It was fairly obvious from the hints being dropped on Twitter last night that a new Panelbase poll on the independence referendum was on its way, and that it was far more favourable for Yes than yesterday's YouGov poll (which we now know was indeed tainted by using a leading question that painted independence in a pejorative light). However, I couldn't have imagined quite how favourable it would prove to be -
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 44% (+7)
No 43% (-3)
This is the first time that the pro-independence camp have been in the lead with any pollster since a TNS-BMRB poll in the late summer of 2011 put Yes ahead by one point.
So what can possibly explain the extraordinary divergence between two polls published in successive days, one which puts Yes one point ahead, and another which puts No thirty points ahead? Methodology, obviously, but what in particular? It's easy to home in on the outrageously leading preamble that YouGov use when posing the referendum question, but as I've said on previous occasions that's unlikely to be anything more than a small part of the explanation - if I was going to hazard a guess, I'd say that it probably doesn't make more than 2% of a difference. Nevertheless, as a matter of principle it's extremely bad practice for YouGov to continue behaving in this way, and it's high time that greater pressure was brought to bear on them, both from their peers and from psephologists. In case you're wondering, the Devoplus campaign that commissioned the poll almost certainly aren't to blame in this particular regard - as far as I can see, the preamble is identical to the one YouGov have used on several previous occasions. Peter Kellner just seems to have a bee in his bonnet that he can 'improve' on the actual, Electoral Commission-approved referendum question.
If Professor John Curtice was prepared to go out of his way to criticise the recent WoS poll for using leading wording in one particular question, then he really has no excuse left for not issuing a warning to YouGov that their polls will have a question mark hanging over them for as long as they continue to steer their respondents in such a blatant way towards giving an anti-independence response on the headline question.
* * *
Undoubtedly the daftest comment about today's poll was made by former "senior Labour MSP" George Foulkes - but did he do it deliberately? He claimed that it was "astonishing" that the Courier had led on the results of a poll conducted by an organisation that pays its online panel for responses - apparently unaware that all online pollsters use a paid panel, including YouGov, who carried out the poll that George's campaign were quite content to see Scotland on Sunday lead with yesterday. When this rather obvious double-standard was pointed out to him, George mumbled something about YouGov being an "established" pollster. Oh-kaaay. So the difference in credibility is that YouGov merely pay their respondents in an "established" way? How does that work?
* * *
A quick appeal - does anyone reading this have an account at Political Betting? If so, I'd be grateful if you could write a quick comment there about the sensational news from the Panelbase poll - I can't see any reference to it so far, and I'm obviously not in a position to put that right. The reason it might be important to do so is that some London journalists still seem to take their cue from PB when summarising the lie of the land in polling terms. Inexplicable, but there it is.
Even if you don't have an account, it would only take a minute or two to set one up (although your first comment might have to go through pre-moderation).
* * *
UPDATE (6.30pm) : At last - John Curtice speaks out on YouGov's dodgy preamble...
"Conversely, at the other end of the spectrum YouGov’s poll for Devo Plus described the referendum as a ballot on ‘Scotland leaving the United Kingdom and being an independent country’ a description that might have been thought capable of discouraging some respondents from saying Yes."
Monday, September 2, 2013
Sunday, September 1, 2013
Battle of the pollsters
When I first heard whispers a couple of hours ago that there was a new poll out showing a substantial No lead, I can honestly say the first thought that went through my mind was "I just hope to goodness it's a YouGov poll". Reasons? Well, there were three main ones -
1) It would mean that No have nothing much to celebrate, as there has only been a very modest increase in their lead since the last comparable poll (which, remarkably, was published almost a year ago!).
2) YouGov are notorious for using a leading preamble when posing the referendum question, and can probably be assumed to have done the same thing this time, thus detracting somewhat from the credibility of the results (although I'll happily apologise tomorrow or on Monday when the full tables go up, if it turns out that for the very first time they have let the official Electoral Commission-approved question speak for itself).
3) There are increasing question marks over YouGov's Scottish sampling. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since the 2003 Holyrood election, when YouGov towered over their old-school competitors as by far the most accurate pollster of the campaign. They also performed reasonably well in 2007, but by 2011 the tables had well and truly turned, and YouGov were now the 'establishment' pollster being outshone by their less prestigious rivals. They continued to show a tight race right up to polling day, entirely failing to pick up the impending SNP landslide. The problem seems to have got even worse since then - the Scottish subsamples in most YouGov daily polls this year have shown the SNP trailing Labour badly, and in many cases even languishing in a thoroughly implausible third place behind the Tories. By contrast, the subsamples of all other pollsters have typically shown the SNP either in the lead, or only very slightly behind Labour. It doesn't automatically follow that YouGov are getting it wrong - we have to at least entertain the possibility that they are getting it right and everyone else is getting it wrong. But intuitively it seems much more likely that there is an ever-growing rift between real-world Scotland and YouGov's Scottish samples.
Thankfully, this weekend's poll did indeed turn out to be a YouGov poll. That means we don't learn anything new, but we do have a reaffirmation of the gulf between the two pollsters that are showing a relatively modest No lead (Angus Reid and Panelbase), and the three pollsters that are showing a more substantial one (YouGov, TNS-BMRB and Ipsos-Mori) - although YouGov find themselves at the extreme end of the latter group. So which group is getting it right? Or is the truth somewhere in between the two? You pays your money and you takes your choice, although it's worth pointing out that media commentators who tell you that "No have a handsome lead, full stop" are failing to take account of the complete picture - probably willfully.
Curiously, this YouGov poll was commissioned by the Devoplus campaign, with the apparent intention of producing results that would demonstrate to the No camp that they would have a better chance of victory if they committed to increased powers for the Scottish Parliament. That doesn't seem to have really come off - the Devoplus crowd would probably have been better advised to use a pollster that doesn't routinely produce inflated No leads in the headline figures.
By the way, have you noticed that when we see a poll showing a modest increase in the No vote, there are headlines screaming about "the No vote hardening up", but when Angus Reid showed a two-point increase in the Yes vote a few days ago, it was billed as a "no change" poll? I'm confused...
