Sunday, August 17, 2014

Panicked No campaign "need game-changer" as Yes juggernaut rolls on in two new polls

We finally have an end to the mystery...

Should Scotland be an independent country?

Panelbase :

Yes 48% (+2)
No 52% (-2)

ICM :

Yes 45% (+2)
No 55% (-2)

The datasets aren't out yet for either poll, so I don't know the unrounded figures, or if there have been any further methodological changes.  Most importantly, I'm wondering if ICM have joined the new orthodoxy of weighting by country of birth?  If they haven't, there's every reason to assume that they are underestimating the Yes vote, because on previous occasions when they have asked for respondents' country of birth, it's turned out there are significantly too many English-born people in their sample, and of course that is a strong predictor of a No vote.

There's no such problem with Panelbase, the firm that in their last poll started the long-overdue trend towards country of birth weighting.  However, they coupled that with a No-friendly methodological change (a degree of weighting by European Parliament recalled vote), which in my view may have more than offset the benefit for Yes.  That's just a guess, though, and it will have to remain so, because Panelbase have indicated that they will not provide figures using the old methodology for comparison.  If I'm right, it means that Yes have effectively reached a new all-time high with Panelbase.

Incidentally, there's a qualitative difference between the two methodological changes Panelbase have made.  The Yes-friendly change (country of birth weighting) has logic behind it that is absolutely inescapable - we know roughly how many English-born people there are in Scotland, so leaving too many in the sample is bound to skew the result.  By contrast, the No-friendly change of weighting on a combination of recalled Holyrood and European Parliament vote seems merely to be based on inspired guesswork about what 'feels right'.

Question : If Panelbase had ONLY introduced country of birth weighting, and hadn't changed the weightings for recalled vote, is it possible that Yes would be in the lead in this poll, or level?  It's an intriguing thought...

Unlike Panelbase, ICM aren't showing Yes on an all-time high - although the Yes vote is up markedly on the last poll, that takes it back to a position that is more or less average for the year so far.  So there are two possibilities - either the Yes vote has increased in spite of (or perhaps because of) what happened in the leaders' debate, or the change is margin of error noise masking a static position.  Either way, we now have sufficient evidence from multiple polls to effectively extinguish the delusion that there was a pro-No bounce following the debate - it looks highly likely that the Survation poll led us up the garden path on that one.

Although the No campaign can draw some comfort from the fact that undecided respondents break more for No when pressed by ICM (a radically different finding from many other surveys), I'd caution you to ignore John Curtice's nonsensical claim that three-quarters of undecideds are on the No end of Yes Scotland's preferred 1-10 scale.  All he tells us is that those people are on 5 or below - and doesn't say anything about how many of them are on exactly 5.  As I've pointed out many times before, Yes Scotland do indeed use a 1-10 scale, but it's highly unlikely that they're stupid enough to interpret a 5 as being on the No end of that scale - most people who say they're a 5 regard themselves as being exactly in the middle.

Curtice has made a song and dance about how both this poll and the last one from ICM have failed to provide evidence for Yes Scotland's claim that public opinion is more favourable for Yes when measured by the 1-10 scale.  The issue of how to interpret 5s obviously muddies the waters here, but either way Curtice's analysis ignores the findings of the Economic and Social Research Council study, for which ICM conducted the fieldwork, and which used a modified form of the scale.  That unambiguously showed that there were more people leaning Yes than you'd expect to find based on the results of the headline question.

UPDATE : Ignore the suggestion from an anonymous poster in the comments section below that the Panelbase poll was tainted by the asking of leading questions prior to the main referendum question - that was quite simply not the case.  Professor Curtice has confirmed that the methodology was identical to the one Panelbase used for their last Sunday Times poll.

