The Scottish independence referendum polling thread

[butchersapron]

I'm not sure I would read too much into the numbers for 16-17 year olds, given that it was based on a sample of just 18 people.

It was worse than that - just 14.

 

[chrissyy2009]

The English news are saying that the changes in Scotland might not happen before the election.
That's bad! Its bad enough you voted on promises which haven't even been negotiated yet, but to put it off is not on.

We want it before the election. There are more voters here. We want the benefits Scotland are getting minimum.

Free prescriptions, University etc. Hopefully a tax break too, though that might take ti.e due to how long it is before you get to manage your own taxation and you no longer need our subsidies.

 

[Wilf]

I haven't read the last few pages, beyond seeing the issues being discussed. However, I think the idea of victory being thwarted by the press or the oldies is way off (even if I hoped it would be a Yes). I'd rather start the other way round and note there has never been anything like a majority for independence, quite the opposite. No were always going to win - whatever the complexities of the relationship between England and Scotland, between the different parts of Scotland, fading affinities for Labour, all that.

What we've seen has been ideal circumstances to maximise the Yes vote - austerity, yet another westminster government not elected by Scots, Miliband's shitness etc. On top of that Yes have run a strong and creative campaign, made all the running, been positive, which led to a fair number voting yes who didn't even want independence. Alongside that No have been negative and shit, but probably got some good hits in about the currency, EU membership - even if these were scare stories the Yes campaign didn't have answers. But overall, good circumstances + a very strong campaign probably maximised the Yes vote, took it over and above what could have been expected. Trouble is there just weren't enough Scots in favour of independence. Pitydevo max wasn't on the ballot, because I suspect what is finally offered will fall way short of that.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

While all the nationals’ leader writers may have backed the union, several papers, including the Guardian, have published opinion from both sides and attempted to report from across the national divide.

And you have to ask - how many people even read the leader columns in newspapers? And of those that do read them, how many place significantly greater weight on the leaders than on opinion pieces? How many people actually defer to the opinions expressed in the official leaders?

Do papers lead opinion or follow it? Bit of both, of course, but this survey of Sun reader voting indicates that the paper switches allegiances after its readers have done so.

The evidence that newpapers' official lines have significant influence is rather bare. The evidence points the other way, if anything - that readers' shifting allegiances affect newspapers' official lines more than vice versa.

 

[William of Walworth]

Some points on the voting and turnout itself :

The missing million goes missing

Good points in that blog, he has plenty of useful stuff to say about why the No level in opinion polls/reporting of them was underestimated and the Yes level overestimated. I was wondering about the relatively low turnout in Glasgow myself. OK turnout was 75% there, but other areas were much higher. Ben Page starting to analyse some reasons.

 

[William of Walworth]

I haven't read the last few pages, beyond seeing the issues being discussed. However, I think the idea of victory being thwarted by the press or the oldies is way off (even if I hoped it would be a Yes). I'd rather start the other way round and note there has never been anything like a majority for independence, quite the opposite. No were always going to win - whatever the complexities of the relationship between England and Scotland, between the different parts of Scotland, fading affinities for Labour, all that.

What we've seen has been ideal circumstances to maximise the Yes vote - austerity, yet another westminster government not elected by Scots, Miliband's shitness etc. On top of that Yes have run a strong and creative campaign, made all the running, been positive, which led to a fair number voting yes who didn't even want independence. Alongside that No have been negative and shit, but probably got some good hits in about the currency, EU membership - even if these were scare stories the Yes campaign didn't have answers. But overall, good circumstances + a very strong campaign probably maximised the Yes vote, took it over and above what could have been expected. Trouble is there just weren't enough Scots in favour of independence. Pitydevo max wasn't on the ballot, because I suspect what is finally offered will fall way short of that.

I like most of this, but above all I tend to agree that No were always, realistically, going to win (as I posted before I think the No vote level was underpredicted). Although I thought it was going to be close up to last night, closer than the real outcome, I also would have been surprised (given my scepticism about opinion poll details and accuracy) if No had actually lost.

But true, Yes were pretty successful in running them even as close as they did.

