It always used to baffle me that politicians and journalists alike seemed to take it as read that the female vote is more important than the male vote. I wondered if that mindset simply boiled down to political correctness, until someone patiently explained to me that women tend to be considerably less partisan than men, and are therefore more important in the sense that their votes are more likely to be up for grabs. But I'm still not so sure that the fetishisation of the youth vote has a similar rational basis. There are two ways of looking at it - on the one hand, young people are the least important section of the electorate in that they are the least likely to actually turn out to vote, but on the other hand they are the greatest prize of all because they have (on average!) a greater number of voting years ahead of them than anyone else. In normal circumstances the two factors might be thought to offset each other, but given that the Yes campaign are aiming to win the independence referendum outright (and given that practically no country has ever willingly surrendered its independence after winning it), securing the hearts and minds of the younger generation for the decades to come is not such an obvious consideration this time around. It's also worth bearing in mind that nobody of any age has ever voted in an independence referendum before (unless they did it in another country), so neither is it the case on this occasion that young people are unique in lacking hard-to-break voting habits established over a period of years.
In spite of all that, the youth vote is undoubtedly regarded as special, perhaps because many commentators are determined to believe that the SNP gave 16 and 17 year olds the vote for tactical rather than principled reasons, and would be all-too-delighted to have a little gloat about how the whole thing had 'backfired'. A few months back, it was practically being stated as fact that this had already happened, and that younger voters were breaking disproportionately against independence. But the evidence for that claim was never particularly strong, and has become weaker still after the latest batch of polls. We now have datasets from three polls that were wholly conducted after the publication of the White Paper, and although they present a decidedly mixed picture, none of the polls suggest that young people are the most anti-independence group, while one of the polls suggest that they are in fact the most pro-independence group. Let's take the three in turn -
YouGov unambiguously suggest that 18-24 year olds are the most pro-independence age group, with 42% of them planning to vote Yes and 50% planning to vote No. By contrast, the Yes vote in the three older age groups falls within a narrow band between 30% and 32%, with the No vote ranging between 50% and 55%. Incidentally, YouGov are still failing to poll under-18s, which is astonishingly bad practice in a referendum that has a minimum voting age of 16.
Ipsos-Mori suggest that 16-24 year olds are the second most favourable of the four age groups for the Yes campaign. Paradoxically, though, the Yes vote among young people is very slightly lower than among the overall sample - this apparent contradiction is brought about by the particularly heavy support for Yes among 35-54 year olds, which pulls the overall figure up.
TNS-BMRB are the only pollster that offer any real succour for those who believe that young people represent some kind of problem for the Yes campaign, but even here the picture is far from clear-cut. It's true that out of the six age groups that are listed, 16-24 year olds are less likely to be Yes voters than anyone other than the over-65s. But they're also the third least likely to be No voters, after 25-34 year olds and 35-44 year olds. In a nutshell, if TNS are right there are simply an awful lot of undecided young voters out there.
Probably the best way of summarising the totality of the available evidence is "we don't actually have a scooby whether young people are more likely than their elders to vote for independence or not", but for what it's worth my own gut feeling is that they will indeed ultimately break slightly more for Yes - and that includes the symbolically important 16-17 year old group.
* * *
Scottish Skier mentioned in a comment on Wings over Scotland that he felt that TNS-BMRB are severely underestimating the Yes vote due to shy voter syndrome - ie. since they are the only pollster that interviews people face-to-face, Yes voters are less willing to admit their true intentions to them. As evidence, he points out that TNS are reporting a much lower percentage for Yes among the 2011 SNP support than other pollsters are. This theory certainly has the ring of plausibility to it, but the problem is that TNS are similarly finding a lower No vote among 2011 Labour voters. So it could be that 'shy Yes voters' are one of two factors at play here, with the other more obvious one being the relatively new TNS practice of asking how people think they will vote on the actual referendum date, rather than in a hypothetical referendum 'tomorrow'. The latter factor probably lowers the Yes and No figures by a more or less equal amount.
Friday, December 20, 2013
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Dramatic new TNS-BMRB poll shows the pro-independence campaign closing the gap for the FOURTH time in a row
Just as I was about to go to bed safe in the apparent knowledge that the day's only polling "news" was the Herald's farcical attempts to portray the vastly inferior popularity ratings of the No campaign's leaders as some kind of bad news story for the Yes side (!), I heard the exciting news on Twitter of a new TNS-BMRB poll of referendum voting intentions in tomorrow's edition of the paper. Here are the full headline figures (not excluding Don't Knows) -
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 27% (+1)
No 41% (-1)
The No lead with TNS-BMRB has now almost halved since it stood at a peak of 25 points in the autumn of last year. This is also the fourth successive poll from the company to show a drop in the No lead - in the late September/early October poll the lead fell from 22 points to 19, in the late October poll it fell from 19 points to 18, in late November it fell from 18 points to 16, and now it has fallen from 16 points to 14. It's the second TNS-BMRB poll in a row to find the Yes campaign increasing its raw level of support. And it's the fifth poll out of five published by all polling companies since the publication of the White Paper to show a drop in the No lead. Over to you, oh wise London media - try spinning that little lot as "essentially a no change position"!
The significance of the Yes campaign's advance becomes even more stark when the Don't Knows are stripped out of the equation, with the lead closing by a full 4%, and with Yes reaching the psychological 40% mark...
Yes 40% (+2)
No 60% (-2)
Remarkably, TNS-BMRB have just jumped from fifth place to third in the rankings for the most favourable pollster for the Yes campaign when Don't Knows are excluded, although that's largely because the figures from ICM, YouGov and TNS-BMRB are all tightly bunched together.
Hopefully I'll have more to say about this poll when the full datasets are made available.
* * *
YES CAMPAIGN MAKE FURTHER PROGRESS IN SCOT GOES POP POLL OF POLLS
Now we turn to the fourth update of this blog's Poll of Polls - and I'm delighted to say that it's the fourth out of four to show an increase in support for the pro-independence campaign! Just to reiterate, the Poll of Polls is based on a rolling average of six polls - the most recent one from each of the six referendum pollsters that adhere to the British Polling Council's rules (Panelbase, YouGov, Ipsos-Mori, ICM, Angus Reid and TNS-BMRB). If any other BPC pollsters enter the fray at some point, they'll be taken into account as well. This update simply replaces the last TNS-BMRB poll with the new one, and therefore only one-sixth of the sample has changed.
MEAN AVERAGE (not excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 33.0% (+0.2)
No 48.8% (-0.2)
MEAN AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 40.3% (+0.2)
No 59.7% (-0.2)
MEDIAN AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 39.6% (+0.4)
No 60.4% (-0.4)
Those of you who have been following the Poll of Polls closely from the start will have noticed that the Yes vote has now increased by a full 1% on the headline figures since the publication of the White Paper - and that's in spite of the fact that only three of the six pollsters have updated their numbers since then. Over the same period, the overall No lead has slipped from 17.5% to 15.8%.