*  *  *

REQUIRED SWINGS

Swing required for 1 out of 6 pollsters to show Yes ahead or level : 2.0%

Swing required for 2 out of 6 pollsters to show Yes ahead or level : 4.5%

Swing required for 4 out of 6 pollsters to show Yes ahead or level : 6.5%

*  *  *

SCOT GOES POP POLL OF POLLS

MEAN AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :

Yes 43.0% (+0.6)
No 57.0% (-0.6)

MEAN AVERAGE (not excluding Don't Knows) :

Yes 37.3% (+0.8)
No 49.5% (n/c)

MEDIAN AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :

Yes 42.5% (n/c)
No 57.5% (n/c)

(The Poll of Polls is based on a rolling average of the most recent poll from each of the pollsters that have been active in the referendum campaign since September 2013, and that adhere to British Polling Council rules. At present, there are six - YouGov, TNS-BMRB, Survation, Panelbase, Ipsos-Mori and ICM. Whenever a new poll is published, it replaces the last poll from the same company in the sample. Changes in the Poll of Polls are generally glacial in nature due to the fact that only a small portion of the sample is updated each time.)

53 comments:

  1. Thanks for your recent posts James, these are some really exciting development!

    Anonymous (the nice one)

    ReplyDelete
  2. It might, just might, happen. Let's make sure.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I predicted 60/40 Yes a while back. I stand by that. If each Yesser can convince 1 other person..is all

    ReplyDelete
  4. Does 'No' need a game changer when it's ahead? I take these polls can be trusted then? Not like the polls that show a gain in No?

    Also ICM had that bizarre 'learning' voters metric you used showing people more likely to support No than Yes at a 2:1 Margin. Will you be using this metric again.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Panelbase for Yes Scotland no change from the last one and of course they ask very loaded questions before getting to the actual question that counts and of course they have shown higgh for yes indeed incredibly they showed yes in front and are totally out of sync with all other polls which is why they are discounted apart from obviously the YESNP

    ICM shows a 10% lead for no with 14% undecided with those in this group saying 2 to 1 they will vote no

    poll of polls showing 57% - 43% no change

    at the start I went for 60-40 but I think the above figures will probably be around the final result.

    Massive gap still to be closed and remember this is not an election it is a yes/no which makes the yes side with a mountain to climb but you jut never know as Alex will give his declarion of Arbroath tomorrow just like Bruce. lol who advises this guy no wonder Nicola is scheming behind Alex's back to oust him when a no vote is returned.

    ReplyDelete
  6. As S_S has frequently stated, give the voters an excuse and they reveal their true intentions...

    Does the prospect of an increased role of the private sector in the NHS in England having an adverse effect on the Scottish budget which funds NHS Scotland make you likely or unlikely to vote for an independent Scotland in the referendum?

    Very likely to vote for an independent Scotland: 37%
    Quite likely to vote for an independent Scotland: 9%
    TOTAL LIKELY: 46%

    Quite unlikely to vote for an independent Scotland: 9%
    Very unlikely to vote for an independent Scotland: 26%
    TOTAL UNLIKELY: 35%

    Don’t know: 18%

    Excluding ‘don’t know’ would give these figures:
    Likely to vote Yes: 57%
    Unlikely to vote Yes: 43%

    ReplyDelete
  7. The standout stat for me is the 37& of Labour voters intending to vote Yes. I actually think that is too low, going by social contacts.
    Maybe the polls are catching up with what is really happening 'on the street'.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The standout stat for me is the 37& of Labour voters intending to vote Yes. I actually think that is too low, going by social contacts.

    Absolutely. I agree. My own rough guess is 45%, maybe higher. But even the figure quoted is remarkable.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Panelbase figure for Labour voters intending to vote Yes seems way out of line with all other pollsters - typically between 20% and 30%. I suppose only time will tell whether Panelbase or the others have got it right.

    ReplyDelete
  10. YouGov have Labour voters at only 13% Yes and with a very Labour sample this I think accounts for the vast difference between YiuGov and Panelbase

    ReplyDelete
  11. If that 13% is correct I'll eat my hat and do various other impossible things....

    ReplyDelete
  12. can I just say that although a no voter I want to than James for all the information that he puts up which gives us the opportunity to debate/disagree with each other

    He is to be applauded

    ReplyDelete
  13. Like I said at the time, and to be fair every single other time the out of touch Britnats kept shrieking witlessly about currency during this campaign, trust is going to destroy the No campaign.

    Trust is the absolute core issue of the entire Independence referendum and was always going to be.

