Friday, June 6, 2014

UPDATED : Populus puts support for independence at 46% - but is it an unweighted Scottish subsample, or a full-scale poll?

Thanks to Marcia on the previous thread for pointing out that the SNP's Twitter feed is reporting that a new Populus poll in the morning will show the following figures once Don't Knows are excluded -

Should Scotland be an independent country?

Yes 46%
No 54%

We apparently won't be given any more details until the morning.  A number of questions have already formed in my mind about the poll, and until we know the answers it'll be impossible to assess just how big a breakthrough this is for the Yes campaign -

1)  Was this an SNP internal poll?  The only reason for thinking it might be is that it was the SNP who broke the news.  There isn't necessarily any problem if it was, as long as the referendum question was asked first and without any leading preambles.  Certainly the last SNP-commissioned Panelbase poll was given a clean bill of health by Professor Curtice, but we'd have to wait and see.

2)  Was this a telephone or online poll?  It could be either, because Populus regularly conduct polls by both methods.  If it was a telephone poll, this would be the biggest moment of the campaign so far, suggesting that the Yes campaign are on the brink of victory.  Even if it was an online poll (which is probably the more likely scenario), it would mean that Populus are very much slotting in at the Yes-friendly end of the spectrum, and would replicate the last Panelbase poll which also put Yes at 46%.

3)  Is the fieldwork bang up to date?  If so, it might be another straw in the wind suggesting that the impact of the European elections was positive for Yes (although we can't possibly know that for sure until one of the more regular pollsters put in another appearance).

As long as there was no funny business with this poll, and assuming it is a genuine referendum poll (ie. not a proxy question that actually asks about something slightly different, or a hypothetical question about how people would vote in certain circumstances), then I'll be adding it to the Poll of Polls, because Populus are members of the British Polling Council.  However, I won't be able to do it until we get the headline numbers in the morning.

UPDATE : Alas, it appears this was merely the results from the Scottish subsample of a GB-wide poll - the one obvious possibility I didn't consider. Looks like a false alarm, although it'll still be interesting to see what the sample size in Scotland was, what the exact question was, and whether the fieldwork was online or conducted by telephone.

UPDATE 2 : It's just been pointed out to me that the GB-wide sample for the poll is an unusually high 6000, which means that the Scottish sample is likely to be big enough to be statistically credible - as long as it was properly weighted.  We'll probably have to wait a while to find out whether it was.  Sorry for the confusion, but this is as clear as mud at the moment!

UPDATE 3 : The No camp's embarrassment of a campaign chief Blair McDougall is doing his customary trolling routine on Twitter -

"Interesting to see which populus poll the SNP talking about. The one I've seen doesn't actually ask voting intention."

Which is highly likely in a GB-wide poll, because English and Welsh respondents can hardly be asked for their voting intention. However, it's perfectly clear from the report in the Financial Times that some kind of question approximating to yes/no for independence (or for "staying in the union") was asked, which means that it's a hell of a lot closer to being a voting intention poll than the absurd poll about youth finances a week or two back (which may even have been conducted via Survey Monkey!) which McDougall was happy to claim indicated opposition to independence.

It looks like I won't be able to add this poll to the Poll of Polls, but if by any chance it turns out to be a weighted sample of about 500 people in Scotland, it's still a pretty significant result.

29 comments:

  1. When is the next BPC pollster referendum poll expected?

    Regards,

    SM

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just after I posted the link, that did come to mind. If it is a subsample I wish the SNP would not issue these statements.

    The FT have a poll coming out tomorrow so this could be it. We shall just have to wait and see.

    ReplyDelete
  3. New TNS BMRB, Survation and ICM polls regularly come along together in the 2nd week of the month.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Marcia : Yes, it's definitely the FT poll. However, the sample size was an enormous 6000 across GB - which is big enough to mean that the Scottish sample could be statistically credible, as long as it was properly weighted. But whether it was is anyone's guess at this stage.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks, Calum.

    Regards,

    SM

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm always a bit miffed about UK-wide GB polls. What kind of person, when asked about what another country should do, believes they know what's best and gives a firm opinion?