The median average is the most affected by the new TNS-BMRB poll. Last time around, the median was calculated as the mid-point between ICM and YouGov, as the third and fourth most favourable pollsters for the Yes campaign. This time it's the mid-point between TNS-BMRB and ICM, with the latter having slipped from third to fourth.
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 27% (+1)
No 41% (-1)
The No lead with TNS-BMRB has now almost halved since it stood at a peak of 25 points in the autumn of last year. This is also the fourth successive poll from the company to show a drop in the No lead - in the late September/early October poll the lead fell from 22 points to 19, in the late October poll it fell from 19 points to 18, in late November it fell from 18 points to 16, and now it has fallen from 16 points to 14. It's the second TNS-BMRB poll in a row to find the Yes campaign increasing its raw level of support. And it's the fifth poll out of five published by all polling companies since the publication of the White Paper to show a drop in the No lead. Over to you, oh wise London media - try spinning that little lot as "essentially a no change position"!
The significance of the Yes campaign's advance becomes even more stark when the Don't Knows are stripped out of the equation, with the lead closing by a full 4%, and with Yes reaching the psychological 40% mark...
Yes 40% (+2)
No 60% (-2)
Remarkably, TNS-BMRB have just jumped from fifth place to third in the rankings for the most favourable pollster for the Yes campaign when Don't Knows are excluded, although that's largely because the figures from ICM, YouGov and TNS-BMRB are all tightly bunched together.
Hopefully I'll have more to say about this poll when the full datasets are made available.
* * *
YES CAMPAIGN MAKE FURTHER PROGRESS IN SCOT GOES POP POLL OF POLLS
Now we turn to the fourth update of this blog's Poll of Polls - and I'm delighted to say that it's the fourth out of four to show an increase in support for the pro-independence campaign! Just to reiterate, the Poll of Polls is based on a rolling average of six polls - the most recent one from each of the six referendum pollsters that adhere to the British Polling Council's rules (Panelbase, YouGov, Ipsos-Mori, ICM, Angus Reid and TNS-BMRB). If any other BPC pollsters enter the fray at some point, they'll be taken into account as well. This update simply replaces the last TNS-BMRB poll with the new one, and therefore only one-sixth of the sample has changed.
MEAN AVERAGE (not excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 33.0% (+0.2)
No 48.8% (-0.2)
MEAN AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 40.3% (+0.2)
No 59.7% (-0.2)
MEDIAN AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 39.6% (+0.4)
No 60.4% (-0.4)
Those of you who have been following the Poll of Polls closely from the start will have noticed that the Yes vote has now increased by a full 1% on the headline figures since the publication of the White Paper - and that's in spite of the fact that only three of the six pollsters have updated their numbers since then. Over the same period, the overall No lead has slipped from 17.5% to 15.8%.
The median average is the most affected by the new TNS-BMRB poll. Last time around, the median was calculated as the mid-point between ICM and YouGov, as the third and fourth most favourable pollsters for the Yes campaign. This time it's the mid-point between TNS-BMRB and ICM, with the latter having slipped from third to fourth.
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Wisdom on Wednesday : The relationship between trust and expectation
CALLY : My people have a saying. 'A man who trusts can never be betrayed, only mistaken.'
AVON : Life expectancy must be fairly short among your people...
Dialogue from the Blake's 7 episode 'Mission to Destiny'. They could almost have been talking about us Scots - forever putting our trust in others (ie. Westminster politicians) to solve our problems with their 'jam tomorrow' pledges, and ending up with the lowest life expectancy in western Europe as our reward.
AVON : Life expectancy must be fairly short among your people...
Dialogue from the Blake's 7 episode 'Mission to Destiny'. They could almost have been talking about us Scots - forever putting our trust in others (ie. Westminster politicians) to solve our problems with their 'jam tomorrow' pledges, and ending up with the lowest life expectancy in western Europe as our reward.
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Green Yes
I must admit that, until I saw the mention of it on Wings over Scotland yesterday, I wasn't aware that the Green Yes campaign was running a fundraiser on Indiegogo. I've decided to do my ecumenical deed for the morning by making a modest donation. It doesn't feel like such an unnatural thing to do - although as things stand I would always vote for the SNP over the Greens, it's probably fair to say that the Greens are somewhat closer to my own views on some constitutional matters relating to an independent Scotland, such as opposition to NATO membership and support for an elected Head of State. It's not inconceivable, therefore, that if independence is achieved next year, I might then switch to voting Green in an attempt to 'complete the journey'. (Admittedly I discovered a few months ago that at least some high-profile Green members have a chillingly intolerant attitude towards any dissent on gender politics, so that's one factor that might put me off.) I certainly wouldn't switch to voting Green if there was a No vote, because there's not much point in arguing the toss over NATO membership or the monarchy unless you're taking the fastest possible route to independence. Scotland sure as hell won't be leaving NATO or abolishing the monarchy as part of the United Kingdom, and although independence would revert to being a longer-term objective in the event of a No vote, the timescale would only get longer still if natural supporters desert the SNP.
My only slight doubt about donating was that I knew I'd be contributing to a campaign that will be somewhat critical of the SNP government on certain issues (as we saw from Patrick Harvie on Question Time, for instance), and indeed will be diverging sharply from my own views at times. But when I reflected on it, I realised that was no bad thing, because a high-profile and sincere Green Yes campaign will drive home the message to voters that the independence movement is genuinely cross-party and diverse. And I don't think there's any danger at all of a 1979-style 'Berlin Wall' being erected between two rival Yes campaigns who dislike each other more than the real opposition - it looks like Green Yes sees itself as very much a complement to Yes Scotland, rather than a competitor.
I've no doubt that the Greens' support for independence is founded on principle, but it has to be said it's tactically savvy as well. Win or lose, Patrick Harvie is guaranteed to emerge from the campaign as one of Scotland's highest profile politicians, because he will be appearing constantly on TV as the most senior non-SNP parliamentarian supporting independence (unless of course an MP or MSP from Labour, the Lib Dems or the Tories is smart enough to seize that mantle from him, which is perfectly possible).
To read more about the Green Yes fundraising drive or to donate to it, click HERE.
* * *
There was a provocative article on the BBC website a few years ago that characterised the division on the island of Cyprus as being almost 'autistic' in nature, with each side seemingly finding it utterly impossible to perceive the situation through the other's eyes, even as an idle thought-experiment. For some reason, that analogy popped into my head when I heard about the nature of John Major's latest thrilling foray into the Scottish constitutional debate. He described Scottish independence as "folly on a grand scale", which he elaborated on by setting out a number of reasons why he felt it would be a terrible idea from the point of view of the London political class, such as the likelihood of diminished influence for the UK overseas, and a possible loss of permanent member status on the UN Security Council. As an argument against Scottish independence, that's the rough equivalent of a husband trying to persuade his wife to stay in the following manner -
HUSBAND : If you leave it'll be a disaster! I'll lose access to your income! I'll have no-one on my arm at parties! I'll have to do all my own cooking! My mother will lose all respect for me!
