Latest Polls and Latest Odds

[moses1924]

Fair play @lichtgilpheadthat's some detailed analysis

[DiscoStu]

13 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

 

Brought over from the far-right thread

I" see the latest poll leading for Yes is again run by those cowboys at Find Out Now."

Simple namecalling, without providing any basis for such namecalling

"A quick glance at the set of farcical Find Out Now data you quote confirms my original thoughts, which is that the weighting is all over the place.  This could actually be described as a self-own on your part. Age groups favourable to Yes have been overrepresented in the sample."

I'm sure that you will be able to provide figures to back up these unsupported assertations?

"Using 13 year old census data is probably the worst way to do it given that ages change."

The 2011 census contains the most recent official figures that are publicly available. I used them to compare the weightings with the FON weightings, as I don't have any more up-to-date figures. They match perfectly. Are you suggesting that age demographics in Scotland have changed since 2011? Please explain why and by exactly how much. The fact that people's ages change has absolutely no bearing on the percentages falling into each age group. In 2011, I fell into the 18% of Scottish residents aged 45-54. Twelve years later (not 13, as you erroneously claim), I fall into the 15% of Scottish residents aged 55-64. This is simple stuff!

"This will significantly skew the figures in favour of those advocating ripping the country apart."

As I suggest above, you'll need to demonstrate why FON's weightings are incorrect before you can make claims about the weighting skewing the figures. Incidentally, I love the dog-whistling going on in the last 5 words of that sentence! Given that we are talking about Scotland, can you explain exactly how Scotland will be ripped apart as a consequence of an independence vote?

"Yes isn't perceived as the same anti-establishment, fresh cause it used to be and therefore just isn't as attractive to the young as it once was.  Many of them see it as a busted flush and associated with the type of people that turn one off politics completely such as Nicola Sturgeon, Peter Murrell, Derek Mackay, Margaret Ferrier, Bill Walker, Michelle Thomson, Natalie McGarry, Patrick Grady, Jordan Linden, Allan Casey and Mhairi Black amongst others."

Word Salad. What does this have to do with proving your contention that FON polls are dodgy and loaded? It just appears to be a list of politicians you don't personally like.

"Serious question"

Oh. Has all the preamble to this question been some sort of joke? It certainally isn't any proof that my previous analysis is incorrect

"When you look at the Indy Graph on whatscotlandthinks.org and see that the majority of recent Yes leads come from one polling company, does this not ring alarm bells? "

What, this graph?

I don't think that it shows very much at all, apart from a very simple graphical representation of Yes/No Indy polling between June 2016 to March 2023. At times it shows Yes ahead, and at times it shows No ahead. However, during this period, the following companies have shown the following Yes leads:

