Friday, January 20, 2023

It's actually not "the second-highest Yes vote ever recorded" - but 54% for independence in a remarkable new poll is still plenty high enough to be getting on with

There are two completely contradictory polls on independence out today - one shows a substantial Yes lead, and the other shows a substantial No lead. The good news is that the poll with the Yes lead has more recent fieldwork dates.  The bad news is that the poll with the No lead comes from a more established firm and some people will perhaps intuitively assume it to be more accurate.

Should Scotland be an independent country?  (Survation / True North, 10th-12th January 2023)

Yes 46% (-1)
No 54% (+1)

Should Scotland be an independent country?  (Find Out Now / The National, 11th-18th January 2023)

Yes 54% (-)
No 46% (-)

As you can see above, the Find Out Now poll with the Yes lead was commissioned by The National, who are claiming in their write-up that 54% for Yes is the "second-highest level ever reached".  I can't make any sense of that.  54% is certainly unusually high, but it's identical to the previous poll from the same firm, and there have been multiple previous polls from other firms putting Yes anywhere between 55% and 58%.  The National are citing Mark McGeoghegan as the source of their claim, which is odd, because although he's an abusive troll on social media and an identity politics extremist, he generally does know his stuff about polling.  But if he's been quoted correctly, he seems to have got it wrong on this occasion.

If I had seen the Survation poll on its own today, I would have been fairly despondent, because taken in combination with the ComRes poll at the end of last year, it would have looked very much like the effect of the Supreme Court ruling had eased off and we were back to the status quo ante of a small-to-moderate No lead.  However, Find Out Now's figures have very much muddied the waters and we'll thus have to wait to see which version of public opinion is corroborated by future polls.  It's also possible, of course, that the later fieldwork can partly explain the difference between the Survation and Find Out Now results, because perhaps public opinion has changed due to the veto of the GRR Bill.  However, I doubt if that would have been sufficient to transform an 8-point No lead into an 8-point Yes lead, especially given that only the very tail-end of the fieldwork would have been affected.

There are party political voting intention numbers in the Survation poll, which are a bit of a curate's egg from a pro-indy point of view.  Although they show the SNP falling a few percentage points short of the self-defined target for victory on the popular vote in a Westminster election used as a de facto referendum, they nevertheless add further weight to the findings of other recent polls suggesting that the Labour surge has either stalled or gone very slightly into reverse - which is crucial, because at least in terms of seats in a first-past-the-post election, Labour is where the threat lies.

Scottish voting intentions for the next UK general election (Survation / True North)

SNP 43% (-1)
Labour 29% (-2)
Conservatives 18% (+2)
Liberal Democrats 7% (+1)

Seats projection: SNP 48 (-), Labour 5 (+4), Liberal Democrats 3 (-1), Conservatives 3 (-3)

Scottish Parliament constituency ballot:

SNP 46% (+2)
Labour 27% (-2)
Conservatives 17% (+1)
Liberal Democrats 8% (-)

Scottish Parliament regional list ballot:

SNP 33% (-)
Labour 25% (-1)
Conservatives 18% (+3)
Greens 12% (-)
Liberal Democrats 8% (-1)

Seats projection: SNP 61 (-3), Labour 28 (+6), Conservatives 22 (-9), Greens 11 (+3), Liberal Democrats 7 (+3)

The SNP's projected seat losses can be mostly explained by the regional list vote - which means they should be taken with a pinch of salt, because Survation always seem to understate the SNP on the list ballot.  In fairness, Survation appear to have made an attempt to address that problem by changing the wording of the question they ask about the list, making it clear that you can if you wish vote for the same party on both ballots, thus by implication stressing that the list is not a second preference vote.  But for some reason that hasn't made any obvious difference to the results.

In case you're wondering about Alba's absence from the list results, it looks very much from the datasets as if Survation have dropped Alba as an option - which is really odd, because they included Alba in their recent propaganda poll for Scotland in Dungeon.  Indeed, Alba registered in that poll with 2% of the list vote.

*  *  *

If you'd like to help Scot Goes Pop continue in some form, donations are welcome HERE.


  1. Sturgeon will be hoping the survation poll is the accurate one. She is desperate to keep everything the way it is with her as the big fish in the devolutionary pool. She is afraid of independence and will do everything to stifle the independence movement. Selfish.

    1. I don't think Sturgeon will care much which is the accurate one. She seems pretty content to be a technocratic, managerial placeholder leader, regardless of polls. If by the time her disappointing leadership ends, no serious bid has been made for independence, I don't think she'll be too fussed either way.

      Wings and his unionist acolytes are the ones who'll ACTIVELY be hoping the Survation poll is right. They've loudly announced their fear of independence this week. Sturgeon and her dithering barely factor in when the Reverend of Bath takes to the ramparts draped in Union colours and his fanpage cheer him on.

