Latest Polls and Latest Odds

[H_B]

Why did ICM change methodology from their last poll? Did they not like the results they got last time?

Oops

Even so, in John Curtice’s analysis he suggests that ICM have changed their approach to turnout in this poll, and that it would have been even worse for YES on their old method.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

[H_B]

I think the ukpollingreport analysis is very fair, and correct.

"My perception is still that there was a tightening in the polls at the tail end of last year after the white paper, and a very slow trend towards YES since then. The trend may well have slowed or stopped completely in recent weeks, but the single ICM poll or the normal variation in Panelbase is not enough to conclude it has reversed."

[Colkitto]

Oops

Even so, in John Curtice’s analysis he suggests that ICM have changed their approach to turnout in this poll, and that it would have been even worse for YES on their old method.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

The datasets for ICM's referendum poll have been published, and as a result it's become clear that the methodological changes have gone way beyond the one flagged up by John Curtice and trailed by Martin Boon last month, namely the introduction of a likelihood to vote filter. In the April poll from ICM that produced a virtual dead heat (a No lead of just 3%), the referendum question was asked first. But in this new poll showing a bigger 12% No lead, the referendum question was asked third - which ought to set alarm bells ringing immediately, because we know that responses to later questions can be substantially influenced by the wording of earlier ones. Indeed, John Curtice has spent a fair bit of the last few months rubbishing a poll conducted last summer by the BPC-affiliated firm Panelbase, simply on the basis that it asked the referendum question third. That poll of course showed Yes in a 1% lead. A few cynics might wonder why he pounced on methodological bad practice in a poll that showed movement towards Yes (and in retrospect he was probably right to do so, because it was completely out of line with other polls), but hasn't said a word about the same problem in a poll that appears to show a favourable trend for No.

http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/concerns-mount-over-icms-sudden-change.html

[Ad Lib]

My point is you stated all polls favouring the No side were legit. We both know that wasn't the case and the ICM poll proved that.

I said you should retract your comments as it was basically bollocks and the proof was there with the latest poll that they do indeed get up to manipulation of polls.

1. No I didn't say that.

2. What I said was unequivocally true at the time I said it.

3. What I said at the time isn't invalidated by anything that subsequently happened.

4. In any case, what I said at the time wouldn't have been invalidated even if I'd said it after this ICM poll came out.

Well the referendum question was asked as the third question, not the first.

One of the questions "Thinking about the referendum on independence for Scotland, do you feel comfortable or uncomfortable being asked which way you might vote?"

That is intended to influence their reaction to the independence question making them feel uncomfortable about being asked.

They asked the comfort question and how certain people were to vote. You've failed to explain how either of those are leading questions.

In the SNP Panelbase poll, we saw the very definition of leading questions. The first one positively posited that an independent Scotland would be successful and prosperous, making people who had some doubts about an independent Scotland's finances less likely to declare a No vote, and a question about which government they trust, likely to skew people towards a Yes vote given, you know... Tory dog whistle and expenses.

Please explain how asking whether you feel comfortable or uncomfortable telling a pollster how you intend to vote in the referendum skews responses in favour of No.

Why did ICM change methodology from their last poll? Did they not like the results they got last time?

Because they wanted to find out if there was a discrepancy between voting intention and openness about how and whether people intend to vote.

People like you are being duped into believing the No side are so far ahead they are on course to victory. If they resort to this sort of manipulation then it doesn't take a genius to work out they are not.

So just to be clear, you're saying that the Scotsman are part of a Unionist conspiracy to manipulate the polls? M'kay.

And just to be clear, in case you are implying ICM is part of this conspiracy here's a quote from John Curtice:

"The 42% Yes vote is lower than that recorded by any previous ICM poll this year. Moreover, it has occurred despite the fact that this month ICM have further refined their methodology to take into account people’s reported willingness to vote in September, in much the same way that Survation already do. If that change had not been introduced ICM would have been reporting only a 40% Yes vote, that is as low as it was last September."

If they were looking to gerrymander the result in No's favour do you really think they'd change the methodology so as to INCREASE the Yes share?

Edited May 20, 2014 by Ad Lib

[H_B]

The datasets for ICM's referendum poll have been published, and as a result it's become clear that the methodological changes have gone way beyond the one flagged up by John Curtice and trailed by Martin Boon last month, namely the introduction of a likelihood to vote filter. In the April poll from ICM that produced a virtual dead heat (a No lead of just 3%), the referendum question was asked first. But in this new poll showing a bigger 12% No lead, the referendum question was asked third - which ought to set alarm bells ringing immediately, because we know that responses to later questions can be substantially influenced by the wording of earlier ones. Indeed, John Curtice has spent a fair bit of the last few months rubbishing a poll conducted last summer by the BPC-affiliated firm Panelbase, simply on the basis that it asked the referendum question third. That poll of course showed Yes in a 1% lead. A few cynics might wonder why he pounced on methodological bad practice in a poll that showed movement towards Yes (and in retrospect he was probably right to do so, because it was completely out of line with other polls), but hasn't said a word about the same problem in a poll that appears to show a favourable trend for No.

http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/concerns-mount-over-icms-sudden-change.html

Oh dear.