WIFE : OK, and what will I lose?
HUSBAND : Sorry? I don't quite follow?
In any case, I've always felt that the 'concern' about rUK's Security Council status is a massive red herring. When Russia replaced the Soviet Union at the UN in the early 1990s, it had effectively lost 40% of the population of the old state, and a huge chunk of the territory - and yet its assumption of the permanent seat on the Security Council was seamless. Let's face it, if membership of the Security Council was determined on a fair basis by population size or global influence, the UK would have been booted off decades ago - but it doesn't work like that, and unfortunately there's no particular reason to suppose that it will suddenly start working like that just because Scotland has become an independent country. It's a colonial relic, not a representative body.
My only slight doubt about donating was that I knew I'd be contributing to a campaign that will be somewhat critical of the SNP government on certain issues (as we saw from Patrick Harvie on Question Time, for instance), and indeed will be diverging sharply from my own views at times. But when I reflected on it, I realised that was no bad thing, because a high-profile and sincere Green Yes campaign will drive home the message to voters that the independence movement is genuinely cross-party and diverse. And I don't think there's any danger at all of a 1979-style 'Berlin Wall' being erected between two rival Yes campaigns who dislike each other more than the real opposition - it looks like Green Yes sees itself as very much a complement to Yes Scotland, rather than a competitor.
I've no doubt that the Greens' support for independence is founded on principle, but it has to be said it's tactically savvy as well. Win or lose, Patrick Harvie is guaranteed to emerge from the campaign as one of Scotland's highest profile politicians, because he will be appearing constantly on TV as the most senior non-SNP parliamentarian supporting independence (unless of course an MP or MSP from Labour, the Lib Dems or the Tories is smart enough to seize that mantle from him, which is perfectly possible).
To read more about the Green Yes fundraising drive or to donate to it, click HERE.
* * *
There was a provocative article on the BBC website a few years ago that characterised the division on the island of Cyprus as being almost 'autistic' in nature, with each side seemingly finding it utterly impossible to perceive the situation through the other's eyes, even as an idle thought-experiment. For some reason, that analogy popped into my head when I heard about the nature of John Major's latest thrilling foray into the Scottish constitutional debate. He described Scottish independence as "folly on a grand scale", which he elaborated on by setting out a number of reasons why he felt it would be a terrible idea from the point of view of the London political class, such as the likelihood of diminished influence for the UK overseas, and a possible loss of permanent member status on the UN Security Council. As an argument against Scottish independence, that's the rough equivalent of a husband trying to persuade his wife to stay in the following manner -
HUSBAND : If you leave it'll be a disaster! I'll lose access to your income! I'll have no-one on my arm at parties! I'll have to do all my own cooking! My mother will lose all respect for me!
WIFE : OK, and what will I lose?
HUSBAND : Sorry? I don't quite follow?
In any case, I've always felt that the 'concern' about rUK's Security Council status is a massive red herring. When Russia replaced the Soviet Union at the UN in the early 1990s, it had effectively lost 40% of the population of the old state, and a huge chunk of the territory - and yet its assumption of the permanent seat on the Security Council was seamless. Let's face it, if membership of the Security Council was determined on a fair basis by population size or global influence, the UK would have been booted off decades ago - but it doesn't work like that, and unfortunately there's no particular reason to suppose that it will suddenly start working like that just because Scotland has become an independent country. It's a colonial relic, not a representative body.
Monday, December 16, 2013
Clues from YouGov about undecided voters
Just one final (probably!) dip into the details of last week's YouGov referendum poll. Unlike the recent Ipsos-Mori poll or the second Panelbase poll commissioned by Wings over Scotland, there doesn't seem to have been any direct attempt made to discover how the Don't Knows are more inclined to vote. However, there was one question on the economy which produced responses that correlated extraordinarily closely to actual voting intentions - just 2% of Yes voters thought that an independent Scotland would be economically worse off, while 0% of No voters thought it would be economically better off. So it struck me that the responses of undecided voters to that question might furnish us with a very useful indirect way of detecting which way those people may be leaning. Irritatingly, YouGov haven't provided that particular cross-break, but it's still possible to get a rough idea by extrapolating from the percentages elsewhere in the datasets. These numbers won't be absolutely dead-on accurate, but they'll be reasonably close.
OF PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW HOW THEY'LL VOTE IN THE INDEPENDENCE REFERENDUM...
14% think an independent Scotland would be economically better off.
9% think an independent Scotland would be economically worse off.
12% think independence would make no difference to Scotland's economic prospects.
65% don't know how independence would affect Scotland's economic prospects.
(Note : Technically the above numbers include 'won't votes' as well, but they're a relatively small percentage.)
Now I'm not pretending for a moment that these numbers represent some kind of slam-dunk for the Yes campaign. But one thing that is self-evident is that this section of the electorate bears very little resemblance to the No camp's current constituency of support. (For comparison, the figures for No supporters are : Better off - 0%, Worse off - 88%, No difference - 7%, Don't Know - 5%.) So at the very least it would appear that the undecideds are wide open to persuasion by either campaign. And interestingly, it may not be quite enough for the No campaign to fight their opponents to a stalemate on the economic arguments, because the poll also seems to suggest that people who think that independence would make no difference to our economic prospects are at the moment breaking disproportionately for Yes. Again, this is based on an extrapolation, because the relevant raw numbers haven't been provided.
VOTING INTENTIONS OF PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT INDEPENDENCE WOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE TO SCOTLAND'S ECONOMIC PROSPECTS:
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 55%
No 30%
So it's just possible that the bar is slightly higher for the No campaign on the economy - to win new converts, they may need to persuade undecided voters that Scotland's economic prospects would actually be worse under independence, rather than merely no better.
Either way, it's worth bearing in mind that if YouGov's headline figures are accurate (admittedly a big if), it wouldn't be sufficient for the Yes campaign to win over a lion's share of the Don't Knows - they would also need a chunk of the No camp's current support. But it wouldn't necessarily have to be that big a chunk.
OF PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW HOW THEY'LL VOTE IN THE INDEPENDENCE REFERENDUM...
14% think an independent Scotland would be economically better off.
9% think an independent Scotland would be economically worse off.
12% think independence would make no difference to Scotland's economic prospects.
65% don't know how independence would affect Scotland's economic prospects.
(Note : Technically the above numbers include 'won't votes' as well, but they're a relatively small percentage.)
