Friday, April 26, 2019

Shock poll shows the sun setting on the day of Davidson as the Scottish Tories return to third place, and the SNP retain their massive lead

Extremist anti-independence propaganda organisation "Scotland in Union" have released their latest Survation poll, and not for the first time it's backfired on them spectacularly by suggesting that the SNP are set to make sweeping gains from the unionist parties in any snap general election.  What's new, though, is that it also shows the Tories returning to their once-familiar third place - and given the current seepage of Tory votes to the Brexit Party and elsewhere, it would be a brave person who predicts that they won't be staying there.

Scottish voting intentions for Westminster (Survation):

SNP 41% (+1)
Labour 24% (+1)
Conservatives 22% (-2)
Liberal Democrats 8% (n/c)

On a uniform swing, this would see the SNP make a mammoth net gain of 16 seats, taking them to 51 - not all that far away from their 2015 high watermark of 56.  The Tories would be reduced to rubble, losing 10 of their 13 seats.  And Labour would be practically wiped out, with Ian Murray once again the last man standing in Edinburgh South (assuming he's still in the party by the time the election comes around).  The Lib Dems would break even and retain their current 4 seats.

As with any "Scotland in Union" poll, the independence figures can be safely ignored because a non-standard question was used to get the desired result (although of course that won't stop the unionist media breathlessly reporting them as if they actually mean something).  We've known for many years that asking poll respondents whether they want to "remain in the United Kingdom" produces more favourable results for the anti-independence cause than the standard question.  Why that would be the case is anyone's guess - I sometimes wonder if there's a degree of confusion about what the 'United Kingdom' actually is, and if some respondents might wrongly assume they're being asked whether they want to retain the monarchy.  But it's not worth worrying about, because we know from the experience of the 2014 referendum that standard independence polling is more accurate than these 'alternative' polls.  The most recent standard polling continued to show Yes in the mid-40s or higher.

(And as I always point out, any poll that asks about 'leaving the UK' should not technically be considered an independence poll at all, because it's perfectly possible to leave the UK without becoming independent.  We could leave the UK to become a crown dependency, or a freely associated state, or we could become part of another country.)

You can tell that "Scotland in Union" are a bit disappointed with the results of the question on when and if the next independence referendum should be held, because their spin is that not holding a referendum at all emerged as "the most popular option with 34% support".  What that rather conveniently doesn't mention is that all the other options involved holding a referendum at some point, and the combined support for those pro-referendum options was 57% - which, I think you'll agree, is a rather larger number than 34%.

40 comments:

  1. Meanwhile notorious UU bigot receives an award from a gang of quislings for publishing a fantasy concocted by another UU bigot. And is congratulated by senior SNP politicians for doing so.

    We are never going to win a referendum it our own side doesn't treat the enemy as an actual enemy.

    People who will fight against Scotland to the death are not and never will be your friend, so why do they do it? Why is the FM afraid of the scum and their reaction, and put that ahead of the needs of Scotland?

    It's a mystery to me.

    ReplyDelete
  2. For over 100 years Scotland was a fully independent country which was part of the United Kingdom. The union flag was first flown in 1606, 101 years before Burns' parcel o' rogues.

    As far as I know, the SNP have always proposed that Scotland stay in the UK, but just return to the above pre-1707 union of parliaments status.

    Any move to republic status would be a separate matter for the future.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Scottish skier: that wasn't a united kingdom; it was merely sharing a monarch. The kingdoms were united in 1707.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's right, although interestingly the earliest versions of the Union Flag predate the United Kingdom by some 101 years. There was clearly an effort to get people to believe the union of the crowns was something more substantial than just sharing a monarch.

      Delete
    2. I think you'll struggle to tell people two countries which have the exact same king and (monarchical) flag are not 'united kingdoms'.

      I've never met anyone who didn't think the 'union of the crowns' was not the first (and long) stage the united kingdom, so would answer polling in light of that.

      And a union which could continue post independence. The monarch is basically just titular these days. I think everyone in Scotland knows you can be independent but still be one of lizzie's united kingdoms.

