Good evening, Unionist Twitter. So, after two weeks and a massive SNP lead on three separate voting intention questions, you've finally noticed the poll, have you?

Even Panelbase https://t.co/YOchFx7D1q

— Blair McDougall (@blairmcdougall) November 13, 2021

"Even Panelbase."
McDougall is really demeaning himself with that tweet - it echoes the nastiest and most wretched of Brit Nat trolls who peddle conspiracy theories about Panelbase, which in fact produces independence results typical of most firms.https://t.co/ShcwmLBxwZ

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 13, 2021

In fact, if anything, Panelbase was (along with YouGov) on the No-friendly end of the spectrum until around 2018 or 2019. "Even Ipsos-Mori" might make a bit of sense, because Ipsos-Mori are perhaps the closest thing to a Yes-friendly pollster.

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 13, 2021

But for whatever reason, the Brit Nat nutters which McDougall has shamefully associated himself with reserve their ire for Panelbase not Ipsos-Mori.

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 13, 2021

Panelbase, *and* the old 2014 affirmation bias question... https://t.co/jchZDDaKsZ

— Alastair Cameron 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 (@HappyBritScot) November 13, 2021

Apologies, HappyBritScot, but I'm afraid your pathetic attempts to rig the indyref question are unlikely to gain any more traction with the Electoral Commission than they have thus far with polling companies (with one notable exception).

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 13, 2021

Indeed. Yes is further behind with Panelbase than 7 years ago.

— Blair McDougall (@blairmcdougall) November 13, 2021

And here Blair is demonstrating himself to be either clueless or dishonest about polling methods. Pre-indyref Panelbase polls are not comparable with current Panelbase polls for one simple and obvious reason: after the indyref, weighting by recalled indyref vote was introduced.

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 13, 2021

Why did it have to be introduced? To correct for the fact that the polls had systemically overestimated Yes. Doh!

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 13, 2021

Scotland had its poll last year

— Wllliam Hayes PgDip (@WllliamHayes) November 13, 2021

This is perhaps my favourite ever tweet. In one sleepy part of Unionist Twitter, it will forever be 2015.https://t.co/QbK9tdF8fz

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 13, 2021

If I'd known the villain of #Pounds4McDougallgate and his chums were going to get so over-excited, I would have made the obvious point last night - that the Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll actually has slightly older fieldwork than the Scotsman / Savanta ComRes poll, which showed a narrower No lead and no change whatsoever from the previous ComRes poll.  It was also markedly better for the Yes side than ComRes polling back in the spring.  So there are very good reasons for thinking that the Yes vote is holding up, and that the statistically insignificant 1% decrease with Panelbase that Blair is hyperventilating about is just meaningless margin of error noise.

Data tables for the Scot Goes Pop poll are now available on the Panelbase website

I know that many of you have been following the GRA and gender results from the Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll with keen interest, and are eager to use the full data tables as a contribution to the ongoing debate.  The tables for the questions that I've published so far can now be downloaded from the Panelbase website HERE.  (I would guess Panelbase were probably holding off until I published the indyref voting intention numbers last night, because those are a key cross-break in the tables.)  A further set of tables will appear once I've published the remaining questions from the poll.

I do need to issue a slight health warning, though, because Panelbase sometimes use an abbreviated version of poll questions in their tables.  As far as I can see, only one question is affected in this case, and that's question 17.  The full wording of the question asked of respondents is as follows:

If a woman requires an intimate medical examination after being sexually assaulted, do you think she should have the right to ask to be examined by a doctor who has been biologically female since birth, or should she only have the right to ask to be examined by a doctor who is legally regarded as a woman, regardless of that person's biological sex at birth?

SCOT GOES POP / PANELBASE POLL: SNP on course to win well over 90% of Scottish seats at the next UK general election - plus the latest independence voting intention numbers

So just a little recap for those of you who didn't see the video earlier. If you've been wondering why the Westminster and indyref voting intention numbers weren't the first results I published from the new Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll, the mystery will now be solved, because there's nothing particularly startling in them.  However, the Westminster numbers remain extremely good for the SNP, and in fact are the best results Panelbase have reported for Nicola Sturgeon's party since a poll commissioned by this blog around a year ago.

