, “Independence for Scotland”, which was set up months ago. Independent but big enough to be effective. The first event they are organizing is the Independence March and Rally on 22 Sep 2012. In the run-up to this event, they are touring Scotland to raise awareness for the March. For example this Saturday.

    Reply


Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.


  • About

    Wings Over Scotland is a (mainly) Scottish political media digest and monitor, which also offers its own commentary. (More)

    Stats: 6,718 Posts, 1,214,034 Comments

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

    • sarah on Off-topic: “I gave that slogan to Swinney during the general election when he visited a nearby heritage site that was central…Mar 13, 23:24
    • sarah on The tint of rose: “@ Mia at 7.30 p.m. Very well explained, Mia – comprehensible to the meanest understanding, one would think.Mar 13, 23:13
    • Xaracen on The tint of rose: “Hatey said; “We voted Remain by 62% on a turnout of 67.2%. By the inexorable laws of maths, we can…Mar 13, 22:58
    • Tinto Chiel on Off-topic: “Stuart McHardy cuts through the crap re The Jacobites: www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx7fJY1hr98 Remember history is usually written by the victors unless the…Mar 13, 21:18
    • Hatey McHateface on The tint of rose: “Boo hoo, Mia gurnin aboot being “forced oot o the EU agin oor will” again. Hindsight is, of course, a…Mar 13, 20:38
    • Mia on The tint of rose: ““I cannot see anything which would suggest that the treaty intended to retain two separate sovereign states with their respective…Mar 13, 19:30
    • Hatey McHateface on Signal and noise: ““she hates the English with a venom” Are you sure? Has she tried to get them jailed on trumped-up sexual…Mar 13, 18:52
    • Hatey McHateface on Signal and noise: “Good point, Lorn. Still, part of living your best trans life requires somebody to take a (hopefully sharp) knife to…Mar 13, 18:47
    • agent x on Signal and noise: ““what are the odds on Sturgeon running for MP in the UK Parliament at the next opportunity?” Zero chance -…Mar 13, 18:31
    • diabloandco on Signal and noise: “Oops! Sorry Rev!Mar 13, 18:10
    • agent x on Signal and noise: “Eric Trump at Bute House with Swinney today.Mar 13, 17:11
    • sarah on Signal and noise: “Nothing is happening politically – not for independence nor as competent government. Holyrood currently is a toxic puddle – gone…Mar 13, 17:00
    • diabloandco on Signal and noise: “He had a more black and white view of diversity.Mar 13, 16:26
    • diabloandco on Signal and noise: “He had a more black and white view of diversity.Mar 13, 16:21
    • Xaracen on The tint of rose: “Aidan said: “in context of over 300 years of union governance, I think we have to see the fundamental principles…Mar 13, 16:12
    • Sven on Signal and noise: “Charles (non R one) My money would still be on her looking for a post with the EU or UN.…Mar 13, 15:55
    • TURABDIN on Signal and noise: “Signals & Noises in a land far, far away….. RWANDA, new «enriched» kid, thanx2UK, on the neo imperalist block… https://archive.is/k4YGa…Mar 13, 15:24
    • John McGregor on Signal and noise: “Ave no priblem way men dressing as womem but as long as they have awe their bits they are MEN…Mar 13, 15:04
    • Charles (not the R one) on Signal and noise: “Don’t forget this – the only reason the SNP is able to behave like this, is because so many Scottish…Mar 13, 14:58
    • willie on Signal and noise: “Why should we worry about the country that Scotland has become. We allowed it to happen. Economic stagnation over the…Mar 13, 13:37
    • Lorn on Signal and noise: “Well, Hatey, you are going to have to explain that one to the four (at the last count) ‘men’ who…Mar 13, 12:54
    • Aidan on Signal and noise: “In another turn of events Sarah is partially right and Stuart is partially wrong. Designation as a non-self governing territory…Mar 13, 12:29
    • Marie on Signal and noise: “I agree but we need to fight for Scotland’s historical legacy as an epicentre of enlightened thinking. Political parties that…Mar 13, 11:13
    • diabloandco on Signal and noise: “I used to be proud of Scotland but now I see it as a land of misogyny, perverted beyond belief…Mar 13, 09:43
    • Dave G on Signal and noise: ““Scotland’s top gender law specialist” as ITV dubs her is actually an English barrister (she has a Scottish father) who…Mar 13, 09:30
    • TURABDIN on Signal and noise: “«all within the law, none outside the law, none against the law» pace Benito MUSSOLINIMar 13, 09:11
    • 100%Yes on The evolution of fairness: “Sara, Your correct the UN Decolonisation of Scotland is a winner for so many reason. Its progress, when all we…Mar 13, 08:59
    • Frank Gillougley on Signal and noise: “Maggie Chapman was born in the wrong body and she is also a time-traveller. She was born as Lavrenty Pavlovich…Mar 13, 07:26
    • Hatey McHateface on Signal and noise: ““Don’t you want an independent Scotland to be the first islamic country in the EU?” I want the Islamic leader…Mar 13, 07:10
    • Yoon Scum on Signal and noise: “We really need a party in Scotland which is 1 :- Actually sane 2:- ignores the indy issue as it…Mar 13, 06:47
  • A tall tale



↑ Top