2nd Indy Referendum?

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not making simplistic statements.

Why point is that the indyref2 polling is based on what people would vote were there a referendum tomorrow. That is a hypothetical scenario and one that most people don't want to happen, as only about a third of voters want a referendum anytime before the end of 2023, while a markedly greater proportion want the whole thing kicked into the long grass - favouring a referendum later than 2026 or never.

The point being that it isn't very valuable asking people what they would do in a forced choice in a hypothetical scenario that they don't want. Now it might be reasonable if there was a clear prospect of a referendum some time soon, but there isn't.

I see you are marking your own homework which in terms of Spud doing the same as regards his racism you advised against but then thinking consistently as regards yourself vs others is not one of your stronger points. It's perfectly possible to think independence is important but that a referendum may be better in more than a year.

[ProfessorDavey]

I see you are marking your own homework which in terms of Spud doing the same as regards his racism you advised against but then thinking consistently as regards yourself vs others is not one of your stronger points. It's perfectly possible to think independence is important but that a referendum may be better in more than a year.

Not at all, and I really fail to see any connection with Spud's comments on Susan Hussey.

I'm simply providing some insight into the broader polling beyond the headline. Only when you look at a range of questions relating not just to a hypothetic vote tomorrow, but to when (or if) people want a referendum and the importance people think independence has do you get a truer picture.

So let's look at the importance question a little more, as you brought it up in your post. As far as I'm aware this is the standard Ipsos 'issues' monitor question, that they have used for decades. Basically, unprompted (and that is important) they ask people two questions:

What do you see as the most important issue facing Scotland/the UK (delete as applicable) today?
What do you see as other important issues facing Scotland/the UK (delete as applicable) today?

Because it is unprompted respondents can say whatever they like and can provide as many 'other' issues as they want, albeit only one 'most important' issue. The unprompted nature is important as prompting can increase the impression of importance compared to leaving it entirely up to the respondent. And the results are usually a combined value from the two questions, and therefore overall results go way beyond 100% as high proportions of people may see inflation and NHS and education and independence as important.

So the results.

Well interestingly Independence comes top of the 'most important' category, but still just 15% of people say it is the most important issue (hence 85% don't). A further 9% cite it as another important issue, combining to the 23% total (with rounding). So actually 77% don't see it as important - and there is no limit to the number of issues that they could see as important.

Also interestingly (and this is different to some of the other issues) - a greater proportion of people who think it important think it is the most important issue. So to paraphrase, largely either it is your number one issue or you don't care about it at all. Which is a lot like Brexit - a small minority were obsessed with the EU, most simply didn't see it as an issue.

More interesting still - when you force people into a IndyRef2 voting intention 56% say 'Yes', but the cross tabs on the tables tell us whether these people actually think independence is an important issue (or the most important) - and the data show that just 36% of people who say they'd vote 'yes' in a referendum actually think independence is either the most important issue or an important issue. That means that nigh on two thirds of 'yes' indyref voters don't consider independence to be an important issue facing Scotland.

So to summarise - from the data, not from what you might want to be the case.

About 77% of people do not think independence is an important issue facing Scotland, most people don't want a referendum any time soon, but if you ask a forced choice question about a hypothetical referendum tomorrow (that they don't want and don't think is important) 56% say they vote 'Yes'.

[Nearly Sane]

Not at all, and I really fail to see any connection with Spud's comments on Susan Hussey.

I'm simply providing some insight into the broader polling beyond the headline. Only when you look at a range of questions relating not just to a hypothetic vote tomorrow, but to when (or if) people want a referendum and the importance people think independence has do you get a truer picture.

So let's look at the importance question a little more, as you brought it up in your post. As far as I'm aware this is the standard Ipsos 'issues' monitor question, that they have used for decades. Basically, unprompted (and that is important) they ask people two questions:

What do you see as the most important issue facing Scotland/the UK (delete as applicable) today?
What do you see as other important issues facing Scotland/the UK (delete as applicable) today?

Because it is unprompted respondents can say whatever they like and can provide as many 'other' issues as they want, albeit only one 'most important' issue. The unprompted nature is important as prompting can increase the impression of importance compared to leaving it entirely up to the respondent. And the results are usually a combined value from the two questions, and therefore overall results go way beyond 100% as high proportions of people may see inflation and NHS and education and independence as important.

So the results.

Well interestingly Independence comes top of the 'most important' category, but still just 15% of people say it is the most important issue (hence 85% don't). A further 9% cite it as another important issue, combining to the 23% total (with rounding). So actually 77% don't see it as important - and there is no limit to the number of issues that they could see as important.

Also interestingly (and this is different to some of the other issues) - a greater proportion of people who think it important think it is the most important issue. So to paraphrase, largely either it is your number one issue or you don't care about it at all. Which is a lot like Brexit - a small minority were obsessed with the EU, most simply didn't see it as an issue.