Now I'm not pretending for a moment that these numbers represent some kind of slam-dunk for the Yes campaign. But one thing that is self-evident is that this section of the electorate bears very little resemblance to the No camp's current constituency of support. (For comparison, the figures for No supporters are : Better off - 0%, Worse off - 88%, No difference - 7%, Don't Know - 5%.) So at the very least it would appear that the undecideds are wide open to persuasion by either campaign. And interestingly, it may not be quite enough for the No campaign to fight their opponents to a stalemate on the economic arguments, because the poll also seems to suggest that people who think that independence would make no difference to our economic prospects are at the moment breaking disproportionately for Yes. Again, this is based on an extrapolation, because the relevant raw numbers haven't been provided.
VOTING INTENTIONS OF PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT INDEPENDENCE WOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE TO SCOTLAND'S ECONOMIC PROSPECTS:
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 55%
No 30%
So it's just possible that the bar is slightly higher for the No campaign on the economy - to win new converts, they may need to persuade undecided voters that Scotland's economic prospects would actually be worse under independence, rather than merely no better.
Either way, it's worth bearing in mind that if YouGov's headline figures are accurate (admittedly a big if), it wouldn't be sufficient for the Yes campaign to win over a lion's share of the Don't Knows - they would also need a chunk of the No camp's current support. But it wouldn't necessarily have to be that big a chunk.
Saturday, December 14, 2013
I am a traitor
And I mean that quite literally. From the Guardian -
"A 165-year-old law that threatens anyone calling for the abolition of the monarchy with life imprisonment is technically still in force – after the Ministry of Justice admitted wrongly announcing that it had been repealed...
The Ministry of Justice said: "Section 3 of the Treason Felony Act 1848 has not been repealed."...
That means in theory that to "imagine" overthrowing the Crown or waging war against the Queen, as the wording of the act describes, could still result in a life sentence."
Merely 'imagining' it is enough? Having been brought up a Catholic, that reminds me a bit of the doctrine that having 'impure thoughts' is just as sinful as actually doing the deed. Now, I don't know about you, but I find that while I may be able to control my actions, my thoughts are rather resistant to that form of discipline. Which begs the obvious question - if you're going to be deemed as bad a criminal/sinner anyway, why not just go the whole hog? Let's do it now - let's overthrow the Queen!
"A 165-year-old law that threatens anyone calling for the abolition of the monarchy with life imprisonment is technically still in force – after the Ministry of Justice admitted wrongly announcing that it had been repealed...
The Ministry of Justice said: "Section 3 of the Treason Felony Act 1848 has not been repealed."...
That means in theory that to "imagine" overthrowing the Crown or waging war against the Queen, as the wording of the act describes, could still result in a life sentence."
Merely 'imagining' it is enough? Having been brought up a Catholic, that reminds me a bit of the doctrine that having 'impure thoughts' is just as sinful as actually doing the deed. Now, I don't know about you, but I find that while I may be able to control my actions, my thoughts are rather resistant to that form of discipline. Which begs the obvious question - if you're going to be deemed as bad a criminal/sinner anyway, why not just go the whole hog? Let's do it now - let's overthrow the Queen!
Friday, December 13, 2013
YouGov poll suggests that the pro-independence campaign's childcare proposals have made a big impression on voters
The remaining details of this week's YouGov poll have been released, and the most eye-catching finding is that there are now more than twice as many voters (35%) who think that an independent Scotland would have better childcare provision than there are who think provision would get worse (15%). Even more remarkably, a plurality of Labour voters (27% to 18%) think that independence would lead to expanded childcare provision, while as many as 15% of those who are currently planning to vote No in the referendum share the same view - meaning that, by a fair distance, childcare is the issue that provokes the most favourable impression of independence among current No supporters. That leaves little room for doubt that the decision to make childcare the centrepiece of the independence White Paper has been noticed by many key voters, and that the No campaign's attempts to neutralise the impact of the proposals have thus far been unsuccessful.
One of the subtexts of John Curtice's commentary on recent polls is that, because Yes have failed to storm into an outright lead on the back of the childcare proposals, the strategy must have been wrong, and that they should have focused relentlessly on the economy instead. I disagree. The economy is undoubtedly a vital battlefield, but the idea that there was some kind of silver bullet available that would have produced an overnight 10% swing in voting intentions is risible, and the idea that dry talk about economic growth or tax revenues could have constituted that silver bullet is even more risible. No, the task of the White Paper was not to instantly shift votes in huge numbers (although as we've seen in the polls that have been published since then, some voters have certainly moved over to the Yes camp), but instead to shift perceptions of what independence is all about among the most sceptical voters, many of whom are women, and many of whom care deeply about issues such as childcare. With a change in perceptions you earn a fair hearing further down the line that you might not otherwise have got, and with a fair hearing you have the chance to ultimately win new votes - if your campaigning is skillful enough, that is. There's every indication in these YouGov numbers that things are going to plan so far.
The other thing that struck me is just how few issues there are that really provoke any fear about independence, even amongst people who are currently planning to vote No. For example...
* 53% of current No supporters think that schools would be as good as now or better after independence.
* 62% of current No supporters think that the crime rate would not get worse or would reduce after independence.
* 45% of current No voters think that Scotland would be just as 'safe in the world' (whatever that means) or safer after independence. (This also constitutes a plurality, because only 42% of No supporters believe Scotland would be less safe.)
So we're not exactly dealing with voters who have an all-encompassing dystopian view of independence - their reluctance to embrace the idea seems to boil down to a relatively narrow (albeit very important) range of concerns about issues such as taxation and pensions. The poll also detects a nominal 'concern' about Scotland's influence in the world, which of course is entirely misguided - Scotland can hardly lose any further influence in world councils when the people 'representing' us there at the moment are David Cameron and William Hague. But I don't think it really matters whether the electorate come to accept that fact or not, because the only people who ever actually lose any sleep over a declining influence in the world are to be found in the political class.
Now here's an interesting paradox for you. The poll shows that most people in Scotland think of themselves as having either a wholly or predominantly Scottish national identity (ie. they say they are either 'Scottish not British' or 'more Scottish than British'). The poll also shows that most people with a wholly or predominantly Scottish national identity are in favour of independence. So why aren't Yes already in the lead? Well, quite simply because the No vote encompasses a substantial minority of those with a mostly Scottish identity, and a big majority of those without one. But all the same, this represents a huge potential opportunity for Yes due to the power of example - if voters who think of themselves as primarily Scottish start to notice that most people of like mind are plumping for independence, there might well be a bandwagon effect. There are no guarantees, of course - I mentioned Quebec last night, and the pro-independence campaign there were stuck with their own paradox of losing narrowly in spite of a 60-40 split in their favour among the majority French-speaking population. But the possibility is certainly there.
