SCOT GOES POP / PANELBASE POLL: Exclusive insight into how lower preference votes will transfer at the local elections in May, and how the pro-independence camp is needlessly leaving votes on the park - large numbers of 'tribal' SNP voters not planning to rank other Yes parties

The Scottish local elections are just six months away, and will help shape the media narrative of whether there is momentum towards an independence referendum (or towards some sort of alternative democratic event to achieve an independence mandate), or whether the independence movement is on the back foot, just as it appeared to be after the last local elections in 2017 - when the SNP comfortably topped the poll but sharply underperformed expectations.

I've already released the headline voting intentions for the local elections from the new Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll - which to the best of my knowledge is the first such set of numbers from any opinion poll in this electoral cycle.  Here's a reminder of the results: SNP 45%, Conservatives 22%, Labour 21%, Liberal Democrats 6%, Greens 4%, Alba 2%.  Nothing too surprising in there, although there must be a question mark as to whether the SNP will really achieve what would be by far an all-time record high, given their tendency to fall short of opinion poll figures in local elections.

But of course local elections in Scotland are conducted by STV, which means voters do not just put an 'X' beside one candidate, but instead rank the candidates in order of preference - and, crucially, they can rank as many or as few candidates as they like.  Because a lot of people don't really understand how the system works, there's a danger that many independence supporters will fail to optimise the power of their votes - for example, they might just give their first and second preferences to the two SNP candidates in their ward, and not rank anyone else, when in fact if they want to help the cause of independence they should be ranking every single pro-independence party and candidate.  That's something they can do as a "free hit", because it will not affect the chances of the SNP candidates being elected in any way whatsoever.

To get an insight into how many voters are planning to rank multiple parties, the poll asked an additional voting intention question for the local elections...

Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll (a representative sample of 1001 over-16s in Scotland was interviewed by Panelbase between 20th and 26th October 2021)

At the Scottish local elections next May, voters will rank candidates in order of preference, and will be able to rank as many or as few candidates as they wish.  Which of the following parties do you think you will include in your ranking when you vote in the local elections? (Please select all that apply.)

SNP 49%

Labour 35%

Conservatives 29%

Greens 23%

Liberal Democrats 21%

Alba 6%

Now before anyone's head starts spinning, this is one question where the percentages are very much supposed to add up to more than 100!  In fact it's just a pity they don't add up to a lot more than they do, because the pro-indy camp are needlessly leaving a lot of votes on the park.  Roughly half the population are independence supporters, and yet only 23% of voters will rank the pro-indy Greens, and just 6% will rank the pro-indy Alba party.  The task for us all - and this includes SNP supporters - is to boost those numbers dramatically between now and polling day.  All Yes parties should be urging their voters to give lower preferences to other Yes parties - there really is nothing to lose and everything to gain.

That said, the Greens will obviously be a lot happier with these numbers than Alba.  They give a very different impression from the first preference results, which had the two parties very close together. At first glance, I thought the reason for the Greens' more "transfer-friendly" status might be that they can attract unionist transfers in a way that Alba can't.  But although that's certainly the case, it's not the explanation - of people who would currently vote No, four times as many plan to give a ranking to the Greens (8%) than will do so for Alba (2%), and practically the same is true for people who would currently vote Yes (37% will rank the Greens, 10% will rank Alba).  Now, it goes without saying that the trendies will claim in knee-jerk fashion that this is because voters are rejecting Alba's alleged "bigotry" - but (spoiler alert) there's another result yet to come from the poll that casts severe doubt on that interpretation.  Much more likely is that Alba are struggling from not being as well known as the Greens, and perhaps also from not having the official SNP seal of approval that's been given to the Greens by means of the de facto coalition agreement.

The numbers are naturally pretty similar among people who voted SNP in the 2019 general election - 35% will give a ranking to the Greens, and 10% will give a ranking to Alba.