Date/Polling Company/Yes Lead

7–12 June 2023    Find Out Now/Alba Party    4%
15–21 May 2023    Ipsos/STV    6%
1–9 Mar 2023    Find Out Now/Scot Goes Pop    4%
11–18 Jan 2023    FindOutNow/The National    8%
12–16 Dec 2022    Panelbase/Sunday Times    4%
6–9 Dec 2022    YouGov/The Times    5%
1–8 Dec 2022    FindOutNow/Electoral Calculus    8%
28 Nov–5 Dec 2022    Ipsos/STV    11%
26–27 Nov 2022    Redfield & Wilton Strategies    4%
22–25 Nov 2022    YouGov/Scottish Election Study    1%
13–19 Oct 2022    Ipsos    7%
29 Jun–1 Jul 2022    Panelbase/Sunday Times    1%
3–9 Feb 2022    Ipsos MORI    7%
22–29 Nov 2021    Ipsos MORI/STV    9%
3–8 Sep 2021    Opinium/Sky News    1%
28–30 Apr 2021    Panelbase/Sunday Times    3%
9–12 Apr 2021    Panelbase/Believe in Scotland    2%
1–6 Apr 2021    Opinium/Sky News    2%
29 Mar–4 Apr 2021    Ipsos MORI/STV    4%
30 Mar–1 Apr 2021    Panelbase/Sunday Times    1%
29–30 Mar 2021    Survation/DC Thomson    1%
23–26 Mar 2021    Find Out Now/Daily Express    4%
16–19 Mar 2021    BMG/Herald    3%
11–16 Mar 2021    Opinium/Sky News    2%
5–9 Mar 2021    Hanbury Strategy    6%
12 Feb–1 Mar 2021    Hanbury Strategy    11%
18–22 Feb 2021    Savanta ComRes/ITV News    4%
15–21 Feb 2021    Ipsos MORI/STV    4%
19–22 Jan 2021    Panelbase/Sunday Times    5%
11–13 Jan 2021    Survation/Scot Goes Pop    2%
8–13 Jan 2021    Savanta ComRes/The Scotsman    4%
11–15 Dec 2020    Savanta ComRes/The Scotsman    10%
2–7 Dec 2020    Survation    2%
20–26 Nov 2020    Ipsos MORI/STV    10%
5–11 Nov 2020    Panelbase/Scot Goes Pop    11%
6–10 Nov 2020    YouGov    1%
28 Oct–3 Nov 2020    Survation    7%
2–9 Oct 2020    Ipsos MORI/STV    13%
9 Oct 2020    Savanta ComRes    5%
25 Sep–5 Oct 2020    Survation/Progress Scotland    7%
17–21 Sep 2020    JL Partners    11%
2–7 Sep 2020    Survation    6%
12–18 Aug 2020    Panelbase/Business for Scotland    9%
6–13 Aug 2020    Savanta ComRes    7%
6–10 Aug 2020    YouGov/The Times    5%
30 Jun–3 Jul 2020    Panelbase/Sunday Times    7%
15–19 Jun 2020    Panelbase/Business for Scotland    7%
1–5 Jun 2020    Panelbase/Scot Goes Pop    3%
28–31 Jan 2020    Panelbase/Scot Goes Pop    3%
22–27 Jan 2020    YouGov    1%
30 Jul–2 Aug 2019    Lord Ashcroft    3%
24 Feb–6 Mar 2017    Ipsos MORI/STV    1%
24–28 Jun 2016    Survation/Scottish Daily Mail    6%
25–26 Jun 2016    Panelbase/Sunday Times    3%
25 Jun 2016    Survation/Daily Record    7%

During the same period, the following companies have shown Yes & No to be level

Date/Polling Company/Poll result

5–7 Oct 2022    Panelbase/Business for Scotland    Tied
14–18 Jan 2022    Savanta ComRes/The Scotsman    Tied
15–22 Dec 2021    Opinium/Daily Record    Tied
7–8 May 2021    Stack Data/Our Scottish Future    Tied
28 Apr–3 May 2021    Opinium/Sky News    Tied
30 Apr–3 May 2021    Ipsos MORI/STV    Tied
27–30 Apr 2021    BMG/Herald    Tied
2–7 Apr 2021    Savanta ComRes/The Scotsman    Tied
1–5 May 2020    Panelbase/Wings Over Scotland    Tied
20–22 Jan 2020    Survation/Progress Scotland    Tied
19–25 Nov 2019    Ipsos MORI/STV    Tied

So, when we look at the graph you provided, we find that FON have shown Yes in the lead (or level) on 5 occasions. If we only look at the period since the first FON "Yes" Result (26th March 2021), we find:

Ipsos (all polling) - 7 Yes leads/tied

Panelbase (all polling) - 6 Yes leads/tied

Opinium (all polling) - 4 Yes leads/tied

YouGov (all polling) - 2 Yes leads

Redfield & Winton (all polling) - 1 Yes lead

Survation (all polling) - 1 Yes lead

Savanta (all polling) - 2 tied

Stack Data (all polling) - 1 tied

BMG (all polling) - 1 tied

So, put simply, your claim that the majority of recent Yes leads are all by one company is absolute bollocks. Since FON first appeared, they have only the 3rd highest number of Yes/tied results, (Behind both Ipsos & Panelbase) and they are only 1 of 10 companies to have shown a Yes lead or tie during this time period. 

"Who do you think does it wrong, FON or all the other companies?"

I don't think any of them "does it wrong" They all do it in accordance with their own weighting systems, and (as as most are BPC members who abide by their standards) we are expected to believe that their polling is representative to a few percent either way. Put simply, if a survey shows Yes & No to be level, it is extremely unlikely (probably practically impossibly unlikely) to result in a tie. One side would win, albeit that it would be unlikely to be by more than 1 or 2 percent.

A survey of 1000 people will have a greater confidence level (plus or minus ~2%) than a survey of 500 people, (plus or minus ~3%). In turn, a survey of 500 people will have a greater confidence level than a survey of 1 person (practically statistically meningless)

Every poll on the list is flawed to some extent, as there will be errors that cannot be compensated for. The only poll that should matter is Indyref 2, which the Yoons are opposed to holding. If they are so sure of winning (which you appear to suggest), why don't they just hold the poll and put this to bed for good?