    If I found myself being asked if England should become independent, I'd look for a 'It's up to them' option and short of that, tick 'DK'. Going for Y or N is rather rude surely? I mean it would be none of my business.

    It's like being asked whether I think Eastern Ukrainian would be better together with Russia. It's not really my business to say.

    Anyway, I noted myself Darling is getting bad ratings from MORI. SNP have pointed this out nicely.

    http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2014/jun/poll-shows-steady-decline-support-darling

    Aye MORI; Darling's favourite pollster...

    ReplyDelete
  7. From SNP press realise, doesn't have any new info except the question:

    I hope that Scotland votes to remain part of the UK: 47 per cent

    I hope that Scotland votes to leave the UK and become an independent country: 40 per cent

    I don't have a strong view either way: 13 per cent

    ReplyDelete
  8. Tables are up.

    Not very good for the union.

    Will have a look in more detail after lunch.

    40% Yes
    47% No

    http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/140607-Populus_FT_ScottishIndependence.pdf

    I like this one (choose option):

    Scotland has distinct and different values from the rest of the UK, especially England
    = 58%

    Scotland has the same or similar values as the rest of the UK,including England
    = 42%

    ReplyDelete
  9. Question not the referendum one and 'leaving' the UK makes it pejorative in addition to being technically wrong (Lizzie will still be Queen of both Kindgoms etc).

    Pick:
    - I hope that Scotland votes to remain part of the United Kingdom

    - I hope that Scotland votes to leave the UK and become an independent country

    - I don't have a strong view either way


    So 53% hope for independence or are not bothered if the union ends.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 48% think Scotland would have a stronger economy than the rUK under indy.

    Just 52% think an independent rUK - a G8 nation - would have stronger economy than an iScotland.

    (potential strong = big issue here)

    ReplyDelete
  11. 50% think Scotland won't regret a Yes in 5 years time, 50% think it will.

    Parity is here.

    No DK option it seems for these Q's which confuses things.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Who Scots said they think Scots have most in common with:

    67% North of England
    18% SW and Wales
    7% Midlands
    7% London and the SE

    You feelin that London love?

    ReplyDelete
  13. "What kind of person, when asked about what another country should do, believes they know what's best and gives a firm opinion?"

    Well, I do. I think the US should close Guantanamo Bay, for example. I think Jamaica should legalise homosexuality. I think the French should get out of Mali.

    Being so fixated on nationality as to make that the cornerstone and most important aspect of everyone's identity is not politically healthy in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Niall : It's not necessarily a question of nationality, though - a lot of people might think it would be odd for people in Doncaster to take a view on how local services in Penzance should be delivered. At least two of the three examples you give are more related to universal human rights.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "a lot of people might think it would be odd for people in Doncaster to take a view on how local services in Penzance"

    Sure, it would be odd, I don't disagree. Generally speaking, devolution and decentralisation are good things. But it's rather a false analogy because bin collections and the like in Penzance generally aren't important enough to get people in Doncaster excited.

    " At least two of the three examples you give are more related to universal human rights."

    Right, but Scottish Skier's point didn't seem to recognise the distinction. He stated that people should not believe that they know best what another country should do, full stop. That, to me, seems to put our national identities above our common identity as human beings. I just find it politically unattractive and a dead-end.

    The principle of self-determination means that only residents of Scotland should get the right to vote in this referendum, of course, but I don't see why others cannot have their opinion and express it. As someone who divides my time between Scotland and England, I have no problem with English friends talking to me about the referendum or stating how they would vote if they could. Indeed, there are some non-Scots whose opinion on matters political I respect and have actively sought out.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Niall k,
    I think you would have actively bring your own prejudice of just what 'nationalism' means to the table, in order to understand Scottish Skier's remarks in the manner you have just explained.

    Perhaps not willful misunderstanding of another's simple common sense political point, but close.

    Do you often ignore context in order to confirm your own settled belief, even if it means thinking the worst in others?