Scottish voting intentions for the next UK general election:

SNP 48% (+1)

Conservatives 21% (-2)

Labour 21% (+2)

Liberal Democrats 7% (-)

Others 4% (-)

Seats projection based on current boundaries, with changes from 2019 in brackets: SNP 55 (+7), Conservatives 3 (-3), Labour 1 (-), Liberal Democrats 0 (-4)

Seats projection based on proposed new boundaries, with changes from 2019 in brackets: SNP 53 (+5), Conservatives 2 (-4), Labour 1 (-), Liberal Democrats 1 (-3)

I know some people will be extremely dismissive of the idea that an enormous SNP lead is good for the independence movement.  They will argue that if we reach the next UK general election without an independence referendum having being held, the cause is lost anyway.  I certainly agree that an indyref should/must be held prior to the general election, but I don't subscribe to the catastrophist view which suggests that if the current SNP leadership screw it up for us, there's no further path forward.  Of course it makes a difference whether we retain a pro-indy majority at Westminster - and as the perverse media reaction to the SNP's comfortable victory in 2017 demonstrates, the size of that majority matters too.  There's also the theoretical chance of Boris Johnson cutting and running with a snap election before there's any chance to hold an indyref, although admittedly the likelihood of that has sharply diminished recently due to the Tory corruption scandals and Johnson's plummeting popularity south of the border.  The change in the Westminster political weather is reflected in this poll, with Labour catching up with the Tories for the first time in any Panelbase poll conducted during the current parliament.  (That said, the Tories do remain fractionally ahead of Labour on the unrounded numbers in the data tables.)

Perhaps inevitably in light of the massive SNP lead, the tables show that the SNP have been significantly more successful than other parties at retaining their voters from the 2019 election.  93% of people who voted SNP back then would still vote SNP now - with the equivalent figures for the Tories and Labour being 78% and 82% respectively.  A very significant 12% of Labour voters from 2019 would now vote SNP - it may well be that some of those people are disillusioned Corbynites.

Just 64% of Lib Dem voters from 2019 have stayed loyal - which again makes me wonder if a significant part of the Lib Dem sample from this poll consists of supporters of other unionist parties who cast a tactical vote in constituencies like East Dunbartonshire or Edinburgh West.  10% of Lib Dem voters have now drifted to the Tories, 15% to Labour, and a healthy 11% to the SNP.

Should Scotland be an independent country?

Yes 47% (-1)

No 53% (+1)

(Before Don't Knows are stripped out, the numbers are: Yes 44%, No 50%, Don't Know 5%)

This is a mildly disappointing result, but nothing disastrous - it represents only a minor margin-of-error change from the last two Panelbase polls, which both showed a 48-52 split.  It's also a marked improvement on the result of the 2014 referendum, and is therefore an excellent starting platform for a new vote. However, it's obviously well down on the heady results of last year (the Yes vote peaked in Panelbase polls at an astonishing 56% in the Scot Goes Pop-commissioned poll of November 2020).  That being the case, here's my handy cut-out-and-keep guide to the SNP leadership's interpretation of what's been going on...

* It's absurd to deny Nicola Sturgeon the credit for the surge in Yes support in 2020 - you can't portray it as something that "just happened".  It was plainly largely caused by her leadership skills during the pandemic.  However, the subsequent drop in support has, of course, nothing whatever to do with her or any other leading SNP figure.  Drops in support, unlike increases, are things that "just happen" - either that or they're somehow caused by a small breakaway party that has received practically zero TV coverage.  "I can't prove that, but if you don't agree that it's obviously true, you're a ZOOMER." (© Mark McGeoghegan, April 2021)  

* The large lead in 2020 was an argument against holding an independence referendum any time soon.  "We got into this wonderful position by not actually talking about independence, so we mustn't throw it away now."

* The disappearance of the large lead from 2020 is also, paradoxically, an argument against holding an independence referendum any time soon.  "It would be stupid to hold an unwinnable referendum. If we just keep the heid and don't talk about independence for a few more years, maybe we'll repeat the trick of 2020 by building up a sizeable Yes lead.  And if that happens, it'll be even more important not to hold a referendum, because we'd only have got those Yes votes by not talking about independence, and we wouldn't want to throw them away, would we?"

