Sunday, November 3, 2019

Election 2019: Early straws in the wind from YouGov are favourable for the SNP

There still haven't been any full-scale Scottish polls during the election campaign, and indeed there have only been two full-scale Scottish polls since Boris Johnson became Prime Minister and since Ruth Davidson threw the towel in.  That seems incredible when you bear in mind how crucial Scotland could be to the outcome of the whole election.  Something will turn up sooner or later, but in the meantime the best we have to go on are YouGov's Scottish subsamples, which do have a very large margin of error due to the small sample size, but nevertheless are superior to other firms' subsamples as a result of being correctly structured and weighted.  There have been two YouGov subsamples published since the campaign got underway, and both have been favourable for the SNP.

29th-30th October: SNP 44%, Conservatives 19%, Liberal Democrats 10%, Labour 9%, Brexit Party 8%, Greens 8%

31st October-1st November: SNP 50%, Conservatives 22%, Labour 15%, Liberal Democrats 10%, Greens 2%, Brexit Party 1%

It may well be that the SNP are appearing to do better than usual due to random sampling variation, but everything feels like reasonably plain sailing so far.  I truly believe the biggest threat by far to the SNP's position is the broadcasters' attempted stitch-up of the leaders' debates.  It wouldn't be so bad if it was just the one ITV debate, but every instinct in my body tells me that the BBC and Sky will both attempt exactly the same stunt.  Stephen Bush of the New Statesman seems to be taking seriously the possibility that the Liberal Democrats will succeed in challenging the debate formats, so I hope the SNP aren't caught napping on this - if the Lib Dems manage to muscle their way into the debates, the SNP have got to be ready to muscle in too.  The only thing that would be even more outrageous than the current proposed format would be three-way debates in which the third-largest Commons party is still excluded.

There's remarkable Britain-wide opposition to the broadcasters' plans in the YouGov poll - 53% of respondents think all of the major parties, including the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens, should be involved in the leaders' debates.  Just 10% think it should be a straight Johnson v Corbyn affair, and only 9% think there should be three-cornered debates involving Johnson, Corbyn and Swinson.  In the Scottish subsample, support for the SNP being involved rises to 73% - and just 5% back ITV's two-way format.


103 comments:

  1. 'subsamples'? Of less than 100 people? Come on, you know they're statisrically worthless. We'll have to wait for his Holiness down in Bath to commission a real poll.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At least get your facts straight before trying to undermine the blogpost. No, YouGov subsamples are not of "less than 100 people" and recent history has shown time and again that averaging several subsamples over time produces broadly similar numbers to full-scale YouGov polls. That's not happening by chance. Individual subsamples have a very high margin of error, but nope, they're not "statistically worthless".

      Delete
    2. Is one of these polls the Daily Mail one when a whole 87 Scottish people were asked the questions?
      Desperate days indeed.
      Still, any port and all that.

      Delete
    3. The answer to your question is no. Quite simply no. So first things first: apology, please. And secondly, as I've told you several times before, if you want to start false rumours, take it elsewhere.

      Delete
    4. Actually 87 is a pretty good number. Not optimal.

      Delete
    5. Yes, it's lovely and one of my favourites. I'm also partial to 69.

      Delete
    6. Geacher: Do not try my patience any further. Comment deleted.

      Delete
  2. I think the biggest danger for the SNP will be getting out the vote. As we get closer to polling day the SNP leadership will need to give the supporters a reason to turn out other than just to return more MP's to a parliament that the supporters no longer want to be part of.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, seems positive for the SNP. But I think that the relative shares and positions of the London Unionist parties rather than a fabby-dabby SNP superiority might be key to how seats are shared out.
    Poster above mentioned turnout. I think that could also be of major importance in SNP / Tory battles in the NE? Who is more fired up? It might not be that the SNP increase so much but rather that the Tories fall back.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anon-whose-comment-I've-just-deleted: I'm really not in the mood. I've addressed your point, and there is no need for you to reply and simply repeat the same point I've only just dealt with. YouGov subsamples are not "statistically worthless", averaging them over time does produce meaningful results, and no, that's not "coincidental". You take a different view, and that's fine - we don't have to agree, but neither does an anonymous commenter get to veto blogpost topics.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm sticking up for you James. I value your comments and occasionally disagree with them. Buy just as in 2017....apathy and low turnout of SNP voters will be a danger. And the postal vote conspiracy theorists won't be helping especially with a winter election. We need a big postal vote recruitment campaign over the next few weeks.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Are there trends in the recent sub-samples?

