This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums
This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Chart Update
Thanks to Gamerperson12345678 for updating the chart while I slept!
I'm about to update the short term chart for the new poll, and updated to last 40 weeks rather than last 20 - between elections the polls are too sparse to make the 20 week chart sensible, and we might as well get that fixed now.
I've also re-instated my long term chart: the short-term chart is the same thing with a different x-axis, so I have to update it to get the short term. Hope this is OK.
New poll from Survation. The structure of the data tables is weird but, if I'm reading this right, it works out as Yes: 39%; No: 43%; Don't know: 18%; with a question of "If there was a referendum tomorrow with the question 'Should Scotland be an independent country?', how would you vote?".
So someone reverted the adding of this poll because "figures are not in the link provided for the indy question". I believe that's an incorrect reading of the data tables, though as I said, they are hard to read.
If you look at the BC and BD columns, you see 'Scottish Independence Referendum Voting Intention' with Yes, No counts in both weighted and unweighted forms. The Yes and No counters are identical across the four listed questions, so it can only point to the results of the referendum question detailed in the Questions tab.
Per those columns, out of 1002 total responses, there were 393 Yes and 432 No after weighting (and hence 177 don't knows). This works out as Yes: 39%; No: 43%; Don't know: 18%.
I was the one who reverted this, so I ought to give my justification. I had assumed that the figures came from an earlier version of this excel sheet, as the indy ref question wasn't in the results I could see. Your maths to me would count as Wikipedia:No original research, because we can't be clear exactly how those figures are derived: your explanation is pretty logical, but we can't be sure, and we have to stick to facts here. It does look like the indy question was asked (sheet Question V7 on the sheet "Questions asked"), and so if the full data set is released then of course we should include this poll, but I don't think we should be infering a figure on the basis you describe. Grinner (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what the methodology section says.
Question presentation
All data tables shown in full below, in order and wording put to respondents, including but not limited to all tables relating to published data and all relevant tables preceding them.
Tables for demographic questions might not be included but these should be clear from the cross-breaks on published tables.
In all questions where the responses are a list of parties, names or statements, these will typically have been displayed to respondents in a randomising order.
The only questions which would not have had randomising responses would be those in which there was a natural order to maintain
– e.g. a scale from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”, a list of numbers from 0 to 10 or questions which had factual rather than opinion-related answers such as demographic information. “Other”, “Don't know” and “Refused” responses are not randomised.
Not all questions will have necessarily been asked to all respondents – this is because they may be follow-on questions from previous questions or only appropriate to certain demographic groups.
Lower response counts should make clear where this has occurred.
Data were analysed and weighted by Survation.
It says all the data tables are provided, so there is no full tables waiting to be released. What we have is what we have.
Second, I disagree it's original research. It is what the methodology section says a reader should be doing. It says "Tables for demographic questions might not be included but these should be clear from the cross-breaks on published tables."
The way it's laid out is this: You have the four target questions (Questions 12, 15, 16 and 17) and then you have the other demographic questions, shown up and down. The first two rows (Unweighted Total and Weighted Total) show the responses to the demographics question and then the further columns show the break down of the target question for that demographic. So we just need to care about the Weighted Total for the Yes and No column, along with the total number of votes.
That's this:
Total
Scottish Independence Referendum Voting Intention
Yes
No
Unweighted Total
1002
431
389
Weighted Total
1002
393
432
The instructions say we should read it this way and I don't see any way of interpreting this data that doesn't come out as: Yes: 39%; No: 43%; Don't know: 18%. We could stick an asterisk against don't know (saying it might include other groups like refused to answer) but, now I've got my head round how they released this data, it does make sense.
Sorry, I have to disagree. "Demographic questions" refers to questions on age, region, gender etc. The results issued cover the questions they say they do, i.e. we have the results for Q12, Q15, Q16 & Q17, and those alone. We can't go inferring the results of other questions based on these 4 alone. Grinner (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's being treated as a demographics question in this poll. How does the demography of 'yes'/'no' voters feel about issue X. The table I posted above is a direct quote from the spreadsheet, with no data manipulation by me. All I did was put the row headings next to the relevent data. We have all the data we'd expect from a poll in table I posted. Elfwood (talk) 12:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For V6, ("If there was a referendum on Scottish independence taking place tomorrow, how likely do you think you would be to vote on a scale of 0 to 10?"} we get Y=431 N=434 (columns AX & AY), which gives %-ages of Y=49.83%, N=50.17%. But the actual figure for this poll as a whole (V7, "If there was a referendum tomorrow with the question Should Scotland be an independent country?, how would you vote?") has Y=436, N=453 (column B, i.e the result not any inference), which gives %-ages of Y 49.04% N=50.96%. Not a massive difference I accpet, but in this case enough, once rounded to 1dp to take the infered result of 50/50 to a narrow No lead.
I think the issue is that your method is not accounting for likelihood to vote, as that doesn't apply in the case of the 4 sample questions we have, hence why the weighted total is the same in each case. This is supported by the fact that all the "opinion" questions have the same weighted total (1037 in the case of the April 2021 survey, and 1002 for the more recent ones), whereas the "voting" questions have weighted totals. Grinner (talk) 12:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to publish this if possible, but I think there is a little too much guesswork involved. For one thing, we don't know how many people were asked the question, given the methodology remarks, so undecided is a guess. Another is that likelihood to vote is completely opaque: it was asked, but I can't see any report, unless its included in the 'weighted'/'unweighted' distinction - which would be another guess. It's a shame to have to leave it out: conducting polls and only publishing results you like is a form of statistical manipulation. But on balance I don't think they have given us the data we need, deliberately or otherwise. I've emailed and asked Survation for the results of the independence question in this poll, but expect at best a dismissive response.RERTwiki (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scottish Social Attitudes Survey
Been having a look at this data and think it is located in the wrong section of this page, it is in Historical Data when clearly it is still providing current data and information.
I would propose moving it to just under the Leave/Remain table and reverse the sorting so as most current data is at top of table ( consistent with other tables)
Lastly, not sure that the rather long preamble is actually appropriate Soosider3 (talk) 11:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd propose the following instead of the current text, pruning a little which seemed more important at the time. Please comment here if you prefer other words. I will come back in a week or so to see what to do.
Sentiment in favour of independence was high immediately following the referendum, with the majority of polls published in the next six months showing a plurality in favour of 'Yes'. Over the next two years support for 'No' rose and support for 'Yes' fell. A Survation poll carried out in the two days prior to the UK general election on 8 June 2017 showed the largest margin in favour of 'No' of 56% to 36%. By September 2017 five consecutive polls had shown a margin for 'No' greater than the 2014 referendum result. To date this has proven to be a peak for 'No'. Support for 'No' declined slowly until the end of 2018, and more quickly from the spring of 2019, at the height of parliamentary gridlock over Brexit. Professor John Curtice said in mid-2019 that the recent swing towards 'Yes' was concentrated among people who had voted to "Remain" in the 2016 Brexit referendum.[1] During 2020, with the strong profile of the Nicola Sturgeon during the COVID-19 pandemic, 'Yes' margin rose eventually to its peak to date in October when an Ipsos MORI poll for STV News showed a margin in favour of 'Yes' of 52% to 39%.[2] Sentiment then swung back in favour of 'No', coinciding with the period when the Brexit trade deal was finally completed and the COVID-19 vaccination program was rolled out. Polls began to again generally show a plurality against independence in the run-up to the spring 2021 Scottish Parliament election.
Had been thinking that this text needed redrafting, however I would be coming from the view that I think the current text trys to give an analysis/commentary that I am not sure is actually helpful. By emphasising the high and low points I feel we may be giving too much emphasis to what are probably 'outliers'
I had in mind a different approach based largely on my own view that despite much huffing and puffing the remarkable thing is that there has not been an sustained change in polling levels the Q still provides No in lead by about 5% and rarely does either side gain a lead that is larger than the undecideds.
Yes there have been many significant points since 2014, Brexit being biggest but nothing that has been a game changer, looking at polling for any movement caused by these events seem to have been balanced by movement in the other direction.