* If the thought has occurred to you that not talking about independence may actually have been responsible for the drop in Yes support between 2020 and 2021, it's time for some deep personal introspection, because the drop in Yes support is actually your own fault.  The grassroots just haven't been campaigning hard enough, or effectively enough.  It's no good whingeing to the SNP about the absence of a referendum when it's your own fault for not chapping on enough doors and persuading enough people.  But bear in mind that if you do that and Yes support starts increasing again, you won't be able to take the credit for it, because in fact it will turn out that it was the SNP that turned things around by the sheer ferocity with which they refrained from talking about independence - and naturally you still won't get a referendum, because that would throw the gains away.

Perhaps the strategy is "Free by 2083 - but by stealth."

*  *  *

SCOT GOES POP POLLING FUNDRAISER: I'm having to partly cover the costs of the current poll with my own funds, so if we're going to run further polling in the future, we'll need to reach the £6500 target in the fundraiser (or get very close to it).  We're close to 60% of the way there so far, with more than £2500 still required.  So any donations, large or small, would be greatly appreciated and will make all the difference.  Don't risk leaving public opinion polling exclusively in the hands of the mainstream media, with all the bias that entails!  Here are three ways in which you can donate...

1) Paypal payments to the email address:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Paypal is the preferred payment method because money is transferred immediately and without fuss.  All you need to ensure is that the above email address is entered correctly (note the .co.uk ending), and add a note with the word "poll" or "fundraiser".  (But don't worry if you forget to do the latter bit, because it'll still be obvious what the payment is for.)

2) Payments to the Scot Goes Pop GoFundMe Fundraiser page, which can be found HERE.

or

3) Direct bank transfer.  Contact me by email if you prefer this option.  My contact email address is different from my Paypal address above, and can be found in the sidebar of the blog (desktop version of the site only), or on my Twitter profile.

Thank you all once again for your amazing continued support, and in particular many thanks to the more than 160 people who have already donated.

VIDEO EXCLUSIVE: Hear the Westminster and independence voting intention numbers from the new Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll

SCOT GOES POP POLLING FUNDRAISER: I'm having to partly cover the costs of the current poll with my own funds, so if we're going to run further polling in the future, we'll need to reach the £6500 target in the fundraiser (or get very close to it).  We're close to 60% of the way there so far, with more than £2500 still required.  So any donations, large or small, would be greatly appreciated and will make all the difference.  Don't risk leaving public opinion polling exclusively in the hands of the mainstream media, with all the bias that entails!  Here are three ways in which you can donate...

1) Paypal payments to the email address:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Paypal is the preferred payment method because money is transferred immediately and without fuss.  All you need to ensure is that the above email address is entered correctly (note the .co.uk ending), and add a note with the word "poll" or "fundraiser".  (But don't worry if you forget to do the latter bit, because it'll still be obvious what the payment is for.)

2) Payments to the Scot Goes Pop GoFundMe Fundraiser page, which can be found HERE.

or

3) Direct bank transfer.  Contact me by email if you prefer this option.  My contact email address is different from my Paypal address above, and can be found in the sidebar of the blog (desktop version of the site only), or on my Twitter profile.

Thank you all once again for your amazing continued support, and in particular many thanks to the more than 160 people who have already donated.

VIDEO PREVIEW of the next set of questions in the Scot Goes Pop poll - randomly filmed just outside COP26

SCOT GOES POP POLLING FUNDRAISER: I'm having to partly cover the costs of the current poll with my own funds, so if we're going to run further polling in the future, we'll need to reach the £6500 target in the fundraiser (or get very close to it).  We're just over halfway there so far, with the best part of another £3000 required.  So any donations, large or small, would be greatly appreciated and will make all the difference.  Don't risk leaving public opinion polling exclusively in the hands of the mainstream media, with all the bias that entails!  Here are three ways in which you can donate...

1) Paypal payments to the email address:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Paypal is the preferred payment method because money is transferred immediately and without fuss.  All you need to ensure is that the above email address is entered correctly (note the .co.uk ending), and add a note with the word "poll" or "fundraiser".  (But don't worry if you forget to do the latter bit, because it'll still be obvious what the payment is for.)

2) Payments to the Scot Goes Pop GoFundMe Fundraiser page, which can be found HERE.

or

3) Direct bank transfer.  Contact me by email if you prefer this option.  My contact email address is different from my Paypal address above, and can be found in the sidebar of the blog (desktop version of the site only), or on my Twitter profile.

Thank you all once again for your amazing continued support, and in particular many thanks to the more than 160 people who have already donated.