If Devo Max had been on the ballot I suspect that option would have won by a big majority -- I think danny la rouge said the same a while back.

 

[Theisticle]

At the start of August, the No campaign had a 20 point lead in the polls, a month later is was just 6 points and that now infamous YouGov poll suggest Yes might win.

Link that to the Ashcroft poll, and a great deal of Yes voters decided on their vote in the last month or more recently, so I don't think you can blame it on the media. No voters were more entrenched in their desire not to break up the union. Many probably switched due to negative campaigning.

Salmond was equally capable of insulting No voters: http://www1.politicalbetting.com/in...here-are-no-no-voters-just-deferred-yes-ones/

Look at the polling a year ago: http://www1.politicalbetting.com/in...ttish-independence-referendum-one-year-to-go/

The strength of Yes only really picked up in the past few weeks.

 

[DairyQueen]

Yet journalists on the ground suggest that not all the abuse is due to an editorial line or position. Several reporters say they feel the abuse was directed not at anything they had written or said but simply who they worked for. They, or their London-based employers, are being called scum by people who aren’t able to quote the view of this week’s leader column.

That’s not to say that some of the most vitriolic opinion hasn’t been anti-SNP, whether it’s Melanie Reid in the Times saying the “selfish Scots don’t know how lucky they are,” or the Telegraph column comparing Salmond to a dictator. Focusing on vocal nationalists ignores the fact that there has been mistrust and abuse on both sides. Indeed, the only journalist to actually file a complaint to the police so far is a blogger who wrote in favour of the yes campaign online, according to the NUJ.

Paul Holleran, the NUJ’s Scottish regional organiser, says “abuse and intolerance” has been in evidence across the political spectrum. “Robust debate is fine,” he adds. “Pointing out when journalists get their facts wrong is expected and welcomed. But NUJ members believe in a free press, a fair media, with journalists allowed to do their jobs free of intimidation.”

Monbiot argued in his Guardian column “How the media shafted the people of Scotland” that the fact that just one paper, the Sunday Herald, is backing the yes campaign underlines the fact that the media is out of touch, or rather “detached and complacent”.

This is denied by Raymond Boyle, professor of communications at Glasgow University’s Centre for Cultural Policy Research, who says the media have run opinion pieces from both sides despite finally coming down (often marginally) on the side of no.

While all the nationals’ leader writers may have backed the union, several papers, including the Guardian, have published opinion from both sides and attempted to report from across the national divide.

It’s too simplistic to look at the decline in regional newspaper sales for the whole answer during a heated referendum debate but it seems as good a time as any to check how bad things are. There are more than 370 paid-for weekly newspapers in the UK but most now opt to be audited only once a year, according to Press Gazette. More than 100 have withdrawn from ABC auditing altogether over the last year. Dailies are doing just as badly, down 13.5 % in the half year.

Apart from the success of the one local paper that not only turned into a freesheet but is based, of course, in London the only regional daily/Sunday to grow sales year on year was the Sunday Herald, up 1% year on year to an average of 25,125 copies a week. The Sunday Herald became the first Scottish newspaper to back the yes campaign at the beginning of May.

Yet Boyle points to the importance of political bloggers such as Ian Macwhirter and Joyce Macmillan for enhancing debate over the past two years and says that “media has historically been a relatively easy scapegoat” when polls get closer.

It is perhaps ironic that the most vocal signs of alienation from a London-based media should come from the part of the UK with the most developed “national” outlets of its own, yet the evidence suggests that appearing to be different from London-dominated rivals can only be an advantage.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/sep/17/scottish-independence-media-intimidation-bbc?CMP=twt_gu

I think you are being silly. The public debates, the types of people that get air time are all of the same stripe. David Torrance. What has he done? Why should we listen to him? Alex Massie is another one.

To be honest, I hope that journalists are viewed with skepticism, they are generally poorly informed, and most have taken some ideological position that is pretty clear from their reporting. The Guardian offers nothing in a way of counter-balance and fits a pattern. We even have a thread about why the Guardian is a joke.

