Latest Polls and Latest Odds

[sophia]

On 13/08/2023 at 21:22, Johnny Martin said:

 Nhats 

Your contribution marks you, at best, as a less than serious commentator.

Was that your intention?

[Billy Jean King]

4 minutes ago, sophia said:

Your contribution marks you, at best, as a less than serious commentator.

Was that your intention?

I'm stunned anyone doesn't have this utter roaster on ignore after his faux NI marching season reports. Talk about Calling Card of Morons

[lichtgilphead]

9 hours ago, Johnny Martin said:

My point is that on the list, people will be less inclined to fall down the lines of Unionism and Nationalism, because there are always a plethora is single issue, niche parties that people will "give a chance" to.

In exactly the same way, people vote tactically in FPTP elections. It's a well established fact that FPTP is one of the least democratic systems in use in the world today.

In addition, we have already agreed that 8% CON, 10% SNP, 15% LD & 30% LAB don't vote as you would expect on the Yes/No question. If we apply these results to the consituency vote in 2021, we get the following:

SNP Total = 47.7%  On a 90/10 split, this breaks down as SNP "Yes" 42.9% and SNP "No" 4.8%

CON Total = 21.9% On a 8/92 split, this breaks down as CON "Yes" 1.7% and CON "No" 20.1%

LAB Total = 21.6% On a 30/70 split, this breaks down as LAB "Yes"  6.5% and LAB "No" 15.1%

LD Total = 6.9% On a 15/85 split, this breaks down as LD "Yes" 1.0% and LD "No" 5.9%

If we total up all these constituency votes, we get "Yes" 52.1% and "No" 45.9%. Now, you may point out that this only totals 98% of the total constituency votes. That's true! The other 2% of constituency votes went to the Greens, the Libertarians, the Scottish Family Party, UKIP, the Freedom Alliance, TUSC, Restore Scotland, Scotia Future, Communist Party of Britain, Reclaim, Vanguard,. I really can't be bothered trying to split up their tiny shares of the vote, so I'll be generous. Let's assume that they all vote 100% No (even though this is hugely unlikely, considering that at least 3 of them had Indy in their manifestos.)

This gives us a total final result of 

Yes 52.1% No 47.1%

Now, whilst these are just ballpark figures, and hardly conclusive, it demonstrates that your claim that the figures haven't moved since the 2014 result just isn't true.

If only there was a simple method by which we could determine an answer in 2023! Perhaps we could ask the electorate a simple Yes/No question, instead of extrapolating figures from multi-party election results!

10 hours ago, Johnny Martin said:

Yes, the result on the actual day was 10.6%, whereas polling both before and after The Vow was made (which was kept) had much smaller gaps.

I asked for proof, not just for a statement of your opinion. 

There were 2 polls conducted after the Vow was made. 

With undecided's stripped out, these polls split yes/no 47.4%/52.6% and 47.3%/52.7%

Now, given that the 95% confidence level on a poll of around 1000 voters is around +/-3%, it's 95% statistically probable that the actual "Yes" vote will be somewhere between 44.3% and 50.4%. Your "smaller gap" is just an effect of the margin of error, as 44.7% (the actual result on the day) is within that 95% interval.

As you haven't given any timescale for your pre-Vow figures in your evidence free-reply, I'm unable to work out comparable figures for Yes. However, I suspect that the Vow is to blame for the slight drop in Yes support in thae last couple of days rather than sampling error.

Now, I only introduced "The Vow" as a factor in changing some votes in the final run-in, but seeing that you believe it was kept, can you answer me this, please?

The vow states "We are agreed that the Scottish Parliament is permanent..." 

This is untrue, of course, as Westminster could abolish it tomorrow. Have you forgotten about the (English) Doctrine of Parliamentary Superiority already. Accordingly, as the very first line of the Vow is a lie, no-one can seriously believe that it was kept.

12 hours ago, Johnny Martin said:

I still don't frame it as us being Westminster ruling us though, as we elect the MPs so ultimately it's the people who are sovereign.