However, whilst I don't think any particular poll is "wrong" (apart from the Scotland in Union ones, which do use dodgy weighted questions), I'm not the one that is suggesting that a specific firm is "dodgy & loaded". As I have previously asked you, please provide some proof to back up your view. Saying that "the weighting is all over the place" is not proof, unless you demonstrate why it is all over the place, and why this makes the results dodgy.

Put simply, I don't want to hear any more of your opinions. I'm politely asking you to post some facts to back up these opinions, or STFU.

 

 

Good morning Lichty.

You'll be hearing more of my opinions alright, and I'll continue posting facts too.

However I do salute your indefatigability.  You're a real trooper.

I ask for one whole week to give your post the thorough reply it deserves.

[Blue-Toon]

Interesting YouGov poll in the Sun:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/22744727/sun-poll-shows-clueless-mps-policies-net-zero/

[RiG]

19 minutes ago, Blue-Toon said:

Interesting YouGov poll in the Sun:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/22744727/sun-poll-shows-clueless-mps-policies-net-zero/

An interesting Twitter thread on that article...

 

[DiscoStu]

On 18/06/2023 at 15:39, lichtgilphead said:

 

Brought over from the far-right thread

I" see the latest poll leading for Yes is again run by those cowboys at Find Out Now."

Simple namecalling, without providing any basis for such namecalling

"A quick glance at the set of farcical Find Out Now data you quote confirms my original thoughts, which is that the weighting is all over the place.  This could actually be described as a self-own on your part. Age groups favourable to Yes have been overrepresented in the sample."

I'm sure that you will be able to provide figures to back up these unsupported assertations?

"Using 13 year old census data is probably the worst way to do it given that ages change."

The 2011 census contains the most recent official figures that are publicly available. I used them to compare the weightings with the FON weightings, as I don't have any more up-to-date figures. They match perfectly. Are you suggesting that age demographics in Scotland have changed since 2011? Please explain why and by exactly how much. The fact that people's ages change has absolutely no bearing on the percentages falling into each age group. In 2011, I fell into the 18% of Scottish residents aged 45-54. Twelve years later (not 13, as you erroneously claim), I fall into the 15% of Scottish residents aged 55-64. This is simple stuff!

"This will significantly skew the figures in favour of those advocating ripping the country apart."

As I suggest above, you'll need to demonstrate why FON's weightings are incorrect before you can make claims about the weighting skewing the figures. Incidentally, I love the dog-whistling going on in the last 5 words of that sentence! Given that we are talking about Scotland, can you explain exactly how Scotland will be ripped apart as a consequence of an independence vote?

"Yes isn't perceived as the same anti-establishment, fresh cause it used to be and therefore just isn't as attractive to the young as it once was.  Many of them see it as a busted flush and associated with the type of people that turn one off politics completely such as Nicola Sturgeon, Peter Murrell, Derek Mackay, Margaret Ferrier, Bill Walker, Michelle Thomson, Natalie McGarry, Patrick Grady, Jordan Linden, Allan Casey and Mhairi Black amongst others."

Word Salad. What does this have to do with proving your contention that FON polls are dodgy and loaded? It just appears to be a list of politicians you don't personally like.

"Serious question"

Oh. Has all the preamble to this question been some sort of joke? It certainally isn't any proof that my previous analysis is incorrect

"When you look at the Indy Graph on whatscotlandthinks.org and see that the majority of recent Yes leads come from one polling company, does this not ring alarm bells? "

What, this graph?

I don't think that it shows very much at all, apart from a very simple graphical representation of Yes/No Indy polling between June 2016 to March 2023. At times it shows Yes ahead, and at times it shows No ahead. However, during this period, the following companies have shown the following Yes leads:

Date/Polling Company/Yes Lead

7–12 June 2023    Find Out Now/Alba Party    4%
15–21 May 2023    Ipsos/STV    6%
1–9 Mar 2023    Find Out Now/Scot Goes Pop    4%
11–18 Jan 2023    FindOutNow/The National    8%
12–16 Dec 2022    Panelbase/Sunday Times    4%
6–9 Dec 2022    YouGov/The Times    5%
1–8 Dec 2022    FindOutNow/Electoral Calculus    8%
28 Nov–5 Dec 2022    Ipsos/STV    11%
26–27 Nov 2022    Redfield & Wilton Strategies    4%
22–25 Nov 2022    YouGov/Scottish Election Study    1%
13–19 Oct 2022    Ipsos    7%
29 Jun–1 Jul 2022    Panelbase/Sunday Times    1%
3–9 Feb 2022    Ipsos MORI    7%
22–29 Nov 2021    Ipsos MORI/STV    9%
3–8 Sep 2021    Opinium/Sky News    1%
28–30 Apr 2021    Panelbase/Sunday Times    3%
9–12 Apr 2021    Panelbase/Believe in Scotland    2%
1–6 Apr 2021    Opinium/Sky News    2%
29 Mar–4 Apr 2021    Ipsos MORI/STV    4%
30 Mar–1 Apr 2021    Panelbase/Sunday Times    1%
29–30 Mar 2021    Survation/DC Thomson    1%
23–26 Mar 2021    Find Out Now/Daily Express    4%
16–19 Mar 2021    BMG/Herald    3%
11–16 Mar 2021    Opinium/Sky News    2%
5–9 Mar 2021    Hanbury Strategy    6%
12 Feb–1 Mar 2021    Hanbury Strategy    11%
18–22 Feb 2021    Savanta ComRes/ITV News    4%
15–21 Feb 2021    Ipsos MORI/STV    4%
19–22 Jan 2021    Panelbase/Sunday Times    5%
11–13 Jan 2021    Survation/Scot Goes Pop    2%
8–13 Jan 2021    Savanta ComRes/The Scotsman    4%
11–15 Dec 2020    Savanta ComRes/The Scotsman    10%
2–7 Dec 2020    Survation    2%
20–26 Nov 2020    Ipsos MORI/STV    10%
5–11 Nov 2020    Panelbase/Scot Goes Pop    11%
6–10 Nov 2020    YouGov    1%
28 Oct–3 Nov 2020    Survation    7%
2–9 Oct 2020    Ipsos MORI/STV    13%
9 Oct 2020    Savanta ComRes    5%
25 Sep–5 Oct 2020    Survation/Progress Scotland    7%
17–21 Sep 2020    JL Partners    11%
2–7 Sep 2020    Survation    6%
12–18 Aug 2020    Panelbase/Business for Scotland    9%
6–13 Aug 2020    Savanta ComRes    7%
6–10 Aug 2020    YouGov/The Times    5%
30 Jun–3 Jul 2020    Panelbase/Sunday Times    7%
15–19 Jun 2020    Panelbase/Business for Scotland    7%
1–5 Jun 2020    Panelbase/Scot Goes Pop    3%
28–31 Jan 2020    Panelbase/Scot Goes Pop    3%
22–27 Jan 2020    YouGov    1%
30 Jul–2 Aug 2019    Lord Ashcroft    3%
24 Feb–6 Mar 2017    Ipsos MORI/STV    1%
24–28 Jun 2016    Survation/Scottish Daily Mail    6%
25–26 Jun 2016    Panelbase/Sunday Times    3%
25 Jun 2016    Survation/Daily Record    7%

During the same period, the following companies have shown Yes & No to be level

Date/Polling Company/Poll result

5–7 Oct 2022    Panelbase/Business for Scotland    Tied
14–18 Jan 2022    Savanta ComRes/The Scotsman    Tied
15–22 Dec 2021    Opinium/Daily Record    Tied
7–8 May 2021    Stack Data/Our Scottish Future    Tied
28 Apr–3 May 2021    Opinium/Sky News    Tied
30 Apr–3 May 2021    Ipsos MORI/STV    Tied
27–30 Apr 2021    BMG/Herald    Tied
2–7 Apr 2021    Savanta ComRes/The Scotsman    Tied
1–5 May 2020    Panelbase/Wings Over Scotland    Tied
20–22 Jan 2020    Survation/Progress Scotland    Tied
19–25 Nov 2019    Ipsos MORI/STV    Tied

So, when we look at the graph you provided, we find that FON have shown Yes in the lead (or level) on 5 occasions. If we only look at the period since the first FON "Yes" Result (26th March 2021), we find:

Ipsos (all polling) - 7 Yes leads/tied

Panelbase (all polling) - 6 Yes leads/tied

Opinium (all polling) - 4 Yes leads/tied

YouGov (all polling) - 2 Yes leads

Redfield & Winton (all polling) - 1 Yes lead

Survation (all polling) - 1 Yes lead

Savanta (all polling) - 2 tied

Stack Data (all polling) - 1 tied

BMG (all polling) - 1 tied

So, put simply, your claim that the majority of recent Yes leads are all by one company is absolute bollocks. Since FON first appeared, they have only the 3rd highest number of Yes/tied results, (Behind both Ipsos & Panelbase) and they are only 1 of 10 companies to have shown a Yes lead or tie during this time period. 

