"It is impossible for one to be internationalist without being a nationalist. Internationalism is possible only when nationalism becomes a fact, when peoples belonging to different countries have organised themselves and are able to act as one man."
Said by Mahatma Ghandi, anti-imperialist spiritual leader of India. Which is a strikingly similar sentiment to...
"Without nationalism, there can be no internationalism."
Said by Robert Bontine Cunninghame Graham, Britain's first socialist MP, co-founder with Keir Hardie of the original Scottish Labour Party (and thus forefather of the 'international movement' to which our old friend Duncan Hothersall insists he still subscribes), and first President of the SNP. His most famous quote is probably this one -
"The enemies of Scottish Nationalism are not the English, for they were ever a great and generous folk, quick to respond when justice calls. Our real enemies are among us, born without imagination."
Saturday, March 29, 2014
Friday, March 28, 2014
Does Nick Clegg's logic make Vladimir Putin the rightful President of Scotland?
I must confess that I haven't been watching Nick Clegg's speech to the Scottish Lib Dem diehards. (After making it through eight whole minutes of his debate with Nigel Farage earlier this week, which was hosted by Nick bloody Ferrari of all people, I reckoned I'd probably suffered enough.) But I have been getting a flavour of what was said by following Caron Lindsay's Twitter feed. This bit caught my eye -
"Nick: my family is brimming with diverse heritage & that's just like we are across the UK. We need to show we can build on shared history."
Now on the face of it there's nothing new in that message - we're all too familiar with anti-independence politicians telling us that "I have an English granny, a Welsh uncle and a Scottish wife, and that's why it's ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL that Scotland continues to be ruled by a Tory government it didn't vote for". The difference here, of course, is that by definition Clegg can't be talking about "intra-UK" family ties - his mother is from the Netherlands, and his father has a part-Russian family history. So if we follow the traditional (and extraordinarily egotistical) logic that insists an individual's patchwork of multiple national identities simply must be reflected in the political union that they inhabit in order to prevent them from suffering the unspeakable trauma of feeling that they have "foreign" relatives, this presumably means that the country of which Clegg is Deputy Prime Minister should now dissolve itself into a unitary state that also includes the Netherlands and Russia. Such a country would have a total population of some 223 million, of whom 143 million would live in Russia, which means...well, it appears to mean that Vladimir Putin is our rightful President.
Still, on the plus side, at least our Tory masters in London would suddenly know what it's felt like all this time.
It's an oft-repeated statistic that roughly 50% of people in Scotland have relatives in England. I've no idea whether that's actually true, and I've also no idea whether it refers only to English relatives or sometimes to Scottish relatives who have moved to England because of the state of the Scottish economy under Westminster rule. But either way, it means that there at least 50% of us who don't have relatives in England. I'm one of them. I've visited England a number of times, due mainly to its geographical proximity and the fact that it provides the land route to the European continent. But I quite literally have no personal ties to the country whatever. Like so many others on my side of the "50/50" divide, I do however have family ties to countries outside the UK - in my case the US, Ireland and Canada. So what about us? Do our sensibilities not count? Or are we the only ones expected to be mature enough to recognise that something as uniquely personal as family background is not the most rational way of deciding how a country should be governed?
* * *
You may already have seen this, but Newsnet Scotland are running a fundraiser to enable them to commission an impartial academic study into one month of the BBC's referendum coverage. The study will only go ahead if the £6500 target is reached - if not, any money you donate will be returned in full. Click HERE to read more.
"Nick: my family is brimming with diverse heritage & that's just like we are across the UK. We need to show we can build on shared history."
Now on the face of it there's nothing new in that message - we're all too familiar with anti-independence politicians telling us that "I have an English granny, a Welsh uncle and a Scottish wife, and that's why it's ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL that Scotland continues to be ruled by a Tory government it didn't vote for". The difference here, of course, is that by definition Clegg can't be talking about "intra-UK" family ties - his mother is from the Netherlands, and his father has a part-Russian family history. So if we follow the traditional (and extraordinarily egotistical) logic that insists an individual's patchwork of multiple national identities simply must be reflected in the political union that they inhabit in order to prevent them from suffering the unspeakable trauma of feeling that they have "foreign" relatives, this presumably means that the country of which Clegg is Deputy Prime Minister should now dissolve itself into a unitary state that also includes the Netherlands and Russia. Such a country would have a total population of some 223 million, of whom 143 million would live in Russia, which means...well, it appears to mean that Vladimir Putin is our rightful President.
Still, on the plus side, at least our Tory masters in London would suddenly know what it's felt like all this time.
It's an oft-repeated statistic that roughly 50% of people in Scotland have relatives in England. I've no idea whether that's actually true, and I've also no idea whether it refers only to English relatives or sometimes to Scottish relatives who have moved to England because of the state of the Scottish economy under Westminster rule. But either way, it means that there at least 50% of us who don't have relatives in England. I'm one of them. I've visited England a number of times, due mainly to its geographical proximity and the fact that it provides the land route to the European continent. But I quite literally have no personal ties to the country whatever. Like so many others on my side of the "50/50" divide, I do however have family ties to countries outside the UK - in my case the US, Ireland and Canada. So what about us? Do our sensibilities not count? Or are we the only ones expected to be mature enough to recognise that something as uniquely personal as family background is not the most rational way of deciding how a country should be governed?