1) It would mean that No have nothing much to celebrate, as there has only been a very modest increase in their lead since the last comparable poll (which, remarkably, was published almost a year ago!).
2) YouGov are notorious for using a leading preamble when posing the referendum question, and can probably be assumed to have done the same thing this time, thus detracting somewhat from the credibility of the results (although I'll happily apologise tomorrow or on Monday when the full tables go up, if it turns out that for the very first time they have let the official Electoral Commission-approved question speak for itself).
3) There are increasing question marks over YouGov's Scottish sampling. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since the 2003 Holyrood election, when YouGov towered over their old-school competitors as by far the most accurate pollster of the campaign. They also performed reasonably well in 2007, but by 2011 the tables had well and truly turned, and YouGov were now the 'establishment' pollster being outshone by their less prestigious rivals. They continued to show a tight race right up to polling day, entirely failing to pick up the impending SNP landslide. The problem seems to have got even worse since then - the Scottish subsamples in most YouGov daily polls this year have shown the SNP trailing Labour badly, and in many cases even languishing in a thoroughly implausible third place behind the Tories. By contrast, the subsamples of all other pollsters have typically shown the SNP either in the lead, or only very slightly behind Labour. It doesn't automatically follow that YouGov are getting it wrong - we have to at least entertain the possibility that they are getting it right and everyone else is getting it wrong. But intuitively it seems much more likely that there is an ever-growing rift between real-world Scotland and YouGov's Scottish samples.
Thankfully, this weekend's poll did indeed turn out to be a YouGov poll. That means we don't learn anything new, but we do have a reaffirmation of the gulf between the two pollsters that are showing a relatively modest No lead (Angus Reid and Panelbase), and the three pollsters that are showing a more substantial one (YouGov, TNS-BMRB and Ipsos-Mori) - although YouGov find themselves at the extreme end of the latter group. So which group is getting it right? Or is the truth somewhere in between the two? You pays your money and you takes your choice, although it's worth pointing out that media commentators who tell you that "No have a handsome lead, full stop" are failing to take account of the complete picture - probably willfully.
Curiously, this YouGov poll was commissioned by the Devoplus campaign, with the apparent intention of producing results that would demonstrate to the No camp that they would have a better chance of victory if they committed to increased powers for the Scottish Parliament. That doesn't seem to have really come off - the Devoplus crowd would probably have been better advised to use a pollster that doesn't routinely produce inflated No leads in the headline figures.
By the way, have you noticed that when we see a poll showing a modest increase in the No vote, there are headlines screaming about "the No vote hardening up", but when Angus Reid showed a two-point increase in the Yes vote a few days ago, it was billed as a "no change" poll? I'm confused...
Friday, August 30, 2013
Tony Blair's very finest handiwork
There are a number of obvious dangers attached to taking Nick Robinson's billing as a political expert too seriously. If I had turned the television off in disgust after hearing his 'reveal' of the Labour leadership result three years ago, I might still be firmly under the misapprehension that an entirely different Miliband had become Leader of the Opposition. I didn't make that particular mistake, but unfortunately I did stop paying much attention to the Syria debate yesterday after Robinson insisted that the government were assured of a win, mainly because their own foot-soldiers wouldn't want to give Ed Miliband any sort of fillip. I should, of course, have known that the government were doomed to defeat from the moment those words passed his lips.
The moral issues at stake yesterday weren't straightforward, because the use of chemical weapons is indeed different to the use of conventional weapons, and there's certainly a danger of a slippery slope if the world is seen to shrug its shoulders at a moment like this. But there are alternatives to studied disinterest that don't involve bombing civilians to kingdom come, or opportunistic Anglo-American attempts to alter the balance of power in the Middle East, or exercises in rank hypocrisy from politicians (including, disgracefully, Liberal Democrats) who spend much of their leisure time lecturing us about how failure to accept NATO as a first-strike WMD club is a sign of political 'immaturity'. Just for once, the Commons have stunned us all by getting a judgement call entirely right.
And for that we have Tony Blair to thank, paradoxically enough. He is the unwitting author of this result. It's worth making a comparison with the 2003 parliamentary vote on the invasion of Iraq - back then, the only real question was whether a majority of Labour backbenchers would vote for the war. Overall victory for the PM was assured in spite of the fact that the motion before the House was an umambiguous authorisation of military action that was just hours away. Fast forward ten years, and a watered-down motion that wouldn't have authorised anything has been rejected outright by a chamber in which the government hold a handsome majority of 77. And all because Blair lied, and because people's memories aren't quite as short as he'd care to think.
Philip Hammond suggested that the result of this vote would have a negative impact on the 'special relationship' with the US, which is presumably code for a marginally less slavish loyalty to US foreign policy. Now that's the kind of Blair handiwork of which I can thoroughly approve. It's almost as splendid an irony as Mrs Thatcher turning out to be the midwife of devolution.
The moral issues at stake yesterday weren't straightforward, because the use of chemical weapons is indeed different to the use of conventional weapons, and there's certainly a danger of a slippery slope if the world is seen to shrug its shoulders at a moment like this. But there are alternatives to studied disinterest that don't involve bombing civilians to kingdom come, or opportunistic Anglo-American attempts to alter the balance of power in the Middle East, or exercises in rank hypocrisy from politicians (including, disgracefully, Liberal Democrats) who spend much of their leisure time lecturing us about how failure to accept NATO as a first-strike WMD club is a sign of political 'immaturity'. Just for once, the Commons have stunned us all by getting a judgement call entirely right.
And for that we have Tony Blair to thank, paradoxically enough. He is the unwitting author of this result. It's worth making a comparison with the 2003 parliamentary vote on the invasion of Iraq - back then, the only real question was whether a majority of Labour backbenchers would vote for the war. Overall victory for the PM was assured in spite of the fact that the motion before the House was an umambiguous authorisation of military action that was just hours away. Fast forward ten years, and a watered-down motion that wouldn't have authorised anything has been rejected outright by a chamber in which the government hold a handsome majority of 77. And all because Blair lied, and because people's memories aren't quite as short as he'd care to think.