    It must be quite an upsetting, self confirming, world view to suffer.

    braco

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Do you often ignore context in order to confirm your own settled belief, even if it means thinking the worst in others?"


    Why no. Do you often enter a debate and introduce yourself with a string of ad-hominems all the while skipping blithely over the actual issues others are discussing?

    ReplyDelete
  18. NiallK
    Hold on there Niall, your comment on Scottish Skier's post was to simply ignore his pointed examples of what he was talking about. Instead simply omitting from your quote his very next sentence! You know THE CONTEXT.

    You did this in order to claim that it showed Scottish Skier 'seems to put our national identities above our common identity as human beings'.

    This is to equate Scottish Skiers political views to those of 'blood and soil' dehumanising Nationalism without the slightest piece of evidence.

    In fact in order to make such an insulting ad-hominem attack, you had to actually ignore the context Scottish Skier very purposely included in the form of examples. These were written directly after what you claim to have been his 'full stop'!

    For my comments to have been ad-hominem requires them to be untrue in some way and irrelevant to the point being discussed. I have shown this not to be the case.

    Your attack on Scottish Skier however is classic ad-hominem.
    Imply he is a dehumanising Nationalist (Nazi dog whistle) and then refuse to discuss his actual point in favour of your own strawman, created by the ad-hominem attack in the first place. Text book.

    braco

    '

    ReplyDelete
  19. Away and have a lie down, Braco.

    No-one is accusing someone else of being a 'Nazi'. 'Blood and Soil' relates to a specific kind of nationalism linked to theories of racial purity, which obviously is not part of this debate. This is an embarrassingly transparent attempt to throw mud on your part.

    However, there are many variants of nationalism (indeed this referendum is a contest between two nationalisms, one asserting a British identity and the other a Scottish). Scottish Skier seemed to me to be advocating the classic isolationist position: Scots should concern themselves with what goes on within their own borders, and should not venture opinions on what happens outside them (and vice-versa for foreign nationals). I just strongly disagree with this mindset. I have my own views on what is happening in Ukraine, it's an important example of how great power rivalry is playing out in a post-Cold War world. I don't feel that it is somehow 'rude' of me to hold or express those opinions. But the question of national self-determination in England or Ukraine is not the only relevant example to Scottish Skier's broader point, which is why I brought up the French intervention in Mali or the case of homosexuality in Jamaica, and I could have brought up my views on the Bolivarian project in Venezuela and so on. All of these issues involve important political questions which are relevant globally. When you think primarily in terms of nations and borders, you totally miss that broader dimension, which is something that disheartens me about all variants of nationalism, whether Scottish, British or whatever.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Easy tiger

    When I posted I hadn't seen the actual question asked; my comment more relating to past polls where people outside Scotland had been asked whether they thought Scotland should vote for independence or not.

    The use of the word 'Hope' is ok with me; nothing wrong with asking if people would 'like' or 'hope' the UK sticks together.

    Otherwise, most of the examples you use to try and argue that I was wrong just mince, as pointed out by other posters.

    Scotland's vote is Scotland's business. That's democracy. If Scotland was sacrificing the first born of each family, then I can understand the outside world being concerned and would welcome intervention.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Niall K,
    if you honestly cannot see the seriousness and base insult of your charge, saying he 'seems to put our national identities above our common identity as human beings' then it's you that needs to be having that lie down Niall, not me.

    You are willing to believe (on zero actual evidence) and then write down that belief in an open blog, that Scottish Skier puts a person's (Scottish) nationality of higher importance than their humanity!?

    Think that through for a moment Niall. I can't believe this is what you meant, but that is what you said. You could retract it and apologize. I am sure SS would accept it graciously.

    If not then what else are we expected to think?

    This is no joke Niall. BetterNO and the BBC have been pushing this Scottish nationalist=fascist meme with impunity for too long. Perhaps you have simply become enured to it and don't realise how outrageous and insulting it is, to normal folk out here in the real world.

    braco

    ReplyDelete
  22. @SCottish Skier

    "my comment more relating to past polls where people outside Scotland had been asked whether they thought Scotland should vote for independence or not."