It's also intriguing that more than twice as many respondents (10%) say they are 'British not Scottish' than opt for the more nuanced option of 'more British than Scottish' (4%). It seems to me the most plausible explanation is that most of the 'British not Scottish' group are literally non-Scots - they're people resident in Scotland who have come here from other parts of the UK. By and large, that means they'll be English people answering a question they feel doesn't really apply to them in the only logical way they can - that would certainly explain the counter-intuitive finding that a respectable minority of them are planning to vote Yes or are SNP supporters. If this theory is correct, then it suggests that Scots with a primarily British national identity are now almost an extinct group, and that the No campaign's hopes depend heavily on retaining support among the quarter of the electorate who feel 'equally Scottish and British'.
Lastly, the poll backs up the suggestion from Ipsos-Mori that a swing in favour of independence has occurred in spite of a simultaneous small swing to Labour in Holyrood voting intentions. That suggests that referendum voting intentions are becoming gradually decoupled from party loyalty - and that's a very good thing, even if a modest boost for Labour in the polls isn't. The SNP do retain a slender lead on the constituency vote among respondents who are 100% certain to vote, which many pollsters regard as the most accurate test of how the electorate would actually vote at any given moment.
One of the subtexts of John Curtice's commentary on recent polls is that, because Yes have failed to storm into an outright lead on the back of the childcare proposals, the strategy must have been wrong, and that they should have focused relentlessly on the economy instead. I disagree. The economy is undoubtedly a vital battlefield, but the idea that there was some kind of silver bullet available that would have produced an overnight 10% swing in voting intentions is risible, and the idea that dry talk about economic growth or tax revenues could have constituted that silver bullet is even more risible. No, the task of the White Paper was not to instantly shift votes in huge numbers (although as we've seen in the polls that have been published since then, some voters have certainly moved over to the Yes camp), but instead to shift perceptions of what independence is all about among the most sceptical voters, many of whom are women, and many of whom care deeply about issues such as childcare. With a change in perceptions you earn a fair hearing further down the line that you might not otherwise have got, and with a fair hearing you have the chance to ultimately win new votes - if your campaigning is skillful enough, that is. There's every indication in these YouGov numbers that things are going to plan so far.
The other thing that struck me is just how few issues there are that really provoke any fear about independence, even amongst people who are currently planning to vote No. For example...
* 53% of current No supporters think that schools would be as good as now or better after independence.
* 62% of current No supporters think that the crime rate would not get worse or would reduce after independence.
* 45% of current No voters think that Scotland would be just as 'safe in the world' (whatever that means) or safer after independence. (This also constitutes a plurality, because only 42% of No supporters believe Scotland would be less safe.)
So we're not exactly dealing with voters who have an all-encompassing dystopian view of independence - their reluctance to embrace the idea seems to boil down to a relatively narrow (albeit very important) range of concerns about issues such as taxation and pensions. The poll also detects a nominal 'concern' about Scotland's influence in the world, which of course is entirely misguided - Scotland can hardly lose any further influence in world councils when the people 'representing' us there at the moment are David Cameron and William Hague. But I don't think it really matters whether the electorate come to accept that fact or not, because the only people who ever actually lose any sleep over a declining influence in the world are to be found in the political class.
Now here's an interesting paradox for you. The poll shows that most people in Scotland think of themselves as having either a wholly or predominantly Scottish national identity (ie. they say they are either 'Scottish not British' or 'more Scottish than British'). The poll also shows that most people with a wholly or predominantly Scottish national identity are in favour of independence. So why aren't Yes already in the lead? Well, quite simply because the No vote encompasses a substantial minority of those with a mostly Scottish identity, and a big majority of those without one. But all the same, this represents a huge potential opportunity for Yes due to the power of example - if voters who think of themselves as primarily Scottish start to notice that most people of like mind are plumping for independence, there might well be a bandwagon effect. There are no guarantees, of course - I mentioned Quebec last night, and the pro-independence campaign there were stuck with their own paradox of losing narrowly in spite of a 60-40 split in their favour among the majority French-speaking population. But the possibility is certainly there.
It's also intriguing that more than twice as many respondents (10%) say they are 'British not Scottish' than opt for the more nuanced option of 'more British than Scottish' (4%). It seems to me the most plausible explanation is that most of the 'British not Scottish' group are literally non-Scots - they're people resident in Scotland who have come here from other parts of the UK. By and large, that means they'll be English people answering a question they feel doesn't really apply to them in the only logical way they can - that would certainly explain the counter-intuitive finding that a respectable minority of them are planning to vote Yes or are SNP supporters. If this theory is correct, then it suggests that Scots with a primarily British national identity are now almost an extinct group, and that the No campaign's hopes depend heavily on retaining support among the quarter of the electorate who feel 'equally Scottish and British'.
Lastly, the poll backs up the suggestion from Ipsos-Mori that a swing in favour of independence has occurred in spite of a simultaneous small swing to Labour in Holyrood voting intentions. That suggests that referendum voting intentions are becoming gradually decoupled from party loyalty - and that's a very good thing, even if a modest boost for Labour in the polls isn't. The SNP do retain a slender lead on the constituency vote among respondents who are 100% certain to vote, which many pollsters regard as the most accurate test of how the electorate would actually vote at any given moment.
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Vive L'Écosse Libre!
As I've spent a fair bit of time recently calculating poll averages, I thought I might take it a step further and do the same thing for what is probably the closest international parallel to our own independence referendum, namely the Quebec referendum of 1995. I'm sure most of you know that, in the early stages, the Yes camp in Quebec found themselves in a seemingly hopeless predicament, before recovering with a few months to go to roughly where we in Scotland are right now on a mean average of the polls - 40% Yes, 60% No (with Don't Knows excluded). They then made further impressive gains which took them all the way to a narrow lead by the close of the campaign.
That part of the story is well-known, but what might surprise you a little more is that an average of the polls from September 1995, the month before the referendum, shows that Yes were still trailing by more than five points...
SEPTEMBER 1995 AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 47.4%
No 52.6%
An average of polls conducted during the month of the referendum itself shows that the position had been dramatically reversed...
OCTOBER 1995 AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 50.7% (+3.3)
No 49.3% (-3.3)
Then of course came the famously cruel twist in the tale that has poisoned Quebec politics to this day. Fieldwork for the final poll was concluded three days before the referendum, too late to pick up any late swings. The No campaign indulged in some rather questionable practices in a desperate effort to rescue the situation, and it appears that this was sufficient to generate a small but decisive late swing back to No. However, this didn't reverse all or even most of the gains that Yes had made between September and October, as a comparison between the final result and the September average will demonstrate...