More interesting still - when you force people into a IndyRef2 voting intention 56% say 'Yes', but the cross tabs on the tables tell us whether these people actually think independence is an important issue (or the most important) - and the data show that just 36% of people who say they'd vote 'yes' in a referendum actually think independence is either the most important issue or an important issue. That means that nigh on two thirds of 'yes' indyref voters don't consider independence to be an important issue facing Scotland.

So to summarise - from the data, not from what you might want to be the case.

About 77% of people do not think independence is an important issue facing Scotland, most people don't want a referendum any time soon, but if you ask a forced choice question about a hypothetical referendum tomorrow (that they don't want and don't think is important) 56% say they vote 'Yes'.

And you just illustrate the problem by starting off with a simplistic statement. You and self perception are not just strange bedfellows but exist in completely alternate universes.

[ProfessorDavey]

And you just illustrate the problem by starting off with a simplistic statement.

Which is exactly the opposite of what I have done - my whole argument is that it isn't as simplistic as a headline IndyRef voting figure. In order to understand things you need to get beyond the simplistic statement of the headline and actually understand the complexity of opinion, which involves considering whether people actually want a referendum, and if so when, and also whether people think that the issue of independence is important.

You and self perception are not just strange bedfellows but exist in completely alternate universes.

Again - just about the exact opposite of reality - you accuse me of being simplistic when I was making a point about the need to understand beyond the simplistic. So you accuse me again, and I response with details of what the polling actually shows, way way beyond the simplistic headline. And you accuse me again of being simplistic.

Perhaps rather than 'playing the person' you might like to actually engage with the details of the polling beyond the 56% headline.

[Nearly Sane]

Which is exactly the opposite of what I have done - my whole argument is that it isn't as simplistic as a headline IndyRef voting figure. In order to understand things you need to get beyond the simplistic statement of the headline and actually understand the complexity of opinion, which involves considering whether people actually want a referendum, and if so when, and also whether people think that the issue of independence is important.
Again - just about the exact opposite of reality - you accuse me of being simplistic when I was making a point about the need to understand beyond the simplistic. So you accuse me again, and I response with details of what the polling actually shows, way way beyond the simplistic headline. And you accuse me again of being simplistic.

Perhaps rather than 'playing the person' you might like to actually engage with the details of the polling beyond the 56% headline.

What have I said that is against any of the article?

[ProfessorDavey]

What have I said that is against any of the article?

The point is that the article is, in itself, highly simplistic - with a headline based on just one aspect of the data and the entire article completely ignoring an important aspect of the polling - the consideration of the importance of independence in the poll.

As you might imagine given my profession, I tend to prefer to head straight to the actual data rather than rely on simplistic filtering to support a media article of even more simplistic - a headline.

So I ask again - would you like to actually discuss the data in the polling - all the data, including the data on importance. I've provided a summary - but you can get all the information here:

https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2022-12/scotland-political-monitor-tables-december-2022.pdf

Or perhaps you'd prefer the simplistic approach of just basing your views on what a news editor would like you to focus on.

[Nearly Sane]

The point is that the article is, in itself, highly simplistic - with a headline based on just one aspect of the data and the entire article completely ignoring an important aspect of the polling - the consideration of the importance of independence in the poll.

As you might imagine given my profession, I tend to prefer to head straight to the actual data rather than rely on simplistic filtering to support a media article of even more simplistic - a headline.

So I ask again - would you like to actually discuss the data in the polling - all the data, including the data on importance. I've provided a summary - but you can get all the information here:

https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2022-12/scotland-political-monitor-tables-december-2022.pdf

Or perhaps you'd prefer the simplistic approach of just basing your views on what a news editor would like you to focus on.

It's a headline. It's correct. Do you understand what a headline is?

As to the rest of the article, this seems to be the first time you've mentioned an issue with that. What do you think was missed out?

Nice to know you think what are the editor was wanting me to take out of it, or what I did.

I see you haven't mentioned any of the approval ratings of politicians - any reason why you didn't provide a summary of those or would you just like me to concentrate on what you would like me to focus on?

[ProfessorDavey]

As to the rest of the article, this seems to be the first time you've mentioned an issue with that. What do you think was missed out?

Do you actually both to read my posts NS.

You linked to the article - the first line of my first response (reply 644) was:

'When you delve into the details the results are rather more nuanced.'

And in that reply I never mentioned the headline, and nor did you in the post I was replying to.

My issue was with the simplistic and selective reporting of the data in the article - hence my comment and that I raised the issue of importance, which is a key element of the actual polling data, but isn't even mentioned in the article.

