Just in case the unionist parties were labouring under the misapprehension that the Yes lead in the Opinium poll the other day was a mere blip within a new normal of No majorities, today's edition of the Herald brings word of a second consecutive poll with a Yes lead - and this time there's a little bit of a cushion.
Yes 52%
No 48%
There's no real point in giving percentage changes, because as far as I can see the last BMG poll on independence was way back in 2017. For what it's worth that poll showed a slim No lead - but it wouldn't have been directly comparable with the new poll anyway, because presumably BMG have now updated their methodology to bring in weighting by recalled 2019 vote and so forth. So here's the slight problem - both of the two new polls are from firms who haven't polled in Scotland for many years. As a result there aren't any baseline figures to measure the trend from, and we can't strictly speaking say that the Yes vote has increased. It's theoretically possible, albeit unlikely, that the methodology of both Opinium and BMG is more favourable to Yes than other firms. So to be more confident that there has been a genuine bounceback in Yes support, we'll want to see these figures replicated by a firm that polls more regularly.
Scottish Parliament constituency ballot:
SNP 48%
Conservatives 21%
Labour 20%
Liberal Democrats 8%
Greens 1%
Scottish Parliament regional list ballot:
SNP 42%
Conservatives 22%
Labour 17%
Greens 8%
Liberal Democrats 8%
Seats projection (with changes from 2016 election): SNP 66 (+3), Conservatives 27 (-4), Labour 20 (-4), Greens 8 (+2), Liberal Democrats 8 (+3)
SNP: 66 seats
All others: 63 seats
SNP OVERALL MAJORITY OF 3 SEATS
Pro-independence parties: 74 seats
Anti-independence parties: 55 seats
PRO-INDEPENDENCE MAJORITY OF 19 SEATS
The Herald article quotes a BMG spokesman as saying that 66 seats would give the SNP "the slimmest majority" of just one seat. As you can see above, that's inaccurate - 66 seats is a majority of three. I presume he was thinking that, because the target for a majority is 65 seats, 66 must be a majority of one, but that's not how it works.
The mainstream media are trying to weave a narrative that current Holyrood polling is bad for the SNP and bad for the indy camp, but that's going to stretch credibility for as long as the seats projection has the pro-indy parties up on the 2016 result, and the anti-indy parties down. Paul Hutcheon of the Record displayed some electoral illiteracy yesterday by claiming that, although the projection from the latest Survation poll pointed to a pro-indy majority, there would have been a unionist majority if the voting system was "PR". Er, newsflash, Paul, the voting system is indeed PR. If what he means is that it isn't perfectly proportional, that's true of every other PR system around the world too. Even Israel, which traditionally has the purest proportional system, has a minimum threshold for representation, meaning that parties that win seats will often be slightly over-represented.
As far as I can see, the Survation numbers that Mr Hutcheon was talking about came from the Scotland in Union propaganda poll and are therefore slightly out of date. That also means there are unlikely to be independence numbers from that poll, because Scotland in Union have to maintain the fiction that their 'Remain/Leave' question is an independence question (it categorically is not).
* * *
UPDATE: One point I overlooked earlier is that 52% appears to be the highest ever Yes vote in a BMG poll. I've scoured the lists of polls and I can't find any previous BMG poll that even had Yes in the lead. Of course that's partly because they haven't polled for years - but nevertheless we've noted when Yes reached an all-time with other firms such as YouGov and Panelbase, so this latest landmark should not go unmentioned.
* * *
If you find Scot Goes Pop's coverage of polls helpful and would like it to continue, I'm currently running a fundraiser HERE.
And that's with the unionist ammo clip pretty much empty now.
ReplyDeleteYou can read the Herald article here.
Deletehttps://archive.is/fgBz6
https://twitter.com/andywightman/status/1373771925047087109
ReplyDeleteAndy Wightman MSP
@andywightman
Been keeping away from social media this weekend but I’m lost for words at the leak to Times and shocked that the paper used it to be honest. They trusted us with their testimony. I am truly sorry that they’ve been betrayed yet again.
Wings subscribes to the Times I understand.
Are Times subscribers a bit like Stasi informants?
DeleteIt's a very fine English Tory establishment paper. Sort of thing people who use the royal 'we' and live in Georgian Bath would read. For the aspiring upper class Englishman. :-)
DeleteOr maybe he's just keeping an eye on the opposition rather than marinating in an echo chamber.
DeleteHe posts the same stories as the Times. Almost word for word sometimes.
DeleteThe 'opposition' would be the National.
Anyway, his prediction skills are utterly shite, just like the Times.
The more he, the Times etc said that Sturgeon had broken the code the more I was convinced that was not the case.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19178181.scottish-government-publishes-draft-independence-referendum-bill/
ReplyDeleteScottish Government publishes draft independence referendum bill
I read the draft independence bill. Didn't take long. My supermarket shopping list has more content and probably takes longer to write.
ReplyDeleteI'll summarise it for people who are not good at reading. A referendum will happen when we want it to happen. So all you people who were kidding themselves on that there will be a referendum this year - breaking news - there won't be.
