Talk:Opinion polling on Scottish independence/Archive 3

Request for Comment: Inclusion of Techne UK Poll 29/30 June 2022

Following on from the above discussion, I am requesting comment on whether this poll should be included in the article. AlloDoon (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

That is a classic strawman argument, no one suggested for a moment that we emulate Whatscotlandthinks.org it is a shame you seem to have expended so much time and effort constructing this strawman. I don't appreciate you misrepresenting me in that manner. What actually happened was that discussion between 2 editors were beginning to circle and we looked at a third party view to try to give us some perspective to break the circle.

Interestingly you miss out the key reasons for not including the report in Scottish polling

1. It is a subset of a UK wide poll (the UK poll is fine and should be included in that section of this article)

2. Every other poll on the Wikipedia article has a sample size of 1000

3. I am not aware of any subset included in this Wikipedia article, so why introduce that change now

3. Smaller sample inevitably leads to a higher margin of error, that is why BPC has an industry standard across the UK that a 1000 is the norm for polling at a national level. This also allows for a higher confidence level when comparing polling results. Every other poll in this article has a margin of error of less than 3%

4. The scale and magnitude of this proposed change in practice cant be covered adequately in Notes, that's fine for comparable small matters but not for such a radically different record.

5. The risk of unforeseen consequences in my opinion is high, we would be allowing a precedent that allows subsets and sample sizes of only 500, once you let that genie out the bottle you will not be able to get it back in.

The correct place for this poll is in the UK section and there should be no place in main article for subsets or sample sizes less than 1000, just a sit has been doing for several years Soosider3 (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm a strong supporter of the idea that we should not include data in this table which is a Scottish subset of a wider poll. The reason for this is that there is no gaurauntee that the Scottish subsample is structured to be representative of Scotland, rather than contributing to an overall structure which is representative of, for example, the UK: we can't get regular Scottish party preferences from the slices of UK data.

However, that's not the case for the Techne poll. Reading the notes on Methodology above in this talk, supplied by JMorrison, it is very clear that the poll is sampled for Scotland and is intended to poll the independence question. Indeed, it would be unbelievably dumb to even ask the independence question if that was not being done.

As regards sample size, I can't find with a quick scan any indication on the BPC website that there is a lower limit on sample size. Indeed there is a statement that uncertainty must be described, which seems to indicate that variable sample sizes are expected. Could you provide any reference supporting the idea that a sample size of 1000 is required? There are many polls published elsewhere, see for example Real Clear Politics, with lower sample sizes.

There is a good reason why the Wikipedia table reports sample sizes: to enable the readers to understand the error bars and determine the significance of a poll result. I am very much in favour of transparency, and allowing the public to see all the data. The alternative is essentially editorialisation by the Wikipedia Editors. In this of all topics, where passions are very high on all sides, any editorialisation, particularly exclusion of basic data, is almost impossible without violating the NPOV policy.

Please can we include this poll, which was intended and structured to answer the independence question, provide links to all the relevant data and methods, and leave the public to judge its significance.RERTwiki (talk) 08:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

FYI there are two Panelbase polls in the table with less than 1000 in the sample, which have been there for some time.RERTwiki (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that, hadn't noticed them before as my trawl of hyperlinks to datasets hasn't got back so far yet.

My view would be that the Panelbase one of 25/26 June 2016 should be removed as sample size only 626, the other one dated 30/10 to 5/11 2014 should remain as sample size is 982. I also note that out of all this entries on this table there are only 2 under 1000, and one of those only just, also that it is over 6 years old. So perhaps not such a big issue but think we should try to maintain as reasonable and consistent approach as possible. Suggest "rule of thumb" no subsets unless over 1000 and margin of error is consistent with a full poll, and no polls significantly under 1000. I think all the other wee variations re 16/17 years polled, BPC members etc can be highlighted in Notes. Soosider3 (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Disagree with that, we should reinstate the Techne poll. This is starting to seem like cherry picking. Again, no issue in over 5 years since that poll was released. The general concensus seems to be to have the Techne poll, at least based on @Jmorrison230582:'s earlier comments, myself, RERTwiki and the two users who also reverted your edits. AlloDoon (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