      Even today while 'technically' the ToU created a single GB kingdom, it didn't in practical reality. Different laws... different heraldry...different football teams... sports leagues...school systems...languages... cultures...political persuasions...even different titles for the same royals (no Duke of Cambridge in Scotland). Really fuck all shared at all, other than a parliament (1707) partially.

      The 1707 treaty utterly failed to make one kingdom if that was ever the intent, which it doesn't appear to have been, other than in dry technicality. It would never have lasted if it had tried to fully merge them. Riots followed a quite loose union.

      Anyway, it's what people think that matters for polling. You'll need a mass re-education programme if you want people to understand the 'union of the crowns' they were told about in School was not a union of the kingdoms of Scotland and England. In 5-10 years you may have made inroads here and see the fruits of this in polling.

      Delete
    3. Is my reckoning that a full UK ws created twice, at both unions. Countries sharing a king who is their real ruler and can often rule without parlts, are ruled together + not mutually independent.
      But thenl for the second union to be needed at all, anf to be a real union by treaty of 2 states who could have gone to war, independenve must have resumed at some time between the 2 unions. As the first union was never repealed, this cuange could only happen by the monarchy's changing status. After the Dutch invasion 1688, parliament in both countries became continuous + Scotland started being ruled by a parliamentary convention of aristos, now able to make decisions without + over the king, + to have a different foreign policy. That makes 1688-1707 a quite short indy period, started by the curbing of monarchy, ended by the second union.

      Delete
    4. Efrem Zimbalist JrApril 27, 2019 at 12:50 AM

      Maurice has invented the cure for insomnia. He'll make a fortune.

      Delete
    5. Smell the gammon.

      Delete
    6. Smell your Chanel 5 perfume, Mr Ladyman. Now mince off back to your cream puff villa before Julian Clary bakes you a quich.

      Delete
    7. Cordelia there, sharing entirely too much about its bizarre fantasy life through the medium of self-created Polari.

      Delete
    8. Share your password to get in to the you know where place in Portugal. Hint - Liberace and Danny Laroo will be there. Waiting with false faces on to hide from the papperatsis.

      Delete
    9. More drunken self-created Polari from our resident confused bigot.
      It shares entirely too much about its inner life and lusts.

      Delete
  4. If you wish to say that Scottish political opinion is polarised along nationalistic lines, which looks like Mr Kelly's overbearing ethos, the Britnat parties got 54%, and the Scotnat parties got 46%.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spin it how you want Britnat but the people of Scotland want to remain in the E.U. and the only way of doing that is by Independence even your Britnat pea brain can grasp that!

      Delete
    2. Anon, I'm quite certain that "Mr Kelly" has never claimed Yes is polling ahead of No. Not sure why this is some kind of major revelation to you.

      Delete
    3. Not true only the majority not all.

      Delete
    4. Cordelia won't be voting anyway. It's a betrayal of democracy to vote at any time.

      Delete
  5. To be honest, now that we have a new iref announced and it is going to be before 2021, then this renders the 'tomorrow' (or rather about a week ago for the SiU poll) rather pointless.

    The 'tomorrow' question is just bog standard VI Q adopted for an iref in the absence of an actual iref. As soon as you actual have an iref planned, if you want to know how people will vote in that, then ask them about it, not a totally hypothetical one tomorrow that's not actually happening. Something like:

    'If the UK leaves the EU as planned, the Scottish government plan to hold an independence referendum some time in the next 2 years. How do you intend to vote in this referendum? Yes to Scottish Independence / No to Scottish independence.

    It's perfectly possible to say you'd vote No 'tomorrow' (just in case brexit doesn't happen) and Yes should brexit happen. In fact that is exactly the position of everyone who plans to vote Yes primarily because of brexit, and why, if you asked them, they tell you exactly this (e.g. Panelbase consistent 'Yes' if brexit goes ahead, but 'No' tomorrow).

    Most people just answer the polling question. They don't try to work out what it is you are really trying to get from them. In fact if that's happening, the data is already worse than useless.

    Tomorrow? No way, brexit might yet not happen!

    If brexit goes ahead? For sure! I'll be first in the queue to vote Yes!