    ReplyDelete
  7. The TV debates thing gets increasingly messy with each GE it seems, particularly as British politics increasingly fragments (and GEs get ever more frequent?).

    If the Lib Dems can somehow get on the bill, and their position on Brexit alone probably merits it in relation to the other big 2 parties, then the Brexit party will (probably not unfairly) argue that if they're standing candidates in all England/Scotland/Wales seats then they too should be on it, and then others will argue that they have more seats or higher VI shares in polls, etc.

    I think we need a standard TV debate template which basically would boil down to a *minimum* one debate between all leaders of parties standing candidates in some upper threshold of seats (75%?) and one debate between all leaders of parties standing candidates in some lower threshold of seats (20?)

    I think that would strike the reasonable balance between wanting to give the minor parties fair time but also recognising that only parties standing candidates in a majority of available seats are theoretically capable of forming a government.

    I doubt we'll coalesce to a standard format, though, and individual broadcasters will do whatever suits their own agendas.

    I would say the good thing from the SNP perspective is Sky News at least have been desperate for ages for leader's debates, even to the extent of relentlessly plugging their own petitions for it onscreen, and I daresay they will be doing their utmost to have as many as they can and that will give chances for parties other than just Con/Lab.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that's highly unlikely - the Sky News petition was specifically for debates including London parties only.

      Delete
    2. I'm not sure I've worded it well - obviously there'd be overlap as the biggest parties would be aboveboth the lower and upper thresholds - I don't mean separate debates, so one debate would be e.g.

      Con/Lab/LD/BXP (assuming they all stand in most constituencies) and one
      Con/Lab/LD/BXP/Green/SNP/PC and possibly a few other smaller parties that stood candidates in sufficient seats to meet whatever the reasonable lower threshold was.

      Delete
  8. "I think that's highly unlikely - the Sky News petition was specifically for debates including London parties only."

    Ah - didn't realise that. Fair enough.

    But I do think Sky will still want to make a point of having as many debates as they can - and the more they do the harder it is to limit the field. Probably.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Surely the distribution of votes is crucial. As we all know, a party could get 50% vote share but if it piles them up in 'heartland' seats but loses all its marginals then it could be stuffed. I am of course particularly thinking of marginals where unionist tactical voting could come into play.

    And of course the media comes into play: 2017 was spun not only as a setback for the SNP, but as if a 'victory' for Ruth Davidson's party, and the cry of 2015 being a blip, or peak SNP.

    ReplyDelete
  10. In some ways a three way debate including Swinson could be worse than a two way one? It would give her disproportionate profile, even endosring her own conviction that she is a 'candidate for PM', or in any case giving legitimacy to the whole thing, and fitting some sort of weasel criteria acceptance, that a 2-way clash would lack.

    Question: are there not broadcasting rules against this kind of stitch-up? Are London TV companies simply allowed to broadcast an English-biased political complexion into Scotland, as they do with (for example) football, history, etc ? Could the 2-way or 3-way leaders debates be blocked in Scotland?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Swinson IS a candidate for PM. She's a *highly unlikely* candidate, but if she's heading a party that intends to stand something close to all (or even just most of) the constituencies across the UK then theoretically she could be PM, as could anyone leading any other parties intending to stand someone in most seats (which is why I, currently at least, would lump BXP in with them too on that basis).

      Isn't what you're saying merely a different criteria acceptance, that the debate should only consist of the candidates most likely to be PM - presumably that being defined by the WM VI polls (which themselves change, and show different levels for different pollsters, etc.)?

