The Scottish independence referendum polling thread

[littlebabyjesus]

No, you are assuming that someone who is confronted with both sides of an argument will vote yes because I am a yes voter. What I am saying is that the British establishment also makes that assumption.

No I'm not assuming that at all. Quite the reverse. I would say that, confronted with both sides of the argument, many people still voted 'no'.

You're the one claiming old women were duped by a campaign of lies, not me.

 

[butchersapron]

Eh? That makes no sense. For a start 52% shows there is no real majority (error margins at that level of disaggregation).

Apply that margin of error argument to the 47% and 48% for YES in the 35-54 age group in the poll we're discussing then.

 

[William of Walworth]

to be honest really wouldn't surprise me if there was some vote fraud, especially some of the tales I've heard about labour in Manchester etc.

There were supposed to be incidents of fraud in Glasgow weren't there? Well whatever attempts there were can't have worked very well -- Yes won there.

Corrected for grammar ...

I don't think this can account for a country wide result though.

Absolutely.

 

[DairyQueen]

No I'm not assuming that at all. Quite the reverse. I would say that, confronted with both sides of the argument, many people still voted 'no'.

You're the one claiming old women were duped by a campaign of lies, not me.

No I am claiming older people, most of whom are women, are less likely to be exposed to both sides of the argument. I would also say that anyone who was not using the Internet would not be exposed to both sides of the argument.

The reason I am pissed off is that this campaign has been undemocratic and no-one else in Britain seems to give a fuck. So, we'll have Lords and Tories talking about 'Scottish issues' over the next decades, any talk of sedition mercilessly hounded by a rabid, right wing press to ensure conformity, and you can't even complain on British left-wing forums. Pretty much sums up my disappointment with the result. Dire times ahead.

 

[DairyQueen]

Apply that margin of error to the 47% and 48% for YES in the 35-54 age group in the poll we're discussing then.

Yes, but it is fucking stupid to claim old age groups never won this election based on that evidence.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No I am claiming older people, most of whom are women, are less likely to be exposed to both sides of the argument. I would also say that anyone who was not using the Internet would not be exposed to both sides of the argument

What you're doing is making big unsubstantiated claims.

Maybe this can be researched - ask older people whether or not they use the internet and see how their votes correlate. Because you're making big assumptions here - that reading the internet is more likely to make you vote 'yes'.

My mum's 82 and she uses the internet all the time. Not all old people are computer-illiterate, so you could conceivably do a study to see how voting patterns are different depending on internet access. I strongly suspect that the result of such a study would not bear out your thesis at all.

 

[frogwoman]

my nan has a computer and uses the internet and supports ukip.

 

[butchersapron]

Yes, but it is fucking stupid to claim old age groups never won this election based on that evidence.

I don't think anyone is saying the 54+ vote didn't have the most effect - that it didn't match and exceed the only other significant section age based section of the electorate to vote YES (the 25-34 group) it's your reasons and reactions to why that is the case that are coming under fire. By your logic, the more computer non-trad media using 35-54 group would support YES. Yet, using your MofE argument they didn't. That's where YES lost it. Not 80 year old grannies.

 

[DairyQueen]

What you're doing is making big unsubstantiated claims.

Maybe this can be researched - ask older people whether or not they use the internet and see how their votes correlate. Because you're making big assumptions here - that reading the internet is more likely to make you vote 'yes'.

My mum's 82 and she uses the internet all the time. Not all old people are computer-illiterate, so you could conceivably do a study to see how voting patterns are different depending on internet access. I strongly suspect that the result of such a study would not bear out your thesis at all.

Better phone Office of National Statistics. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_323333.pdf - they've made a mistake, tell them your mum uses the internet. They'll be embarrassed about missing her.

 

[DairyQueen]

I don't think anyone is saying the 54+ vote didn't have the most effect - it's your reasons and reactions to why that is the case that are coming under fire. By your logic, the more computer non-trad media using 35-54 group would support YES. Yet, using your MofE argument they didn't. That's where YES lost it. Not 80 year old grannies.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...dependence-more-informed-favour-yes-1-3534372

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Better phone Office of National Statistics. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_323333.pdf - they've made a mistake, tell them your mum uses the internet. They'll be embarrassed about missing her.

You have missed my point. You are making a link between not using the internet and voting 'no'. But just because there are fewer internet users among the old, that does not mean that this is the reason they voted 'no'. Correlation does not necessarily indicate causation.

 

[William of Walworth]

Virtually all the opinion polls close to polling day turned out to be wrong about the win %age by quite some distance. That has to raise questions about their methodology, sampling, possibly (?) wording of their questions.

I was suspicious before about the practice of aggregating totals for Yes and No only after 'Don't Knows' had been excluded. Some polls also only counted from people declaring themselves certain to vote. There were some telephone and internet polls as well.

I know there were logistical difficulties factoring in an expected very high turnout, and concerning polling people many of whom who'd never voted before, or not for a long time. And about a vote with no precedent to compare with. And after all the polls did predict No, broadly -- they just got the margin wrong, not the result.

Still, maybe the polls always tended to underestimate the No level? Just asking .....

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Virtually all the opinion polls close to polling day turned out to be wrong about the won %age by quite some distance. That has to raise questions about their methodology, sampling, possibly (?) wording of their questions.