I would suggest that the preamble provides a brief coaching as to how to see these polls.
"Things that can make small differences to polling on this consistently very closely matter, such as
Polling Company - all are legitimate companies and methodology is acceptable, however there is tiny difference within each company that make it best to compare companies other polling on topic to gauge trend
Question asked "standard Question as in 2014"
Does it include 16/17 year olds - any future Independence referendum will almost certainly include 16/17 years old
Have they ascertained likelihood to vote - this can move result by a few % points so ensure you are comparing like to like
The history of the para I've proposed to update is that some time ago, I suggested it was cut down to a bare minimum pre-amble to the charts and tables. It was then pointed out that there is a wikirule to the effect that there ought to be a commentary. The para resulted, and has been tweaked since to remain up to date.
I think it is a good point to emphasise the degree of stasis, but there is definitely a story of long term swings to tell.
As regards how to interpret the polls in the table, I'd favour a link to the wikipedia page on opinion polls in general. If it doesn't cover the general points you make it ought to be fixed so to do.
The issues of standard question & 16/17 year olds probably do warrant a mention.
I've made 3 edits. 1) to change the text as I proposed above 2) To make a stab at incorporating Soosider's comments. In that edit I also did some re-sectioning and made minor edits without - I hope - changing any sense in a couple of section header texts. 3) I made the graphs a separate level 2 section. This is consistent with the page on UK polling and also hopefully makes the page more friendly on a mobile. Hope this is OK. RERTwiki (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that looks good is concise and to the point. The only doubt I have, and this is similar to other doubts I had about previous text, is that it might inadvertently give too much prominence to the Leave/remain question and thereby create a possible misleading impression that somehow they should be viewed as being comparable. the L/R question was first asked in 2015, since when it has been polled a total of 11 occasions, in same time period the more standard Question has been polled 226 occasions. Since 2018 L/R polled 10 time other Question 149.
The inclusion (correctly IMHO) of the link to the pre 2014 polling raises for me the question if we should be including any polling pre 2014 - unless the topic has continued to be polled post 2014. An example of what I am thinking is things like are the table on Two Way Polling that hasn't been polled since 2009, Three Way Polling not polled since 1988. These would sit better in the Pre 2014 Page.
That leads me to look at the begin of this page again, where we effectively seem to have created 3 opening texts.
If we take the view that this page is about Post 2014 polling then the 2014 Referendum section may be redundant and could be incorporated into A single line at start of Post Referendum Polling.
I would suggest we remove the three existing texts and replace them with a briefer overview as below
"The Independence Referendum happen on the 18th of September 2014, where Scotland voted No to Independence by some 55% to 45% details and pre referendum polling can be found here
Since September 2014, opinion polls have asked how people would vote in a hypothetical second referendum.
Between Jan 2015 and Dec 2021 some 199 polls have been published and recorded on this page.
Using the Graphical Summary Charts below demonstrates a longitudinal trend.
Generally, from early 2015 until late 2017 the trend showed a slow but steady increase in support for ‘No’ with several peaks and troughs, during 2017 polling indicated that ‘No’ had a larger winning margin than it had achieved in 2014. From late 2017 until late 2020 there was a steady drop in support for ‘No’ which gave us a period between late 2019 and April 2021 where ‘Yes’ had a sustained lead. Since when ‘No’ has re-established its lead which sits at Late 2022 as an average just under 4%
There have been many issues that appear to have impacted on polling these include the EU Referendum, Brexit, Covid Pandemic and the Vaccine rollout
The following tables give the results of opinion polls conducted since the 2014 referendum, with most recent polls first in the tables.
There are several tables reflecting the different ways the question can be asked, producing different results. The main table, containing the large majority of polls, includes primarily those which ask the same question as the 2014 referendum "Should Scotland be and Independent Country?".
Most of the polls sample 16-17 year-olds, who were entitled to vote in the 2014 referendum. Some do not, again as noted.
Polls using 2014 Referendum Question Section and non standard polls
We have a section called 'Polls using 2014 Referendum Question'. The 13–19 Oct 2022 Ipsos MORI poll was recently added to this list, despite using a non standard question. The attached footnote says:
Non-standard question: Instead of the 2014 referendum question, respondents were asked "If a referendum were held in Scotland on its constitutional future, would you personally prefer Scotland to vote for or against leaving the UK and becoming an independent country??". Respondents saying they would prefer Scotland to vote for or against independence have been mapped to Yes and No here respectively, while respondents saying they "don't mind either way" have been assigned as undecided.
While it's good that the footnote highlights this, the entre point of this section is to contain polls using the 2014 wording. Should it be included here?
I propose this poll be removed from the '2014 Referendum Question' section. I'm not sure where to move it to, though? A new 'non standard' question section? Should that be merged with the Leave/Remain section or be standalone?
I had included the poll you refer to but had hesitated to do so because of the very issues you raise here, decided eventually to include it as previous poll in Feb22 had asked the same question and been included with no apparent concern. The point you make holds for several other polls included in the main table that do not use the 'standard' question, so it may require a fairly extensive change to this table, I would hope we would continue to want to capture other Independence Polling.
As I have mentioned in previous 'talk' comments I think this whole page needs a fairly extensive makeover and to do so would require the input and agreement of several so we can move forward with some consensus.
Given the decision yesterday from the Supreme Court I suspect we may have a move away from the Standard question and a move towards different questions, with no firm frame of reference the form these questions take is likely to be varied, we would be wise to structure the page with sufficient flexibility to accommodate this.
Personally I think this page should only be recording Post 2014 referendum data - unless polling on issue spans pre and post referendum periods. We should ensure that we do not lose data and any pre 2014 referendum data could be moved to wiki page about that topic.
That we move to a clearer layout by
1 Simplifying preamble
2 Prime table reflects only the standard Question, with continuing conditions of being a member of BPC etc.
3 Second Section Table should be headed (Non Standard Questions) with subsections to capture this groups ie Leave/Remain or For/Against etc
I recognise that this is a fairly extensive set of changes however I think the page is suffering from an accumulation of bits and pieces built up over time and would benefit from a good piece of housekeeping Soosider3 (talk) 07:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Polls on a "de facto" referendum Context
Soosider3 reverted my addition to the Polls on a "de facto" referendum.
The Scottish Government reiterated its intention to use the next UK general election, scheduled for 2024, as a de facto independence referendum. The concept of a de facto referendum has been criticised by academics, such as James Mitchell, Professor of Public Policy at the University of Edinburgh, who said 'there's no such thing as a de facto referendum' [1] and rejected by opposition parties.[2]
I added everything starting "The concept of a de facto referendum has been criticised by academics..."
It seems blatantly on topic to properly contextualise the SNP's claims to use an election as a "de facto" referendum — that is, that the opposition rejects this as do many subject matter experts like academics. That information seems highly relevant when talking about multiple degrees of separation polling like this. This page is polling on Scottish independence. Not multiple oracle reading of election results. The very framing of that poll (that a vote for the SNP can be taken for a vote for independence) is a POV claim pushed by the SNP and rejected by other parties. It is vital to point this out and failure to do so is accepting a non NPOV framing of the issue by the SNP as the only one.
If we have these polls at all, it is vital the context of the SNP claim to a 'de facto' referendum be explained.
What do people think? Can we come to come to add my change back in or something like it?
As a separate but related point, it's unclear to me whether the defacto referendum idea is being espoused by the SNP in the Scottish Government hat or party political hat. Some things the SNP have done (like calling a special SNP conference to work out how an defacto ref would work) point to party political. The text says government but do we have a source for this?
I don't think that poll should be included at all and have removed it. It didn't ask a "do you support independence?" type question, either in a "de facto" or "indyref 2" format. It instead asked “Would you vote SNP at the next General Election if a victory for them could lead to Scotland leaving the UK?” - to me that is a leading question. It primes the respondent by naming one potential option (SNP) and states one of their major policy positions (independence). It doesn't name other political parties or other issues. If you want the result of a "de facto" referendum, you need to ask the "de facto" question, which is a simple VI poll. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would point out that the Leave/Remain question does not ask specifically about Independence rather Leave or Remain in UK, in the same way that this attempt talks about leaving the UK.