    So all the No campaign ever does when it gets hysterical over currency (a minority issue and always has been) is reinforce that this Independence referendum is about who scots trust with scotland's future, Cameron, Clegg and little Ed or Sturgeon and Salmond? Who do scots trust to look after the best interests of scotland, the scottish parliament or westminster?

    It's why the thousands of town hall meetings around scotland that Yes have been holding are bearing fruit. While the No ground campaign has been comically shambolic on the ground and they have had to rely almost completely on a distrusted and biased press the scottish public holds in as much contempt as westminster politicians.

    Concerns about privatisation and westminster funding of the scottish NHS get raised all the time in those meetings and has been for years. Though of course you wouldn't expect out of touch twits stuck in the westmisnter bubble to know that. They certainly don't have a clue that guest speakers like NHS surgeon Philippa Whitford and others are delivering that message DIRECT to scottish voters in those meetings, or that they get mentioned all the time by other speakers for scots to look up for themselves on youtube like this one.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esV6pGo8UTI

    For example Tommy Sheridan (Yes, the one who Cameron's spindoctor Coulson is being charged with Perjury in scotland over in case the out of touch Britnats dont know who he is) was at his 77th meeting at Glasgow green yesterdat. Regular as clockwork he told scots to look up Philippa Whitford and Allyson Pollock on the privatisation of the NHS and the funding effects it will have on scotland.

    But surely scots can trust westminster politicians like Cameron, Clegg and little Ed on the NHS?

    ROFL





    ReplyDelete
  14. no "no" bounce is fine by me. pre-debate it was all about how high salmonds bounce would be remember? :-)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Yep, I don't post that often but I come here regularly. James does a great job. :)

    ReplyDelete
  16. And lest any out of touch twits think Darling is the man to restore trust in what more of the same from westminster will mean to scots worried about the NHS, think again.

    Alistair Darling paid thousands by NHS Privatisation Company

    Labour MP Alistair Darling was paid thousands of pounds by a company heavily involved in the privatisation of the English NHS, it has emerged.

    In 2011, the Edinburgh MP who heads the anti-independence campaign Better Together, received over £10,000 for addressing a dinner organised by Cinven Limited.

    The company is a leading buyout firm, who in 2008 bought 25 private hospitals from Bupa for £1.44bn. Other UK investments include Spire Healthcare, who run private healthcare hospitals, and whose clinical director Jean-Jacques de Gorter said the use of private sector would "spiral" as a result of Conservative MP Andrew Lansley’s reform proposals.

    Mr Darling, who this week will give a speech on behalf of Better Together, is one of a string of current and former Labour MPs who have links to or have benefitted financially from companies involved in private health care.

    Others who have benefitted include Mr Darling’s former Labour cabinet colleagues Alan Milburn and Patricia Hewitt who were both former Health Secretaries. Hewitt was a former advisor to Cinven and landed a lucrative £55,000 role with the firm after standing down as an MP.

    When in office, Milburn received tens of thousands of pounds from several firms involved in private health care.


    http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/7709-alistair-darling-paid-thousands-by-nhs-privatisation-company

    Oops!

    Maybe Darling should have been content with his huge expenses claims, all that house flipping (that the lib dems demanded he resign over when he was chancellor) or the 11% pay rise westminster MPs voted themselves?

    Too late now.

    LOL

    ReplyDelete
  17. no "no" bounce is fine by me. pre-debate it was all about how high salmonds bounce would be remember?
    Fair enough. I always thought that many on the YES side were over egging the impact of the debate. I was never happy with the "gamechanger" idea. Afterwords the NO side were crowing victory. It appears that it hasn't made much difference either way.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I dont think debates actually affect peoples voting intentions, the only thing they have an affect on is the morale of each side. Darling seemed to galvanize the yes side, he made us understand that we can rely on no politician. The campaign went into another gear after that. If Salmond does well in the next one, the no camp do not have the boots on the ground and media distrust is at an all time high for them to shoot it down. The only poll that matters is on the 19th. But the trend is with us. Yes .