Philip Hammond suggested that the result of this vote would have a negative impact on the 'special relationship' with the US, which is presumably code for a marginally less slavish loyalty to US foreign policy. Now that's the kind of Blair handiwork of which I can thoroughly approve. It's almost as splendid an irony as Mrs Thatcher turning out to be the midwife of devolution.
Monday, August 26, 2013
Pro-independence campaign makes gains in latest Angus Reid poll
Many thanks to Marcia for alerting me to the latest Angus Reid poll on referendum voting intentions, which shows the Yes campaign closing the gap from fifteen to thirteen points -
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 34% (+2)
No 47% (-)
John Curtice's blogpost about the poll essentially bills it as a 'no change' affair. That's arguably a slightly odd analysis given that this is the second successive Angus Reid poll to show a cut in the No lead, which stood a full five points higher at the start of the year. But give Curtice his due - his post is a hell of a lot more justifiable than the 'report' in the rag that actually commissioned the poll, which largely ignores the rather inconvenient headline figures and instead focuses on the "shock" findings that 16% of Scottish residents would "think about" leaving if Alex Salmond achieves his "dream" of "breaking up" the "United" Kingdom. Apparently we should be particularly concerned that Tory voters are most likely to "think about" finding a new haunt, because of all the tax revenues they kindly donate to us less enlightened souls.
"The potential loss of tax revenue would be a disaster for the first government of an independent Scotland, as well triggering a crash in the housing market and leaving the nation with a catastrophic skills gap.
It would also prove a damaging blow to the confidence and credibility of the SNP."
Hmmm. If even Paul Daniels didn't keep his promise to leave these shores in the event of a Labour government, consider me a tad sceptical that one-sixth of the population of Scotland would up and leave in the event of a Yes vote. Even so, it would have been interesting just for balance to discover what percentage of the population of the rest of the UK would "think about" moving to Scotland after independence, to become refugees from London's austerity politics.
Another supplementary finding that the Express seem to consider more important than the headline figures is that "a sovereign Holyrood would be left in charge of around three million people who wish to remain citizens of a foreign nation". Well now, this is odd, because I'm already a citizen of a foreign nation (the United States), and I've no wish to give that citizenship up in the event of independence. In unionist-speak, I suppose this is "a catastrophic blow to the confidence and credibility of the SNP, as a pro-independence daft wee laddie (© Duncan Hothersall) declares that he would want to be a foreigner in a separate Scotland".
To move away from the Express for a moment and back to sanity, what strikes me most about this poll is that it is no longer really the case that Panelbase are the exotic outliers of independence polling. Although Angus Reid are still showing a slightly higher No lead than Panelbase, they're now much closer to Panelbase than to Ipsos-Mori or YouGov (admittedly we haven't had an official YouGov independence poll for almost a year, but it's probably safe to assume their methodology will continue to flatter the No campaign).
Now, a couple of quick questions for Blair McDougall, if he can take a moment away from his firefighting efforts in the wake of the disturbing #pounds4mcdougallgate revelations -
1) When the recent Panelbase poll on referendum voting intentions was released, you claimed in a tweet that the undecideds were "breaking for No", on the grounds that the No vote was up 2% and the Yes vote was up only 1%. Would it be fair to say, therefore, that this Angus Reid poll clearly shows that the undecideds are breaking for Yes, given that the Yes vote is up 2% and the No vote is static?
2) In your Sunday Times piece last week, you claimed that only one pollster - Panelbase - showed an increase in the Yes vote. In future #pounds4mcdougallgate articles, will you be equally keen to update that observation, and note that both pollsters who have reported most recently agree that the Yes vote has increased?
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 34% (+2)
No 47% (-)
John Curtice's blogpost about the poll essentially bills it as a 'no change' affair. That's arguably a slightly odd analysis given that this is the second successive Angus Reid poll to show a cut in the No lead, which stood a full five points higher at the start of the year. But give Curtice his due - his post is a hell of a lot more justifiable than the 'report' in the rag that actually commissioned the poll, which largely ignores the rather inconvenient headline figures and instead focuses on the "shock" findings that 16% of Scottish residents would "think about" leaving if Alex Salmond achieves his "dream" of "breaking up" the "United" Kingdom. Apparently we should be particularly concerned that Tory voters are most likely to "think about" finding a new haunt, because of all the tax revenues they kindly donate to us less enlightened souls.
"The potential loss of tax revenue would be a disaster for the first government of an independent Scotland, as well triggering a crash in the housing market and leaving the nation with a catastrophic skills gap.
It would also prove a damaging blow to the confidence and credibility of the SNP."
Hmmm. If even Paul Daniels didn't keep his promise to leave these shores in the event of a Labour government, consider me a tad sceptical that one-sixth of the population of Scotland would up and leave in the event of a Yes vote. Even so, it would have been interesting just for balance to discover what percentage of the population of the rest of the UK would "think about" moving to Scotland after independence, to become refugees from London's austerity politics.
Another supplementary finding that the Express seem to consider more important than the headline figures is that "a sovereign Holyrood would be left in charge of around three million people who wish to remain citizens of a foreign nation". Well now, this is odd, because I'm already a citizen of a foreign nation (the United States), and I've no wish to give that citizenship up in the event of independence. In unionist-speak, I suppose this is "a catastrophic blow to the confidence and credibility of the SNP, as a pro-independence daft wee laddie (© Duncan Hothersall) declares that he would want to be a foreigner in a separate Scotland".
To move away from the Express for a moment and back to sanity, what strikes me most about this poll is that it is no longer really the case that Panelbase are the exotic outliers of independence polling. Although Angus Reid are still showing a slightly higher No lead than Panelbase, they're now much closer to Panelbase than to Ipsos-Mori or YouGov (admittedly we haven't had an official YouGov independence poll for almost a year, but it's probably safe to assume their methodology will continue to flatter the No campaign).
