When will indyref2 happen?

[welshbairn]

36 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

 As people move into older age brackets they become more risk averse for very good reasons - they have more to lose if things go tits up.

 IMO people have enough risk to worry about with Brexit on the horizon.

Eh?

[tirso]

11 minutes ago, renton said:

I don't follow the logic of your last point. While I might understand the logic of now voting for a Unionist party to prevent the question being asked, I don't see why a past iteration of the referendum would impact on your assessment of the issues confronting the nation in a future one?

I agree with much of what you've said.  I also agree this raises an eyebrow.

Although I know one of my parents is on the fence this time.  Due to being a leave voter, I think.  They're getting frustrated of the SNP and don't want another vote.  But if it came down to it, I cannot believe they would actually vote No when the big question is in front of them.  You never know though.  My other parent is of Spanish heritage though and is even more Yes than previously.   I suppose it's difficult to pin down people's own decisions as it's so diverse. 

 

[Billy Rubin]

1 hour ago, renton said:

Well no, it asked the question in a really weird mark where you are out of 10 type way. About a month ago Wings used Panelbase to ask the question in terms of Indy or Brexit and got a 53/47% lead for Indy. In between those two Survation asked the question and found the by now traditional mid 40s support.

 

The poll ( and it was a supersized poll of 2000)  found 17% of Yesers would now vote no.  

Some of this might be down to the fiscal problems we've faced in Scotland since the oil crash, the majority though must be down to Nicola's overbearing leadership style.    I'm a card carrying SNP member and even I'm bored with Nicola's daily appearances on the tele to talk Brexit.     This was a time to keep mum and let the UK tear itself apart.    

[renton]

Just now, Billy Rubin said:

The poll ( and it was a supersized poll of 2000)  found 17% of Yesers would now vote no.  

Some of this might be down to the fiscal problems we've faced in Scotland since the oil crash, the majority though must be down to Nicola's overbearing leadership style.    I'm a card carrying SNP member and even I'm bored with Nicola's daily appearances on the tele to talk Brexit.     This was a time to keep mum and let the UK tear itself apart.    

1) Poll size of 2000 doesn't significantly alter the error on a given poll. At 1000 the error is +/-3% for 3000 it's +/-2% for 10000 it's +/-1%

2) Methodology of the question is key. It's why there is always so much sucking air through teeth about what the question will be. In this case asking folk to rate a Yes or NO on a scale of 0 to 10 creates psychological biases that can create confusion and skew results. Asking someone to rate something 0 to 10, creates an inbuilt assumption of agreeable to disagreeable, but then you turn the scale upside down and say 0 is the most agreeable, then see if you get coherent results, because this is what they did.

3) Within the last month, we've had Panelbase for WoS declare than Indy would run out winner against both May's Brexit deal and a No deal referendum, and we've also had at least one other poll that showed Yes in the usual static mid 40s. Make of that what you will, as I said above, what you ask, how you ask it and where you ask it in relation to other questions make huge, huge differences to how people respond to polls.

4) Alex Salmond would've been on every TV and radio show he could be were he still leader, hell as an ordinary citizen with his former FM status he'd be all over every bit of media he could be were it not for the current allegations. I cannot accept the argument that Sturgeon's public profile is in someway detrimental to the cause when her predecessor was to  TV camera as a Moth to a flame.

[Billy Rubin]

2 minutes ago, renton said:

1) Poll size of 2000 doesn't significantly alter the error on a given poll. At 1000 the error is +/-3% for 3000 it's +/-2% for 10000 it's +/-1%

2) Methodology of the question is key. It's why there is always so much sucking air through teeth about what the question will be. In this case asking folk to rate a Yes or NO on a scale of 0 to 10 creates psychological biases that can create confusion and skew results. Asking someone to rate something 0 to 10, creates an inbuilt assumption of agreeable to disagreeable, but then you turn the scale upside down and say 0 is the most agreeable, then see if you get coherent results, because this is what they did.

3) Within the last month, we've had Panelbase for WoS declare than Indy would run out winner against both May's Brexit deal and a No deal referendum, and we've also had at least one other poll that showed Yes in the usual static mid 40s. Make of that what you will, as I said above, what you ask, how you ask it and where you ask it in relation to other questions make huge, huge differences to how people respond to polls.

4) Alex Salmond would've been on every TV and radio show he could be were he still leader, hell as an ordinary citizen with his former FM status he'd be all over every bit of media he could be were it not for the current allegations. I cannot accept the argument that Sturgeon's public profile is in someway detrimental to the cause when her predecessor was to  TV camera as a Moth to a flame.