If people are going to insist on including this poll, then it should be given no greater prominence than (for example) the Remain/Leave question polling. It's a leading question and obtains a weird result when compared with standard independence polling. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point, yes. It's not actually a Scottish independence poll. It's an election poll *interpreted* to mean something about independence. I think I agree it shouldn't be on the page at all but, if it is, it does need proper contextualisation as I argue above. It's the SNP who are arguing that an election can be interpreted as a independence poll, which other groups disagreeing. Letting the SNP's characterisation stand unchallenged is not NPOV.
So for me 1) Remove. If not 1, then 2) contextualise and moved below 'Polls using 2014 Referendum Question'. That's the gold standard and should be most prominent.Elfwood (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At this time we don't know if this is a one off poll or not, I would suggest we wait and see and respond accordingly, I do agree that it belongs in the other format Qs, I had been working on such a layout change in my sandbox and would be happy to share along with other layout proposals, how do I do that?
As to contextualising it, the question is definitely about Independence and has to be included in this page somewhere, but that should be simple and straightforward, this is not the place for the sort of discussion re any parties policy or conduct - no matter how strongly we may feel about it. We capture and record polls and keep the text to the bare minimum Soosider3 (talk) 06:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, in broad principle I agree with you that this New polling format raises many Questions. At this time we do not know if this is a one off format for polling or if it is a harbinger of new formats in relation to the Supreme Court decision, will we see a dropping off of the use of the 'standard' question? At this time we just don't know, but as I have said before we would be wise to have the page structured in such a way as to be able accommodate these (if they happen) without it running the danger of becoming a revert war.
The amendments by Jmorrison230582 seem to me a sensible way to go forward, ( I had been looking at just such a change) by grouping the 'other formats' , of course we may have to revisit this if or when polling type and style dictate.
As an aside I have been working on a revamped layout in my sandbox and would be happy to share however not sure how to do that - any advice? Soosider3 (talk) 06:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral on whether or not the section should be included, but having read it several times now, I'm unclear about what the two sets of tabular results are actually in answer to. The first one looks like a election opinion poll? The second is, I'm guessing, whether or not the public believe an election result should be counted/accepted as a de-facto referendum? Obviously I could go to the source and find out, but I shouldn't have to. TimAngus (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it is rather clunky at moment, the notes field give details of what Question asked was - not ideal but consistent with practice in main table. Perhaps a wee indicator in text would bring this to readers attention better.
As previously said its very very new and we don't have real clarity as to what a 'de facto' referendum will be in practice, or if there will be much polling on it. Lets wait and see how it develops or not Soosider3 (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Todays edits
Given that this page is about post referendum Polling, the sections on 2 way polling, 3 way polling and 4 way polling no longer had a home on this page, given that there was no polling on topics since 2009, 1988 and 1995 it seem they fitted more naturally within pre referendum polling. Not wanting to perhaps lose historical data I removed from this page and added them to a new section in pre referendum polling entitled - Historical Polling
Continuing my housekeeping to have links to data rather than newspaper articles I came across several references which did not appear to references but again links to newspaper articles or opinion pieces. Many were superfluous as there was already a link to data source, some were attached to notes again mostly for reasons that escape me. Where possible I have removed these 'references' Soosider3 (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is a misuse of both the notes and reference feature.
What you refer to is (at this moment) nothing more than unsupported allusion of some supposed wrong doing that has led to one of the most well known and prestigious Polling Organisations, and a founding member of the British Polling Council, to be called on to question. Source in 'references' are expected to be impartial, factually based and usually of a more academic type, a daily newspaper rarely falls into these categories.
I think it may be helpful to note the Wikipedia guidance on potentially unreliable sources (Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources#News_media), which states, "in general, tabloid newspapers, such as The Sun, Daily Mirror, the Daily Mail (see also the February 2017 RFC discussing its validity), equivalent television shows, should be used with caution, especially if they are making sensational claims. The Daily Express and Sunday Express should be treated with even greater caution." Grinner (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Preamble to page
I believe the existing preambles are not the clearest of Introductions to this page, especially as it is about post referendum polling.
This is a draft of what I propose to change the preamble to, I ask that you consider these.
My thinking is around the issue of giving the reader a short concise statement.
As page is about Post 2014 nothing more than brief mention and link to Pre Referendum polling is required
The resume of what has happened since 2014 is (in my opinion) best served by looking at trends rather than individual polls, doing the later gives too much precedence to the extremes ie polls that might be considered 'outliers'. The Graphical summery - lead since 2014 serves that purpose well by providing a longitudinal trend, as a bonus it might relieve us of the howls that usually great every new poll.
Lastly I think we need to soften the language around using the same question as 2014, rigidly sticking to that is a rod to break our own backs. Currently there are 9 polls that do not use exactly the same wording included in this table, usually the change in wording is minimal and can be easily pointed out in Notes (as present) They ask about independence with response being For/Against, or using Scale of 0-10
Proposed preamble
"Post-referendum polling[edit source]
This page only shows polling since the Independence Referendum of 18th September 2014, where Scotland voted No to Independence by some 55% to 45% details and pre referendum polling can be found here
Only polling companies that are members of the British Polling Council and therefore fully disclose their findings and methodology, are shown in this section.
Between Jan 2015 and Dec 2021 over 200 polls have been published and recorded on this page.
The main table, containing the large majority of polls, includes primarily those which ask the same question as the 2014 referendum "Should Scotland be an Independent Country?".
Any variations that might have an impact on the poll result such as if 16 to 17 year old voters are excluded, or size of poll sample are recorded in the notes field. Polling, even using the same question, can show systematic differences between different polling organisations and sponsors.
There are several tables reflecting the different ways questions around Independence can be asked, they may produce different results.
Using the Graphical Summary Charts below (lead since 2014) demonstrates a longitudinal trend. Generally, from early 2015 until late 2017 the trend showed a slow but steady increase in support for ‘No’ with several peaks and troughs, during 2017 polling indicated that ‘No’ had a larger winning margin than it had achieved in 2014. From late 2017 until late 2020 there was a steady rise in support for 'Yes' which gave us a period between late 2019 and April 2021 where ‘Yes’ had a sustained lead. Since when ‘No’ had re-established its lead to about 4%. In late 2022 there were several polls that showed @Yes@ establishing a lead.
There have been many issues that appear to have impacted on polling returns, these include the EU Referendum, Brexit, Covid Pandemic, the Vaccine rollout and Supreme Court decision." Soosider3 (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, we may get into a stooshie about degree of flexibility but it seems we have a reasonable working model at moment, and one that most editors seem to be comfortable with, other sections capture the other polls. Soosider3 (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support or oppose a second referendum
Continuing my trawl through the entire page and looking at the section 'Support or oppose a second referendum' to which 4 polls are listed as responded. Currently I can find only 3 data sets (as Savanta ComRes appear to have amended their archive storage (hopefully just for present))
The Data is presented as 'Do you support or oppose a second referendum on Scottish independence?' however the 3 mentioned do not actually ask that Question, 2 ask about having a poll in 2023, while the third appears to misrepresent return on Indy Question.
Could someone check this as I recognise I may be mistaken, I would be reluctant to remove and lose the data but we need to look at a more transport way of presenting it.
