Saturday, May 2, 2015

Daily Record caught misleading its readers AGAIN : it turns out their Survation poll showed that 59% of voters want a second independence referendum within just TEN YEARS

Many thanks to the commenter "clyde1998" who tracked down the elusive Survation datasets relating to the independence question.  I'm fairly sure they've only just been put up, because they're in exactly the same place that I checked earlier today without any luck.

Let's start by recalling the headline the Daily Record used on Wednesday in relation to these results -

"General Election 2015: 51% of Scots plan to vote SNP but...51% DON'T want second independence referendum"

Now work out if you can reconcile those words with the totality of the picture you're about to see. I warn you - it'll be a struggle.

If there was another referendum on Scottish independence tomorrow and in the referendum voters will again be asked, "Should Scotland be an independent country?", do you think you would vote 'yes' or 'no'? (Don't Knows excluded)

Yes 49.4%
No 50.6%

If there was to be another referendum on Scottish independence when, if at all, do you think this referendum should take place?

Should be another referendum at some point : 80.4%
Should NOT be another referendum at some point : 19.6%

Another referendum should take place within ten years : 58.6%
Another referendum should NOT take place within ten years : 41.4%

Which of the following statements is closest to your opinion?

The SNP should include a commitment to holding another independence referendum before 2020 in their Holyrood manifesto next year : 31.5%
The SNP should NOT include a commitment to holding another independence referendum before 2020 in their Holyrood manifesto next year : 51.5%

So, of course, what the Daily Record do is pretend that only the last of those questions was asked, and omit to mention that it included the all-important caveat "before 2020". I suppose technically they could argue they weren't lying, but the idea that they were giving their readers an even remotely accurate impression of Survation's findings on attitudes towards a second referendum is, frankly, laughable.

Given that Labour have been using the Record's partial account of the poll to make hay with just days to go until the general election, it's also extremely troubling that there has been such a long delay in the publication of the datasets. I'm prepared to believe that it was an oversight on Survation's part rather than a conspiracy, but to say the least, this episode hasn't been the polling industry's finest hour.

Incidentally, respondents were also asked for their views on full fiscal autonomy. 53.6% say they either "strongly" or "somewhat" support the idea, compared to just 23.5% who are either "strongly" or "somewhat" opposed.


  1. Given that there is a different electoral roll for these Westminster elections, and I take it that the polling companies will be using that rather than the one used for the referendum, when EU nationals and 16-18-year-olds were also able to vote, does this not underestimate the potential YES vote in any rerun of the referendum?

    1. That's a good point.

    2. Except that surely the impact would be the other way? 16-18 were the most No friendly of the young voters and EU nationals were also reasonably strong No voters were they not?

  2. The Daily Record has long been the Scottish mouthpiece of the British Labour Party for years.
    Everyone knows that, surely?

    1. They wouldn't have got away with the propaganda in this case if Survation had published the datasets more promptly.

    2. And you wonder why the British company were slow at publishing datasets that helped out their fellow British Labour Party?
      James, really?

  3. You could suggest that the Daily Record is but a Labour mouthpiece, but this is doing them more harm than good for Jim's gang.
    Trying to scare people into voting Labour, that aren't scared about an IndyRef2 is achieving the square root of feck all for his campaign, and this is pretty much the only argument they have left.

  4. Ten years ago I was the sort of person who would not have believed a polling company would have held back a data set for political reasons. I'd be thinking it the suggestion came from someone wearing a tin foil hat.

    Now I just say 'the bastards are at it again'. It is like waking up to some new reality. I think before I was asleep, drugged by media. Now I feel alive and angry and ready for change.

    1. I know what you mean. I can only assume the chem trails are wearing off.

    2. I hear you brother. Was sleeping myself over a year ago. Woke up really fast and uncomfortably. Knocked the wind right out my sails. The greed, corruption and sick sexual practices of the Elite are as believable as the existence of the duck billed platypus. Seemed impossible at the time, hailed a hoax. But they are real, and so is the warped sickness that is poorly hidden from the slaves. Revolution is on it's way. Keep talking.