* * *
You may already have seen this, but Newsnet Scotland are running a fundraiser to enable them to commission an impartial academic study into one month of the BBC's referendum coverage. The study will only go ahead if the £6500 target is reached - if not, any money you donate will be returned in full. Click HERE to read more.
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Boost for SNP in Holyrood voting intention figures from YouGov
In recent months, YouGov have slipped out of line with other pollsters with regard to Holyrood voting intentions, showing the SNP in a somewhat weaker position. However, this week's new poll that provided such encouragement on the referendum front also shows the Nationalists increasing their constituency lead over Labour by an extra point, and drawing level with Labour on the regional list ballot.
Scottish Parliament constituency vote :
SNP 38% (-1)
Labour 35% (-2)
Conservatives 13% (-1)
Liberal Democrats 7% (+2)
Scottish Parliament regional list vote :
SNP 33% (n/c)
Labour 33% (-2)
Conservatives 13% (-1)
Greens 7% (+1)
Liberal Democrats 7% (+2)
In contrast to the recent Ipsos-Mori poll, though, the SNP haven't made a stride forward on their own vote share, which maintains at least the possibility that YouGov's status as a relatively No-friendly pollster is directly linked to the fact that they are also finding fewer people planning to vote SNP. By extension, that means that real votes in forthcoming local council by-elections (there's one today!) and in the European Parliament elections could give us a vital clue as to which pollsters are likely to prove most accurate on the referendum - if the SNP do well, that would increase the likelihood that Yes-friendly pollsters like ICM and Panelbase are closer to the mark, but if their vote slips back a touch, YouGov could be the ones to watch.
Scottish Parliament constituency vote :
SNP 38% (-1)
Labour 35% (-2)
Conservatives 13% (-1)
Liberal Democrats 7% (+2)
Scottish Parliament regional list vote :
SNP 33% (n/c)
Labour 33% (-2)
Conservatives 13% (-1)
Greens 7% (+1)
Liberal Democrats 7% (+2)
In contrast to the recent Ipsos-Mori poll, though, the SNP haven't made a stride forward on their own vote share, which maintains at least the possibility that YouGov's status as a relatively No-friendly pollster is directly linked to the fact that they are also finding fewer people planning to vote SNP. By extension, that means that real votes in forthcoming local council by-elections (there's one today!) and in the European Parliament elections could give us a vital clue as to which pollsters are likely to prove most accurate on the referendum - if the SNP do well, that would increase the likelihood that Yes-friendly pollsters like ICM and Panelbase are closer to the mark, but if their vote slips back a touch, YouGov could be the ones to watch.
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Was the Yes vote in the recent ICM poll even higher than reported?
You might remember that when Scotland on Sunday reported a big swing to Yes in their ICM poll at the weekend, I was slightly surprised to learn that the headline numbers showing a No lead of just 7% somehow translated into a Yes vote of 45% with Don't Knows excluded, as opposed to 46%. I assumed that the explanation was that the unrounded numbers were somewhere in the region of Yes 45.4%, No 54.6%. But the datasets have now been published, and we can see that after weighting was applied to the raw numbers there were actually 391 respondents who said they planned to vote Yes, and 468 who said they planned to vote No. By my calculations (which I've now double-checked several times, because initially I assumed that I must be wrong), that works out as -
Yes 45.518%
No 54.482%
The Yes figure is clearly closer to 46% than 45%, and the No figure is clearly closer to 54% than 55%, so after rounding the reported figures should really have been -
Yes 46% (+3)
No 54% (-3)
For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not suggesting any sort of conspiracy here - ICM strike me as being scrupulously impartial and professional. The only explanation I can think of is that they must have some kind of quirky rule for how to round their numbers, and that Yes have fallen foul of it on this occasion. But whatever that rule is, it certainly doesn't coincide with the basic arithmetic I was taught at school!
UPDATE : Or another possible explanation is that the summarised number of Yes-voting respondents was itself rounded up after weighting, and the true number was 390.6 or something like that. Either way, the calculation was certainly borderline.
Yes 45.518%
No 54.482%
The Yes figure is clearly closer to 46% than 45%, and the No figure is clearly closer to 54% than 55%, so after rounding the reported figures should really have been -
Yes 46% (+3)
No 54% (-3)
For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not suggesting any sort of conspiracy here - ICM strike me as being scrupulously impartial and professional. The only explanation I can think of is that they must have some kind of quirky rule for how to round their numbers, and that Yes have fallen foul of it on this occasion. But whatever that rule is, it certainly doesn't coincide with the basic arithmetic I was taught at school!
UPDATE : Or another possible explanation is that the summarised number of Yes-voting respondents was itself rounded up after weighting, and the true number was 390.6 or something like that. Either way, the calculation was certainly borderline.
Breakthrough for pro-independence campaign in landmark new YouGov poll
Although the No lead has been slipping in recent YouGov polls, the pace of change has been frustratingly sluggish compared to most other pollsters - a state of affairs that even allowed Peter Kellner to pen an extraordinary reality-defying article in which he implied that public opinion had essentially remained static, and that the apparent movement was an illusion caused by normal sampling variation. Well, those comforting words for the No campaign have finally been blown away by new numbers from YouGov, which corroborate the strong pro-Yes trend shown recently by Survation, Panelbase and ICM.
