Polling: 2017 General Election, Council Elections and Independence

[Highland Capital]

First time I've seen Galloway's mob of misfits, racists and weirdos on a poll.  Also, Reform UK we hardly knew ye - 

 

[doulikefish]

After  the obvious pile on from the state media etc  that's great news for the good guys 

[DAFC.]

Pro-Indy parties still in the majority after the supposed "collapse" of independence and the SNP. Quite hilarious, actually.

[GordonS]

1 hour ago, craigkillie said:

No idea how this has ended up in a politics thread, but much of this isn't true. First of all, Rangers did retain the same SFA membership - that was why they were able to continue to compete in the Scottish Cup, retain their license and still hold the same voting rights they always did. In the eyes of the SFA they are very much the same club.

In terms of their league membership, first of all the SPFL didn't exist in 2012. Rangers were members of the SPL, and the SPL (as the SPFL does now) operates on a share based system, where clubs competing in the league own one share. When a team is relegated, or ceases to play in the league for whatever reason, they give up that share to the side replacing them. Therefore Rangers did give up their share of the SPL to Dundee, but that is not the same as saying that their membership was "dissolved" and says nothing about the history of the club. Dunfermline also had to give up their SPL share to Ross County that summer for the same reason, but nobody would take that as any sort of evidence that they can no longer claim their history (indeed it was the third time they had been relegated out of the SPL and had to go through that process).

Normally, clubs who are relegated from the SPL are automatically given membership of the SFL (but not always - for example Gretna may not have been granted it even if they had survived as  a club given that they were unable to meet a number of conditions). However, Rangers were not relegated from the SPL, and instead had to be voted into the SFL as members. That was the reason that they didn't have voting rights to begin with, since they were originally voted in as associate members given that it was quite close to the start of the season and there were still a couple of issues that needed to be sorted out before they could become full members. The SFL and now SPFL have always been of the opinion that they are the same club as before, but of course this is essentially an editorial rather than legal choice given what has been explained about membership of the league. There is no legal "historic SPFL membership" in the way that there is for the SFA.

The European stuff is governed by UEFA, not the SFA, and relates to clubs being unable to compete in Europe until they have three years' worth of accounts for their present company, a rule which is basically designed to prevent teams from doing a newco without consequences. However, again UEFA treat Rangers as the same club from an editorial point of view - for example describing them as former Cup Winners' Cup winners, 2008 UEFA Cup finalists and so on. We don't really know how they would be treated from a legal perspective, since the only way to confirm that would have been via their UEFA coefficient, but that runs on a five year rolling basis, and by the time they returned to Europe in 2017/18 their most recent season in Europe (2011/12) had dropped off anyway.

Anyway, second vote Green please.

What I wrote was kinda shorthand for much of that. Rangers didn't get a normal league membership that you'd get on relegation, they got a new membership. It was this new membership that triggered the European football thing - it was a UEFA rule but it applied because of decisions made here.

The reason the SPFL (and UEFA) regard them as the same club is because it's massively in their commercial interests, and in the interests of not getting their windows panned in too.

I regard them as the same club too - reluctantly, because of the loss of banter value. At the end of one season there was a team called Rangers playing in blue at Ibrox, and the next season kicked off with exactly the same - and more to the point, with exactly the same fans. A football club is more than a piece of paper.

56 minutes ago, doulikefish said:

After  the obvious pile on from the state media etc  that's great news for the good guys 

Possibly. The figures are consistent with the recently lower numbers than had been seen for the SNP through 2021, but (surprisingly) there hasn't been an Opinium poll since the last Scottish election, so we don't have a good comparator.

That constituency figure is the lowest since December 2019.

Though it all has to be put in context - that a party that's been in power for 14 years, has no media support and massive hostility from most, is in the middle of a very public civil war and a bruising, never-ending feud with its previous leader, is polling at twice the level of its nearest opponent and about where it was when it won the last election.

[John Lambies Doos]

Campaign hasn't even started yet, euros is coming and Scotland will be opening up!!! Expect SNP to shoot up!

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

37 minutes ago, John Lambies Doos said:

Campaign hasn't even started yet, euros is coming and Scotland will be opening up!!! Expect SNP to shoot up!