  2. I think he is talking about yes including don't knows when he mentions second highest, 53% is the highest yes inc don't knows (twice both by Ipsos once in August 15 and once in December 22) This poll has yes inc don't knows at 52% (happened twice before as well once in October 20 (Ipsos and once in March 21 (Hanbury Strategy)

    1. If that is what he was getting at, The National would have been wiser to specify that in their write-up, because as things stand it's giving a very misleading impression. The question this really poses is why Find Out Now are reporting so few Don't Knows.

    2. Possibly the way they collect the data. Its got from respondents who are answering to get a chance to get a win some money. Maybe people feel that answering don't know impacts the chance of them winning.

      Could also be were Electoral Calculus is re weighting the sample provided by FindoutNow incorrectly and /or getting bad data from Findoutnow.

      More info on how they get there samples here :

  3. Murray Murray Murray

    Foote Foote Foote

    Well Campbell claims to have a copy of an internal info document sent by Murray Foote to SNP politicians that sets out the facts re having a Holyrood de facto referendum. If true then it has the same level of deceit that his Infamous Vow had back in 2014. HR23 according to Murray just cannae happen as it would be impossible to collapse Holyrood ( that of course is a downright lie). It's actually very straightforward.

    Either someone has sent Campbell a fabrication or Campbell has fabricated the document or the SNP have been shown up as lying toerags.

    I will assume the document is real because it is consistent with the values of the current SNP leadership. The SNP leadership are actually proven liars and toerags.

    HR23 is there if SNP members want it. It's becoming crystal clear that the SNP leadership want to kick the can down the road once again. It is also becoming clear that the big dug Kavanagh's silence means he also wants to kick the can down the road again. The man has zero integrity.

    It's now up to the SNP membership to show they want an independence referendum this year ( even if it is a de facto) as promised by Sturgeon. I am not hopeful.

    It's looking like we are stuck in purgatory with the SNP set to just keep kicking the can down the road.

    SNP a party of independence - a sad sick joke.

    1. You know, I love the few days around when James posts about Wings. Because your posts in particular, "Independence for Scotland", become really illuminating. We all saw you squirming yesterday, trying to limit your critique of the Reverend to as few words as possible, while filling it with as many caveats as possible. You then spent the evening pedantically haranguing people who posted criticism of the Reverend, with weird unrelated, long-winded deflections to Wee Ginger Dug, when Wee Ginger Dug and his hopeless optimism weren't the subject of the blog post; Wings was. And yet you proved utterly incapable of keeping on subject. Utterly incapable of more than perfunctory criticism of Wings and his foaming fanbase. It's interesting whom you chose to lash with your keyboard, and whom you seem to fear calling out - even when James himself leads the way, and has the guts to stick his head above the parapet.

      This comment here, for example, just gives away that bias you think you've cleverly woven into a "both-sides" narrative. Unionist Campbell and his Unionist website come out with something about Murray Foote and the SNP. You immediately assume Campbell, a self-admitted pro-Unionist commentator, has integrity. You decry the lying toerags in the SNP (fair enough from where I'm standing). But you notably do not decry the lying toerag who just announced his Unionism the other day, who has been wilfully lying about his constitutional position to the people of Scotland for quite some time. That says everything we need to know.

      No doubt you'll respond to this with some unrelated nonsense about the BTL commenters from Wee Ginger Dug. Because you won't be able to actually bring yourself to give an un-caveated critique of the Unionist Reverend.

      But just know that your agenda is painfully transparent. You want to project yourself as some sort of balanced independence supporter, but when given the opportunity to critique the Unionist in Bath, you give a perfunctory sentence and then ramble for 1000 words about how wee Jemima who commented at 3:49am on Wee Ginger Dug is the REAL menace to Scottish independence.

      When we stack you up next to James's level-headed, fair-minded criticism, it's embarrassingly transparent. It's clear James holds consistent principles, doesn't mind who he has to critique if they contravene those principles, and regards independence as a number 1 priority. When I have the misfortune of seeing your clumsily concealed agendas, masquerading as fair-minded comments BTL, I remember just how lucky we are that James is the one who writes this blog!

    2. Anonymous - you are entitled to your opinion but I note that like all the anonymites who hide behind the group of anonymites you do not comment on the actuality of what I post just a personal troll of me. I am also entitled to my opinion and and will express it how I see it. You don't like it tough.

      Now are the actions of the SNP ok with you. Tell you what don't bother - it's a waste of time - numpties like you just hide behind posting under anonymous - try giving yourself a consistent name that means its you. Even the numpties on WGD can do that then we will see what you are. Full marks for trolling - one of the best.