    I don't see why you have such an objection to this. Having or expressing an opinion isn't offensive. Is it offensive for me to say, for example, that I think people in the US are somewhat better off now, with Obamacare, than before Obamacare? If so, why? Most of us make political judgements about things which are foreign to our experience in some way. For example, most MPs and judges who vote on abortion laws are men, not women.

    What would be offensive would be to demand the right to impose your opinion - as James pointed out with regard to Jeremy Paxman's comment on the English getting a vote, some posts below.

    "Otherwise, most of the examples you use to try and argue that I was wrong just mince"

    Snappy comeback.

    ReplyDelete
  23. @braco

    " that Scottish Skier puts a person's (Scottish) nationality of higher importance than their humanity!?"

    That is not quite what I said. It depends what you mean by 'of higher importance'. I'm obviously not suggesting that SS is saying non-scots are less important as humans. But the argument is about politics, and who has the right to comment on what. SS seems to be suggesting that although the most important political questions are universal and have global relevance, we should only comment on what goes on in our own particular patch of the garden. Thus when we think politically, we ought to think politically first and foremost as Scots (or French, Japanese etc) rather than as women, as working-class people, as LGBT people,as any other of the many possible intersecting political identities one can have, or simply as humans. I don't agree with that, I think it is perfectly reasonable for me to say I don't agree and it doesn't require the kind of exaggerated posturing and melodramatic demands for an apology on behalf of someone else that you have decided to respond to it with.

    "This is no joke Niall. BetterNO and the BBC have been pushing this Scottish nationalist=fascist meme with impunity for too long."

    I believe that Darling mentioned 'blood and soil' recently. That was clearly unacceptable. But save your complaints for him, I made no allusion to the Nazis (or indeed to questions of race or ethnicity, at all) and for you to insist on reading such things into my comments merely cheapens and derails the debate.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Jeez Nail you've got a bee in yer bunnet.

    I've no need to defend my position. You seem alone in your righteous indignation.

    If you want to take what I said out of context...start attributing words to me that I didn't say (where did I say 'offensive'?) etc, knock yersel oot.

    How you conduct yourself on online forums etc is your own business.

    Just glad you aren't my neighbour. I get the impression you'd be giving me your opinion over the fence on everything from how short I should cut my lawn to what colour you think best for my living room.

    However, if you spotted me digging shallow graves in the garden and dumping bodies in them late at night, then it would no longer be just my business...

    Scotland is simply voting to decide whether its taxes are collected and spent by a government elected in Scotland. As we aren't dealing with human rights abuses etc, then it's a matter for people in Scotland, just as how short I cut the lawn is a matter for me.

    In the meantime, Sky News poll suggests a lot of people in the UK think it's not the business of people south of the Border to intervene:

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/poll-english-intervention-in-debate-will-boost-chances-of-indy-yes-vote.1402226380

    Quelle surprise.

    ReplyDelete
  25. OK Niall, If as you say 'It depends what you mean by 'of higher importance', which of your long list of obvious alternative identities ('as women, as working-class people, as LGBT people,as any other of the many possible intersecting political identities one can have, or simply as humans.') would you find acceptable 'to place of higher importance to our shared common identity as humans'?

    Come on Niall, if I am being 'melodramatic' and reading your post out of context, please give me the identity perception that you 'place of higher importance to our shared human identity'.

    Show to me how ridiculous my 'exaggerated posturing' is with a concrete (political) example that you would be happy to go on record with as being of higher importance to you than our 'shared human identity'.

    Are you starting to see and feel the point I am making yet Niall or are you just going to continue to bluster?

    If you cannot answer this question, we can assume you now understand the outrageous insult implicit to your post and you should now honourably apologise for it.

    braco

    ReplyDelete
  26. Interestingly, for that Sky News poll, 49% of Scottish respondents said they thought English politicians should get involved in the independence debate compareed to 44% who said they should not.

    However, 43% thought that such interventions would boost Yes compared to only 14% who thought it would help No.