      This is kind of the trouble with the whole thing, that everyone can find different criteria to say why X should be included or Y not included.

      Delete
    2. I'm a candidate for Curler of the Year because I keep saying I am and I like looking at pictures redresses euro Excel nights Okinawa's section push Shruti. District ethic from life

      Delete
    3. The distinction you're drawing between 'candidates for PM' and 'non-candidates for PM' is bogus. In a parliamentary system, with the possibility of a complex coalition, it's perfectly possible to become PM without standing in the majority of constituencies. Your own suggestion is actually very similar to ITV's own plan - one inclusive debate, one non-inclusive debate. It's not sufficient. All the main parties should be in all the debates.

      Delete
    4. If the Brexit Party do not do a deal with Boris then it is possible that there could be a Liberal, Jock Nat si and Labour coalition. The three Oddities, Swinson, Corbyn and Knickerless. Corbyn being the filling in the sandwich.

      Delete
    5. "Isn't what you're saying merely a different criteria acceptance, that the debate should only consist of the candidates most likely to be PM"

      For avoidance of doubt, I am not saying the debate should only be "candidates for PM" - whatever that means - as I think we may each be agreeing. The set "Candidates for PM" is self defining, starting with the current PM, Leader of the Opposition, Swinson, and in principle goes all the way down to the leader of every party standing.

      I am asking if there are no rules about the biases they cause, and if these broadcasts should be allowed to be shown in Scotland.

      Delete
    6. Except no-one ever has been PM without their party standing in a majority of constituencies and that will remain the case this time.

      Delete
    7. Let's just see if the SNP are calling for Wings to be included in the Holyrood 2021 debates.

      Delete
    8. Well, this is fascinating. A supporter of the Wings party spamming this site with a British nationalist argument. I haven't been paying much attention to the conspiracy theories, but...

      Delete
  11. Yeah but the SNP aren't an English party so why should they be involved in English politics they've got their own country, they can go on TV there and lie to the Jocks, we don't want them in England anyway they cause nothing but trouble with their stupid voices, can't even speak English proper

    Did that make you angry? well it should because that's how they feel about Scotland until it's time to use us then they profess their undying affection like they did in 2014 until they got what they wanted then Boom F off again Scotland

    You want Independence, make the population of England hate us as much as they hate everybody else and they'll be so desperate to get rid of us their politicians will be forced to give in to them, because they can't tell them the truth about how much Scotland is worth because they've been telling them lies about how worthless we are for too many years to take it back now and make themselves look like the liars they are to their own voters

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are an anti English racist but are so thick you do not know it. A good recruit for the Jewish holiday camps if you were around then.

      Delete
    2. It's the UK government that hates Scottish people. This is obvious as it's giving the Welsh, English and NI what they voted for in 2016, but not the Scots. It is also saying it will refuse a section 30, overruling the will of the Scottish people.

      This can only be explained by a deep, visceral hatred of Scottish people.

      Lots of No voters from 2014 have said this to me. It explains how Yes is now ahead on average.

      Delete
    3. "Jewish holiday camp"

      You are absolute scum. How dare you tritely snigger about that, you wretched attention seeking little sad case?

      Delete
  12. Tories must fancy their chances in Aberdeen South now

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The local membership couldn't get rid of him fast enough. Maybe he'll direct his talents to Bridge of Don Community Council. Awww...

      Delete
    2. I raised a small glass of Liebfraumilch yesterday afternoon.

      Delete
    3. ..then ran up a wee batch of scones for Maisie Turnbull. She's having a terrible time with her veins just now.

      Delete
  13. Note that the two polls show brexit and greens at 8% & 8% or 2% & 1%. Not much ground for certainty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The standard MoE in full polls is +/-3%, i.e. 5 +/- 3 = 8 / 2.

      So the numbers you quote are not showing much variance.

      Delete
    2. The numbers i quote do, I think, illustrate the volatility. When you focus on parties on 5% rather than 45%

      Delete
    3. The variance / error doesn't change though. It's 45+/-3 or 3+/-3. Same 'volatility' statistically.