John Robertson's analysis of the BBC was spot-on, and it can generally be attached to most media groups. A couple journalists, Paul Mason in particular, has been good. But Wings over Scotland will have a higher reach than he does. If NUJ wants its journalists to be treated with respect, particularly BBC journalists, they have to respect people. At no point would I describe the vast majority of journalists as journalists. Political bloggers don't report the news, regardless of their position on the referendum.

So, I am sorry if Nick Robinson wants to affirm the position of Better Together, that Alex Salmond does not answer questions. He has picked a side. If you are going to campaign, I really don't think you can call yourself a journalist. I certainly have no sympathy with them. The simple fact is that if journalists have shown to be of a very poor quality and the fact we are now getting desperate attempts to point to a few articles in the Herald and Guardian as evidence of plurality shows the depths we have to go to pretend we have a democratic political culture.

British newspapers now are more-or-less on a par with the Socialist Worker. They get paid more, pretend they are above it all, but at the end of the day, they are campaigners for one group or another. I don't feel sorry for any of them. If they want to campaign one way or another, they have to take the heckles like any politician.

To claim Scotland has a 'national' media is silly. We have the Herald and Scotsman. The Scotsman is a right-wing paper formerly owned by the Barclay brothers. it is no surprise to anyone they 'decided' (after thinking about it long and hard no doubt) that they plumped for no.

Next you will be claiming that Newsnet Scotland is a counterbalance to the BBC.

 

[youngian]

Labour Party comms director delivers his condolences to Alex Salmond

 

[Theisticle]

CONSPIRACY!!!!

http://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/t...-calling-for-a-revote-of-the-scottish#37ic8zr

 

[butchersapron]

And, according to Ashcroft's 2000+ post election poll, this is how that panned out - note the 16/17 year olds moving over to YES in large numbers over the last week, previously NO had a lead there - rest, as expected age wise. Note majority labour support (from 2001 at least, would have been interesting to see 2010 voting as well given the split vote phenomenon) for NO:

That date on the labour voters i was after is now here (pdf) - and 69% of the labour 2010 vote voted NO (that was 546 respondents out of the 2047 total). I think suggestions of their demise as a result of this referendum result may prove to exaggerated. Obv will need to see if other post-results polls and research support this though.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think you are being silly. The public debates, the types of people that get air time are all of the same stripe. David Torrance. What has he done? Why should we listen to him? Alex Massie is another one.

To be honest, I hope that journalists are viewed with skepticism, they are generally poorly informed, and most have taken some ideological position that is pretty clear from their reporting. The Guardian offers nothing in a way of counter-balance and fits a pattern. We even have a thread about why the Guardian is a joke.

John Robertson's analysis of the BBC was spot-on, and it can generally be attached to most media groups. A couple journalists, Paul Mason in particular, has been good. But Wings over Scotland will have a higher reach than he does. If NUJ wants its journalists to be treated with respect, particularly BBC journalists, they have to respect people. At no point would I describe the vast majority of journalists as journalists. Political bloggers don't report the news, regardless of their position on the referendum.

So, I am sorry if Nick Robinson wants to affirm the position of Better Together, that Alex Salmond does not answer questions. He has picked a side. If you are going to campaign, I really don't think you can call yourself a journalist. I certainly have no sympathy with them. The simple fact is that if journalists have shown to be of a very poor quality and the fact we are now getting desperate attempts to point to a few articles in the Herald and Guardian as evidence of plurality shows the depths we have to go to pretend we have a democratic political culture.

British newspapers now are more-or-less on a par with the Socialist Worker. They get paid more, pretend they are above it all, but at the end of the day, they are campaigners for one group or another. I don't feel sorry for any of them. If they want to campaign one way or another, they have to take the heckles like any politician.

To claim Scotland has a 'national' media is silly. We have the Herald and Scotsman. The Scotsman is a right-wing paper formerly owned by the Barclay brothers. it is no surprise to anyone they 'decided' (after thinking about it long and hard no doubt) that they plumped for no.

Next you will be claiming that Newsnet Scotland is a counterbalance to the BBC.