Response to 'feedback' on the Scot Goes Pop GRA poll

There are several more questions to come from the Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll about GRA reform, but inevitably as a result of polling on such a sensitive topic, I've been receiving a certain amount of what might euphemistically be described as "forthright feedback". So I thought I'd deal with some of the recurring themes in this post.

"Human rights should NEVER be decided by opinion poll!"

This implictly suggests that the act of simply commissioning a poll on any topic somehow carries the implication that the results of the poll should decide the matter.  That plainly is not the case, and in fact I've spoken out many times against any creeping move towards a "YouGov democracy" - eg. Alister Jack's suggestion that it might be OK to hold an independence referendum in 2039 as long as opinion pollsters say we want one.  In a healthy democracy, nothing at all should be decided simply by opinion poll, but that doesn't mean that polls shouldn't be carried out or that they don't have a role to play.

As far as human rights are concerned, there isn't yet a consensus among global policy-makers, even those of a liberal persuasion, that gender self-ID forms part of the canon of inalienable human rights alongside the rights to life, to free speech, and so on.  If there was such a consensus, we wouldn't even be having the current debate over GRA reform.  But advocates of self-ID themselves clearly feel that public opinion should carry a certain amount of weight in that debate - hence frequently-heard claims such as "a large majority of women support self-ID". It's scarcely illegitimate, then, to put those claims to the test and to discover whether they are actually accurate.  The results of the Scot Goes Pop poll strongly suggest that they are not.

The erroneous belief that there is huge public support for self-ID appears, ironically, to be derived mainly from YouGov polling commissioned by Pink News - which begs the obvious question of whether Pink News think human rights should be decided by opinion poll.  They achieved the results they wanted by asking in very vague terms whether people should be able to self-identify as a different gender from their sex at birth - without specifying that this would be a legally-recognised process that would confer all of the legal rights of belonging to a particular gender, and that would remove any preconditions such as a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria.  There was other YouGov polling at around the same time that showed a majority of respondents thought any concrete legal rights from a change of gender should only apply to those who had actually undergone gender reassignment surgery.  In other words, respondents actually strongly opposed legal self-ID, but hadn't understood the implications of the extremely ambiguous question they had been asked about it.  It's likely that they assumed they were being asked a motherhood and apple pie question about whether it's OK for people who were born male to think of themselves as a woman, and vice versa - which, of course, is a right that already exists.

The intentional vagueness of the Pink News question reminds me a bit of a question I asked in a poll eighteen months ago: "Should Scotland rejoin the European Union?" I deliberately didn't specify that this might involve becoming an independent country - I wanted to see how people would react to the general principle of Scotland rejoining the EU if the baggage of independence was taken out of the equation.  By the same token, Pink News wanted people to answer a question about self-ID without any consideration of the issues of a legal process and of legal rights.  The trouble is that this produced a result that is almost meaningless - because the proposed reform of the GRA is all about a legal process and legal rights.

"Why the GRA?  Aren't there a whole range of other important subjects to poll about, such as climate change and Covid recovery?"

As there have been polls about pretty much every subject under the sun, including climate change and Covid recovery, the question really ought to be "why not the GRA?"  There's no reason why this should be the only subject that no-one ever feels able to ask about in a poll.  As it happens, though, in spite of the fact that this was always intended to be primarily a poll about the GRA, I added on questions about a number of other important subjects such as the devolution of broadcasting, Royal interference in the independence debate, and recent shortages of goods and petrol.  I have also asked about many other subjects, including Covid, in previous polls.

"But what has this got to do with independence?"

Nothing, directly.  So what's your point? Are you saying you'll forego dinner tonight because it doesn't have anything to do with independence? The SNP government themselves don't seem to be deterred by the fact that GRA reform will not help achieve independence.  And in a way that's the whole point - I'm heartbroken by the way the SNP leadership's obsession with this issue has needlessly opened up a rift in the independence movement, and I would like to see a resolution.  A clear-sighted view of where public opinion stands, such as this poll provides, might be a small step towards a resolution.

"Urgh! This is so transphobic! Urgh!"

Er, what's transphobic?  What is "this"?  If you mean the results of the poll, you'd have to take that up with the representative sample of 1001 Scottish voters who were interviewed and who gave their honest views.  If you mean the fact that a poll was conducted on this subject at all, you'd have to take it up with the many different clients that have commissioned GRA-related polls over the last two or three years - including, as noted above, pro-self-ID campaigners such as Pink News.

