When will indyref2 happen?

[sophia]

11 hours ago, Lex said:

Just remember reading on this very thread and from other experts over the years that support for independence was going to surge because of The Tories, because of Brexit, because of Boris, because of COVID, because of Truss and because demographics meant all the old duffers who voted no will be dying off. Amongst various other things. 

You telling me that after a decade and all of the above factors, support for independence hasn't actually changed at all? The 1% being within the margin of polling error of course. Must be demoralising for independence supporters seeing such numbers.

The reality is the polling numbers don't really matter because the independence cause is dead anyway. The SNP are in turmoil and are set to lose seats in both the upcoming General Election and Scottish Parliamentary election. A Labour government will be elected to Westminster later this year and they will be elected with plenty of Scottish Labour MP's, the next Westminster government is going to be much more popular in Scotland than the current Tory one.

All that combined with the fact there is zero appetite in Westminster amongst either party to pass another referendum bill for anything, and the supreme court has ruled that the Scottish Parliament cannot legislate on the UK constitution and call a legally binding referendum itself.  I remember hearing that decision was going to cause uproar and civil unrest and marches on the street too. It did not, because most Scottish people just aren't that arsed. It's finished. 

 

 

[lichtgilphead]

42 minutes ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

The gap both before and after The Vow was significantly smaller than the gap from the actual result, which was a whopping and decisive 11%

Please provide proof of any poll conducted after The Vow. 

For reference, the Daily Record published the Vow on Tuesday 16th September 2014, A list of polls is available here

Given that there aren't any polls listed that were conducted totally after the vow, you're talking shite again.

58 minutes ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

There was no post-Vow spike for No.  Even if it did, so what?  It was kept via the Smith Commission.  

There was no post-Vow spike because there weren't any polls - see above

The first lie in The Vow is in the first line "The Scottish Parliament is permanent" - Westminster could abolish it tomorrow. Do I have to go on?

1 hour ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

If the polling companies refine their polling methods to account for things for the Shy Tory Effect, then they aren’t doing a very good job of it, and it’d be a very hard task.  I’d like to see your proof of this.

Search wikipedia for "Shy Tory Factor". You'll find the following paragraph

Following the 1992 election, most opinion pollsters altered their methodology to try to correct for this observed behaviour of the electorate.. The methods varied for different companies. Some, including Populus, YouGov and ICM Research, have adopted the tactic of asking their interviewees how they had voted at the previous election and then assuming that they would vote that way again at a discounted rate. Others weighted their panel so that their past vote was exactly in line with the actual result of the election. For a time, opinion poll results were published both for unadjusted and adjusted methods. Polling companies have found that telephone and personal interviews are more likely to generate a shy response than automated calling or internet polls.

29 minutes ago, Jedi2 said:

as 'recently' as January of this year (some) polls had Yes on 50% (presumably they are the 'accurate' ones as its only ones with a Yes lead which count). Indeed there was a previous polling trend of between 45-50% Yes.

I agree, one poll in January had Yes at 50%, but that poll was by Ipsos, not by YouGov. You're comparing apples with oranges. 

Ipsos haven't done a poll since that date, so theres no current data to compare with, but a cursory glance at results during Humza's reign shows that they average Yes votes as just under 51%. 

Comparing different pollsters with each other rather than comparing actual trends found by the same pollster is moronic behaviour. 

29 minutes ago, Jedi2 said:

PhD of Mathematics

You're confusing Mathematics with Statistics. I did a couple of years of Statistics at Uni, but don't have a PhD.

Did you even pass Arithmetic?

[Jedi2]

Ah, a whole 2 years. Actually I do have a PhD, but still.

[BFTD]

21 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

You're confusing Mathematics with Statistics. I did a couple of years of Statistics at Uni, but don't have a PhD.

Did you even pass Arithmetic?

@mathematics - couple of ideas for your missus' username when she finally joins us.

[lichtgilphead]

15 minutes ago, Jedi2 said:

Ah, a whole 2 years. Actually I do have a PhD, but still.

The fact that you refer ro a "PhD of" rather than a "PhD in" is enough for me to make up my mind about the truthfullness of that statement.

So, Doctor Jedi, any chance of some proof of this supposed decline in support for Yes?

[Jedi2]

Given that only Nat based polls 'count' despite being around the same sample size as the 'fake' Yoon ones, then no.

And given that whatever I come back is so wittily dismissed as lying, moronic, fantasising etc...do you need to see Degree Certs as well now?....oh wait, that would either be a fantasy or copy and pasted as well..younreally do need to get some new material.

Edited May 1 by Jedi2

[DeeTillEhDeh]

36 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

The fact that you refer ro a "PhD of" rather than a "PhD in" is enough for me to make up my mind about the truthfullness of that statement.

