Here is Ms Curran's snide attempt to undermine the credibility of Labour for Independence -
"It's nice to meet Allan Grogan because I've been a member of Labour for 38 years and I've never actually met him."
Allan Grogan is, I gather, approximately 30 years old.
Incidentally, this is the same Margaret Curran who batted away an awkward question about Denis Healey's comments on North Sea Oil by claiming that Healey and the 1970s were "before her time". 38 years ago, it was 1976.
Saturday, March 22, 2014
Thursday, March 20, 2014
An independent Scotland beckons, as Yes campaign close the gap to just 5% in spectacular new Panelbase poll
The third Panelbase referendum poll of 2014 has been released in the last few minutes - and not to put too fine a point on it, it's a cracker.
There will be a referendum on an independent Scotland on the 18th of September. How do you intend to vote in response to the question: Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 40% (+3)
No 45% (-2)
With Don't Knows excluded, it works out as -
Yes 47% (+3)
No 53% (-3)
This poll is a landmark moment in practically countless ways. It shows the highest Yes vote to be recorded in any poll conducted by any pollster in referendum year so far. It marks the first time since last summer that Yes have broken through the psychological 40% barrier on the headline figures produced by any pollster (although tellingly the most recent poll from Survation showed Yes edging up to 39%). It shows the lowest No lead to be recorded by any pollster so far this year - and that includes the ICM poll that set the campaign alight back in January.
Most significantly, though, it's the final piece in the jigsaw that confirms beyond any reasonable doubt that the No lead has dipped since September. Until now, Panelbase were the one and only pollster that hadn't found any decrease in the No lead since the publication of the White Paper - which was very unexpected and mysterious given their reputation for producing Yes-friendly results. But now they have finally joined a consensus that even includes the extreme No-friendly outliers Ipsos-Mori. A 5% No lead is well below Panelbase's normal range of 8-13%, and if anything that range should have creeped up rather than down as a result of the recent methodological change. So unless it's an out-and-out rogue poll (which should only happen one time in every twenty) this breakthrough for Yes can't be dismissed as being "margin of error noise".
It's also worth pointing out that these numbers almost (but not quite) represent what American journalists traditionally refer to as a "statistical tie" - meaning a situation in which there is a greater than 5% chance that the side that appears to be in the lead is actually behind, due to the standard margin of error.
Ever since it became apparent that the No lead had fallen by an appreciable amount, I've seen some Yes supporters fretting that the pace of the trend across all pollsters isn't quite sufficient to get us to a 50%+ Yes vote on September 18th. I must say I think that misses the point - any really dramatic changes of opinion, if they occur, are likely to happen during the official campaign period that commences in late May. Look at the overnight Cleggasm, for example, or the SNP's dramatic advance in 2011. Neither of those occurred until voters properly switched on to the choice that lay ahead of them. The significance of a dip in the No lead at this stage is that it demonstrates that the mantra we've heard from unionist journalists and politicians is wrong - public opinion is plainly not set in stone, and if some No voters have been won over already, there is every chance that others will follow if they are exposed to the same arguments over the coming months.
It'll be fascinating to see how (and if) Blair McDougall reacts to this poll. In true Orwellian fashion, the anti-independence camp's embarrassment of a campaign chief treated the last Panelbase poll as an "un-poll" - it simply didn't exist in his eyes, presumably because it was commissioned by the hated SNP. (If you look at his comments about recent polling trends, you'll see they don't make any logical sense unless he is treating the last-but-one Panelbase poll as if it was the most recent one.) Well, this new one was commissioned by Newsnet Scotland, so I wonder if that will be considered better or worse in McDougall-world? He really ought to bear in mind that there's a downside as well as an upside to pretending that bad polls don't exist. Suppose for example that the next Panelbase poll for the Sunday Times shows an 8% No lead - in most people's eyes (and in reality) that would be a 3% increase. But to maintain his cherished fiction, Blair would have to say that the No lead had slumped by 4% since the last Panelbase poll. That would be a rather amusing moment.
* * *
SCOT GOES POP POLL OF POLLS
This update of the Poll of Polls also represents a landmark for the pro-independence campaign, with Yes breaking through the 35% barrier on the headline figures for the first time. The 41.9% Yes vote when Don't Knows are excluded is also the highest recorded so far.
MEAN AVERAGE (not excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 35.1% (+0.4)
No 48.7% (-0.3)
MEAN AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 41.9% (+0.4)
No 58.1% (-0.4)
MEDIAN AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 42.0% (n/c)
No 58.0% (n/c)
(The Poll of Polls is based on a rolling average of the most recent poll from each of the pollsters that have been active in the referendum campaign, and that adhere to British Polling Council rules. At present, there are seven - YouGov, TNS-BMRB, Angus Reid, Survation, Panelbase, Ipsos-Mori and ICM. Whenever a new poll is published, it replaces the last poll from the same company in the sample. Changes in the Poll of Polls are generally glacial in nature due to the fact that only a small portion of the sample is updated each time.)
Of course these figures are significantly influenced (some would say distorted) by the inclusion of extreme No-friendly outliers Ipsos-Mori in the sample. An alternative way of measuring the current state of play is to look at an average of the most recent figures from each of the four online pollsters that have conducted polls so far this year (Panelbase, YouGov, Survation and ICM), and unsurprisingly that shows a tighter race -
MEAN AVERAGE OF ONLINE POLLSTERS (not excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 37.8% (+0.8)
No 48.8% (-0.5)
MEAN AVERAGE OF ONLINE POLLSTERS (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 43.6% (+0.7)
No 56.4% (-0.7)
MEDIAN AVERAGE OF ONLINE POLLSTERS (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 43.9% (+0.4)
No 56.1% (-0.4)
There will be a referendum on an independent Scotland on the 18th of September. How do you intend to vote in response to the question: Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 40% (+3)
No 45% (-2)
With Don't Knows excluded, it works out as -
Yes 47% (+3)
No 53% (-3)
This poll is a landmark moment in practically countless ways. It shows the highest Yes vote to be recorded in any poll conducted by any pollster in referendum year so far. It marks the first time since last summer that Yes have broken through the psychological 40% barrier on the headline figures produced by any pollster (although tellingly the most recent poll from Survation showed Yes edging up to 39%). It shows the lowest No lead to be recorded by any pollster so far this year - and that includes the ICM poll that set the campaign alight back in January.
Most significantly, though, it's the final piece in the jigsaw that confirms beyond any reasonable doubt that the No lead has dipped since September. Until now, Panelbase were the one and only pollster that hadn't found any decrease in the No lead since the publication of the White Paper - which was very unexpected and mysterious given their reputation for producing Yes-friendly results. But now they have finally joined a consensus that even includes the extreme No-friendly outliers Ipsos-Mori. A 5% No lead is well below Panelbase's normal range of 8-13%, and if anything that range should have creeped up rather than down as a result of the recent methodological change. So unless it's an out-and-out rogue poll (which should only happen one time in every twenty) this breakthrough for Yes can't be dismissed as being "margin of error noise".