REFERENDUM RESULT, 30 OCTOBER 1995 (changes from September polling average) :
Yes 49.4% (+2.0)
No 50.6% (-2.0)
I'd say those numbers fairly definitively give the lie to the hoary old myth that you'll still sometimes hear otherwise intelligent people trot out, namely that a Yes campaign is bound to suffer a seepage of support during any referendum campaign, and that undecided voters are bound to break for No. More specifically, it suggests that our own Yes campaign in Scotland could still hope to win even if it remains a few points behind next August. It currently stands at 40.1% in the Poll of Polls with Don't Knows excluded, so if the Quebec precedent is anything to go by, it would probably need to increase its support by at least 7% or so over the coming seven or eight months. For my money, the crucial period will be from May until early August, because it's in May that the official campaign period starts, and from that point on the broadcasters will finally be obliged to treat both sides of the debate equally (and it'll be fascinating to see how faithfully they live up to that obligation).
NOTE : Apologies if I got my French grammar wrong in the title of this post. If so, hopefully Tris will correct me!
That part of the story is well-known, but what might surprise you a little more is that an average of the polls from September 1995, the month before the referendum, shows that Yes were still trailing by more than five points...
SEPTEMBER 1995 AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 47.4%
No 52.6%
An average of polls conducted during the month of the referendum itself shows that the position had been dramatically reversed...
OCTOBER 1995 AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 50.7% (+3.3)
No 49.3% (-3.3)
Then of course came the famously cruel twist in the tale that has poisoned Quebec politics to this day. Fieldwork for the final poll was concluded three days before the referendum, too late to pick up any late swings. The No campaign indulged in some rather questionable practices in a desperate effort to rescue the situation, and it appears that this was sufficient to generate a small but decisive late swing back to No. However, this didn't reverse all or even most of the gains that Yes had made between September and October, as a comparison between the final result and the September average will demonstrate...
REFERENDUM RESULT, 30 OCTOBER 1995 (changes from September polling average) :
Yes 49.4% (+2.0)
No 50.6% (-2.0)
I'd say those numbers fairly definitively give the lie to the hoary old myth that you'll still sometimes hear otherwise intelligent people trot out, namely that a Yes campaign is bound to suffer a seepage of support during any referendum campaign, and that undecided voters are bound to break for No. More specifically, it suggests that our own Yes campaign in Scotland could still hope to win even if it remains a few points behind next August. It currently stands at 40.1% in the Poll of Polls with Don't Knows excluded, so if the Quebec precedent is anything to go by, it would probably need to increase its support by at least 7% or so over the coming seven or eight months. For my money, the crucial period will be from May until early August, because it's in May that the official campaign period starts, and from that point on the broadcasters will finally be obliged to treat both sides of the debate equally (and it'll be fascinating to see how faithfully they live up to that obligation).
NOTE : Apologies if I got my French grammar wrong in the title of this post. If so, hopefully Tris will correct me!
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Alex Massie unwittingly pinpoints yet another excellent reason to vote for independence
From Alex Massie in his Spectator blog today -
"Nor is nationalist talk of a renewed democratic deficit all that persuasive. Sure, the Tories only have one MP in Scotland and between them the coalition parties can only count on a dozen Scottish votes. But a majority of English voters did not vote Conservative either. There is a distinction to be drawn between legitimacy conferred by a parliamentary majority and that earned by a majority of votes cast. In the latter instance, Scotland is different only by degree not kind.
The fact of the matter is that almost all British governments are delivered on a minority of the vote. Neither Tony Blair nor Margaret Thatcher ever won a majority of votes cast."
Which entirely misunderstands the nature of the democratic deficit. If our betters in the London establishment are to sustain the notion (and they certainly do their level best to) that the first-past-the-post electoral system used for Westminster is both fair and democratic, then the only meaningful tests of a democratic deficit are a) whether any given British government would have been elected in Scotland under the same system, and b) whether that government would even have come remotely close to being elected in Scotland under the same system. The Conservative government of 1959-64 failed test a) but not test b). The Tory governments of 1970-74, 1979-83 and 1983-87 failed both tests, but could at least claim to have put up a respectable fight on test b). But the three subsequent Tory governments, including the present one, failed test b) by absolute bloody light-years. It seems reasonable to suppose that the same will be true of any other Tory government that may come along in the foreseeable future.
"Even after independence most of us are likely to be ruled by a party for which we did not vote. Scotland, in this respect, will just be a smaller Britain. That’s fine but I think it reduces the impact of the democratic deficit argument which is, in any case, in part the consequence of our electoral system not the cumulative total of votes cast."
But that's not quite right, is it? An independent Scotland will be more democratic in two ways, not just the one that Alex is hinting at there. The built-in and supposedly unavoidable "British" democratic deficit that Alex refers to can be more succinctly described thus -
The UK uses an antiquated voting system for its national parliament that delivers a result that bears little resemblance to how the electorate actually votes. As a result of the Liberal Democrats' tactical bungling, there is now almost no prospect of that system being replaced for several decades, if ever.
And the solution to the problem can be described thus -
An independent Scotland will replace first-past-the-post with proportional representation for the national parliament, ensuring that election results closely mirror how the electorate actually votes, and that a much lower proportion of votes will be wasted.
Hardly a position consistent with "voting Yes won't make much difference". And funnily enough, what I've just done is a good example of the Yes campaign narrative that Alex spends most of his piece moaning about (while confusingly conceding that it is totally necessary). It goes like this - you identify something that is profoundly wrong with the United Kingdom, you explain why that problem cannot possibly be fixed from within the United Kingdom, and then you set out in very simple terms how an independent Scotland would fix it. I'm not remotely squeamish about any of this - if the Yes campaign have been using that narrative to a sufficient extent that Alex now feels able to accuse them of 'victimhood', then it shows that it's hitting home. What Alex sees as 'scaremongering', I see as facing facts - the fundamental difference with the No campaign's negativity is that they are dreaming up wildly implausible speculative claims of how an independent Scotland might flounder, while Yes are talking about what is verifiably wrong with the UK right now. There is no dispute over the factual reality of unwanted nuclear missiles being present on Glasgow's doorstep, for example.
An authentic Yes equivalent to Project Fear (or to the No2AV campaign) would instead be one that comes up with hypothetical examples of what Westminster might do to Scotland over the coming decades, and presents them to the electorate as cold hard fact. Frankly, I think there might be a place for that tactic as well, at least to a modest degree. The No campaign have got to learn that they're not the only ones allowed to play hardball. And although I don't agree with Iain Macwhirter's assessment of the White Paper's impact, one thing he is certainly right about is that another vital aspect of a successful Yes campaign will be a vastly enhanced rebuttal operation, with a team of experts constantly on hand to rapidly and authoritatively rebut any or all of the silly scare stories that crop up on a daily basis. There's a strong case for having separate rebuttal units based in both Scotland and London, to finally get to grips with the utter drivel that is routinely bounced back to voters via the London media.
