As I've pointed out many times in recent weeks, the headline numbers in independence polls are the ones with Don't Knows excluded. On those, the new Survation poll shows Yes drawing level.
Should Scotland be an independent country? (Survation / Courier)
Yes 50% (+1)
No 50% (-1)
However, the unionist media have shown that, when it suits them (ie. to claim there is a No lead), they'll dispense with those numbers and use the ones with Don't Knows included. We might as well follow their example tonight, because in this poll there's a slight Yes lead - Yes 45% (+2), No 44% (-1).
These numbers have to be seen in the context of Survation being a relatively No-friendly pollster in recent times. They showed figures like these (a two-point Yes lead) in the late autumn, at a time when other firms were reporting a huge pro-independence majority. It would be interesting to see what a ComRes or Ipsos-Mori poll shows right now.
For some reason Mike Smithson over at the other place is saying that "the poll also had a Scottish independence question that had a 49% to 51% for NO". Can we take it he's just talking shit?
ReplyDeleteProbably. Having said that, the Courier article only had the 50-50 split. I'm taking the figures with Don't Knows included from Britain Elects - and they reported incorrect numbers a few weeks ago.
DeleteHe is wrong. Maybe what he hopes.
DeleteDespite the anti-independence media onslaught for the past few weeks, it is not really denting support for Yes.
Does it really matter? We all know it's 50:50 +/2% at the moment.
DeleteS'pose it doesn't really matter in the scheme of things
DeleteHe is a bitter twisted old fart since the SNP all but wiped out the Fiberals in Scotland. That is being nice about it. I got banned at the other place 5 years ago no 6 actually. James is a nice chap in comparison as he hasn't banned me yet.
DeleteI did want to ask James as to how a 1% lead for Yes results ends up as a neck and neck result. Is there an institutional bias there now or is the bias present with those who commissioned poll?
Keaton, what I mean is - I really don't see any difference whether the polls show 49, 50 or 51. OK - it might be a good headline - No in the lead again (or vice versa), but nothing has really changed. It's still 50:50 +/-2. There was a slight drop about two months ago from 52:48 +/-2 to this even split which has stabilised about a month ago. All polling companies are also showing surprisingly similar results. Questions on Welsh indy or Irish unification always come with big differences in results depending on who does them, but Scottish results have been very consistent regardless of the polling company for quite some time now.
DeleteIve also been banned by Smithson for daring to disagree with one of his regular contributors. Im told he is a Liberal Democrat but in my opinion he is neither liberal nor democratic,
DeleteOf course it would be preferable if YES had a clear lead but right now the election is just weeks away.
ReplyDeleteHow the votes fall for the SNP, Alba and the Greens on May 6th is what should be concerning us, and whether we end up with the overall majority of MSPs for parties pledged to deliver an independence referendum.
Not cutting each others throats on the regional lists is dependent on people's knowledge of previous voting locally, and in fact what might be a problem is that some of the regions have geographic anomalies.
A prime example is in East Lothian where Musselburgh is the only part of the county in Lothian region, but the rest bizzarely is in South of Scotland Region.
How you cast a list vote in either region could theoretically decide the outcome of a close election.
I think it’s highly likely there will be a pro-independence majority in May. The problem is that it was 2011’s single party majority on a manifesto promise to hold a referendum that convinced the UK govt of the clear mandate.
DeleteIt gets muddier if the SNP just fall short, and if Alba tries to game the system then there will be arguments of ‘did unionist parties get 51% of the popular vote?
I’m not saying what’s right or wrong, I’m just saying things get more difficult in that scenario.
I don’t remember there being any ‘convincing’. There was more a cocksure belief in an easy win, so ‘hurry up and bring it on’ (just in case the opinions change...)
DeleteYes, much of the SNP vote in my South of Scotland seat comes from people who live in Midlothian. They save me from the Melrose English Tory retirees.
DeleteSo when I hear 'No point voting SNP on the list if you live in the Lothians' I despair.
This is the problem with trying to obtain votes by dishonesty. It's like one of those notorious Tory vote share graphs without a scale.
Even political geeks like us have to think carefully about gambling with out votes. It's simply tricking the average punter to pretend to them they have a spare second vote that's 'wasted' all the time.
If a majority of Scots support indy / vote in a majority of pro-iref MSPs and Westminster tries to overrule that, the union will be over in Scots hearts, with no going back. The only way to save the union is to let Scots freely choose it like last time. Johnson may already have done irreparable harm with his 'No' last year. Yes/No polling at least suggests baseline Yes may now be ~50%, with generational demographics eating away at No each day.
DeleteIt was Alex Salmond saying he'd hold a referendum regardless of anything Cameron did that made it happen.
DeleteThere was no section 30 order asked for. History has been re-written, but facts are facts.
When the PM of greater england signs a document stating that he and his government would accept the result of a vote then that is that.
Mrs Murrell could have held a vote at any point post 2016, and won, but she's a coward who has no interest in fighting for anything.
I think it’s highly likely there will be a pro-independence majority in May. The problem is that it was 2011’s single party majority on a manifesto promise to hold a referendum that convinced the UK govt of the clear mandate.