*  *  *

SCOT GOES POP POLLING FUNDRAISER: If you're finding this poll interesting or useful, you can help me commission further polling in the future by donating at the fundraiser page HERE.  (Or alternative donation methods can be found HERE.)

SCOT GOES POP / PANELBASE POLL: By a 3-1 margin, the Scottish public think women's sporting events should be reserved for athletes who were born biologically female

As I've gradually published the GRA-related results from the new Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll, one point of debate that has come up a few times is about the number of people who will be directly affected by the introduction of legally-recognised gender self-ID.  If it's a reasonably small number, that could be perceived as helpful for either side of the debate - the gender critical lobby could argue that society shouldn't be turned upside down to suit a tiny minority, while radical trans activists could argue that the impact on society will be so small anyway that the level of resistance being encountered is totally disproportionate (and thus can only be explained by alleged "transphobia").

As was pointed out in the comments section last night, though, there's simply no way of knowing the numbers that will be involved.  The number of people currently diagnosed with gender dysphoria is no guide at all, because the whole point of self-ID is to allow people to change their legal gender without a medical diagnosis. So, in theory, anyone will be eligible to do it provided they make a solemn declaration, and we'll just have to wait and see how big a percentage of the population avail themselves of that opportunity.

There is, however, one area in which self-ID is bound to be a major issue (indeed it already is a major issue), even if the numbers turn out to be miniscule.  And that area is women's sport.  If, for example, there are 100 participants in a women's sporting event, and just one of them grew up as a biological male, there is every chance that person will end up taking a medal or a placing, and that the other competitors will be severely disadvantaged as a result.

There's also, at least theoretically, an opportunity for male athletes to exploit the system to win medals that they otherwise would have no chance of winning.  Maybe they're perennial also-rans in male competitions, or perhaps they were formerly genuine contenders who are now slightly too old to compete with the elite male athletes.  They could think to themselves "aha, if I just self-ID as female, I could find myself on the rostrum".  

Even raising this concern is often dismissed as an example of transphobia, ie. an attempt to suggest that trans people are chancers and cheats.  But the whole point is that the people who would be exploiting the system are not actually trans themselves - they are people who would be posing as trans to gain an advantage.  It's hard to see how it can possibly be transphobic to be concerned about non-trans males seeking to infiltrate women's sport.

Naturally, I wanted a question in the poll about the effect of self-ID on women's sport, and in choosing the wording I was very influenced by a South African expert I saw on the BBC during the Olympics in the summer.  He made the point that even if trans women athletes are required to take testosterone-suppressing medication before being eligible to compete, they still have physical advantages from having gone through puberty as males.  That wasn't to say, he stressed, that trans women should necessarily be barred from competing, because inclusion and equality for the trans community are laudable goals.  But people did need to be aware that inclusion and equality would come at the expense - at least to an extent - of fair competition in women's sporting events, so it really just depended on whether inclusion was seen as more important than sporting fairness, or vice versa.  (I once saw a chap on Twitter claim that his daughters would learn more important life lessons from losing in a sporting event to a trans person than they ever would by winning, which is one interesting argument in favour of inclusion taking precedence over a level playing field.)  That's the dilemma I asked about in the poll.

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

Some people argue that, in the interests of inclusion and equality for transgender people, athletes who have legally changed their gender from male to female should be permitted to compete in women's sporting events. Others argue that athletes who were born biologically male should be excluded from women's sporting events, because they would have an unfair advantage over other female athletes and might put other female athletes at greater risk of physical injury.  Which point of view do you find more persuasive?

Athletes who have legally changed their gender from male to female should be permitted to compete in women's sporting events: 19%

Athletes who have legally changed their gender from male to female should be excluded from women's sporting events: 57%

Don't Know / Prefer not to answer: 24%

So another very decisive verdict from the Scottish public, although as with the question about female medical examiners after a sexual assault, it's men who are the most hostile to trans inclusion in women's sport - they break 16% in favour, 65% against.  Women are also strongly opposed, albeit 'only' by a margin of 50% to 22%.

A plurality of every age group is opposed, although there's still a considerable gap between the generations, with 65% of over-55s wanting trans athletes to be excluded from women's events, compared to 46% of under-35s.  As we've seen in other questions from the poll, SNP and Labour voters are a bit more open to trans inclusion than Tory and Lib Dem voters.  The result is closest among SNP voters - 26% of whom are for inclusion, with 49% for exclusion.