Now, a couple of quick questions for Blair McDougall, if he can take a moment away from his firefighting efforts in the wake of the disturbing #pounds4mcdougallgate revelations -
1) When the recent Panelbase poll on referendum voting intentions was released, you claimed in a tweet that the undecideds were "breaking for No", on the grounds that the No vote was up 2% and the Yes vote was up only 1%. Would it be fair to say, therefore, that this Angus Reid poll clearly shows that the undecideds are breaking for Yes, given that the Yes vote is up 2% and the No vote is static?
2) In your Sunday Times piece last week, you claimed that only one pollster - Panelbase - showed an increase in the Yes vote. In future #pounds4mcdougallgate articles, will you be equally keen to update that observation, and note that both pollsters who have reported most recently agree that the Yes vote has increased?
Thursday, August 22, 2013
The No campaign's attitude to victims of crime
Your house is broken into.
In court, the intruder mentions that, while in your house, he saw you take your wig off.
You approach No campaign chief Blair McDougall, fully confident that as a representative of three political parties concerned about law and order, he will be extremely sympathetic.
McDougall says : "Ha ha ha ha! You wear a wig! That's sad. Look everyone, this loser wears a wig! Don't ever speak to him again. HA HA HA HA HA HA!"
In court, the intruder mentions that, while in your house, he saw you take your wig off.
You approach No campaign chief Blair McDougall, fully confident that as a representative of three political parties concerned about law and order, he will be extremely sympathetic.
McDougall says : "Ha ha ha ha! You wear a wig! That's sad. Look everyone, this loser wears a wig! Don't ever speak to him again. HA HA HA HA HA HA!"
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Forget the Neverendum, here comes the No campaign's Neverending Story (ah ah ah, ah ah ah, ah ah ah...)
I've finally got round to listening to the package about the WoS/Panelbase poll that was broadcast on Good Morning Scotland yesterday. Based on what I'd read about it, I was slightly unprepared for the overwhelmingly patronising tone of the exchange between the presenter and Professor John Curtice - there were lots of references to naivety, inexperience, and how the website's agenda had got in the way of the framing of proper questions. Journalists from the mainstream media were completely absolved of any blame for imposing their partisan blackout on coverage of the poll, because they had probably been put off by all this naivety, inexperience, and the leading nature of questions about "surrendering powers" and such-like.
Now hang on a cotton pickin' minute here, guys. I can't be the only person who remembers how YouGov's findings on independence dramatically changed a few years ago when they suddenly altered the wording of the question, almost certainly at the behest of their anti-independence paymasters the Daily Telegraph, to "an independent country completely separate from the rest of the United Kingdom". Did journalists from other outlets impose a blackout on reporting of that poll because it had been so obviously commissioned by "naive and inexperienced" people who had allowed their agenda to get in the way of the framing of proper questions? Did John Curtice point out that the results had less credibility because of the leading nature of the question? No and no, you won't be surprised to hear.
Astonishingly, what we instead saw was Curtice's fellow psephologist Anthony King write an approving piece in the Telegraph itself about how the results actually had more credibility than previous polls, because respondents were too thick to understand what independence meant unless it was spelt out for them that it was all about "separation" (I'm paraphrasing, obviously, but that genuinely was the gist). OK, then, so if it's not only acceptable but actually preferable for pollsters to give respondents pejorative explanations of what the ramifications of a given constitutional option would be, how exactly does that differ from the Panelbase question accurately pointing out that an independent Scotland would have to "surrender" certain powers in order to join the UK?
Or is "surrender" pejorative and "separation" somehow not pejorative? Do psephologists and anti-independence journalists actually believe this guff? To this day, YouGov add a completely unnecessary "explanatory" preamble whenever they ask the referendum question, "clarifying" for respondents that the question they will shortly be asked is all about "leaving the United Kingdom". When is Professor Curtice going to denounce the lack of professionalism inherent in that approach, and point out that it detracts significantly from the credibility of the results?
* * *
When I posted my Twitter exchange with Duncan Hothersall the other day, I forgot to add another one I had a few hours later with the anti-independence campaign's "National Campaign Organiser (Grassroots)", Rob Murray. It was much shorter, but it elicited what is possibly the most barking mad tweet I've ever seen, one that revelled in its own glorious illogicality to such an extent that it was almost a work of art.
Rob Murray : devo would end with Indy. Devo is a journey, 1 which should continue
Me : Independence is the obvious next step on the journey started with devo.
Rob Murray : don't be silly, independence is an end to moving forward where as Devo continues
Me : So what you're saying is that independence is "The End" and devolution is "The Neverending Story"? How sweet.
That was the best I could do given that my brain was hurting from trying to untangle what on earth Murray thought he was talking about (if anything), but Grassy Knollington came up with a better riposte.
Grassy Knollington : Better Together logic. Independence is bad because it stops the process of continuous devolution. #YouGottaLaugh
Now hang on a cotton pickin' minute here, guys. I can't be the only person who remembers how YouGov's findings on independence dramatically changed a few years ago when they suddenly altered the wording of the question, almost certainly at the behest of their anti-independence paymasters the Daily Telegraph, to "an independent country completely separate from the rest of the United Kingdom". Did journalists from other outlets impose a blackout on reporting of that poll because it had been so obviously commissioned by "naive and inexperienced" people who had allowed their agenda to get in the way of the framing of proper questions? Did John Curtice point out that the results had less credibility because of the leading nature of the question? No and no, you won't be surprised to hear.
Astonishingly, what we instead saw was Curtice's fellow psephologist Anthony King write an approving piece in the Telegraph itself about how the results actually had more credibility than previous polls, because respondents were too thick to understand what independence meant unless it was spelt out for them that it was all about "separation" (I'm paraphrasing, obviously, but that genuinely was the gist). OK, then, so if it's not only acceptable but actually preferable for pollsters to give respondents pejorative explanations of what the ramifications of a given constitutional option would be, how exactly does that differ from the Panelbase question accurately pointing out that an independent Scotland would have to "surrender" certain powers in order to join the UK?
Or is "surrender" pejorative and "separation" somehow not pejorative? Do psephologists and anti-independence journalists actually believe this guff? To this day, YouGov add a completely unnecessary "explanatory" preamble whenever they ask the referendum question, "clarifying" for respondents that the question they will shortly be asked is all about "leaving the United Kingdom". When is Professor Curtice going to denounce the lack of professionalism inherent in that approach, and point out that it detracts significantly from the credibility of the results?