DeleteCan you cite a single source from the time which states that the single-party majority was the determining factor?
Why did it happen?
DeleteIt happened because the Scottish National Party, who campaign for Scotland to be independent, won a majority at the last Scottish Parliament election.
This was from UK GOV
https://www.gov.uk/government/topical-events/scottish-independence-referendum/about
Except Union2 the latest polls show no encouragement to unionists.
ReplyDeleteThe SNP are likely to have an overall majority on their own and with the Greens the momentum for Indyref2 is likely to increase.
Clutching at straws is all unionists will have left.
Standards will no doubt be applied to Scotland that are deemed unnecessary for a mandate in a UK election.
But we can see this coming and we will be ready. Rack your brains, I'm sure you'll think of something.
Despite the turmoil of the last few months the polls have not moved much, either for the SNP or Yes.
ReplyDeleteI can't help feeling that Alba might have got more early traction if Alex had not been quite so adversarial post aquital. List votes if they come have to largely come from SNP voters. A more conciliatory stance over the last year might have placed the party in an easier place. That said Alex might not have decided to do this until the 11th hour and what has been done cannot be undone.
The next two or three polls will be crucial to Alba. If SNP voters can't see movement and the Greens stay on 11% or more then a Green list is actually a more viable option. We have a Green MSP and no SNP list seats, I could almost be tempted to go there myself.
Multiple party voting in an AMS electoral system is NOT 'gaming the system'.
ReplyDeleteThe Scottish electorate, working within a dominant UK culture of 'first past the post' has, up until now, actually been forced to 'game' the Holyrood AMS system by forcing a single party majority on it in order to get their priorities for constitutional change addressed.
This has, up until now, forced an SNP monopoly over those Yes voters who want to prioritise the constitution over all other domestic policy.
A single party majority is a VERY abnormal scenario for an AMS system and VERY difficult (by design) to achieve. This is why it has only happened once so far, and that by fluke.
It is becoming obvious that all this talk of 'Gaming the system' is coming from the fear that Yes voters are actually starting to understand the AMS voting system, and use it as intended, which is the opposite of 'gaming' it. Fear from unionists seeing Indy closing in on them, and fear from the SNP leadership seeing their hopes of single party monopoly coming to an end. Neither of these two things are bad or contrary to the proper running of the AMS electoral system.
Two independent parties that share an electorally popular constitutional policy are likely to win enough seats at every election to control Holyrood, election after election. AMS was chosen by unionists UK because UK Unionist parties thought that it would be unionist party coalitions that would control Holyrood governments, locking SNP out, election after election.
Were they 'gaming the system'? Of course not, that IS the system!
More yes MSPs does not get Scotland any closer to independence.
DeleteMore Yes voters is what's needed.
All we need is a simple majority of Yes MSPs as per the past two elections.
The point is that our Holyrood deHondt AMS voting system is designed for multiple party voting and from that, coalition governments NOT single party majorities governments.
DeleteTrying to achieve single party majority government (by almost creating an SNP monopoly over Yes supporters) has been forced on us to get the constitution addressed but it is a very, very unusual and difficult thing to achieve in the system as designed.
Even harder now that the broad coalition of Yes voters needed to ever achieve such an outcome is being alienated by the SNP's prioritising of divisive domestic policies over the focus on constitutional unity.
So, that 'simple majority' you say is all we need is NOT and never has been a 'simple' thing to achieve. However, a coalition of Indy supporting parties, under the dHondt system IS a relatively simple thing to achieve. Coalition is after all what it has been designed to deliver.
You are not a stupid man SS, so why are you happy to appear as one when it comes to discussing the possibility of SNP working with fellow pro Indy partners to entrench and widen pro Indy party political power in Holyrood and help advance Scottish Independence parliament after parliament after parliament (god forbid it has to take that long)?
All these polls show is just what a mess Mrs Murrell has made of our lives.
ReplyDeleteIn 2014 45% in all and a clear majority of Scots, voted for independence.
In 2021 the 200,000 EU citizens who voted no are either gone, or have seen that they were lied to and are now Yes.
Everyone from 9-15 then is now eligible to vote and are massively Yes.
At least 100,000 of the older No voters are now burning in Hell for their crimes.
In reality anything less than 60% for Yes is pathetic. Despite the media, despite the corruption in the SNP, and despite the best efforts of fake-yessers.
I see that Mrs Murrell is attacking Alex Salmond again. Funnily enough she now claims to know some of the outraged women personally. Yet she told the committee UNDER OATH that she didn't know who any of them were.
ReplyDeleteTo be a good liar you have to have a good memory.
Calling her 'Mrs Murrell' just shows everyone how much you hate women.
DeleteAll Greeks are men ['scuse the sexism], but not all men are Greek.
DeleteMrs Murrell is hated by PeeJay [discuss], but not all women are hated by PeeJay.
Scottish Skier, you seem to have a failure of logic, even if you can show that PeeJay hates Mrs Murrell.
James, are you going to comment on the KANTAR poll?
ReplyDelete