I think you're ignoring a point made by the blog you dismissed. It appears that Labour voters voted 2-1 no. This was not people endorsing the Westminster govt. It must have included a large number of people who are sick of the tories getting in all the time. But they still rejected yes. And I think that blog points to one reason - they didn't buy the SNP's promise of a better and more just future as independent; they saw that promise as empty, based on nothing more than faith; and they could see how the wind was blowing in the SNP with its promises of a business-friendly future - a righterly wind.

 

[DairyQueen]

I think you're ignoring a point made by the blog you dismissed. It appears that Labour voters voted 2-1 no. This was not people endorsing the Westminster govt. It must have included a large number of people who are sick of the tories getting in all the time. But they still rejected yes. And I think that blog points to one reason - they didn't buy the SNP's promise of a better and more just future as independent; they saw that promise as empty, based on nothing more than faith; and they could see how the wind was blowing in the SNP with its promises of a business-friendly future - a righterly wind.

I have not mentioned the Labour vote. If you think over a third of Labour voters plumping for independence is insignificant, you simply don't know Scottish politics and certainly ignores historical trends. I will be surprised if many of those voters go back to Labour. They might vote in 2015, but beyond that... their core vote will die off by the end of the decade, the rest will be completely disillusioned.

I have listened to young Labour men talking with working-class voters; justifying Iraq, desperately trying to find the odd left-wing policy they agree with (e.g. childcare - we love children).

If the English (genuine) left-wing does not do something, protest they way we have about our press and politics, only a massive social cleansing (more middle-class managers, retirees from England) will change the way Scottish politics is going.

 

[Belushi]

Guardian has just published some analysis of the polling http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/scottish-independence-opinion-polls-referendum-vote

 

[butchersapron]

Guardian has just published some analysis of the polling http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/scottish-independence-opinion-polls-referendum-vote

Mostly a look at ashcofts figures tbh

 

[butchersapron]

I think the main problem the pollsters couldn't see/deal with was the hard no vote that had decided to just keep shut and vote - that was always there, it was visible from bristol. That didn't show up in the polls over the last two months. Which bumped YES figures.

 

[Jon-of-arc]

I am so happy Scotland have voted to remain in the UK. I think it was a masterstroke by Labour getting the unionist votes.
As an Englishman I am ecstatic.

England will now, like yourselves fight for a better deal, Wales and Ireland also look like they want what's best for their countries respectfully.

Cameron did exactly what I expected him to do today. Hopefully, England can now look at reducing taxes.

Now that Scotland have voted No, I expect their taxes to go up otherwise there will be an uproar in England.

Scotland nearly became the place to live. I am surprised it wasn't their intention to make it a tax free haven. The investment they could have received.
As for England, we expect a referendum on Europe. The sooner we get out the better.

Cameron I notice, expects that with us giving you control over your taxes the money we allow you to have should soon not be needed because you can raise taxes.

The oil revenue should and will be split proportionally between all of the countries in the UK.

I am made up. The period of austerity could soon be over in England.

With the English now looking to get the same deals they offered Scotland, it should, due to the wealth in England be better for us.

Thanks Scotland. What a great people you are

 

[nino_savatte]

The English news are saying that the changes in Scotland might not happen before the election.
That's bad! Its bad enough you voted on promises which haven't even been negotiated yet, but to put it off is not on.

We want it before the election. There are more voters here. We want the benefits Scotland are getting minimum.

Free prescriptions, University etc. Hopefully a tax break too, though that might take ti.e due to how long it is before you get to manage your own taxation and you no longer need our subsidies.

Wtf are you on? Whatever it is, I want some.

 

[Jon-of-arc]

Wtf are you on? Whatever it is, I want some.

s/he is MADE UP - they say so in the post I quoted. blatant piss-take.

 

[nino_savatte]

Alex Salmond has resigned. The Bitters must be chuffed with themselves - especially that Tory cunt, Nick Robinson.

 

[redsquirrel]

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.

The final set of polls (excluding the YG "re"-poll
Ipsos MORI (phone) 49%
ICM (phone) 49%
TNS (face to face) 49%
YouGov (online) 48%
Panelbase (online) 48%
ICM (online) 48%
Opinium (online) 48%
Survation (online) 48%
Survation (phone) 47%%

So 6 of the nine within the MOE and the other three just outside it. OK the polls were probably "a bit too YES" but to say they were out by some distance is over egging it a bit.

