A reader kindly let me know a few days ago that there was another Scottish poll from Panelbase in the field. It asked the standard independence question, but in the middle of a sequence of questions that were primarily about social attitudes (some of them were bordering on philosophical in nature). I couldn't see any unifying theme at all, or even hazard a guess as to who the client might be. The mystery has now been partly solved, because Wings Over Scotland has released the results of a "mini-poll", which presumably means it was a composite survey conducted for more than one client. So there are three possibilities about the independence question, the results of which are not publicly known as of yet: a) it was part of the Wings mini-poll, b) it was asked by Panelbase for technical reasons so the Wings results could be properly weighted, or c) it was part of the poll commissioned by the other client. I'd imagine c) is the least likely of those options.
The results that we do know about show that respondents, by more than a 2-1 margin, do not think the UK government will "grant a second independence referendum" if pro-independence parties win a majority of votes or seats in next year's Holyrood election. As I've pointed out before, there are some questions on which public opinion is all-important and others on which it barely matters at all, and I'd suggest this is one of the latter. If by any chance the UK government were minded to grant a Section 30 order, it wouldn't make much difference whether the public saw it coming or not - although admittedly voter scepticism might make it tougher for the SNP to fight the election on the premise that victory will make Westminster cave in.
As it happens, I agree with the public verdict on this occasion - I think there's precious little chance of the current Tory government conceding a Section 30, although remember that isn't the same thing as "granting a referendum". The Scottish Parliament still has the option of legislating for a consultative indyref and waiting to see if the UK government challenge it (and more to the point waiting to see the Supreme Court's verdict after the UK government do inevitably challenge it).
I can't see any particular reason why Stuart Campbell would have commissioned this poll unless he was trying to strengthen the case for a 'Plan B' on independence. That makes it even more incomprehensible that he made such an angry attempt last week to undermine the impact of this blog's Panelbase poll showing a large majority in favour of 'Plan B'. He really does cut off his nose to spite his face sometimes.
* * *
On the subject of cutting off noses to spite faces, that's what the SNP are doing by considering a rule-change to forbid "dual mandates". The move seems to be motivated by a tribal desire to thwart Joanna Cherry's path to a Holyrood seat, and thus make it harder for her to succeed Nicola Sturgeon as SNP leader. But the reality is that Ms Cherry already seems to have made up her mind to seek to become an MSP, and she's unlikely to be deterred by the prospect of being forced to resign her Westminster seat.
So who actually loses from this? It may well be the SNP as a whole, who will needlessly end up facing a Westminster by-election in potentially tricky Edinburgh terrain. Alex Salmond held a dual mandate for his first three years as First Minister, and the sun didn't fall out of the sky, so it's not as if there's actually a problem to solve here.
Saturday, June 20, 2020
Friday, June 19, 2020
I'm in the dughoose
Just a quick note to let you know that I'm the guest on the latest edition of the Wee Ginger Dugcast, hosted as always by Paul Kavanagh. Topics discussed include the recent Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll, the disgraceful British nationalist thuggery in Glasgow, the risks of attempting to 'game' the Holyrood voting system, the alternatives for securing an independence mandate if a Section 30 order is refused, and the cautious easing of the lockdown in Scotland. You can listen to the podcast HERE.
Thursday, June 18, 2020
Ruth Davidson's catastrophically misjudged attack on Devi Sridhar may unwittingly reveal a lot about the toxic culture of the Scottish Tory party
Ruth Davidson made a catastrophic error of judgement yesterday - not just morally, but also from a public relations point of view. She questioned the independence and integrity of Professor Devi Sridhar, someone who has earned a deserved reputation with the public during the pandemic for fearlessly speaking truth to power when many other experts have been silent or overly cautious. Sridhar is not ideological - she'll praise any politician who she thinks is doing the right thing from a public health point of view, and castigate any politician who she thinks is doing the wrong thing.
What led to Davidson's gaffe was a misunderstanding - probably an honest one - on the part of the ITV journalist Peter MacMahon, who thought a tweet from Sridhar calling for schools to reopen properly in mid-August constituted an implied criticism of the Scottish Government's policy. In fact, Sridhar was calling for the virus to be suppressed so thoroughly that it would actually be safe to relax social distancing in August, which puts her on precisely the same page as Nicola Sturgeon. (Not a coincidence, because she almost certainly played a part in persuading Ms Sturgeon to adopt that policy in the first place.) She categorically wasn't saying that we should throw caution to the wind and abandon restrictions while the virus is still present in the community at dangerously high levels, which is essentially the position of the Scottish Government's most vocal critics.
I'd suggest the misunderstanding came about because of a difference in communication style between politicians and journalists on the one hand, and academics on the other. When stating what she thinks should be done, Sridhar has always been careful to honestly point out the other side of the story and the potential downsides. When lockdown was announced in March, something she was firmly in favour of, practically the first thing she did was to stress the harms of lockdown and the undesirability of continuing with it for too long - ironically echoing some of the language of the "let the virus rip" brigade she opposes. Any spin doctor would have been tearing their hair out at her 'naivety', because there was an obvious danger of undermining her own main objective. Politicians in her shoes would instead have had a laser-like focus on making the case for lockdown, and would have played down or ignored any counter-arguments. But it's Sridhar's honesty in painting a complete picture that has won her so much trust. That's what she was doing on schools - she was saying the virus needs to be suppressed and that children need to be back in school as soon as possible. Both of those statements are true, not just one of them, and there is no contradiction between the two. Sticking with stronger restrictions now is what will hopefully make a relaxation in August feasible and responsible.