      Delete
  14. James,

    Would it be reasonable ( or not ) to simply add these two You Gov polls together, as they are cintiguous? At least it would double the sample size.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Replies
    1. I like the other word better.

      Delete
  16. 10 UK poll Scot subsample running average (so 1000+ sample), with all pollsters weighted equally:
    47% SNP
    19% Con
    15% Lab
    10% Lib
    4% brx
    3% Green

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. After many months of stability at ~43% SNP, recent polls suggest maybe they've edged up.

      Tories had made a few % gains from brexit recently, but that seems to be falling away.

      I think the general election announcement causes an increase in engagement, both in terms of people making up minds, but also crucially in people answering polls. This results in shifts quite quickly, shifts that may already have existed in voters, but not in polling.

      Delete
    2. The SNP voters according to some of the polls published over the weekend are the most motivated to cast a vote on 12th December. Having Johnson and Corbyn only on a tv debate might help increase SNP support rather decrease it.

      Delete
  17. Why does this site routinely tolerate posts referring to Nat sis? Recently also actual 'Nazis' and 'Jewish...' This is offensive
    How, when can it be stopped.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. James has a belief in free speech which I respect. That said, the tone of the "jewish holiday camp" comment was too gleeful to be anything other than rank and hateful. GWC has free speech to give himself away, I suppose.

      Delete
    2. GWC's ma Da.

      Delete
    3. GWC seems to have a personality disorder or another serious mental condition. The poor sod is generally ignored but has not the IQ to realise his efforts are wasted. Unaware that he is seen as a sad clown that nobody cares for. Still if it makes him feel good and keeps him off the streets. :)

      Delete
    4. Does free speech mean that anything is tolerated on here? There are no site posting guidelines at all? Comments are never moderated or removed for being abusive or offensive?

      Delete
  18. Interesting table
    Here's a list of confirmed pacts so far for #GE2019, might be useful for others projecting results:
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/106pw1Q5I0xmUmilb-M3IKe9SUfRD6QDQQUWSa_RYz8E/edit#gid=0

    https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1191113926353833989

    Although none of the parties are standing down in seats they had a chance of winning or had a large % of the vote. Largest is Montgomeryshire were PC had 5% of the vote LD were second but 25% behind Conservatives.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I see the E&W Greens are expected to stand aside for the Lib Dems in some seats as part of a 'Remain alliance' in England & Wales.

    Are the Scottish Greens going to do the same or are they pro-union and pro-Brexit?

    ReplyDelete
  20. If the SNP want the Greens to stand aside in this election, then they should be willing to stand aside on the list for Wings and the Greens to mop up the indy votes in Holyrood 2021 and guarantee a pro-indy majority.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This makes no sense. Holyrood elections are PR. Tactical voting is not really possible (you can only do it on the first constituency FPTP vote realistically, as Green voters have often done in the past).

      Westminster elections are FPTP, so tactical is possible. A remain/indy alliance makes sense here.

      Delete
    2. Personally, I don't vote for parties that want to invest long term in Westminster. So if the greens are doing that now, they're not for me.

      Delete
    3. Complete nonsense, if the SNP stand aside and indy voters vote for Wings and the Greens they will win seats, this tactical voting rubbish is just a myth invented by the SNP, to encourage indy voters to waste their votes for some inexplicable reason.

      Delete
    4. You sound like you are trying to mislead people.

      If the SNP stood aside on the regional list, then their own voters could no longer be sure of being able to vote for them at all. They could see their constituency SNP vote binned and if they voted Green on the regional list, their SNP vote would count for nothing.

      Your second regional list vote is the most important vote. It is always counted. This is why the Greens stand for the list and Wings would choose it too. They know that the regional list vote is the most important of all as it's PR.

      The constituency vote is FPTP, so could be 'wasted' if the SNP didn't win the seat.

      https://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2017/08/22/millions-of-votes-were-wasted-at-the-election-it-s-time-for

      Better be honest with people here.