"Who do you think does it wrong, FON or all the other companies?"

I don't think any of them "does it wrong" They all do it in accordance with their own weighting systems, and (as as most are BPC members who abide by their standards) we are expected to believe that their polling is representative to a few percent either way. Put simply, if a survey shows Yes & No to be level, it is extremely unlikely (probably practically impossibly unlikely) to result in a tie. One side would win, albeit that it would be unlikely to be by more than 1 or 2 percent.

A survey of 1000 people will have a greater confidence level (plus or minus ~2%) than a survey of 500 people, (plus or minus ~3%). In turn, a survey of 500 people will have a greater confidence level than a survey of 1 person (practically statistically meningless)

Every poll on the list is flawed to some extent, as there will be errors that cannot be compensated for. The only poll that should matter is Indyref 2, which the Yoons are opposed to holding. If they are so sure of winning (which you appear to suggest), why don't they just hold the poll and put this to bed for good?

However, whilst I don't think any particular poll is "wrong" (apart from the Scotland in Union ones, which do use dodgy weighted questions), I'm not the one that is suggesting that a specific firm is "dodgy & loaded". As I have previously asked you, please provide some proof to back up your view. Saying that "the weighting is all over the place" is not proof, unless you demonstrate why it is all over the place, and why this makes the results dodgy.

Put simply, I don't want to hear any more of your opinions. I'm politely asking you to post some facts to back up these opinions, or STFU.

I actually commend you for having the sheer brass neck to post the above.  Onyhoo, let's go through the points at hand.

"The 2011 census contains the most recent official figures that are publicly available. I used them to compare the weightings with the FON weightings, as I don't have any more up-to-date figures. They match perfectly. Are you suggesting that age demographics in Scotland have changed since 2011? Please explain why and by exactly how much. The fact that people's ages change has absolutely no bearing on the percentages falling into each age group. In 2011, I fell into the 18% of Scottish residents aged 45-54. Twelve years later (not 13, as you erroneously claim), I fall into the 15% of Scottish residents aged 55-64. This is simple stuff!"

It's not the most realistic official figures we're after, but the most true, fair and representative view.  I'm afraid that using age figures from 12 years ago does not give that.  I'm not suggesting anything, other than that the FON cowboys have used ancient data which can't be relied on.

"As I suggest above, you'll need to demonstrate why FON's weightings are incorrect before you can make claims about the weighting skewing the figures. Incidentally, I love the dog-whistling going on in the last 5 words of that sentence! Given that we are talking about Scotland, can you explain exactly how Scotland will be ripped apart as a consequence of an independence vote?"

Using incorrect weighting does indeed skew the figures, and it's wrong because the figures are ancient.  You'll admitted yourself that they used figures from 2011.  I never said Scotland would be ripped apart, although now that you mention it, it could lead to a further break up if Orkney, Shetland, Edinburgh, the North East and borders areas were dragged out of the country against our will, especially when the matter had already been decided in 2014.

"Word Salad. What does this have to do with proving your contention that FON polls are dodgy and loaded? It just appears to be a list of politicians you don't personally like."

I never said it did.  I mentioned these charlatans to illustrate how the SNP and by extension the separation movement are seen to many.  It's not word salad at all.

"Oh. Has all the preamble to this question been some sort of joke? It certainally isn't any proof that my previous analysis is incorrect"

No, it hasn't 

As for the graph, I mentioned recent Yes leads.. not ones from as way back as 2017.  There have only been 4 yes leads out of 26 polls this year, and 3 of the 4 were by the FON cowboys.  My claim is correct and not false as you incorrectly state.

Edited June 21, 2023 by DiscoStu

[renton]

Every single pollster weights by age and gender demographics based on Census data, so if that has radically changed since 2011 then all are out by the same amount.

Its the additional weighting that is interesting. For a normal election poll you weigh, typically by turnout, and by recalled vote (I.e. the last election).

What FON are doing, and I think Ispos as well, is removing the recalled vote filter on the Referendum question, on the basis that demographic churn over 9 years starts to develop issues, particularly where that issue is fairly polarised by age demographics.