 

[chrissyy2009]

Wtf are you on? Whatever it is, I want some.

You don't get it.
It is you who are on something. Maybe they put something in your water.

Cameron has already said there wont be another referendum for a generation. You know when, the oil runs out.

English news are saying Unionists are the ones who got the no vote.

Its understandable because labour would never be in power again without the Scottish votes.

Milliband, today has already said he is against giving Scotland to much power.

It seems the oil money will be shared and the big big problem both labour and the tories had has just been solved by the no vote.

The problem is that Scotland currently have free universities and prescriptions.

An election is coming up and we want what you have. Unfortunately they don't have the money.

So guess what's happening? You will have control of your taxes but as you are part of the United Kingdom, the rest of the united kingdom will get a share.

labour politicians are already saying that its unfair you get the subsidies you do if you are in charge of your own destiny with taxation.

so quite a few today have already said it should be stopped and a couple more said cut.

If you want to give away free stuff then you pay more tax. Its only right.

The other promises wont happen. At least not in the way you think they will.

That's why Cameron wants a level playing field and federal states are the way to do it.

The money we save off your subsidies will be perks for English voters.

Scots are nice folk, but did you really truly believe that London would say "oh them Scots are dead canny, we'll subsidise them more than the English."

with an election coming up ha ha

who do you think has the most votes?

so all the politicians will look after their own constituents. You will get to manage your own taxes, keep trident and have a share of the oil money.

That's about it. You won't get devolution. No chance! The English voters wont stand for it.

you will now be back on a level playing field because to quote Cameron "we also have to look out for the interests of England, Wales and Ireland".

Labour cant give you to much either because then they lose out and do you really think they would lose power just to do what's right for Scotland?

you ask what I am on ha ha ha, I want what more than half your population are on.


like I said, thanks though. You've done well by England

 

[William of Walworth]

The final set of polls (excluding the YG "re"-poll
Ipsos MORI (phone) 49%
ICM (phone) 49%
TNS (face to face) 49%
YouGov (online) 48%
Panelbase (online) 48%
ICM (online) 48%
Opinium (online) 48%
Survation (online) 48%
Survation (phone) 47%%

So 6 of the nine within the MOE and the other three just outside it. OK the polls were probably "a bit too YES" but to say they were out by some distance is over egging it a bit.

I agree with you now actually, and also, I hadn't then bothered to check the range of polls properly. Thanks for those stats.So yes, I was overdoing that point of mine from this afternoon.

I still think I've got a point about the polls undercooking the No level -- mostly for technical/methodology reasons -- excluding the Don't Knows from the headline totals was mad.

 

[quimcunx]

The fact of the matter is 80 year-old women were being bombarded with total loony news stories about how violent the yes campaign was (not true), how their pensions will be taken away (not true), how lovely and brave no campaigners were (not true), how they would be poor in independence (not true), how the SNP were basically Nazis like in world war 2 (not true), etc.

If you think that's fine. Wait until you get to vote in England on something important. You'll realise how fucked as a country we truly are.

My 79 and 3/4 year old mum was pushed from dithering to a Yes by these scare tactics (without any internet access). My 80 year old dad was a yes anyway. Although they agree that for many pensioners a fear of losing the pension would factor into their voting. If you lose it all at 30 you can rebuild your 'empire', not so much once you're retired.

 

[free spirit]

The final set of polls (excluding the YG "re"-poll
Ipsos MORI (phone) 49%
ICM (phone) 49%
TNS (face to face) 49%
YouGov (online) 48%
Panelbase (online) 48%
ICM (online) 48%
Opinium (online) 48%
Survation (online) 48%
Survation (phone) 47%%

So 6 of the nine within the MOE and the other three just outside it. OK the polls were probably "a bit too YES" but to say they were out by some distance is over egging it a bit.

If they've been as far out the other way with all but one of them it would have been a yes vote, which underscores how far out they were.