*  *  *

SCOT GOES POP POLLING FUNDRAISER:  I'm having to partly cover the costs of the current poll with my own funds, so if we're going to run further polling in the future, we'll need to reach the £6500 target in the fundraiser (or get very close to it).  We're just over halfway there so far, with the best part of another £3000 required.  So any donations, large or small, would be greatly appreciated and will make all the difference.  Don't risk leaving public opinion polling exclusively in the hands of the mainstream media, with all the bias that entails!  Here are three ways in which you can donate...

1) Paypal payments to the email address:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Paypal is the preferred payment method because money is transferred immediately and without fuss.  All you need to ensure is that the above email address is entered correctly (note the .co.uk ending), and add a note with the word "poll" or "fundraiser".  (But don't worry if you forget to do the latter bit, because it'll still be obvious what the payment is for.)

2) Payments to the Scot Goes Pop GoFundMe Fundraiser page, which can be found HERE.

or

3) Direct bank transfer.  Contact me by email if you prefer this option.  My contact email address is different from my Paypal address above, and can be found in the sidebar of the blog (desktop version of the site only), or on my Twitter profile.

Thank you all once again for your amazing continued support, and in particular many thanks to the more than 150 people who have already donated.

VIDEO PREVIEW of tonight's question in the Scot Goes Pop poll - on the subject of women's sport

SCOT GOES POP POLLING FUNDRAISER: I'm having to partly cover the costs of the current poll with my own funds, so if we're going to run further polling in the future, we'll need to reach the £6500 target in the fundraiser (or get very close to it).  We're just over halfway there so far, with the best part of another £3000 required.  So any donations, large or small, would be greatly appreciated and will make all the difference.  Don't risk leaving public opinion polling exclusively in the hands of the mainstream media, with all the bias that entails!  Here are three ways in which you can donate...

1) Paypal payments to the email address:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Paypal is the preferred payment method because money is transferred immediately and without fuss.  All you need to ensure is that the above email address is entered correctly (note the .co.uk ending), and add a note with the word "poll" or "fundraiser".  (But don't worry if you forget to do the latter bit, because it'll still be obvious what the payment is for.)

2) Payments to the Scot Goes Pop GoFundMe Fundraiser page, which can be found HERE.

or

3) Direct bank transfer.  Contact me by email if you prefer this option.  My contact email address is different from my Paypal address above, and can be found in the sidebar of the blog (desktop version of the site only), or on my Twitter profile.

Thank you all once again for your amazing continued support, and in particular many thanks to the more than 160 people who have already donated.

SCOT GOES POP / PANELBASE POLL: Huge majority of Scottish public believe that if a woman suffers a sexual assault, she should have the right to ask to be examined by a doctor who has been biologically female since birth

The past is a foreign country, so the saying goes, and it seems scarcely believable that, less than a year ago, there was a mini-exodus from the SNP of people claiming that the party was 'riven with transphobia' or even 'institutionally transphobic'.  That was more than a touch fanciful given that the First Minister is positively evangelical for the Stonewall-approved definitions of both trans rights and transphobia, but there was a clear trigger: the Scottish Government had just accepted Johann Lamont's amendment to the Forensic Medical Services Bill replacing the word "gender" with "sex" in relation to a woman's right to request a female medical examiner after a sexual assault.  The claim was that the amendment had been specifically crafted to exclude trans women from the definition of 'female', and indeed as a gender critical feminist Ms Lamont made no particular secret that this was her aim.  The resulting controversy didn't just affect the SNP - it was a major contributory factor to Andy Wightman's departure from the Green group at Holyrood and his much-lamented departure from Holyrood itself.

After I published the first GRA-related result from the new Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll showing overwhelming opposition to legally-recognised gender self-ID, a couple of people suggested that the outcome proved the public were bigoted, because gender identity is a private matter for the individual that doesn't affect anyone else.  But the issue of intimate examinations demonstrates how that isn't entirely true.  By insisting on trans inclusion on this subject, it's possible that a woman's right to request an examiner she is comfortable with, at a time of tremendous distress, is being restricted.  And, of course, the chief executive of Edinburgh Rape Crisis has been entirely open about her belief that even sexual assault victims should expect to have their alleged "transphobia" robustly challenged, which suggests the restriction of women's rights in this area would be seen as a feature, not a bug.

To find out exactly where the public stand, I added a specific question on this subject to the poll.