* * *
When I posted my Twitter exchange with Duncan Hothersall the other day, I forgot to add another one I had a few hours later with the anti-independence campaign's "National Campaign Organiser (Grassroots)", Rob Murray. It was much shorter, but it elicited what is possibly the most barking mad tweet I've ever seen, one that revelled in its own glorious illogicality to such an extent that it was almost a work of art.
Rob Murray : devo would end with Indy. Devo is a journey, 1 which should continue
Me : Independence is the obvious next step on the journey started with devo.
Rob Murray : don't be silly, independence is an end to moving forward where as Devo continues
Me : So what you're saying is that independence is "The End" and devolution is "The Neverending Story"? How sweet.
That was the best I could do given that my brain was hurting from trying to untangle what on earth Murray thought he was talking about (if anything), but Grassy Knollington came up with a better riposte.
Grassy Knollington : Better Together logic. Independence is bad because it stops the process of continuous devolution. #YouGottaLaugh
Friday, August 16, 2013
The return of the Daily Duncan : the nuclear question that Hothersall couldn't answer
After controversial Labour activist Duncan Hothersall blocked me on Twitter a few weeks ago, I thought the days of being able to repost my exchanges with him were well and truly over. But I'm delighted to say that your deadbeat dooraway Daily Duncan is making an unexpected comeback - albeit possibly for one day only. Enjoy it while it lasts.
For what seemed like the seventeen billionth time, Duncan was trying to explain to a sceptical audience why he, as an avowed opponent of nuclear weapons, is voting against independence and thus passing up a golden chance to actually achieve nuclear disarmament. His excuse was that the moving of weapons is not disarmament. The following exchange starts with me pointing out to him that in practice, independence could bring about disarmament throughout the whole UK, and indeed might well be the only realistic method by which that goal can be achieved.
See if you can spot the bit where he gets so tied up in knots with his knee-jerk attack lines that he comes very close to implying that a Labour government in London might yet annex Faslane, and that this makes them superior to the Tories who have set their face against the idea.
Duncan Hothersall : Only on Twitter could the expression of my vocal opposition to my party's policy be criticised as me protecting a "gravy train". :-(
Me : But what are you actually going to do about that opposition, Duncan? Sit on a prayer-mat for the rest of your natural life?
Duncan Hothersall : No. I'll be arguing for my convictions. What else would you suggest?
Me : Well, for starters taking the one step that might actually result in British nuclear disarmament - independence.
Duncan Hothersall : I don't believe it would. As I have set out at some length.
(At this point he directs me to a blogpost claiming that independence would not mean the end of Trident, and that the most likely outcome would be the lease of Faslane to the UK "for as long as it was required".)
Me : What does "lease" mean? I presume you're not suggesting UK sovereign control, as that's already been rejected by Cameron?
Duncan Hothersall : Oddly, I meant "lease" as in the traditional meaning of the word "lease". Let me know if any of the other words confuse you.
Me : Duncan, this is a very simple question. Does "lease" in the context you used it mean UK sovereign control? Yes or no?
Duncan Hothersall : Lease means a contracted arrangement for use of a site for a period of time under an agreed set of conditions. You know, lease.
Me : Like the 99-year British lease of the Hong Kong New Territories? You know, UK sovereign control? Is that what you mean?
Duncan Hothersall : The terms of the lease would be a matter for the lessee and the lessor. I'm not an expert on leases.
Me : But surely you have an opinion? Should that lease give rUK sovereign control over Faslane, or not?
Duncan Hothersall : My opinion? In my opinion Faslane should be shut down! I'm talking there about what is most likely to happen, not what I want!
Me : Yes, so tell us what you think is most likely to happen in the event of independence - UK sovereign control of Faslane, or not?
Duncan Hothersall : I don't know, James. I think a lease is the most likely outcome, I have no view on its likely terms.
Me : But this is the hypothetical you're basing your whole argument on. Could a lease without sovereign control be credible?
Duncan Hothersall : No, it isn't, and the terms aren't critical.
Me : They are. Cameron has ruled out sovereign control. Harvey says lease without sovereign control couldn't work. Other options?
Duncan Hothersall : So one ex minister is enough to rule something out for you? Honestly.
Me : In your view, is it credible for the UK to base its entire nuclear weapons system on the sovereign territory of another state?
Duncan Hothersall : In my view it's not credible for the UK to have a nuclear weapons system.
Me : Your entire argument rests on you thinking it is credible for UK to base its nukes on Scottish-controlled territory. Do you?
Duncan Hothersall : No, my entire argument does not rest on that. Perhaps you should re-read.
Me : You're unwilling to defend the "lease" argument, then. So if Trident leaves Scotland, where would/could it go?
Duncan Hothersall : I'm not unwilling to defend it. I'm unable to agree with your attempt to undermine it.
Duncan Hothersall : Feel free to comment on the blog if you want to ask a series of questions.
Me : Duncan, this is very simple. Your campaign has put sovereign control off the table. A lease must mean Scottish control - yes?
Duncan Hothersall : Lazy attempt to equate Cameron with No campaign. Check.
Me : No, not just Cameron! Darling as well. You agree with Alistair Darling, surely?
Duncan Hothersall : When did Darling rule out a lease under specific terms?
Me : Darling ruled out UK sovereign control of Faslane. Correct?
Duncan Hothersall : Did he rule out a lease? How long do you want to do this? I'm getting pretty tired of it.
Me : About as long as it takes you to answer a simple question, Duncan. He ruled out UK sovereign control. Do you agree?
Duncan Hothersall : I've been entirely clear. No-one's ruled out a lease. The terms of a lease are undefined. Nothing's off the table.
Me : That is simply not true. Darling, just like Cameron, has taken rUK sovereign control of Faslane off the table. Correct?
Duncan Hothersall : The table hasn't even been built. Nobody is making commitments as to what might happen if there's a Yes vote.
Me : That is a straightforward denial of reality. The leaders of your campaign have excluded the possibility of UK sovereign control.
