Will Scotland Leave the UK?

[Mr Angry]

Ed Balls talking balls.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

"....as well as providing, for free, the results you got."

The point is that it's not "for free" if it's tax payers money which funded it.

The "secret poll" isn't a "Secret poll". David Cameron has confirmed that it exists.

I believe the whole point of that hoo-haa wasn't so much that governments do secret polls, but that the government was in possession of one that had shown Yes in the lead. Cameron has not, as far as I can see, admitted the existence of such a poll.

Given that half a dozen reputable polling companies have failed to produce such a poll in public at any time in the last 24 months, the claim is bizarre.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Ed Balls talking balls.

Some interesting points at the end of the article.

It was possible Scotland could agree to meet all the UK's demands, which would be a good result for the UK: that would prevent Scotland damaging the UK economy with more competitive taxes, or failing to help pay off British debts.

Goudie added that the onerous conditions mentioned by Balls could mean the Scottish government refusing to sign a deal, not the UK government. "That these conditions might ultimately prove unacceptable to Scotland is a different, though critical, point," he said.

Goudie said it would be "extraordinary" if the Scottish government were not secretly considering an alternative currency plan: Scottish ministers had insisted they were not doing so, citing admissions by one UK minister in the Guardian that Britain would negotiate a sterling pact.

"Failure to do so would risk either a further period of damaging uncertainty or an ill thought-out leap to an alternative without the necessary preparation," Goudie said.

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by Damien

It will be different methodologies as they're too consistent for it to be anything else. Panelbase aligns, albeit a point or two higher, with ICM and Survation but for previously discussed reasons they're not massively trusted.

ICM also had differing results to everyone else in the EU elections, putting the Tories ahead of UKIP. Turned out ICM was just as wrong as the last time they did a similar poll. I certainly wouldn't trust their poll results.

If the government ordered a Yougov poll using taxpayers money, then it should be available to the public.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chris

I believe the whole point of that hoo-haa wasn't so much that governments do secret polls, but that the government was in possession of one that had shown Yes in the lead. Cameron has not, as far as I can see, admitted the existence of such a poll.

Given that half a dozen reputable polling companies have failed to produce such a poll in public at any time in the last 24 months, the claim is bizarre.

Nor is he ever likely to admit to having a poll stating such a thing whether it exists or not.

Bizarre it may be Chris but the fact stands there is a poll which, as correctly identified by an indiviudual via a letter to the press, Mr Cameron has refused, and continues to refuse, to publish. The content of the poll, whatever it might be, could be easily established should Mr Cameron elect to publish same.

He won't.

Essentially someone privy to certain information, using a pseudonym for clearly obvious reasons, wrote to the paper alleging that there was a poll that the Cabinet Office were suppressing and, by bizarre coincidence, that happened to be exactly the case.

What are the chances?

Interestingly (and I'm happy to be corrected) I'm not aware of any Government or Cabinet source coming out and categorically denying the allegation that the poll shows a rise in the support for the Yes vote or putting the Yes vote in the lead.

Have you ever considered the possibility that the half a dozen reputable polling companies in whom you place so much stock might just be providing us with the results others want us to see?

Just a thought.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Have you ever considered the possibility that the half a dozen reputable polling companies in whom you place so much stock might just be providing us with the results others want us to see?

Just a thought.

That's not a thought, Mr A, that's paranoid rambling. Seriously.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chris

That's not a thought, Mr A, that's paranoid rambling. Seriously.

Nice sidestep Chris.

You can't seriously be suggesting that manipulation of polls doesn't exist?

You've even gone so far as to allege as much about some of the survation polls, have you not?

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Nice sidestep Chris.

You can't seriously be suggesting that manipulation of polls doesn't exist?

You've even gone so far as to allege as much about some of the survation polls, have you not?

Which you have now countered with a subtle segue in your argument from "the Scottish referendum polls are being manipulated" to "the manipulation of polls exists".

As a general statement, the latter I think is reasonable, even without specific evidence. The former, I believe, requires specific evidence to back it up.

As you have (almost) remembered, there are questions over the legitimacy of some polls in the indy referendum. As it happens it's Panelbase, not Survation. Panelbase had to close its panel to new members earlier this year because it suspected it was being flooded with nationalists posing as others in order to try to skew the results towards Yes.

However, I don't believe any of that justifies the leaden paranoia evident in your earlier comment which (and please correct me if I've misunderstood you), implied a co-ordinated, deliberate campaign of misinformation spanning multiple unconnected polling companies who have been commissioned by multiple unconnected clients, from both sides of the independence debate. Do you have any evidence of this?

[nomadking]

If there was a poll indicating "Yes", wouldn't it be one of many? If it is an isolated example, then it is meaningless and hadn't been properly carried out.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chris

Which you have now countered with a subtle segue in your argument from "the Scottish referendum polls are being manipulated" to "the manipulation of polls exists".

As a general statement, the latter I think is reasonable, even without specific evidence. The former, I believe, requires specific evidence to back it up.