Having posted a second tweet to clear up any misapprehensions, it was fascinating that her clarification was automatically assumed to be dishonest by Ruth Davidson - even though anyone who follows Sridhar knows it is absolutely consistent with what she has been saying for months. It seems that Davidson could not conceive of the possibility that anyone, even a leading academic, might have nuanced thought-processes they would actually want to share with others. Instead, the former Scottish Tory leader thought the only plausible explanation was that Sridhar had been leaned on by Ms Sturgeon and had cravenly 'walked back' her original statement. The even bigger misjudgement was to assume other people would find that a plausible explanation too. Almost nobody did.
If Davidson's hopelessly faulty instincts on this matter are the product of her personal experience of human nature over the last few years, I would suggest that she's unwittingly revealed rather a lot about the toxic culture of the Tory party. It's fear and bullying that make the world go round, but only if you happen to live in a world where nobody has any integrity, or principles they're willing to abide by.
What led to Davidson's gaffe was a misunderstanding - probably an honest one - on the part of the ITV journalist Peter MacMahon, who thought a tweet from Sridhar calling for schools to reopen properly in mid-August constituted an implied criticism of the Scottish Government's policy. In fact, Sridhar was calling for the virus to be suppressed so thoroughly that it would actually be safe to relax social distancing in August, which puts her on precisely the same page as Nicola Sturgeon. (Not a coincidence, because she almost certainly played a part in persuading Ms Sturgeon to adopt that policy in the first place.) She categorically wasn't saying that we should throw caution to the wind and abandon restrictions while the virus is still present in the community at dangerously high levels, which is essentially the position of the Scottish Government's most vocal critics.
I'd suggest the misunderstanding came about because of a difference in communication style between politicians and journalists on the one hand, and academics on the other. When stating what she thinks should be done, Sridhar has always been careful to honestly point out the other side of the story and the potential downsides. When lockdown was announced in March, something she was firmly in favour of, practically the first thing she did was to stress the harms of lockdown and the undesirability of continuing with it for too long - ironically echoing some of the language of the "let the virus rip" brigade she opposes. Any spin doctor would have been tearing their hair out at her 'naivety', because there was an obvious danger of undermining her own main objective. Politicians in her shoes would instead have had a laser-like focus on making the case for lockdown, and would have played down or ignored any counter-arguments. But it's Sridhar's honesty in painting a complete picture that has won her so much trust. That's what she was doing on schools - she was saying the virus needs to be suppressed and that children need to be back in school as soon as possible. Both of those statements are true, not just one of them, and there is no contradiction between the two. Sticking with stronger restrictions now is what will hopefully make a relaxation in August feasible and responsible.
Having posted a second tweet to clear up any misapprehensions, it was fascinating that her clarification was automatically assumed to be dishonest by Ruth Davidson - even though anyone who follows Sridhar knows it is absolutely consistent with what she has been saying for months. It seems that Davidson could not conceive of the possibility that anyone, even a leading academic, might have nuanced thought-processes they would actually want to share with others. Instead, the former Scottish Tory leader thought the only plausible explanation was that Sridhar had been leaned on by Ms Sturgeon and had cravenly 'walked back' her original statement. The even bigger misjudgement was to assume other people would find that a plausible explanation too. Almost nobody did.
If Davidson's hopelessly faulty instincts on this matter are the product of her personal experience of human nature over the last few years, I would suggest that she's unwittingly revealed rather a lot about the toxic culture of the Tory party. It's fear and bullying that make the world go round, but only if you happen to live in a world where nobody has any integrity, or principles they're willing to abide by.
Tuesday, June 16, 2020
This is the problem with not being an independent country
At the outset of the pandemic, New Zealand was on one end of the spectrum in controversially arguing that the virus could be completely eliminated. On the other end was the UK, which insisted (in defiance of evidence that already existed from China and South Korea) that it was literally impossible to contain the epidemic, and that it was therefore pointless - and somehow harmful - to even try. I lost count of the number of times Chris Whitty put on a patronising little smile as he spoke about those naive souls who thought that the goal of the government should be to actually prevent people from being infected, rather than to ensure that the majority of the population was infected in the most 'orderly' way. "Look at the map," he would say. "Look at all the countries around us where the virus is. The idea that this thing is going away does not strike me as terribly plausible."
That's the sort of statement that superficially appears to be highly intelligent and grounded in realism, but is actually totally daft. It rests on the implication that the virus can somehow move from one country to another in a way that cannot be stopped, which in the case of the UK means that it would have to be able to fly across the English Channel on its own propulsion. It cannot do that, which means Whitty was wrong: if a country can control its own borders, and can eliminate the virus within those borders, there's no need to fret so much about what's happening elsewhere. We know that the UK can, if it wishes, control its borders, so that leaves only one question: is it feasible to eliminate the virus on this island?
