Should Scotland be an independent country? (Savanta ComRes)
Yes 54%
No 46%
I haven't listed any percentage changes this time, because as far as I can see this is the very first ComRes poll on independence since 2014. Indeed, I'm not totally sure that they've ever done an independence poll before. I do recall that the abomination that is "ITV Border" commissioned them during the indyref to poll voting intentions in "the South of Scotland", basically meaning Dumfries & Galloway and the Borders only - approximately 5% of the Scottish population. That produced predictable results. But off the top of my head I can't think of any full-scale ComRes indyref poll, and there's no sign of one on the Wikipedia list.
This is a particularly useful poll because it broadens the number of polling firms that have recently tested support on independence and found similar results. The Brit Nat denial on social media in recent months has been rather comical, and one of the most common refrains has been that Yes only appear to be ahead because pro-indy clients have been "spamming Panelbase". (Apparently our friends are unaware that Panelbase adhere strictly to British Polling Council rules, and that the identity of the client makes literally no difference to the results they report on the headline voting intention question.) Well, there have now been three firms (Panelbase, YouGov and ComRes) that have shown a Yes vote of 53% or higher over the course of the summer, and four firms (Panelbase, YouGov, ComRes and Survation) that have shown a Yes vote of 50% or higher over the course of the year.
It also now looks nigh-on inevitable that we'll reach the end of 2020 with Yes ahead on the yearly polling average. From January until now, the average stands at Yes 51.9%, No 48.1%. That includes one YouGov poll from February that used a non-standard (albeit non-leading) question - if that's taken out, the figures are Yes 52.2%, No 47.8%. And perhaps more to the point, over the summer (ie. from early June until now), the average is Yes 53.7%, No 46.3%.
The ComRes poll has Holyrood voting intention numbers as well...
Scottish Parliament constituency voting intentions:
SNP 51%
Conservatives 24%
Labour 17%
Liberal Democrats 6%
Scottish Parliament regional list voting intentions:
SNP 43%
Conservatives 21%
Labour 16%
Greens 10%
Liberal Democrats 8%
Again, there are no percentage changes listed, because there's no previous ComRes poll to compare the results to. The SNP aren't doing quite as well as in recent Panelbase and YouGov polls (that's probably due to methodology), but it's still enough for them to be on course for a small overall single-party majority - the seats projection is SNP 66 (+3), Conservatives 26 (-5), Labour 19 (-5), Greens 10 (+4), Liberal Democrats 8 (+3). And that translates into an extremely comfortable 76-53 pro-independence majority.
Mind the gap!
ReplyDeleteI believe the fieldwork for Panelbase poll is the more recent although error margin notwithstanding.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking the same - I don't think there's been a ComRes poll on Holyrood ever either
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone have access to the data tables for the ComRes poll?
ReplyDeleteHow times have changed - a look back to December 2012.
ReplyDeletehttp://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2012/10/why-are-yougov-so-convinced-they-can.html
Wow. 29% to 54%
DeleteSo this new indy list party remains on 1-2% at best, even with quite a lot of publicity, including from the BBC.
ReplyDeleteThe way things are going in Belarus, if London continues with its 'No Section 30' and associated threats of repression, the UK could officially become 'Europe's last dictatorship'.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, altogether elsewhere, I think cognisance should be taken of Craig Murrays blog post of todays date, which seems to indicate that Nicola Sturgeon was involved in moves against Salmond. This can't just be ignored or explained away, if the accusation is justified.
ReplyDeleteYesterday (18th) date - sorry!
DeleteSorry, but I don't understand why a policy which permits retrospective complaints is somehow wrong.
DeleteAll complaints are retrospective; they normally happen after an event. If there was no procedure which facilitated such confidential complaints in the past, it makes complete sense to allow it to be retrospective.
Are people arguing that the new Holyrood policy should have been specifically designed to stop complaints about past sexual attacks which people were too afraid to complain about? That sound like taking the side of abusers. If you have not committed any abuse, what have you to fear from such a policy?
Murray clearly states that unionists wanted the policy not to be retrospective. One can only assume they would want that so it could not be used against their own potential past sexual misdemeanors. In light of the Westminster child abuse scandal, this makes sense. Murray takes their side here it seems, unlike Sturgeon, who opened the door to potential victims.
Granted, the finally devised procedure ended up pretty flawed it appears, particularly given it seemed to protect accusers more than the accused. Salmond was right to challenge it as a result.
I'm also very glad he's innocent. In the end, he had nothing to fear because he was; hence he was so ready to go to court.
