The Referendum Thread

[Drew]

It's the reality Drew. The polls show it. This thread shows it. There's no movement any more. It's you that's pinning faith on a fantasy. I don't have a problem with that. It's harmless enough because there's more than enough Scots who realise that this divorce would be irreversible and that a massive decision like this needs strong evidence to convince us that we'd be at least as well off after independence as we are now.

Just to counter the argument btw - you know that Jim Sillars thinks the Yes Campaign is being badly run with huge mistakes having been made by Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond amongst others, don't you?

It is your reality Stuart (a place that strikes fear into my heart). So when people say they remain undecided, you are pretty much writing them off as liars?

I have never suggested that the YES campaign has been flawlessly managed. In saying that, to my knowledge, most who have commented tend to take the view that they have made a better job of presenting their position than their counterparts in the NO camp. To be honest, I'm not unduly fussed either way. I can decide for myself without relying too heavily on the propaganda, spin, and soundbites from either side of the debate.

[Stuart Dickson]

It is your reality Stuart (a place that strikes fear into my heart). So when people say they remain undecided, you are pretty much writing them off as liars?

I have never suggested that the YES campaign has been flawlessly managed. In saying that, to my knowledge, most who have commented tend to take the view that they have made a better job of presenting their position than their counterparts in the NO camp. To be honest, I'm not unduly fussed either way. I can decide for myself without relying too heavily on the propaganda, spin, and soundbites from either side of the debate.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/gap-continues-narrow-between-voters-3418533

The latest poll Drew. It backs up what I was saying. Support for Independence remains at around 33%. 74% of voters polled say they know how they are going to vote. 46% say they will vote No. The article by the Record is written to claim that independence is gaining support but the reality, if you factor in the margin of error, is the only figure that changes is the percentage of people who claim they are still undecided. No spin from me Drew just pure simple commentary of the latest poll figures which are backing up my opinion that the game is over for the Yes campaign. The window of opportunity has passed, the population has made their decision and become entrenched.

ETA - I've never claimed that the No campaign was flawlessly handled either. It's a cross party campaign which was always going to send out muddled messages. The reality though is that it was for the Yes Men to prove their case. They haven't done it. Shame really. Maybe they'll get another chance in 20 - 25 years.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Stuart Dickson

[Drew]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/gap-continues-narrow-between-voters-3418533

The latest poll Drew. It backs up what I was saying. Support for Independence remains at around 33%. 74% of voters polled say they know how they are going to vote. 46% say they will vote No. The article by the Record is written to claim that independence is gaining support but the reality, if you factor in the margin of error, is the only figure that changes is the percentage of people who claim they are still undecided. No spin from me Drew just pure simple commentary of the latest poll figures which are backing up my opinion that the game is over for the Yes campaign. The window of opportunity has passed, the population has made their decision and become entrenched.

ETA - I've never claimed that the No campaign was flawlessly handled either. It's a cross party campaign which was always going to send out muddled messages. The reality though is that it was for the Yes Men to prove their case. They haven't done it. Shame really. Maybe they'll get another chance in 20 - 25 years.

It doesn't, though. I've not looked at the link, but you highlight that the poll is indicating that 26% remain undecided. You are claiming that everyone has pretty much decided and it is a done deal - I'll ask you again, are you saying they are liars?

You can't have it both ways. Either disregard the poll as nonsense, and, in turn, don't try to conclude anything from it, or accept that there is still scope for a sizeable swing either way.

Polls are a very broad indicator of intent, nothing more. There is everything to play for.

ETA: I have now had a quick look at the article. FFS, Stuart, it totally contradicts your claim that there are pretty much no undecided voters and the outcome is all but a certainty. Did you actually read it?

"This survey shows that while many voters are now committed to one side or the other, a significant proportion of voters still have to make up their minds. Many undecided voters are telling us that they will definitely cast their vote, and how the campaigns address their interests is likely to have a big influence on the final outcome."