This Scotgoespop guy is really desperate to squeeze money from Nat idiots isn't he? Any pretence that this was a serious blog have long gone.

Just to be clear here, you are equating the SNP's bought poll with this one, because the question was asked third, no matter what the first two questions were? There is, unlike the laughable SNP poll, absolutely nothing to suggest these questions were in any way leading and would in any way be prejudicial to either Yes or No.

In what way does questioning the comfort of being asked for your opinion on the matter lead one to either Yes or No?

Also, notably he doesn't actually go against what Curtice said, merely engages in whataboutery after it! Pure desperation.

[H_B]

This is also a lie from the SgP guy :-

"Indeed, John Curtice has spent a fair bit of the last few months rubbishing a poll conducted last summer by the BPC-affiliated firm Panelbase, simply on the basis that it asked the referendum question third.

Eh, sorry to pish on your chips James, but it wasn't "simply on the basis that it asked the referendum question third".

I like also the "BPC-affiliated" bit - nice touch.

[Confidemus]

just to be clear

And just to be clear

Just to be clear here

Hmmmmm...

[Ad Lib]

Eh, sorry to pish on your chips James, but it wasn't "simply on the basis that it asked the referendum question third".

Quite. It was because the previous two questions were dog-whistles for "Scotland's pyoor great eh?" and "do you trust those expenses cheats?"

Which is hardly comparable to "izzit orite if ah ask ye about the referendum?" and "are yiz gonnae vote?".

[Confidemus]

Quite. It was because the previous two questions were dog-whistles for "Scotland's pyoor great eh?" and "do you trust those expenses cheats?"

Which is hardly comparable to "izzit orite if ah ask ye about the referendum?" and "are yiz gonnae vote?".

Looking down your nose at the working classes again, Libby?

Stay classy.

[Ad Lib]

Looking down your nose at the working classes again, Libby?

Stay classy.

No, just Fifers.

[Double Jack D]

Totally unscientific but I would say for every 5 people I speak to, 2 would vote yes, 2 undecided and 1 no. Of the undecideds 4 out of 5 want to vote yes but have legitimate concerns about the change and want to wait and see. The other 1 probably won't vote.

This of course is my own wee world but I speak to a lot of people about it and certainly don't see a 60% no vote.

I appreciate though that its a big country and my wee corner may not be representative.

Yes still got a bit of work to do. It would be such a shame to miss this opportunity.

Must spam more on Facebook and twitter lol!

[Colkitto]

1. No I didn't say that.

You said "pretty much all other polls have been legitimate" Sounds like you did.

They asked the comfort question and how certain people were to vote. You've failed to explain how either of those are leading questions.

Read this -: http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/concerns-mount-over-icms-sudden-change.html

So just to be clear, you're saying that the Scotsman are part of a Unionist conspiracy to manipulate the polls? M'kay.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying

[SodjesSixteenIncher]

Most people I've heard talking about it are going to vote No tbh. Some say so, most say "hmm I dunno, I like think it sounds nice but I read *shite in the Scotsman* so now I'm really undecided you know??!" and are pretty obviously not undecided.

Don't know why people engage Britnats in arguments over who's going to win it. I'll vote and I'll occasionally engage people in conversation about it because I'd be ashamed not to but I absolutely do not expect a Yes vote.

Constantly bickering about what the result will be like some shite match thread only gives No supporters something to talk about other than the awkward subject of why they support the Union.

Edited May 20, 2014 by SodjesSixteenIncher

[Ad Lib]

You said "pretty much all other polls have been legitimate" Sounds like you did.

Please explain how saying "pretty much all other polls have been legitimate" before the collection of data from the ICM poll is the same as saying "all polls favouring the No side were legit".

Please then explain how saying "have been legitimate" implies that I am also saying that future polls, over whose methodology I have no control whatsoever, are therefore "legitimate".