    3. Michael Russell is certainly using the argument that DRoss would be FM if parliament was dissolved.

      He has completed omitted to mention that the Standing Orders can be changed by the SNP/Green government so that a simple majority can be used to dissolve parliament.

      So it looks like the memo from Foote reported in WoS may well be real and that it has reached the President of the SNP

    4. Anonymous - I do not fear calling out anyone, as you claim in your post, but strangely enough I will decide who and why I want to call out someone. I won't be told what to say by some foaming at the mouth anonymous post at 2.38am on a Sat morning. Bit of Dutch courage after a night out was it. Unlike you, you can see my history of posts on SGP and you can see I called out the Murrells for their lying way back and took a lot of stick from people like you. I also called out the big dug for being a charlatan and took stick from numpties like you. I called out Campbell for his dodgy graph but still take stick from people like you. I called out Campbell for his own failing in using GRR to turn him against independence but apparently that ain't enough for you - tough. I said his site is a mixture of the good, the bad and the ugly - you don't like that - tough. I like the Cairnstoon cartoons - so what. I like some of WOS articles so what. It's called free speech. I have never subscribed to the devil and halo approach that you so clearly trumpet.

      So you call out Campbell as a Unionist - what else who else have you called out hiding behind your anonymous label so that nobody can see what you have previously posted on this site. What a courageous anonymous numpty you are.

    5. Whether someone posts anonymously or pseudonymously, like you IfS, they are hiding their true identity. There may be good reasons for that of course, but your continuing complaints about the anonymity of other commenters here seems somewhat hypocritical. Best wishes from a different Anon to the one above.

    6. Independence for Scotland is Campbell's wee pal.

    7. Anonymous at 2.49pm - you miss my point. It is the fact that you cannot identify what that anonymous poster has said previously. So it is nothing to do with your true identity but everything to do with a pattern of posting hidden in amongst other anonymous posters. Hopefully you now understand - and as such I am not being the least bit hypocritical. I mean really - how hard is it to think up a moniker to call yourself.

      So is the numpty anonymous at 6.03 pm the same anonymous at 2.38am? Anyway I guess that post is an improvement from when numpties use to say I actually was Campbell. As I have said many times before to these numpties I am not wee at all and I am not Campbell's pal. Never met him. Pretty pathetic stuff from anonymous at 6.03pm.

  4. We will have to wait and see how the recent poll has been weighted. If it correct then there is a majority for Yes without don't knows.

  5. A de facto referendum is all very well and good as long you win. You lose then the Brits push the lie of once-in-a-generation etc. ; you win they ignore it (people were voting in a British GE for WM not for indy) . It's a big risk with no pay-off - it's a dumb move at this time unless we're certain to win : all risk to us and none for the Brits.

    1. If you hold a vote on independence, there's a percentage chance you'll fail and won't get independence. But if you never hold a vote on independence, there's a 100% certainty you won't get independence. You may think you "avoid failure" that way, but it actually is self-imposed failure.

  6. And the de feato referendum would take place against a full Brit GE campaign with the Red and Blue British nationalist parties hoarding the TV with the BBC and STV (to a degree) anti-indy, and the newspapers all anti-indy.
    Holyrood is the only possible route that we can get a fair shout.

    1. I don't disagree with that, but waiting until 2026 when the casus belli for a vote is Brexit would be ridiculous.

    2. Better to wait or as you've said, dissolve Holyroof at a propitious time - at least then we'll have some control of the narrative - problem is this 'Both Votes SNP rubbish which may well raise its ugly from those grasping on to power.

  7. The Bathtub Admiral posts on WGD the truth that it is a simple matter to call a Holyrood election this year. You know to have the referendum that Sturgeon said would happen this year, albeit a de facto referendum.

    WGD numpty Eilidh says: - " Yes and at the current time if the SNP did that it would be like turkeys voting for Christmas the electorate would not look kindly on the SNP inflicting what many would consider an unnecessary election on them in the middle of a cost of living crisis. The SNP would very likely lose and we would end with Dross or Sarwar as FM. I am not convinced using Holyrood as de facto Indy Ref would be a good idea at all."

    Aye just do nothing - that's the SNP/ Sturgeon for you and a lot of the WGD numpties.

    This post is dedicated to my anonymous fan at 2.38am.

    1. Update: WGD numpty Eilidh continues to believe the lies of Wishart and Russell and ex Better Together Daily Record Editor and author of the Infamous Vow Murray Foote rather than just check the Scotland Act 2016 for herself. Loyalty allied with stupidity.

  8. I really enjoy your blog posts, although as an SNP member I don't always agree with your points, I think it's important to listen to what other people have to say and you post very reasoned and intelligent articles. It might be worthwhile having a weekly YouTube video where you share your thoughts, interview people or debate issues with others. There is a lack of Scottish commentary on youtube and you are in prime position to add something a bit more balanced