Initially, Devi Sridhar (Professor at Edinburgh University and one of the voices of sanity throughout this crisis) seemed sceptical that outright eradication could be achieved, and instead tended to argue for the virus to be suppressed as much as possible while we wait for a vaccine or effective treatments to arrive. But she's come round more to the idea of eradication now that New Zealand has proved its critics wrong.
The Scottish Government, to its credit, has been increasingly bullish about using the word 'eradicate' -
But the snag, of course, is that the Scottish Government does not have all of the tools required to eliminate the virus, because it is not the government of an independent sovereign state. A devolved government can, as we've seen in recent weeks, have success in pushing the virus back and suppressing it, but total elimination requires control over borders and the ability to quarantine people who arrive from countries (such as, for example, England) where the epidemic is far from being extinguished. That doesn't mean elimination is impossible, but it does mean it can only happen if the UK Government are persuaded of the need to attempt it, which at the moment looks a distant prospect. (I suspect the penny will drop eventually, but on past form every painful lesson seems to take far too long.)
The cost of not being independent will on this occasion be counted in the loss of human lives.
* * *
On the other extreme from Devi Sridhar's thread is one from former Scottish Tory spin doctor Andy Maciver, who seems to have learned no lessons at all over the last few months. He's arguing that, in spite of the success of New Zealand and other countries, it's for some reason not possible to stamp out the epidemic in this particular country, and that we should therefore accept that the virus might be around into the long-term. Essentially what he wants is for the Scottish Government to throw caution to the wind on the reopening of schools. He sticks his head firmly in the sand on two points in particular -
"There is a reason why we never hear about children dying or even becoming ill from Covid - it’s because it is not happening."
"I know, I know, it’s not about the children, it’s about who they contact. Firstly, it is worth noting that there is no hard evidence that children infect adults at all."
The idea that we don't hear about children even becoming ill is ludicrous. I personally know of a young child who was symptomatic for several days after being infected. But even leaving aside anecdotal evidence of that sort, there's well-documented evidence of children suffering from a rare inflammatory condition as a result of coronavirus. As for there being "no evidence" of children infecting adults, you'd think we might by now have grasped the point that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and that the precautionary principle dictates that you don't take risks with people's health when there just isn't enough information to know one way or the other.
* * *
I've said a few times that I don't see the need for a new pro-indy party, but that if one is formed it's really important that it has a purpose in life other than 'gaming the system'. If your Party Election Broadcast is an embarrassing three-minute monologue about the d'Hondt formula, you can safely assume you've gone badly wrong somewhere. Alas, judging from the website of the freshly-formed Independence for Scotland party, that mistake has not been avoided. One of the first articles on the site is a tortuous explanation of why the SNP failed to win a list seat in the north-east in 2016, and of how the ISP can supposedly remedy that on behalf of the independence movement if they win "just" 7% of the vote.
The north-east is actually a really poor choice of example, because the SNP succeeded in taking a list seat there in 2011 in spite of winning every constituency seat in the region. A repeat of that type of scenario is not guaranteed, but it's certainly infinitely more likely than a fringe party taking 7% of the vote on its first attempt. What really gives the game away, though, is the fact that the article openly prays in aid Gavin Barrie's pseudoscientific 'analysis' from last year, which many authoritative voices have pointed out was deeply flawed.
It's stated that a voting system designed to prevent a single-party majority means that the forces of unionism have an in-built advantage due to being comprised of three major parties rather than just one. That is, frankly, absolute rubbish. It's the complete opposite of the truth. The SNP's dominance of the Yesser vote has worked firmly in favour of the pro-indy camp - in 2016, a pro-indy majority of seats was won without an absolute majority of the popular vote on either ballot.
I'm troubled also by the suggestion that the ISP exists to challenge a "single party system". That characterisation is simply not accurate - the SNP run a minority government at Holyrood and can't get anything through the Scottish Parliament without the support of at least one other party. But the claim echoes the chorus of spurious unionist complaints from 2015-17 about a "one-party state" - and that period did not end well for the Yes movement. Avoiding self-inflicted wounds is always a good idea.
That's the sort of statement that superficially appears to be highly intelligent and grounded in realism, but is actually totally daft. It rests on the implication that the virus can somehow move from one country to another in a way that cannot be stopped, which in the case of the UK means that it would have to be able to fly across the English Channel on its own propulsion. It cannot do that, which means Whitty was wrong: if a country can control its own borders, and can eliminate the virus within those borders, there's no need to fret so much about what's happening elsewhere. We know that the UK can, if it wishes, control its borders, so that leaves only one question: is it feasible to eliminate the virus on this island?
Initially, Devi Sridhar (Professor at Edinburgh University and one of the voices of sanity throughout this crisis) seemed sceptical that outright eradication could be achieved, and instead tended to argue for the virus to be suppressed as much as possible while we wait for a vaccine or effective treatments to arrive. But she's come round more to the idea of eradication now that New Zealand has proved its critics wrong.
Current thinking on COVID-19: (thread)— Devi Sridhar (@devisridhar) June 15, 2020
1. This virus is too dangerous to let spread through a population unchecked. Not only bc of health services capacity & deaths in elderly/vulnerable groups, but also because of the morbidity it causes. Not the flu but a multi-system disease.