      SNP for constituency = could be binned
      SNP on the list = always counts

      Is the truth of the matter. SNP standing aside is setting up SNP voters for potential large scale disenfranchisement.

      Delete
    5. All votes are counted. They are just two different counts.
      Whether your party wins the seat or not they are still counted.
      Your equation for 2016
      SNP for constituency = lots of MSP's
      SNP on the list = very few MSP's

      That's the truth of the matter.

      Delete
    6. Your equation for 2021
      Wings on the list = no MSPs

      (There's no apostrophe in "MSPs".)

      Delete
    7. There's no honour in grammatical pendantry, clearly it's plural but substantive point remains. It's Skier's equation by the way, hopefully I used the apostrophe correctly as its' his rather than there's lots of him.

      Delete
    8. "There's no honour in grammatical pendantry..."

      Wearing your learning round your neck is never a good thing.

      Delete
  21. SNP tactical voting logic summed up. It's possible to use your vote, to vote tactically for the SNP and help them win seats to further indy. It's not possible to do this for any other party.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're actually not listening. It's possible to vote tactically under FPTP. It's not possible to vote tactically on the list. It's the voting system that makes the difference, not the party. (Although the general rule of thumb with any sort of tactical voting is that you vote for a party that actually has a chance of winning a seat, rather than waste your vote on a small party that doesn't.)

      Delete
    2. How do you know if a party has a chance of winning a seat, maybe opinion polls. So lets just see, if in 2021, polls suggests its likely that the SNP have no chance of winning list seats in most of the regions whether SNP list votes are still advocated.
      I have voted tactically on the list so it most definitely is possible.

      Delete
    3. Or you could vote for a single issue lunatic who appears to see changing rooms as a yes / no for independence. Yes for single sex, no for sharing. No, oh, no, I am the Reverend Stewart Campbell and I'll tell you, yes I will.

      That is trivial and where the stupid and ridiculous fool is, stupid and quite frankly unsupportable. On a train, y'know that modernised shit, have unisex toilets and men enter, then women, an so on and so forth. The toilet is indiscriminate, only in the crazed minds of WoS is it an issue.

      Man, safely peeing, flushes the loo, pulls up, or buttons his trousers, presses valve, presses exit. door opens. Next.

      In other words, we already have shared, but private, spaces.

      There are many others, but Rev Stu pretends that there are not. The man is a complete utter joke, at least on this.

      It is sad to see someone lose their mind.

      Delete
    4. "I have voted tactically on the list so it most definitely is possible."

      No you didn't. You may have thought you did, but that's a different issue. Attempts to vote tactically on the list are actually 'gambling voting'.

      Interesting point about opinion polls, because your hero ran away from asking a direct question about the Wings party in the poll he commissioned only a few weeks ago. Why? Perhaps because he knew it would show a very low level of support and people would realise they'd be throwing their votes away on a party incapable of winning seats?

      Delete
    5. Yes I did and I actually did. It's not a gamble anymore than any or each and every vote is a gamble, but downside risk is zero as there is no stake, its' free.

      I knew (to the extent I possibly could through polling evidence and was proved correct in hindsight) main pro indy party not going to win list seats, so I voted for only other pro indy party with a chance of winning a list seat. I couldn't care less which unionist party won seats.

      This 'its a gamble' nonsense, the act is of voting itself, not of a transfer of your vote, as you have nothing to begin with, there is no bank of SNP list seats that can be squandered. There's no point sticking, as opposed to twisting, as if you don't vote,it won't count and it costs you nothing.

      There is always a risk that the party you vote for won't win the seat in every election, every electoral system anywhere in the world. That perceived risk just varies with the quality of evidence available, through polling, maybe betting markets and historical voting patterns.

      The idea that FPTP post is without risk and list voting involves risk is just spurious nonsense.

      All those idiots who 'played it safe' and stuck with the SNP on the list resulted in zero list MSP's, in most of the regions. Why is voting SNP more effective than voters using their list vote more efficiently to elect more pro-indy MSP's.