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot....again

Edit#2: you've also completely misinterpreted/misunderstood/misrepresented the poll. 74% say they are certain to vote, as opposed to your claim that this figure represents those who know who they intend to vote for:

"The number of people who say they are certain to vote has increased to a high of 74%, up from 65% in September"

A significant distinction, no? Only 79% of those certain to vote know who they intend to vote for. This leaves 21% of the definites up for grabs, so a potentially huge influence on the outcome. Assuming you believe the polls, of course....

Dearie me, Stuart.

MUST.

TRY.

HARDER.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Drew

[saintargyll]

shit poll

they never asked me

anyone else in here get asked?

[Stuart Dickson]

It doesn't, though. I've not looked at the link, but you highlight that the poll is indicating that 26% remain undecided. You are claiming that everyone has pretty much decided and it is a done deal - I'll ask you again, are you saying they are liars?

You can't have it both ways. Either disregard the poll as nonsense, and, in turn, don't try to conclude anything from it, or accept that there is still scope for a sizeable swing either way.

Polls are a very broad indicator of intent, nothing more. There is everything to play for.

ETA: I have now had a quick look at the article. FFS, Stuart, it totally contradicts your claim that there are pretty much no undecided voters and the outcome is all but a certainty. Did you actually read it?

"This survey shows that while many voters are now committed to one side or the other, a significant proportion of voters still have to make up their minds. Many undecided voters are telling us that they will definitely cast their vote, and how the campaigns address their interests is likely to have a big influence on the final outcome."

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot....again

Edit#2: you've also completely misinterpreted/misunderstood/misrepresented the poll. 74% say they are certain to vote, as opposed to your claim that this figure represents those who know who they intend to vote for:

"The number of people who say they are certain to vote has increased to a high of 74%, up from 65% in September"

A significant distinction, no? Only 79% of those certain to vote know who they intend to vote for. This leaves 21% of the definites up for grabs, so a potentially huge influence on the outcome. Assuming you believe the polls, of course....

Dearie me, Stuart.

MUST.

TRY.

HARDER.

Drew the point, as ever, is the number of "don't knows" is decreasing but the percentage share of the vote remains consistent. Around one third want Independence while around half want to remain in the union. The Yes Campaign has made no inroads on this in my lifetime, never mind during the campaign

[FTOF]

It doesn't, though. I've not looked at the link, but you highlight that the poll is indicating that 26% remain undecided. You are claiming that everyone has pretty much decided and it is a done deal - I'll ask you again, are you saying they are liars?

You can't have it both ways. Either disregard the poll as nonsense, and, in turn, don't try to conclude anything from it, or accept that there is still scope for a sizeable swing either way.

Polls are a very broad indicator of intent, nothing more. There is everything to play for.

ETA: I have now had a quick look at the article. FFS, Stuart, it totally contradicts your claim that there are pretty much no undecided voters and the outcome is all but a certainty. Did you actually read it?

"This survey shows that while many voters are now committed to one side or the other, a significant proportion of voters still have to make up their minds. Many undecided voters are telling us that they will definitely cast their vote, and how the campaigns address their interests is likely to have a big influence on the final outcome."

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot....again

Edit#2: you've also completely misinterpreted/misunderstood/misrepresented the poll. 74% say they are certain to vote, as opposed to your claim that this figure represents those who know who they intend to vote for:

"The number of people who say they are certain to vote has increased to a high of 74%, up from 65% in September"

A significant distinction, no? Only 79% of those certain to vote know who they intend to vote for. This leaves 21% of the definites up for grabs, so a potentially huge influence on the outcome. Assuming you believe the polls, of course....

Dearie me, Stuart.

MUST.

TRY.

HARDER.

http://news.stv.tv/politics/271143-survation-and-panelbase-polls-give-different-results-on-independence/

I suppose it depends on which polls you look at and whether you give them any credence or not.