Countries cannot stay in lockdown forever, or even until a vaccine. Cannot expect people to shield indefinitely & kids need to be back in school, shops/pubs open, & 1m v. 2m misses larger issue that kids need to play together & even at 1m many businesses not financially viable.— Devi Sridhar (@devisridhar) June 15, 2020
The 'least worst' path out 'test/trace/isolate' will be stretched when winter hits & flu symptoms rise which can be the same as COVID symptoms. Already hard for hospitals to categorize patients (green/red/amber) without testing them. 2nd winter lockdown needs to be avoided.— Devi Sridhar (@devisridhar) June 15, 2020
Increasing # of countries attempting/succeeding at national elimination (get rid of virus w/ border screening) like Australia, Thailand, Vietnam, Faroe Islands, Iceland, New Zealand & E.Asian countries. They can form safe 'travel bubble' & wait for other countries to join them.— Devi Sridhar (@devisridhar) June 15, 2020
Instead of living with constant threat of Covid-19, people might start asking their own governments – why not try to get rid of it altogether? With border checks, people can return to "normal" life whether seeing elderly relatives, opening schools full-time, & sports & weddings.— Devi Sridhar (@devisridhar) June 15, 2020
Now that we know what works (i.e. New Zealand/Korean/German/Australian model) and what doesn't (i.e. Swedish/UK/US model), why aren't governments willing to adapt? Until now the logic was "this is new, we don't know what works and what doesn't". Well, now we do! #COVID19 https://t.co/oFdwdgQhmI— Ori_Solomon (@solomon_ori) June 15, 2020
The Scottish Government, to its credit, has been increasingly bullish about using the word 'eradicate' -
*if* we can effectively eradicate COVID - and then control through Test & Protect & policies to mitigate against cases coming into country - we can restore much greater degree of normality. Decisions then about, eg, 2m v 1m are more possible. But first we must suppress/eradicate.— Nicola Sturgeon (@NicolaSturgeon) June 12, 2020
But the snag, of course, is that the Scottish Government does not have all of the tools required to eliminate the virus, because it is not the government of an independent sovereign state. A devolved government can, as we've seen in recent weeks, have success in pushing the virus back and suppressing it, but total elimination requires control over borders and the ability to quarantine people who arrive from countries (such as, for example, England) where the epidemic is far from being extinguished. That doesn't mean elimination is impossible, but it does mean it can only happen if the UK Government are persuaded of the need to attempt it, which at the moment looks a distant prospect. (I suspect the penny will drop eventually, but on past form every painful lesson seems to take far too long.)
The cost of not being independent will on this occasion be counted in the loss of human lives.
* * *
On the other extreme from Devi Sridhar's thread is one from former Scottish Tory spin doctor Andy Maciver, who seems to have learned no lessons at all over the last few months. He's arguing that, in spite of the success of New Zealand and other countries, it's for some reason not possible to stamp out the epidemic in this particular country, and that we should therefore accept that the virus might be around into the long-term. Essentially what he wants is for the Scottish Government to throw caution to the wind on the reopening of schools. He sticks his head firmly in the sand on two points in particular -
"There is a reason why we never hear about children dying or even becoming ill from Covid - it’s because it is not happening."
"I know, I know, it’s not about the children, it’s about who they contact. Firstly, it is worth noting that there is no hard evidence that children infect adults at all."
The idea that we don't hear about children even becoming ill is ludicrous. I personally know of a young child who was symptomatic for several days after being infected. But even leaving aside anecdotal evidence of that sort, there's well-documented evidence of children suffering from a rare inflammatory condition as a result of coronavirus. As for there being "no evidence" of children infecting adults, you'd think we might by now have grasped the point that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and that the precautionary principle dictates that you don't take risks with people's health when there just isn't enough information to know one way or the other.
* * *
I've said a few times that I don't see the need for a new pro-indy party, but that if one is formed it's really important that it has a purpose in life other than 'gaming the system'. If your Party Election Broadcast is an embarrassing three-minute monologue about the d'Hondt formula, you can safely assume you've gone badly wrong somewhere. Alas, judging from the website of the freshly-formed Independence for Scotland party, that mistake has not been avoided. One of the first articles on the site is a tortuous explanation of why the SNP failed to win a list seat in the north-east in 2016, and of how the ISP can supposedly remedy that on behalf of the independence movement if they win "just" 7% of the vote.
The north-east is actually a really poor choice of example, because the SNP succeeded in taking a list seat there in 2011 in spite of winning every constituency seat in the region. A repeat of that type of scenario is not guaranteed, but it's certainly infinitely more likely than a fringe party taking 7% of the vote on its first attempt. What really gives the game away, though, is the fact that the article openly prays in aid Gavin Barrie's pseudoscientific 'analysis' from last year, which many authoritative voices have pointed out was deeply flawed.
It's stated that a voting system designed to prevent a single-party majority means that the forces of unionism have an in-built advantage due to being comprised of three major parties rather than just one. That is, frankly, absolute rubbish. It's the complete opposite of the truth. The SNP's dominance of the Yesser vote has worked firmly in favour of the pro-indy camp - in 2016, a pro-indy majority of seats was won without an absolute majority of the popular vote on either ballot.