As you have (almost) remembered, there are questions over the legitimacy of some polls in the indy referendum. As it happens it's Panelbase, not Survation. Panelbase had to close its panel to new members earlier this year because it suspected it was being flooded with nationalists posing as others in order to try to skew the results towards Yes.

However, I don't believe any of that justifies the leaden paranoia evident in your earlier comment which (and please correct me if I've misunderstood you), implied a co-ordinated, deliberate campaign of misinformation spanning multiple unconnected polling companies who have been commissioned by multiple unconnected clients, from both sides of the independence debate. Do you have any evidence of this?

Apologies re the mix up over Panelbase & Survation, thanks for the correction.

I don't believe I've segued anywhere to be honest. Did I state "the Scottish referendum polls are being manipulated"?

My "earlier comment" wasn't a comment Chris, you have indeed misunderstood me, it was a question. I implied nothing. I asked if you had ever "...considered the possibility".

That said, it is not unheard of for allegations to have been levelled at multiple polling agencies.

In this particular instance (the independence dabate) I don't have evidence of poll manipulation but then again I have no need for evidence as I haven't stated such things to be fact.

I'm content to know that poll manipulation exists because it has been manifestly proven to be fact in certain cases, I don't believe I have said it is the case in this situation.

Now, has any Government or Cabinet source come out and categorically denied the allegation that the poll shows a rise in the support for the Yes vote or putting the Yes vote in the lead?

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

My "earlier comment" wasn't a comment Chris, you have indeed misunderstood me, it was a question. I implied nothing. I asked if you had ever "...considered the possibility".

By asking the question you're putting the idea out there without actually saying it. You've introduced the notion that the polls are rigged into the discussion.

In this particular instance (the independence dabate) I don't have evidence of poll manipulation but then again I have no need for evidence as I haven't stated such things to be fact.

Yup. That why it's 'asked as a question'. Introduce it into the debate without having to have any substance to it.

As for notion it's unlikely. Polling companies work for profit and many of them trade upon their reputation and whilst a few, less-reputatable, pollsters might produce favourable results most will not. It's in their commerical interests to get it right. YouGov are a international polling organisation, they're not going to throw away their reputation to rig a poll result. Also when multiple polls are saying the same thing then it's also unlikely to be rigged unless they're all in on it.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Damien

By asking the question you're putting the idea out there without actually saying it. You've introduced the notion that the polls are rigged into the discussion.



Yup. That why it's 'asked as a question'. Introduce it into the debate without having to have any substance to it.

As for notion it's unlikely. Polling companies work for profit and many of them trade upon their reputation and whilst a few, less-reputatable, pollsters might produce favourable results most will not. It's in their commerical interests to get it right. YouGov are a international polling organisation, they're not going to throw away their reputation to rig a poll result. Also when multiple polls are saying the same thing then it's also unlikely to be rigged unless they're all in on it.

A spectacular analytical analysis Damien, thank you.

Now, setting aside the fact that nowhere did I allege or state that the independence polls were or are rigged - but acknowledging that such behaviours are entirely possible - is anyone aware of any Government or Cabinet source having come out to categorically deny the allegation by the pseudonym correspondent that the unpublished Government commissioned tax-payer funded YouGov poll shows a rise in the support for the Yes vote or putting the Yes vote in the lead?

[Qtx]

They do weighting on nearly all polls which changes the results of the poll anyway. The way the weighting is done tend to make results vary quite a bit depending on how it's done. So a single result could get presented to everyone with numerous different values.

Organisations will often pay for polls to be done by many pollsters in secrecy and then use the data from the one that makes them look best and only mention that poll. With there being such a variation between some pollsters, no doubt could get results that suit you best.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

A spectacular analytical analysis Damien, thank you.

Now, setting aside the fact that nowhere did I allege or state that the independence polls were or are rigged - but acknowledging that such behaviours are entirely possible - is anyone aware of any Government or Cabinet source having come out to categorically deny the allegation by the pseudonym correspondent that the unpublished Government commissioned tax-payer funded YouGov poll shows a rise in the support for the Yes vote or putting the Yes vote in the lead?

Are you working your way towards a point?

---------- Post added at 07:50 ---------- Previous post was at 07:47 ----------

Originally Posted by Qtx

They do weighting on nearly all polls which changes the results of the poll anyway. The way the weighting is done tend to make results vary quite a bit depending on how it's done. So a single result could get presented to everyone with numerous different values.

Organisations will often pay for polls to be done by many pollsters in secrecy and then use the data from the one that makes them look best and only mention that poll. With there being such a variation between some pollsters, no doubt could get results that suit you best.

Methodology counts for something, certainly. Prof John Curtice was explaining the other day why ICM, for example, reports an unusually high number of undecideds. It's because their sample includes non-voters from the 2011 Holyrood election. The reckoning is that this group is not politically engaged but is more likely to come out for the referendum than for an election. This group naturally includes more non-committal responses.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Chris

Are you working your way towards a point?

No Chris, merely asking a question. Are you working your way towards an answer?