So, Doctor Jedi, any chance of some proof of this supposed decline in support for Yes?

Reminds me of Professor Oaksoft.

[lichtgilphead]

34 minutes ago, Jedi2 said:

Given that only Nat based polls 'count' despite being around the same sample size as the 'fake' Yoon ones, then no.

Can you please point put where I said that, Doctor Jedi?

Yet again, you do yourself no favours by pretending that other posters said things that they didn't.

I'll explain my point (again) in simple terms

During Humza's term as First Minister, No-friendly YouGov have produced the following "Yes" figures  39, 39, 41, 38, 39, 42, 37, 36 and 39..

The first poll shows Yes at 39%

The last poll shows Yes at 39%

The average (mean) of the set is 39% (to the nearest percentage)

The modal and median values are 39%

All I said was that this does not demonstrate a downward trend in support for Yes. I did not express any opinion about the veracity of the figures. 

Similarly, over the same period, Ipsos conducted 3 polls, getting "Yes" figures 0f 50, 51 & 51. Again, I did not express any opinion about the veracity of the figures.

As both YouGov & Ipsos are members of the BPC, I have no doubt that these are accurate figures according to the methodology used.

As neither of us are privy to either Ipsos or YouGov's methodology, I would hesitate to describe either as 'correct'. However, it is quite easy to look at previous polls and describe some pollsters as being more Yes-friendly (or No-friendly) than others.

I draw the line however ,at your totally unjustified description of "Nat-based" or "Yoon based" pollsters. Both YouGov and Ipsos have reputations to uphold and normally ask the standard referendum question.

If you want to look at biased polls, look for the ones that ask non-standard questions, like the leave/remain question usually used by Scotland in Union. 

56 minutes ago, Jedi2 said:

And given that whatever I come back is so wittily dismissed as lying, moronic, fantasising etc...do you need to see Degree Certs as well now?....oh wait, that would either be a fantasy or copy and pasted as well..younreally do need to get some new material.

All you need to do is provide some evidence that what you are saying is true.

Did they not discuss the concept of proof when you were doing your doctorate?

[mathematics]

21 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

The average (mean) of the set is 39% (to the nearest percentage)

The modal and median values are 39%

If you did two years of statistics at uni then you should know not to use mean and median and mode for the same data set. You only use one: the one which suits the data.

 

[mathematics]

22 hours ago, BFTD said:

@mathematics - couple of ideas for your missus' username when she finally joins us.

I hate you for alerting me to this part of the forum. How dare you. 

[D Angelo Barksdale]

9 minutes ago, mathematics said:

I hate you for alerting me to this part of the forum. How dare you. 

You'll fit in well here imo.

[lichtgilphead]

5 minutes ago, mathematics said:

If you did two years of statistics at uni then you should know not to use mean and median and mode for the same data set. You only use one: the one which suits the data.

 

a) It was 43 years ago!

b) I was just showing Dr. Jedi PhD that every answer was 39, no matter however you manipulated the data set.

c) Now you've found the politics forum, you can never leave. Mwa ha ha ha.

[mathematics]

59 minutes ago, D Angelo Barksdale said:

You'll fit in well here imo.

 

56 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

a) It was 43 years ago!

b) I was just showing Dr. Jedi PhD that every answer was 39, no matter however you manipulated the data set.

c) Now you've found the politics forum, you can never leave. Mwa ha ha ha.

Nope. The reason I don’t come on here is because I like posting on PnB. I have to moderate another forum with a political subsection and it is life draining.

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

On 01/05/2024 at 20:44, lichtgilphead said:

Please provide proof of any poll conducted after The Vow. 

For reference, the Daily Record published the Vow on Tuesday 16th September 2014, A list of polls is available here

Given that there aren't any polls listed that were conducted totally after the vow, you're talking shite again.

There was no post-Vow spike because there weren't any polls - see above

Two polls took place after The Vow; an Ipsos MORI one a Survation.  Both showed much smaller gaps than the one from the actual result.

On 01/05/2024 at 20:44, lichtgilphead said:

There was no post-Vow spike because there weren't any polls - see above

The first lie in The Vow is in the first line "The Scottish Parliament is permanent" - Westminster could abolish it tomorrow. Do I have to go on?

How is that a lie?  If they’d said ‘we will make it permanent’ then that’d have been a lie.  Simply stating that it is permanent is just an expression of opinion.

