Tuesday, July 8, 2014

Anecdotal evidence for Shy Yes Syndrome

You might remember that ICM tainted the results of their last-but-one referendum poll by asking a creepy introductory question that enquired how "comfortable" people felt about being asked the question they were about to be asked, ie. should Scotland be an independent country.  The firm's stated reason for doing this was that there were "anecdotal" suggestions of the existence of Shy No Syndrome, ie. people telling pollsters that they plan to vote Yes or are undecided when they actually plan to vote No.  The "comfort" question was intended to test whether the "anecdotes" were grounded in reality.

But the obvious question to ask is - where exactly were these "anecdotes" originating from?  ICM are a London-based firm, so it's highly unlikely that their employees had been randomly picking up intelligence on the street.  I was very struck the other night when I read an Alex Massie blogpost that I overlooked a few weeks ago, which paraphrased the No campaign's private spin on the polling situation in terms that were eerily similar to Martin Boon's explanation of what ICM were testing for - ie. this could be 1992 all over again, but with shy Tories replaced by shy Nos.  Could it be that ICM's political contacts in London (who are, let's face it, likely to be overwhelmingly sympathetic to the No campaign) have been whispering in their ear : "Listen chaps, you're making a big blunder here.  You'd better start introducing a Shy No Adjustment, otherwise you're going to have egg on your face on September 19th."

The reality is, of course, that if ICM had the same number of contacts on the Yes side, they'd be hearing an altogether less fantastical message - that it is much, much harder for people to openly admit to supporting independence, and therefore the existence of Shy Yes Syndrome is far more probable than the existence of Shy No Syndrome.  For pity's sake, I'm a pro-independence blogger, and I blog under my real name and a real photo, but even I had to force the words out last year when a group of English people asked for my opinion on independence.

To reinforce that point, it's well worth taking note of something that Scottish Skier told us on a recent thread.  He revealed that the mother of a friend of his had been interviewed by Ipsos-Mori, and had told them she was undecided about how to vote, even though she actually plans to vote Yes.  That's fairly clear-cut anecdotal evidence for Shy Yes Syndrome, and must rival anything that was being whispered in ICM's ear a few weeks ago by the siren voices of the London establishment.  The only health warning I would put on this is that there can't be all that many Yes voters in Ipsos-Mori's sample who are pretending to be Don't Knows, for the simple reason that there aren't all that many Don't Knows in Ipsos-Mori's results, and at least some of them must be genuinely undecided.  But we shouldn't discount the possibility that there also Yes people who are so embarrassed that they pretend to be straight Nos, and indeed Don't Knows who pretend to be Nos.

ICM followed up their initial test by asking the same 'comfort' question in last month's poll, but mercifully shifted it to the end of the question sequence where it couldn't taint the headline results.  But they also kept the results a secret that time, which is mildly disturbing.  The question is - are they just doing this testing for research purposes, or are they seriously toying with the idea of artificially adjusting the No vote upwards in future polls?  After the 1992 disaster, they did introduce a "spiral of silence" adjustment which artificially increased the reported Tory vote - but the difference in that case was that the existence of Shy Tory Syndrome had been conclusively proven by the small matter of a general election result.  If they start playing silly buggers in their referendum polls on the basis of no concrete evidence at all, and if there's clear reason for suspecting that they're doing it after pressure was applied by the No camp, then it will be nothing short of outrageous.

The next ICM poll for Scotland on Sunday should be out either this coming weekend, or the weekend after that.  In the past, methodological changes have not always become apparent straight away, so it will be well worth keeping an eye out for anything in the results that doesn't entirely make sense.

*  *  *

I was canvassed for only the second time in my life yesterday - and I'm delighted to say that it was by Yes Scotland!  It was very brief and to the point - have I given any thought to how I will vote in the referendum, which party do I normally vote for, and thanks for your support.  However, he did identify which side he was on before he asked the questions, so that will obviously be impacting on the results that the canvassing produces.

I was feeling slightly harassed when I came to the door, so my apologies to the man in question, just in case he's reading this!