    ReplyDelete
  19. I dont think debates actually affect peoples voting intentions, the only thing they have an affect on is the morale of each side. Darling seemed to galvanize the yes side, he made us understand that we can rely on no politician. The campaign went into another gear after that. If Salmond does well in the next one, the no camp do not have the boots on the ground and media distrust is at an all time high for them to shoot it down. The only poll that matters is on the 19th. But the trend is with us. Yes .

    ReplyDelete
  20. I hope you're not going to wait till the 19th to vote.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Chalks I remember the debates in 2011. Salmond had his moments but he didn't barnstorm in all of them them against Iain Gray and was fairly muted in a couple of them because he was going after the undecideds.

    Result - SNP landslide.

    It doesn't matter how hysterically the unionist press, or out of touch westminster bubble pundits spin the debates or attack Salmond, they simply aren't trusted by the scottish public.

    There is a world of difference between, say, a conference speech aimed directly at those already firmly in the SNP or Yes camp, and speeches and debates during a campaign that are targeting undecideds.

    It's also why there was never any prospect whatsoever of Yes supporters giving up because of some bad polling and hysterical shrieking from the press. It just ain't gonna happen and never was. The Yes campaign on the ground is simply growing stronger the closer to poling day we get.

    This is also spreading like wildfire and has went viral because of that same core issue of mistrust in westminster politicians.

    Bentley Field biggest discovery in decades

    Published in Oil Industry News on Friday, 15 August 2014

    Xcite Energy announced yesterday it's Bentley field is expected to produce surplus of 700 million barrels of oil over 35 years

    The Bentley field located East of Shetland is due to start production in the second half of 2015, with an estimated 57,000 barrels of oil per day output, and expected to produce oil until 2050.

    The firm plans to use enhanced oil recover techniques from the outset to maximise recovery.

    A trading update yesterday announce that the field holds reserves of over an estimated 700 million barrels

    http://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/1004/bentley-field-biggest-discovery-in-decades/

    Not a peep from the unionist media over this somewhat important story needless to say. But that won't stop the information from getting to scottish public, be certain of that.

    ReplyDelete

  22. # Marian 2014-08-17 08:45
    It appears that Scots voters are beginning to see through the horse excrement that Project Fear spreads across the pages of our newspapers and TV screens every day.

    ReplyDelete
  23. It's all very well correcting for CoB, but pollsters really need to be asking why they can't get enough Scots to respond. Why is quasi-random sampling failing here?

    The simplest explanation is refusal to respond in certain groups. That means the sampling method is ok, but the final sample is not.

    Incidentally, it's not specifically Scots that pollsters seem to have trouble getting to respond to questioning, but Scottish women.

    Funny that.

    Have a look at ICM's recent polls where CoB is asked.

    Up to 5% too few Scots men, up to 13% too few Scots women.

    But then we know women are twice as likely to feel uncomfortable giving their VI according to ICM.

    Anyway, why is a group which is more pro-indy (Scots) not responding to pollsters?

    TNS have had an increasing problem with more pro-Yes people not responding since 2007.

    We see this in MORI too.

    Online polls not immune.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Up to 5% too few Scots men, up to 13% too few Scots women. "

    I should add that e.g. 5% too few Scots men doesn't mean the sample is out by 5%, it could be much larger; this is indicative only. A group is apparently not responding more than others.

    If you ask enough people, you will get enough Scots, but not necessarily a sample representative of Scots if a particular group of them is stubbornly refusing to respond.

    ReplyDelete
  25. If anything I'd say that YouGov might be the ones asking the leading questions. They publish their results with the recalled party vote first. They also ask at some point if you're a Westminster Labour voter. IF those questions are asked before the independence one then it could be said to influence the result. Especially if the Westminster vote is only asked of SNP supporters.

    I've experimented with the results they've published and found that simply taking the reported Holyrood recall figures into consideration gives a 40/60 split scaling to 38/62 after weighing. But if you split the SNP support in the way they do you can tweak that all the way to 33/67 if you assume they are 100% No.