Once again - let's discuss the data, all the data, including the questions on importance. I've provided you with the link, so it is all available to you. I'm not really interested in the selected editorial line in the article still less the headline.

And while we are at it - the standard approach to looking at changes in polling it to compare a poll with the last poll conducted by the same polling organisation, regardless of who commissioned it. The article compares the data with the last poll by Ipsos commissioned by STV, back in May, but there is a much more recent poll, from October from Ipsos - the standard approach should be to make comparisons with this poll rather than the one from last May. If that were the case it wouldn't show a 6% increase in support for yes, and I suspect the changes will be within the +/- 4% margin of error of the data.

[Nearly Sane]

Do you actually both to read my posts NS.

You linked to the article - the first line of my first response (reply 644) was:

'When you delve into the details the results are rather more nuanced.'

And in that reply I never mentioned the headline, and nor did you in the post I was replying to.

My issue was with the simplistic and selective reporting of the data in the article - hence my comment and that I raised the issue of importance, which is a key element of the actual polling data, but isn't even mentioned in the article.

Once again - let's discuss the data, all the data, including the questions on importance. I've provided you with the link, so it is all available to you. I'm not really interested in the selected editorial line in the article still less the headline.

And while we are at it - the standard approach to looking at changes in polling it to compare a poll with the last poll conducted by the same polling organisation, regardless of who commissioned it. The article compares the data with the last poll by Ipsos commissioned by STV, back in May, but there is a much more recent poll, from October from Ipsos - the standard approach should be to make comparisons with this poll rather than the one from last May. If that were the case it wouldn't show a 6% increase in support for yes, and I suspect the changes will be within the +/- 4% margin of error of the data.

  To quote from that first reply of your's

'Make of that what you will. But it is an example of the danger of writing headlines around a forced choice scenario' which raises the headline. Maybe you need to read your posts more.

[ProfessorDavey]

'Make of that what you will. But it is an example of the danger of writing headlines around a forced choice scenario'

Nice bit of selective quoting - the whole sentence:

'But it is an example of the danger of writing headlines around a forced choice scenario that people don't want or don't think important.'

Given that neither the headline nor the article discussed importance, I think it is pretty clear that I was talking about the data beyond what was in the article - you know the actual data in the polling report, the full data, not just the bits that lend to a nice bit of editorial slant.

So now we have packed that one away, perhaps you'd like to actually discuss the data, you know all the data.

Perhaps we can discuss why 77% of respondents don't think independence is sufficiently important to mention it in an unprompted manner when they could raise as many issues as they wished that they felt important. We could go further and unpack the thinking of the 64% of forced-question 'yes' responders who also didn't feel independence was an important enough issue to mention.

Point being that polling can often force a response out of someone, but what also matters is whether the individual actually thinks the matter is important, otherwise the response is really 'well I don't actually give a shit, unless you require me to'. And that, sadly, is how we ended up with brexit.

[Nearly Sane]

Nice bit of selective quoting - the whole sentence:

'But it is an example of the danger of writing headlines around a forced choice scenario that people don't want or don't think important.'

Given that neither the headline nor the article discussed importance, I think it is pretty clear that I was talking about the data beyond what was in the article - you know the actual data in the polling report, the full data, not just the bits that lend to a nice bit of editorial slant.

So now we have packed that one away, perhaps you'd like to actually discuss the data, you know all the data.

Perhaps we can discuss why 77% of respondents don't think independence is sufficiently important to mention it in an unprompted manner when they could raise as many issues as they wished that they felt important. We could go further and unpack the thinking of the 64% of forced-question 'yes' responders who also didn't feel independence was an important enough issue to mention.

Point being that polling can often force a response out of someone, but what also matters is whether the individual actually thinks the matter is important, otherwise the response is really 'well I don't actually give a shit, unless you require me to'. And that, sadly, is how we ended up with brexit.

You said you didn't mention the headline in that post. You did.

[SteveH]

Don't see this in the article or Prof D's post???

The headline in your attachment - didn't realise it was on the previous page. Also didn't notice that it was posted way back inn March! Sorry for the confusion.

I don't want a referendum next year but this is fucking disgraceful from the Herald

[Nearly Sane]

The headline in your attachment - didn't realise it was on the previous page. Also didn't notice that it was posted way back inn March! Sorry for the confusion.

Ah - easy mistake. No problem.

[Nearly Sane]

And a second Indyref will apparently be a reverse Brexit ref as well. I can see why this looks like a cunning plan that the McCunning family of Cunninghame came up with but it's a nonsense. Though I suppose given there is no prospect of a refetendum currently it doesn't matter.


https://archive.vn/2EPZU

[Nearly Sane]

Falls in support for Sturgeon, SNP, and independence


https://archive.vn/8nr1R

[Nearly Sane]

30p Lee, the SNP's best new recruiter