[Stuart Dickson]

http://news.stv.tv/politics/271143-survation-and-panelbase-polls-give-different-results-on-independence/

I suppose it depends on which polls you look at and whether you give them any credence or not.

True - and there's certainly an argument that would say that the margin of error often makes them worthless. But if you do give them credence the consistent trend around all of the polls for the last couple of years have shown the same pattern. Around 33% - 36% of Scots want Independence, around 48% - 51% of Scots want to remain in the Union, and around 15% either can't decide or they don't give a f**k. If you average out the trends in the polls it's clear that the Yes Campaign has made very little ground at all.

Drew referenced what happened in the last Scottish Election earlier today and he's right in that the SNP managed a particularly wild swing in their favour, but the reason was pretty clear. In the previous years General Election the Lib Dems had formed a coalition with the Conservatives. This meant that unhappy Lib Dems were looking to place a protest vote. Conservative voters in Scotland were looking to keep Labour out - and voted tactically to elect the SNP, and a number of Labour voters who were unhappy at their party performance simply decided not to vote at all. You won't get protest votes in the referendum, because unlike at a Scottish Election you can't simply reverse your vote for the next Election when it turns out you voted for a turkey the last time out.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

why would voters use a protest vote with the 2 vote PR voting system that holyrood uses?

[Drew]

Drew the point, as ever, is the number of "don't knows" is decreasing but the percentage share of the vote remains consistent. Around one third want Independence while around half want to remain in the union. The Yes Campaign has made no inroads on this in my lifetime, never mind during the campaign

That's not really the point, though, Stuart.

The point is that you are the one who insists on referring to the polls, yet when you refer to one specifically, you misrepresent its findings. As I've said before, you can't have it both ways.

Drew referenced what happened in the last Scottish Election earlier today and he's right in that the SNP managed a particularly wild swing in their favour, but the reason was pretty clear. In the previous years General Election the Lib Dems had formed a coalition with the Conservatives. This meant that unhappy Lib Dems were looking to place a protest vote. Conservative voters in Scotland were looking to keep Labour out - and voted tactically to elect the SNP, and a number of Labour voters who were unhappy at their party performance simply decided not to vote at all. You won't get protest votes in the referendum, because unlike at a Scottish Election you can't simply reverse your vote for the next Election when it turns out you voted for a turkey the last time out.

Again, you are spinning the facts here, Stuart, despite your protestations to the contrary.

There was a very marked swing from Labour to the SNP, and to suggest that this is attributable to disaffected Labour supporters opting not to vote is simply not true, as the overall turnout was only around 1 - 2% less than in 2007. Details here:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/may/05/scotland-election-results-2011

In any event, why would there be a sudden turnaround within the space of 2 - 3 months on the basis of the background you describe, as the polls suggested? Nah, the polls held in the run up didn't really call it at all, and nor did the bookies, as it goes.

Again, I'll say it, but don't be too reliant on the polls as accurate forecasters of the eventual outcome or you risk egg on your face.

[salmonbuddie]

Statistics like these are basically hard sums. Sums are not one of StuD's strongpoints.

[Stuart Dickson]

That's not really the point, though, Stuart.

The point is that you are the one who insists on referring to the polls, yet when you refer to one specifically, you misrepresent its findings. As I've said before, you can't have it both ways.

Again, you are spinning the facts here, Stuart, despite your protestations to the contrary.

There was a very marked swing from Labour to the SNP, and to suggest that this is attributable to disaffected Labour supporters opting not to vote is simply not true, as the overall turnout was only around 1 - 2% less than in 2007. Details here:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/may/05/scotland-election-results-2011

In any event, why would there be a sudden turnaround within the space of 2 - 3 months on the basis of the background you describe, as the polls suggested? Nah, the polls held in the run up didn't really call it at all, and nor did the bookies, as it goes.

Again, I'll say it, but don't be too reliant on the polls as accurate forecasters of the eventual outcome or you risk egg on your face.