Let's keep drugs out of this.

[Granny Danger]

The farce of Brexit, the breaking of international law, the money squandered on Covid (in particular the billions wasted on the ineffective English track and trace), the dodgy deals on PPE, the cutbacks on international aid whilst announcing and increase in spending on  the nuclear arsenal, and so much more.

If the elections in May show the majority still want the future of our country determined by a union dominated by those who will continue to put a Tory in No 10 I will simply shake my head and give up.

 

[paolo2143]

When is this James Hamilton report coming out. Part of me would love if it didn't come out till after the election just to see the Tories foaming at the mouths in outrage. However remember how they suppressed the Russia report for months.

However if it is coming out before election then it night be better to come out sooner than later as it allows time to fight back against any damage it may cause initially.

We all know no matter what the report finds the Tories and media will make it a hundred times worse.

[jamamafegan]

Lol

[John Lambies Doos]

When is this James Hamilton report coming out. Part of me would love if it didn't come out till after the election just to see the Tories foaming at the mouths in outrage. However remember how they suppressed the Russia report for months.
However if it is coming out before election then it night be better to come out sooner than later as it allows time to fight back against any damage it may cause initially.
We all know no matter what the report finds the Tories and media will make it a hundred times worse.

Out within next week I think

[Baxter Parp]

But...how? Peak Nat was last week!

[BFTD]

There's something a bit mental with the idea that support for independence may have dropped, while support for the SNP may have risen.

Genuinely no idea what goes through people's heads.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

There's something a bit mental with the idea that support for independence may have dropped, while support for the SNP may have risen.
Genuinely no idea what goes through people's heads.

It hasn't though - latest poll has Yes back leading.

[Ginaro]

7 hours ago, craigkillie said:

In terms of their league membership, first of all the SPFL didn't exist in 2012. 

The European stuff is governed by UEFA, not the SFA, and relates to clubs being unable to compete in Europe until they have three years' worth of accounts for their present company, a rule which is basically designed to prevent teams from doing a newco without consequences. However, again UEFA treat Rangers as the same club from an editorial point of view - for example describing them as former Cup Winners' Cup winners, 2008 UEFA Cup finalists and so on. We don't really know how they would be treated from a legal perspective, since the only way to confirm that would have been via their UEFA coefficient, but that runs on a five year rolling basis, and by the time they returned to Europe in 2017/18 their most recent season in Europe (2011/12) had dropped off anyway.

Anyway, second vote Green please.

Always find it funny on Twitter where every so often you'll see a Celtic-da say that that Rangers should've started in the Lowland League, which like the SPFL didn't exist at that time.

Rangers are listed as the same club in UEFA's 10 year coefficient: https://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/uefarankings/tenyears/

And yes, second vote Green - if the SNP are likely to win most if not all of the constituencies in your region. I've seen too many independence-minded folk going on about SNP 1&2 and how the other parties like ISP and AFI are splitting the vote, as if that's a bad thing. When in fact that's exactly what you want to do in places where the SNP's regional vote is basically meaningless. Like the Central Scotland region last time out - if 2,000 of the SNP's 129,082 second voters went Green then there'd be one less Tory elected.

Edited March 18, 2021 by Ginaro

[Highland Capital]

The SNP always like to say how 'independence is bigger than the SNP' apart from when it comes to election time.  In areas like the H&I and the South, the 'Both Votes SNP' mantra is fair enough but poll after poll over the last few years and the 2016 election itself showed that this motto in the other regions was entirely useless.  If independence is their priority, why not come up with some pact with the Greens, the SSP and whoever else is on the seen and in regions where the chance of the SNP picking up list seats is miniscule say something like 'Local Vote SNP - Region Vote Yes' instead.  I wonder how many Tories got in in 2016 and how many will get in in May by people blindly list voting SNP without realising the chances of them winning list seats in their region is almost zero.

If it hasn't been done already, it'd be interesting to see the breakdown of seats in 2016 had every Green voted SNP and then on the contrary if every SNP list vote had instead gone to the Greens, particularly in regions where they won one seat or fewer.