Whether its correct or not can of course only be tested in an actual Referendum, but clearly other pollsters will eventually abandon the 2014 filter as well, should they continue to ask the question - just as no one in the run up to the 99 Devolution Referendum weighted their polls by recalled 1979 votes...

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

58 minutes ago, renton said:

Every single pollster weights by age and gender demographics based on Census data, so if that has radically changed since 2011 then all are out by the same amount.

Its the additional weighting that is interesting. For a normal election poll you weigh, typically by turnout, and by recalled vote (I.e. the last election).

What FON are doing, and I think Ispos as well, is removing the recalled vote filter on the Referendum question, on the basis that demographic churn over 9 years starts to develop issues, particularly where that issue is fairly polarised by age demographics.

Whether its correct or not can of course only be tested in an actual Referendum, but clearly other pollsters will eventually abandon the 2014 filter as well, should they continue to ask the question - just as no one in the run up to the 99 Devolution Referendum weighted their polls by recalled 1979 votes...

I think that’s a fair assessment Renton.

I don’t see Lichtgilphead’s posts for reasons I’ll not get in to, but if DS is right in terms of FON being outliers in recent polls, then we should really be scrutinising them.

The burden of proof is on whoever backs them up.

Edited June 21, 2023 by CarrbridgeSaintee

[Soapy FFC]

Good to see if you down vote certain people in this thread you get a round of retaliatory down votes on completely unconnected threads. I seem to remember things like this happening before, but I may be wrong. 

[lichtgilphead]

2 hours ago, DiscoStu said:

I actually commend you for having the sheer brass neck to post the above.  Onyhoo, let's go through the points at hand.

"The 2011 census contains the most recent official figures that are publicly available. I used them to compare the weightings with the FON weightings, as I don't have any more up-to-date figures. They match perfectly. Are you suggesting that age demographics in Scotland have changed since 2011? Please explain why and by exactly how much. The fact that people's ages change has absolutely no bearing on the percentages falling into each age group. In 2011, I fell into the 18% of Scottish residents aged 45-54. Twelve years later (not 13, as you erroneously claim), I fall into the 15% of Scottish residents aged 55-64. This is simple stuff!"

It's not the most realistic official figures we're after, but the most true, fair and representative view.  I'm afraid that using age figures from 12 years ago does not give that.  I'm not suggesting anything, other than that the FON cowboys have used ancient data which can't be relied on.

"As I suggest above, you'll need to demonstrate why FON's weightings are incorrect before you can make claims about the weighting skewing the figures. Incidentally, I love the dog-whistling going on in the last 5 words of that sentence! Given that we are talking about Scotland, can you explain exactly how Scotland will be ripped apart as a consequence of an independence vote?"

Using incorrect weighting does indeed skew the figures, and it's wrong because the figures are ancient.  You'll admitted yourself that they used figures from 2011.  I never said Scotland would be ripped apart, although now that you mention it, it could lead to a further break up if Orkney, Shetland, Edinburgh, the North East and borders areas were dragged out of the country against our will, especially when the matter had already been decided in 2014.

"Word Salad. What does this have to do with proving your contention that FON polls are dodgy and loaded? It just appears to be a list of politicians you don't personally like."

I never said it did.  I mentioned these charlatans to illustrate how the SNP and by extension the separation movement are seen to many.  It's not word salad at all.

"Oh. Has all the preamble to this question been some sort of joke? It certainally isn't any proof that my previous analysis is incorrect"

No, it hasn't 

As for the graph, I mentioned recent Yes leads.. not ones from as way back as 2017.  There have only been 4 yes leads out of 26 polls this year, and 3 of the 4 were by the FON cowboys.  My claim is correct and not false as you incorrectly state.

Well, that's another stream of fact-free shite!

I've already told you that I cannot be arsed with your opinions, but yet again, you provide absolutely nothing to back up these opinions. 

The FON cowboys have used ancient data which can't be relied on.

To demonstrate why the current official figures cannot be relied on, you'll need to show that they have changed. What weighting do you think polling companies should use? Where can I find these true fair & representative figures you refer to? Are you suggesting that polling companies should abandon weighting because some random on a football forum says that they are cowboys that use ancient data?

I would also refer you to Renton's response above, which I agree with.

You'll admitted yourself that they used figures from 2011.  