It's also worth pointing out that these numbers almost (but not quite) represent what American journalists traditionally refer to as a "statistical tie" - meaning a situation in which there is a greater than 5% chance that the side that appears to be in the lead is actually behind, due to the standard margin of error.
Ever since it became apparent that the No lead had fallen by an appreciable amount, I've seen some Yes supporters fretting that the pace of the trend across all pollsters isn't quite sufficient to get us to a 50%+ Yes vote on September 18th. I must say I think that misses the point - any really dramatic changes of opinion, if they occur, are likely to happen during the official campaign period that commences in late May. Look at the overnight Cleggasm, for example, or the SNP's dramatic advance in 2011. Neither of those occurred until voters properly switched on to the choice that lay ahead of them. The significance of a dip in the No lead at this stage is that it demonstrates that the mantra we've heard from unionist journalists and politicians is wrong - public opinion is plainly not set in stone, and if some No voters have been won over already, there is every chance that others will follow if they are exposed to the same arguments over the coming months.
It'll be fascinating to see how (and if) Blair McDougall reacts to this poll. In true Orwellian fashion, the anti-independence camp's embarrassment of a campaign chief treated the last Panelbase poll as an "un-poll" - it simply didn't exist in his eyes, presumably because it was commissioned by the hated SNP. (If you look at his comments about recent polling trends, you'll see they don't make any logical sense unless he is treating the last-but-one Panelbase poll as if it was the most recent one.) Well, this new one was commissioned by Newsnet Scotland, so I wonder if that will be considered better or worse in McDougall-world? He really ought to bear in mind that there's a downside as well as an upside to pretending that bad polls don't exist. Suppose for example that the next Panelbase poll for the Sunday Times shows an 8% No lead - in most people's eyes (and in reality) that would be a 3% increase. But to maintain his cherished fiction, Blair would have to say that the No lead had slumped by 4% since the last Panelbase poll. That would be a rather amusing moment.
* * *
SCOT GOES POP POLL OF POLLS
This update of the Poll of Polls also represents a landmark for the pro-independence campaign, with Yes breaking through the 35% barrier on the headline figures for the first time. The 41.9% Yes vote when Don't Knows are excluded is also the highest recorded so far.
MEAN AVERAGE (not excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 35.1% (+0.4)
No 48.7% (-0.3)
MEAN AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 41.9% (+0.4)
No 58.1% (-0.4)
MEDIAN AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 42.0% (n/c)
No 58.0% (n/c)
(The Poll of Polls is based on a rolling average of the most recent poll from each of the pollsters that have been active in the referendum campaign, and that adhere to British Polling Council rules. At present, there are seven - YouGov, TNS-BMRB, Angus Reid, Survation, Panelbase, Ipsos-Mori and ICM. Whenever a new poll is published, it replaces the last poll from the same company in the sample. Changes in the Poll of Polls are generally glacial in nature due to the fact that only a small portion of the sample is updated each time.)
Of course these figures are significantly influenced (some would say distorted) by the inclusion of extreme No-friendly outliers Ipsos-Mori in the sample. An alternative way of measuring the current state of play is to look at an average of the most recent figures from each of the four online pollsters that have conducted polls so far this year (Panelbase, YouGov, Survation and ICM), and unsurprisingly that shows a tighter race -
MEAN AVERAGE OF ONLINE POLLSTERS (not excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 37.8% (+0.8)
No 48.8% (-0.5)
MEAN AVERAGE OF ONLINE POLLSTERS (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 43.6% (+0.7)
No 56.4% (-0.7)
MEDIAN AVERAGE OF ONLINE POLLSTERS (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 43.9% (+0.4)
No 56.1% (-0.4)
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Wisdom on Wednesday : The reason for asking the question
"Whatever the future holds, research shows that, in 2013, Scots are still more discontented with the balance of powers between Westminster and devolved government than any other sub-state in the European Union."
Professor Murray Pittock of Glasgow University, in his closing remarks for the Roots of Scottish Nationalism series on BBC Radio 4. (It was such an excellent observation that I might even forgive him for the mind-boggling assertion on the same programme that the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament - ie. full blown PR - is a "concession" to proportional representation.)
Professor Murray Pittock of Glasgow University, in his closing remarks for the Roots of Scottish Nationalism series on BBC Radio 4. (It was such an excellent observation that I might even forgive him for the mind-boggling assertion on the same programme that the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament - ie. full blown PR - is a "concession" to proportional representation.)
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
UK "democracy" does Judge John Deed
I know I should be way, way past this point by now, but my jaw dropped to the floor last night when Alex Massie (a man who in all apparent seriousness claims to be an undecided voter in this referendum) attempted to repudiate Lesley Riddoch's seemingly unanswerable argument that the BBC have a duty to subject Labour's vastly over-hyped 'Devo Dwindle' plans to exactly the same level of hostile scrutiny that has been applied to the detailed proposals for independence. Not a bit of it, Massie insisted, for this referendum is like a court case where the burden of proof falls entirely on the proponents of independence. The No campaign shouldn't be expected to defend themselves or even to make their case at all, beyond picking holes in the dastardly separatists' crazy schemes (which is apparently how the media will be spending all their time anyway).
That proposition is so obviously risible that I would have been tempted just to forget all about it, but then I recalled that Massie's language is disturbingly similar to a key segment of Ian Small's response on behalf of BBC Scotland to Professor John Robertson's independent academic study concerning the broadcasters' bias in favour of the No campaign. The awful realisation suddenly hit me that at least some sections of the BBC truly do see their legal obligation to be scrupulously balanced in precisely the way Massie suggests - that they should provide equal airtime for the No campaign to explain why independence is so ghastly, and for the Yes campaign to answer hostile questioning. That's it. If you're expecting the shortcomings of the United Kingdom as presently constituted (ie. the reason we're having the referendum) to be scrutinised in any way, it seems you should forget it - Riddoch was recently told by a researcher for a London-based network BBC show that there wasn't "time" for any of that, and in any case it wasn't as "interesting" for viewers/listeners.
If that's what balanced coverage looks like, then for the purposes of this particular campaign we might as well be living in Turkmenistan.
Where does the courtroom analogy end? Since the Tories will be the incumbents at the next UK general election, are we to take it that the 'burden of proof' should fall entirely on Labour, and that the media would be deeply impertinent to even think about asking David Cameron a searching question or two? And will the judge acquit the Tories and allow them to continue governing unless the electorate delivers a unanimous verdict in favour of Labour? Or will he be generous and consider letting Miliband into Downing Street on the basis of a mere 80%-20% split decision?
* * *
Give the BBC's Norman Smith his due - he very fairly tweeted earlier today that the most recent poll shows the pro-independence campaign riding high on 45% of the vote. Must be something of a shock to him, though, as that certainly isn't what polls conducted by Aberdeen bridalwear companies were showing the last time he ventured north.
Monday, March 17, 2014
Five opinions of Andrew Marr that are not actually Andrew Marr's opinions
"I think it would be quite hard to get back in, I have to say, but let's move on..."
"This is what, the Andrew Marr analysis? Is that an individual expression or is that the expression of the BBC?"