Total votes per party

2007

SNP 664,227

Labour 648,374

Conservative 334,743

Lib Dem 326,232

Total Votes 2,016,978

2011

SNP 902,915

Labour 630,461

Conservative 276,652

Lib Dem 157,714

Total Votes - 1,989,222

As you can see Drew Labour held their share of the vote. Many of the constituencies may have gone from Labour to SNP but that was because of the voting pattern that I've described. You and Salmonbuddie might be struggling to understand it but it's very, very clear.

[beyond our ken]

Total votes per party

2007

SNP 664,227

Labour 648,374

Conservative 334,743

Lib Dem 326,232

Total Votes 2,016,978

2011

SNP 902,915

Labour 630,461

Conservative 276,652

Lib Dem 157,714

Total Votes - 1,989,222

As you can see Drew Labour held their share of the vote. Many of the constituencies may have gone from Labour to SNP but that was because of the voting pattern that I've described. You and Salmonbuddie might be struggling to understand it but it's very, very clear.

How can bare figures like these tell the whole story of who swung from where? Does it tell you how many votes labour picked up from lib-dems, conservatives or disaffected tommy sheridan supporters? The figures show where people ended up, not where they started

Try this

SNP Gain was 238000-ish

total flight from the other named parties

245,000, or thereabouts

So you cant say that vote share was held by anyone other than a safe guess that the SNP held their's, there was enormous movement in all directions in the small sample that Scotland represents

and that is not counting the other smaller parties' share. The point is, these figures prove nothing.

Edited April 17, 2014 by beyond our ken

[Lex]

Jeez, we aren't still comparing the results of a multi party parliamentary vote to a two choice referendum, are we?

Completely irrelevant comparison. Yes voters clinging to that as an example of a huge swing sadly don't know what they're talking about.

[Drew]

Jeez, we aren't still comparing the results of a multi party parliamentary vote to a two choice referendum, are we?

Completely irrelevant comparison. Yes voters clinging to that as an example of a huge swing sadly don't know what they're talking about.

Have you read the last few pages of the thread?

Stu is the one who is insisting on referring to polls as an all but cast iron indicator of the result in September, yet the rest of us aren't to be permitted the opportunity to challenge this position?

His contention has consistently been that people have decided how they intend to vote (if, indeed, they intend to vote at all), and the polls reflect this, hence the YES campaign may as well pack up and go home now. Yet he provides a link to an article in the Daily Record that he claims backs up his argument, but, in fact, totally contradicts it. You couldn't make it up, FFS!

I refer to the 2011 polls simply to ilustrate that, like the bookies, the pollsters don't always call it correctly. Would you deny that this, in itself, is relevant to the current referendum situation?

[FTOF]

Have you read the last few pages of the thread?

Stu is the one who is insisting on referring to polls as an all but cast iron indicator of the result in September, yet the rest of us aren't to be permitted the opportunity to challenge this position?

His contention has consistently been that people have decided how they intend to vote (if, indeed, they intend to vote at all), and the polls reflect this, hence the YES campaign may as well pack up and go home now. Yet he provides a link to an article in the Daily Record that he claims backs up his argument, but, in fact, totally contradicts it. You couldn't make it up, FFS!

I refer to the 2011 polls simply to ilustrate that, like the bookies, the pollsters don't always call it correctly. Would you deny that this, in itself, is relevant to the current referendum situation?

Don't waste your time Drew.

It's not worth wasting oxygen responding to the trolls.

Even if they did possess the numeracy or literacy skills required to engage in any sort of reasoned debate, when the chips are down they lie, make up "facts" or, in some cases, quote out of date data to try and support their case.

[Stuart Dickson]

How can bare figures like these tell the whole story of who swung from where? Does it tell you how many votes labour picked up from lib-dems, conservatives or disaffected tommy sheridan supporters? The figures show where people ended up, not where they started

Try this

SNP Gain was 238000-ish

total flight from the other named parties

245,000, or thereabouts

So you cant say that vote share was held by anyone other than a safe guess that the SNP held their's, there was enormous movement in all directions in the small sample that Scotland represents

and that is not counting the other smaller parties' share. The point is, these figures prove nothing.