Do you have comprehension problems? If you read my posts properly, you'll see that I looked up the 2011 census to find the percentages falling into specific age bands at that time. I then compared these percentages with the weightings applied by FON and they matched. Stop making stupid assumptions. 

when the matter had already been decided in 2014

Right, so 2011 figures are ancient and unreliable, but 2014 figures must be respected until the end of time. Welcome to Yoon democracy.

As for the graph, I mentioned recent Yes leads.. not ones from as way back as 2017

Your graph actually goes back to June 2016, not 2017. However, your gripe appears to be against FON, so I went back to their first recorded poll on this matter (26th March 2021) and counted the poll results since that date. 

You, however, appear to have picked an arbitrary date, which (just by chance) omits the 7 out of 8 Yes leads during quarter 4 of 2022.

3 hours ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

I don’t see Lichtgilphead’s posts for reasons I’ll not get in to

You respond to posts you can't see? That's special.

 

2 hours ago, Soapy FFC said:

Good to see if you down vote certain people in this thread you get a round of retaliatory down votes on completely unconnected threads. I seem to remember things like this happening before, but I may be wrong. 

Yeah, there appear to be 2 or 3 dotting accounts that randomly give me Helens on posts from months ago. I wear it as a badge of honour.

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

This article raises some interesting points about FON.

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/scexit-poll-showing-almost-record-29015930?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target
 

I don’t think we should be taking their polling data very seriously.

[itzdrk]

23 minutes ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

This article raises some interesting points about FON.

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/scexit-poll-showing-almost-record-29015930?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target
 

I don’t think we should be taking their polling data very seriously.

Fortunately you have shared a link from a credible and unbiased and source like the Daily Express.  

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

1 minute ago, itzdrk said:

Fortunately you have shared a link from a credible and unbiased and source like the Daily Express.  

The points stand, regardless of the messenger.

[Leith Green]

13 minutes ago, itzdrk said:

Fortunately you have shared a link from a credible and unbiased and source like the Daily Express.  

Any news outlet that tries to get traction under the tag "Scexit" needs burned to the ground.

[Jenny Geddes Stool]

Find it now are the black sheep of the polling world and anyone still championing them at this stage is more than likely a troll tbh.

Edited June 22, 2023 by Jenny Geddes Stool

[Wee Bully]

6 minutes ago, Jenny Geddes Stool said:

Find it now are the black sheep of the polling world and anyone still championing them at this stage is more than likely a troll tbh.

Great 4th post mate.  I look forward to reading more.

[Soapy FFC]

1 hour ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

This article raises some interesting points about FON.

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/scexit-poll-showing-almost-record-29015930?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target
 

I don’t think we should be taking their polling data very seriously.

 

Quote

The survey was carried out by little-known polling company Find Out Now (FON) and put support for Yes at 54 per cent once don't knows were excluded, with No being on 46 per cent.

 

Quote

And following investigation by nationalist fact-checking collective ScotFax, they concluded that there was some nationalist bias within the polling results.

So the analysis of the little known polling company was carried out by a little known twitter account. Just saying.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

On 18/06/2023 at 22:28, moses1924 said:

Fair play @lichtgilpheadthat's some telt

FTFY

Edited June 22, 2023 by DeeTillEhDeh

[itzdrk]

2 hours ago, Jenny Geddes Stool said:

 a troll tbh.

 

[DublinMagyar]

21 hours ago, DiscoStu said:

I actually commend you for having the sheer brass neck to post the above.  Onyhoo, let's go through the points at hand.

"The 2011 census contains the most recent official figures that are publicly available. I used them to compare the weightings with the FON weightings, as I don't have any more up-to-date figures. They match perfectly. Are you suggesting that age demographics in Scotland have changed since 2011? Please explain why and by exactly how much. The fact that people's ages change has absolutely no bearing on the percentages falling into each age group. In 2011, I fell into the 18% of Scottish residents aged 45-54. Twelve years later (not 13, as you erroneously claim), I fall into the 15% of Scottish residents aged 55-64. This is simple stuff!"

It's not the most realistic official figures we're after, but the most true, fair and representative view.  I'm afraid that using age figures from 12 years ago does not give that.  I'm not suggesting anything, other than that the FON cowboys have used ancient data which can't be relied on.

"As I suggest above, you'll need to demonstrate why FON's weightings are incorrect before you can make claims about the weighting skewing the figures. Incidentally, I love the dog-whistling going on in the last 5 words of that sentence! Given that we are talking about Scotland, can you explain exactly how Scotland will be ripped apart as a consequence of an independence vote?"