    So people said 'Please get involved so Yes can get a boost'.

    I'm assuming they are thinking of Cameron, Farage etc.

    http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/7qugh1ei1y/SkyResults_140606_Scottish_Independence_Referendum.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Come on Niall, if I am being 'melodramatic' and reading your post out of context, please give me the identity perception that you 'place of higher importance to our shared human identity'."

    Not only are you reading my post out of context, you are not even reading it correctly. I have never advocated placing any of those identities above our common humanity - at least, I have never advocated doing so consistently. For one to do so rigidly as part of a fixed political stance is a dead end. Hence my first comment in this thread, 'Being so fixated on nationality as to make that the cornerstone and most important aspect of everyone's identity is not politically healthy in my opinion.'

    Having seen that, I can see some scenarios in which a person thinking politically might prioritise one or other such aspect of his or her identity, or at least give it more political significance. For example, a Scottish woman might decide to set up a woman-only feminist campaign group to pressure an independent Scottish government on abortion rights, equal pay or some other such issue, and she might ally with women from other countries to bring international pressure on the Scottish government to do so. If that did happen, I wouldn't consider those non-Scottish women to be 'rude' for expressing an opinion.

    Identities are fluid, politics is ever-changing, alliances and coalitions are frequently formed and re-formed, and to have rigid rules about who is and is not allowed to speak is not a good idea.

    "If you cannot answer this question, we can assume you now understand the outrageous insult implicit to your post and you should now honourably apologise for it."

    You must be a barrel of laughs down the pub.

    To conclude, let me go back to some previous examples I raised which you haven't satisfactorily answered.

    If I express an opinion that people in the US are better off with Obamacare than they were before it, am I being 'rude'?

    If a Japanese academic comes up to me and says to me that Scottish universities should charge tuition fees to preserve quality of education, is that acceptable? Should I engage in debate on that topic, or should I storm off, shouting over my shoulder 'How dare you tell me what colour to paint my living room?????!'.

    ReplyDelete
  28. 'I can see some scenarios.... might...one or other...his or her...or at least...might..or..if that happened...'

    This is all hypothetical waffle Niall. Your claim that SS 'put our national identities above our common identity as human beings' was not hypothetical.

    You are understandably unwilling to give a concrete (political) example that you would be happy to go on record with as being of higher importance to you than our 'shared human identity'. What decent human being would?

    You were however willing to make just such an insulting accusation of SS with no evidence but rather on the bizzar grounds that he simply favours YES in the up and coming Independence referendum.

    You have had many opportunities to withdraw the statement as a mistake but instead have decided to slip and slide around with straw men and diversionary tactics.

    Why not just admit that you were wrong? Favouring self determination for nations does not mean placing national identities above our shared human identity. It's in the UN charter for heavens sake.

    You may be confusing Scottish Skiers obviously civic brand of nationalism with the more aggressive and virulent strain practiced by Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, George Osborne, IDS, Nick Clegg et al. They really do happily place various political identities above 'our shared human Identity' (money, power, class and status to name a few) and are all leaders of this UK you support.

    You are practicing projection and I am wasting no more time with you.

    Braco

    ReplyDelete
  29. "This is all hypothetical waffle Niall"

    It really isn't. I think my preceding post was quite clear about the circumstances in which (for example) a Scottish woman might, politically speaking, consider her gender more important than her nationality.

    You don't want to engage because it's easier for you to throw mud, make references to the Nazis, and shriek about being insulted. That's the way you want to pursue this argument, fine, but it doesn't look impressive.

    You also ignored, once again, my questions about Obamacare, tuition fees etc. That's because it is quite reasonable for foreigners to express opinions on these things, but you don't want to say so.

    You are also incorrect to assume I support the UK. I am actually undecided, leaning Yes. But I won't try and explain the position to you because you most likely won't get it.

    Since you won't be back I guess the thread ends here. In your next argument I recommend you spend more time listening, engaging and reflecting with what is actually said, rather than posturing, battling straw men, and demanding apologies for imaginary insults.

    ReplyDelete