They prove Drew was wrong. There was no defection from Labour to SNP. Labour retained the vast majority of their votes from 2007 in 2011. The increase in the SNP vote came from disaffected Lib Dems unhappy with them having formed a coalition at Westminster with the Tories, and from Tories voting tactically to keep Labour out. The idea that something similar could happen in a referendum is fanciful and absurd. Those who support the Union aren't likely to vote us into an irreversible split in some bizarre attempt to protest at the Westminster government unlike what they did in the Scottish Elections in 2011.

Historically in Scotland you generally see that support for Independence tops at around one in three. The current polls show the Yes Campaign hasn't made any ground beyond each polls margin of error despite the huge cost of the Yes Campaign. This failure should see the back of Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon and I can't wait.

[Stuart Dickson]

Don't waste your time Drew.

It's not worth wasting oxygen responding to the trolls.

Even if they did possess the numeracy or literacy skills required to engage in any sort of reasoned debate, when the chips are down they lie, make up "facts" or, in some cases, quote out of date data to try and support their case.

Really?

I've quoted the actual constituency votes per party from 2007 and 2011 elections and you call it a numeracy and literacy deficit and claim I'm making up facts. Honestly I have to admire the extent of the brainwashing that exists among the Natsis. Goebels would have been proud.

[Drew]

They prove Drew was wrong. There was no defection from Labour to SNP. Labour retained the vast majority of their votes from 2007 in 2011. The increase in the SNP vote came from disaffected Lib Dems unhappy with them having formed a coalition at Westminster with the Tories, and from Tories voting tactically to keep Labour out. The idea that something similar could happen in a referendum is fanciful and absurd. Those who support the Union aren't likely to vote us into an irreversible split in some bizarre attempt to protest at the Westminster government unlike what they did in the Scottish Elections in 2011.

Historically in Scotland you generally see that support for Independence tops at around one in three. The current polls show the Yes Campaign hasn't made any ground beyond each polls margin of error despite the huge cost of the Yes Campaign. This failure should see the back of Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon and I can't wait.

Please quote from where I claimed there had been a defection from Labour to the SNP.

I stated that there had been a marked swing from Labour to the SNP (I said exactly this: "There was a very marked swing from Labour to the SNP"). Are you genuinely trying to refute this?

Edit (as it seems this might be necessary for explanatory purposes....):

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/may/05/scotland-election-results-2011

Note the swings, Stuart.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Drew

[Drew]

Don't waste your time Drew.

It's not worth wasting oxygen responding to the trolls.

Even if they did possess the numeracy or literacy skills required to engage in any sort of reasoned debate, when the chips are down they lie, make up "facts" or, in some cases, quote out of date data to try and support their case.

Aye, it is all becoming a bit tiresome now.

[Vambo57]

True - and there's certainly an argument that would say that the margin of error often makes them worthless. But if you do give them credence the consistent trend around all of the polls for the last couple of years have shown the same pattern. Around 33% - 36% of Scots want Independence, around 48% - 51% of Scots want to remain in the Union, and around 15% either can't decide or they don't give a f**k. If you average out the trends in the polls it's clear that the Yes Campaign has made very little ground at all.

Drew referenced what happened in the last Scottish Election earlier today and he's right in that the SNP managed a particularly wild swing in their favour, but the reason was pretty clear. In the previous years General Election the Lib Dems had formed a coalition with the Conservatives. This meant that unhappy Lib Dems were looking to place a protest vote. Conservative voters in Scotland were looking to keep Labour out - and voted tactically to elect the SNP, and a number of Labour voters who were unhappy at their party performance simply decided not to vote at all. You won't get protest votes in the referendum, because unlike at a Scottish Election you can't simply reverse your vote for the next Election when it turns out you voted for a turkey the last time out.