If there was a referendum tomorrow on Scotland's future and this was the question, how would you vote? Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 37% (+2)
No 52% (-1)
With Don't Knows excluded, it works out as -
Yes 42% (+2)
No 58% (-2)
And among respondents who say they are certain to vote, the figures with Don't Knows excluded are -
Yes 43% (+2)
No 57% (-2)
A 15% No lead may still look substantial, but it's well below the normal range for YouGov, which has consistently been one of the most No-friendly pollsters (indeed for a time it was the outright most No-friendly firm). 37% is the highest Yes vote they've shown over the entire course of the campaign so far, breaking the record of 35% that was set only last month. The latter detail is also very much in line with the trend detected by ICM and Survation, which both showed Yes at a new high watermark in their most recent polls - although in those cases the figure was 39%.
Most polling analysts seem to be charitable to Mr Kellner and his colleagues by only comparing any new referendum poll they produce with other YouGov polls that have appeared since September, when a huge methodological change was introduced. Everything before that seems to be as mythical as Oceania being at war with Eurasia. However, we shouldn't entirely lose sight of the fact that in the final poll produced under the old procedures in August, No had a massive lead of 30% - and for the only time in their lives the London media were actually justified in referring to it as a "2-1 majority against independence". So if we take the headline numbers at face value, the gap has literally halved over the last seven months, with another six months still to go. And that's assuming that Yes actually need to be in the lead with YouGov by polling day, which may well not be the case - they could quite easily finish the campaign ahead on the polling average while still being as much as 5% behind in the final YouGov poll.
Until recently it looked as if the pattern across all the pollsters pointed to there having been significant movement to Yes between September of last year and January of this year, followed by a few weeks of consolidation thereafter. But recent polls have pointed to the possibility of a further surge for Yes, and even Professor Curtice suggested that two more polls showing a similar trend would more or less confirm that. It seems we're now halfway towards receiving that confirmation. It's still conceivable that the uniform direction of travel shown by Panelbase, ICM, Survation and YouGov is coincidental, and that all four pollsters are misleading us due to margin-of-error effects. But that does look increasingly unlikely.
Even with this new poll, YouGov remain significantly more No-friendly than all other online pollsters. It's unlikely (although not impossible) that the composition of their panel is significantly different to the others, and of course they've finally got their act together to some extent with the wording of the preamble, so what's going on? The most probable explanation is the unusual practice of splitting respondents who voted for the SNP in 2011 into two distinct groups, and weighting them separately. One group always seems to be upweighted massively, while the other usually seems to be downweighted, which may indicate that the balance between the two groups is being misjudged, or that the whole process is just totally misconceived.
Who knows, there may be method in YouGov's madness, but at face value it does look very, very odd.
* * *
SCOT GOES POP POLL OF POLLS
For the second time in just a few short days, the Yes vote has soared to a new high watermark in this blog's Poll of Polls, and the No lead has slumped to yet another new low.
MEAN AVERAGE (not excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 35.6% (+0.3)
No 48.1% (-0.2)
MEAN AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 42.5% (+0.3)
No 57.5% (-0.3)
MEDIAN AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 42.0% (n/c)
No 58.0% (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, and that adhere to British Polling Council rules. At present, there are seven - YouGov, TNS-BMRB, Angus Reid, 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.)
The median numbers remain unchanged for what seems like the umpteenth time because Angus Reid (who haven't reported for months) are still the mid-point, although YouGov are closing in on them fast. TNS-BMRB have now overtaken YouGov as the second-most No-friendly pollster after Ipsos-Mori.
Here are the updated long-term trend figures...
The No campaign's lead in the Poll of Polls headline figures :
Sep 2013 - 20.2%
Sep 2013 - 20.0%
Sep 2013 - 18.4%
Oct 2013 - 17.9%
Oct 2013 - 17.5%
Oct 2013 - 17.4%
Nov 2013 - 17.5%
Dec 2013 - 17.1%
Dec 2013 - 16.3%
Dec 2013 - 16.2%
Dec 2013 - 15.8%
Jan 2014 - 14.2%
Jan 2014 - 14.8%
Feb 2014 - 14.8%
Feb 2014 - 14.7%
Feb 2014 - 15.1%
Feb 2014 - 13.6%
Feb 2014 - 14.0%
Mar 2014 - 14.0%
Mar 2014 - 14.3%
Mar 2014 - 14.3%
Mar 2014 - 13.6%
Mar 2014 - 12.9%
Mar 2014 - 13.0%
Mar 2014 - 12.5%
And last but not least, here are the updated averages for the four online pollsters that have reported so far this year (YouGov, ICM, Panelbase and Survation) -
MEAN AVERAGE OF ONLINE POLLSTERS (not excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 38.8% (+0.5)
No 47.8% (-0.2)
MEAN AVERAGE OF ONLINE POLLSTERS (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 44.8% (+0.4)
No 55.2% (-0.4)
MEDIAN AVERAGE OF ONLINE POLLSTERS (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 45.4% (n/c)
No 54.6% (n/c)
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Explaining the difference between TNS-BMRB and the online pollsters
In the last post I discussed the ongoing disparity between TNS-BMRB, which currently shows a Yes vote of 40% after undecideds are excluded, and the three Yes-friendly online pollsters that are currently clustering around a pro-independence vote of 45-47%. I wondered to what extent the difference is caused by the fact that TNS are not reliant on volunteer online panels, and to what extent it's caused by them applying an eccentric weighting procedure. (They scale up people who didn't vote in 2011 or can't remember how they voted so that they count as a full 50% of the sample, which is a much, much higher figure than any other pollster uses.) So in order to test this important question, I thought it might be useful to compare the TNS cross-breaks with those of Survation and Panelbase. I'd like to have included ICM as well, but those datasets haven't appeared yet.