  1. The cracker of the shy SNP vote ('erm Labour - honestly gov') ahead of 2011 was really something.

    Aye. They'd fallen what to 32% by 2003. Got even less in 2007, going through various leaders in the process. Direction-less, falling apart at UK level, infamous for their warmongering and increasingly neoliberal agenda...

    Then, magically, they killed the SNP's 40%+ in 2009 polls and were on for a landslide win all of historical proportions, with a huge 15 point or so lead against the 'struggling' SNP.* Scotland had come home to Labour.

    Oh how the electorate magically led the pollsters up the garden path. Took the heat off them and Scotland nicely. 2010-11 would have been been a nightmare with the SNP way out in front. It was bad enough with them 'behind'.

    God knows what it would be like right now if it wasn't for shy Yes. 'Blood and soil Nazis' is fairly soft compared to what we'd be getting.

    *Struggling meaning ~55% satisfaction ratings.

  2. Now if I were a shy No voter, I'd say the Yes campaign weren't sufficiently convincing / effective.

    If I was a shy Yes, I'd say they were quite good and the No campaign were less than satisfactory.



  3. At a pensioner do a little while ago one rather loud chap asked people how they were going to vote in the referendum. A few hands for No and a few for yes and half a dozen hands down. I didn't like to tell him but 4 of the people with their hands down were Yes supporters (2 SNP members) but did not want to admit to that in public.

  4. Went to get my Christmas tree from a borders community woodland.

    With tree in car, SS and family go to pay for the tree at my neighbours folk's house who help manage the wood.

    My neighbour knows I'm a big Yes. Been a saltire flapping since the Jubylmpics. Yes on cars, in windows etc.

    Anyway, we all chat for 15 mins and then get in cars adorned with Yes stickers. My wife pulls away in hers with the tree in boot. I'm in mine with wee one and start engine.

    Just then, neighbours mum runs out and taps on my window.

    Looking furtively around in case anyone is watching, she whispers 'Jim has put his Scottish flag up. Here's hoping. It's only going to get worse'.

    This is in the middle of nowhere in a garden surrounded by trees / a hedge and she's nervous admitting to me, Mr Yes.

    Next day neighbour puts Yes stickers on his and partners car. I had no idea. The other neighbour starts liking Mrs SS's facebook Yes related posts.


    Colleague who was soft no until she started working for me and is now out campaigning for Yes. She tells me she had a couple in a wealthy area of Merchiston Edinburgh pull her and colleague inside and, furtively looking around, say 'We're Yes but please don't tell anyone'.

  5. My own tuppenceworth is that there are both shy no and shy yes syndromes, depends on the circumstances.

    I have definitely found myself in some situations where I conceal my yes credentials, it depends on attitudes of other people around me. (I'm more shy around work colleagues than the pubmates for example). Human beings don't like being judged, do we? We like to fit in and seek the approval of people around us.

    If I were being interviewed by YouGov I'd imagine I was being questioned by the British Establishment, so would definitely be shy. If I were being canvassed by volunteers from the local Yes campaign I'd have no hesitation saying I was yes.

    On the other hand I have 25 facebook friends who follow Yes Scotland but only 5 who follow Better Together. I wonder what the psychology of that is? Maybe I'm just lucky to have hardly any friends who are no voters? But I doubt it. On facebook it is almost certain that the no vote is shy. Possibly because the internet is dominated by young people and they are mostly voting yes.

    I'm guessing the yes campaign will definitely gain more from the privacy of the polling booth than the no campaign will.

  6. I am a shy Yes voter, who because of friends in England am not always open to admitting I'm a campaigner, however I must admit I would not shy away from telling a pollster, even if they were English or an obvious No.

  7. I am a shy Yes voter, who because of friends in England am not always open to admitting I'm a campaigner, however I must admit I would not shy away from telling a pollster, even if they were English or an obvious No.

  8. Considering the vilification, the hostility from the MSM and the campaign of demonisation of Yes supporters and campaigners it's utterly amazing how much Yes visibility there is, car stickers, windae posters, badges and so on. The other side on the other hand are almost completely invisible. Last night my partner told me he saw 7 Yes car stickers on his three mile journey home. As usual none from the other side. On Saturday I did a little tour round the Lothians and Borders. Counted 22 Yes stickers against 1 No. If there is a shy yes vote then we are miles ahead already.