It's not as if there were some polls either side of the actual result, which is what would be expected if it were just a margin of error thing.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

You don't get it.
It is you who are on something. Maybe they put something in your water.

Cameron has already said there wont be another referendum for a generation. You know when, the oil runs out.

English news are saying Unionists are the ones who got the no vote.

Its understandable because labour would never be in power again without the Scottish votes.

Milliband, today has already said he is against giving Scotland to much power.

It seems the oil money will be shared and the big big problem both labour and the tories had has just been solved by the no vote.

The problem is that Scotland currently have free universities and prescriptions.

An election is coming up and we want what you have. Unfortunately they don't have the money.

So guess what's happening? You will have control of your taxes but as you are part of the United Kingdom, the rest of the united kingdom will get a share.

labour politicians are already saying that its unfair you get the subsidies you do if you are in charge of your own destiny with taxation.

so quite a few today have already said it should be stopped and a couple more said cut.

If you want to give away free stuff then you pay more tax. Its only right.

The other promises wont happen. At least not in the way you think they will.

That's why Cameron wants a level playing field and federal states are the way to do it.

The money we save off your subsidies will be perks for English voters.

Scots are nice folk, but did you really truly believe that London would say "oh them Scots are dead canny, we'll subsidise them more than the English."

with an election coming up ha ha

who do you think has the most votes?

so all the politicians will look after their own constituents. You will get to manage your own taxes, keep trident and have a share of the oil money.

That's about it. You won't get devolution. No chance! The English voters wont stand for it.

you will now be back on a level playing field because to quote Cameron "we also have to look out for the interests of England, Wales and Ireland".

Labour cant give you to much either because then they lose out and do you really think they would lose power just to do what's right for Scotland?

you ask what I am on ha ha ha, I want what more than half your population are on.


like I said, thanks though. You've done well by England

Stone bonker

 

[likesfish]

Yes failed to make the arguement simple as that.
They failed to convince the majority simple as that.
without the Uk government prepared to enter into talks before the vote and why should they? It was always going to be a hard sell.

 

[Anudder Oik]

What are the three main reasons for people in Scotland to vote no?

 

[redsquirrel]

Well the top two reasons people gave for voting NO were concerns about pensions and currency, of course that doesn't necessarily mean those were the reasons had for voting NO.

EDIT: Based on that Ashcroft poll

 

[nino_savatte]

You don't get it.
It is you who are on something. Maybe they put something in your water.

Cameron has already said there wont be another referendum for a generation. You know when, the oil runs out.

English news are saying Unionists are the ones who got the no vote.

Its understandable because labour would never be in power again without the Scottish votes.

Milliband, today has already said he is against giving Scotland to much power.

It seems the oil money will be shared and the big big problem both labour and the tories had has just been solved by the no vote.

The problem is that Scotland currently have free universities and prescriptions.

An election is coming up and we want what you have. Unfortunately they don't have the money.

So guess what's happening? You will have control of your taxes but as you are part of the United Kingdom, the rest of the united kingdom will get a share.

labour politicians are already saying that its unfair you get the subsidies you do if you are in charge of your own destiny with taxation.

so quite a few today have already said it should be stopped and a couple more said cut.

If you want to give away free stuff then you pay more tax. Its only right.

The other promises wont happen. At least not in the way you think they will.

That's why Cameron wants a level playing field and federal states are the way to do it.

The money we save off your subsidies will be perks for English voters.

Scots are nice folk, but did you really truly believe that London would say "oh them Scots are dead canny, we'll subsidise them more than the English."

with an election coming up ha ha

who do you think has the most votes?

so all the politicians will look after their own constituents. You will get to manage your own taxes, keep trident and have a share of the oil money.

That's about it. You won't get devolution. No chance! The English voters wont stand for it.

you will now be back on a level playing field because to quote Cameron "we also have to look out for the interests of England, Wales and Ireland".

Labour cant give you to much either because then they lose out and do you really think they would lose power just to do what's right for Scotland?

you ask what I am on ha ha ha, I want what more than half your population are on.


like I said, thanks though. You've done well by England

You're like a clockwork toy.