In order to make a meaningful comparison, it's necessary to strip out the Don't Knows, because TNS always report a far higher number of undecided respondents.
PROPORTION OF 2011 SNP VOTERS WHO SAY THEY WILL VOTE YES :
TNS-BMRB : 79.6%
Panelbase : 78.7%
Survation : 82.0%
PROPORTION OF 2011 LABOUR VOTERS WHO SAY THEY WILL VOTE YES :
TNS-BMRB : 17.6%
Panelbase : 32.3%
Survation : 27.9%
PROPORTION OF 2011 CONSERVATIVE VOTERS WHO SAY THEY WILL VOTE YES :
TNS-BMRB : 6.3%
Panelbase : 8.2%
Survation : 7.8%
PROPORTION OF 2011 LIBERAL DEMOCRAT VOTERS WHO SAY THEY WILL VOTE YES :
TNS-BMRB : 17.1%
Panelbase : 27.3%
Survation : 11.3%
So there's good news and bad news here. The bad news is that the bizarre TNS weighting procedure plainly isn't the only explanation for the disparity - they really are finding a significantly lower number of Labour voters 'on the ground' who say they will vote Yes, and that's clearly having an impact on the overall numbers. That would be the case even if they weighted their raw data in exactly the same way as Panelbase and Survation.
But what I find fascinating is that TNS are showing an identical position to the online pollsters in respect of people who voted SNP in 2011. This goes completely against the conventional wisdom about why online polls might conceivably be skewed towards Yes - ie. that highly opinionated, die-hard nationalists are signing up to online polling panels in disproportionate numbers. If that was the explanation for the higher Yes vote, you'd expect the difference to show up in the SNP column, not the Labour column. Why would the supposedly rogue element in the online polls - the surplus numbers of opinionated nationalists - have voted Labour in 2011? It doesn't make any sense, so clearly there is something more subtle and interesting going on.
The solution to the polling puzzle in this campaign therefore seems to hinge to a large extent on understanding the greater tendency of online pollsters to pick up a substantial Yes vote among Labour (and possibly Liberal Democrat) voters. Could it be that such people feel a bit more embarrassed about admitting their support for independence, due to their political backgrounds? Do they find it easier to be honest to a computer screen than to a real live interviewer? That's just one possible explanation out of many (another is that Labour voters who use the internet more often are likely to be disproportionately well-informed about the issues), but if it's the right one it would be fantastic news for the Yes campaign, because it would suggest that the online polls may be considerably more accurate.
In order to make a meaningful comparison, it's necessary to strip out the Don't Knows, because TNS always report a far higher number of undecided respondents.
PROPORTION OF 2011 SNP VOTERS WHO SAY THEY WILL VOTE YES :
TNS-BMRB : 79.6%
Panelbase : 78.7%
Survation : 82.0%
PROPORTION OF 2011 LABOUR VOTERS WHO SAY THEY WILL VOTE YES :
TNS-BMRB : 17.6%
Panelbase : 32.3%
Survation : 27.9%
PROPORTION OF 2011 CONSERVATIVE VOTERS WHO SAY THEY WILL VOTE YES :
TNS-BMRB : 6.3%
Panelbase : 8.2%
Survation : 7.8%
PROPORTION OF 2011 LIBERAL DEMOCRAT VOTERS WHO SAY THEY WILL VOTE YES :
TNS-BMRB : 17.1%
Panelbase : 27.3%
Survation : 11.3%
So there's good news and bad news here. The bad news is that the bizarre TNS weighting procedure plainly isn't the only explanation for the disparity - they really are finding a significantly lower number of Labour voters 'on the ground' who say they will vote Yes, and that's clearly having an impact on the overall numbers. That would be the case even if they weighted their raw data in exactly the same way as Panelbase and Survation.
But what I find fascinating is that TNS are showing an identical position to the online pollsters in respect of people who voted SNP in 2011. This goes completely against the conventional wisdom about why online polls might conceivably be skewed towards Yes - ie. that highly opinionated, die-hard nationalists are signing up to online polling panels in disproportionate numbers. If that was the explanation for the higher Yes vote, you'd expect the difference to show up in the SNP column, not the Labour column. Why would the supposedly rogue element in the online polls - the surplus numbers of opinionated nationalists - have voted Labour in 2011? It doesn't make any sense, so clearly there is something more subtle and interesting going on.
The solution to the polling puzzle in this campaign therefore seems to hinge to a large extent on understanding the greater tendency of online pollsters to pick up a substantial Yes vote among Labour (and possibly Liberal Democrat) voters. Could it be that such people feel a bit more embarrassed about admitting their support for independence, due to their political backgrounds? Do they find it easier to be honest to a computer screen than to a real live interviewer? That's just one possible explanation out of many (another is that Labour voters who use the internet more often are likely to be disproportionately well-informed about the issues), but if it's the right one it would be fantastic news for the Yes campaign, because it would suggest that the online polls may be considerably more accurate.
New TNS-BMRB referendum poll puts the pro-independence campaign at 40%
A new TNS-BMRB poll on the referendum has just been released, and in complete contrast to ICM, Panelbase and Survation it shows a very slight increase in the No lead. The difference with the other pollsters almost certainly means that normal sampling variation is at play, and that the lead has not in fact increased since last time. (The figures don't even preclude the possibility that the lead may actually have fallen further - that would be well within the margin of error.)
