I've made a few attempts over the last four days to find the data tables from last week's Survation poll on the SNP leadership election, but I became more determined tonight when I saw John Curtice saying that it was the only poll to date with any information on second preferences. I eventually found a link to the tables on Survation's Twitter account (there's still no link on the Survation website as far as I can see).
One of the problems with trying to work out the likely result of this election is that all but one of the polls to have been conducted so far have been of the general public, or in a couple of cases of SNP-voting members of the general public, rather than of card-carrying SNP members who comprise the actual electorate on this occasion. That problem also applies to these Survation numbers on second preferences. However, although there are good reasons for assuming SNP members may have different first preferences for leader than SNP voters (and the sole members' poll bears that theory out), there's no obvious reason for thinking that SNP members who want Ash Regan as leader would have radically different second preferences from SNP voters who want Ash Regan as leader. So this poll may actually give us a reasonable insight into what is likely to be going on, albeit with a big health warning attached.
Survation / DC Thomson poll (8th-10th March 2023):
Second preferences of Ash Regan-supporting SNP voters:
Kate Forbes: 46%
Humza Yousaf: 29%
Another problem here is that the subsample of Regan-supporting SNP voters is extremely small (only 44 people), so the margin of error is considerable, but it's an interesting straw in the wind if nothing else. It suggests that Kate Forbes can expect to at least eat into the modest first preference lead for Yousaf shown by the sole members' poll. On these figures, Forbes would fall very slightly short of winning, because the members' poll suggested she would need a 3-1 margin on Regan's second preferences. Nevertheless, bearing in mind the margin of error on the members' poll, this race looks extremely tight, and certainly far too close to call. There's no good reason on the basis of any poll so far to conclude that Yousaf has a very high probability of being in the lead once second preferences are taken into account.
Although it's likely to be academic, perhaps the most startling finding of this poll is that Forbes supporters return the compliment by breaking for Regan by a similar margin. I would have expected it to be much more even, or perhaps even for Yousaf to have an advantage, because I assumed that Forbes supporters were more 'establishment-minded' than Regan supporters.
Second preferences of Kate Forbes-supporting SNP voters:
Ash Regan: 45%
Humza Yousaf: 29%
On the headline first preference results, the Survation poll is strikingly similar to
the Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll that was conducted at roughly the same time - it shows a big lead for Kate Forbes among the general public, and a smaller Forbes lead among SNP voters from 2021 (as opposed to the fictional 19-point lead for Yousaf that the man himself kept boasting about on Sky the other night).
General public's first preferences:
Kate Forbes: 30%
Humza Yousaf: 20%
Ash Regan: 9%
First preferences of SNP voters:
Kate Forbes: 33%
Humza Yousaf: 31%
Ash Regan: 13%
First preferences of Yes voters from 2014 independence referendum:
Kate Forbes: 32%
Humza Yousaf: 28%
Ash Regan: 15%
* * *
Over the last few days I've published results from TWO new Scot Goes Pop opinion polls - an opportunity to commission a second poll suddenly arose, so I made a snap decision to go ahead. However, as you'll appreciate, polls are very expensive, so if anyone feels able to make a contribution, here are the options...
The simplest donation method is a direct Paypal payment. My Paypal email address is:
jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk
If you wish, you can add a note saying "for the fundraiser", although even if you don't do that, it'll be fairly obvious what the payment is for.
If you don't have a Paypal account, last year's fundraiser is still very much open for donations HERE.
Another Survation poll - Yes 49 NO 51 done by the Scotch Whisky Assoc
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/Celebs4indy/status/1636059320793088004
Hi Marcia, is there any other source for that apart from that one tweet? I've looked and looked and I can't find anything. (There are data tables for the Scotch Whisky Association poll, but no sign of an indyref question so far.)
DeleteNo, that is the only thing I could see. I had a look as well.
DeleteI have just completed a very detailed Yougov poll of SNP members,so hopefully we should have more up to date figures soon.
ReplyDeleteJohn REDACTOR MAN Swinney has been sent out by Sturgeon to tell us all that the election is hunky dory - completely honest he wants us to believe and above board. I suppose there are some numpties who still think he is honest John😂😂😂😂😂
ReplyDeleteHe/Him speak with (redacted) tongue.
DeleteYou can easily identify people who are numpties and/or part of Sturgeon's gang in two ways.
1. They tell you their preferred pronouns.
2. When faced with something they cannot explain away they use the words ' conspiracy theory'.
Regan must have got in to the Holyrood chamber very early to get that seat behind Sturgeon for FM's questions.