There are also issues with how data is presented in 'Timing of a Second Referendum' where data appears to be made to fit the table column headings rather than the table being adjusted to reflect the varied responses to these questions Soosider3 (talk) 11:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted 3 attempts to include this topic in the main table, my reasons for doing so are as follows
1 This is a page about Polling on Scottish Independence not a running commentary on every aspect of politics in Scotland
2 there have been 33 occasions where it where significant events have been recorded these include 17 changes of political leadership,9 elections, the other 7 have covered items such as Supreme Court, request for s30, or world events such as covid spread and vaccine or Russian invasion of Ukraine. I do not believe that a s35 order falls within either of these groupings, it is what it is an administrative process but one that has no clear link to Polling on Independence
A s35 is such an unprecedented event and raises questions about the whole devolution arrangement, not just for Scotland (Mark Drakeford also spoke about it in the Senedd today). So I think it's as - if not more - relevant that Covid vaccinations beginning or SLab doing another leadership contenst. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scottish independence primarily concerns Westminster's control over the devolved parliament of Scotland. If we're tracking world events, shouldn't the same metric about "this isn't a page tracking every aspect of politics in Scotland" apply? Likewise, if we're noting the death of the Queen and we can agree that the crown does not hold significant power in the UK then it seems as tangential to Scottish independence polling as the s35, if not moreso. Octopirate (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, you think that the crown does not have significant power, that's quaint. Independence is a great deal more than you state, however the issue at hand here is the relevance or not of special note on an administrative exercise and how it relates to Polling on Scottish Independence, lets try to keep on topic Soosider3 (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
S35 is an administrative exercise and hardly stands comparison with world events or changes of leadership in relation to Polling on Scottish Independence, we are in danger of using this page as a diary of possible things that may or may not have an impact on Polling. If we include it do we have to include details of differing stages, say Scottish Government lodge a judicial review, do we note that and then do we then note its progress and any submissions to that review.
Using S35 is an important constitutional development, because it demonstrates in practice the old adage that "power devolved is power retained". It probably won't move the dialling on independence polling, but nor did the vast majority of the other items listed. Soosider, you need to accept that other folk might not agree with you. WP:DROPTHESTICK. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly accepted, however I do believe it opens up a potentially unchecked set of possibilities for inclusion of such matters, do we now track the progress of s35? do we record when A judicial review is applied for, do we report on its progress and outcome? This page is about Polling we would do well to try to keep it as such
I am a great believer in KISS - Keep It Simple and Straightforward, many of these notes add little and in fact break up the flow of the page with the danger that they get in the road of the prime purpose of this page. However consensus has spoken and I go along with it Soosider3 (talk) 12:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of those notes, you really should keep in mind that having external links everywhere is not common practice in Wikipedia articles - especially to "generic" concepts such as the Scotland Act 1998 in its entirelty (as opposed to Section 35) or royal assent to laws. Glide08 (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is well established practice on this page, long established practice is that where possible go direct to source material, there is no logic to going through an intermediate route. I will also point out that you are the lone voice on this topic, may I respectfully suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICKSoosider3 (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While it is apporopriate for the poll results to have direct links to the poll source, the historical notes are not poll results, just notes meant to give more context by including notable events that might shift opinion on the issue. Since the notes are there to provide context, a link to the Wikipedia articles (which includes context for the context) is more appropriate. Glide08 (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is well established practice across Wikipedia to have external links, its guidance says so I would refer you to WP:EL Besides those kinds of links listed in § Restrictions on linking, these external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources within the body of the article.
I would ask that you read the guidance in its entirety and not quote selectively, To summarise, external links are perfectly acceptable on wikipedia, are wide spread in use and are seen in the correct context as being the most reliable source. There is no rule or guidance that says links MUST be internal. Soosider3 (talk) 09:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Graph
Could someone advise me what the criteria is for a poll to be included in the graph. I had a look at the files for it, and if I am reading them correctly, (always a big if) not all polls are used, for example none of the polls in November are included.
I know @RERTwiki does a lot of work on this perhaps he could take the time to advise me
Many Thanks
Gavin Soosider3 (talk) 09:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - Sorry I missed this, I’ve been busy with other…charts! Every time there is a new poll, I paste the whole of the table into a spreadsheet. I go through all the notes, and any poll marked as ‘non-standard question’ is tagged and should be excluded from the charts and averages.
If you’ve seen anything that doesn’t seem to correspond to that, let me know here.
Thanks for getting back to me, much appreciated. I was just curious but also wonder if we should have a very brief note preamble to graphs so that readers are clear what they are looking at, reluctant to do that without fully understanding what is in them.
@[[User:RERTwiki sorry to bother again, but could you explain a bit more about the charts, especially about the lead since 2014 chart. The current version uploaded by you yesterday shows almost no lead for either side, I am curious as to how this was arrived as simple average of last 10 polls shows a 2% difference, I assume you are using some weighting and would appreciate knowing what they are, many thanks Soosider3 (talk) 06:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of the averages in charts are weighted by sample size. The date for each individual poll is the mid-date of the polling interval. The date for the moving average is the weighted average date of the individual poll dates.
The Undecideds are shown in two of the charts, so I think the margin ex-undecided is a useful addition. It is also the only thing roughly comparable to the referendum, since you can't vote 'don't know'. RERTwiki (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RfC on Scotland Act and Royal Assent links for the s35 note.
Personally I favour using the internal wikilinks rather than external links. I general I would think that is inline with usual practice but I'm not really one to go trawling around all the wiki policies, just an observation for how things normally are. Grinner (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:OVERLINK begins with the sentence External links normally should not be placed in the body of an article (see Wikipedia:External links).WP:EL has External links normally should not be placed in the body of an article. near the start. If we have an article on the topic, there is no reason why that shouldn't be linked. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, without intending offense to anyone, I'm gonna assume this is a dispute between relatively inexperienced editors, because this is a clear WP:SNOW call: outside a handful of niche contexts, we do not utilize external links in the body of an article, and certainly not prose sections. Meanwhile, this would be an entirely appropriate application for internal links or pipes. SnowRise let's rap22:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a dispute between me and User:Soosrider3, who insists on treating this note like a poll source and putting external links to those topics to "provide clear data" and claiming that consensus is against using internal links. An obvious WP:SNOW, I know, but I don't know what else will convince them. Glide08 (talk) 05:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect that is a very sweeping and comprehensive assertion "we do not utilise external links" especially when the wiki article referred to explicitly states the opposite using phrases such as "Wikipedia articles may include external links, links to web pages outside Wikipedia" "Some high-value external links are welcome" and most importantly "Besides those kinds of links listed in § Restrictions on linking, these external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources within the body of the article.
Although I welcome other views those expressed so far are IMHO in danger of selectively quoting guidance without placing it in the context of the whole article and suspending 'common sense' . In this particular this is a highly technical matter regarding the law and is best served by linking directly to those statutes.
Again, I'm afraid you are misreading the policy in question: WP:ELNEVER is about types of external links which are not permitted even in the dedicated external links section, certain infobox fields, or citations, where external links (those varieties which are permitted) belong. It does not in any way create an exception to the rule that external links are not permitted in the main body of the article (outside the previously mentioned niche exceptions). But yes, as to using external links inside citations, that is certainly permitted (expected even, when a link is available for a source). If you want to include the URLs inside citations here, that is probably permissible in this case, though probably you'll want to include secondary citations to support the statement in question as well. (see my response below).SnowRise let's rap09:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input, however I do believe that there is a danger of selectively quoting wiki guidance, further reading of the topic you linked to shows that far from being a hard and fast rule it is a guidance and common sense should be shown. In particular your reference goes on to say "Articles on technical subjects might demand a higher density of links than general-interest articles, because they are likely to contain more technical terms that general dictionaries are unlikely to explain in context." and would suggest to you that definitions of statutes are highly technical and are best linking directly to that statute rather than an opinion piece. The actual article is fairly technical being about polling on a particular subject, as such it is predominately contains external links. I belive that in this case teh use of external links is best practice, but would welcome your view Soosider3 (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is in fact about as hard and fast a rule as we have. While technically any editorial practice we have is amenable to WP:IAR, WP:guidelines represent established community consensus, and this particular guideline has existed for nearly two decades. I am unaware of a single example, since this became policy, where a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS has permitted the use of external links above the line in the main body, aside from the established carveouts for infoboxes and citations. Also, the section of the policy you quoted (WP:LINKSTYLE) is very unambiguously talking about internal links only. Candidly, there is functionally zero chance of the outcome you are advocating for here. That said, there's an argument to be made for using the links in question as WP:primary citations: although WP:secondary sources would be preferable here, using the primaries may be permissible as auxiliary. WP:verification. SnowRise let's rap09:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, now I am totally baffled, granted its early here and i may not have got my caffeine level up yet. However both the links you sent speak very specifically about there being no hard and fast rules.