I was suspicious before about the practice of aggregating totals for Yes and No only after 'Don't Knows' had been excluded. Some polls also only counted from people declaring themselves certain to vote. There were some telephone and internet polls as well.

I know there were logistical difficulties factoring in an expected very high turnout, and concerning polling people many of whom who'd never voted before, or not for a long time. And about a vote with no precedent to compare with. And after all the polls did predict No, broadly -- they just got the margin wrong, not the result.

Still, maybe the polls always tended to underestimate the No level? Just asking .....

Evidence from previous referendums on independence, such as those in Quebec, suggested that quite a large majority of DKs end up voting 'no'. That pattern appears to have been repeated.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Most of them were saying around about 53-54% no weren't they? THat seems fairly accurate to me.

 

[butchersapron]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...dependence-more-informed-favour-yes-1-3534372

So why didn't the great mass of 35-54 year olds do so? Why didn't they flock to YES - you reckon they should have.That's what i'm asking you. Not answering that and lashing out at granny villains isn't going to tell you anything at all about this key question.

 

[William of Walworth]

Most of them were saying around about 53-54% no weren't they? THat seems fairly accurate to me.

There were several in the last few days suggesting 52 to 48. Maybe I'm being a bit over harsh though yes.

 

[butchersapron]

Most of them were saying around about 53-54% no weren't they? THat seems fairly accurate to me.

48/52 was the most common one. In fact, apart from one 53/47, they all were 48/52.

 

[DairyQueen]

You have missed my point. You are making a link between not using the internet and voting 'no'. But just because there are fewer internet users among the old, that does not mean that this is the reason they voted 'no'. Correlation does not necessarily indicate causation.

I am not lashing out at anyone. There is a social class and ethnicity dimension to voting patterns.

 

[butchersapron]

I am not lashing out at anyone. There is a social class and ethnicity dimension to voting patterns.

And you're doing nothing whatsoever to highlight them in a coherent and explanatory manner.

 

[8ball]

to be honest really wouldn't surprise me if there was some vote fraud, especially some of the tales I've heard about labour in Manchester etc.

I don't think this can account for a country wide result though.

That's a risk with any big vote. As well as the country-wide result I don't see why it would necessarily be in the No direction either.

 

[William of Walworth]

Evidence from previous referendums on independence, such as those in Quebec, suggested that quite a large majority of DKs end up voting 'no'. That pattern appears to have been repeated.

Yes, I'd read the same, and like you said there's a general tendency over electoral history with almost all polls (not just referendums), for most DKs to incline in the end towards the supposedly 'safer' option (as perceived).

But I do think this time that the publicised headline stories on polls for the referendum were pretty misleading in not paying DKs enough attention.

 

[DairyQueen]

And you're doing nothing whatsoever to highlight them in a coherent and explanatory manner.

No, they are just not that relevant.

 

[8ball]

I would be happy of course, but I would not subsequently claim the campaign was democratic.

I'm not in the area, but yesterday on TV people were praising the campaign for being generally cleanly-fought and free of dirty tricks.

 

[DairyQueen]

I'm not in the area, but yesterday on TV people were praising the campaign for being generally cleanly-fought and free of dirty tricks.

After saturation coverage of the yes campaign being accused of violence and intimidation by all major newspapers? That is a fucking farce. The Daily Mail had 12 pages devoted to 'yes campaign' violence two days ago. The broadcast media is biased, they are saying that now because people are pissed off. It won't end by the way, yes campaigners will be purged now when Labour next get in.

 

[butchersapron]

No, they are just not that relevant.

You just said that they were - that social class and ethnicity dimension to voting patterns (none of which you've tied to age btw) are the key to the result hence how the older vote won it.

 

[DairyQueen]

No, you are asking key variables which decided the election.

 

[William of Walworth]

After saturation coverage of the yes campaign being accused of violence and intimidation by all major newspapers? That is a fucking farce. The Daily Mail had 12 pages devoted to 'yes campaign' violence two days ago. The broadcast media is biased, they are saying that now because people are pissed off.

If that kind of nonsense had had that much of an effect, surely the Yes vote would have gone down by a lot more?

Willing to bet that there were other issues that were much more on peoples' minds. Lord Ashcroft's poll cited above suggests some.

 

[8ball]

After saturation coverage of the yes campaign being accused of violence and intimidation by all major newspapers? That is a fucking farce. The Daily Mail had 12 pages devoted to 'yes campaign' violence two days ago.

Any country that does what the Daily Mail tells it to is fucked. That should be taken as a given. We'd all be speaking German now if they had their way.

 

[DairyQueen]

If that kind of nonsense had had that much of an effect, surely the Yes vote would have gone down by a lot more?

Willing to bet that there were other issues that were much more on peoples' minds. Lord Ashcroft's poll cited above suggests some.

What have we been talking about? Traditional media, etc. How are those issues debated?

 

[butchersapron]

No, you are asking key variables which decided the election.

I asked no such thing. I asked you why you're banging on about the 54+ vote and their many failings rather than that section of the population (that 35-54 group) who YES failed to win (going by your MofE method) and who should (going by your more informed, less trad media, more internet using model) have shown strong mass support for YES thus countering the older vote. Is it going to turn out they too were just ill-informed as well?