What's this "we" you speak of? The definition of the electorate has changed on numerous occasions. Less than 100 years ago, women didn't have the vote at all, unless they were over 30 and either they (or their husbands, if married) owned property with a rateable value of over £5.

Westminster could change the franchise to "only bald men over 50 can vote" tomorrow, if they wanted to, and unless you chose to resort to armed insurrection, there would be f*ck all you could do about it. 

Whilst "the Mother of Parliaments" isn't quite as blatant as that, recent changes (ID cards to vote, expats getting the vote for 15 years after leaving) and the refusal to allow 16/17 year olds the vote at Westminster are all to do with entrenching one party in power. Scotland hasn't voted for that party in my lifetime.

Westminster is undemocratic & corrupt. In the words of the old joke "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal"

[Wee-Bey]

1 hour ago, lichtgilphead said:

Westminster could change the franchise to "only bald men over 50 can vote" 

Westminster election results over the past 40 years suggest that this already might be the case.

[GTee]

Why are Tory governments desperate to hold on to a financial drain as poor as Scotland. England has more than ten times the population and wouldn't notice or care if we weren't there.  I'm sure the good people of England would vote for their independence given a chance. The Brexit vote suggests that.  Seems like a good solution all round - Wales and NI too.

[Suspect Device]

 

Survey Report (yougov.com)

[moses1924]

38 minutes ago, Suspect Device said:

 

Survey Report (yougov.com)

If i'm reading that right around the same number of people have changed from no to yes as have gone from yes to no since 2014?

[Wee-Bey]

1 hour ago, Suspect Device said:

 

Survey Report (yougov.com)

[Wee-Bey]

Fill your boots lads.

 

[Wee-Bey]

The Sturg remains the most popular politician.

[pawpar]

Don't know why the SNP are getting their knickers in a twist with the scottish elections. Next one isn't until 7 May 2026. Labour will have been in power in the UK for approx a year and a half and will have ample time to fu ck things up. Leaving the mighty SNP with the same margin as they had at the last elections.

[sophia]

45 minutes ago, Ziggy Sobotka said:

The Sturg remains the most popular politician.

and those figures spell trouble for dear wee Dougie. I fear he might be mutually consented before too long.

[Wee-Bey]

15 minutes ago, sophia said:

and those figures spell trouble for dear wee Dougie. I fear he might be mutually consented before too long.

I'm sure he'll be rewarded for his service with a seat in the Lords..

[lichtgilphead]

18 minutes ago, orfc said:

You're applying a statistic based on how those who voted labour in 2019 at a Westminster ge to labour votes in a Scottish election in 2021. They could be very different populations 2 years apart. For a start labour only got 18.6% of the Scottish vote at the 2019 ge.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_election_in_Scotland

It's an awful lot of typing and sums based on a ropy assumption, which seems familiar

Yes, I would agree . All I was trying to disprove was his contention that the Constituency vote in a Holyrood election was the most appropriate way to measure support for Indy. Using the figures for "rebel" votes that he had previously agreed were probably somewhere near correct, it was easy to demonstrate that his contention didn't stand up to scrutiny.

I note that you didn't quote my summary at the end, where I said (my emphasis):

"Now, whilst these are just ballpark figures, and hardly conclusive, it demonstrates that your claim that the figures haven't moved since the 2014 result just isn't true.

If only there was a simple method by which we could determine an answer in 2023! Perhaps we could ask the electorate a simple Yes/No question, instead of extrapolating figures from multi-party election results!"

Let me ask you some straight questions. It would be good if you could give straight answers

1) Is it fair to consider a vote for Labour in a Westminster or Holyrood election to be a vote to continue the union, given polling evidence shows that up to 30% of Labour voters would vote "Yes" in Indyref 2?

2) Given recent polling on the desirability of holding a second independence referendum within a year, what would be a fair method to allow both Independence supporters & Union supporters to demonstrate their choice?

3) If you consider electorates "could be very different populations 2 years apart", do you also consider a 9 year gap to produce a "very different population"

4) Given your examination of the figures I provided, why didn't you spot the typo that underestimated the Yoon vote?