  9. I think a proportion of Yes people are pushing themselves beyond their comfort zone in a deliberate attempt to counter the "shy Yes" tendency. I know I'm doing it.

    I'm not seeing so many Yes windaes and stickers, but there are certainly some. This morning as I was driving to work on the A702 a car slowed down to let me and another vehicle overtake. As I drew up behind him to overtake, I saw a Yes sticker. (I gave the driver a wave, but I think he was talking on his mobile phone, naughty person.)

    I have seen one UKOK car sticker (in Loanhead), but that's set against multiple Yes stickers over the past two or three months. The only UKOK window sticker I saw was a small car-sized thing in a rear-facing kitchen window that would only be seen by someone entering the garden and approaching the back door (I was delivering Yes newspapers). In contrast the Yes windaes are prominent.

    I wonder if we'll see prominent No window posters? I have a feeling "shy No" might emerge around that one.

  10. Rolfe, your post raises another interesting point about campaign branding. I mean what exactly is the No campaign's brand? Is it UKOK, BT, No thanks, Naw or what? Their designed by a 16 year old school pupil logo is recognised by probably about 250 folk. Our brand on the other hand must be instantly recognisable to a huge section of the population already. Just another indication of their total amateurishness.

  11. Indeed. Better Together. UKOK. No Thanks. Naw! None of them is exactly snappy, and some of them are positively repellent. The "Yes" has immediate "brand recognition", even if it isn't (like some of the adverts for other things that just happen to feature the word), and even if it's not in the approved font.

    I remember way back at the beginning Mags Curran smirking that they might massage the question to make the "Yes" answer the pro-union one. That didn't work out for them either.


  12. I don't think the "NO" branding is at all amateurish. It's market segmentation. Each mini-brand is designed to attract and appeal to a different sub-group of genuine don't knows who could be potential NO-voters.

  13. I don't know if I am fully convinced of a shy 'Yes' syndrome, of course I would love it to be the case, but how would you statistically try and figure it out? What methods could be employed to examine the phenomenon?

  14. Anon : That's exactly the point I was making about ICM's attempts to "prove" Shy No Syndrome - how is it possible to do that, other than simply waiting for the referendum result? For the life of me, I don't see how their "comfort" question is going to do the trick.

  15. Ah right yeah, I agree, I don't think the comfort question would provide anywhere near enough information to judge.

    Perhaps a question on if they feel judged for their political view by family/friends?

    I think it would be also interesting to see how many people think (Yes or No) campaigners are eg 'cybernats' or 'Orange Order' or overly abusive from their experience, and if they believe it is similar to the image portrayed in the media.

    Do people feel afraid to enter the debate for fear of argument? (Shy No, and Shy Yes perhaps?)

    I don't think that would prove anything, but it might give a start to know where to look. Is there anything like this in polls so far?

  16. You guys do realise that all your posts about how many yes stickers etc. you have seen directly contradict James's stretch of a conclusion of shy yes?

    It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that people would be more likely sky no than sky yes. Look at the reaction towards JK Rowling etc. from the Yes camp - it's disgusting and I am amazed anyone in Scotland at all indicates they would vote No.

  17. it's disgusting and I am amazed anyone in Scotland at all indicates they would vote No


    I've never met a shy No person. Always happy to say they're No. Not uncommonly very angrily so (as per your post).

    ICM can't find a shy No and instead found a shy Yes it would seem. Ooops.

    Then we have all those people who wanted a referendum on independence, were saying SNP when things were quiet between elections, then started telling the pollsters they planned to vote Labour when the heat was on Scotland for 2010-11. They then went out and voted SNP. 15% or so of them.

    The sudden 15% swing in the weeks ahead of 2011 was not a swing. It was shy SNP / Yes coming out.


    Let me see. If we go back to 2011, then polls just after the SNP won were equal or with Yes ahead. 44Y/40N would be conservative.

    This is not unusual. The two have often been roughly the same for most of devolution. The No Low is ~33% and Yes high 52-56%. Things tend to get a bit more volatile around elections involving the SNP.