  5. I noticed this in the Guardian. From what I can work out, it refers to a pooled ICM subsample data with maybe 180 respondents in total. Not so significant, but still.

    The many Scotland-only polls give a much more authoritative impression than the small number of respondents here. But it is striking that in the pooled Scottish sub-sample, which contains more than 150 respondents, the Scottish National party is running at over 50%, and the collapse in Labour support is so great that it has actually dipped behind the Scottish Conservatives.

  6. James, what do you make of this tweet from Kenny Farquharson re narrowing of polls?

    1. Can you quote it please, Elizabeth? Can't get Twitter to work. Kenny loves making himself look important by dropping hints about enbargoed polls.

    2. "Scotland on Sunday poll of polls, compiled by John Curtice from Scottish samples of UK polls, shows gap between SNP and Labour narrowing."

    3. And a response says it was 2% narrowing? Not sure where that comes from though.

    4. Nothing to worry about, then - not an embagoed poll, but a collation of subsamples we've already seen.

    5. Narrowing, haha.

      Has the Prof just added up all the subsamples?

      If SOS and Phark was so boastful of narrowing, why have they not commissioned a full 1000+ people poll for their own paper.

    6. A 2 per cent narrowing is meaningless because of the margin of error. Given Kenny F's political leanings not so much a surprise though if it turns out to be only 2 per cent.

    7. Aye, if that's all it is, looks like epic straw-grasping ;-)

  7. Yet again we see why we need brilliant sites like this.
    The DR are, well, low in integrity. Very low.
    On this theme of polls influencing events, being manipulated etc, I think there was a poll months ago showing that people in the UK as a whole were relaxed about a Labour-SNP hook-up. Subsequently there was a massive propaganda campaign demonizing that possibility, and then, lo and behold, up pops a new poll showing people against such an outcome. The previous poll may well have represented what people in the UK felt, i.e. that a Labour-SNP agreement wasn't a particularly big deal. But months of bombardment with headlines screaming about the Nats as if they're some kind of tartan Sinn Fein, and unsurprisingly public opinion shifted (frankly, my knowledge of Irish/N Irish politics is too limited to know whether the demonization of Sinn Fein itself ever had any merit). Drives me nuts the way the msm then report such polls as if they simple show "what people think" rather than "what people think subsequent to a massive campaign of vilification". Tried to find the relevant info on the net but without success, maybe someone else remembers such a poll. And even if I've remembered that particular example wrongly, the basic point stands!

  8. So Curtice and SoS are up to no good as well are they? Why am I not surprised.

    1. They're not "up to no good" - it's just a collection of subsamples, that's all. It's similar to what I do with the Poll of Polls here.

  9. Link to the source data please?

    Having difficulty finding it.

  10. That 59% is consistent with past polling right back to just after indyref. Curtius' site had that poll history available, now can't find it.

  11. Seeing some twiiter conversations saying that there is yougov for the Sunday Times poll which shows SNP on 49% and Labour on 25% which would be no change. Anyone confirm this is new?

  12. Saw this on Twitter
    @ShippersUnbound: Peter Kellner's new seats projection:
    Con 283
    Lab 261
    SNP 50
    LD 32
    UKIP 2
    Green 1
    Lab lose 36 in Scotland and gain 39 elsewhere

  13. And this just a minute ago:
    @MeanwhileScotia: New Scottish @YouGov Poll...
    SNP: 49% (-)
    LAB: 26% (+1)
    CON: 15% (-2)
    LIB: 7% (+2)
    UKP: 2% (-1)
    GRN: 1% (-)

  14. Seemingly this is the numbers

    Latest Scottish Westminster poll (YouGov):

    SNP - 49% (-)
    LAB - 26% (+1)
    CON - 17% (-2)
    LDEM - 7% (+2)
    UKIP - 2% (-1)
    GRN - 1% (-)

  15. We, the signatories to this petition, call upon the Scottish Parliament, civic Scotland, and all the political parties proposing to stand candidates for said Parliament in 2016 to assert and affirm Scotland's right of self-determination and acknowledge that the people of Scotland reserve the right to demand another referendum on the question of restoring Scotland's rightful constitutional status as an independent nation.