There's another way of looking at this, though, which is that the SNP are actually no more transfer-friendly than Alba are.  The percentage of people who will give a ranking to the SNP and Alba is 4% higher than each party's share of the first preference vote.  That's because the SNP totally dominate the first preferences of Yessers, but are "electoral asbestos" to unionist voters (to coin a phrase).  Only 12% of current No voters will give a ranking to the SNP - not much higher than the Greens' 8%.  The party that attracts the most 'cross-voting' is, depressingly, Labour - who will be ranked by 21% of current Yes voters, enough to push them comfortably into second place in terms of how many voters will give them some sort of ranking.  Even after all this time, it seems that old loyalties and affections in the former Labour heartlands die hard, meaning that Labour could cling on to a number of council seats that in some cases should have been winnable for pro-indy parties with a "vote till you boak" approach.  But Alba may draw some satisfaction from the fact that the 10% of SNP voters from 2019 who will give a ranking to Alba is at least in the same ball-park as Labour's equivalent figure of 15%.

How transfer-friendly a party is may also be a proxy for its maximum potential vote in non-preferential elections, because it reflects the number of people who find a party acceptable.  On that front, the news is good for both the Greens and Lib Dems, both of whom do vastly better than their first preference vote and find themselves breathing the same air as Labour and the Tories.  Bafflingly, years of extremist rhetoric doesn't yet seem to have totally destroyed the Lib Dems' reputation for reasonableness and moderation - 9% of both SNP and Yes voters still intend to give them a ranking.

The scale of the challenge for Alba if they are to dramatically increase their potential pool of voters is clear - although I suspect they'll prove to be much more transfer-friendly in wards where a seat is actually winnable for them, in other words where they have an incumbent councillor with a strong personal vote.

FUNDRAISING FOR POLLS: As I've mentioned a few times, the crowdfunding for this current poll didn't reach the required amount, and I'm having to cover the shortfall with my own money. So to be able to run any further Scot Goes Pop polling, on independence or on any other subject, we're going to have reach the £6500 target figure in the new fundraiser, or at least come very close to it.  So far we're just over the halfway mark, which is a fantastic start, and a million thanks to everyone who has donated over the last couple of weeks.  However, there have been potentially ominous signs of the donation rate slowing in recent days, so please bear with me as I continue to promote the fundraiser heavily - there's simply no point in leaving the job half done.  It's really important that we as the pro-independence movement crowdfund our own polling from time to time, because there's no other way of ensuring that the questions we want to be asked are actually asked.  The grim alternative is that all polls will be commissioned by anti-independence clients, with the inevitable slant in the way the questions are posed.  (That was exactly the problem we faced during the long indyref campaign, with very few exceptions.)

One issue that always comes up when I crowdfund, but has come up even more this time than usual, is that some people are slightly allergic to donating via a fundraising platform like GoFundMe - they would prefer a more direct payment option.  I've received a few emails from people saying "I would have donated if I could pay you without going through a middle man".  When I launched the fundraiser, I did actually give my Paypal details as a direct payment method, but I'm happy to do so once again.

Paypal email address:   jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Paypal is actually by far the most convenient option, both for me and for those making donations, because the money is transferred immediately and without any fuss. A number of people have already chosen to donate that way.  All you need to do is make sure the above email address is entered accurately, and when you're asked if you wish to attach a note just put "poll" or "fundraiser" so I can easily earmark the funds and add them to the running total.  (But don't worry if you don't do the latter bit - I hardly ever receive money via Paypal for any other reason, so it'll be pretty obvious what it's for!)  

However, some people have an allergy to Paypal as well as to fundraising sites, and have urged me to provide my bank details so they can donate by direct bank transfer instead.  If you'd really prefer to donate that way, please contact me by email. My contact email address is different from my Paypal address, and can be found in the sidebar of the desktop version of this blog, or on my Twitter profile.

And of course there's still the option of donating via the GoFundMe fundraiser page itself, which can be found HERE.

I know times are really tough at the moment, but thousands of people read Scot Goes Pop every week, and if just 10% of them were to donate just £10 each, we'd reach the target straight away.  As expensive as polls are, I do think the five Scot Goes Pop polls run so far have provided excellent value for money - for example by repeatedly demonstrating that there is substantial public support for a 'Plan B' option if a Section 30 order continues to be refused, and by showing that voters think Brexit makes the case for revisiting the issue of independence.  Of course some people are unable to donate for very good reasons, but one really important thing you can do is to spread the word on social media, and among your friends and family.

Thank you all once again for your amazing continued support.