Sorry, but I need something stronger here on Sturgeon, and I will not side with unionists on wanting past sexual abuse swept under the carpet.
Has Salmond even objected to the retrospective part of the policy? I don't recall that; I recall he objected to not being able to put forward his case properly and that there seemed to be unfair collusion. I don't recall him saying he opposed past cases of abuse being investigated as whitehall did.
Just to be clear, I quite like Murray and his blog.
DeleteHowever, let's imagine Salmond wasn't innocent, but was serial abuser. As FM though, he was powerful like Harvey Weinstein. Maybe there were unionist abusers too, just like in Westminster.
I f'n hope Murray isn't arguing that there should have been no way to report such abuse as he argues Whitehall was.
It seems to have been maliciously used against Salmond. However, that doesn't make the policy's original intent malicious.
I think it's quite obvious what has happened Nicola has been advised of the complaints and because she knew that Unionists would be all over it if there was any indication that she tried to cover Unionists would have been all over it .Also being a strong feminist she had be seen to be supportive of having the complaints fully investigated .I wouldn't envy her position.Unfortunately the more excitable elements of the Yes movement have taken Nicola's support of the complainers as her trying to stich Alex up
DeleteAye, 'Sturgeon acted directly against the advice of London so must be a unionist stooge' is a bit weak conspiracy theory-wise.
DeleteI mean what's Murray arguing; that Westminster was trying to protect Salmond by arguing the legislation should not be retrospective?
If that's so, is Salmond not the secret unionist?
Am gonnae need something a bit less ropey here before I pin a unionist MI5 plant badge on sturgeon.
Good to see the Greens doing well, I believe if they have a strong commitment to indie ref 2 in their manifesto they could do even better than the 10 list seats projected.
ReplyDeleteAnyone know if the Yes / No / Don't Know figures for this one has been released?
ReplyDeleteNot showing here yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_second_Scottish_independence_referendum#Opinion_polling
Look at the graph on this page from Ballotbox Scotland, and you can see a very obvious trend over the last two years. Where will that place us by 2021 ?
ReplyDeletehttp://ballotbox.scot/independence
55% Yes with a No-deal Brexit to come... how peripheral can you get, James? What on earth has this to do with cocks, lack of cocks, public toilets and my thousands of hours of moody brooding on the subject?
ReplyDeleteThese polls are great news but sadly, even in the face of such positive support for indie we still have those determined to put their own personal agendas ahead of independence. The tone and content of postings on WOS and even on Craig Murrays site are divisive and vitriolic. It appears beyond the wit of those sites and their posters to understand that they are doing the job of the BBC and the unionists for them. I attempted to post on the WOS site asking why, if the current govt were doing so badly, the polls had support for indie at their highest level ever. My post was moderated and rejected. We face a battle on two fronts here. From the unionists and from those who would divide and weaken the independence movement for their own purposes. Alex Salmond will look after himself and in due course he will get his justice. He will not, in the interim, prejudice the fight for independence. Others should follow his lead in that respect.
ReplyDeleteCan I ask when you submitted your comment to WOS? Very unusual to be 'moderated and rejected' unless you're being inflammatory or openly abusive. Can you remember what you said, precisely please?
ReplyDeletecan i ask ian, was the poster who passed a "diminutive hatchette" type?
DeleteI seldom posted on WoS, but now I don't post at all, I've been blocked, it's not unusual.
DeleteWhen I say moderated and rejected it was moderated and then did not appear. It was absolutely not inflammatory or abusive. I raised several issues. I asked if anyone could refer me to a second indie party that could garner 5-6 per cent of list votes, as I would seriously consider voting for such a party in my list vote. I also questioned the benefit of a site that is in large part manna from heaven for unionist media. I cannot repost here as the post, once moderated and rejected, appears to disappear into the ether. If you know of a way I can retrieve it I would happily do so. In the meantime I see another post on WOS today attempting to liken the 55 per cent vote in favour of independence to a series of bizarre poll questions set by WOS which have nothing to do with independence. The only motive I can see for such a connect is to attempt to discredit these very encouraging poll results.
ReplyDeleteWas this yesterday or the day before? And roughly what time did you send your comment (hopefully you can recall if it was morning, afternoon or evening - that would certainly help).
DeleteWas it flagged as being held in moderation? If so, did you happen to notice what time that was?
Roughly how long was your comment in moderation before it disappeared?
If you still have a copy of the comment would you be prepared to resubmit it?
Here are a couple of my horribly abusive ones that will likely sit forever in moderation.
