Scottish Parliament constituency voting intentions (Scot Goes Pop / Survation poll, 11th - 13th January 2021):
SNP 51% (-2)
Conservatives 19% (-1)
Labour 19% (-1)
Liberal Democrats 9% (+3)
Scottish Parliament regional list voting intentions:
SNP 40% (-1)
Labour 19% (-1)
Conservatives 17% (-1)
Greens 11% (+1)
Liberal Democrats 8% (+1)
Seats projection (with changes from the 2016 election): SNP 69 (+6), Labour 23 (-1), Conservatives 19 (-12), Greens 11 (+5), Liberal Democrats 7 (+2)
This is the third Survation poll in a row to put the Tories in third place on the list - and the one prior to that had them in joint second place with Labour. However, there's no sign of Labour making even the kind of modest recovery hinted at by the Westminster numbers from this poll - they're actually slightly down on both Holyrood ballots, and are facing a small reduction in their number of seats. They're only in second place by default because the Tories are doing so badly.
Another key difference with the Westminster results is that the SNP vote isn't down by as much. A two point drop on the constituency ballot, and a one point drop on the list, could well just be margin of error 'noise'.
65 seats is of course the target for an overall majority, so the SNP's projected 69 seats would put them well over the top. And the SNP and Greens in combination are projected to have 80 seats - meaning that pro-independence parties would have an extraordinary 62% of seats in the parliament.
Meanwhile, tonight has brought word of the twentieth poll in a row to show a pro-independence majority (or nineteenth in a row if you exclude one that asked a non-standard question).
Should Scotland be an independent country? (Panelbase)
Yes 52% (-4)
No 48% (+4)
The percentage changes are from the most recent Panelbase poll, which was the one I commissioned in November, and which put Yes on an all-time high for Panelbase of 56%. The four-point drop for Yes needs to be seen in that context - after a record-breaking result it's not unexpected to see a reversion to the mean in the next poll. That said, the last four Panelbase polls have all shown Yes on between 54% and 56%, so tonight's 52% may indicate a genuine reduction (with one possible explanation being the Sturgeon/Salmond controversy). On the other hand, if the true Yes vote had remained static on around 54%, the occasional result two points higher or lower than that would be totally normal due to the margin of error. As ever, we'll just have to await more information from more polls.
UPDATE: Someone on the previous thread suggested that Panelbase may have asked a non-standard question this time, which would obviously render the percentage changes meaningless. But I'm not sure whether that's really what happened, or whether the Sunday Times gave a misleading impression with their summary of the results.
Do we know whether 16-18 year olds were included?
ReplyDeleteYes, they are able to vote in the Holyrood elections.
DeleteTimes description of their polling sources over the 4 polities –
Delete“Panelbase polled 1,206 adults resident in Scotland. January 19-22”
“YouGov polled 1,416 English adults. January 19-20”
“YouGov polled 1,069. aged 16+ in Wales, January 18-21”
“Lucid Talk polled 2.392, aged 16+ in Northern Ireland. January 15-18”
So that would suggest the poll in Scotland did not include 16-18 year olds. The fact that John Curtice was involved seems to suggest the opposite?
DeleteI also see that Curtice has made a Holyrood projection which is rather different -
SNP 70
Con 25
Lab 19
Green 10
LibDem 5
Could that support the idea that 16-18 year olds were excluded?
That's in the Times article - https://archive.is/ObuSh
John Curtice has a separate article - https://archive.is/D5IQE, where he says 2/3 of Scots now say they are Scottish before they are British.
Children are not allowed to take part in surveys without their parents permission. The government are a law unto themselves on a lot of things.
DeleteI guess you were a late developer mouse?
DeleteAccording to twitter the Panelbase poll excludes 16 & 17 year olds.
Deletehttps://twitter.com/ScaryChildren/status/1353329529624911872
Skier: I know what the legal definition of 'adult' is.
DeleteIt was me James from a graphic contained in this tweet this tweet it looks as though they asked How would you vote in an Independence Referendum? Independence or Remain in the UK
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1353044306668498946?s=19
The Sunday Times did use remain instead of no which is not the same. They No side still lost.
ReplyDeleteThe seats for Holyrood on the Sunday Times poll are
SNP 70
Con 25
Lab 19
GRN 10
LD 5
We will have to await the release of the polling figures.
If we're just basing that on the Sunday Times graphic, I think we should be very cautious, because it's perfectly possible (likely, even) that they're summarising the results differently from the way the question was asked.
DeleteIt might be my arithmetic but 49% Yes and 44% No with 7% DK comes out at 52.6% . Unusual to round down to 52%
ReplyDeleteAnd this is what I don't understand about this - if the 7% DK vote no, then independence is lost 51% to 49% - if the 7% DK vote yes, then independence is won 56% to 44%. Admittedly, the DKs would be a bit more mixed up but ignoring them is a real danger in my view. Can anyone re-assure me? And Google has allowed me to comment again?!?!
DeleteAre the SNP and the Greens running on the same ticket? A cross-party manifesto pledge?
ReplyDeleteAll the forecasts that YES Would hit 60% in January were only going to be true if we worked at it.
ReplyDeleteThe SNP order to branches not to leaflet because of Covid is nonsense.