"No, it's not, I've got no views on this, nor does the BBC. I was simply reflecting on what Mr Barroso told us."
"Well you just said what your opinion was."
* * *
"I have to say I think it's far too warm in this room."
"Do you want me to turn the heating down, Andrew? Is that the wish of the BBC as well?"
"Sorry? What? Oh, I see what you mean. You probably thought I said "I think it's far too warm", yeah? But what I actually said was "Eye thinks it's far too warm". I was referring to the opinion of my friend Neena here. "Eye" is my pet name for her, because the name Neena means "beautiful eyes" in Hindi. Please don't worry about it, mate, it's an easy mistake to make!"
* * *
"I have to say I think Ker-plunk is vastly superior to tedious board games of the Stratego ilk."
"Is that your view, Andrew, or the BBC's view?"
"Do you seriously think I and my BBC colleagues have nothing better to do with our time than play Ker-plunk and assess its relative merits as compared to Stratego? Away and stop being so daft. Quite clearly I was using 'I think' in the biblical sense, which roughly approximates to 'meh'."
* * *
"I have to say I think the TMO was entirely wrong to disallow France's last-minute try against Ireland on Saturday."
"Is that your opinion, Andrew, or is it the opinion of the BBC?"
"Opinion? It's not a question of 'opinions'. Information in the form of pixels travelled from a television screen to my visual cortex, whereupon it was instantaneously translated by my brain into a subjective perception that Pascal Papé's pass was probably not forward. I had no control whatever over that process, and nor did the BBC."
* * *
"I have to say I think you look utterly sensational in that blue dress, Imogen."
"Aw, thanks, Andrew."
"For pity's sake, woman! Did you HONESTLY think I was expressing an opinion there? I am but a mere vessel for my genes, which for reasons known only to themselves seem to have an irrational preference for the colour blue. Take it up with evolution, or with whichever intelligent designer you believe in!"
* * *
Marr has form on this, of course. A few months ago, he quizzed Alex Salmond on the possibility of a televised referendum debate with Alistair Darling. Salmond gave his usual reply that he would be quite happy to debate with Darling or with others, but that a debate with Cameron should take place first. Marr ended the interview by saying something like : "I have to say that sounds like a 'No', but we'll leave it there." So the authority of the BBC presenter was used to instruct viewers that plain English did not mean what it appeared to mean, and that a conditional 'Yes' was in fact a 'No'. That example was probably even worse than yesterday's, because Salmond wasn't even permitted a right to reply.
I'm not a regular watcher of the Marr show, so I don't know whether he regularly pulls this stunt on politicians of all persuasions or if he saves it for the SNP only, but either way it just ain't on.
Still, he's probably done us a favour. By necessity, the online BBC article on the controversy contains an official response from the SNP, which quite reasonably states that no complaint will be made as Salmond was able to reply at the time, but that the BBC nevertheless have questions to answer about their overall coverage of the referendum campaign in the light of recent academic research. There's a touch of poetic justice in this - if the broadcasters hadn't attempted to throw a smothering blanket of silence over the University of the West Scotland study when it was initially released, it probably wouldn't have become as well-known as it now is. Professor John Robertson is well on his way to becoming a minor celebrity.
"This is what, the Andrew Marr analysis? Is that an individual expression or is that the expression of the BBC?"
"No, it's not, I've got no views on this, nor does the BBC. I was simply reflecting on what Mr Barroso told us."
"Well you just said what your opinion was."
* * *
"I have to say I think it's far too warm in this room."
"Do you want me to turn the heating down, Andrew? Is that the wish of the BBC as well?"
"Sorry? What? Oh, I see what you mean. You probably thought I said "I think it's far too warm", yeah? But what I actually said was "Eye thinks it's far too warm". I was referring to the opinion of my friend Neena here. "Eye" is my pet name for her, because the name Neena means "beautiful eyes" in Hindi. Please don't worry about it, mate, it's an easy mistake to make!"
* * *
"I have to say I think Ker-plunk is vastly superior to tedious board games of the Stratego ilk."
"Is that your view, Andrew, or the BBC's view?"
"Do you seriously think I and my BBC colleagues have nothing better to do with our time than play Ker-plunk and assess its relative merits as compared to Stratego? Away and stop being so daft. Quite clearly I was using 'I think' in the biblical sense, which roughly approximates to 'meh'."
* * *
"I have to say I think the TMO was entirely wrong to disallow France's last-minute try against Ireland on Saturday."
"Is that your opinion, Andrew, or is it the opinion of the BBC?"
"Opinion? It's not a question of 'opinions'. Information in the form of pixels travelled from a television screen to my visual cortex, whereupon it was instantaneously translated by my brain into a subjective perception that Pascal Papé's pass was probably not forward. I had no control whatever over that process, and nor did the BBC."
* * *
"I have to say I think you look utterly sensational in that blue dress, Imogen."
"Aw, thanks, Andrew."
"For pity's sake, woman! Did you HONESTLY think I was expressing an opinion there? I am but a mere vessel for my genes, which for reasons known only to themselves seem to have an irrational preference for the colour blue. Take it up with evolution, or with whichever intelligent designer you believe in!"
* * *
Marr has form on this, of course. A few months ago, he quizzed Alex Salmond on the possibility of a televised referendum debate with Alistair Darling. Salmond gave his usual reply that he would be quite happy to debate with Darling or with others, but that a debate with Cameron should take place first. Marr ended the interview by saying something like : "I have to say that sounds like a 'No', but we'll leave it there." So the authority of the BBC presenter was used to instruct viewers that plain English did not mean what it appeared to mean, and that a conditional 'Yes' was in fact a 'No'. That example was probably even worse than yesterday's, because Salmond wasn't even permitted a right to reply.
I'm not a regular watcher of the Marr show, so I don't know whether he regularly pulls this stunt on politicians of all persuasions or if he saves it for the SNP only, but either way it just ain't on.
Still, he's probably done us a favour. By necessity, the online BBC article on the controversy contains an official response from the SNP, which quite reasonably states that no complaint will be made as Salmond was able to reply at the time, but that the BBC nevertheless have questions to answer about their overall coverage of the referendum campaign in the light of recent academic research. There's a touch of poetic justice in this - if the broadcasters hadn't attempted to throw a smothering blanket of silence over the University of the West Scotland study when it was initially released, it probably wouldn't have become as well-known as it now is. Professor John Robertson is well on his way to becoming a minor celebrity.
Sunday, March 16, 2014
The numbers you are about to see are a CARICATURE. Please stop OTHERING.
ComRes have conducted a new poll of European election voting intentions, showing that UKIP hold a narrow lead across Great Britain as a whole. But here is the level of support for Nigel Farage's party by region -
South-east of England : 29%
English Midlands : 39%
North of England : 31%
Wales & South-west of England : 36%
Scotland : 6%
Now, if it's not immediately apparent to you why these figures mean that public opinion in Scotland is in fact virtually identical to public opinion in the rest of the UK, I gather that ultra-Blairite commentator David Aaronovitch will be on hand to explain later. Don't worry - he's used to dealing with people who are even stupider than you.