I'm troubled also by the suggestion that the ISP exists to challenge a "single party system". That characterisation is simply not accurate - the SNP run a minority government at Holyrood and can't get anything through the Scottish Parliament without the support of at least one other party. But the claim echoes the chorus of spurious unionist complaints from 2015-17 about a "one-party state" - and that period did not end well for the Yes movement. Avoiding self-inflicted wounds is always a good idea.
Saturday, June 13, 2020
Who or what is "tone deaf"? Perhaps it's mainstream journalism - which has misread the public mood on independence so completely in recent weeks
There's a deeply puzzling piece in the Herald today by Tom Gordon. He refers to the finding from the Panelbase poll commissioned by this blog that a large majority of the public (if Don't Knows are excluded) are supportive of the 'Plan B' option for seeking an independence mandate - ie. if an indyref is blocked by Westminster, the SNP and Greens would simply go ahead and put an outright commitment to independence in their manifestos for a scheduled election. Tom notes that the SNP's two leading proponents of the idea have seized on the poll results and are pushing for the proposal to be considered at conference - a reaction he considers to be "tone deaf". In fact it's worse than that, what he actually says is...
"There's tone deaf, and there's this."
The implication being that Angus MacNeil and Chris McEleny are out of tune with the public mood, and that what voters really want is for the SNP to kick independence into the long grass for a considerable number of years. Tom thinks the party should use that time to "develop a new prospectus", whatever that means, rather than doing what they were actually elected to do - ie. giving people an urgent choice on Scotland's constitutional future due to the material change of circumstances brought about by Brexit.
All of this begs an extremely obvious question - one that Tom mysteriously doesn't even attempt to address. If voters don't want Plan B to be explored, why have they just told a leading polling company that they do? Do they not know their own minds? Did they somehow misunderstand the question? As a reminder, here's the exact wording -
If Boris Johnson and the UK Government manage to block an independence referendum, do you think that pro-independence parties such as the SNP and the Greens should consider including an outright promise of independence in their manifestos for a future election, to give people an opportunity to vote for or against the idea?
That seems pretty difficult to misconstrue. Remember that a large part of the reason the poll showed such a strong majority in favour is the overwhelmingly positive reaction from both SNP voters and people who would currently vote for independence. Less than 1% of Yes supporters think it's a bad idea, while 86% give the thumbs up. You don't have to be much of a mystic to work out what's going on here - a sizeable chunk of the electorate (a majority in this particular poll if Don't Knows are stripped out) want independence, and they're actually serious about it. They're unhappy that Westminster is using undemocratic means to thwart a referendum, and want a way to be found of overcoming that obstacle. That shouldn't be any great surprise, given that it was only six months ago that Scotland gave the SNP a landslide majority of seats on a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum this year. The pandemic has pushed the timing back - no-one in their right mind still wants action to be taken imminently. But people do want a sense of urgency once the crisis is over, rather than years and years of unproductive thumb-twiddling.
At the start of the pandemic, unionist journalists (Deerin, Massie, et al) were almost unanimous in their assessment that fate had dealt the independence movement a crushing blow, and that the British 'family' was coming back together in a time of adversity. An avalanche of polls since then - from YouGov, Ipsos-Mori, Survation and Panelbase - has told a radically different story. Having misread the public's instincts and mood so completely, you'd think these individuals might have the humility to ponder whether it's actually mainstream journalism in this country that has yet again proved itself to be "tone deaf". But, as per usual, it's doubling down that we're seeing.
Thursday, June 11, 2020
In numbers: the year-on-year increase in support for independence
Let's return briefly to the false claim that was made the other day that public opinion on independence hasn't budged for years. It's probably best to demonstrate in precise terms why that isn't true, before any myth is allowed to take root. I've calculated yearly averages for all independence polls in 2018, 2019, and 2020 to date. As you can see, there has been a clear increase in the Yes vote year on year.
Should Scotland be an independent country?
2018:
Yes 45.5%
No 54.5%
2019:
Yes 48.5%
No 51.5%
2020:
No 49.6%
The only polls I've excluded are the notorious Scotland in Union propaganda polls that were sometimes portrayed in the media as "independence polls", but in fact were nothing of the sort, because independence wasn't even mentioned in the question. On the other hand, I've included the YouGov / Hanbury poll from earlier this year, which used a non-standard question but with neutral wording. (If that poll is excluded, the Yes vote for 2020 is even higher.)
So if there has been a gradual increase for Yes, why is it possible to dredge up headlines from past years about Yes being in the lead? Basically there were a couple of previous purple patches where Yes appeared to be ahead - one was just after the 2014 indyref, when the positivity of the campaign was still fresh in people's minds and when David Cameron appeared set to betray The Vow. The second was just after the EU referendum, but it didn't last long at all. There was then a prolonged slump in 2017 and 2018 when both YouGov and Panelbase were consistently showing Yes hovering somewhere between 43% and 45%. Self-evidently, the situation has improved markedly since those days.
Outside of the two previous purple patches, there has also been the odd individual poll from Ipsos-Mori showing a Yes lead out of the blue. It's probably no coincidence that Ipsos-Mori are the only firm that don't weight by past vote - although whether that makes them more accurate or less accurate is open for debate.