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 28% (-1)
No 42% (n/c)
With Don't Knows excluded (by far the most meaningful measure), it works out as -
Yes 40% (-1)
No 60% (+1)
So the pro-independence campaign have retained the vast bulk of the impressive gains they've made with TNS over recent months - with the possible exception of ICM, this is the pollster that has shown the greatest and most sustained progress for Yes. Just a few short months ago, the No campaign enjoyed a lead of 22% on the headline figures - that has been slashed to 14%, and the fact that several successive polls from the firm have shown a lead of either 13 or 14 points confirms beyond any doubt that the shift in opinion is real.
Blair McDougall seems to be particularly "excited" (if that's the word) by the figures for respondents who are certain to vote. Now, it's true that they do show a bigger increase in the No lead than on the headline figures, but the problem for Blair is that last month's numbers were absolutely ghastly for his side - with Don't Knows excluded they put Yes on 45%, right up there with the Yes-friendly online pollsters. That a face-to-face polling organisation could have produced such figures must have been a matter of huge concern for the No campaign, and the damage hasn't been entirely undone. We'll have to wait for the datasets to be sure, but a rough calculation suggests that Yes are on 41% among certain voters in this poll, one point higher than in the sample at large. In any case, TNS have noted themselves that the figures for certain voters are much more volatile - in early January, the No lead dropped from 15 points to 10, in late January it recovered to 17, in February it slumped to just 9, and now it has partly recovered to 14. The bigger picture is that it remains lower than in all but two of the previous seven TNS polls that have been published since the firm started producing monthly figures - in September it was a full 8% higher than now, very much in line with the trend on the headline numbers.
The biggest caveat of all about this poll is that it's actually quite a bit out of date. The fieldwork mostly predates the Survation and Panelbase polls, and it entirely predates the ICM poll. So not only is it possible that the further drop in the No lead detected by those three pollsters hasn't shown up in TNS due to normal sampling variation, it's also possible that it wasn't picked up because it occurred after some of the fieldwork took place.
I said a few days ago that TNS-BMRB somehow seem more important than other pollsters, and I'd stand by that. If it wasn't for them, we'd have a distinct lack of variety in the methodology used to measure public opinion - no fewer than five of the other six BPC pollsters who have been active in this campaign conduct their fieldwork via the internet among volunteer panels, which perhaps wouldn't be quite so troubling if the sole telephone pollster (Ipsos-Mori) wasn't producing figures that are totally out of line with the online firms. To muddy the waters even further, though, Ipsos-Mori's methodology isn't unusual simply because of the telephone fieldwork - there's also the fact that they don't weight their numbers by recalled Holyrood vote, or indeed by any sort of recalled vote. Suspicions have been raised that they may be interviewing only by landline, which they probably wouldn't do for GB-wide telephone polls (although in truth they've been incredibly secretive and nobody seems to know for sure). So it's not entirely clear which aspect of their methodology is most responsible for producing the disparity. That's why the face-to-face approach of TNS is so invaluable - it helps us to form a judgement about whether breaking out of the confines of volunteer online panels is in itself bound to produce the much bigger No lead that Ipsos-Mori are reporting.
And the verdict? Well, that depends on whether you're a glass-half-full or glass-half-empty sort of person, because if you exclude Don't Knows the Yes vote being reported by TNS in this poll is pretty much exactly equidistant between Ipsos-Mori on the one hand, and the trio of Yes-friendly online pollsters on the other. That's the case regardless of whether you look at respondents who are certain to vote or the entire sample.
Having said that, TNS use a fairly eccentric weighting procedure themselves. They do weight by recalled 2011 vote, but they dilute the benefit of that by drastically upweighting respondents who either didn't vote in 2011 or don't remember how they voted. People who do recall how they voted count for just 50% of the sample - a much lower figure than online pollsters use, and one that arguably assumes a 100% turnout in September. The net effect seems to be an artificial lowering of the Yes vote that TNS produce. The datasets from last month's poll suggest that there is a significantly bigger No lead among 2011 non-voters and 'can't remembers' than among the rest of the sample, meaning that if those people weren't being upweighted to quite such an extent the overall No lead would probably be a bit smaller. In other words, the fact that TNS are showing a Yes vote that is several points lower than ICM or Panelbase can't be put down exclusively to their non-online status - there's at least one other very obvious contributory factor.
What that says by extension about the Ipsos-Mori enigma is anyone's guess. Perhaps the fog will start to clear if a second telephone pollster (most likely ComRes) enters the fray at some point.
* * *
SCOT GOES POP POLL OF POLLS
For obvious reasons there's not much change from the most recent update of the Poll of Polls, which showed the Yes vote at a record-breaking high. The No lead has bounced back by a mere 0.1%, meaning that it is still the second-lowest lead to be recorded to date.
MEAN AVERAGE (not excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 35.3% (-0.1)
No 48.3% (n/c)
MEAN AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 42.2% (-0.1)
No 57.8% (+0.1)
MEDIAN AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 42.0% (n/c)
No 58.0% (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, and that adhere to British Polling Council rules. At present, there are seven - YouGov, TNS-BMRB, Angus Reid, 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.)
And here is the long-term trend...