What I found difficult to understand was why Duncan even bothered trying to dodge the key question in such excruciatingly obvious fashion. There's no doubt - no doubt whatever - that every part of the No campaign has categorically ruled out the possibility of UK sovereign control of Faslane after independence. Duncan therefore has nowhere else to go with his "lease" wheeze other than an arrangement that respects Scottish sovereignty - so why on earth didn't he just say "yes, of course Scotland would retain sovereignty over Faslane, and here are the reasons why such an agreement would work"? Could it be that he just can't conceive of any plausible way of making that case, and thus has to fudge the issue by implying there is some kind of unspecified middle way available that transcends the issue of sovereignty - you know, in much the same way that women can be half-pregnant?
The reality is that UK sovereign control of Faslane isn't a runner because Cameron and Darling have ruled it out, and a lease that falls short of sovereign control isn't a runner because it isn't credible for a nuclear weapons system to be based on the sovereign territory of an anti-nuclear weapons state (which is what Scotland would be, unless of course pro-nuclear Labour were in power at Holyrood - Duncan must be so proud). In other words, Trident would have to leave Scotland after independence, and as there's no alternative base for it south of the border, that could very well lead to the UK relinquishing its nuclear capability altogether - precisely the outcome Duncan is supposed to want. He wills the end, but he also wills the means never to come about.
It's very, very hard to escape the conclusion that Duncan's starting-point is that independence is a Bad Thing, and he then works out how all of his other political beliefs can be reconciled with that starting-point, no matter what contortions of logic (or even of the laws of physics) are required to do so.
For what seemed like the seventeen billionth time, Duncan was trying to explain to a sceptical audience why he, as an avowed opponent of nuclear weapons, is voting against independence and thus passing up a golden chance to actually achieve nuclear disarmament. His excuse was that the moving of weapons is not disarmament. The following exchange starts with me pointing out to him that in practice, independence could bring about disarmament throughout the whole UK, and indeed might well be the only realistic method by which that goal can be achieved.
See if you can spot the bit where he gets so tied up in knots with his knee-jerk attack lines that he comes very close to implying that a Labour government in London might yet annex Faslane, and that this makes them superior to the Tories who have set their face against the idea.
Duncan Hothersall : Only on Twitter could the expression of my vocal opposition to my party's policy be criticised as me protecting a "gravy train". :-(
Me : But what are you actually going to do about that opposition, Duncan? Sit on a prayer-mat for the rest of your natural life?
Duncan Hothersall : No. I'll be arguing for my convictions. What else would you suggest?
Me : Well, for starters taking the one step that might actually result in British nuclear disarmament - independence.
Duncan Hothersall : I don't believe it would. As I have set out at some length.
(At this point he directs me to a blogpost claiming that independence would not mean the end of Trident, and that the most likely outcome would be the lease of Faslane to the UK "for as long as it was required".)
Me : What does "lease" mean? I presume you're not suggesting UK sovereign control, as that's already been rejected by Cameron?
Duncan Hothersall : Oddly, I meant "lease" as in the traditional meaning of the word "lease". Let me know if any of the other words confuse you.
Me : Duncan, this is a very simple question. Does "lease" in the context you used it mean UK sovereign control? Yes or no?
Duncan Hothersall : Lease means a contracted arrangement for use of a site for a period of time under an agreed set of conditions. You know, lease.
Me : Like the 99-year British lease of the Hong Kong New Territories? You know, UK sovereign control? Is that what you mean?
Duncan Hothersall : The terms of the lease would be a matter for the lessee and the lessor. I'm not an expert on leases.
Me : But surely you have an opinion? Should that lease give rUK sovereign control over Faslane, or not?
Duncan Hothersall : My opinion? In my opinion Faslane should be shut down! I'm talking there about what is most likely to happen, not what I want!
Me : Yes, so tell us what you think is most likely to happen in the event of independence - UK sovereign control of Faslane, or not?
Duncan Hothersall : I don't know, James. I think a lease is the most likely outcome, I have no view on its likely terms.
Me : But this is the hypothetical you're basing your whole argument on. Could a lease without sovereign control be credible?
Duncan Hothersall : No, it isn't, and the terms aren't critical.
Me : They are. Cameron has ruled out sovereign control. Harvey says lease without sovereign control couldn't work. Other options?
Duncan Hothersall : So one ex minister is enough to rule something out for you? Honestly.
Me : In your view, is it credible for the UK to base its entire nuclear weapons system on the sovereign territory of another state?
Duncan Hothersall : In my view it's not credible for the UK to have a nuclear weapons system.
Me : Your entire argument rests on you thinking it is credible for UK to base its nukes on Scottish-controlled territory. Do you?
Duncan Hothersall : No, my entire argument does not rest on that. Perhaps you should re-read.
Me : You're unwilling to defend the "lease" argument, then. So if Trident leaves Scotland, where would/could it go?
Duncan Hothersall : I'm not unwilling to defend it. I'm unable to agree with your attempt to undermine it.
Duncan Hothersall : Feel free to comment on the blog if you want to ask a series of questions.
Me : Duncan, this is very simple. Your campaign has put sovereign control off the table. A lease must mean Scottish control - yes?
Duncan Hothersall : Lazy attempt to equate Cameron with No campaign. Check.
Me : No, not just Cameron! Darling as well. You agree with Alistair Darling, surely?
Duncan Hothersall : When did Darling rule out a lease under specific terms?
Me : Darling ruled out UK sovereign control of Faslane. Correct?
Duncan Hothersall : Did he rule out a lease? How long do you want to do this? I'm getting pretty tired of it.
Me : About as long as it takes you to answer a simple question, Duncan. He ruled out UK sovereign control. Do you agree?
Duncan Hothersall : I've been entirely clear. No-one's ruled out a lease. The terms of a lease are undefined. Nothing's off the table.
Me : That is simply not true. Darling, just like Cameron, has taken rUK sovereign control of Faslane off the table. Correct?
Duncan Hothersall : The table hasn't even been built. Nobody is making commitments as to what might happen if there's a Yes vote.