Wednesday, June 10, 2020
Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll: From a Remain country to a Rejoin country - by emphatic 60-40 margin, voters say "Scotland should rejoin the European Union"
When we say there's a mandate to hold a second independence referendum, we're generally (not always, but generally) referring to the SNP's victory in the 2016 Scottish Parliament election, which took place before the EU referendum, and in which the manifesto pledge was conditional on there being a material change of circumstances, such as Scotland being dragged out of the EU against its will. Unionist parties, and in particular the Tories, have raised a number of hair-splitting objections to the notion that Scotland's democratic will is being disregarded in a way that would make the indyref mandate valid. For example, they point out that the 62% of the Scottish public who voted Remain were voting for the United Kingdom to continue as a member state of the EU, and were not strictly speaking expressing a view on whether they would want Scotland to stay in if the rest of the UK came out. This of course carries the wildly implausible implication that Scotland was only ever pro-EU due to the superb quality of representation we received in Brussels from London ministers, but nevertheless that's what they say. It's also suggested that now that Brexit is a fact on the ground, rejoining the EU is a very different proposition from remaining within it, and that there's no way of knowing whether Scottish voters would really want to rejoin. So even if Brexit was a breach of Scottish democratic wishes in 2016, that's no longer the case because Scotland supposedly might want to "move on" and make the best of it.
Opinion polls haven't often been much use in clearing away these technical (or perhaps I should say imaginative) objections, because polls showing an enormous pro-EU majority in Scotland were mostly conducted before Brexit Day at the end of January, and generally framed the choice as "Remain" v "Leave", rather than "Rejoin" v "Don't Rejoin". A lot of them also asked about the UK's status within Europe rather than Scotland's. And those that did mention Scotland usually tied the issue to independence, which is a cop-out in another sense because there are ways in which Scotland could be part of the EU from within Brexit Britain. The Tory government (and indeed Labour and the Liberal Democrats) are not remotely interested in exploring that option, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible in theory. There are three component parts of the state of Denmark (Greenland, the Faroe Islands and Denmark proper) and only one of them is part of the EU.
To get to the heart of the democratic issue that makes the case for Indyref2, the final question in this blog's crowdfunded Panelbase poll is a simple six-word query...
Should Scotland rejoin the European Union?
Yes 60%
No 40%
(Panelbase poll for Scot Goes Pop, 1st-5th June 2020. Headline figures exclude Don't Knows. If Don't Knows are included, the result is Yes 52%, No 35%, DK 14%.)
That won't be a surprise to anyone, but nevertheless it does lay to rest some of the sophistry. Even though "rejoin" may imply a degree of upheaval to a potentially weary electorate that "remain" doesn't, a 60-40 advantage is well outside the poll's margin of error, which makes it definitive: Scotland does want to be part of the EU in a post-Brexit world, and the casus belli for a second indyref is completely intact.
60-40 is of course just slightly below the 62-38 recorded on referendum day in 2016, and along with concerns about further upheaval, my guess is that the difference can be partly explained by a small percentage of hardline anti-indy voters worrying that by giving a pro-EU response they'd be indirectly giving the green light to independence. Among people who actually voted against independence six years ago, there's a plurality against Scotland rejoining the EU, although it's fairly narrow (47% to 41%).
The pandemic has temporarily got Labour and the Liberal Democrats off the hook of explaining to Scottish voters how it is possible to be "pro-UK, pro-EU" now that Brexit has happened. We know what they will say - it'll be that remaining part of Britain is by far the most important thing, and if that's incompatible with EU membership, well that's a shame, but so be it. That could leave them facing a problem with their own voters, who emphatically want Scotland to rejoin the EU -
2019 Labour voters:
Yes 58%
No 30%
2019 Liberal Democrat voters:
Yes 62%
No 23%
A few people have asked me if I have any information on the 8% of pro-independence voters from the 2014 indyref who now want to stay in the UK. There's no way from the Panelbase datasets of pinpointing exactly who they are or what motivates them, but one clue is that 87 respondents in the poll (roughly 8% or 9% of the total sample) are Yes voters from 2014 who do not want Scotland to rejoin the EU. By contrast, only 53 respondents (around 5% of the sample) are currently minded to vote for independence while still wanting Scotland to stay outside the EU. The difference between those two figures may well imply the existence of a segment of voters who are in principle sympathetic to independence, but who would vote against it because they regard Brexit as a bigger priority.
But remember that there's a pro-independence majority in this poll, and that's come about because a significant number of Remain voters have become converts to independence. There's a danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater if we dilute our pitch on the EU in pursuit of the smaller number of Brexiteers we've lost in the other direction.
* * *
You can read my piece in The National about last night's poll results HERE.
Opinion polls haven't often been much use in clearing away these technical (or perhaps I should say imaginative) objections, because polls showing an enormous pro-EU majority in Scotland were mostly conducted before Brexit Day at the end of January, and generally framed the choice as "Remain" v "Leave", rather than "Rejoin" v "Don't Rejoin". A lot of them also asked about the UK's status within Europe rather than Scotland's. And those that did mention Scotland usually tied the issue to independence, which is a cop-out in another sense because there are ways in which Scotland could be part of the EU from within Brexit Britain. The Tory government (and indeed Labour and the Liberal Democrats) are not remotely interested in exploring that option, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible in theory. There are three component parts of the state of Denmark (Greenland, the Faroe Islands and Denmark proper) and only one of them is part of the EU.