As I've said before, I think the idea that a GB-wide UKIP victory will assist the pro-independence campaign is probably misguided. The main effect would be a temporary boost in UKIP's opinion poll ratings for Westminster, largely at the expense of the Tories rather than Labour. This would mask the fact that David Cameron is comfortably heading for re-election next year, and that independence is the only way to protect Scotland from the Bullingdon Boys. In truth, the nightmare result in May for the No campaign would be the Tories in first place and UKIP in second. I don't expect that to happen, although on an ultra-low turnout anything is possible.
What we can start to be a bit more optimistic about, though, is the result of the European elections in Scotland itself. Here are the full results of the ComRes Scottish subsample -
SNP 39%
Labour 19%
Conservatives 13%
Liberal Democrats 12%
Greens 8%
UKIP 6%
Those numbers need to be taken with a huge dose of salt, as they're based on a tiny sample size and are not properly weighted. All the same, they represent an intriguing straw in the wind, particularly as they're eerily similar to the results of ICM's full-scale European voting intention poll a few weeks ago (which I must admit seemed a bit too good to be true at the time). It's absolutely vital that the SNP go into the referendum campaign with momentum from having won the popular vote in the European elections - the seat breakdown is less important in my view, although it would obviously be fantastic if they could finally claim that elusive third seat.
Incidentally, the SNP also hold a narrow lead in Westminster voting intentions in the Scottish subsample -
SNP 35%
Labour 32%
Conservatives 20%
Liberal Democrats 7%
Greens 3%
UKIP 3%
Again, these numbers are subject to a huge margin of error. But I do find it interesting that they were produced by ComRes, a pollster that only conducts polls once every few weeks (this is their fifth of the year). By contrast, YouGov conduct a poll almost every day, and yet as far as I'm aware their Scottish subsample has only shown the SNP in a clear lead once this year. It really does call into question the weighting procedure that YouGov apply to Scottish respondents in their GB-wide polls. Day in, day out, the people who identify the SNP as 'their party' are downweighted in YouGov's results to a significant degree. As an example, here are the last few polls available in the YouGov archives -
12th/13th March - 67 SNP/Plaid Cymru identifiers downweighted to 36
11th/12th March - 63 SNP/Plaid Cymru identifiers downweighted to 36
10th/11th March - 62 SNP/Plaid Cymru identifiers downweighted to 35
9th/10th March - 86 SNP/Plaid Cymru identifiers downweighted to 54
6th/7th March - 58 SNP/Plaid Cymru identifiers downweighted to 34
It's true that YouGov usually have to downweight their Scottish sample as a whole, but that doesn't account for anything close to all of the discrepancy. The lesson I draw is that it's perfectly possible that Survation's last two full-scale Scottish polls are correct, and that the number of people who are currently planning to vote SNP in next year's UK general election is much higher than YouGov's daily polls would typically lead us to believe. (That said, the SNP were on 33% in the YouGov subsample on Friday, just 1% behind Labour!)
South-east of England : 29%
English Midlands : 39%
North of England : 31%
Wales & South-west of England : 36%
Scotland : 6%
Now, if it's not immediately apparent to you why these figures mean that public opinion in Scotland is in fact virtually identical to public opinion in the rest of the UK, I gather that ultra-Blairite commentator David Aaronovitch will be on hand to explain later. Don't worry - he's used to dealing with people who are even stupider than you.
As I've said before, I think the idea that a GB-wide UKIP victory will assist the pro-independence campaign is probably misguided. The main effect would be a temporary boost in UKIP's opinion poll ratings for Westminster, largely at the expense of the Tories rather than Labour. This would mask the fact that David Cameron is comfortably heading for re-election next year, and that independence is the only way to protect Scotland from the Bullingdon Boys. In truth, the nightmare result in May for the No campaign would be the Tories in first place and UKIP in second. I don't expect that to happen, although on an ultra-low turnout anything is possible.
What we can start to be a bit more optimistic about, though, is the result of the European elections in Scotland itself. Here are the full results of the ComRes Scottish subsample -
SNP 39%
Labour 19%
Conservatives 13%
Liberal Democrats 12%
Greens 8%
UKIP 6%
Those numbers need to be taken with a huge dose of salt, as they're based on a tiny sample size and are not properly weighted. All the same, they represent an intriguing straw in the wind, particularly as they're eerily similar to the results of ICM's full-scale European voting intention poll a few weeks ago (which I must admit seemed a bit too good to be true at the time). It's absolutely vital that the SNP go into the referendum campaign with momentum from having won the popular vote in the European elections - the seat breakdown is less important in my view, although it would obviously be fantastic if they could finally claim that elusive third seat.
Incidentally, the SNP also hold a narrow lead in Westminster voting intentions in the Scottish subsample -
SNP 35%
Labour 32%
Conservatives 20%
Liberal Democrats 7%
Greens 3%
UKIP 3%
Again, these numbers are subject to a huge margin of error. But I do find it interesting that they were produced by ComRes, a pollster that only conducts polls once every few weeks (this is their fifth of the year). By contrast, YouGov conduct a poll almost every day, and yet as far as I'm aware their Scottish subsample has only shown the SNP in a clear lead once this year. It really does call into question the weighting procedure that YouGov apply to Scottish respondents in their GB-wide polls. Day in, day out, the people who identify the SNP as 'their party' are downweighted in YouGov's results to a significant degree. As an example, here are the last few polls available in the YouGov archives -
12th/13th March - 67 SNP/Plaid Cymru identifiers downweighted to 36
11th/12th March - 63 SNP/Plaid Cymru identifiers downweighted to 36
10th/11th March - 62 SNP/Plaid Cymru identifiers downweighted to 35
9th/10th March - 86 SNP/Plaid Cymru identifiers downweighted to 54
6th/7th March - 58 SNP/Plaid Cymru identifiers downweighted to 34
It's true that YouGov usually have to downweight their Scottish sample as a whole, but that doesn't account for anything close to all of the discrepancy. The lesson I draw is that it's perfectly possible that Survation's last two full-scale Scottish polls are correct, and that the number of people who are currently planning to vote SNP in next year's UK general election is much higher than YouGov's daily polls would typically lead us to believe. (That said, the SNP were on 33% in the YouGov subsample on Friday, just 1% behind Labour!)
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Hammerblow for McDougall's crazy obsession with maintaining Tory rule from London, as support for independence rises to its highest level of referendum year so far
There have been a number of encouraging polls for the pro-independence campaign this year, but there were two in particular that stood out - the ICM poll in January showing the No lead fall from 17 points to 7, and the Survation poll last month showing the No lead drop from 20 points to 9. The ICM poll was followed up by a poll from the same company showing a reversion to the mean (although a look at the actual unrounded figures later revealed that Yes had retained most of its gains - in the January poll the No lead had fallen from 17 points to 6.4, and in February it had only recovered to 11.3). It must be a matter of great concern to Blair McDougall and the anti-independence campaign that the same thing has failed to happen with Survation - the new poll today suggests that the No lead hasn't recovered at all from its slump to nine points, which dramatically reduces the chances that last month's figures were artificially high for Yes due to normal sampling variation.