Me : That is a straightforward denial of reality. The leaders of your campaign have excluded the possibility of UK sovereign control.
What I found difficult to understand was why Duncan even bothered trying to dodge the key question in such excruciatingly obvious fashion. There's no doubt - no doubt whatever - that every part of the No campaign has categorically ruled out the possibility of UK sovereign control of Faslane after independence. Duncan therefore has nowhere else to go with his "lease" wheeze other than an arrangement that respects Scottish sovereignty - so why on earth didn't he just say "yes, of course Scotland would retain sovereignty over Faslane, and here are the reasons why such an agreement would work"? Could it be that he just can't conceive of any plausible way of making that case, and thus has to fudge the issue by implying there is some kind of unspecified middle way available that transcends the issue of sovereignty - you know, in much the same way that women can be half-pregnant?
The reality is that UK sovereign control of Faslane isn't a runner because Cameron and Darling have ruled it out, and a lease that falls short of sovereign control isn't a runner because it isn't credible for a nuclear weapons system to be based on the sovereign territory of an anti-nuclear weapons state (which is what Scotland would be, unless of course pro-nuclear Labour were in power at Holyrood - Duncan must be so proud). In other words, Trident would have to leave Scotland after independence, and as there's no alternative base for it south of the border, that could very well lead to the UK relinquishing its nuclear capability altogether - precisely the outcome Duncan is supposed to want. He wills the end, but he also wills the means never to come about.
It's very, very hard to escape the conclusion that Duncan's starting-point is that independence is a Bad Thing, and he then works out how all of his other political beliefs can be reconciled with that starting-point, no matter what contortions of logic (or even of the laws of physics) are required to do so.
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
McDougall veracity-watch
Has someone had a quiet word in the ear of Blair McDougall, and suggested to him that even the Campaign Director of an outfit as cynical as 'Better Together' needs occasionally to look like an actual, grown-up Campaign Director rather than an internet troll? Whatever the reason, Blair was behaving in a suspiciously un-McDougall-like fashion last night on Scotland Tonight, appearing to be the voice of sweetness and reason. You won't be surprised to hear there were still a few points he needs to be picked up on, though -
1) After Blair Jenkins pointed out that the voters who consider themselves to be well-informed are split 50/50 on independence (thus giving hope for what will happen once the rest of the electorate become better-informed, as will inevitably happen as the campaign progresses), McDougall jumped in and said something like "we have to be very careful about blaming voters for being ignorant, if they don't have enough information it's the fault of the campaigns". This was clearly (albeit deniably) intended to imply that Jenkins was saying to voters "you're ignorant and it's all your own fault" - which bears about as much resemblance to what Jenkins was actually saying as a giraffe does to a game of Stratego.
2) After being challenged about the potential adverse effect on his campaign of an impending Tory general election victory, McDougall claimed that public opinion on independence had been "remarkably stable" over the years, irrespective of the party in power at Westminster. The truth of course could hardly be more different - there was a sustained spell a few years back when established pollsters such as YouGov and ICM were showing pro-independence pluralities. Counter-intuitively, that spell coincided with a Labour rather than Tory government at Westminster, although my guess is that it probably had more to do with the public's despair at the feebleness of the Lib/Lab government at Holyrood.
3) McDougall tried to have his cake and eat it by claiming that the referendum isn't about political parties and politicians, but is nevertheless somehow all about Alex Salmond and his nefarious deeds anyway. Small hint, Blair - if a Yes vote is about Alex Salmond, then a No vote is about David Cameron, and keeping him and his ilk in 10 Downing Street. The referendum is about both leaders, or it's about neither. It can't be about one of them and not the other.
1) After Blair Jenkins pointed out that the voters who consider themselves to be well-informed are split 50/50 on independence (thus giving hope for what will happen once the rest of the electorate become better-informed, as will inevitably happen as the campaign progresses), McDougall jumped in and said something like "we have to be very careful about blaming voters for being ignorant, if they don't have enough information it's the fault of the campaigns". This was clearly (albeit deniably) intended to imply that Jenkins was saying to voters "you're ignorant and it's all your own fault" - which bears about as much resemblance to what Jenkins was actually saying as a giraffe does to a game of Stratego.
2) After being challenged about the potential adverse effect on his campaign of an impending Tory general election victory, McDougall claimed that public opinion on independence had been "remarkably stable" over the years, irrespective of the party in power at Westminster. The truth of course could hardly be more different - there was a sustained spell a few years back when established pollsters such as YouGov and ICM were showing pro-independence pluralities. Counter-intuitively, that spell coincided with a Labour rather than Tory government at Westminster, although my guess is that it probably had more to do with the public's despair at the feebleness of the Lib/Lab government at Holyrood.
3) McDougall tried to have his cake and eat it by claiming that the referendum isn't about political parties and politicians, but is nevertheless somehow all about Alex Salmond and his nefarious deeds anyway. Small hint, Blair - if a Yes vote is about Alex Salmond, then a No vote is about David Cameron, and keeping him and his ilk in 10 Downing Street. The referendum is about both leaders, or it's about neither. It can't be about one of them and not the other.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Why Nate Silver is wrong
It's a brave man who uses a headline like that given the accuracy of Silver's predictions in last year's US presidential contest, but nevertheless I am going to confidently take issue with his claims reported in the Scotsman that the Yes side have "almost no chance" in the independence referendum. The main reason is that there are ample signs that his opinion is based on a fairly cursory look at the polling data - by contrast he would never put his neck on the line with a US political prediction without being totally immersed in every available statistic and variable.
1) He claims that the polling evidence is "pretty definitive" in putting the Yes side at 40% (give him his due here, he's at least not making the all-too-common schoolboy error of assuming that Don't Knows can be lumped in with Nos). But this ignores the Panelbase polls, which inconveniently and consistently diverge from the "definitive" pattern. Is Silver even aware of those polls? We don't know, but we do know that Panelbase is a credible polling company that adheres to British Polling Council rules, and we also know that no less a figure than Professor John Curtice has cautioned that for as long as one polling company is diverging from the others, it would be wrong not to at least consider the possibility that they are getting it right and that the others are getting it wrong.