 

 

On 01/05/2024 at 20:44, lichtgilphead said:

Search wikipedia for "Shy Tory Factor". You'll find the following paragraph

Following the 1992 election, most opinion pollsters altered their methodology to try to correct for this observed behaviour of the electorate.. The methods varied for different companies. Some, including Populus, YouGov and ICM Research, have adopted the tactic of asking their interviewees how they had voted at the previous election and then assuming that they would vote that way again at a discounted rate. Others weighted their panel so that their past vote was exactly in line with the actual result of the election. For a time, opinion poll results were published both for unadjusted and adjusted methods. Polling companies have found that telephone and personal interviews are more likely to generate a shy response than automated calling or internet polls.

Vague and unsubstantiated.. all ifs and buts.  The Shy Yoon Effect was apparent in 2014 and probably is now.  It would be far harder for polling companies to alter their methodology to account for once in a generation/lifetime events that depend on so many factors.

 

 

Edited May 2 by CarrbridgeSaintee

[lichtgilphead]

4 minutes ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

Two polls took place after The Vow; an IPSOS Mori one a Survation. 

Please take time to read what I actually said in future. 

I specifically said "Given that there aren't any polls listed that were conducted totally after the vow". As both Mori & Survation were polling on the 16th, you surely cannot be suggesting that every person polled was aware of the vow before completing the poll.?

Evidence suggests that people complete written polls immediately when they arrive. They don't go down to the shops, buy a paper & then read it before returning to the poll.

Similarly, the Survation poll was conducted by telephone, so would have been answered immediately

Accordingly as the timeframes overlapped, there were no polls carried out totally after the vow, just like I said.

16 minutes ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

 Both showed much smaller gaps than the one from the actual result.

You are ignoring the undecided voters in the polls. When we look at the tables behind the headline figures and exclude don't knows and refused, we get the following figures:

Table 7 Ipsos Mori Yes 47.3% No 52.7%

Table 5 Survation Yes 47.3% No 52.7%

Now given that the margin of error is around +/- 3.1%, this means that it;s 95% certain that Yes will be somewhere between 44.2% and 50.4%.

As Yes ended up with 44.7%, that's within the stated margin of error of both polls. Polling is not an exact science

1 hour ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

How is that a lie?  If they’d said ‘we will make it permanent’ then that’d have been a lie.  Simply stating that it is permanent is just an expression of opinion.

Even if it is only an expression of opinion, it's still a lie. The UK Supreme Court confirmed that Westminster could abolish Holyrood at a stroke.

1 hour ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

1) Vague and unsubstantiated.. all ifs and buts. 

2) The Shy Yoon Effect was apparent in 2014 and probably is now. 

3) It would be far harder for polling companies to alter their methodology to account for once in a generation/lifetime events that depend on so many factors.

1) It specifically states that the polling companies altered their methodologies, and gives specific examples

2) Now that is a vague & unsubstantiated statement. Provide some detailed proof, please.

3) There have been 3 Scottish referenda in my lifetime (1979, 1997 and 2014). The pollsters have had plenty practice

 

[Binos]

1 hour ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

Two polls took place after The Vow;

 

 

The vow was enough of a lie to disenfranchise an entire generation 

Further lies will occur in future 

[Freedom Farter]

(https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/35-years-scottish-attitudes-towards-independence).

Politics is fundamentally about society deciding how we distribute our collective resources among ourselves. If the distribution of those resources alienates enough people then they will look for change. This is what brought the Scottish independence movement into prominence and what remains the driving force behind it. Of course identity or other philosophical ideas come into it for many folk but material conditions will always remain at the root of it. 

Edited May 2 by Freedom Farter

[Jedi2]

Emma Roddick now wants a 'continued' union with England Post Indy.

How does that work?

Vote for us and we will get you Independe...no, that's not right..Vote for us and we will get you..

Shared Currency

Shared Crown

Shared Broadcasting

Shared Defence/Foreign Policy

Might park the nuclear weapons for you

We might get some extra Social Security Powers

Most importantly we can wave our own fleg.

Still, when you have architect of the Vow Murray Foote as Chief Exec no surprise 

[BFTD]

Sorry, not interested in independence unless it involves retaking Derby. I'm off to vote Abla.

[lichtgilphead]

57 minutes ago, Jedi2 said:

Emma Roddick now wants a 'continued' union with England Post Indy.

How does that work?

Vote for us and we will get you Independe...no, that's not right..Vote for us and we will get you..

 

Shared Currency

Shared Crown

Shared Broadcasting

Shared Defence/Foreign Policy

Might park the nuclear weapons for you

We might get some extra Social Security Powers

Most importantly we can wave our own fleg.

Still, when you have architect of the Vow Murray Foote as Chief Exec no surprise 

As far as I can see, this is just more ridiculous speculation from Jedi. 

As ever, there are no direct quotes, and I can't find anything online where recently demoted ex-minister Roddick says anything about currency, the crown, broadcasting, defence/nukes, social security or flegs.

Pathetic, really.