Alex concludes his piece by suggesting that the Yes campaign's attempts to identify what is wrong with the UK will come up against voters' own perceptions that life isn't really so bad at the moment. I must say that it seems quite odd for a blogger who prays in aid shades of grey and matters of degree in respect of the democratic deficit to see no relevance at all for those same concepts when it comes to people's level of contentment with the way in which they are governed. I don't think life for Scots within the UK is intolerable by any means (although it may well be for a substantial minority) - but there's an awful lot wrong with it just the same, and there's plenty we can do to put it right in an independent Scotland. Conversely, there's precious little we can do about it for as long as we contract out our choice of government to a country that - perfectly legitimately - keeps voting for right-wing administrations.
"Nor is nationalist talk of a renewed democratic deficit all that persuasive. Sure, the Tories only have one MP in Scotland and between them the coalition parties can only count on a dozen Scottish votes. But a majority of English voters did not vote Conservative either. There is a distinction to be drawn between legitimacy conferred by a parliamentary majority and that earned by a majority of votes cast. In the latter instance, Scotland is different only by degree not kind.
The fact of the matter is that almost all British governments are delivered on a minority of the vote. Neither Tony Blair nor Margaret Thatcher ever won a majority of votes cast."
Which entirely misunderstands the nature of the democratic deficit. If our betters in the London establishment are to sustain the notion (and they certainly do their level best to) that the first-past-the-post electoral system used for Westminster is both fair and democratic, then the only meaningful tests of a democratic deficit are a) whether any given British government would have been elected in Scotland under the same system, and b) whether that government would even have come remotely close to being elected in Scotland under the same system. The Conservative government of 1959-64 failed test a) but not test b). The Tory governments of 1970-74, 1979-83 and 1983-87 failed both tests, but could at least claim to have put up a respectable fight on test b). But the three subsequent Tory governments, including the present one, failed test b) by absolute bloody light-years. It seems reasonable to suppose that the same will be true of any other Tory government that may come along in the foreseeable future.
"Even after independence most of us are likely to be ruled by a party for which we did not vote. Scotland, in this respect, will just be a smaller Britain. That’s fine but I think it reduces the impact of the democratic deficit argument which is, in any case, in part the consequence of our electoral system not the cumulative total of votes cast."
But that's not quite right, is it? An independent Scotland will be more democratic in two ways, not just the one that Alex is hinting at there. The built-in and supposedly unavoidable "British" democratic deficit that Alex refers to can be more succinctly described thus -
The UK uses an antiquated voting system for its national parliament that delivers a result that bears little resemblance to how the electorate actually votes. As a result of the Liberal Democrats' tactical bungling, there is now almost no prospect of that system being replaced for several decades, if ever.
And the solution to the problem can be described thus -
An independent Scotland will replace first-past-the-post with proportional representation for the national parliament, ensuring that election results closely mirror how the electorate actually votes, and that a much lower proportion of votes will be wasted.
Hardly a position consistent with "voting Yes won't make much difference". And funnily enough, what I've just done is a good example of the Yes campaign narrative that Alex spends most of his piece moaning about (while confusingly conceding that it is totally necessary). It goes like this - you identify something that is profoundly wrong with the United Kingdom, you explain why that problem cannot possibly be fixed from within the United Kingdom, and then you set out in very simple terms how an independent Scotland would fix it. I'm not remotely squeamish about any of this - if the Yes campaign have been using that narrative to a sufficient extent that Alex now feels able to accuse them of 'victimhood', then it shows that it's hitting home. What Alex sees as 'scaremongering', I see as facing facts - the fundamental difference with the No campaign's negativity is that they are dreaming up wildly implausible speculative claims of how an independent Scotland might flounder, while Yes are talking about what is verifiably wrong with the UK right now. There is no dispute over the factual reality of unwanted nuclear missiles being present on Glasgow's doorstep, for example.
An authentic Yes equivalent to Project Fear (or to the No2AV campaign) would instead be one that comes up with hypothetical examples of what Westminster might do to Scotland over the coming decades, and presents them to the electorate as cold hard fact. Frankly, I think there might be a place for that tactic as well, at least to a modest degree. The No campaign have got to learn that they're not the only ones allowed to play hardball. And although I don't agree with Iain Macwhirter's assessment of the White Paper's impact, one thing he is certainly right about is that another vital aspect of a successful Yes campaign will be a vastly enhanced rebuttal operation, with a team of experts constantly on hand to rapidly and authoritatively rebut any or all of the silly scare stories that crop up on a daily basis. There's a strong case for having separate rebuttal units based in both Scotland and London, to finally get to grips with the utter drivel that is routinely bounced back to voters via the London media.
Alex concludes his piece by suggesting that the Yes campaign's attempts to identify what is wrong with the UK will come up against voters' own perceptions that life isn't really so bad at the moment. I must say that it seems quite odd for a blogger who prays in aid shades of grey and matters of degree in respect of the democratic deficit to see no relevance at all for those same concepts when it comes to people's level of contentment with the way in which they are governed. I don't think life for Scots within the UK is intolerable by any means (although it may well be for a substantial minority) - but there's an awful lot wrong with it just the same, and there's plenty we can do to put it right in an independent Scotland. Conversely, there's precious little we can do about it for as long as we contract out our choice of government to a country that - perfectly legitimately - keeps voting for right-wing administrations.
New YouGov poll shows increase in support for independence since the White Paper
My new favourite pastime of "spot the good #indyref poll for Yes by seeing what Blair 'Complacency' McDougall doesn't say about it on Twitter" continues to delight. An hour or two ago he posted this tweet...
"Interesting figure on what £800,000 worth of taxpayer-funded White Paper propaganda gets you coming up."
...and it instantly became blindingly obvious that there must be a new poll about to be released in which the No lead had fallen yet again, because the narrative he was manfully trying to prepare the ground for was "Yes haven't made enough progress". The problem for him being that the poll he was hinting at was a YouGov, which is highly significant because - a) YouGov have traditionally been one of the most favourable pollsters for the anti-independence campaign, and b) the last YouGov referendum poll showed a dramatic slump in the lead for No, which was down to its lowest level in eighteen months. So any further improvement for Yes from that position represents unalloyed good news, no matter how much Mr McDougall might care to harrumph about it. Here are the full figures from tonight's poll -
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 33% (+1)
No 52% (-)
Now you'll notice that I list the real referendum question above the results, but that isn't intended to suggest that YouGov were necessarily professional enough to actually let that question speak for itself when conducting the poll. I've heard some dark whispers that they may in fact have reinstated their notorious biased preamble that unsubtly attempts to push people towards saying No. If so, it would be an astonishing retrograde step for both their own credibility as a company and for the accuracy of referendum polling more broadly, so let's fervently hope it isn't true. We should find out one way or another tomorrow, and rest assured I have my customary "YouGov's credibility in tatters" headline raring to go if it turns out that the preamble has indeed reared its ugly head yet again. The only consolation is that it would make tonight's figures look even better for Yes, because it seemed that the simple act of introducing a more neutrally-worded preamble was responsible for as much as eight of the ten percentage points by which the No lead dropped in YouGov's September poll. If Yes have closed the gap even further in spite of the reinstated handicap of the preamble, it would represent a massive "real terms" advance for them.