The knub of this disagreement seems to hinge on internal/external links, where it has been stated that links MUST be internal, I find nothing to support that. Rather I find guidance that suggests that external links are perfectly acceptable and in many circumstances are preferable. The thread that runs through all these guidance is one of Common Sense and best practice, in this particular case I think common sense is to go straight to source providing reader with clear and unambiguous further data as to what the legislation actually says. That surely has to be best practice to provide readers with best and most reliable information. Soosider3 (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, the only parts where "what the legislation actually says" would be relevant is Section 35 specifically and the statement of reasons for the s35 order. Not for the Scotland Act 1998 in its entirety or the process of Royal Assent. Glide08 (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have to disagree all 4 components are legal processes, if link to statute is good enough for s35order and s35, then why would they not apply to the 1998 Act and Royal Assent, that seems a might inconsistent Soosider3 (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because a description of a stage in the law-making process and a full text of a law that includes a hundred sections is more tangential than the order blocking a law from being made and the specific section of a law that authorizes it. Glide08 (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Right, now I am totally baffled . . . both the links you sent speak very specifically about there being no hard and fast rules."
Yeah, I definitely understand why this could be confusing: the application of WP:IAR is very nuanced, and typically takes a fair bit of experience to fully understand. But I'll try to parse the distinction as expressly as I can. IAR has been maintained since the earliest days of the project as a reminder not to let arbitrary adherence to established rules stand in the way of development of novel approaches to new problems. However (and this is a big however), the longer an editorial principle has been enshrined in policy, and the more uniform its support in community WP:CONSENSUS at large, the higher the burden you face when you try to convince a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to overturn that best practice guidance.
Here we are talking about a rule that was established very early in the project's history (for a bevy of reasons), and which is pretty much universally supported by the community at large. The likelihood that a variance will be supported here is exceptionally low, especially because there are alternatives for sharing this information, as I will discuss below. IAR is usually applied in highly novel circumstances, and there is nothing particularly novel here: the community long ago decided how it wants to handle situations like the one you are describing in this context, which is why the guideline reads as it does, and has done so for a very long time.
"The knub of this disagreement seems to hinge on internal/external links, where it has been stated that links MUST be internal, I find nothing to support that. Rather I find guidance that suggests that external links are perfectly acceptable and in many circumstances are preferable."
Again, I think you may need to re-read the policies in question, because you seem to be getting a skewed perception of what they actually say, and that might be confusing the feedback you are getting here from other editors as well. It's not that external links are forbidden from appearing in the article: we do find utility in many, many kinds of external links. However, policy is unambiguous that external links do not belong in the main body of the article. Rather, the vast, vast majority of external links appearing in an article occur in one of two contexts: 1) inside citations (and such links appear in the references section, but not in the prose of the article itself), or 2) In a dedicated external link section, which is one of a variety of sections that can be added below the main body of an article. This is expressly set out in the first sentence of WP:External link, as well as numerous other guidelines and WP:Manual of Style sections that reference it.
Pretty much the only exception to this rule about avoiding ELs in the main body is that we sometimes allow links to the official webpage of an organization or professional in the WP:infobox for the relevant article, if the article has an infobox. Other than this, there are no real exceptions to the rule that external links are proscribed in the main body: or at least none that I have ever seen survive scrutiny from the community. So where you are seeing language in the guidelines that is discussing which external links are permitted and which aren't, it is discussing all such linking exclusively within the contexts to which WP:EL limits external links. In other words, such language is discussing which external links should appear in the dedicated external links section or an infobox, and which should be omitted from articles altogether. And no, nowhere does any policy entertain that an external link can be considered as a valid alternative to an internal link. That's just not how prose works on this project: we use only internal links and pipes in the main body of the article (again, aside from limited uses in infoboxes).
All that said, appropriate URLs to the location of valid WP:RS are pretty much always permitted inside a citation. But as a matter of nomenclature, we almost never call that an "external link" but rather a "citation URL", "citational weblink" or something along those lines.
"in this particular case I think common sense is to go straight to source providing reader with clear and unambiguous further data as to what the legislation actually says. That surely has to be best practice to provide readers with best and most reliable information."
You're sort of correct here, but with a big and important caveat. We absolutely do put a premium on supplying our readers with directions to resources which they can follow up on to better understand our content, which is meant to be an encyclopedic summary of the topic, not the end-point. This is one of the reasons why Wikipedia's approach is so rooted in WP:reliable sources. However, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, we present those resources (including online documentation) in the afore-mentioned formats: references and external links sections. For many reasons (running the gamut from technical issues, to salience, to maintaining WP:Neutral tone and intuitive navigation), we want to clearly demarcate internal and external links, and this is the foremost means by which we accomplish that. I hope that clarifies matters for you and assuages concerns about making this info available to the reader: we absolutely can do that, but just not in the way that you are proposing. SnowRise let's rap13:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly may I thank you for your full and detailed explanation, and your patience. While this entire article is festooned with external links all of which are necessary to the credibility of the page. I have perhaps become stuck in that thinking, your quote about wikipedia "which is meant to be an encyclopedic summary of the topic, not the end-point" has chimed with me I see the sense in that while at same time still thinking direct links have a very useful place.
You're very welcome: I'm glad the feedback came across as fulsome and helpful, rather than dense and inscrutable! For what it's worth, I understand why the guideline language might not make the distinctions at play in this case particularly clear, hence said wall-of-text reply. I wanted to make sure to emphasize that your underlying impulse (pointing the reader to the sources they may reasonably want to follow up with) is absolutely the correct one. In fact, itt's a cornerstone of the Wikipedia process that we summarize and report on what the sources (including the primary sources) say about a topic, rather than rendering what we ourselves believe (or even know). And a big part of implementing that principle is directing the reader to said sources to follow up with and draw their own conclusions. It's just that we've developed a very particular, siloed way of presenting such reference material. SnowRise let's rap13:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse WP:ELExternal links normally should not be placed in the body of an article and I do not see cause for an exception in this case. I note that the article does contain a bunch of external links in the body - in the tables. Tables are one of the few cases we sometimes accept external links in the body. Those links are essentially serving as refs, and there would be questionable merit in converting them into proper refs. I'm neutral on that.
I interpret Soosider3's last comment as dropping/ending the dispute here, but I don't want to assume. If my impression is accurate then the issue is resolved, and Soosider3 or any editor can remove can remove the {{rfc}}-template at the top of this section. Alsee (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input, the matter is resolved as far as I'm concerned, however one small comment, I note that tables can be acceptable for External Links and would point out that the disputed links are actually part of a table. But lets not go round again, a suitable position has been struck and I for one will leave it there. Soosider3 (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Timing of a Second Referendum
I had previously noted that I thought this section was at best 'cluncky' and held the view that what data there was seemed to have been shoehorned into the table. I have drafted a new layout for this section and would welcome views on it before I publish
In essence there are only 2 companies polling on this matter Panelbase and Yougov, both ask different questions but with some overlap, I have amended table to reflect this, still a wee bit of shoehorning and I have ignored the additional questions asked at time of last Holyrood election. The column Lead; I have left blank in respect to Yougov as I could not see how this could be worked out
Your views would be appreciated.
I have published these in my sandbox and hope you can see them OK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Soosider3/sandbox#Support_or_oppose_a_second_referendumSoosider3 (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noted that earlier change to timing of second referendum had led other editor to move one poll from oppose/support to this table. Thinking that through I looked at remaining 2 polls in oppose/support table and realised that they were actually asking very specific questions on timing, realised that with only minor changes to new Timing Table we could incorporate these polls into one Table. Have done so in Draft form but feel that this layout removes much of the clunkiness of previous tables and although a wide table it does fully capture and display the actual questions asked and that the blank cells indicate where such category was not asked. It may also provide an element of future proofing
I would intend to make amendments to main article by replacing Oppose/support table and timing of second referendum table with this new layout. Soosider3 (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have amended the article as below, the issue was of accuracy of the support/oppose table was raised by me back in 20th december 2022.