To get to the heart of the democratic issue that makes the case for Indyref2, the final question in this blog's crowdfunded Panelbase poll is a simple six-word query...
Should Scotland rejoin the European Union?
Yes 60%
No 40%
(Panelbase poll for Scot Goes Pop, 1st-5th June 2020. Headline figures exclude Don't Knows. If Don't Knows are included, the result is Yes 52%, No 35%, DK 14%.)
That won't be a surprise to anyone, but nevertheless it does lay to rest some of the sophistry. Even though "rejoin" may imply a degree of upheaval to a potentially weary electorate that "remain" doesn't, a 60-40 advantage is well outside the poll's margin of error, which makes it definitive: Scotland does want to be part of the EU in a post-Brexit world, and the casus belli for a second indyref is completely intact.
60-40 is of course just slightly below the 62-38 recorded on referendum day in 2016, and along with concerns about further upheaval, my guess is that the difference can be partly explained by a small percentage of hardline anti-indy voters worrying that by giving a pro-EU response they'd be indirectly giving the green light to independence. Among people who actually voted against independence six years ago, there's a plurality against Scotland rejoining the EU, although it's fairly narrow (47% to 41%).
The pandemic has temporarily got Labour and the Liberal Democrats off the hook of explaining to Scottish voters how it is possible to be "pro-UK, pro-EU" now that Brexit has happened. We know what they will say - it'll be that remaining part of Britain is by far the most important thing, and if that's incompatible with EU membership, well that's a shame, but so be it. That could leave them facing a problem with their own voters, who emphatically want Scotland to rejoin the EU -
2019 Labour voters:
Yes 58%
No 30%
2019 Liberal Democrat voters:
Yes 62%
No 23%
A few people have asked me if I have any information on the 8% of pro-independence voters from the 2014 indyref who now want to stay in the UK. There's no way from the Panelbase datasets of pinpointing exactly who they are or what motivates them, but one clue is that 87 respondents in the poll (roughly 8% or 9% of the total sample) are Yes voters from 2014 who do not want Scotland to rejoin the EU. By contrast, only 53 respondents (around 5% of the sample) are currently minded to vote for independence while still wanting Scotland to stay outside the EU. The difference between those two figures may well imply the existence of a segment of voters who are in principle sympathetic to independence, but who would vote against it because they regard Brexit as a bigger priority.
But remember that there's a pro-independence majority in this poll, and that's come about because a significant number of Remain voters have become converts to independence. There's a danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater if we dilute our pitch on the EU in pursuit of the smaller number of Brexiteers we've lost in the other direction.
* * *
You can read my piece in The National about last night's poll results HERE.
Tuesday, June 9, 2020
Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll: By overwhelming 3-1 margin, Scottish voters say they would be "more safe" if the UK Government's decision-making powers about the lockdown were transferred to the Scottish Government
It's fair to suggest that the Scottish Government has been on something of a 'journey' (as Davina McCall always used to say about Big Brother contestants) over the course of the pandemic. To begin with, Edinburgh was so much in lockstep with London that Nicola Sturgeon was practically functioning as the Secretary of State for Scotland, with her role being as little more than a (very eloquent) spokesperson for the 'herd immunity' policy that had essentially been decided in Westminster. Devolution must have looked like a pretty fiction to the public at that point. But as the horrific consequences of herd immunity became clear, the Scottish Government swung in completely the opposite direction, and demonstrated to the public just how extensive its legal powers are, and how effective they can be in keeping citizens safe. I'd argue that Scotland has 'felt' more like a self-governing country over the last few weeks than it has done at any time since (at least) the Jacobite rising of 1745-6.
But of course there are limits to the Scottish Government's powers, and the public have also been given a vivid life-and-death demonstration of what those limits are and what practical effect they have. In the past, voters may only have had the dimmest of ideas of what it would mean for them if the Scottish Parliament had "more powers", but they're now in an excellent position to judge what the impact would be if, for example, Holyrood had control over borders. I decided to use our crowdfunded Panelbase poll to find out exactly what they think.
Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll (1st-5th June 2020):
Some decisions about the lockdown in Scotland, such as whether to keep schools and shops closed, are the responsibility of the Scottish Government. Other decisions, such as whether to introduce airport checks and border controls, are the responsibility of the UK Government. Do you think people in Scotland would be more safe or less safe if the UK Government's decision-making powers relating to the lockdown were transferred to the Scottish Government?
More safe: 58%
Less safe: 21%
That result would have been truly staggering until a couple of days ago, but of course it's bang in line with the roughly 3-1 majorities who are now "less convinced" that Scotland is safer if it remains part of the UK, and "more confident" that Scotland will be well-governed if it becomes an independent country.
The pandemic really does seem to have had a transformative effect on underlying attitudes towards constitutional matters. To see the full extent of that, take a look at some of the surprising groups who feel that the Scottish public would be "more safe" if all decision-making powers relating to the lockdown were transferred to the Scottish Government -
2014 No voters:
More safe: 46%
Less safe: 28%
2019 Labour voters:
More safe: 59%
Less safe: 24%
2019 Liberal Democrat voters:
More safe: 41%
Less safe: 24%
2016 Leave voters:
More safe: 49%
Less safe: 29%
And now we come to what, in my opinion, is the most extraordinary detail from this entire poll. Conservative voters can normally be relied upon to be absolutely scathing towards any suggestion that Scottish self-rule might be preferable to being run from London, but on this occasion they're evenly divided -
2019 Conservative voters:
More safe: 35%
Less safe: 38%
Perhaps there's nothing quite like a threat to the safety of one's family and friends to help shake off deep-rooted political prejudices.