      Delete
    6. "but downside risk is zero as there is no stake, its' free"

      Oh I see what you did there. You're tacitly accepting that it's a gamble, but of the non-monetary variety. I'm happy to confirm that's the type of gamble I was referring to - with the risk being to pro-independence representation in the Scottish Parliament.

      Why is voting SNP more effective

      Simple: because the SNP have more than 5% of the vote, and therefore actually have a chance of winning seats.

      Delete
    7. You used the term gamble, I accepted that the outcome is uncertain but that applies to BOTH FPTP and list voting, I don't accept your distinction.

      The SNP have 0% of the vote when you actually cast your vote. You're predicting a likely outcome with your 5%, which is what I'm suggesting, use the evidence to cast your vote as efficiently as you can based on the perceived most likely outcome.

      Simply voting SNP without considering the evidence is not going to lead to the optimal outcome.

      There's always a risk to pro-independence representation, your suggesting that risk is increased by voting for a pro-indy party that's not the SNP, particularly in regions where the SNP are highly unlikely to win list seats. That is illogical.

      Delete
    8. "The SNP have 0% of the vote when you actually cast your vote."

      Er, isn't this a bit like saying we don't know if the sun is going to rise tomorrow? You can say it, but it needs some supporting evidence.
      Even in the dark days of the mid-80s it was quite difficult for the SNP to get below 5% in the vast majority of places, so I'd suggest that the 0% statement, while technically true, doesn't correspond with observed reality.

      Delete
    9. If I vote SNP on the regional list, there is pretty much zero risk to my vote. It will always be counted (unless they don't make the 5% threshold regionally, but that applies to all parties).

      If I vote for them on the constituency alone, there is a high probability that my voted won't be counted. 50k odd SNP votes were binned under FPTP in the South of Scotland area alone. If those folk had voted on the list, their SNP vote would have been wiped from history completely.

      Be honest when you tell people to vote Green/Wings on the list. They are risking their SNP vote and giving their safe vote to Green/Wings.

      The Greens can suggest their voters might choose e.g. SNP in the constituency tactically, but if they claim SNP voters can pick them as a 'second choice' on the regional list, they are liars.

      The regional list is your first choice under PR. The constituency is yours much more risky second choice under FPTP where you can vote tactically.

      Delete
    10. Of course the SNP will get 5% of the vote but they also won't win list seats in most of the regions unless they get about 55%+ under d'hondt unless something changes dramatically.

      You either predict what's going to happen and cast your vote accordingly or you don't,you can't simply make predictions that always result in voting SNP. The 0% was just to highlight that your making a prediction that the SNP will secure a share of the vote, they don't automatically have it to lose.

      SNP in the borders makes sense on the list it doesn't elsewhere.

      Voting for a party on the list that is not likely to produce any list MSPs is NOT a safe vote, it is a VERY risky vote.

      Delete
    11. Downside risk is not necessarily financial, there literally is nothing to lose from casting your vote (maybe an hour of your life).

      An independence majority is not automatically there to lose, it has to be gained by voting for the parties most likely to secure it.

      There is risk whichever party you vote for, it's just minimised by taking account of all the available information.

      Delete
  22. SNP tactical voting logic part 2.

    Vote for the SNP on the list as opinion polls maybe completely wrong so the SNP may need your vote to win list seats.

    Don't vote for another indy party on the list as opinion polls are definitely right, as they are parties who have no chance of winning seats

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Opinion polls about Wings are neither right nor wrong at the moment. They're simply non-existent. Now why would that be, given that Mr Campbell commissioned an extremely long poll only a few weeks ago?

      Well, exactly.

      I hope for your sake that part 3 is an improvement on parts 1 and 2.

      Delete
  23. I'm in the borders. If people ask me to vote SNP on the FPTP constituency and Wings/Green on the list, they are asking me to risk my SNP vote being completely binned / going uncounted, while guaranteeing my Wings/Green vote is counted.