The No campaign's lead in the Poll of Polls headline figures :
Sep 2013 - 20.2%
Sep 2013 - 20.0%
Sep 2013 - 18.4%
Oct 2013 - 17.9%
Oct 2013 - 17.5%
Oct 2013 - 17.4%
Nov 2013 - 17.5%
Dec 2013 - 17.1%
Dec 2013 - 16.3%
Dec 2013 - 16.2%
Dec 2013 - 15.8%
Jan 2014 - 14.2%
Jan 2014 - 14.8%
Feb 2014 - 14.8%
Feb 2014 - 14.7%
Feb 2014 - 15.1%
Feb 2014 - 13.6%
Feb 2014 - 14.0%
Mar 2014 - 14.0%
Mar 2014 - 14.3%
Mar 2014 - 14.3%
Mar 2014 - 13.6%
Mar 2014 - 12.9%
Mar 2014 - 13.0%
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 28% (-1)
No 42% (n/c)
With Don't Knows excluded (by far the most meaningful measure), it works out as -
Yes 40% (-1)
No 60% (+1)
So the pro-independence campaign have retained the vast bulk of the impressive gains they've made with TNS over recent months - with the possible exception of ICM, this is the pollster that has shown the greatest and most sustained progress for Yes. Just a few short months ago, the No campaign enjoyed a lead of 22% on the headline figures - that has been slashed to 14%, and the fact that several successive polls from the firm have shown a lead of either 13 or 14 points confirms beyond any doubt that the shift in opinion is real.
Blair McDougall seems to be particularly "excited" (if that's the word) by the figures for respondents who are certain to vote. Now, it's true that they do show a bigger increase in the No lead than on the headline figures, but the problem for Blair is that last month's numbers were absolutely ghastly for his side - with Don't Knows excluded they put Yes on 45%, right up there with the Yes-friendly online pollsters. That a face-to-face polling organisation could have produced such figures must have been a matter of huge concern for the No campaign, and the damage hasn't been entirely undone. We'll have to wait for the datasets to be sure, but a rough calculation suggests that Yes are on 41% among certain voters in this poll, one point higher than in the sample at large. In any case, TNS have noted themselves that the figures for certain voters are much more volatile - in early January, the No lead dropped from 15 points to 10, in late January it recovered to 17, in February it slumped to just 9, and now it has partly recovered to 14. The bigger picture is that it remains lower than in all but two of the previous seven TNS polls that have been published since the firm started producing monthly figures - in September it was a full 8% higher than now, very much in line with the trend on the headline numbers.
The biggest caveat of all about this poll is that it's actually quite a bit out of date. The fieldwork mostly predates the Survation and Panelbase polls, and it entirely predates the ICM poll. So not only is it possible that the further drop in the No lead detected by those three pollsters hasn't shown up in TNS due to normal sampling variation, it's also possible that it wasn't picked up because it occurred after some of the fieldwork took place.
I said a few days ago that TNS-BMRB somehow seem more important than other pollsters, and I'd stand by that. If it wasn't for them, we'd have a distinct lack of variety in the methodology used to measure public opinion - no fewer than five of the other six BPC pollsters who have been active in this campaign conduct their fieldwork via the internet among volunteer panels, which perhaps wouldn't be quite so troubling if the sole telephone pollster (Ipsos-Mori) wasn't producing figures that are totally out of line with the online firms. To muddy the waters even further, though, Ipsos-Mori's methodology isn't unusual simply because of the telephone fieldwork - there's also the fact that they don't weight their numbers by recalled Holyrood vote, or indeed by any sort of recalled vote. Suspicions have been raised that they may be interviewing only by landline, which they probably wouldn't do for GB-wide telephone polls (although in truth they've been incredibly secretive and nobody seems to know for sure). So it's not entirely clear which aspect of their methodology is most responsible for producing the disparity. That's why the face-to-face approach of TNS is so invaluable - it helps us to form a judgement about whether breaking out of the confines of volunteer online panels is in itself bound to produce the much bigger No lead that Ipsos-Mori are reporting.
And the verdict? Well, that depends on whether you're a glass-half-full or glass-half-empty sort of person, because if you exclude Don't Knows the Yes vote being reported by TNS in this poll is pretty much exactly equidistant between Ipsos-Mori on the one hand, and the trio of Yes-friendly online pollsters on the other. That's the case regardless of whether you look at respondents who are certain to vote or the entire sample.
Having said that, TNS use a fairly eccentric weighting procedure themselves. They do weight by recalled 2011 vote, but they dilute the benefit of that by drastically upweighting respondents who either didn't vote in 2011 or don't remember how they voted. People who do recall how they voted count for just 50% of the sample - a much lower figure than online pollsters use, and one that arguably assumes a 100% turnout in September. The net effect seems to be an artificial lowering of the Yes vote that TNS produce. The datasets from last month's poll suggest that there is a significantly bigger No lead among 2011 non-voters and 'can't remembers' than among the rest of the sample, meaning that if those people weren't being upweighted to quite such an extent the overall No lead would probably be a bit smaller. In other words, the fact that TNS are showing a Yes vote that is several points lower than ICM or Panelbase can't be put down exclusively to their non-online status - there's at least one other very obvious contributory factor.
What that says by extension about the Ipsos-Mori enigma is anyone's guess. Perhaps the fog will start to clear if a second telephone pollster (most likely ComRes) enters the fray at some point.
* * *
SCOT GOES POP POLL OF POLLS
For obvious reasons there's not much change from the most recent update of the Poll of Polls, which showed the Yes vote at a record-breaking high. The No lead has bounced back by a mere 0.1%, meaning that it is still the second-lowest lead to be recorded to date.