    Anyway. Since 2011, we've heard lots of people saying they've moved from No to Yes, having always previously supported the union.

    So, if we already had a shy Yes which gives Yes a majority when people are more comfortable being open on the subject, then I wonder what the real number looks like with all these new No to Yes people?

    Could be big.

    We'll just need to wait and see.

  18. SS, you really should start reading these things back to yourself before hitting the publish button...

    That is the most delusional thing I've read on here which takes some doing. You're also just making stuff up which makes it hard to have a reasonable debate with you.


  19. Yes visibility doesn't disprove shy Yes at all. Because the point that's being discussed is whether in polling surveys people are shy or not.

    And just because some highly committed people are happy about being visible that doesn't mean some others (possibly most) feel differently.

    The entire press (with one exception) and the state broadcaster support the No campaign. Public space is dominated by their agenda, their messaging and their people. That's far more significant in creating a culture in which people feel happy about being identified with one side or the other than a few folk sounding off about Rowling. If you believe differently then you are only fooling yourself.

    I have to say I laugh at the idea that the No multi-brands are about market segmentation. I mean which markets is each of them intended to appeal to? And why did BT dump its brand and logo for No Thanks? The Naw 'brand' for example is a tribute to the success of the Yes brand since it copies directly its style. It is clearly a response to the ubiquity and visibility of the Yes brand. It's got nothing to do with 'market segmentation'.

    In all seriousness does the poster above seriously believe that the BT logo, the UKOK graphic or the No Thanks brand would be recognised by anything more than a fraction of population? Yes is a well-established brand, carefully developed over two years and instantly recognisable. But it's far too late now for No to do anything about it because fro the first 18 months of the campaign their comms people were so busy going out for lunch with Daily Record journalists that they forgot about the stuff that matters. Arrogance, complacency and amateurishness are the markers of the No campaign effort. No wonder the vast majority of voters say they believe the No campaign is ineffective when they're asked about it.

  20. Not agreeing with you doesn't make ScotSkier delusional. You need to be more open to the idea that you might not be right all the time. I think your anger and rage are interfering with your capacity to think rationally.

  21. The reason there's less BettertogetherUKIPUnitedwithLabourandtheOrangeOrderUKOKBritannicaBNPNothanks stickers around is this:

    Panelbase August 2013

    If Scotland was currently an independent country, would you vote to surrender control of taxation, welfare, defence and oil revenues in order to join the Union?

    18% Yes
    55% No
    27% DK

    = 25% Yes to the union / 75% No ex DK.

    Scottish social attitudes survey 'British' in forced choice national identity:

    74% Scottish
    17% British

    That 17% is your 18% who'd vote for the union today.

    Given that support for independence has risen markedly since that poll, I expect if the question was asked again there'd be even less DK and more No to the union as the shy Yes voters were more honest.

    You won't see a Devo Max supporting Scot with a 'No thanks' sticker. Nor will you find them on BT's facebook. Nor will you find them amongst BT's door steppers...

    Only Brits will put a UKOK sticker on their car and there just ain't that many of them.

  22. ScotSki, which is exactly what the census figures confirmed - a point which appears to be lost on the British nationalist fanatics running and speaking for the No campaign. I suspect their inability to read the signals and their belief that their present supporters share their British nationalist fanaticism is one of the reasons their campaign is so unappealing and rated so poorly.

    For anyone with the capacity to stop and think carefully about this it suggests that their support is very soft. Maybe that's why they get in such a rage about everything because deep down they recognise that and are panicking.

  23. As I said above, more Yes stickers and windaes doesn't mean there are no shy Yes. Not all the Yes vote is shy, and the bit that isn't is doing its damndest to be seen - precisely because it knows some of its mates are fairly reticent about it all.

    If we were seeing 40% of cars and properties bearing Yes stickers, then I'd agree there was no shy Yes. But it's really only a few on display, in the grand scheme of things.

    Why is nobody (or almost nobody) showing UKOK branding? That's a different question, and I think the amswer is in the attitudes. Yes supporters who are "out" tend to be happy and smiley about it all. No supporters tend to be sullen and angry. People don't put up window posters to show that they're sullen and angry.