2) He claims that the "No side is even more dominant with younger voters, so there's not going to be any generational thing going on". That's an utterly extraordinary claim given the number of polls - and not just Panelbase polls this time - that have suggested the complete opposite is true. For example, an Ipsos-Mori poll earlier this year showed that no fewer than 58% of 18-24 year olds were planning to vote Yes. Is Silver even aware of polls like that? Or did he just look at the MRUK youth poll that was so widely reported by our impeccably neutral media, and assume that must represent the "definitive" picture?
As Marcia has pointed out in the comments section at Wings, a further problem with Silver's remarks is one that is not specific to Scotland - namely the idea that No campaigns usually gain ground rather than lose it in referendums. (Again, to be fair, he at least doesn't make a prize idiot of himself in the way that Peter Kellner did by pretending that this represents some kind of unbreakable "iron law".) Matt Qvortrup made a similar grandiose claim recently, before backtracking somewhat on Twitter and conceding that the Yes campaign in the Montenegrin independence referendum did indeed gain ground as the campaign progressed - which they needed to do, because they looked likely to fall short of the artificial 55% threshold. But as Marcia has noted, a much better example is the monumental gains that the Yes campaign made over the course of the 1995 Quebec independence referendum campaign. Qvortrup apparently thinks that he can completely dismiss that example because Yes ultimately still lost by a whisker, but that's incredibly woolly thinking from an academic. The salient point is that huge numbers of Quebec voters who initially told pollsters they were planning to vote against independence ultimately walked into a polling station and voted in favour of it - and moreover they did so knowing that there was a severe "risk" that their votes could swing the balance. It was no protest vote.
That was something that simply shouldn't have happened if you believe Silver, Qvortrup and Kellner - so why did it? My guess is that, paradoxically, the more important a referendum is, the less likely voters are to swing to No by default. The supposed tendency that Silver talks about is largely a side-effect of electorates so often being faced with relatively trivial matters in plebiscites. Take the AV referendum, for example - the prevailing attitude among the public seemed to be "I don't give a monkey's about this, it's irritating to even have to think about it, so unless someone can give me a very good reason I'll just vote to keep what we already have". That kind of lazy thinking clearly went out of the window for Quebec voters when they were faced with the most important choice of their lives, and I'm confident it will go out of the window for Scottish voters next year. We will be dealing with an electorate that is engaged like never before - and as recent research has shown, the better informed that voters consider themselves to be, the more likely they are to vote Yes.
1) He claims that the polling evidence is "pretty definitive" in putting the Yes side at 40% (give him his due here, he's at least not making the all-too-common schoolboy error of assuming that Don't Knows can be lumped in with Nos). But this ignores the Panelbase polls, which inconveniently and consistently diverge from the "definitive" pattern. Is Silver even aware of those polls? We don't know, but we do know that Panelbase is a credible polling company that adheres to British Polling Council rules, and we also know that no less a figure than Professor John Curtice has cautioned that for as long as one polling company is diverging from the others, it would be wrong not to at least consider the possibility that they are getting it right and that the others are getting it wrong.
2) He claims that the "No side is even more dominant with younger voters, so there's not going to be any generational thing going on". That's an utterly extraordinary claim given the number of polls - and not just Panelbase polls this time - that have suggested the complete opposite is true. For example, an Ipsos-Mori poll earlier this year showed that no fewer than 58% of 18-24 year olds were planning to vote Yes. Is Silver even aware of polls like that? Or did he just look at the MRUK youth poll that was so widely reported by our impeccably neutral media, and assume that must represent the "definitive" picture?
As Marcia has pointed out in the comments section at Wings, a further problem with Silver's remarks is one that is not specific to Scotland - namely the idea that No campaigns usually gain ground rather than lose it in referendums. (Again, to be fair, he at least doesn't make a prize idiot of himself in the way that Peter Kellner did by pretending that this represents some kind of unbreakable "iron law".) Matt Qvortrup made a similar grandiose claim recently, before backtracking somewhat on Twitter and conceding that the Yes campaign in the Montenegrin independence referendum did indeed gain ground as the campaign progressed - which they needed to do, because they looked likely to fall short of the artificial 55% threshold. But as Marcia has noted, a much better example is the monumental gains that the Yes campaign made over the course of the 1995 Quebec independence referendum campaign. Qvortrup apparently thinks that he can completely dismiss that example because Yes ultimately still lost by a whisker, but that's incredibly woolly thinking from an academic. The salient point is that huge numbers of Quebec voters who initially told pollsters they were planning to vote against independence ultimately walked into a polling station and voted in favour of it - and moreover they did so knowing that there was a severe "risk" that their votes could swing the balance. It was no protest vote.
That was something that simply shouldn't have happened if you believe Silver, Qvortrup and Kellner - so why did it? My guess is that, paradoxically, the more important a referendum is, the less likely voters are to swing to No by default. The supposed tendency that Silver talks about is largely a side-effect of electorates so often being faced with relatively trivial matters in plebiscites. Take the AV referendum, for example - the prevailing attitude among the public seemed to be "I don't give a monkey's about this, it's irritating to even have to think about it, so unless someone can give me a very good reason I'll just vote to keep what we already have". That kind of lazy thinking clearly went out of the window for Quebec voters when they were faced with the most important choice of their lives, and I'm confident it will go out of the window for Scottish voters next year. We will be dealing with an electorate that is engaged like never before - and as recent research has shown, the better informed that voters consider themselves to be, the more likely they are to vote Yes.
Monday, August 12, 2013
David McLetchie
I'm absolutely stunned to discover that David McLetchie has died at such a tragically young age. I think the greatest compliment I can pay him is that he was just about the only senior Scottish Tory you could listen to in the 1990s without knowing instantly which party he belonged to - he came across as remarkably normal, and you could easily have imagined him in any of the main parties.
From memory, he also championed a number of surprisingly progressive causes during his tenure as leader, such as the abolition of tuition fees and free personal care for the elderly.
From memory, he also championed a number of surprisingly progressive causes during his tenure as leader, such as the abolition of tuition fees and free personal care for the elderly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)