    And that's before we get to the voters who want an iScotland outside the EU. They invariably tell pollsters they won't vote Yes (tomorrow) until brexit occurs.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Is it true that SiU's au pair Pamela Nash is standing as Conservative candidate for England SW at the Euros?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seeing as she was a Labour MP very much doubt it

      Delete
    2. That was just her easiest career path.

      Delete
  7. Seems the more brexit becomes a disaster, the more people lie about voting No in 2014 and claim to have voted Yes.

    Survation's fully targeted (non random) base sample is absolutely spot on in saying it voted 37(-1)% Remain in 2016. However, as usual, we have enormous 'false recall' on the 2014 result, with an 'overwhelming' 52% claiming to have voted Yes to independence. Also way too many people (44%) claiming to have voted SNP in 2017; classic 2010 stuff.

    Results very heavy Yes/SNP voter down-weighting; much higher than usual. I really don't know why Survation proudly stated weighting to Westminster intention in Scotland was all wrong and stopped doing it, now are doing it again in the face of such false recall.

    Here's the 'indy' question:
    If there was a referendum tomorrow...
    - Leave
    - Remain


    Which pretty much renders it utterly useless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That should super obviously be '37% leave' in 2016. D-oh.

      Delete
  8. At the union of the crowns the King of Scotland was not soveriegn,the people were soveriegn.

    ReplyDelete
  9. What many people miss is in 1603 Jamie the saxt could have ruled baith Scotland and England from Edinburgh.
    Royals however only think of their own ego and position.
    Lizzie kens the Scots dinnae grovel tae their so-called betters.
    Her jaiket's on a shoogly peg wi Scottish Independence that's for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yougov UK Scotland subsample:

    44% SNP
    19% Con
    10% Lab
    8% UKIP
    6% Lib
    5% Green

    SNP + Green 49% so standard.

    UK poll subsets averages are likely more accurate than Scottish polls at the moment due to them not being weighted to 2014 and it's very strong 'false recall'. These have SNP more in the mid 40's. SNP share could be close to 50% as their will be down-weight due to Westminster false recall (tactical or DNVs saying they voted SNP when they didn't) too.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Speaking of Survation, I did one this afternoon. My first.
    ALL about past and future voting intentions.
    Did I vote in our ref., how did I vote. Council elections, same again. EU ref. May’s GE. Would I want a 2nd EU ref. How would I vote. Do I want another Indyref. How did I rate the political party leaders.

    ReplyDelete
  12. So, I see it's all over the news that the UK isn't a democracy and England owns Scotland according to the English government.

    It's important Sturgeon talks about getting a Section 30 pretty much every day (without actually asking for one formally) so the refusal can be on the news in Scotland that evening.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Times has a Yougov poll in their paper for Saturday- Yes 49 No 51. As it is within the margin of error would be a statistical tie. That will worry the Tories et al.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know as well as I do that that's fixed. The separatists would be lucky to garner 30% exactly like the last time they were aloud to waste public money on there vainglorious fantasy politics. Not going to happen, my dears.

      Delete
    2. We see you, "Don".

      Delete
    3. You think you are clever but I have the measure of your fraudulent pose, sir. Your knowledge is that of a barn owl when placed against that of a dolphin. You are no dolphin, mine fine sirrah, but an owl. An knave.

      Delete
    4. "Don" didn't like that one bit.
      You can tell by the gammony rage mixed with intellectual pretension.

      Delete
  14. And I see you, ineffable parochialist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Don" there, an advocate of the parochial nationalism which isn't really a nationalism because British exceptionalism dictates that British nationalism cannot be nationalism.

      Delete
    2. The anonymous buffoon, frit of his or her own name. A malerian of tragi-comedy.

      Delete
    3. "Don" / "Vic" / whatever there, going for the ad hominem instead of addressing my point about the exceptionalism inherent in British nationalism. I've annoyed it, and that amuses me.

      Delete
    4. One was unaware a point had been made. Upon further perusal one sees no difference. In simple English (that the anonymous one might understand the import of my words): Make your point, sir. Clearly.

      Delete
    5. I made my point. It's not my job to do your thinking for you; sadly, it doesn't appear to be yours either.

      Delete