In the referendum, voters will be asked, “Should Scotland be an independent country". If this referendum were held today, do you think you would vote "Yes” or "No"?
Yes 39% (+1)
No 48% (+1)
The headline figure for Yes is the highest that any pollster has shown thus far in referendum year. In terms of the trend, this poll is strikingly similar to the most recent YouGov poll, which put both Yes and No up by one point, taking Yes to its highest level of support of the campaign to date. That's a pattern that will typically favour Yes more, because a static headline lead as the number of undecideds decline is generally an indication that the underlying No lead is slipping back. On this particular occasion, the movement hasn't been sufficient to tip the balance on the rounded figures, with the No lead remaining at 10 points when Don't Knows are excluded (although on the unrounded figures the Yes vote has increased from 44.8% to 45.2%, meaning that the No lead has in reality declined by just under 1%).
Yes 45% (n/c)
No 55% (n/c)
These numbers are particularly timely in that they help to put last week's outlying Ipsos-Mori poll in its proper perspective. STV's spin on that poll, suggesting that it proved George Osborne's bullying tactics over the currency had "worked", has been shown up as the utter garbage that observers of the polling landscape always knew that it was. The true picture has been one of significant gains for the Yes campaign between September of last year and January of this year (with the No lead on this blog's Poll of Polls slipping from approximately 20% to 14%), followed by consolidation in the period to March. Osborne's intervention has failed to make even the slightest dent in that consolidation, and as John Curtice points out today, that remains the case even though voters have now had plenty of time to digest the significance of the developments on the currency, and are no longer simply lashing out emotionally against Westminster arrogance.
Indeed, Ipsos-Mori themselves have broadly corroborated the trend - they showed the No lead slumping in the wake of the publication of the White Paper by some 5%, of which the unrounded figures of last week's poll suggest that barely over 1% has been clawed back (something which is highly likely to be due to sampling variation). That good news story for Yes was masked by the fact that Ipsos-Mori's methodology continues to generate a much, much higher lead for No than other pollsters.
Which brings me neatly to another crucial point about how we should be interpreting the online polls we've seen since January. While the trend is obviously important, what we should also be looking out for in each new poll are clues that will help us resolve the mystery of the true state of play. It's all very well observing that Yes have either closed the gap or failed to close the gap, but any such observation self-evidently has a very different meaning depending on how big or small we think the gap was in the first place. We'd obviously be considerably more optimistic about the Yes campaign's chances of overturning a ten-point deficit over the course of the official campaign period than we would be about their chances of overcoming the 25-point deficit that Ipsos-Mori are uniquely suggesting. And that's the thing - the polls from ICM and Survation this year have essentially tipped the balance, and made it look much more likely that the true gap is closer to ten points. Until just a few short weeks ago, Panelbase were very much the outliers in showing a modest gap, and it was easy to sneeringly dismiss their figures (as so many unionist commentators did) due to the fact that they were less experienced than No-friendly pollsters such as YouGov. But now two other online pollsters have joined them in showing near enough identical numbers - and one of those just happens to be the UK's so-called "gold standard" pollster. ICM's last two polls have shown No leads of 7% and 12% (or closer to 6% and 11% if you look at the unrounded data), while Survation's last two polls have both shown a No lead of 9%. Panelbase's figures now look positively mainstream, while Ipsos-Mori have increasingly stuck out like a sore thumb on the extreme end of the spectrum.
YouGov remain the odd ones out among the online pollsters in that they continue to show a somewhat bigger No lead, but even they have drifted away from Ipsos-Mori and are now in a more middling position. The fact that they have failed to fully converge with their online cousins ICM, Survation and Panelbase may be at least partly due to their eccentric weighting procedure. Although they finally gave in to sanity back in September and started to weight by recalled Holyrood vote rather than by Westminster party identification, they now split voters who recall voting SNP in 2011 into two distinct categories - "SNP" and "SNP, but Labour in 2010". That may sound fair enough, given that it's reasonable to assume that there may be significant differences between those two groups. But the snag is that the "SNP, but Labour in 2010" group clearly isn't intended to include (as you'd be forgiven for expecting) all respondents who voted Labour in 2010 but switched to the SNP in 2011. We know that because the SNP are weighted to have an advantage over Labour even without that group. So on what basis are some Labour-to-SNP switchers being assigned to the regular "SNP" group, while others are assigned more logically to the "SNP, but Labour in 2010" category? To the best of my knowledge, YouGov have failed to provide any explanation, and the fact that they always seem to significantly upweight the responses of the arbitrarily-defined "SNP, but Labour in 2010" group is bound to raise a few suspicions that something fishy is going on.
It's most likely to be something to do with our old friend False 2010 Recall. My guess is that even YouGov now accept that a large number of people who say they voted SNP in 2010 did not actually do so, and are taking that into account by effectively weighting to an imaginary 2010 result in which the SNP did somewhat better. The problem is that they're probably not making a big enough adjustment, as evidenced by the fact that they still can't find enough Labour-to-SNP switchers in their raw figures, and have to persistently upweight the ones that they do have (who may well not be representative in terms of referendum voting intention - again, we don't know for sure because YouGov don't provide those figures).
To return to today's Survation poll, there are also voting intention figures for Holyrood and Westminster. The good news is that the Holyrood constituency figures are broadly in line with Ipsos-Mori, which suggests that Survation's better figures for Yes can't be explained away by them having a "Nat-heavy sample". As I've suggested before, one of the few potential explanations I can think of is that Ipsos-Mori are for some reason interviewing different types of SNP and Labour voters, who are perhaps more conservative with a small 'c'.
Holyrood constituency ballot :
SNP 45% (+1)
Labour 34% (+3)
Conservatives 13% (n/c)
Liberal Democrats 5% (-1)
Holyrood regional list ballot :
SNP 40% (-1)
Labour 28% (n/c)
Conservatives 11% (-2)
Greens 8% (+5)
Liberal Democrats 7% (-1)
UKIP 5% (+2)
Westminster general election :
SNP 38% (n/c)
Labour 36% (+3)
Conservatives 15% (-2)
Liberal Democrats 5% (-1)
It's interesting to ponder whether Labour should be concerned about being behind even on Westminster voting intention. In many ways, these figures mirror what was going on at this stage in the electoral cycle (or possibly slightly earlier) last time round, and of course Labour were able to recover in time for the general election with the assistance of the rigged TV leaders' debates which wholly excluded the SNP. However, much will depend on the outcome of the referendum - if it's a Yes I would expect voters to rally behind the SNP in unprecedented numbers to strengthen Scotland's negotiating hand.
Survation have changed their methodology on the Holyrood regional list question to make it much easier for respondents to express a preference for one of the smaller parties, so the changes there may be largely illusory.
* * *
SCOT GOES POP POLL OF POLLS
For obvious reasons there's not a huge amount of change in this update of the Poll of Polls, although the No lead has fallen a smidgeon when Don't Knows are excluded. On the headline numbers, Yes has nudged back to within 0.2% of its high watermark in the campaign to date.