Deletehttps://wingsoverscotland.com/how-to-waste-your-vote/
scottish skier says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
15 August, 2020 at 5:03 pm
“and you’re not coming here to troll with it yet again”
I don’t believe I’ve ever ‘trolled’ this blog before, and certainly not with the link above.
Your original description of AMS is absolutely excellent. It is possible to vote tactically under with your ‘might not be counted’ (if you vote for the losing candidate, it’s binned) FPTP constituency vote, but not with your ‘always counted’ (assuming the party you vote for exceeds the 5% regional threshold) PR list vote. The latter should always be for the party you most want to be in government; voting tactically with it is a ‘mugs game’ fraught with the risks you originally stated 5 years ago. I’m down in the borders so know all about the risks of the SNP not winning the constituency here. If e.g. I want to be sure my vote for the SNP is counted because I mainly support the SNP, I should give them my list vote.
I’ve said countless times on SGP that people might choose to use their list vote for some new indy list party. Or another like the Greens, SSP. I’ve never told anyone not to do this; all I’ve ever done is said that your list vote is your most important as it is your PR one. It’s designed to (almost) guarantee your voice is heard. Some advocating a new list party seem to either want to mislead people here (that it’s some sort of extra/spare/second vote), or just don’t understand. certainly this has applied to various visitors to SGP.
If folk want to vote for e.g. a Wings party on the list, then they should do so knowing they are giving their most important vote to Wings and gambling their FPTP vote for the SNP on the constituency. That is how AMS works, as you so eloquently described in the past.
As for ‘gaming the system’, personally, I don’t like the idea of Holyrood not closely representing voters. I thought the idea of indy was for ‘Scots to get the government they voted for’ = PR. Certainly, if pro-indy parties won a whoppingly disproportionate majority, it would undermine any mandate as it would not represent the will of the people. We don’t win over Scots voters by taking away their representation in the Scottish parliament. We win by getting them to vote for pro-indy parties + Yes; something that has worked for the last 2 Scottish elections, and polls suggest may be the case again next year.
For Westminster I’m quite happy that as many unionists are kicked out by their own unfair FPTP system as possible however. That’s a delicious irony and what hurts them the most because they dream so much of moving to England, leaving Scotland behind.
As an aside, in relation to ‘echo chambers’, I’ve also stated numerous times that I’ve supported many of the arguments you made around GRA reform, and taken plenty of flack for that from SGP commenters.
Hardly trolling, and hardly echo chamber stuff.
scottish skier says:
DeleteYour comment is awaiting moderation.
15 August, 2020 at 7:11 pm
I’ll also add that I’ve said numerous times that I might vote for another pro-indy party on the list if I liked its policies.I used to vote for Margo MacDonald when I lived in the lothians. I liked her personally (she used to chat politics with me when she came into the shop I worked in on uni holidays) and what she advocated policy-wise.
However, I strongly suspect that most voters are like me in that they won’t vote for a ‘one trick pony’ for their national parliament. After all, if you are going to put people in charge of your schools, hospitals, covid strategy…even maybe post indy negotiations with England…and on a fat salary + perks for 5 years, you need to know what they will be doing for their constituents / voting for in the chamber (in addition to fighting for indy). Ergo, any new pro-indy list party will need to have a pretty comprehensive manifesto in addition to a few familiar, likable/popular faces to garner trust. Certainly from me. And it will need to not lie to people about the voting system; i.e. make clear a list vote is the most important vote, not some extra/spare one. I want to here ‘vote for me because I’ll do this with conviction / determination and you can trust me’ not some half truths about gaming the system.
I might not agree with the SNP on all issues, but I know pretty well what I’m voting for.
At the moment, this new pro-indy party seems to be what each of its proponents personally dream it to be. I’m not voting for such a thing; I need some meat on the bones. The public will seek the same. It’s not trolling to seek such clarity.
To be honest, a ‘pure independence’ party would be better suited to Westminster. They could take a Sinn Fein type approach of withdrawing from Westminster, so removing the mandate it has to rule Scotland. It’s not as if Scots ‘vermin’ MPs are allowed to be in government down there or something. UKIP succeeded in ‘union’ elections but not national for the reasons above. A SCIP for Westminster could work along similar lines and could ‘encourage the SNP to focus on indy’ by taking away any Westminster gravy train temptation.
I don’t think these views are either echo chamber or trolling.
Although credit where it's due; another of mine has made it through some days later, but this always comes with some sort of scathing riposte from Stuart.