Junk mail is delivered every day.
Do we want to win our independence or just toe the line and look respectable.
We'll win nowt if we're just waiting for the Unionists to bugger up.
Thankfully the YES groups have more guts and are now leafletting and campaigning.
As I've always said, 60% was never attainable anyway. Maybe in the odd individual poll, but not on a sustained basis.
DeleteI got a big phamplet from the Tories this week through the door. It had a pic of Dross and his family and a lot of statements saying vote Tory to stop indyref2. Not one policy idea. So much for the Tories focussing on education/NHS and moaning about the obsession about independence. As ever they are the Party banging on about independence with no ideas how to improve Scotland.
DeleteIn the short term no, but in the medium term to long term absolutely. Even maybe by voting day. After all, 2/3 of Scots see themselves as that before they are British, if at all.
DeleteAs for pamphlets; the Tories don't mind killing Scots for their political goals. This has always been the case.
DeleteDirect mailing - ie a leaflet from a political party in with your mail or delivered by another postal company has never had any retractions. As for leafleting by volunteers, certainly should not be happening in areas that are under 'stay at home' restrictions as not classed as an essential reason to leave home. In tier 3 areas it more borderline.
DeleteCertainly cant see any in face (i.e. door knocking) canvasing going on in the run up to the election.
What explains the Liberal Democrat’s? Crazy
ReplyDeleteGenerally I'm not sure there is any explaining the Liberal Democrats anymore
DeleteThe BBC used to say they did not report on a positive poll for independence because they do not comment on single poll results. Now there are what 20 now in succession you still do not get anything from them.
ReplyDeleteSir John Poultice on should be doing a hałf hour program just
Right on cue the Reporting Scotland ultra Britnat Campbell turns up on fellow ultra Britnat Marrs show to say a series of polls ( doesn't actually say how many) show a majority for independence and the latest is 52%. No average over all the polls and they wait till a low figure for Indy poll is available. Bias by omission. Maybe Britnat Curtice is a bit too honest for the BBC but they know they can rely on Glenn to spin away.
DeleteIn renewed desperation will the britnat media really go after Sturgeon now?
ReplyDeleteFirst she colluded with Salmond to cover up his dastardly crimes, then after he was found innocent so there were no crimes to cover up, she was suddenly responsible for the false allegations.
DeleteIt's comically desperate.
#QUAKanon
Anyway, as the conspiracy folks have insisted multiple times on here, while Sturgeon signed off the harassment process on behalf of ministers, she then took no part in the subsequent investigation into Salmond, so can't have mishandled this. :-)
Have they actually stopped going after her? Despite all the anti-SG media for months on TV, Radio and press there is a majority for Yes to independence.
DeleteMarcia sorry to surprise you but Sturgeon is not Scottish independence. As Smearer Skier is always saying independence is not predicated on one person.
DeleteSNP member, always voted SNP.
ReplyDeleteWatched the interview today.
Disgusted. I’m not voting for that as long as he remains leader. What a position she’s put us in. I don’t know what the options are. I’m not terribly impressed with Greens. But I can’t vote for a person who knowingly stitched up an innocent man, didn’t welcome him back when found innocent, and now accuses him of “conspiracy theories”. Gutted our aspirations of sovereignty are hitched to this disaster. Gutted about the political talent turned to such unseemly machinations.
Seems you didn't watch the interview. It was not salmond she accused.
DeleteAnd sturgeon is innocent until found guilty of something.
Convicting people without trial is for right wing British nationalists.
Unlike you, Scots believe in innocent until proven guilty.
The facts don’t seem to be in dispute. Sturgeon admits she gave false information to parliament. Her explanation is that she “forgot” about the meeting when she first heard the allegations. If such an incredible explanation is allowed to excuse misleading parliament, then one wonders why bother having the rule?
DeleteI notice you don't dispute my point about who she accused of conspiracy theories. It wasn't salmond she accused, but QUKAnon posters on the internet.
DeleteShe first heard of the allegations in detail from Salmond after Aberdein alleged Salmond had was facing allegations and wanted a meeting to tell her about these. So what? And? It's only unionists that see issues here. WTF does it matter? 'Splitting hairs for the union!'. Aberdein popped in to see her at Holyrood on the Thursday and Salmond traveled from Aberdeenshire to Glasgow for the Monday.
To breach the ministerial code, you need to mislead parliament with malicious intent. What is the malicious intent here?
Unless Aberdein is on the plot too? But then he as there at the behest of Salmond, meaning Salmond who must have arranged both meetings? Unless Aberdein is dodgy, so we can't trust him?
Is my neighbour in on it? What about the guy I saw walking his dog near my house earlier?
FGS this has more holes than swiss cheese.
Scottish skier - you simply don't know what you are talking about... Aberdein was invited by Sturgeon's office several weeks before the date to chat about the Salmond allegations - he did not pop in for a chat as Sturgeon claims. Lies upon lies upon lies....
DeleteI'm starting to envisage Boris Johnson calling on the Salmond conspiracy 'Lynch for the union' mob to storm Holyrood and overturn the election if the SNP win with Sturgeon at the helm.
ReplyDeleteSmearer Skier is that before or after you check under your bed for unionists.
Delete