This leadership of the SNP have turned the SNP into the party of devolution. I forecast come the next UK GE it will be promoted as the most important election ever for independence.
We read it without your help. It does what it says. It is fine. The MSP will chose the day not you or me. It could be this year.
DeleteSomeone's unhappy with the latest polls and a new indyref on the cards, that's for sure.
DeleteSmearer Skier (liar since 2014) - As you are a Tory supporting devolutionist I am sure you are happy for a never happening referendum. You like Sturgeon are a fraud. Both liars and moral vacuums.
DeleteUnknown says "it could be this year" been hearing that same crap since 2017. It was crap then and it is crap now.
DeleteWhat was support for indy in 2017? How did the SNP do in the election that year?
DeleteSmearer Skier (liar since 2014) - 2015 GE SNP got 50% of the vote - no referendum.
DeleteDevolutionalists and Tories always have a reason NOT to have a referendum.
Last year 58% no referendum.
Determining Scotlands future based on polls is pathetic.
There was a referendum in 2014.
DeleteThe 2017 election wasn't a poll, it was real vote.
DeleteAnd unlike you, I am focused on the future of Scotland while you, like unionists, focus on the past when support for the union was in majority.
DeleteSmearer Skier (liar since 2014) - rollout the banners, get the fireworks ready Smearer actually told the truth.
DeleteIf the draft referendum bill had said that the date of the referendum was going to be 4 weeks after the election on June 3rd, the resident troll would have found something else to whinge about.
DeleteIn 2015, Sturgeon announced that a vote for the SNP would not be a vote for independence, because she respected the result of the referendum just a few months previously. The resident troll (unsurprisingly) cites this as evidence, not of excessive timidity, but of her secret plan to postpone independence for as long as possible. The resident troll is asking us to believe that Alex Salmond handed over control of the SNP to Sturgeon, because a) He wasn't aware that she was a closet devolutionist, or b) He himself was a closet devolutionist, and wanted devolution to continue. The resident troll talks about cognitive dissonance.....
In 2016, the resident troll would no doubt have been predicting (along with Sheridan's mob, and the RISE boys that the SNP were going to win an outright majority in the constituencies alone, but as it was, they fell far short of that figure of 65 seats. The pro-Indy parties won a creditable 48.3% of the vote. Still no sign that a majority of Scots wanted independence, and Sturgeon's actions reflected this FACT.
In 2017, the Tories went all out to corner the anti-Indy vote, and the OO labour types answered the call. Whatever the reason, only 37.1% voted for pro-Indy parties. The resident troll criticises Sturgeon and the SNP leadership for "not acting decisively". He puts that down to Sturgeon's secret plan to postpone independence for as long as possible. Folk with healthy thought processes agreed with caution at that point.
In 2019, pro-Indy parties won 46% of the vote, and it looked to many folk as though the independence campaign had stalled. Since then, we've finally had Brexit, we've had covid, and, to my surprise and delight (not about Covid nor Brexit), the polls have moved decisively in favour of independence - probably as a result of a combination of factors, including Sturgeons competence and Doris's disastrous handling of both Covid and Brexit.
At the upcoming election, we could possibly see a SNP majority, with a further 6-10 Green seats, and ....... for the very first time ...... a majority of votes for pro-Indy parties. If that happens, and Sturgeon doesn't move decisively to obtain a referendum (of whatever kind), then Stu Campbell, our resident troll, and other self-appointed "experts" will be proven right. Myself, thousands of others (including Alex Salmond) will have to admit that we have been duped ..... that she fooled us all.
On the other hand, if the circumstances ARE as described above, and the SNP leadership DOES act decisively to obtain a referendum, will Stu Campbell, our resident troll and many, many others admit that they have been wrong?
Aye RIGHT! These tossers will slink into the undergrowth and lay low for a while, before they re-emerge, to try and claim that their role was instrumental in getting the referendum and ultimately, independence.
The BMG is interested not just for the ex DK figures, but because it has the highest Yes including DKs since January at 49%, and lies close to the last year's average 'high' for this.
ReplyDeleteIt may be that there as just a little brief #committeegate dip as people answer like they feel they are supposed to.
ISP, AfI, UKIP, Brexit, Reform Scotland, Christians, Communists etc all on a combined 3% in BMG.
ReplyDeleteWith a little over 6 weeks to go, there's not a lot of time to turn this around.
In fact if the media reports the it's looking narrow for the SNP, then it's even less likely people will opt for a wee party, but back the SNP instead. UK MSM doing the SNP a favour on this.
BREAKING Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon did not breach the ministerial code of conduct, an inquiry finds.
ReplyDeleteLord Ha Ha will be sick.
Well, seems my trusty 'What wings says will happen won't happen' rule of thumb has still yet to fail me.
DeleteThe Englishman is now foaming at the mouth at the carefully considered views of the completely impartial International Irish observer James Hamilton - former Director of the Irish CPS - that Salmond told us to trust the judgement of.