When you look at these figures, it can be no surprise at all that there is now a pro-independence majority - indeed, perhaps the only puzzling point is that the Yes vote has only risen by 2%. But it's not hard to see how it could rise further unless the UK parties are able to swiftly restore faith in London rule.
* * *
There's one more result to come from the poll, and if you'd like to be the first to know about it, you can follow me on Twitter HERE. You can also read my piece in The National about last night's 'Plan B' poll results HERE.
* * *
You may have seen that Stuart Campbell embarked on yet another angry rant today, this time about the Scot Goes Pop poll. I had actually already responded to his central accusation before he even posted the article, because he turned up on the comments section here late last night and made the same point (with a fair bit of abusive swearing and playground name-calling chucked in for good measure). You can read my reply HERE. The only thing I'd add to it is that I really don't know whether to laugh or cry at the glorious irony of his claim that I have written "abusive diatribes" about him. Anyone can see for themselves that the posts he's referring to are scrupulously non-abusive. I'm more than content for the contrast between those posts and Stuart's own legendarily abusive posting style (especially on social media) to speak for itself. He similarly claimed that an iScot article I wrote a few months ago about the Wings Party was "abusive" - but rather undermined that claim by posting a screenshot of the entire article, which helpfully demonstrated there wasn't a single abusive comment in it. He really does make himself look a bit silly with this sort of nonsense.
But of course there are limits to the Scottish Government's powers, and the public have also been given a vivid life-and-death demonstration of what those limits are and what practical effect they have. In the past, voters may only have had the dimmest of ideas of what it would mean for them if the Scottish Parliament had "more powers", but they're now in an excellent position to judge what the impact would be if, for example, Holyrood had control over borders. I decided to use our crowdfunded Panelbase poll to find out exactly what they think.
Scot Goes Pop / Panelbase poll (1st-5th June 2020):
Some decisions about the lockdown in Scotland, such as whether to keep schools and shops closed, are the responsibility of the Scottish Government. Other decisions, such as whether to introduce airport checks and border controls, are the responsibility of the UK Government. Do you think people in Scotland would be more safe or less safe if the UK Government's decision-making powers relating to the lockdown were transferred to the Scottish Government?
More safe: 58%
Less safe: 21%
That result would have been truly staggering until a couple of days ago, but of course it's bang in line with the roughly 3-1 majorities who are now "less convinced" that Scotland is safer if it remains part of the UK, and "more confident" that Scotland will be well-governed if it becomes an independent country.
The pandemic really does seem to have had a transformative effect on underlying attitudes towards constitutional matters. To see the full extent of that, take a look at some of the surprising groups who feel that the Scottish public would be "more safe" if all decision-making powers relating to the lockdown were transferred to the Scottish Government -
2014 No voters:
More safe: 46%
Less safe: 28%
2019 Labour voters:
More safe: 59%
Less safe: 24%
2019 Liberal Democrat voters:
More safe: 41%
Less safe: 24%
2016 Leave voters:
More safe: 49%
Less safe: 29%
And now we come to what, in my opinion, is the most extraordinary detail from this entire poll. Conservative voters can normally be relied upon to be absolutely scathing towards any suggestion that Scottish self-rule might be preferable to being run from London, but on this occasion they're evenly divided -
2019 Conservative voters:
More safe: 35%
Less safe: 38%
Perhaps there's nothing quite like a threat to the safety of one's family and friends to help shake off deep-rooted political prejudices.
When you look at these figures, it can be no surprise at all that there is now a pro-independence majority - indeed, perhaps the only puzzling point is that the Yes vote has only risen by 2%. But it's not hard to see how it could rise further unless the UK parties are able to swiftly restore faith in London rule.
* * *
There's one more result to come from the poll, and if you'd like to be the first to know about it, you can follow me on Twitter HERE. You can also read my piece in The National about last night's 'Plan B' poll results HERE.
* * *
You may have seen that Stuart Campbell embarked on yet another angry rant today, this time about the Scot Goes Pop poll. I had actually already responded to his central accusation before he even posted the article, because he turned up on the comments section here late last night and made the same point (with a fair bit of abusive swearing and playground name-calling chucked in for good measure). You can read my reply HERE. The only thing I'd add to it is that I really don't know whether to laugh or cry at the glorious irony of his claim that I have written "abusive diatribes" about him. Anyone can see for themselves that the posts he's referring to are scrupulously non-abusive. I'm more than content for the contrast between those posts and Stuart's own legendarily abusive posting style (especially on social media) to speak for itself. He similarly claimed that an iScot article I wrote a few months ago about the Wings Party was "abusive" - but rather undermined that claim by posting a screenshot of the entire article, which helpfully demonstrated there wasn't a single abusive comment in it. He really does make himself look a bit silly with this sort of nonsense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)