2)  I fully understand that questions can loaded.    "Should Scotland be a normal country" would poll higher than "Should Scotland remove itself from our neighbours in the UK".    The poll was commissioned by Angus Robertson and the 0-10 scaling was supposed to show up the softness of the No vote, when in reality it showed opposite.   

To have entered the start of Brexit negotiations with a net approval rating of +56 and now have an overall negative approval rating tells us everything we need to know about her handling of Brexit!    

[renton]

1 minute ago, Billy Rubin said:

2)  I fully understand that questions can loaded.    "Should Scotland be a normal country" would poll higher than "Should Scotland remove itself from our neighbours in the UK".    The poll was commissioned by Angus Robertson and the 0-10 scaling was supposed to show up the softness of the No vote, when in reality it showed opposite.   

To have entered the start of Brexit negotiations with a net approval rating of +56 and now have an overall negative approval rating tells us everything we need to know about her handling of Brexit!    

Regardless of the intent of the poll commissioning, the execution leaves something to be desired. I'm not saying completely discount the poll. Only that it should be seen in context. It's 'unique' style of questioning, as with it's choice of language makes it hard to reconcile with the other methodologies. It's weighting doesn't look brilliant tbh, going on recalled Westminster vote - an effect Survation themselves have said is probably not the best for Scotland. If I wanted to understand the 'softness' or otherwise of the vote I'd ask a binary question then ask each group about their priorities through an exhuastive series of questions but again, as simply and as binary as I could. 

As I've said a couple of times already, other polls - one with a similarly 'unique' question found radically different answers to this poll.

As to your other point, how does that track from what time, and how is everyone else performing against that?

[tirso]

10 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I wouldn't disagree with IndyRef2 being postponed for at least 15 years. When I say "settled", I mean it's settled for now. IMO, the Brexit vote falls under this category as well although personally I hope it gets overturned.

I think you are stepping on tricky ground when you try and frame any political debate on "moral" grounds. That seem to be a common occurrence these days and it is counter productive. It just pisses off the other side, many of whom you need to be persuading to come to your view. All this talk from others of Leavers being thick/racist or whatever is just childish nonsense which is likely to succeed in strengthening moderates in the opposing ranks.

 

I agree on the framing of your moral point but I still think it comes under that.  The morality comes from the nature of the change.  We disagree on the magnitude of the Brexit decision.  I think it is just too big a change to the UK coupled with Scotland's obvious preference to remain for it not to be looked at again.

It had to be something of this type to trigger it within 15 years.  And unfortunately it has happened.

If a parties in the Scottish parliament put it in their manifesto and somehow achieve a majority I think it should be respected as well.  They've not voted themselves in.  It's the people that have backed it.  Similarly if they didn't, it shouldn't be called. 

All I care about is that Scottish people get a choice.  It's more important to me than whether it's independence (in or out the EU) or staying in the UK.

And I agree with you on the racists point.  It's even turning total remainers like myself to defend the legitimacy of wanting to leave the EU.

Edited April 5, 2019 by tirso

[Billy Rubin]

18 minutes ago, renton said:

Regardless of the intent of the poll commissioning, the execution leaves something to be desired. I'm not saying completely discount the poll. Only that it should be seen in context. It's 'unique' style of questioning, as with it's choice of language makes it hard to reconcile with the other methodologies. It's weighting doesn't look brilliant tbh, going on recalled Westminster vote - an effect Survation themselves have said is probably not the best for Scotland. If I wanted to understand the 'softness' or otherwise of the vote I'd ask a binary question then ask each group about their priorities through an exhuastive series of questions but again, as simply and as binary as I could. 

As I've said a couple of times already, other polls - one with a similarly 'unique' question found radically different answers to this poll.

As to your other point, how does that track from what time, and how is everyone else performing against that?

http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/do-you-think-nicola-sturgeon-is-doing-well-or-badly-as-first-minister

There's some stuff Nicola does brilliantly.    She's excellent at FMQT and I like her style when mingling with public, she's absolutely natural at it and there's to airs of graces about her.     But the angry Sturgeon caricature is a big turn off for me and presumably other voters, it's not her natural state character and it shows.    I'm not comparing them politically but Kez Dugdale was similar in that she came across fairly well until she started the finger pointing and faux anger.    