ReplyDeleteFor the reasons set out in detail above in this report I am of the opinion that the first minister did not breach the provisions of the ministerial code in respect of any of these [4 specific accusations / instances] matters.
Quelle surprise.
Anyway, even if the Tories managed to squeeze some accusations into the report, they mean nothing; the ministerial code is always judged impartially the conclusions are clear.
And of course with regard to any 'criminal conspiracy'.
Deletehttps://www.thenational.scot/news/19169634.crown-office-no-investigation-david-daviss-claims-commons/
Regarding the substance of Davis's claims a spokesman for the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) told The National this morning "there was no evidential basis to support the instruction of a criminal investigation".
He said: “The material at issue was gathered and considered by Police Scotland who routinely assess information for the presence of criminal conduct.
“The Crown are satisfied that having regard to the full messages in the context of other messages and the entire evidence in the case there is no evidential basis to support the instruction of a criminal investigation.
“In all matters relating to the investigation and prosecution of Alex Salmond, and in subsequent issues, COPFS has acted with impartiality and fairness to apply the law professionally, independently and in the public interest.
“Where appropriate the Crown has taken steps to protect the administration of justice and the rights of all those involved in the criminal proceedings.”
Asked if there were inquiries to find out how Davis came into possession of the confidential documents, he added: "We are considering if further investigation is required, so not underway."
Voters lied to by the MSM / unionist press (including Wings) about Sturgeon are going to be raging. 'Fool me once' etc...
ReplyDeleteIfS is very quiet. He must be in deep shock.
ReplyDeleteAlly
Still in a Bath.
DeleteFor me another lesson to read up and trust my assessment of what's going on. It can be hard in Scotland when you are relentlessly subjected to propaganda which tells that Scotland is a democratic and economic failure from the South of England media.
ReplyDeleteThis is how the the Daily Express is reporting things:
Scotland is lost. Independence is over. It is a banana republic, a nation that North Koreans point at and laugh. To be honest, readers, if we were you we’d get out and move to somewhere nice in England like Bath while we still could.
The author means it. He did it decades ago and loves Tory Brexit England.
I was torn about what I wanted to happen. I mean, it really is quite obvious that Sturgeon misled parliament and I guess there should be a penalty for that; but on balance, I wanted her to get off with it just to see the spittle-flecked hyperbole from the usual lot. They're not disappointing so far.
DeleteThink this is the best one
Deletehttps://twitter.com/meljomur/status/1374074719599800320
TBH, Sturgeon's story seemed to me to be true enough. I simply imagined myself in her position with a close friend and mentor of 30 years who'd handed me the reins telling me he'd been having extra-marital sex with the aides on the job, was facing multiple counts of sexual assault, and so a huge storm coming for him, me, and the party I now led for him not being able to control what's in his trousers. Such has been the downfall of many a man.
DeleteI'd so want it not to be true and torn as to what to do. While even if what had happened was not criminal (and how could she truly know?), I'd have felt let down a lot and been angry. That's basically what she told Hamilton and he, like pretty much everyone in the SNP, accepted it as it made human sense. There is no 'SNP civil war' as a war needs two sides; there basically isn't another side. The reason the cabinet, parliamentary party, councilors are not split is that they accept the reality of what happened. Even those very opposed to Sturgeon on policy such as GRA are not on the other side of the 'salmond civil war'. It seems to me only those who want people not to vote SNP are on that side.
When I read her submission and she was honest about her close 'like family' relationship and the huge conflict of interest it caused, it agreed with the total lack of any obvious motive to do all this to Salmond and the party. So I assessed it was true enough, and as a result, she would likely not be found guilty of maliciously misleading parliament. Not if Hamilton did his job properly. The question was not whether she said something that wasn't strictly true, but whether this was done knowingly and for malicious intent. I can give you misleading info, but maybe I was misled or just misunderstood, forgot...whatever. The crime is doing so knowingly as it unfairly benefited me. Hence I have been on about 'motive' so much. What was the motive?
I compared this to Salmond's where he went out of his way not to talk about their friendship as that would change all of his arguments about the ministerial code. He was his usual sharp self and spot on with technicalities. But he failed on the elephant in the room we all knew about. If he had not had a close relationship with Sturgeon, his submission would have made more sense. She'd have been in a lot more trouble. But that relationship changed everything. A massive conflict of interest at the heart of it all.
I get how those that really liked Salmond are hurt by this. I'm saddened by what's happened too. But in the end, she's been judged independently and cleared. We should accept that like we accept he's not a criminal, but 'made mistakes' and 'could have been a better man'.
I tentatively predict a boost for the SNP as those lied to relentlessly by unionists angrily hit back. This leads to at least a modest SNP majority but even with that, another coalition with the greens as both work to ensure Scots freely choose their future.
ReplyDeleteHere's Proff John Robertson's take on the poll.
ReplyDeletehttps://talkingupscotlandtwo.com/2021/03/22/poll-predicts-clear-pro-indy-majority-of-9-as-tories-and-labour-collapse/