Using incorrect weighting does indeed skew the figures, and it's wrong because the figures are ancient.  You'll admitted yourself that they used figures from 2011.  I never said Scotland would be ripped apart, although now that you mention it, it could lead to a further break up if Orkney, Shetland, Edinburgh, the North East and borders areas were dragged out of the country against our will, especially when the matter had already been decided in 2014.

"Word Salad. What does this have to do with proving your contention that FON polls are dodgy and loaded? It just appears to be a list of politicians you don't personally like."

I never said it did.  I mentioned these charlatans to illustrate how the SNP and by extension the separation movement are seen to many.  It's not word salad at all.

"Oh. Has all the preamble to this question been some sort of joke? It certainally isn't any proof that my previous analysis is incorrect"

No, it hasn't 

As for the graph, I mentioned recent Yes leads.. not ones from as way back as 2017.  There have only been 4 yes leads out of 26 polls this year, and 3 of the 4 were by the FON cowboys.  My claim is correct and not false as you incorrectly state.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

Lionel Hutz found.

[lichtgilphead]

12 hours ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

This article raises some interesting points about FON.

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/scexit-poll-showing-almost-record-29015930?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target
 

I don’t think we should be taking their polling data very seriously.

Firstly, I'd like to thank @CarrbridgeSaintee for actually linking to something rather than posting opinionated fact-free nonsense like @DiscoStu

Unfortunately, he has picked the most hardline unionist rag "newspaper" quoting what almost appears to be a parody Yoon account's take on events. 

Let's have a look at some of the sites that Twitter consider to be similar to @ScotFax:
@These_Islands
@themajorityscot
@kevverage
@scotlandinunion (yes, the holocaust denier!)
@snpwatch

I also note that @ScotFax have enthusiasticaly retweeted both Historywoman and AgentP

So, now we've established that a completely neutral newspaper is quoting a completely neutral "nationalist fact-checking collective", let's get down to looking at their claims.

The article is dated 21st January 2023, and refers to a poll carried out by Find Out Now for The National. 

Here is a link to the Find Out Now tables from that very poll

https://audience.findoutnow.co.uk/files/reports/Tables_ScotInd_20230119.xlsx

Find Out Now interviewed 1,094 Scottish adults online from 11-18 January 2023. Data were weighted to be demographically representative of all Scottish adults by gender, age, social grade, other demographics and past voting patterns. 
Weighting targets come from the 2011 census and reported election results. Weighted population total is the effective sample size (the size of the equivalent uniform sample with the same sample errors).

I note that on this occasion, Find Out Now have specifically stated that their weighting targets are taken from the 2011 Census, confirming my suspicions in previous posts above. Strangely, however, @ScotFax do not denounce these weighting targets, so I think that we can assume that they also consider @DiscoStu's opinions to be absolute garbage. 

They give the result as Yes 54% and No 46% when DK's are excluded, and Yes 40% No 34% and DK's 20% with DK's included. In addition, they claim that 5% refused to say

Unfortunately, the true results are vey different, both on the Wikipedia Indypoll page here, and in the tables I linked to above. Both sources report the headline result of that particular poll as Yes 52%, No 44% Undecided 3%

So, where has this mysterious 40%/34%/20%/5% split come from? To find out the answer, we need to look further down the tables.

Oh, look! @ScotFax have lumped together the 17% that said that they will not vote at all in with the 3% of don't knows. In reality, the figures they are working from are Yes 40%, No 34%, DK 3%, Refused 5% and "Would not vote" 17%

"Scotfax points out that the surveys have a high percentage of Don't Knows/Refused than the rest, which covered about a quarter of their responses, when it is usually at 10 per cent in the other ones."

It is quite simple to work out that this is untrue. The FON total of Don't Knows/Refused is actually only 8%. It's only by including the 17% of "will not vote" in the "Don't Know's" that they can falsely claim DK's are at 20%

So, what does this all mean? ScotFax appear to have drawn the conclusion that the vast majority of the people that told the pollster that they would not vote at all were lying, and that they are all "quiet and reluctant No voter(s)"

As turnout in the last Indyref was just under 85%, a properly representative sample of the population is actually quite likely to find people that won't vote. If the Yoon's are now pinning their hopes that those people are all really 'quiet and reluctant' No voters, then it looks pretty desparate for the Union.