    I'd say that human nature would suggest that some of the straight SNP voters are actually the missing Labour switchers so the 76 who admit to it are more likely to be No. Rather than a "Shy No", I'd class it as an "Embarrassed Labour". Given the general denial in the Labour Party about a genuine movement for independence in their voters I'd wonder if the actual question prompts that reluctance. Nonetheless the very question seems targeted at a section of those surveyed who support Yes.

    ReplyDelete
  26. James,

    ICM are mixing methodologies in regard to the 1-10 scoring question.

    The Yes Campaign ask 2 questions in their canvassing. First: whether the subject is Yes, No or Undecided? Second: if (and only if) the subject has indicated that he/she is Undecided, where he/she is on a scale of 1-10 (with 1 being No and 10 being Yes). Polling companies on the other hand as the question differently: Yes, No or Don’t Know?

    As we all know the phrase ‘Don’t Know’ is often pejorative in its common usage: ‘Don’t know what you are doing, Don’t know whether you are coming or going etc. and therefore (at least on some level) invites the subject to admit to ignorance. Conversely, the phrase ‘Undecided’ allows the subject to consider him/herself as thoughtfully weighing up the pros and cons of the debate. In essence the pollsters ‘Don’t Know’ formulation most likely uncovers the hard-core of undecided voters within the electorate; while the Yes Campaign’s ‘Undecided’ formulation most likely identifies a much broader section of the electorate who are still making up their minds – although it is highly likely that the pollsters’ ‘Don’t Knows’ form small sub-set of the Yes Campaigns’ ‘Undecideds’.

    Leaving aside the merits of the formulations of the questions (it is a matter of ‘horses for courses’) when ICM ask the ‘Don’t Knows’ that their formulation identifies to scale themselves 1-10, they are posing that question to a materially different section of the electorate than that to which the Yes Campaign pose the same question. It is therefore unsurprising that ICM’s findings differ from those of Yes Scotland.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Ryan, you're missing the fact that James likes to parody the no campaign newspapers' stentorian headline style in his blog's post titles.

    Anonymous, you keep changing your mind: first pro-independence, then talking spouting total Nawbaggery about Panelbase, then declaring as a No again. What's up mate?

    ReplyDelete
  28. "It's all very well correcting for CoB, but pollsters really need to be asking why they can't get enough Scots to respond. Why is quasi-random sampling failing here?"

    One answer could be that Scotland's demographics are being transformed at a faster rate than people imagine.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The Yes Campaign ask 2 questions in their canvassing. First: whether the subject is Yes, No or Undecided? Second: if (and only if) the subject has indicated that he/she is Undecided, where he/she is on a scale of 1-10 (with 1 being No and 10 being Yes). Polling companies on the other hand as the question differently: Yes, No or Don’t Know?

    The questions are the opposite order. 1-10 first, then voting intention. (The questions are numbered on Yes campaign canvassing cards).

    ReplyDelete
  30. Blinking HystericalAugust 17, 2014 at 12:59 PM

    The turnout for the Euro elections was very low, about 33%, and do we know the demographics of the turn out? Presumably much older (and therefore no leaning) than the average as is the usual with elections, especially one with such a low turnout.

    There's no way weighting by the Euros will reflect the demographic of the voters that will turn out en masse on September 18th, it will be a much younger demographic.

    ReplyDelete
  31. One answer could be that Scotland's demographics are being transformed at a faster rate than people imagine.

    The problem with that thesis is the trend is reversing. Part of the reason for the rising Yes is a decrease in skew from true demographics (i.e. less people refusing to respond).

    So, maybe 100's of thousands of people moved away, and are now moving back?

    I suppose they moved back in just 6 weeks or so ahead of 2011 before moving away again for 12/13.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I think that you have missed the point. Panelbase are not weighting the entire sample by reference to the Euro election results - but only that proportion of the sample who stated that they themselves had voted in the Euro elections. For that reason I can't understand why James has any issues with the Euro election weighting approach.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Apologies - should have made it clear that my post above was a response to Blinking Hysterical (not Scottish Skier)

    ReplyDelete
  34. Phil : The simple answer to your question is that there are far too many people in the sample who claim to have voted in the European elections - some of those people are probably not telling the truth, so weighting them by the actual result in May is problematical.