and again with the language. Again this is not a poll its a SUBSET of a poll, again perhaps teh reason for no issue in 5 years is because people have held the line and established a standard. Again why this poll, why now. As for consensus we will see Soosider3 (talk) 05:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I will point out that seems to be the consensus at the moment which is also based on the convention for using polls on this page. Still open to further discussion in the meantime, however I have reinstated the poll. As I said, we could explore having separate sections for polls which have margins of error over 3%/non-standard referendum questions or changing what polls should be included on the page. I am in favour of the status quo at the moment, that is any valid British Polling Council poll within a 95% confidence interval weighted for the population of Scotland. AlloDoon (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding to the above point, perhaps it is worth adding in a sentence to explain qualifying polls for the article? AlloDoon (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Not sure about consensus however as you raise convention on this page 1000+ sample has been teh convention for several years and you seem happy enough to ignore that to include a subset, why? Soosider3 (talk) 05:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

For the third time, the poll's methodology notes explicitly state the poll is a representative and weighted sample of the population of Scotland, ie. not a subsample. AlloDoon (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Jeezo, for the umpteenth time its a subset, the weighting etc does not matter, it remains a subset. Full poll is 1652 of a sample this is 501. The tables clearly show that, there is no other explanation, none, zilch, zero. Its a subset that's pining for the fjords. Additionally at 501 it is about half the size of the polls in this table

Both these are factual and easily checked

Just because you want this does not make it sit with established convention on this article or even established practice across the polling industry. So I have several years of convention and the BPC polling standards to support my view. Soosider3 (talk) 11:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Folks. Sorry to have been away from the fun, been away from keyboard, as they say.

There is wording above to state that Techne Oversampled by 374 in Scotland, raising the sample above that of a subset poll. They have also said that the poll is representative of Scotland. It is intended to answer the Independence question for Scotland. They actually asked the question in two different ways, both 'independent country' and 'remain-leave'. That seems to be why the separate poll sizes are low. It also indicates that independence was very much the focus of the poll.

I think it's completely wrong to set an arbitrary cut-off for sample sizes to be included in the table. Apart from raising objections of cherry-picking, we have no authority or expertise to do that. People come here for data, and can make their own minds up about sample size.

This is a highly sensitive subject, and any hint of poorly motivated exclusion of data is wide open to accusations of violating NPOV.

In all honesty I don't see much support for Soosider's position. I think there is consensus that the poll should be reinstated (though the sample size is small...).

Anyone know the best way to proceed in this sort of circumstance?(RERTwiki (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC))

@RERTwiki: the next step would be posting on either Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums asking for outside opinions. Happy to do so if dispute continues. AlloDoon (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks: seems like a plan. I'm a pair of hands if you need them. RERTwiki (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that asking for input and view from reliable sources and projects on elections and referendums appears sensible way to progress. Am happy to do anything I can to support this endeavour

Soosider3 (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Added to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard AlloDoon (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm responding to the RSN RfC here, because it appears the question was not whether the poll is an RS or the agency was reliable, but whether this poll can be used in a particular way. Reading over the entire range of discussions I am going to give an honest recommendation. All of you, some especially more than others, need to brush up on how opinion polling actually works, when done properly (as a reliable agency does). Let me address some particular points brought up repeatedly:

• "It is a subset" – and as has been pointed out, it was weighted properly for that population in extracting that data.
• "a sample size of 1000" – per the article, and per every poll ever, sample sizes in the 500-1500 range are about standard. Gallup is highly unusual in going to 2000.
• "higher margin of error" – The dramatizing of MoE above (it was a 43% increase in MoE!) was entertaining. Doubling the sample size to reduce the MoE by one point is silly if for the same price you could do two regular polls on different dates. If you want a more accurate opinion survey, look for rigorous pollsters and polling aggregators, not higher sample sizes.
• "cant be covered adequately in Notes" – It's an article about polling, so why do details about polling have to only be covered in the notes?