  24. The "You Cock" thing was a disaster. When you have maiden ladies of a certain age sniggering behind their hands at the badge, you're doing it wrong.

    "Better Together" was better, but it needs the whole words spelled out, otherwise people read BT as British Telecom. Once you've written "Better Together" out, you don't have a logo any more, you have the equivalent of a wall of text which peope have to stop and read or it just flashes past.

    "Naw" is another disaster. It's nasty, mean and sneery by the very nature of the word. It's also copying the Yes logo so exactly that a casual glance is likely to take it for a Yes logo. The "Naw" twibbon is very easy to mistake for a Yes unless you peer at it (or read the bile written in the actual tweet).

    I struggle to imagine what any No voter is going to put in their window, even if they felt inclined.

  25. Car in the next street to me was showing what I thought was the Better Together logo. Horrified, I looked a bit closer and saw it was actually a sticker supporting Scottish Youth Football, whose logo BT had shamelessly plagiarised.

    Then I realised the house the car was parked outside was on the SNP list of identified supporters for the Euro elections.

    Then the SNP sent out a mailing which included round blue Yes car stickers (as opposed to the curly semi-legible ones they were sending out last year).

    The next day that car suddenly sprouted one of these Yes stickers on the other side of the rear windscreen to the Scottish Youth Football one.

    I wonder if the owner would think I was creepy if he saw me photographing his car? Because the appearance of Yes on one side and what seems to be the double-cross BT logo on the other is an absolute keeper.

  26. which is exactly what the census figures confirmed


    And see that 1/4 for being in the union vs 3/4 against (ex DK) I mentioned.

    Does that remind you of something else? Maybe a referendum result in 1997?


    BT know Scotland's heart is not in the union / it doesn't feel particularly British.

    That's why they never stop telling people how 'proudly / really Scottish and British' they are.

    It's also why they attempt to equate being Scottish (but not sufficiently British) with being a 'blood and soil Nazi' like the people of every country in the world are bar the Brits it would seem. Scots = Nazis, French = Nazis, Norwegians = Nazis... Aye, if you don't see yourself as British you're a 'blood and soil Nazi nationalist'.

    I'm not sure it's wise to suggest up to 3/4 of the Scottish population are Nazis. After all, these people, by national identifying with Scotland, are giving it legitimate status as a nation. They may have concerns over the nuts and bolts of independence, but they see it as a perfectly legitimate aspiration and not one to be mocked / dragged into the gutter. Jeez, they want devo max at minimum. That's damn near indy.

    The main problem I see is the inability of those on the pro-union campaign to put themselves in the shoes of most Scots.
    It’s actually really easy; all they need to do is say ‘Most Scots feel about Scotland as I do Britain’. If I can reverse perspective, why can’t they?

    Feeling British is perfectly legit. That’s how my best mate feels and I can totally empathise as he can with me.

    There are after all good arguments for unity of peoples etc.

    However, unity comes from allowing diversity. You can’t force everyone to be the same; that only results in division.

    They don’t seem to get that though. Hence the vilification of being just / mainly Scottish, no devo max etc and the whole thing gambled on a straight in/out.

    Devo max could have likely held the union together for at least another generation. A confederal arrangement with Scotland fully sovereign even longer possibly.

    Instead resistance from the hardcore Brits is likely to end the UKoGB entirely.

  27. I can't agree that the numerous No campaign branding is a good marketing ploy, but actually demonstrates the opposite!

    These 'different brands' are often re-brands as the Better Together campaign have dropped a failed brand and tried to claw back lost supporters.

    One evident instance was when Labour found that a lot of activists would not campaign for them as Better Together as they felt uneasy that they were campaigning for something that was being funded by Tories.

    Labour United or whatever it was called was then launched, but failed to take off, so was re-launched a further two times!

    Vote No Borders has been shredded and has fallen mostly silent now.

    No Thanks is simply a re-brand of No because many people saw No as abrupt and rude.lol! I'm sorry but did it really take members of the public to tell a marketing agency that posters saying a stark NO was abrupt. (although I notice the Orange Order still uses this stark command ( which is telling)

    'Naw' is one of the worst slogans, as it uses slang that is only used in certain parts of Scotland.