    ReplyDelete
  35. The Omnipresent Curtice's mistake with the 1-10 scale is something I realised the very first time I did canvassing. I assumed it was so that people were forced to show at least some preference, no matter how slight, but it's just common nature for people to go "5 is halfway between 1 and 10, so I'll choose 5." I've yet to canvass someone who thinks 5 means a slight preference for No - any such people put themselves as a 4 or 3. So if Scotland's Only Psephologist really does think 5 means people are showing a No preference, he's way off.

    I'd have made it a 0 - 10 scale myself. Or maybe -5 to +5.

    (And just to add to the confusion, I've heard someone describe it as "on a scale of 1 to 10, how much do you favour independence?", which implies that even a 3 is showing some sort of preference for it.)

    ReplyDelete
  36. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/08/17/world/politics-diplomacy-world/polls-show-scotlands-independence-camp-gaining-ahead-referendum/#.U_DCyvl_uto

    seems that hasn`t swallowed the spin here. Interesting

    cheers

    matt

    ReplyDelete
  37. "I'd have made it a 0 - 10 scale myself. Or maybe -5 to +5."

    Zero-based scales and negative numbers - sheer madness. The plain people of Scotland will have nothing to do with either of these metropolitan innovations, Doug.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Interesting re the Japanese article mentioned above....is fascinating to look at the reportage in other countries. Denmark's lefty Information newspaper for instance has carried some very decent articles on Scottish indy.
    I've been shocked to see the coverage by Die Zeit in Germany. Very poor, even a bit vicious stuff from various commentators. Not sure why, other than some kind of knee-jerk small c conservatism...
    Anyway, here I am far away in Malaysian Borneo, so if anyone can view my admittedly unpolished vid on youtube and maybe even leave a comment I'd be stoked...cheers.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvuPcA3Mtc4

    ReplyDelete
  39. Agree with Doug. I was out canvassing yesterday and all those giving '5' were definitely saying they were completely undecided rather than No (or Yes) leaning.

    Chalks "Darling seemed to galvanize the yes side, he made us understand that we can rely on no politician. The campaign went into another gear after that" was certainly borne out here in Portobello yesterday.

    It just seems really clear that either No win through their control of the media or Yes do the work on the ground and win. If people ask me who is going to win I now say simply: It's up to us.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Aye, I'd agree with Chalks too. I'd always intended to do a bit more campaigning once we got into August, but the debate certainly gave me a kick up the backside. I think I had started lazily assuming Salmond would destroy Darling and that would signal the beginning of an unstoppable ascendancy for the Yes vote. I've now been out seven times since the debate, and my previous excuse of not doing weekday canvassing because I couldn't get there for 6pm is out the window - now I MAKE myself ready.

    I don't know if that urgency would have been there if Salmond had defeated Darling the way I assumed he would.

    ReplyDelete
  41. How come I've never been "canvassed" by one of the army of yes campaigners? I live in Edinburgh on a main road, you'd think I'd have one pop by sometime, all I've ever got is glossy pamphlets from both sides. Do you just go round the same houses each time or do I have to be unemployed and at home to get my opinion taken?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Being at home would help, I'd imagine, yes.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Well you do have to be at home when canvassers come round, yes. It's kind of difficult for people to ask you for your opinion if you're not there to be asked...

    You might have been out when canvassers came round, or your area may simply not have been canvassed yet. Obviously, no matter how many Yes campaigners there are in a city, there still has to be a choice made about which order areas get canvassed, so there will inevitably be an area that is canvassed last. My area's not been canvassed yet either incidentally, but there are sessions happening next week within 5 minutes walk of my home, so it'll be my area's turn eventually.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Coming back to Mick Pork's earlier post on the importance of trust, it's woth noting Panelbase's findings:

    * Do you trust ALEX SALMOND, First Minister, to stand up for Scotland's interests?

    Yes: 52%

    No: 37%

    Don't know: 12%

    Net rating: +15



    * Do you trust NICOLA STURGEON, Deputy First Minister, to stand up for Scotland's interests?

    Yes: 53%

    No: 33%

    Don't know: 14%

    Net rating: +20



    * Do you trust DENNIS CANAVAN, Chairman of the Yes campaign, to stand up for Scotland's interests?