You too Stu? You voted SNP?

[beyond our ken]

They prove Drew was wrong. There was no defection from Labour to SNP. Labour retained the vast majority of their votes from 2007 in 2011. The increase in the SNP vote came from disaffected Lib Dems unhappy with them having formed a coalition at Westminster with the Tories, and from Tories voting tactically to keep Labour out. The idea that something similar could happen in a referendum is fanciful and absurd. Those who support the Union aren't likely to vote us into an irreversible split in some bizarre attempt to protest at the Westminster government unlike what they did in the Scottish Elections in 2011.

Historically in Scotland you generally see that support for Independence tops at around one in three. The current polls show the Yes Campaign hasn't made any ground beyond each polls margin of error despite the huge cost of the Yes Campaign. This failure should see the back of Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon and I can't wait.

Labour COULD have lost tens of thousands of votes to the SNP, and in turn they COULD have taken tens of thousands from libdems, greens or the socialist workers? so you cant use this set of figures to disprove what Drew said, or even what you twisted his statement into

In any event, there was SWING away from the labour vote, which was down around 18,000 (a couple of percent, or so) and the SNP were net benefactors of that movement, along with others. In anyone's (who is reasonable) language that represents a swing that has commonly won elections in the UK

[oaksoft]

They prove Drew was wrong. There was no defection from Labour to SNP. Labour retained the vast majority of their votes from 2007 in 2011. The increase in the SNP vote came from disaffected Lib Dems unhappy with them having formed a coalition at Westminster with the Tories, and from Tories voting tactically to keep Labour out. The idea that something similar could happen in a referendum is fanciful and absurd. Those who support the Union aren't likely to vote us into an irreversible split in some bizarre attempt to protest at the Westminster government unlike what they did in the Scottish Elections in 2011.

Historically in Scotland you generally see that support for Independence tops at around one in three. The current polls show the Yes Campaign hasn't made any ground beyond each polls margin of error despite the huge cost of the Yes Campaign. This failure should see the back of Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon and I can't wait.

How many constituencies which were under Labour end up as SNP seats in the 2011 election?

If your way of viewing the stats is relevant the only answer could be none.

If Drew is right, then the answer will be some.

Ooooooh the tension is simply killing me here.

Edited April 17, 2014 by oaksoft

[oaksoft]

OK I'm back with the results.

Drum roll please………...

On constituency alone (which is the only indicator)…….the SNP gained how many seats from Labour?

Was it none?

Was it 3?

Was it 9?

Nope it was 23.

Labour lost TWENTY THREE constituency seats to the SNP at an average swing of 8% or thereabouts.

And there folks is why Dickson's stats can't be relied on. They don't tell the important reason behind why the SNP won so handsomely.

Edited April 17, 2014 by oaksoft

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Ed Davey's "increased energy bills in Independent Scotland" shown up as pish once more

http://theconversation.com/ed-daveys-claim-that-scottish-energy-bills-would-rise-after-independence-is-a-fantasy-25693

[Stuart Dickson]

Ed Davey's "increased energy bills in Independent Scotland" shown up as pish once more

http://theconversation.com/ed-daveys-claim-that-scottish-energy-bills-would-rise-after-independence-is-a-fantasy-25693

They claim "Academic Rigour and Journalistic Flair" but the articles linked to are pish poor. In the one you linked to he says he strongly rejects Ed Davy's announcement, and references other articles that he and some academic pals of his came up with the first of which states that the Scottish Government paper on energy was overtly political, lacked detail and concludes that Scotland lack a Plan B.

The articles are nothing more than opinion blogs where the author, or authors meander through some political musings reaching conflicting conclusions whilst failing to provide any reference points from whit they've supposedly garnered their opinion. To put this forward as evidence of anything other than the fact that Scottish Universities are failing to produce journalists with any real flair for the job is utterly laughable.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Stuart Dickson