[renton]

1 minute ago, oaksoft said:

It's not just about actual risk, it's about perceived risk.

It's well known that as people age, they tend to become more averse to change and "long in the tooth".

To be fair, my reasons for changing my position are more complicated than I mentioned in that first post. Respecting the fact that No won would be part of it. I also have strong reservations about whether we have the national attitude to be successful on our own - too many people expecting a socialist utopia for my liking. There are also too many people who want this but at the first sign of things being difficult would crumble and get in the way of those trying to make it work. IMO we need a serious attitude change before IndyRef2.

Again, I suspect this is more to do with the generational cohort in which you reside, rather than the ageing effect itself. Generations that came and went with little social or technological change are naturally more adverse to change when it follows inevitably down the road. On the other hand as we move into a technological niche that is best described as "things changing faster, faster" then those people who live through that will be naturally more inclined to view change, technical, social or otherwise as a normal event to assimilate. My dad did his whole career in one company, I'll flit from company to company in the same(ish) industry, my daughter will likely have to wholesale change her profession as she progresses to stat relevant. One of the current weakness of sociological study is having a wealth of material on those generational cohorts borne just before the knee point on the graph, if we are examining technical and social change vs. time.

On your second paragraph, again I don't quite get the logic. Surely, if you believe that Scotland suffers from an attitude problem then leaving them in the status quo only encourages that attitude to persist. People only change as circumstances change. If you think (and I disagree but it's besides the point) that only a - presumably - more right wing mantra will allow Scotland to make a success of itself then only independence will allow for the sea change in attitudes once things start to go wrong as you'd predict under our attempted socialist utopia.

[NotThePars]

oaksoft thinks we ought to emulate Pinochet's Chile if we go independent and I, for one, agree if I get to choose who goes out the helicopters first.

[ICTJohnboy]

If Scotland failed to win an Indy2 in the current climate of this W..Minster debacle I doubt very much we will see independence in my lifetime. 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Polls won't shift until any referendum campaign starts - it was the same last time round - once the Brexit outcome is settled - and if it is in any way a hard Brexit then I think a section 30 order is inevitable.

If it is denied by May (or even better some hard Brexiter) then the next step would be going for a snap Scottish Election - something I think the Greens would back.

[Detournement]

I can't believe that there are people who actually believe Sturgeon is going to call a referendum in the next 12 months.

She has no interest in Indyref2.

[JamieThomas]

2 hours ago, NotThePars said:

oaksoft thinks we ought to emulate Pinochet's Chile if we go independent and I, for one, agree if I get to choose who goes out the helicopters first.

My DMs will remain open should you require someone to lead the "heid first" think tank.

[DublinMagyar]

'Scottish disease'

What a c**t

[Donathan]

11 hours ago, Billy Rubin said:

The poll ( and it was a supersized poll of 2000)  found 17% of Yesers would now vote no. 

Some of this might be down to the fiscal problems we've faced in Scotland since the oil crash, the majority though must be down to Nicola's overbearing leadership style.    I'm a card carrying SNP member and even I'm bored with Nicola's daily appearances on the tele to talk Brexit.     This was a time to keep mum and let the UK tear itself apart.    

I believe the lion share of this 17% are Eurosceptics who voted yes as vehicle to get out of the European Union, only to see the UK go and vote themselves out so are now union supporters. John Curtice picked up on this before.

[I'm Brian]

11 hours ago, DublinMagyar said:

'Scottish disease'

What a c**t

You've got to wonder what this incarnation of oaksoft will turn out to be.

First we had the uber-leftie who hated young people, then we had the right wing nut job. Now it appears we have the self loathing scot.

Best ignored

[Donathan]

You've got to wonder what this incarnation of oaksoft will turn out to be.
First we had the uber-leftie who hated young people, then we had the right wing nut job. Now it appears we have the self loathing scot.
Best ignored

Quite.


He seems to change his political beliefs more than Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh

[DeeTillEhDeh]

You've got to wonder what this incarnation of oaksoft will turn out to be.
First we had the uber-leftie who hated young people, then we had the right wing nut job. Now it appears we have the self loathing scot.
Best ignored

You missed out the Oaksoft who hates teachers and benefit claimants.

[Dan Steele]

16 hours ago, Detournement said:

I can't believe that there are people who actually believe Sturgeon is going to call a referendum in the next 12 months.

She has no interest in Indyref2.

That's quite a statement. Just a feeling, a wish, or are you an in-the-know trusted SNP adviser?