MEAN AVERAGE (not excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 34.7% (+0.1)
No 49.0% (+0.1)
MEAN AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 41.5% (+0.1)
No 58.5% (-0.1)
MEDIAN AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 42.0% (n/c)
No 58.0% (n/c)
(The Poll of Polls is based on a rolling average of the most recent poll from each of the pollsters that have been active in the referendum campaign, and that adhere to British Polling Council rules. At present, there are seven - Angus Reid, YouGov, TNS-BMRB, Survation, Panelbase, Ipsos-Mori and ICM. Whenever a new poll is published, it replaces the last poll from the same company in the sample. Changes in the Poll of Polls are generally glacial in nature due to the fact that only a small portion of the sample is updated each time.)
As hinted at earlier, online polling is producing distinctive (and on the whole more Yes-friendly) results in this campaign. That could conceivably be because online pollsters use volunteer panels who may not be entirely representative of the general population, although weighting procedures are in place to deal with that issue. The explanation is much more likely to be that respondents feel less inhibited when faced with a computer screen, thus overcoming the problem of 'shy Yes syndrome' - and if so, it's possible that online polling is producing the most accurate results. So I thought it might be interesting to have a look at the average for online pollsters only. To make it fairer, I'll exclude Angus Reid (who haven't reported since last summer), and I'll include YouGov in spite of concerns over their No-friendly methodology.
MEAN AVERAGE OF ONLINE POLLSTERS (not excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 37.0%
No 49.3%
MEAN AVERAGE OF ONLINE POLLSTERS (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 42.9%
No 57.1%
MEDIAN AVERAGE OF ONLINE POLLSTERS (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 43.5%
No 56.5%
Not a gargantuan difference, but it certainly does look healthier for Yes on that measure.
* * *
UPDATE : I've altered an earlier part of this post to reflect the fact that Survation are actually showing that the No lead has declined by 0.8% on the unrounded figures, after Don't Knows are excluded. I was looking at the wrong table earlier - the correct one is filtered by likelihood to vote.
Yes 45.2% (+0.4)
No 54.8% (-0.4)
On the headline numbers including Don't Knows, the No lead has fallen from 8.9% to 8.3%.
Yes 39.3% (+1.6)
No 47.6% (+1.0)
* * *
UPDATE II : For once, the prize for daftest comment on this poll goes not to Blair McDougall, but to Michael Marra of the 'Five Million Questions' project -
"The hill for the Yes campaign to climb remains considerable. Everyone who is currently undecided has to make the leap to independence. Winning from here for Alex Salmond would be an astonishing achievement."
Which would be a truly fabulous point if it wasn't for the inconvenient fact that we have plentiful polling evidence to suggest that a substantial minority of people who currently say they will vote either Yes or No are open to changing their minds before polling day. Indeed the clue is in the question that Survation ask - "do you think you would vote Yes or No?" The idea that the No campaign somehow have 47.6% of the vote already "in the bank", and that the hopes of Yes rest totally on winning over almost all of the Don't Knows, is ludicrous beyond words.
If the Yes campaign win, they'll do it by a combination of winning over the majority (but not necessarily an overwhelming majority) of Don't Knows, and peeling off soft No voters. I would have thought that point was self-evident, but apparently it does need to be pointed out to some. Not quite such a mountain to climb when you look at it that way, is it?
In the referendum, voters will be asked, “Should Scotland be an independent country". If this referendum were held today, do you think you would vote "Yes” or "No"?
Yes 39% (+1)
No 48% (+1)
The headline figure for Yes is the highest that any pollster has shown thus far in referendum year. In terms of the trend, this poll is strikingly similar to the most recent YouGov poll, which put both Yes and No up by one point, taking Yes to its highest level of support of the campaign to date. That's a pattern that will typically favour Yes more, because a static headline lead as the number of undecideds decline is generally an indication that the underlying No lead is slipping back. On this particular occasion, the movement hasn't been sufficient to tip the balance on the rounded figures, with the No lead remaining at 10 points when Don't Knows are excluded (although on the unrounded figures the Yes vote has increased from 44.8% to 45.2%, meaning that the No lead has in reality declined by just under 1%).
Yes 45% (n/c)
No 55% (n/c)
These numbers are particularly timely in that they help to put last week's outlying Ipsos-Mori poll in its proper perspective. STV's spin on that poll, suggesting that it proved George Osborne's bullying tactics over the currency had "worked", has been shown up as the utter garbage that observers of the polling landscape always knew that it was. The true picture has been one of significant gains for the Yes campaign between September of last year and January of this year (with the No lead on this blog's Poll of Polls slipping from approximately 20% to 14%), followed by consolidation in the period to March. Osborne's intervention has failed to make even the slightest dent in that consolidation, and as John Curtice points out today, that remains the case even though voters have now had plenty of time to digest the significance of the developments on the currency, and are no longer simply lashing out emotionally against Westminster arrogance.
Indeed, Ipsos-Mori themselves have broadly corroborated the trend - they showed the No lead slumping in the wake of the publication of the White Paper by some 5%, of which the unrounded figures of last week's poll suggest that barely over 1% has been clawed back (something which is highly likely to be due to sampling variation). That good news story for Yes was masked by the fact that Ipsos-Mori's methodology continues to generate a much, much higher lead for No than other pollsters.
Which brings me neatly to another crucial point about how we should be interpreting the online polls we've seen since January. While the trend is obviously important, what we should also be looking out for in each new poll are clues that will help us resolve the mystery of the true state of play. It's all very well observing that Yes have either closed the gap or failed to close the gap, but any such observation self-evidently has a very different meaning depending on how big or small we think the gap was in the first place. We'd obviously be considerably more optimistic about the Yes campaign's chances of overturning a ten-point deficit over the course of the official campaign period than we would be about their chances of overcoming the 25-point deficit that Ipsos-Mori are uniquely suggesting. And that's the thing - the polls from ICM and Survation this year have essentially tipped the balance, and made it look much more likely that the true gap is closer to ten points. Until just a few short weeks ago, Panelbase were very much the outliers in showing a modest gap, and it was easy to sneeringly dismiss their figures (as so many unionist commentators did) due to the fact that they were less experienced than No-friendly pollsters such as YouGov. But now two other online pollsters have joined them in showing near enough identical numbers - and one of those just happens to be the UK's so-called "gold standard" pollster. ICM's last two polls have shown No leads of 7% and 12% (or closer to 6% and 11% if you look at the unrounded data), while Survation's last two polls have both shown a No lead of 9%. Panelbase's figures now look positively mainstream, while Ipsos-Mori have increasingly stuck out like a sore thumb on the extreme end of the spectrum.