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 a woman requires an intimate medical examination after being sexually assaulted, do you think she should have the right to ask to be examined by a doctor who has been biologically female since birth, or should she only have the right to ask to be examined by a doctor who is legally regarded as a woman, regardless of that person's biological sex at birth?

She should have the right to ask to be examined by a doctor who has been biologically female since birth: 58%

She should only have the right to ask to be examined by a doctor who is legally regarded as a woman: 20%

Don't Know / Prefer not to answer: 22%

So another very clear-cut outcome.  It may be that some people will look at the question, roll their eyes to the heavens, and say it was always obvious what result it would produce. But, in a way, that concedes the whole point.  It demonstrates that they know perfectly well that the activism is running way, way ahead of public opinion on this topic, as on so many related topics.  So are the activists actually interested in engaging with voters and winning the battle to change public opinion, or are they trying to go over the heads of voters by pushing changes through on the quiet?  It very much appears that the latter is the case.  Which may be a perfectly legitimate tactic in a parliamentary democracy, but it does mean they're being somewhat disingenuous in claiming that they are restructuring society on the back of mass public support/demand.

Although there wasn't much difference between male and female respondents on the previous two GRA questions in the poll, there's actually more of a gender gap on this question.  Intriguingly, female respondents are significantly less likely to say that a woman should have the right to be examined by a doctor who has been biologically female since birth - however, an absolute majority of women (53%) do take that view, and less than one-quarter disagree. The now-familiar generation gap is there once again, but isn't particularly pronounced.  Which party people vote for is a fairly strong predictor of their views on this question - with 24% of both SNP and Labour voters supporting trans inclusion in the definition of a female medical examiner, compared to only 13% of both Tory and Lib Dem voters.  However, an absolute majority of all parties' voters (ranging from 52% for Labour to 71% for the Tories) think women should have the right to be examined by someone who has been biologically female since birth.

*  *  *

SCOT GOES POP POLLING FUNDRAISER: I'm having to partly cover the costs of the current poll with my own funds, so if we're going to run further polling in the future, we'll need to reach the £6500 target in the fundraiser (or get very close to it).  We're just over halfway there so far, with the best part of another £3000 required.  So any donations, large or small, would be greatly appreciated and will make all the difference.  Don't risk leaving public opinion polling exclusively in the hands of the mainstream media, with all the bias that entails!  Here are three ways in which you can donate...

1) Paypal payments to the email address:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Paypal is the preferred payment method because money is transferred immediately and without fuss.  All you need to ensure is that the above email address is entered correctly (note the .co.uk ending), and add a note with the word "poll" or "fundraiser".  (But don't worry if you forget to do the latter bit, because it'll still be obvious what the payment is for.)

2) Payments to the Scot Goes Pop GoFundMe Fundraiser page, which can be found HERE.

or

3) Direct bank transfer.  Contact me by email if you prefer this option.  My contact email address is different from my Paypal address above, and can be found in the sidebar of the blog (desktop version of the site only), or on my Twitter profile.

Thank you all once again for your amazing continued support, and in particular many thanks to the more than 150 people who have already donated.

VIDEO PREVIEW of Sunday night's GRA-related question in the Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll

SCOT GOES POP POLLING FUNDRAISER: I'm having to partly cover the costs of the current poll with my own funds, so if we're going to run further polling in the future, we'll need to reach the £6500 target in the fundraiser (or get very close to it).  We're just over halfway there so far, with the best part of another £3000 required.  So any donations, large or small, would be greatly appreciated and will make all the difference.  Don't risk leaving public opinion polling exclusively in the hands of the mainstream media, with all the bias that entails!  Here are three ways in which you can donate...

1) Paypal payments to the email address:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Paypal is the preferred payment method because money is transferred immediately and without fuss.  All you need to ensure is that the above email address is entered correctly (note the .co.uk ending), and add a note with the word "poll" or "fundraiser".  (But don't worry if you forget to do the latter bit, because it'll still be obvious what the payment is for.)

2) Payments to the Scot Goes Pop GoFundMe Fundraiser page, which can be found HERE.

or

3) Direct bank transfer.  Contact me by email if you prefer this option.  My contact email address is different from my Paypal address above, and can be found in the sidebar of the blog (desktop version of the site only), or on my Twitter profile.

Thank you all once again for your amazing continued support, and in particular many thanks to the more than 150 people who have already donated.