My amendemnets are
1 Remove Oppose/support table as wildly inaccurate, all 3 remaining polls have been merged into new Timing Table - so data not lost
2 Amended preamble
3 Published new Timing Table with more comprehensive timeframes
Hello. I was the original creator of the table for timing of a second referendum .. the current one is IMHO a confusing mess, the table I provided was easy to read and similar enough to the main table above. No wonder then I'd like to revert to the easy to read table.. unless the new table can be seriously cleaned up and standardized.. possibly in the style of the easy to read table.
Hi and thanks for the comment, I have to say this was one of the more difficult tables which perhaps reflects the complexity of the questions asked and therefore requires this layout, at least if we want it to properly reflect the actual data.
The layout is far from being a confusing mess, it is more complex than other tables but fairly clear in its layout.
To be blunt the previous table was wildy inaccurate, not just a wee bit but seriously misreported the data. Have a look at the data for yougov poll of May 2022 in the old table it was presented as between 2-5 years and No referendum, when in fact the poll asked about in 2023, next 12 months and 2 to 5 years nowhere was the No Referendum question asked. Or look at the Yougov poll of Mar 2021 again presented as a straight choice between 2-5 years and no referendum when question asked about next 12 months and 2- 5 years. There were other examples of this sort of wild inaccurate reported of data.
There is no requirement to standardise tables, rather they have to reflect the data accurately and fairly, if that means a table like teh current one then so be it. Soosider3 (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and thanks for the comment, I have to say this was one of the more difficult tables which perhaps reflects the complexity of the questions asked and therefore requires this layout, at least if we want it to properly reflect the actual data.
The layout is far from being a confusing mess, it is more complex than other tables but fairly clear in its layout.
To be blunt the previous table was wildy inaccurate, not just a wee bit but seriously misreported the data. Have a look at the data for yougov poll of May 2022 in the old table it was presented as between 2-5 years and No referendum, when in fact the poll asked about in 2023, next 12 months and 2 to 5 years nowhere was the No Referendum question asked. Or look at the Yougov poll of Mar 2021 again presented as a straight choice between 2-5 years and no referendum when question asked about next 12 months and 2- 5 years. There were other examples of this sort of wild inaccurate reported of data.
There is no requirement to standardise tables, rather they have to reflect the data accurately and fairly, if that means a table like the current one then so be it.
Hi. My original table was panelbase only. The inclusion of 2023, less and more than 10 years do not match the other questions and so I suggest make them non-standard and should be excluded. Perhaps a short paragraph talking about those polls results and pointing out they are not standard and uniform.
As for 'no referendum' not being asked.. the table was designed for the panelbase results. I took the other editor's additions in WP:AFG.
I welcome extra work to make what I begun better.. I just don't feel the current table is easy enough to read or succinct enough for such a simple question. Dava4444 (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again
I understand that Table may originally have been designed to capture Panelbase however the number of Polling Organisations asking questions re timing of next referendum has expanded since then, as have the time bands. Previouslu sticking to original formatting led to a very poor and misleading table.
We should be recording the data as asked by the pollsters to do so we need to have the options available as per table.
The idea of a question as standard and therefore all others as non standard makes no sense, the questions asked are not the binary Yes/No and to attempt to do so makes no sense and in fact would bring us back to the previous unacceptable position where data was shoehorned in to such an extent that it, put bluntly, misrepresented the data. I gave previous example where it was recoded as "no referendum" when the Q was not asked, furthermore it was not clear what data was amalgamated to produce the number recorded on the table.
Having looked at every set of data on this table I am confident that this layout is a good and clear representation of the actual data and the questions asked, far from being a simple question it is a complex and varied one.
I really don't understand your rationale for considering excluding polls, these have been completed by reputable Polling companies and deserve to be recorded. Soosider3 (talk) 05:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Been reflecting on your suggestions and looking again at data
There may be some merit in looking again at the 10 year columns, given that so far only one pollster has asked questions in this range and the framing of the question I believe we could comfortably create a column headed say 'More than 5 years' and amalgamate these 2 columns into it, we might need a wee note to explain this, which would require an additional column, this may be beneficial and allow a space for editors to explain any merging of data they introduce.
I also have doubts about the lead column, do we actually require it? could this become the space for a notes column?
Sadly while true, it would clean up the table a bit.. Many Unionist politicians used this data when it first came out to lie to the public, saying only one of the two columns percentage versus the no percentage. This is why I put the column here in the first place.. those politicians were misleading the public and it is our duty as wiki editors to present facts. Dava4444 (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 2023 column is tricky, Q first asked over 2 years ago and as we have moved closer to 2023 and now in it the response to this Q and its meaning has changed, I don't believe we could consistently move it or merge this data with any other time scale, also given that Yougov poll of March 2022 only asked this question and very specifically, then we are going to have to retain a 2023 column in which case we should use it. Soosider3 (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe for unusual questions/answers we should leave them as a note below the table for people to see for themselves. 2023 is far to unique to need its own column. Like the 10 year column.. I feel very few pollsters will use this going forward. Dava4444 (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if not in complete agreement we do seem to be thinking that a further tidy up is required, I would suggest
1 We remove both the 10 years columns and replace them with more than 5 years, where longer time sacles are asked about they can easily be amalgamated into this column and clarification put in a notes field.
2 We remove the Lead column and replace it with a Notes column
3 The 2023 column as we both recognise is awkward, however question has been asked as recently as Feb 23, obviously its use will stop by end of year. My thoughts are to just leave it, the Q has been specifically asked and we should respect that.
I agree with point 1, but do not agree on points 2 and 3.
The Lead column needs to stay due to the lies of Unionist politicians.. but in the interest of good faith.. I would be open to reforming it in to something we both agree on (although I can't imagine anything more simpler than just tallying the totals of the two columns and showing the results)
Point 3
Yes.. we both are seeing this the same way, it's awkward. 2023 is too specific, and if the polls of 2022 are included such as 12 month polls (which currently they are also 1 2021, this doesn't bear relevancy say in 12 months from now in the same those 2022)
I see the problem of the '12 month' vs 'yearly' polls.. and would like to suggest again we stick to 12 months only. You can see how a poll for say 2023 and 12 months from 2022 could overlap right? And then it becomes a rolling problem. Just leaving it seems like just ignoring it.. any suggestions? Dava4444 (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Glad we have agreed on some of the changes, I will merge 10 years plus into more than 5 years and introduce a notes column, and lets see how that looks.
I believe in principle we should limit how much the data is merged/amalgamated and keep it to the absolute minimum, the merging of 10 years is easy and at moment a one off. Doing so with 2023 column is not IMHO in the same and would introduce a degree of interpretation that might make it harder for readers to follow the data. At present we layout teh data and readers can see instantly what timeframes were asked and most importantly whether the timeframes collectively make 100% or if each timeframe 100% unto itself.
2023 is a specific Q and one that will (obviously) peter out, we should just leave it to do so and leave it as an example of how an issue can be clear at a point in time but become irrelevant Soosider3 (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New chart
I've added, after no little sweat, a chart on polling organisations.
It shows the distribution, for the most common poling organisations, of the difference between their polls and the current 10-poll average.
Since the centered 10-poll average is delayed, there is no such average for very recent and very early polls, as noted in the caption. The poll is compared to the linear interpolation of the average at the poll's date between the two adjacent values of the average at enclosing dates.
So, for example, the line at 1% shows the proportion of each companies polls which are between 0% and 1% above the average.
Two complexities: the average sometimes includes more than one poll from each organisation, which makes it harder for common polling orgs to be far from the average; and the average includes the poll itself, so each is actually a little further from the average without the poll. I'm not sure what to do about the first, and the second is just too hard to code in my spreadsheet.