Read this -: http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/concerns-mount-over-icms-sudden-change.html

His analysis is absolute nonsense and doesn't support the supposition that the question is leading. If you read some of the comments you will see that it's not even clear how discomfort of disclosure translates into voting behaviour. It certainly doesn't lead obviously to increased support for one side or the other. There will be those who are uncomfortable who were made more inclined to vote the way they actually intend to by having their discomfort flagged up before answering the question. There are those who will have become more coy by having their discomfort flagged up, who may disclose instead a Don't Know or vote the other way. There will have been some who, in having their discomfort flagged up to them, will have lied even about feeling discomfort at disclosing how they vote.

What cannot be said, however, is that the question obviously benefits any of these three or other phenomena, or indeed which side benefits the most out of those phenomena. In other words, it is not obviously a leading question.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying

You are a fruit loop.

[Double Jack D]

Most people I've heard talking about it are going to vote No tbh. Some say so, most say "hmm I dunno, I like think it sounds nice but I read *shite in the Scotsman* so now I'm really undecided you know??!" and are pretty obviously not undecided.

Don't know why people engage Britnats in arguments over who's going to win it. I'll vote and I'll occasionally engage people in conversation about it because I'd be ashamed not to but I absolutely do not expect a Yes vote.

Constantly bickering about what the result will be like some shite match thread only gives No supporters something to talk about other than the awkward subject of why they support the Union.

The bickering over the result drives me nuts. What will be will be.

I'm a supporter of Yes but, despite the arguments on either side suggesting it, I doubt there will be a monumental difference whether the outcome is Yes or the outcome is No. The everything will be great/ terrible politics make it so difficult for people to accurately assess what would actually be best for them.

The reality is there are good points to being independent, and bad points. There are good points to staying togather, and bad points.

For me, I see us as a Nation with our own identity. The fact that it is now accepted on all sides of the debate that Scotland can afford to stand on its own two feet and take responsible decisions for itself means it's a no brainer for me. We should absolutely make that step.

Of course there is no guarantee we wouldn't make a rip roaring arse of it however it matters not, the likelihood is we'll be too shite scared to have a go anyway.

I'd love to be proved wrong though but I very much doubt it. Generally speaking we are not a positive, confident nation and the fear of all things unknown will be the biggest factor in a Better Together victory. In blackjack terms, its like sticking on 15.

Hopefully, there is enough of a Yes vote that it really does put pressure on further devolution. The Scottish Parliament is a far better representation of the Scottish people than Westminster and if we end up whereby the only real undevolved item is Defence then I think most Scots would be pretty satisfied with that.

Pity that option isn't on the ballot paper, would put the debate to bed once and for all.

[Blaven]

The bickering over the result drives me nuts. What will be will be.

I'm a supporter of Yes but, despite the arguments on either side suggesting it, I doubt there will be a monumental difference whether the outcome is Yes or the outcome is No. The everything will be great/ terrible politics make it so difficult for people to accurately assess what would actually be best for them.

The reality is there are good points to being independent, and bad points. There are good points to staying togather, and bad points.

For me, I see us as a Nation with our own identity. The fact that it is now accepted on all sides of the debate that Scotland can afford to stand on its own two feet and take responsible decisions for itself means it's a no brainer for me. We should absolutely make that step.

Of course there is no guarantee we wouldn't make a rip roaring arse of it however it matters not, the likelihood is we'll be too shite scared to have a go anyway.

I'd love to be proved wrong though but I very much doubt it. Generally speaking we are not a positive, confident nation and the fear of all things unknown will be the biggest factor in a Better Together victory. In blackjack terms, its like sticking on 15.

Hopefully, there is enough of a Yes vote that it really does put pressure on further devolution. The Scottish Parliament is a far better representation of the Scottish people than Westminster and if we end up whereby the only real undevolved item is Defence then I think most Scots would be pretty satisfied with that.

Pity that option isn't on the ballot paper, would put the debate to bed once and for all.

The one thing that really, really stands out in that for me is "not a posotive, confident nation".

I totally agree. I dont think we will ever be anything but untill we go it alone. I reckon the whole alcohol, obesity and most health issues are all heavily involved with this psyche of identity.

We really need to make a whole new identity and become a more confident and braver nation.

Independence is the best way to kickstart that.

[Ad Lib]

Proof of the "Team: St Mirren" trope for all to see!

http://wingsoverscotland.com/an-opportunist-strike/

[H_B]

RANGERS

Yes: 45%
No: 41%
Don’t know: 14%

That'll upset some of the NCC.

[Blaven]

RANGERS

Yes: 45%

No: 41%

Don’t know: 14%

That'll upset some of the NCC.

Is that you getting your retaliation in first?

[H_B]

Is that you getting your retaliation in first?

I'm not sure what your point is here....

I'm sure the Yes voters on here will be delighted to know they are lockstep in agreement with the Rangers fanbase.