DeleteIt wasn't yesterday, so presumably the day before. No idea of time. I pressed the button to submit and it said it was in moderation. No idea how long after that it was in moderation. If it could be retrieved I would happily repost it, but no idea if, and if so, how, that can be done.
ReplyDeleteThere is no post remotely matching your description in either Trash (where anything I delete goes and can be recovered) or Spam for the last several days.
DeleteStephen/Scottish Skier - let me explain why I'm asking for clarification.
ReplyDeleteThis morning we received news that a well-known Winger of long standing passed away.
I'm not going to demean his name by including it in a rant but I'm sure he would support the general gist of my objection to Stephen's 10.22 comment last night.
James Kelly and Paul Kavanagh have both, in recent weeks, made clear that they want more civility shown in btl comments. That's to be applauded by all.
WOS has its share of bores and roasters, but it also has some of the best regular commenters in the indyblogsphere. Whether you include me in the former category or not, I strongly object to the characterisation of WOS contributors as quislings and I ask that you either withdraw that statement, or substantiate it with timed quotes.
Some of the finest people in the whole Yes/Indy movement cut their blogging teeth on WOS. Many have drifted away for a whole raft of reasons. Some have chosen this place to maintain their commentary, others have gone to WGD, some manage all three as well as others.
The poster I mentioned, now sadly passed, used to sign off his comments with 'Peace and Love Always', or variations thereof. Eventually he was reprimanded by Rev for not following the rules (i.e. no 'slogans' or 'signatures') but continued to post regularly, establishing new friendships and meeting people at various marches and gatherings over the past six years.
Any independent nation lacking Peace and Love is not one worth living in so I appeal to ex-Wingers, be they here, on WGD or elsewhere - please stop the vilification of Wings Over Scotland. If you have a beef with Stuart Campbell, fair enough, but there's no need to besmirch all who comment there. It is sloppy, unfair and damaging to the broader cause.
I haven't called anyone quislings nor ever thrown any insults at either the Rev or posters on his blog. Stuart has not returned this favour, but that's him.
DeleteI have had some debates with him when he's on here about things I think he's taking shite about, but politely enough. And he does talk shite sometimes, even if some of his work is very good, which I happily state when it applies.
He is letting some of my comments onto wings, but it appears this only happens if I agree with him or is able to offer a sharp riposte. I guess he just doesn't like some of what I say as it contradicts his own opinions. But it's his blog, so he can select the comments he likes.
Note that SGP is not some anti-Rev fest. In fact it seems that since James cut out the trolls, the number of anti-Wings comments have decreased markedly. I had said that before; Boris has spent a lot on an internet campaign I understand.
The Rev throws around insults like they are going out of fashion. By contrast, James is the well mannered gentlemen type. So they are not going to see eye to eye in debates sometimes, even when they agree.
I am sorry to hear about the passing of the poster you mention; although I don't personally know them. It's a pity they did not make it to see independence day, for I think it's not far away now.
I was barred from WoS because, after a couple of weeks of abuse for positing that the popularity of the SNP and the FM were not hindrances to independence (claiming the FM was not evil incarnate was apparently heresy), I concluded it could no longer be considered a pro-independence site.
DeleteIt came as an unexpected relief. I no longer felt the need to counter the zaniness and read the inevitable abuse that would follow. I hadn't realised just how much it had affected my mood which noticeably lightened after I was banned.
It used to be the go-to site for all things Indy and a "must read" for me. I couldn't believe what it had become when I started reading the btl comments a few weeks ago. It's pro-indy credentials are "in the dock". However, there is no doubt it is anti-SNP.
We're a lot happier without your constant abusive tirades too. Everyone wins!
DeleteMY "abusive tirades" lol! Not how I remember it obviously. Excellent article on the Salmond documentary by the way. Just like the good old days of Wings; before moderates like myself were alienated by the btl discourse.
DeleteI responded to your post in good faith and with no knowledge of your posting history. I should perhaps have been more cautious. You use the word quisling. Not a word I ever have or ever would use. For that alone I will have no further communication with you.
ReplyDeleteYou didn't use the word 'quisling'. That is true.
DeleteYou wrote:
'The tone and content of postings on WOS and even on Craig Murrays site are divisive and vitriolic. It appears beyond the wit of those sites and their posters to understand that they are doing the job of the BBC and the unionists for them.'
And if that isn't a pretty accurate description of what a 'quisling' does, I don't know what is.
A "quisling" knowingly helps the "enemy". Those who unwittingly help the "enemy" are merely misguided.
Delete