MEAN AVERAGE (not excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 35.3% (-0.1)
No 48.3% (n/c)
MEAN AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 42.2% (-0.1)
No 57.8% (+0.1)
MEDIAN AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 42.0% (n/c)
No 58.0% (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, and that adhere to British Polling Council rules. At present, there are seven - YouGov, TNS-BMRB, Angus Reid, 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.)
And here is the long-term trend...
The No campaign's lead in the Poll of Polls headline figures :
Sep 2013 - 20.2%
Sep 2013 - 20.0%
Sep 2013 - 18.4%
Oct 2013 - 17.9%
Oct 2013 - 17.5%
Oct 2013 - 17.4%
Nov 2013 - 17.5%
Dec 2013 - 17.1%
Dec 2013 - 16.3%
Dec 2013 - 16.2%
Dec 2013 - 15.8%
Jan 2014 - 14.2%
Jan 2014 - 14.8%
Feb 2014 - 14.8%
Feb 2014 - 14.7%
Feb 2014 - 15.1%
Feb 2014 - 13.6%
Feb 2014 - 14.0%
Mar 2014 - 14.0%
Mar 2014 - 14.3%
Mar 2014 - 14.3%
Mar 2014 - 13.6%
Mar 2014 - 12.9%
Mar 2014 - 13.0%
Monday, March 24, 2014
It's where the water flows, it's where the wind blows
In his notorious "Mount Olympus" address to Scotland from the safe distance of the London Velodrome, David Cameron made clear he was hoping that English people would pick up the phone and beseech their Scottish friends and relatives to "stay" (on the apparent assumption that independence would for some reason involve Scotland "going" somewhere). This was always a risky strategy at best – the catastrophic failure of the Guardian’s ‘write-to-an-Ohioan’ wheeze during the 2004 US Presidential election was a useful reminder that voters often deeply resent outside interference in their own local democratic process, particularly if it’s condescending in tone. At an absolute minimum, the theory that Scotland could be love-bombed into submission surely depended on the London establishment first of all taking some urgent steps to turn around the current perception of Scots that the English don’t really like or respect them very much.
A YouGov poll conducted at the end of February found that 46% of Scottish voters feel that their country is viewed in a negative light by English people, compared to just 23% who think that the English have a positive opinion of Scotland. Such stark numbers shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, given the daily diet of ugly Jock-bashing that is served up by the right-wing London media. However, until a few weeks ago, there was at least some evidence that ordinary English people didn't swallow the media propaganda whole, and were open to taking a much more mature attitude towards Scotland’s exercise in self-determination. A Panelbase poll conducted for the SNP at the turn of the year found that, if they were first reminded that Scotland is one of England’s largest trading partners, English voters backed a post-independence currency union by an enormous margin of 71% to 12%. Here was a reservoir of goodwill that the UK government could have tapped into to plausibly say to Scots – "there you go, English people are respectful of your democratic process, and see you as desirable partners regardless of the referendum outcome". That at least would have been some kind of basis for a successful love-bombing campaign.
What did government ministers do instead? The polar opposite. As a result of them consciously whipping up synthetic outrage among London commentators at the idea of Scotland staking any sort of claim in the shared asset of sterling, the opinion poll numbers have turned on their head in the space of a few short weeks. It’s now abundantly clear to Scots that English people by and large agree with their media that Scotland is not a desirable partner, let alone an equal one. And yet, bizarrely, every time a new poll is published showing a further drop in English support for a currency union, the anti-independence campaign trumpet it from the rooftops. What precisely do they think they have achieved? They've permanently squandered what could have been one of their greatest strengths – authentic respect from south of the border for Scotland’s democratic aspirations.
You see, whatever happens in September, Scots will expect serious negotiations to follow. As a country we may still be divided on the desirability of sovereign statehood, but one thing there is a broad consensus on is that the constitutional status quo isn't an option, and that a new dispensation needs to be negotiated with the UK government. However, the difference is that a Yes vote would force London to the negotiating table, whereas a No vote would leave us entirely at the mercy of London's whim. Given the spectacle we’re now seeing of English voters apparently egging on their political representatives to be as intransigent as possible in any post-independence negotiations, why on Earth should any Scot have the slightest confidence that London will act in good faith in the event of a No vote? If anything, English people now seem to want their government to act vengefully in that circumstance. YouGov suggest that a full 58% of English and Welsh voters think Scotland should be denied any further devolved powers after a No vote, with almost a quarter thinking the powers of the Scottish Parliament should actually be reduced. It seems the narrative that Scottish self-government is somehow a "problem" that must be "contained" or "solved" has firmly taken root south of the border – and it's a view that is utterly irreconcilable with the prevailing mood in Scotland.
And yet, the anti-independence camp will object, the polls also show that English voters do genuinely think Scotland should “stay". True, but what do they want us to stay for? Is it for the chance to put us back in our place – to castrate our parliament and to reduce our mythological "subsidy"? Or is it simply to maintain London’s control over as wide a geographical area as possible, so that no "prestige" is lost internationally? Either way, there's not a lot of room left for "love", is there? And that's entirely the product of the UK government's handiwork. There’s certainly very little prospect of English public opinion ever again coalescing around the view that Scotland is so highly valued that true Home Rule powers should be transferred to the devolved parliament in Edinburgh, thus ensuring that we never again have to suffer Tory rule we didn't vote for as the price for remaining in the UK.
I suspect that if any 'love-bombing' phone calls are ever actually made, Scots will simply hear voices that are totally incomprehending of our aspirations. I won’t be alone in feeling tempted to respond with four simple words: "True love isn't possessive".