YouGov remain the odd ones out among the online pollsters in that they continue to show a somewhat bigger No lead, but even they have drifted away from Ipsos-Mori and are now in a more middling position. The fact that they have failed to fully converge with their online cousins ICM, Survation and Panelbase may be at least partly due to their eccentric weighting procedure. Although they finally gave in to sanity back in September and started to weight by recalled Holyrood vote rather than by Westminster party identification, they now split voters who recall voting SNP in 2011 into two distinct categories - "SNP" and "SNP, but Labour in 2010". That may sound fair enough, given that it's reasonable to assume that there may be significant differences between those two groups. But the snag is that the "SNP, but Labour in 2010" group clearly isn't intended to include (as you'd be forgiven for expecting) all respondents who voted Labour in 2010 but switched to the SNP in 2011. We know that because the SNP are weighted to have an advantage over Labour even without that group. So on what basis are some Labour-to-SNP switchers being assigned to the regular "SNP" group, while others are assigned more logically to the "SNP, but Labour in 2010" category? To the best of my knowledge, YouGov have failed to provide any explanation, and the fact that they always seem to significantly upweight the responses of the arbitrarily-defined "SNP, but Labour in 2010" group is bound to raise a few suspicions that something fishy is going on.
It's most likely to be something to do with our old friend False 2010 Recall. My guess is that even YouGov now accept that a large number of people who say they voted SNP in 2010 did not actually do so, and are taking that into account by effectively weighting to an imaginary 2010 result in which the SNP did somewhat better. The problem is that they're probably not making a big enough adjustment, as evidenced by the fact that they still can't find enough Labour-to-SNP switchers in their raw figures, and have to persistently upweight the ones that they do have (who may well not be representative in terms of referendum voting intention - again, we don't know for sure because YouGov don't provide those figures).
To return to today's Survation poll, there are also voting intention figures for Holyrood and Westminster. The good news is that the Holyrood constituency figures are broadly in line with Ipsos-Mori, which suggests that Survation's better figures for Yes can't be explained away by them having a "Nat-heavy sample". As I've suggested before, one of the few potential explanations I can think of is that Ipsos-Mori are for some reason interviewing different types of SNP and Labour voters, who are perhaps more conservative with a small 'c'.
Holyrood constituency ballot :
SNP 45% (+1)
Labour 34% (+3)
Conservatives 13% (n/c)
Liberal Democrats 5% (-1)
Holyrood regional list ballot :
SNP 40% (-1)
Labour 28% (n/c)
Conservatives 11% (-2)
Greens 8% (+5)
Liberal Democrats 7% (-1)
UKIP 5% (+2)
Westminster general election :
SNP 38% (n/c)
Labour 36% (+3)
Conservatives 15% (-2)
Liberal Democrats 5% (-1)
It's interesting to ponder whether Labour should be concerned about being behind even on Westminster voting intention. In many ways, these figures mirror what was going on at this stage in the electoral cycle (or possibly slightly earlier) last time round, and of course Labour were able to recover in time for the general election with the assistance of the rigged TV leaders' debates which wholly excluded the SNP. However, much will depend on the outcome of the referendum - if it's a Yes I would expect voters to rally behind the SNP in unprecedented numbers to strengthen Scotland's negotiating hand.
Survation have changed their methodology on the Holyrood regional list question to make it much easier for respondents to express a preference for one of the smaller parties, so the changes there may be largely illusory.
* * *
SCOT GOES POP POLL OF POLLS
For obvious reasons there's not a huge amount of change in this update of the Poll of Polls, although the No lead has fallen a smidgeon when Don't Knows are excluded. On the headline numbers, Yes has nudged back to within 0.2% of its high watermark in the campaign to date.
MEAN AVERAGE (not excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 34.7% (+0.1)
No 49.0% (+0.1)
MEAN AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 41.5% (+0.1)
No 58.5% (-0.1)
MEDIAN AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 42.0% (n/c)
No 58.0% (n/c)
(The Poll of Polls is based on a rolling average of the most recent poll from each of the pollsters that have been active in the referendum campaign, and that adhere to British Polling Council rules. At present, there are seven - Angus Reid, YouGov, TNS-BMRB, Survation, Panelbase, Ipsos-Mori and ICM. Whenever a new poll is published, it replaces the last poll from the same company in the sample. Changes in the Poll of Polls are generally glacial in nature due to the fact that only a small portion of the sample is updated each time.)
As hinted at earlier, online polling is producing distinctive (and on the whole more Yes-friendly) results in this campaign. That could conceivably be because online pollsters use volunteer panels who may not be entirely representative of the general population, although weighting procedures are in place to deal with that issue. The explanation is much more likely to be that respondents feel less inhibited when faced with a computer screen, thus overcoming the problem of 'shy Yes syndrome' - and if so, it's possible that online polling is producing the most accurate results. So I thought it might be interesting to have a look at the average for online pollsters only. To make it fairer, I'll exclude Angus Reid (who haven't reported since last summer), and I'll include YouGov in spite of concerns over their No-friendly methodology.
MEAN AVERAGE OF ONLINE POLLSTERS (not excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 37.0%
No 49.3%
MEAN AVERAGE OF ONLINE POLLSTERS (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 42.9%
No 57.1%
MEDIAN AVERAGE OF ONLINE POLLSTERS (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 43.5%
No 56.5%
Not a gargantuan difference, but it certainly does look healthier for Yes on that measure.
* * *
UPDATE : I've altered an earlier part of this post to reflect the fact that Survation are actually showing that the No lead has declined by 0.8% on the unrounded figures, after Don't Knows are excluded. I was looking at the wrong table earlier - the correct one is filtered by likelihood to vote.
Yes 45.2% (+0.4)
No 54.8% (-0.4)
On the headline numbers including Don't Knows, the No lead has fallen from 8.9% to 8.3%.
Yes 39.3% (+1.6)
No 47.6% (+1.0)
* * *
UPDATE II : For once, the prize for daftest comment on this poll goes not to Blair McDougall, but to Michael Marra of the 'Five Million Questions' project -
"The hill for the Yes campaign to climb remains considerable. Everyone who is currently undecided has to make the leap to independence. Winning from here for Alex Salmond would be an astonishing achievement."
Which would be a truly fabulous point if it wasn't for the inconvenient fact that we have plentiful polling evidence to suggest that a substantial minority of people who currently say they will vote either Yes or No are open to changing their minds before polling day. Indeed the clue is in the question that Survation ask - "do you think you would vote Yes or No?" The idea that the No campaign somehow have 47.6% of the vote already "in the bank", and that the hopes of Yes rest totally on winning over almost all of the Don't Knows, is ludicrous beyond words.
If the Yes campaign win, they'll do it by a combination of winning over the majority (but not necessarily an overwhelming majority) of Don't Knows, and peeling off soft No voters. I would have thought that point was self-evident, but apparently it does need to be pointed out to some. Not quite such a mountain to climb when you look at it that way, is it?
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Wisdom on Wednesday : No-one forced the MoD to put all their eggs in one basket
"The Americans were much more sensible. When they set up house in the Holy Loch they brought most of their own infrastructure with them in the shape of a moored tender, a decision which had more to do with common sense than any cent-pinching in Washington. At the time of the deployment in the 1960s the Americans were far from certain that their British hosts would always be onside, a sensible precaution since it seemed to them that an incoming Labour government would adopt a policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament."
Trevor Royle, writing in the Sunday Herald in 1999, pointing out that it would have been perfectly possible for the London government to decide to base nuclear weapons in Scotland while still having contingency planning for the obvious possibility of a democratic withdrawal of consent for their presence.