In general to keep in mind: 1) use poll aggregates when possible; 2) use reputable pollsters or those who have had their methodologies reviewed, and don't worry about sample sizes unless the pollster's report says to worry about it; 3) never report table subgroup results unless you know exactly what you are doing and what the pollster was doing... actually, it's SYNTH to do so anyway. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, I believe the issue is around 2 polls both of which in their own way have used an unusual approach, ending up with sample sizes that are well below the established practice on this article, practice that has been consistent for many years.

You mention that a poll can be between 500 and 1500, yet across political polling at a national level 1000 has been established as being the norm, this link to British Polling Council may be of use https://www.britishpollingcouncil.org/faqs-by-members-of-the-public/ "There is no, “minimum”, sample size for a poll which is acceptable, but around one thousand has become the established norm for a nationwide opinion poll in Great Britain."

I would welcome your thoughts Soosider3 (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

If after reading that FAQ your honest takeaway is that polls should have a sample size >=1000 to be considered reliable for a WP article, then I don't know what to tell you. Scientific American's explanation includes an example where Gallup re-weighted a subsample of 400 respondents (sound familiar???). Gallup's typical national poll sample size is 1000 btw. StackX primer if you know any math. AAPOR's best practices don't even give a suggested sample size range or minimum. It is a pretty basic idea that you'd rather have a representative (or weight-able, a "probability sample") small sample size than a large sample of unknown representation ("non-probability sample"), and that two small surveys are better than one big survey. What else in the methodology do you find "unusual" besides sample size? SamuelRiv (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

That would be the bit where it stated "...but around one thousand has become the established norm for a nationwide opinion poll in Great Britain" seems very clear to me, established norm etc etc

If the 1000 sample size stands then the others fall away. After all its only the BPCs standard Soosider3 (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

"Around 1000" is in agreement with 500-1500 quoted elsewhere. If you think the range is too wide, then on what mathematical basis is that the case? Specific examples of undersampling in national-level polls are given in some of the sources I link, and they are of <100 people, which typically can happen when you look at cross-tabs (which is part of why you should never quote them). This particular poll surveyed about 1000 people and also published a re-weighted subsample poll of 500 people, which is entirely along the lines of what Gallup has done (cited above), along with every other polling company, and is within a reasonable sample size for a large population. You have cited nothing so far other than apparently your vague interpretation of the word "around". To illustrate how words mean different things in different contexts: if I say to "aim around the target area" that has a very different quantification than if I said "aim around the bullseye". SamuelRiv (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I have only 'cited' the BPC who are the organisation that sets the benchmark for Political Polling in the UK, I have cited precedent and established practice across a wide range of Political Polling in the UK. Have just checked the BPC website and Gallup do not appear to be members, if that is so perhaps that explains their different approach. Soosider3 (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Please define what you would consider adequately within the bounds of "around 1000" for polls, for both a sample and a subsample. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Suggest you take that up with BPC after all it is their standard. Eyeballing sites such as wikipedia and other political polling sites across UK would suggest that standard is well maintained and it rarely drops below 1000 and then only by a handful. Soosider3 (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

So you have no idea other than "I know it when I see it", and that 500 is too low, even though I have cited examples of prestigious national polls doing exactly that, and even though you have in cases above demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of basic concepts of how polling actually works (concepts such as MoE -- do you even understand why your calculation of 43% was so silly?). SamuelRiv (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

That is rather a condescending tone to take and adds little to the discussion.I also note your failure to respond to BPC standard instead you choose to deflect away from it.

The only data in your 'cited' is to an article from 2004 and the small poll you alluded to provided a 5% MoE, hardly a shining example.