 

 

[GTee]

Independence still quite close. Only heading In one direction though. It's happening regardless of the undemocrats. 

[Johnny Martin]

On 15/08/2023 at 20:31, lichtgilphead said:

In exactly the same way, people vote tactically in FPTP elections. It's a well established fact that FPTP is one of the least democratic systems in use in the world today.

In addition, we have already agreed that 8% CON, 10% SNP, 15% LD & 30% LAB don't vote as you would expect on the Yes/No question. If we apply these results to the consituency vote in 2021, we get the following:

SNP Total = 47.7%  On a 90/10 split, this breaks down as SNP "Yes" 42.9% and SNP "No" 4.8%

CON Total = 21.9% On a 8/92 split, this breaks down as CON "Yes" 1.7% and CON "No" 20.1%

LAB Total = 21.6% On a 30/70 split, this breaks down as LAB "Yes"  6.5% and LAB "No" 15.1%

LD Total = 6.9% On a 15/85 split, this breaks down as LD "Yes" 1.0% and LD "No" 5.9%

If we total up all these constituency votes, we get "Yes" 52.1% and "No" 45.9%. Now, you may point out that this only totals 98% of the total constituency votes. That's true! The other 2% of constituency votes went to the Greens, the Libertarians, the Scottish Family Party, UKIP, the Freedom Alliance, TUSC, Restore Scotland, Scotia Future, Communist Party of Britain, Reclaim, Vanguard,. I really can't be bothered trying to split up their tiny shares of the vote, so I'll be generous. Let's assume that they all vote 100% No (even though this is hugely unlikely, considering that at least 3 of them had Indy in their manifestos.)

This gives us a total final result of 

Yes 52.1% No 47.1%

Now, whilst these are just ballpark figures, and hardly conclusive, it demonstrates that your claim that the figures haven't moved since the 2014 result just isn't true.

If only there was a simple method by which we could determine an answer in 2023! Perhaps we could ask the electorate a simple Yes/No question, instead of extrapolating figures from multi-party election results!

I asked for proof, not just for a statement of your opinion. 

There were 2 polls conducted after the Vow was made. 

With undecided's stripped out, these polls split yes/no 47.4%/52.6% and 47.3%/52.7%

Now, given that the 95% confidence level on a poll of around 1000 voters is around +/-3%, it's 95% statistically probable that the actual "Yes" vote will be somewhere between 44.3% and 50.4%. Your "smaller gap" is just an effect of the margin of error, as 44.7% (the actual result on the day) is within that 95% interval.

As you haven't given any timescale for your pre-Vow figures in your evidence free-reply, I'm unable to work out comparable figures for Yes. However, I suspect that the Vow is to blame for the slight drop in Yes support in thae last couple of days rather than sampling error.

Now, I only introduced "The Vow" as a factor in changing some votes in the final run-in, but seeing that you believe it was kept, can you answer me this, please?

The vow states "We are agreed that the Scottish Parliament is permanent..." 

This is untrue, of course, as Westminster could abolish it tomorrow. Have you forgotten about the (English) Doctrine of Parliamentary Superiority already. Accordingly, as the very first line of the Vow is a lie, no-one can seriously believe that it was kept.

What's this "we" you speak of? The definition of the electorate has changed on numerous occasions. Less than 100 years ago, women didn't have the vote at all, unless they were over 30 and either they (or their husbands, if married) owned property with a rateable value of over £5.

Westminster could change the franchise to "only bald men over 50 can vote" tomorrow, if they wanted to, and unless you chose to resort to armed insurrection, there would be f*ck all you could do about it. 

Whilst "the Mother of Parliaments" isn't quite as blatant as that, recent changes (ID cards to vote, expats getting the vote for 15 years after leaving) and the refusal to allow 16/17 year olds the vote at Westminster are all to do with entrenching one party in power. Scotland hasn't voted for that party in my lifetime.