Trevor Royle, writing in the Sunday Herald in 1999, pointing out that it would have been perfectly possible for the London government to decide to base nuclear weapons in Scotland while still having contingency planning for the obvious possibility of a democratic withdrawal of consent for their presence.
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Telegraph shoot themselves in foot with headline implying that Andy Murray privately supports independence
I've seen some bizarre, logic-defying Telegraph headlines on the subject of independence in my time, but this one may just take the biscuit -
"Andy Murray serves up blow for Scotland split bid
Wimbledon champion will not make his view on Scottish independence public after England football team comments ahead of last World Cup"
Now let's think this one through. If Andy Murray was an opponent of independence, it would by definition be a huge relief for the Yes campaign if he wasn't planning to speak out about it. Therefore, the only conceivable way of interpreting the word 'blow' in the Telegraph's headline is that they think Murray is privately a supporter of independence, and that he is only failing to admit that publicly because he doesn't want to suffer any more abuse in the London press of the type that he had to put up with (not least in an odious article by Tony Parsons) after making an innocuous joke about the England football team.
I know of no specific evidence that would support that theory, but if they truly believe that, is it really something they want to crow about it? The message seems to be - "Our side of the debate have successfully bullied people into silence. GET IN!"
I'm also not sure what it says about the prevailing narrative in the London media (again, not least from Tony Parsons) which insists that Murray has now largely discarded his Scottishness by "maturing" and "blossoming" into a True Brit.
* * *
On one of the other topics of the day, I've left this comment over at Wings about the grossly misleading poll of Scottish businesses that appeared overnight -
I'd like to see John Curtice speak out strongly against this sort of poll and the way it's been spun in the media. It reminds me a bit of a YouGov poll commissioned by Archie Stirling in 2007 supposedly showing that 20% of the electorate would "consider" voting for his vanity Scottish Voice party in certain circumstances. If the question had asked "WOULD you vote for Scottish Voice in those circumstances", the number would have been a tiny fraction of that, and of course would have been much more in line with what actually happened.
Of course leading words like "consider" are bound to produce wildly inflated figures – after all, I might "consider" going on holiday to Belgium this year, but I also know that I probably won't actually do it. Can you imagine what the response would have been to the opposite question – "Would you consider staying in Scotland after a Yes vote?" Almost 100% of businesses would have said Yes. And what about asking businesses outside Scotland if they would consider relocating here after independence? That might have produced some interesting results.
"Andy Murray serves up blow for Scotland split bid
Wimbledon champion will not make his view on Scottish independence public after England football team comments ahead of last World Cup"
Now let's think this one through. If Andy Murray was an opponent of independence, it would by definition be a huge relief for the Yes campaign if he wasn't planning to speak out about it. Therefore, the only conceivable way of interpreting the word 'blow' in the Telegraph's headline is that they think Murray is privately a supporter of independence, and that he is only failing to admit that publicly because he doesn't want to suffer any more abuse in the London press of the type that he had to put up with (not least in an odious article by Tony Parsons) after making an innocuous joke about the England football team.
I know of no specific evidence that would support that theory, but if they truly believe that, is it really something they want to crow about it? The message seems to be - "Our side of the debate have successfully bullied people into silence. GET IN!"
I'm also not sure what it says about the prevailing narrative in the London media (again, not least from Tony Parsons) which insists that Murray has now largely discarded his Scottishness by "maturing" and "blossoming" into a True Brit.
* * *
On one of the other topics of the day, I've left this comment over at Wings about the grossly misleading poll of Scottish businesses that appeared overnight -
I'd like to see John Curtice speak out strongly against this sort of poll and the way it's been spun in the media. It reminds me a bit of a YouGov poll commissioned by Archie Stirling in 2007 supposedly showing that 20% of the electorate would "consider" voting for his vanity Scottish Voice party in certain circumstances. If the question had asked "WOULD you vote for Scottish Voice in those circumstances", the number would have been a tiny fraction of that, and of course would have been much more in line with what actually happened.
Of course leading words like "consider" are bound to produce wildly inflated figures – after all, I might "consider" going on holiday to Belgium this year, but I also know that I probably won't actually do it. Can you imagine what the response would have been to the opposite question – "Would you consider staying in Scotland after a Yes vote?" Almost 100% of businesses would have said Yes. And what about asking businesses outside Scotland if they would consider relocating here after independence? That might have produced some interesting results.
Anti-independence campaign disgrace themselves yet again by ignoring evidence that their supporters are responsible for the vast majority of abusive behaviour
Most of us on the pro-independence side, particularly those of us who make online comments about the referendum campaign, have long known that the lion's share of abusive behaviour comes from our opponents, and that the whole 'Cybernat' meme so beloved of certain journalists is one of the most grotesque victim-blaming myths ever invented. From my own experience, I know that back in the days when Mr Smithson graciously still allowed me to post on Political Betting (aka "Stormfront Lite"), I was routinely informed by anti-independence posters that I was a "w****r", a "t*at", a "fascist", a "Nazi", a "traitor" to Britain, and a "c**t".
(Note : I've updated the above figures because I realised that I used the wrong calculation. For the avoidance of doubt, this was a full-scale poll of more than 1000 Scottish residents, conducted by BPC pollsters Survation, so the margin of error is just 3%.)
"The Nationalists are not taking this seriously enough. They should be making a concerted effort to control the more vitriolic elements of their support."
In other words, the only victims who matter are the minority of victims who hold anti-independence views. The No campaign are just going to ignore the evidence that their own supporters are guilty of carrying out the majority of the abuse, and they're sure as hell not going to take any responsibility for tackling the problem.
And yet Blair McDougall, Alistair Darling and their merry mob still wonder why the people of Scotland have found it so hard to warm to them?
However, I don't think we ever expected to be provided with scientific polling evidence of just how severe the problem of bullying from the so-called "CyberBrits" has become, let alone that the evidence would come from a poll commissioned by the Express. I'm prepared to offer that publication a conditional "well done" for accurately summarising the outcome of the poll, even though it was probably a million miles away from what they were expecting or hoping for.
Proportion of voters who have suffered abuse because of their views on independence :
Yes voters - 21%
No voters - 8%
The datasets haven't yet been released, but using voting intention figures in the last Survation poll as a guide, a rough calculation shows that of all voters who have suffered abuse, the breakdown is probably more or less as follows...
Yes voters - 68%
No voters - 32%
(Note : I've updated the above figures because I realised that I used the wrong calculation. For the avoidance of doubt, this was a full-scale poll of more than 1000 Scottish residents, conducted by BPC pollsters Survation, so the margin of error is just 3%.)
The other reason the Express should be applauded for being honest about the poll's findings is that it shows up the anti-independence campaign's response for the vile comment that it is -
In other words, the only victims who matter are the minority of victims who hold anti-independence views. The No campaign are just going to ignore the evidence that their own supporters are guilty of carrying out the majority of the abuse, and they're sure as hell not going to take any responsibility for tackling the problem.
And yet Blair McDougall, Alistair Darling and their merry mob still wonder why the people of Scotland have found it so hard to warm to them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)