ReplyDeleteThe winter sports enthusiast in a few days:
ReplyDelete'It is perfectly normal in a functioning democracy for the leader and chairman of a political party to fly to Buenos Aires in the middle of a leadership election. This would only seem strange to former colonial and Bath based anti independence.... blah blah blah'
Seems to be a concerted establishment effort to gerrymander the race against Kate. Is it too much to suggest that the Murrells have a Mafiosa like grip on the party machinery and will make sure their man gets over the line. Cheated never defeated was the mantra in 2014 - seems like the claim has far more validity within the SNP than without.
ReplyDeleteSo Sturgeon's gang have been lying about the membership number. Not surprising really as they have a long track record of lying. So why should anyone trust anything they say. As I posted years ago anyone who could do what Sturgeon did to Salmond can never be trusted.
ReplyDeleteTrust Swinney and Oswald assuring us that the election will be honest - you got to be a right numpty to believe them.
Can't be long until Pension Pete Wishart tweets there must be some mistake as he has got more members than that in Perthshire.
DeleteRigging internal selections/elections has become a standard for Sturgeon's gang.
When employed as a senior manager and Director I always advised staff to never lie to me as when trust had gone it could never be recovered. Can anyone seriously believe the current SNP leadership can be trusted? I don’t.
ReplyDeleteIs that really extremely good news for Kate Forbes? She needs a 3-1 split on Regan's second preferences, and doesn't even have 2-1? And that's among SNP voters, whom the poll already suggested rate her higher on first preferences than members do? I know I'm an old pessimist but that doesn't seem very encouraging.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think you are an old pessimist (or a young pessimist or a middle-aged pessimist - delete as appropriate). An Ash Regan supporter who is an actual SNP member will know better than her supporters among the wider public that in backing her they are backing radical change and that therefore a Yousaf second preference makes no sense. If anything, I would expect Regan supporters among the membership to break for Forbes even more decisively. And even 2-1 for Forbes gets her very close if the Savanta poll is bang-on accurate. Not quite there but very close.
DeleteIs It true that the Scottish Parliament could have approved a referendum Bill before going to the supreme court, and It would have been up to the english government to challenge the Bill in the courts?
ReplyDeleteWell that's what Sturgeon said to get people to vote SNP in May 2021. Not once did she mention she was going to go and get permission from the court in London prior to the election.
DeleteHowever, Sturgeon appointed a Unionist Lord Advocate (Bain) and if Bain said it was not within the powers of the Scottish Parliament then the bill would have failed. Sturgeon is a charlatan who never intended to have a referendum. Sturgeon is the person who installed the road blocks to a referendum.
So only last month the SNP claimed it had not lost 30k members. It now has confirmed it lied just in Feb this year about its membership numbers and now says it has 72k members confirming it had lost approx 30k members.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the Mail on Sunday said:- " The MoS can disclose that Southampton based polling firm Mi - Voice has received the names of just 78,000 SNP members from party HQ and expect only 54,000 to submit a vote. "
Questions.
1. So who is lying about the number of members - is it 72k or 78k or even less ? Who can you trust - well both the Mail on Sunday and the SNP are proven liars.
2. Where are the numbers (requested by Regan /Forbes from the SNP) for ballots issued - paper and electronic voting? What will they add up to? - 54k, 72k or 78k or something else?
3. Corruption, secrecy, incompetence or all three?
So what is the reaction of the WGD numpties to the fact that the SNP have been lying - nothing - they don't even seem to register the fact or care.
ReplyDeleteHow do Yousaf’s second preference votes break? (I’ve tried and failed to find the survation tables on twitter myself.)
ReplyDeleteFrom memory, it was almost a dead heat. Forbes was only a couple of points ahead of Regan, or something like that.
DeleteThanks for the response and the data! May be relevant in the coming week if Yousaf does withdraw. However does a rough 50/50 split of Yousaf’s second preferences pass the ‘sniff test’ for you? Have to say I’m a bit surprised. Although both Forbes and Regan have been painted as anti-liberal (there are less loaded words but they fail me today), I interpreted Forbes as having taken the brunt of the anti-liberal narrative due to her religious convictions. Assumed Regan would clean up his second preferences pushing her into contention. (I note standard polling warnings apply of course.)
DeleteSeems V unlikely, but potentially even the (highly consequential) prospect of voting being re-opened and the contest extended, as many Yousaf supporters may not have submitted second preferences at all. An extra month would seem to benefit Regan further.
At least the betting markets loose!