Westminster is undemocratic & corrupt. In the words of the old joke "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal"

Voting tactically in FPTP elections doesn't stop them from voting down constitutional lines though.  Doing the whole constitutional thing would be the reason for the tactical vote in the first place.

Using constituency voting percentages then applying the Yes/No splits from opinion polling is grasping at straws.  I'd be interested to see your source anyway, as I doubt the Labour split is as much as 70/30.  You're better off just going by opinion polling on the independence question, which keeps showing No in the lead.

You can talk about margins of error all you want, but the opinion poll still shows an actual percentage.  The fact is that opinion polling before and after The SNP;s brand new Chief Executive's superb pro-Union Vow campaign, consistently showed a much smaller gap between Yes and No than the actual result.  The actual result had a 10.6% (we'll round it up to 11%).

The party leaders did agree that the Scottish Parliament is permanent.  Westminster being able to abolish doesn't change that.

Edited August 24, 2023 by Johnny Martin

[lichtgilphead]

14 minutes ago, Johnny Martin said:

  I'd be interesting to see your source anyway, as I doubt the Labour split is as much as 70/30. 

Have you got memory problems? See below for our last discussion of the 30% labour "Yes" vote. You said you would eat humble pie!

On 06/08/2023 at 20:23, lichtgilphead said:

Here are some recent polling figures (June & July 2023) for "Labour Yes" based on 2019 Westminster votes (all taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_Scottish_independence). In every case I have stripped out don't know & would not vote 

Redfield & Wilton July 2023 - Labour Yes 28.4% 

YouGov June 2023 - Labour Yes 33.7%

Survation - June 2023 - Labour Yes 27.8%

Find Out Now/Independent Voices  June 2023 - Labour Yes 25.4%

Panelbase June 2023 - Labour Yes 27.0%

Savanta June 2023 - Labour Yes 30.0%

Find Out Now - Alba Party - Labour Yes 37.8%

Redfield & Wilton June 2023 - Labour Yes 28.0%

I make that an average of 29.8% Accordingly, If I am overstating the proportion, it's by a massive 0.2 percentage points. Effectively, 30 out of every 100 Labour voters that expressed an opinion say they would vote "Yes" at a referendum.

 

On 13/08/2023 at 21:22, Johnny Martin said:

You've done your homework and it appears you're right.  Even when we dismiss the laughing stock that is Find Out Now you're still in the ballpark, so I'll eat humble pie.

 

15 minutes ago, Johnny Martin said:

The party leaders did agree that the Scottish Parliament is permanent.  Westminster being able to abolish doesn't change that.

That would have been David Cameron, Ed Milliband & Nick Clegg, wouldn't it? Two of them aren't even MP's any more, and the other one is a joke figure, mainly remembered for his bacon sandwich eating skills.

Forgive me if I don't put my trust in 3 failed politicians.

Do you believe that Holyrood is some sort of Schrödinger's Parliament in that it is permanent, but could be abolished if 326 current MP's voted to do so? That's an "interesting" take on reality

[ICTChris]

Alba decided not to stand in Rutherglen.  The media invites for Alex Salmond might dry up a bit if they got 3% of the vote. 

Reform UK are standing, providing the bow tie wearing lunatic section an important voice.

Mad old lefties are catered for very well with the SSP and Trade Union and Socialist Coalition party standing candidates.

There is a pro-Rejoin party standing, fighting out with the Lib Dem’s over who will finish eighth and ninth.

[Wee-Bey]

2 hours ago, ICTChris said:

Alba decided not to stand in Rutherglen.  The media invites for Alex Salmond might dry up a bit if they got 3% of the vote. 

Reform UK are standing, providing the bow tie wearing lunatic section an important voice.

Mad old lefties are catered for very well with the SSP and Trade Union and Socialist Coalition party standing candidates.

There is a pro-Rejoin party standing, fighting out with the Lib Dem’s over who will finish eighth and ninth.

[sparky88]

13 hours ago, ICTChris said:

Alba decided not to stand in Rutherglen.  The media invites for Alex Salmond might dry up a bit if they got 3% of the vote. 

 

They wouldn't get anywhere near that