SCOT GOES POP POLL FUNDRAISER UPDATE with more options for donating - and how the mainstream media has covered the latest poll so far

So apologies for the slight lull in the release of data from the new Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll, but the bulk of the results is actually still to come - we have six or seven more GRA or gender-related questions, plus no fewer than three more sets of voting intention numbers, including the all-important question about voters' lower preferences in the local elections next May.  Part of the reason for holding back briefly has been just in case some part of the mainstream media is interested in running one of the remaining results as an exclusive - as you may have seen, the second GRA question featured in the Sunday Times at the weekend.  The National also reported on the questions about Royal interference in the independence debate, the devolution of broadcasting powers, and whether the recent shortages of petrol and goods has strengthened the case for independence.  You can read my own analysis pieces in The National HERE and HERE.  I believe Neale Hanvey MP has also mentioned the poll in his column for the Fife Free Press.

FUNDRAISING FOR POLLS: As I've mentioned a few times, the crowdfunding for this current poll didn't reach the required amount, and I'm having to cover the shortfall with my own money. So to be able to run any further Scot Goes Pop polling, on independence or on any other subject, we're going to have reach the £6500 target figure in the new fundraiser, or at least come very close to it.  So far we're just over the halfway mark, which is a fantastic start, and a million thanks to everyone who has donated over the last couple of weeks.  However, there have been potentially ominous signs of the donation rate slowing in recent days, so please bear with me as I continue to promote the fundraiser heavily - there's simply no point in leaving the job half done.  It's really important that we as the pro-independence movement crowdfund our own polling from time to time, because there's no other way of ensuring that the questions we want to be asked are actually asked.  The grim alternative is that all polls will be commissioned by anti-independence clients, with the inevitable slant in the way the questions are posed.  (That was exactly the problem we faced during the long indyref campaign, with very few exceptions.)

One issue that always comes up when I crowdfund, but has come up even more this time than usual, is that some people are slightly allergic to donating via a fundraising platform like GoFundMe - they would prefer a more direct payment option.  I've received a few emails from people saying "I would have donated if I could pay you without going through a middle man".  When I launched the fundraiser, I did actually give my Paypal details as a direct payment method, but I'm happy to do so once again.

Paypal email address:   jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Paypal is actually by far the most convenient option, both for me and for those making donations, because the money is transferred immediately and without any fuss. A number of people have already chosen to donate that way.  All you need to do is make sure the above email address is entered accurately, and when you're asked if you wish to attach a note just put "poll" or "fundraiser" so I can easily earmark the funds and add them to the running total.  (But don't worry if you don't do the latter bit - I hardly ever receive money via Paypal for any other reason, so it'll be pretty obvious what it's for!)  

However, some people have an allergy to Paypal as well as to fundraising sites, and have urged me to provide my bank details so they can donate by direct bank transfer instead.  If you'd really prefer to donate that way, please contact me by email. My contact email address is different from my Paypal address, and can be found in the sidebar of the desktop version of this blog, or on my Twitter profile.

And of course there's still the option of donating via the GoFundMe fundraiser page itself, which can be found HERE.

I know times are really tough at the moment, but thousands of people read Scot Goes Pop every week, and if just 10% of them were to donate just £10 each, we'd reach the target straight away.  As expensive as polls are, I do think the five Scot Goes Pop polls run so far have provided excellent value for money - for example by repeatedly demonstrating that there is substantial public support for a 'Plan B' option if a Section 30 order continues to be refused, and by showing that voters think Brexit makes the case for revisiting the issue of independence.  Of course some people are unable to donate for very good reasons, but one really important thing you can do is to spread the word on social media, and among your friends and family.

Thank you all once again for your amazing continued support.

SCOT GOES POP / PANELBASE POLL: Shortages of goods and petrol are strengthening the case for independence

Although the new Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll is predominantly about GRA reform and related matters, I also added voting intention questions, and three supplementary questions on political matters - two of which you've already seen, and which produced astonishingly good results from the point of view of the pro-independence movement. The third question is a little different, because it's produced a good, solid result, but not on the same dramatic scale of the other two. It may be worth pondering why that's the case. 

Do you think the recent shortages of goods and petrol strengthen or weaken the case for Scotland to become an independent country and to then seek to restore freedom of movement with the countries of the European Union? 