    They should be honest about that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SNP list vote in the borders is fine as they have a very good chance of winning list seats, that's not the case in every region

      Delete
  24. "On a train, y'know that modernised shit, have unisex toilets and men enter, then women, an so on and so forth. The toilet is indiscriminate, only in the crazed minds of WoS is it an issue."

    We're going to end up with a party called the Bogtrotters. Oh wait...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Train toilets are of course single sex, not unisex.

      Men can't use one at the same time as a woman is in and vice versa! :-)

      Delete
    2. Scottish Skier,

      "Train toilets are of course single sex, not unisex.

      Men can't use one at the same time as a woman is in and vice versa! :-)

      That,seems to me to be the point. Which also seems to me to be the right compromise. Difficult for folk that want private places on a time-line - not continuously - rather than on a use line.

      This is a ridiculous and very Rev Stewart Campbell insanity.

      That chap used to be useful. Quite when he thought anyone would buy into his idiotic add-ons to independence, well, that is when he lost it.

      Delete
  25. There is no Wings party, there's never likely to be a Wings party, it's kite flying by a man who's attempting to raise money for himself because when Independence happens he loses his income plus he could never stand for election to anything as the press and media would tear him and his past into tiny shredded pieces
    The guy's bonkers and people are falling for it as if it's a real thing but he's expecting you to pay for it by subsidising his website in the meantime
    Wait for the coming announcement of *let's get the biggest crowd funder of all time because he's going to do something amazing*

    He's not you know

    ReplyDelete
  26. What do the Greens plan to do if they did get MPs in Westminster?

    Presumably they would try overrule devolution, bringing devolved environment powers beck from Holyrood to Westminster so they could implement green policies by this route?

    They would need to do this as environment legislation is devolved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Greens already have an MP. They don't have much where-with-all in Scotland, though. But at least they have found more candidates to stand in Scotland than at the last GE.

      Delete
    2. The Scottish Greens have no MPs. You are thinking of the E&W greens.

      Delete
    3. Credit where credit is due; the Scottish Greens are a Scottish party registered in this country.

      As opposed to an English party with an accounting office here.

      Delete
  27. My word, I just had a look at Campbell's blog. I wish I hadn't. A lengthy and confused rant about the Jo Cox Foundation.

    The Foundation's principle idea is 'for a kinder, more compassionate society where every individual has a sense of belonging and where we recognise that we have more in common than that which divides us.'

    That seems to really, really annoy him. Anyway, it will be a good laugh if there is ever a party running on a manifesto consisting of the independence of changing rooms in sports centers. Mind you, the place I go to has had communal changing for both sexes, and it's had that system since the late 19th century. I don't think there has ever been any complaints about it, even in the age of incontinent internet blogs, so good luck to Campbell getting anyone fired-up about that, apart from the hate-filled semi-fossilised people that comment on his blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wings is just a user, although it was a terrible thing that happened to Jo Cox more folk aught to take a look at what Jo Cox actually stood for and she was not the sweetness and light everybody paints her out to be, she was in truth a pretty unpleasant character herself

      That's not to say that in any way she was at fault for a head case doing what he did

      Delete
  28. The Cox scenario is always dragged up by the remainers. They made out it was a worldwide right wing conspiracy when in fact it was one deranged man. The remainers will not stop at anything to prevent the majority vote. The remainers in this case are the fascists.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Random Totty From Freedom SquareNovember 4, 2019 at 3:42 PM

    If you boys don't unite to get us IndyRef2 then I might start a photobombing campaign.

    How would you like that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is noted that you photobomb President Jamez. We will show lenience and write this off as your 'animal spirit'.
      But if there is repetition then you may be classed 'basque terrorist'.

      Delete
  30. When did Scottish Skier drink the WoS cool aid? It is more than a tad sad to watch someone I liked, fold to a complete, utter lunatic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I can think for myself!

      I'm a scientist, so stick to cold, hard biology / science on the gender issue.

      I've also got a 12 year old daughter to think of, and for lots of reasons 'gender neutral' bathrooms / males in the ladies are a real problem for her and other women (the reasons are obvious). So women's groups have valid concerns here.

      I do think Wings has become a strangely obsessed on the issue though.