Either way, YouGov have now become the fourth pollster out of four to report that the No campaign's lead has fallen since the publication of the White Paper, so there can be very little remaining doubt about the general direction of travel. Indeed, it's been so long since YouGov have produced a No lead as low as this that I'm struggling to definitively put my finger on the last occasion that it happened - I think it may have been October 2011.
* * *
YES CAMPAIGN CONTINUES TO GAIN IN SCOT GOES POP POLL OF POLLS
And now its time for the third update of this blog's Poll of Polls - yes, these updates are coming thick and fast all of a sudden! As you probably know by now, the Poll of Polls is based on a rolling average of six polls - the most recent one from each of the six referendum pollsters that adhere to the British Polling Council's rules (Panelbase, YouGov, Ipsos-Mori, ICM, Angus Reid and TNS-BMRB). So this update simply replaces the last YouGov poll from September with the new one.
MEAN AVERAGE (not excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 32.8% (+0.1)
No 49.0% (-)
MEAN AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 40.1% (+0.1)
No 59.9% (-0.1)
MEDIAN AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 39.2% (+0.3)
No 60.8% (-0.3)
Given that only one-sixth of the sample changes with each newly-published poll, the movements are inevitably glacial. But even a 0.1% change on the mean average excluding Don't Knows is sufficient for the No vote to slip below 60% on that particular measure for the first time since the Poll of Polls began.
The swing required for the pro-independence campaign to draw level is now just 8.1% if Don't Knows are taken into account, and 9.9% if Don't Knows are excluded.
* * *
UPDATE : I'm hugely relieved to say that YouGov haven't reinstated the Dodgy Preamble. The most likely explanation for the 'dark whispers' I mentioned is that YouGov have been using the preamble for internal party/campaign polls not intended for publication (ie. the No campaign are getting the comforting answers they're paying to hear), or have been doing it for testing purposes of the sort that Oldnat mentions in his comment below. If it's the latter, then I'm still immensely troubled that they're even bothering to 'test' such a self-evidently biased preamble, because it suggests that they still haven't entirely given up on the ludicrous idea of reinstating it.
The detailed results from the poll also show that the No lead (excluding Don't Knows) is slightly narrower among those who are absolutely certain to vote. It also appears that the Yes lead among SNP supporters is not only slightly higher than the No lead among Labour supporters, but also quite a bit higher than the No lead among Liberal Democrat supporters.
"Interesting figure on what £800,000 worth of taxpayer-funded White Paper propaganda gets you coming up."
...and it instantly became blindingly obvious that there must be a new poll about to be released in which the No lead had fallen yet again, because the narrative he was manfully trying to prepare the ground for was "Yes haven't made enough progress". The problem for him being that the poll he was hinting at was a YouGov, which is highly significant because - a) YouGov have traditionally been one of the most favourable pollsters for the anti-independence campaign, and b) the last YouGov referendum poll showed a dramatic slump in the lead for No, which was down to its lowest level in eighteen months. So any further improvement for Yes from that position represents unalloyed good news, no matter how much Mr McDougall might care to harrumph about it. Here are the full figures from tonight's poll -
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 33% (+1)
No 52% (-)
Now you'll notice that I list the real referendum question above the results, but that isn't intended to suggest that YouGov were necessarily professional enough to actually let that question speak for itself when conducting the poll. I've heard some dark whispers that they may in fact have reinstated their notorious biased preamble that unsubtly attempts to push people towards saying No. If so, it would be an astonishing retrograde step for both their own credibility as a company and for the accuracy of referendum polling more broadly, so let's fervently hope it isn't true. We should find out one way or another tomorrow, and rest assured I have my customary "YouGov's credibility in tatters" headline raring to go if it turns out that the preamble has indeed reared its ugly head yet again. The only consolation is that it would make tonight's figures look even better for Yes, because it seemed that the simple act of introducing a more neutrally-worded preamble was responsible for as much as eight of the ten percentage points by which the No lead dropped in YouGov's September poll. If Yes have closed the gap even further in spite of the reinstated handicap of the preamble, it would represent a massive "real terms" advance for them.
Either way, YouGov have now become the fourth pollster out of four to report that the No campaign's lead has fallen since the publication of the White Paper, so there can be very little remaining doubt about the general direction of travel. Indeed, it's been so long since YouGov have produced a No lead as low as this that I'm struggling to definitively put my finger on the last occasion that it happened - I think it may have been October 2011.
* * *
YES CAMPAIGN CONTINUES TO GAIN IN SCOT GOES POP POLL OF POLLS
And now its time for the third update of this blog's Poll of Polls - yes, these updates are coming thick and fast all of a sudden! As you probably know by now, the Poll of Polls is based on a rolling average of six polls - the most recent one from each of the six referendum pollsters that adhere to the British Polling Council's rules (Panelbase, YouGov, Ipsos-Mori, ICM, Angus Reid and TNS-BMRB). So this update simply replaces the last YouGov poll from September with the new one.
MEAN AVERAGE (not excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 32.8% (+0.1)
No 49.0% (-)
MEAN AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 40.1% (+0.1)
No 59.9% (-0.1)
MEDIAN AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 39.2% (+0.3)
No 60.8% (-0.3)
Given that only one-sixth of the sample changes with each newly-published poll, the movements are inevitably glacial. But even a 0.1% change on the mean average excluding Don't Knows is sufficient for the No vote to slip below 60% on that particular measure for the first time since the Poll of Polls began.
The swing required for the pro-independence campaign to draw level is now just 8.1% if Don't Knows are taken into account, and 9.9% if Don't Knows are excluded.
* * *
UPDATE : I'm hugely relieved to say that YouGov haven't reinstated the Dodgy Preamble. The most likely explanation for the 'dark whispers' I mentioned is that YouGov have been using the preamble for internal party/campaign polls not intended for publication (ie. the No campaign are getting the comforting answers they're paying to hear), or have been doing it for testing purposes of the sort that Oldnat mentions in his comment below. If it's the latter, then I'm still immensely troubled that they're even bothering to 'test' such a self-evidently biased preamble, because it suggests that they still haven't entirely given up on the ludicrous idea of reinstating it.
The detailed results from the poll also show that the No lead (excluding Don't Knows) is slightly narrower among those who are absolutely certain to vote. It also appears that the Yes lead among SNP supporters is not only slightly higher than the No lead among Labour supporters, but also quite a bit higher than the No lead among Liberal Democrat supporters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)