Edited March 18, 2021 by Highland Capital

[Ginaro]

7 minutes ago, Highland Capital said:

If it hasn't been done already, it'd be interesting to see the breakdown of seats in 2016 had every Green voted SNP and then on the contrary if every SNP list vote had instead gone to the Greens, particularly in regions where they won one or less seat.

From a quick look at the ones where they won most of the constituency seats:

Central Scotland 9/9  seats - no difference if Green went SNP. But if 1.5% of SNP went Green, then CON -1, GRN +1

Glasgow 9/9 - Greens going SNP would just mean a seat swap. Would need about 6% SNP to switch for an extra Green seat

Mid Scotland & Fife 8/9 - LAB +1, GRN -1 if Green went SNP. Would need about 15-20% SNP to switch for an extra Green seat

North East Scotland - 8/9 - no difference if Green went SNP. Again if 1.5% of SNP went Green, then CON -1, GRN +1

Of course the SNP might not want to dilute the message, but in Glasgow for example, all seats have a 4,000+ majority so you'd think they would once again get most if not all of them.

The tables on this site are useful https://www.isp.scot/central-scotland-analysis/ - of course they want you to vote ISP instead of SNP but voting Green would be better since there's already a baseline vote and fewer people need to make the switch.

[cdhafc1874]

Or basically there is no way to 'game' the D'Hondt system to 'get rid' of unionist list MSP's in the way the ISP or AFI pop-up parties are claiming.

If enough SNP voters switched then maybe the Greens could get a couple more on the list but you have to be absolutely certain of constituency wins to take that risk.

No election is guaranteed - or can be certain of unionist tactical voting in constituency votes - so yes the SNP will always push both votes SNP.

Enough unionist voters in each region will continue to vote for Lab/Tory/Lib in enough numbers that they will likely return round about the same number of list MSP's between the 3 of them as in 2016.

And big surprise - policital parties in election messaging to suit their own party shocker.

The Greens may be pro-indy but they are still an opposition party & if they had the money to stand in all constituencies as well as the list they'd be telling voters to vote Green/Green.

[TONTROOPER]

4 hours ago, BFTD said:

There's something a bit mental with the idea that support for independence may have dropped, while support for the SNP may have risen.

Genuinely no idea what goes through people's heads.

Simples BFTD....some of it is demographics....some of of it is all about how the polling company 'frames the question,' I could elaborate and type for another 2/3 hours but I wont.

[GordonS]

6 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

But...how? Peak Nat was last week!

Serious answer? The SNP may have driven a chunk of its support to the Greens because of recent... things. But for UK elections, in which there's almost no point voting Green, they've kept those voters.

It's possible this masks that the SNP have lost supporters to the Greens while gaining a smaller number from elsewhere.

Speculative stuff though.

 

3 hours ago, cdisaaccie said:

If enough SNP voters switched then maybe the Greens could get a couple more on the list but you have to be absolutely certain of constituency wins to take that risk.
 

It's more than a couple.

As I said a few pages back, if everyone who voted SNP on the list in South last time voted Green it would have resulted in 6 Green and 1 Labour, instead of 3 SNP, 2 Labour and 2 Con. That's a swing of three seats to the pro-indy side.

At the other end, somewhere like Central where the SNP took every constituency, if everyone who voted SNP voted Green it would have given 4 Green, 2 Lab, 1 Con, instead of 4 Lab, 3 Con; a swing of four to the pro-indy side.

Obviously it's entirely contingent on the number that do it, but there's nowhere in the country that, purely from an independence perspective, it's not more effective to vote Green than SNP with the regional vote.

And I'm making no assumptions about how much each party's supporters like the other party. You can tell something about how willing Green voters might be to vote SNP from the reallocation of second preferences in council by-elections, where generally at least half the Green votes go SNP; but you can't tell anything about how likely SNP voters are to vote Green because the SNP are always in the count longer than the Greens.

[GordonS]

2 hours ago, TONTROOPER said:

Simples BFTD....some of it is demographics....some of of it is all about how the polling company 'frames the question,' I could elaborate and type for another 2/3 hours but I wont.

Polling companies have no interest in "framing" questions, though some are more amenable than others to accept their client's wishes about what questions they ask before the big one.

In this case though there's no evidence to support the premise that support for pro-independence parties has fallen while support for independence has risen.