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Request for comment on whether opinion polls conducted by Lord Ashcroft Polls, JL Partner and other agencies which are not members of the British Polling Councilshould be included in the article with a note specifying that they are not BPC polls, or should not be included in the article. AlloDoon (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should be included in the article with a note. Lord Ashcroft Polls are included in Professor John Curtice's polling aggregator of Scottish independence polls. John Curtice is the head of the British Polling Council. Lord Ashcroft Polls, for all intents and purposes, follow the same methodological weightings of British Polling Council polls. I don't see an adequate reason for their exclusion. AlloDoon (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus reached in this article is that only polls from members of BPC should be included, it says so right at the start of the article, second sentence "Only polling companies that are members of the British Polling Council and therefore fully disclose their findings and methodology, are shown in this section." Like most articles anomalies can creep in over the years I believe it is wise to remove the anomalies rather than use them as a precedent. KISS keep it simple and straightforward. Soosider3 (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a break with precedent. Lord Ashcroft polls have been included for years, with a note to the effect that he is not a BPC member. Again, I believe his polls are listed at Curtice's website. It's hard to see this move to remove those polls as a reaction to the poor showing of the Yes vote in this poll. RERTwiki (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And needless to say, because it is a break with precedent, the Ashcroft and JL partners polls should remain in the list until the conversation here has reached a conclusion. RERTwiki (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really depends on whether you see there previous inclusion as a precedence or an historical anomaly. In trawling through the whole article, initially to add links to data, I came across many anomalies and have worked to correct these into a more coherent and consistent article, I think with some success. I am surprised and disappointed you would make such an unseemly last comment Soosider3 (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, discussing motivation likely won't help. However, we do constantly engage in discussions on 'enhancements' when polls show the Yes vote starting with a 3. But we are all working hard on the page, and we need to listen to eachother.
I don't see how we explain to someone why they have seen a poll splattered all over the press, they can go to the polls website and download comprehensive data, and yet we have decided that they ought not to see it here. Oh, and polls by the same organisation were fit to see a few months ago. What will they conclude?
Just because we can dream up an excuse to hide some data doesn't make it the right thing to do. We can provide relevant info, like BPC status, and let the readers decide. Just because someone has incorrectly said in the article that all the polls in the table are from BPC members doesn't give us licence to change history to exclude them.
the Note on JL partner is more nuanced than that, "not a member at time of poll"
The rest of your comment feels very much as if you are projecting rather than rationally discussing, some of your phraseology is eye catching if perhaps irrelevant. Because a mistake may have been made in the past should not bind us to containing to repeat that same mistake, the wise thing to do would be recognise it as such and follow through with what ever corrective measures are required. I really don't accept your undertones about partisanship motivations, that is really very unhelpful especially as I am sure you could maintain a discussion without lapsing into that behaviour. Every change I have made or proposed has been based solely on trying to improve the article. Soosider3 (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My position is the same as in previous discussions. Selectively removing items from the tables leaves the page wide open to accusations of bias. We should be seeking near unanimity that a poll is spurious or suspect, especially from well-known polling organisations, before we exclude it. Editing history to remove polls from organisations which have previously been admitted is doubly wrong.
The purpose here is tell people what polls have been conducted on Scottish Independence, and their results, not to follow arcane rules which permit the editors to censor public discourse at will.
The polls which have been subjected to this treatment are: Ashcroft, Yes 37; Techne, Yes 39%; Yougov/TheseIslands Yes 39%. Earlier Ashcroft, Yes 44% and Ashcroft, Yes 46% didn't raise a peep. Hanbury Strategy, not now BPC members, with Yes 50% and Yes 52%, raised not a peep. JL Partners with yes 51% raised not a peep, when they were not BPC members. What is going on barely needs to be articulated, which is a good thing because that would be considered impolite, or possibly disappointing. RERTwiki (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
should not be included in the article The consensus reached in this article is that only polls from members of BPC should be included, it says so right at the start of the article, second sentence "Only polling companies that are members of the British Polling Council and therefore fully disclose their findings and methodology, are shown in this section." Like most articles anomalies can creep in over the years I believe it is wise to remove the anomalies rather than use them as a precedent. KISS keep it simple and straightforward. Soosider3 (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should be included in the article. As per other pages on UK polling, with the appropriate caveat. The poll was also widely reported (including in papers both against and for independence). I’d also be happy if there were separate lists for BPC members/non-members. Dunk the Lunk (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous discussion on content of page had rejected the idea of what other pages do as not being relevant, to that I would add that where the poll is reported is likewise not relevant. Idea of a section for non BPC might have some credence but we would need to work out some ground rules as I would be concerned that we could open the door for some rather dodgy polling. Soosider3 (talk) 10:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't accept that what other pages do is irrelevant. What the rest of Wikipedia does is highly relevant to whether we are following established practice, or away with the fairies.
You may be in danger of conflating 2 different matters, of course we comply to Wikipedia however that is not the same as following other articles standards for content.
It would appear as if the discussion is following the usual pattern with the usual contributors and that the consensus is to include them. I would think we need to help readers understand what they are actually reading in this article.
Therefore, somewhat tongue in cheek
"We only record polls from BPC members - except when we don't"
" WE usually only record polls that follow BPC standards RE sample size- except when we don't"
"We only record polls that ask the "independence" question - except when we don't (Leave/remain)"
Lastly the page is far from too complicated, in fact it is much more straightforward now than when I began contributing last July, the content is better focused, the layout is clearer and easier to navigate. Soosider3 (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"We only record polls from BPC members - except when we don't"
Yes, someone made an error making a flat statement that only BPC polls are in the table. It's now proposed that that error requires us to exclude some polls with perfectly adequate data disclosure, or polls which have been in the table for years.
" WE usually only record polls that follow BPC standards RE sample size- except when we don't"
We never made any statement at all about 'BPC standards re sample size', it became an issue when it was used as an excuse to exclude some polls.
"We only record polls that ask the "independence" question - except when we don't (Leave/remain)"
We have never said 'Only Independence question': leave/remain were in the main table until it became obvious they were significantly different from the others. A separate table for them is a good solution. RERTwiki (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are now just circling, the difference being as I said earlier whether precedence or anomaly, interesting that you see it as alright to correct what you see as an 'error' but would deny doing so with other errors. Soosider3 (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we write text in the article which is not consistent with the data we present, it is an error we can easily correct by fixing the text. We don't fix the inconsistency it by deleting data from the table to make the text correct. (!)
We need a compelling reason to not publish a poll, to remove data from the tables, or to 'de-admit' a polling organisation.
Please don't assume that a short reply is that I don't think your position is contestable, it most definitely is. However it would appear as I stated earlier that the usual few people are the only ones who comment, although I have only been active on this page since last July that much is very very obvious. The BPC standard has clearly been very evident, in the main table, as shown by the number of polls from BPC members and the size of the sample. The text reflects the reality of the article, I really do find it surprising that this obvious and very clear position escapes you.
This has been discussed previously, in archive 1. This is Professor John Curtice's view on Lord Ashcroft's polling: "As it happens, Lord Ashcroft Polls is not a member of the BPC (and as an organisation that does not do work for multiple clients is not eligible to be a member), but as it happens it publishes full details of its polls in much the same way as a BPC member would be expected to do." In other words, Ashcroft behaves in the same way as a BPC member, and the only reason he isn't a member is based on a technicality: all of the work he does is paid for out of his own pocket, rather than being paid for by clients. It should be included. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Saw that quote the other day which is why I had backed away from my position, still think im right but if big John says then thats good enough for me Soosider3 (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Had noticed your text re 'missing' polls at least Whatscotland thinks has them as polls re Independence, I have had a look at as far as I can, following link from WST gives us general Panelbase page, for both dates there are 2/3 polls conducted none of which ask the Independence question. Very odd but suspect somewhere either Panelbase have not posted them, or even more unlikely WST is wrong Soosider3 (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Historical Polling
Hello,
I am not quite sure why the historical polling on independence section was removed from the article, so I would like to gauge whether the following polls should be included or excluded from the article in a separate section?