    People like me from the East Coast, don't use Naw, so it feels like it's ignoring us... always a bad move in marketing.

    As for shy No or Yes...well a lot of people talk about Westminster exacting revenge on Scotland if we vote Yes, and a lot of No's do speak angrily about the Yes campaign and accuse it of Nazi sympathies.

    The First Minister is included in these angry outbursts and the No campaign said they would demonise him as a campaigning strategy, something that the Yes campaign has set out to avoid.

    So if there was to be a shy vote I would have to say that human nature would indicate that the likelihood would be that both sides would have some shy voters, but the Yes voters would have far more reason to be shy about admitting they were one of those people who were agreeing with the Nazi, Alex Salmond.

  28. My prediction remains, as it has since I started really digging into all the stats available back in 2011, at around 1997 Q2 level (63.5% Y).

    Could get lucky and be higher.

    Or I could be totally wrong with all the polling data going back over the past 15 years+, even to 1979 and beyond, meaningless. We'll have to wait and see.

  29. To reminisce...

    If we were back in 2011, we'd be discussing this latest poll...


    ..This would leave Labour six seats short of an overall majority at Holyrood, giving them the option of trying to govern alone as the SNP have done these last four years, or considering forming a coalition with one of more of the smaller parties.

    In a few days time, we'd be hit by 'another blow for Salmond' as TNS reported an even worse for the 'YesNP' 44% Lab / 29% SNP.

    Och those shy voters. A right tease so they are.


  30. The best one I found from a quick search was this. May 1st. Good old Scotsman.


    Scottish Election 2011: Labour slashes SNP election lead

    LABOUR has slashed the SNP's lead ahead of Thursday's Scottish Parliament elections as the party fights to deprive Alex Salmond of a return to government, a new Scotland on Sunday poll [Yougov] reveals today.

    Iain Gray's party has made up some of the ground it lost to the SNP since the start of the election campaign, with just a handful of seats now separating the two main contenders, the poll shows.

  31. Scottish_Skier, what were polls predicting the turnout to be in 2011? Did the low turnout unduly help SNP as disengaged Labour voters didn't turn out?

    Anecdotally I would think SNP voters were much more likely to go to the polls than Labour voters put off by the shoddy state of the Ian Gray led Labour party, but in polls said they would vote, and vote labour. How much would that possibly effect the weightings used for the referendum, where an extra 30% of people are likely to vote? (Many 'Labour' voters who couldn't be bothered in 2011)?

  32. I've seen no evidence for any 2011 turnout effect. Keep in mind that 78.4% of people who voted in 2010 voted in 2011; not massively different.

    Only when you get to very low turnouts down in the 1/3 mark or lower does this tend to start having an effect. Also the significance of elections, e.g. EU elections are much more likely to get anti-EU voters out than those that are fine with it. Likewise by-elections get protest votes / opposition voters out with lower levels for the government, particularly if they are not in any trouble.

    TNS and MORI called 2011 quite close in the end (Yougov were the furthest away due to Labour bias which they explained recently with motives).

    For example, TNS projected a 63.4% turnout and actually underestimated the labour vote by a few%. MORI's tough turnout filter gave 57% certain to vote and they weren't far off, albeit Labour a little high.

    So, one poll suggests less Lab, one more for Lab.

    SNP shares not far away; almost perfect on the list in the end and only a tad to low on the regional vote.

    All of that is pretty solid evidence that turnout didn't really benefit any party.

    The huge Labour lead the pollsters saw 2010 early 2011 wasn't wrong. That's what people were answering. It's just that wasn't what they actually were planning to do. There's no way the pollsters could account for this. Shy / lying voters are a constant nightmare in the polling world.

    Labour's crap campaign helped reveal what was going to happen as that allowed people to justify publicly what they had been pretty much planning to do all the way back to 2009.

    Once the bandwagon started rolling and the polls for the SNP started rising, this would have allowed more people to start feeling it was ok to be honest and so pollsters finally picked up on it as election day was reached.