    Yes: 41%

    No: 33%

    Don't know: 26%

    Net rating: +8



    * Do you trust DAVID CAMERON, Prime Minister, to stand up for Scotland's interests?

    Yes: 19%

    No: 66%

    Don't know: 14%

    Net rating: -47



    * Do you trust ALISTAIR DARLING, Chairman of the No campaign, to stand up for Scotland's interests?

    Yes: 32%

    No: 50%

    Don't know: 18%

    Net rating: -18



    * Do you trust JOHANN LAMONT, leader of Scottish Labour, to stand up for Scotland's interests?

    Yes: 30%

    No: 40%

    Don't know: 30%

    Net rating: -10



    Note: only 40 per cent of Labour voters trust Alistair Darling to stand up for Scotland, compared to 42 per cent who do not.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Thanks for the explanation doug, appreciated.

    Is there not a danger though that canvassers go round areas and times where they expect a good reception for their side, either yes or no? It would explain why both side think they're nailed onto win. Daytime in Oxgangs gets you the unemployed and pensioners (even the mums escape to coffee mornings to share the misery of their little darlings), weekends in Colinton would get you a very different demographic.

    It was also a shock (not a life-endangering one obvs) to realise people actually sign up to be polled by the neutral polling organisations. It doesn't sound very random, and maybe explains the differences between them?

    I think it's going to go down to the wire, it'll be an exciting telly night for sure

    ReplyDelete
  46. Hi Anonymous, you wrote:

    "Do you just go round the same houses each time or do I have to be unemployed and at home to get my opinion taken?"

    Hmmm. I'm sure it's not what you meant, but reminded me of many leading the No side who seem to have only contempt for those made unemployed by a system that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, and who are championing a No to defend such a system.

    I have had good discussions with No voters on the doorsteps - some identify fully with that system and aren't going to budge, but many many many are still No out of loyalty to a Labour Party they supported or joined because it seemed to challenge such a system.

    They are still to be won over, either now before the vote or in the run up to 2016 when (if we don't cross the finishing line first next month) we'll be streets ahead and a referendum will be barely needed, but democratically and properly required.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Yeah i thot that comment from anon was a bit out of order too justin but in this climate we should try n give people benefit of doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  48. There should be a You Gov indy poll out soon. Any idea when?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Can concur with doug etc on the canvass cards, ive seen them with yes and then 1 on the scale.
    Curtice is an eejit for thinking 5 is a no.

    ReplyDelete
  50. the unemployed have my sympathy justin, been there, the unemployable however...

    ReplyDelete
  51. Kevin Primgle just tweeted @KevinJPringle: POLLS: Look out on Monday for best YouGov poll for #Yes so far. And more Panelbase: Scots back £-union & No camp's £ stance is boosting Yes.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Anon - canvassing is about gathering information, so anyone who does it only in areas and times that they're likely to get a good reception is simply fooling themselves, and potentially setting themselves up for a fall come the 18th September.

    I wouldn't say the Yes side think we're nailed-on for a win. Canvassing certainly gives you confidence, but it's no more than that. However, I would suggest that the reason No think they're going to win is precisely because they don't have the means to carry out extensive canvassing, and thus rely on the polls to assure them that they've still got this in the bag. They certainly aren't canvassing two to three areas a day in Aberdeen like Yes are doing at the moment. They have the occasional "National Day of Action" when they get their "National Campaign Squad" of paid volunteers bussed up to canvass a few areas, but that's a normal day of canvassing for Yes.

    ReplyDelete
  53. And it's perhaps worth pointing out that an unemployed person's vote is worth just as much as that of a millionaire oil executive.

    One of my friends scoffed when I told him I'd been canvassing in Torry, saying the people were only voting Yes because they thought they'd get more benefits, or something along those lines. Of course, in his mind it's completely different for him to be voting No purely because he thinks a Yes vote would see him getting taxed more, since he earns quite a bit.

    The "unemployable" have as much right to a say as anyone else. After all, it's the current structure that has seen such people left behind.

    ReplyDelete