Strengthen the case: 35% 

Weaken the case: 22% 

Make no difference: 32% 

That's a roughly 3-2 margin for 'strengthen' over 'weaken', and importantly a bigger percentage of No voters from 2014 say 'strengthen' (16%) than Yes voters who say 'weaken' (9%). There's also a 34% to 16% lead for 'strengthen' among those who didn't vote in 2014. That suggests the shortages may be shifting the dial to at least a modest extent, or will have the potential to do so. 

It may seem odd that 22% of respondents hold the apparently perverse belief that the shortages have somehow weakened the case for independence and freedom of movement, but there are a couple of possible explanations for that. Firstly, the BBC have been utterly determined to ensure that it occurs to as few people as possible that Brexit may actually be to blame for the difficulties the UK has been facing recently. The supply problems have been presented as having multi-faceted causes which are difficult to pin down, and of course some people are all too eager to believe that we need London's "broad shoulders" to protect helpless Scotland from complex, multi-faceted problems. But probably a bigger factor is that some people are extremely partisan in their constitutional preferences and would just automatically say that any political event, no matter what it is, has weakened the case for independence. Boris Johnson resuming atmospheric nuclear testing in Prestonpans town centre? Oh, that just means we need London rule even more, of course it does. The fact that No voters from 2014 say, by a 34% to 16% margin, that the shortages weaken the case for the restoration of freedom of movement in an independent Scotland...well, it's possible they may truly believe that deep down, but ah hae ma doots. 

So for that reason, I'd suggest the people who chose the 'weaken' option are of less concern than the roughly one-third of the sample, including 43% of No voters from 2014 and even 23% of Yes voters, who think the shortages make no difference to the case for independence. Those people presumably mean what they say - but why? We can blame the BBC, but I think the SNP may need to consider whether they've been doing enough to join the dots in people's minds about the effect of Brexit on daily life, and how independence can resolve many of the problems. It could be that pushing the date of the independence referendum ever backwards has led the SNP to soft-pedal a little on the impact of Brexit - ie. if they presented our departure from the EU as an immediate and ongoing crisis, they know that people would be asking them why they aren't seeking a solution with considerably more urgency.

SCOT GOES POP POLLING FUNDRAISER: I hope you'll bear with me as I continue to heavily promote the new fundraiser, but as I've explained a few times, the crowdfunding for this current poll did not meet the full amount required, and I'm having to cover the shortfall with my own money.  So running any future Scot Goes Pop polling - on independence or other Scottish political issues - will be pretty much impossible unless we reach the £6500 target figure, or at least get very close to it.  At present we're more than 40% of the way towards the target, so a million thanks to everyone who has made donations so far.  I know times are really tough at the moment, but as I noted the other day, thousands of people read Scot Goes Pop every week, and if just 10% of those people were to donate just £10, the target figure would be reached straight away.  Of course some people can't donate for very good reasons, but one really helpful thing you can do is to share the fundraiser page and spread the word with your friends and family.

If you'd like to donate, please click HERE, or to read more about why it's so important for the pro-independence movement to occasionally crowdfund our own polls, click HERE.

VIDEO PREVIEW of tonight's spooky Halloween question in the Scot Goes Pop poll

FUNDRAISER: If you think it's a good thing that not all public opinion polls are commissioned by anti-independence clients, please consider donating to the new Scot Goes Pop polling fundraiser - that will ensure that I'm not out of pocket for running this new poll, and will also allow me to commission another poll over the coming months.  To donate, please click HERE, or to read about why it's so important for the pro-independence movement to occasionally crowdfund our own polls, click HERE.

SCOT GOES POP / PANELBASE POLL: Substantial majority think people who change their legal gender from male to female by self-ID should not have full access to female-only spaces

The first GRA-related question from the Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll demonstrated that there is only relatively modest minority support for the government's plan to introduce gender self-identification in Scotland.  However, the results on that question gave us no indication of the reasons for the majority being opposed to the plan.  It may be that people simply object to individuals having the personal comfort or satisfaction of obtaining official documents that reflect their own gender identity - in which case the oft-heard charge that such attitudes are intolerant or bigoted might have some justification.  However, it's equally possible that the public's opposition to self-ID is due to concerns that a change in legal gender could confer individuals with new, concrete, real world rights that would conflict with the rights of others or have a detrimental effect on society at large.  The example usually cited is the impact upon the ability of women to organise as a sex-based class, and to maintain spaces for the exclusive use of biological females. Part of the purpose of the second GRA question in the poll is to discover whether these worries exist, and if so, how widespread they are.

Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll (a representative sample of 1001 over-16s in Scotland was interviewed by Panelbase between 20th and 26th October 2021)

If the law is changed in Scotland to allow people to legally change their gender without a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, do you think biological males who legally become female under the new rules should be allowed to access female-only spaces, such as changing rooms, toilets, hospital wards and women's refuges, in exactly the same way as all other women?

Yes, they should: 22%

No, they shouldn't: 54%

First of all, just a couple of notes on the context and wording of this question.  It was asked immediately after the main self-ID question, so the explanation of the change in the law that the government are planning will have been fresh in the minds of respondents.  The words "in exactly the same way" were used because the position of self-ID proponents is that "trans women are women", ie. that there is no distinction between trans women and individuals who have been biologically female since birth, and that both groups should therefore be perceived and treated identically.  So the results on this question don't necessarily exclude the possibility that people think that individuals who have changed their legal gender (by self-ID) from male to female should have some access to female-only spaces, but that it should fall short of "exactly the same" access as all other women.

Clearly these numbers identify one of the key concerns that the government would have to address if voters' opposition to self-ID is to be reversed.  Potentially there is scope for a compromise that the public can embrace, if individuals are allowed to have the gender on their documents changed while still being subject to some limitations on the single-sex spaces they can access.  However, the government have effectively ruled out making any such concessions of substance, instead saying they will assuage concerns by clearing up the 'misunderstandings' and 'misapprehensions' about the impact of self-ID on women's rights.  The snag is that it's by no means clear that any misapprehensions exist.  If they do not want to compromise, the government would perhaps be better advised to attempt to lead and win a public debate about why trans rights must prevail in any conflict with women's sex-based rights, or indeed why rights based on biological sex are an outmoded concept - but, for now, debate is something they're avoiding at all costs.  Instead, the fiction is that no conflict of rights exist, and that no conflict of rights is even possible.

Once again, there's no real difference between the views of men and women on the question of access to female-only spaces.  Men are a bit more hostile to the idea, but the difference is very slight, with women also opposed by the hefty margin of 52% to 23%.  As on the main self-ID question, the more significant differences are to be found between the generations, and between supporters of different political parties.  Under-35s are practically split down the middle, with 36% in favour of equal access for trans women, and 37% opposed.  That contrasts sharply with over-55s, who are opposed to equal access by the enormous margin of 65% to 13%.  

Tory and Lib Dem voters are significantly more united in their opposition than their SNP and Labour counterparts.  The mystery of the Lib Dem results continues, because just 4% of what you'd think would be a socially liberal sample of people are in favour of letting trans women into female-only spaces on the same basis of other women, with a whopping 66% against.  As I said the other day, the only explanations I can think of are either that the Lib Dem voters surveyed were predominantly Tories who voted for the Lib Dems tactically, or that the subsample of Lib Dem voters is not entirely reliable due to its small size.

However, there are substantial pluralities against equal access among voters of all parties.  The closest result - and it's not really all that close - is among SNP voters, who split 31% in favour, 44% against.

SCOT GOES POP POLLING FUNDRAISER: I hope you'll bear with me as I continue to heavily promote the new fundraiser, but as I've explained a few times, the crowdfunding for this current poll did not meet the full amount required, and I'm having to cover the shortfall with my own money.  So running any future Scot Goes Pop polling - on independence or other Scottish political issues - will be pretty much impossible unless we reach the £6500 target figure, or at least get very close to it.  At present we're more than 40% of the way towards the target, so a million thanks to everyone who has made donations so far.  I know times are really tough at the moment, but as I noted the other day, thousands of people read Scot Goes Pop every week, and if just 10% of those people were to donate just £10, the target figure would be reached straight away.  Of course some people can't donate for very good reasons, but one really helpful thing you can do is to share the fundraiser page and spread the word with your friends and family.

If you'd like to donate, please click HERE, or to read more about why it's so important for the pro-independence movement to occasionally crowdfund our own polls, click HERE.