    Even Yougov saw it in the end; they just underestimated it far more that the others in final polls due to their pro-labour / No methodology.

    Labour is where a lot of shy Yes voters are hiding anyway. Only 24% of them would vote to join the union if Scotland was independent (Panelbase Aug 2013). If you exclude DKs, 64% would vote against joining the union. That likely just reflects the 62.4% Scottish only in the census; Labour voters not being significantly more British than Libs or SNP. Only Tory voters are in majority British rather than Scottish.

  33. Another related thing...

    Just after the election, SNP support was even higher in polls. MORI got 51% for example.

    This could be halo effect; people don't want to say they didn't back the winner. However, satisfaction ratings of 50-60% for the SNP at the same time indicate in principle support so underlying backing for the SNP seems to be >50% of the population, even though they might not vote for them.

    Quickly the polls then settled back to basic election results which supports the result being reflective of the electorate.

    What's interesting then is as the anti-Scotland/SNP propaganda was ramped up to full, in 2012/13, SNP support fell modestly in non anonymous polls (MORI) just as Yes support did and No climbed (MORI / TNS).

    However, it hardly changed at all in more anonymous online polls, just as Y/N also didn't change much (panelbase). The massive No lead seen in TNS and MORI was largely down to shy voters who are much less so online.

    This would suggest shy voters shying away from saying SNP a bit, but not so much as they did in terms of saying Yes to indy. This is down to the SNP being in government; it normalised SNP support. Yes has not been normalised in contrast.

    The unionist parties helped here by saying that people who voted SNP didn't do so as a vote for independence. Thus if you were a shy Yes, you could say you voted SNP, but would still lie about indy intention.

    So SNP vote remained much steadier than Yes/No overall as it is impacted less by the shy component.

    Shy vote is highest amongst women as noted in past comments.

    Take a look at ICM's Jan 2012 poll which was done just before the shy vote really started to grow again under the barrage of anti-Scottish propaganda. Aye, women support independence as much as men.

    We know in polls today that women dislike the union as much as men, don't trust Westminster at the same level, are equally keen on devo max... and voted in the end in 2011 (and other elections) largely in the same way as men do.

    They will in all probability vote the same way as men (pro-Yes now. even with a shy component) in September. They just play their cards closer to their chest and are less willing to stick their heads above the parapet and get called 'blood and soil Nazis'.

  34. Thanks for that, it makes a good amount of sense to me. Here's hoping you are right. Might be worth a little flutter on a Yes vote of 55%+...

    It's something that had been sitting at the back of mind the entire time the debate has been going on; are people really going to go out to the polling station, mark the x and physically vote against their own independence?

    If 62% of the population is 'Scottish Only' are more than 12% of the population who, if all else is equal, would probably like Scotland to be independent going to actually vote against? They might say No through fear, but I don't think that is going to get them to the polling station, and once there actually physically know they, themselves have denied themselves and their country independence because they were afraid.

    The only smart move by BT No THanks has been to make people see the vote as a vote against Salmond , hate/spite might drive some people to vote No, but I seriously doubt it can be enough people?

  35. So we're adding anti-democratic Orwellian levels of spying / loss of civil liberties to paedophile rings now.

    Interesting last minute campaign approach from Better Together. Not what I'd envisaged I must admit, although definitely hard hitting.

  36. "are people really going to go out to the polling station, mark the x and physically vote against their own independence?"

    Most likely they will not. They haven't before.

    1997 Q1 + Q2 results reflected Scotland's national identity perfectly; Q1 being a reflection of Scottish vs British if forced to pick and Q2 being a reflection of Scottish only.

    Even 1979 had it too; Scotland being a lot more 'Scottish + British' back then.

  37. Joanne K. Rowling!
    I have the honor to announce to you the ultimatum!
    July 10, 2014

    Oldest profession for oldest newspaper.
    Guardian banned in the comments Announce article "Joan and Harry."
    Newspaper allows freedom of speech only for billionaires.
    In the Guardian says about freedom of speech only when destroying laptops journalists from Guardian.



    need to copy the entire link into your browser (this domain Russia)