      Delete
    2. Now that you brought up the trans subject that is.

      Delete
  31. Scottish Skier,

    I have an adult daughter who I care for. What you say here:

    "
    I do think Wings has become a strangely obsessed on the issue though."

    shows some sympathy for another point of view.


    "I've also got a 12 year old daughter to think of, and for lots of reasons 'gender neutral' bathrooms / males in the ladies are a real problem for her and other women (the reasons are obvious). So women's groups have valid concerns here"

    Is not an actually considered view.

    I am not at all convinced that gender free toilets are dangerous. You, otoh, see them as the end of civilisation as we know it.

    I am pretty sure that you and the boy from Bath are wrong. Much as the two of you think you are right.

    However, is that a chink in your armour that I see?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, my daughter has just started her period. She's had a good few accidents. It's embarrassing enough for her dealing with that without a male audience on top. Sex segregated facilities have reasons other than 'safety'.

      I don't feel I need to share toilets with women. I'm not sure why some men want to so much.

      Delete
    2. I also have a former colleague and friend who has a violent male stalker former boyfriend. The ladies toilets have provided a place of safety for her many times, just like they have for many women in similar situations.

      Gender neutral facilities don't offer that.

      I do think these are considered viewpoints.

      I have no idea why you mention wings. I posted for a while on his site years ago, but I have no link to it or him at all.

      I'll also be voting SNP on the list most likely if you must know.

      Delete
    3. Re-Toilets, totally agree.

      Delete
  32. ICM subsamples have SNP at only 31%. Similar to Deltapoll at 27%. While there's been a glut of really good subsamples for the SNP, these two have been two of the lowest I've recorded since Boris became PM.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I monitored Deltapoll for a while, but it kept averaging way below what the others and full Scottish polls showed. For that reason, I did the right statistical thing and set it to one side.

      I have to do the same for ICM as they don't publish regularly enough to be able to judge.

      Subsamples of UK polls are no substitute for full Scottish, but only useful for trying to fill the gaps a bit. However, when a full Scottish poll comes along, your subsamples should be averaging out to something close. If one is consistently too high or too low, it should be excluded.

      Sometimes to high / sometimes too low suggests it's roughly correct on average. This is what you see with the others. Some do tend to find a bit lower (e.g. Survation, Comres), others a bit higher (MORI often). Hence you need to average out these together too once the total outliers are excluded.

      My running average is always +/-3% of what full Scottish are saying typically.

      Also, delta-poll doesn't have a Scotland subsample, but one for 'Scot-land', which automatically excludes it. :-)

      Delete
  33. I thought all the trans stuff was to do with transistor radio and teens listening to their Elvis Presley's and Beatles on their wee wirelesses. I couldn't understand all the fuss about toilets and trains. We used to go to the toilet with our trannies all the time and listen to Lulu and Dusty. We used to bop around and try on new lipsticks and talk about boyfriend.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Hmm..

    Cottonbob.

    I have been reading folk on here for years, some folk have been reading our good host far longer than that. So, I don't take education from someone called Cottenbob. Who seems to be a bit cottonboby which mighht mean a tad thick in Southern USA dialect?

    His mileage may vary, but actual grown up's? Not so much. We have, ladies and gentlemen, before us, a captured Amerikan, one of tthe disgusting gun folk. Don't worry this specimin has had all it's weapons removed and has been returned to the human race, albeit under debate.

    ReplyDelete
  35. What animosity are you striving to perfect, what is the purpose for your hate towards a Scottish person that supports independence, perhaps I am correct in in thinking your purpose is is to divide the Scottish independence supporters. Just before you continue your hate speech towards any of us you might like to learn cottonbob is part of a sewing machine

    ReplyDelete
  36. What animosity are you striving to perfect, what is the purpose for your hate towards a Scottish person that supports independence, perhaps I am correct in in thinking your purpose is is to divide the Scottish independence supporters. Just before you continue your hate speech towards any of us you might like to learn cottonbob is part of a sewing machine

    ReplyDelete