* * *
(Note : I wrote this piece two-and-a-half weeks ago. It was intended for publication on another website, hence the slightly different tone.)
A YouGov poll conducted at the end of February found that 46% of Scottish voters feel that their country is viewed in a negative light by English people, compared to just 23% who think that the English have a positive opinion of Scotland. Such stark numbers shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, given the daily diet of ugly Jock-bashing that is served up by the right-wing London media. However, until a few weeks ago, there was at least some evidence that ordinary English people didn't swallow the media propaganda whole, and were open to taking a much more mature attitude towards Scotland’s exercise in self-determination. A Panelbase poll conducted for the SNP at the turn of the year found that, if they were first reminded that Scotland is one of England’s largest trading partners, English voters backed a post-independence currency union by an enormous margin of 71% to 12%. Here was a reservoir of goodwill that the UK government could have tapped into to plausibly say to Scots – "there you go, English people are respectful of your democratic process, and see you as desirable partners regardless of the referendum outcome". That at least would have been some kind of basis for a successful love-bombing campaign.
What did government ministers do instead? The polar opposite. As a result of them consciously whipping up synthetic outrage among London commentators at the idea of Scotland staking any sort of claim in the shared asset of sterling, the opinion poll numbers have turned on their head in the space of a few short weeks. It’s now abundantly clear to Scots that English people by and large agree with their media that Scotland is not a desirable partner, let alone an equal one. And yet, bizarrely, every time a new poll is published showing a further drop in English support for a currency union, the anti-independence campaign trumpet it from the rooftops. What precisely do they think they have achieved? They've permanently squandered what could have been one of their greatest strengths – authentic respect from south of the border for Scotland’s democratic aspirations.
You see, whatever happens in September, Scots will expect serious negotiations to follow. As a country we may still be divided on the desirability of sovereign statehood, but one thing there is a broad consensus on is that the constitutional status quo isn't an option, and that a new dispensation needs to be negotiated with the UK government. However, the difference is that a Yes vote would force London to the negotiating table, whereas a No vote would leave us entirely at the mercy of London's whim. Given the spectacle we’re now seeing of English voters apparently egging on their political representatives to be as intransigent as possible in any post-independence negotiations, why on Earth should any Scot have the slightest confidence that London will act in good faith in the event of a No vote? If anything, English people now seem to want their government to act vengefully in that circumstance. YouGov suggest that a full 58% of English and Welsh voters think Scotland should be denied any further devolved powers after a No vote, with almost a quarter thinking the powers of the Scottish Parliament should actually be reduced. It seems the narrative that Scottish self-government is somehow a "problem" that must be "contained" or "solved" has firmly taken root south of the border – and it's a view that is utterly irreconcilable with the prevailing mood in Scotland.
And yet, the anti-independence camp will object, the polls also show that English voters do genuinely think Scotland should “stay". True, but what do they want us to stay for? Is it for the chance to put us back in our place – to castrate our parliament and to reduce our mythological "subsidy"? Or is it simply to maintain London’s control over as wide a geographical area as possible, so that no "prestige" is lost internationally? Either way, there's not a lot of room left for "love", is there? And that's entirely the product of the UK government's handiwork. There’s certainly very little prospect of English public opinion ever again coalescing around the view that Scotland is so highly valued that true Home Rule powers should be transferred to the devolved parliament in Edinburgh, thus ensuring that we never again have to suffer Tory rule we didn't vote for as the price for remaining in the UK.
I suspect that if any 'love-bombing' phone calls are ever actually made, Scots will simply hear voices that are totally incomprehending of our aspirations. I won’t be alone in feeling tempted to respond with four simple words: "True love isn't possessive".
* * *
(Note : I wrote this piece two-and-a-half weeks ago. It was intended for publication on another website, hence the slightly different tone.)
Poll of Polls : the long-term trend towards Yes in graphical form - now updated!
Thanks once again to Sandy Brownlee for providing this graph, updated to include the newest Poll of Polls figures for the independence referendum.
(Click to enlarge.)
The Scotsman have also published the European Parliament voting intention figures from the new ICM poll. Percentage changes are from the January ICM poll (the question wasn't asked in February).
SNP 41% (-2)
Labour 29% (+5)
Conservatives 13% (-1)
UKIP 6% (-1)
Liberal Democrats 5% (-1)
Greens 4% (n/c)
The seat projections (with changes from the actual result in 2009) are as follows -
SNP 3 (+1)
Labour 2 (n/c)
Conservatives 1 (n/c)
Liberal Democrats 0 (-1)
UKIP, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens would all fail to win a seat by a country mile, so I think we can safely forget all that "Voting Green is the only way to stop UKIP!" nonsense. It's the biggest con-trick since...oooh, since the Greens tried to hoodwink people into thinking the Holyrood regional list ballot was some kind of second preference vote.
In a perverse way I'm not too disappointed to see the SNP's lead slip in this poll, because the bigger the lead is, the more it puts a question mark in my mind about the Yes-friendly referendum results in the same poll. There's a local by-election this week in an SNP-held seat (a genuinely SNP-held seat, I mean, rather than a quirk of the STV system), so that'll be an interesting straw in the wind. It may give us a clue as to whether the strong Labour recovery in the Cowdenbeath by-election occurred in a bubble, or whether the polls (or at least the Yes-friendly ones) are not fully reflecting the true facts on the ground.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)