Respondents were asked "In a referendum on independence for Scotland, how would you vote?", with the options "I agree that Scotland should become an independent country" and "I do not agree that Scotland should become an independent country". These polls indicated the following levels of support for Scotland to be an independent country each year:[1][2]
This was discussed before their removal and am sure there was a talk article about it. This article is about polling since 2014, the three tables removed have had no polling for many years prior to 2014. They were moved to the wiki article on Polling prior to 2014 which seemed a far more sensible place for them. Soosider3 (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Soosider that they should be in the pre-2014 article. However, i think it would be worth moving the second paragraph into the very first section. This way it’s clearer to those not familiar with the issue the background why it only includes post september 2014 polls Dunk the Lunk (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to remove the following explanatory section of text:
There are several tables reflecting the different ways questions around Independence can be asked, they may produce different results.
Using the Graphical Summary Charts below (lead since 2014) demonstrates a longitudinal trend. Generally, from early 2015 until late 2017 the trend showed a slow but steady increase in support for "No" with several peaks and troughs, during 2017 polling indicated that "No" had a larger winning margin than it had achieved in 2014. From late 2017 until late 2020 there was a steady rise in support for "Yes" which gave us a period between late 2019 and April 2021 where "Yes" had a sustained lead. Since when "No" had re-established its lead to about 4%. In late 2022 there were several polls that showed Yes establishing a lead.
The rationale for this is that it is too long and in my opinion goes again Wikipedia:Concise guidelines.
I believe people can fairly access the polls for themselves using the table and graph of the data, and we should not need to spoon feed our interpretation of the polls. This rarely if ever is contained in other opinion poll articles across wikipedia. AlloDoon (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This section was amended several months ago following discussion, previously there had been a long and to my mind convoluting explanation, at time I felt that it was far too long and got in the way of the core information - the polls. I was all for removing it as like you I thought folk can view the data and make own conclusions, i was advised at time that there needed to be an explanatory section, if that has changed then I am all for its removal. I was actually looking at your changes of today and liked the clear, simple and concise layout, again I think teh previous text was a result of historical detritus accumulating over the years. I'm all for coherent brevity. Soosider3 (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it needs to be removed. I will get rid of the first sentence, because it appears the (juvenile?) author does not understand what the word "trend" means. And I will get rid of the rest because it is already obvious from looking at the graph.109.155.0.245 (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very concerning that giving readers a clear and concise introduction to the article should be seen in such derogatory terms, not all readers will be as immersed in the subject as we might be. We really should keep that in mind. Soosider3 (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In general any interpretative paragraph will be contentious. Better without. However, if you do want an interpretative description, at the very least you should use correct terminology, as "trend" clearly is the wrong term here. The graph does not show a obvious trend. Finally, you would need to provide a reference for your interpretation and cite it.2A00:23C6:54E3:7901:4037:49A0:4F63:864 (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase you use is wrong, I am very clearly against an "interpretative paragraph" what we had gotten to was a simple introduction with a brief explanation of what the reader was seeing.
This is an unaacceptably arrogant attitude, but perhaps you do not realise it. (It is arrogant in this sense "Because the reader's intelligence is lower than mine, I need to explain to you all how the graph is going up and down"). You are evidently irritating people here with your "spoon-feeding", and you need to stop.2A00:23C6:54E3:7901:5829:A665:DD4:B3C6 (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again with the personal attacks, it really adds little to any point you might be trying to make. No reasonable person would interpret my comments in such terms. Soosider3 (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And yes I mean trend, at least is it is commonly used this is the definition used by statista https://www.statista.com/statistics-glossary/definition/425/trend/ "A trend is a pattern found in time series datasets; it is used to describe if the data is showing an upward or downward movement for part, or all of, the time series"
I have included this poll in the main table (2014 referendum question) rather than the Remain / Leave table because, although it initially said in the tables that it used the Remain / Leave formulation, the chief executive of Survation (Damian Lyons Lowe) has confirmed on Twitter that they used the Yes/No question. As per his tweet, the tables have now been corrected to show that they used the 2014 question. That seemed more likely given that they only use that Remain/Leave formulation for polls commissioned by Scotland in Union, and the result was more in keeping with their 2014-style polls. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I had read the tables and was surprised at the return for what was clearly stated as a Leave/Return question. Hopefully they will correct the tables and I can add the link to the data. Soosider3 (talk) 05:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I had a quick look and couldn’t find the actual data tables either but I’m on my mobile so wasn’t sure if it just wasn’t working for some other reason! Very strange! Dunk the Lunk (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of suspect that the client may not have released all the information from the poll and is holding back publishing until they do, I think the Times did something similar a few months ago. Soosider3 (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Latest poll is questionable
The FindoutnowUK poll for March 2023 is questionable as the individual blogger whom commissioned it is on record as saying they’ll deliberately pick pollsters and questions that favour yea Newmate12 (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Remove it. Completely unreliable poll from a wildly biased, amateur online outlet. Ridiculous that it's still sitting in tht table as of now. 88.110.117.122 (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Poll is by reliable source, member of BPC and complies with its rules etc. To start to remove polls because you suspect the commissioner may have an agenda would lead to a massive reworking of this whole article, think 'these island' or 'Scotland in Union' 'Belive in Scotlans'. We either trust Polling companies to act in a professional and unbiased way or we don't, me I trust polling companies not to risk there reputations on a single commission remember that for most of them political polling is a very small part of what they do. Soosider3 (talk) 12:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Soosider3 that currently the poll should not be removed.
However, I do think it is one to watch very closely and may need to be removed (at least to another section) in future. Unlike the 'The Islands'/'Scotland in Union' polls which ask a completely different question (so are in a different section on the article) AND/OR use a mainstream pollster (Survation/YouGov) Pick Media Ltd trading as Findoutnow are NOT a mainstream pollster. While they are a member of the BPC, they were set up as a digital consultancy, then started running a postcode lottery Pick Media Ltd trading as Pick My Postcode, https://pickmypostcode.com, and now have started doing polling. While nothing about this is directly concerning, this lack of experience when combined with the very high Yes response in their last two polls (when compared to other pollsters), does suggest their methodology is perhaps not a robust as other pollsters. I would certainly be interested to see professional analysis of their polling, but until it happens there is no reason to remove them. Dunk the Lunk (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a look through the table, FindOutNow seems to consistently have polls showing fairly inflated Yes votes in comparison to all the polls conducted around the same time. This is a consistent theme throughout the table. I think you really have to call into question the reliability of a separatist blog that repeatedly keeps churning out polls that are quite at odds with all mainstream, impartial polls being conducted around the same timeframe. 88.110.121.113 (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Survation poll 8th-10th March 2023
Surely this Survation poll everyone keeps vaguely referencing (or deleting) must be this one funded by DC Thomson:
Shrugs, there maybe 2 polls ghosting around at this moment. It really doesn't help when different news agencies give a few bit of data then conflate it with data from another poll. At this moment (please note the caveat) There appears to be a poll commissioned by DC Thomson that may or may not have actually asked the Indy question. Whatscotlandthinks has it up but link brings you back to same page !!! The other appears to have been commissioned by Diffney partnership which may be the start of a 3 monthly poll from them. We are still waiting for Panelbase poll that had also been ghosting around last week.
Very likely the same poll as reported in media as it shares the same sample size, dates and polling agency. I suspect the accompanying press release for the poll misquoted the figure excluding Don't Knows as 53% No 45% Yes. AlloDoon (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Graphs misbehaving for me
Hi. Having done the usual graph update, two of the charts are failing to display, at least for me.
I've put the margin chart back as default, since that does display.
Works now, no idea what was up. I'll leave the margin chart as default for now, rather than change it back. If anybody feels differently, fine by me, just do it. RERTwiki (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coding of last poll entry
Hi -
Before I edited it to correspond to previous usage, the latest entry in the main table as edited in by KeyRing666, contained some wiki coding for the data sort value and date range using the "opdrts" function. I can't insert the exact code here because the editor is interpreting it, but it displays as you would want: |data-sort-value="2023-03-13"|9–13 Mar 2023
But sadly it generates text which contains an unusual character (non-breaking space between Mar and 2) which Excel barfs at, and so needs manual intervention to make the charts work.