I come back to the key issue, with BPC saying sample 1000, with the Polling Industry in the UK complying to that standard for National Political Polling and with WP (for UK National Polling) following that standard, the Question is where do these unusual polls belong, Yes I recognise they are polls however not of the standard that the main table has come to use, by all means record them on a different table but lets not lower the standard. Soosider3 (talk) 05:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Having read through the discussion I think the poll should be included in the tables.

1) Techne UK are members of the BPC.

2) No one has identified that the BPC (or another reliable source) state sample sizes of this size should be ignored.

3) The small poll size is clearly identified in the sample size column.

4) The larger margin of error is clearly identified in the notes column.

5) Given 1-4 the poll is a reliable source, albeit with a larger margin of error.

6) The page is called Opinion polling on Scottish independence. It is not Opinion polling on Scottish Independence that meet X and Y criteria. While it is appropriate to only include reliable sources this is a reliable source.

However

1) it may be worth adding a margin of error column to the table as well.

2) or it may be appropriate to move polls with non-standard questions and/or higher margins of error to separate table.

3) the graphical chart in this page says it only includes standard questions. It may be appropriate to exclude this poll and state it also only includes polls with sample sizes above X value. Dunk the Lunk (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Aggregators

The above (still humorous) wrangling over largely irrelevant poll details like sample size (while potentially ignoring far more compromising issues, especially in some of the 2014 polls) would matter a lot less if you find a convenient way to periodically cite or refer to aggregators such as Politico and others. Their exact poll weighting systems for smaller polling issues like this especially will not be open to replicate (since it's obviously proprietary), but it's a far more reliable source than any one poll (which should be considered PRIMARY). It's simply a disservice to not include aggregators, and it makes polling look much less useful than it actually is. In looking for an aggregator that covered independence polling I did find UK Polling Report which covers reliable polls in the years before and lead up to the 2014 referendum, which is only sparsely covered in this article, though it doesn't do a running average. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, very interesting, in particular enjoyed the article from Pewresearch, much to digest there. Soosider3 (talk) 07:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

As regards aggregators UK Polling Report is no longer active, but Prof Curtice's "What Scotland Thinks" is surely the obvious first choice (it is listed in External Links too btw). Grinner (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Cheers, I use what Scotland thinks fairly often, as you say it is the obvious alternative. I have enjoyed the format on this Wikipedia article for several years as it allowed me to download a large number of headline figures at the one time and do my own analysis. Soosider3 (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Techne Poll note

Soosider3 has attempted to change the note on the Techne poll.

The original note accompanying the poll states: 4.4% margin of error, excludes 16 and 17 year-olds and did not ascertain likelihood to vote.

This has been the standard layout for notes on the page.

Soosider3's proposed change: As a smaller poll, the margin of error on the major categories is approximately 4.4 percentage points, compared to 3 for typical polls of 1000 respondents. excludes 16 and 17 year-olds and did not ascertain likelihood to vote.

Following a comprehensive discussion on whether the Techne poll should be included or excluded from the article because of its sample size and claims that it is not valid, I do feel that Soosider3's note is expressing his own personal view that 1,000 is not a typical or "correct" sample for polls on this page by saying it is a "smaller poll" which is not "typical". I feel this expresses bias rather than expressing a neutral point of view.

I would welcome other users views on this and on which note is more appropriate, bearing in mind that the current consensus is that the Techne poll is valid and should be included in the article.

Based on the 6-1 consensus established in previous discussions and Wikipedia policy on consensus, the original note should be maintained until a majority of editors agree with Soosider's proposed changes or the poll is deemed invalid by a majority of editors.

I believe the original note is best as it is a concise statement of fact which users can then formulate their own opinion on and it is consistent with the rest of the article. AlloDoon (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Please advise where my amendment to the note is not accurate, there are other examples where my format in notes for 'smaller polls' is used.

I would refer you to notes(b) and (r) that were added by people other than myself, hardly the actions of someone showing bias or expressing there own personal view. Came across those other notes while doing a trawl to ensure links led to data rather than newspaper articles, while at same time fixing a dead link.

So in essence there are three small polls that have been added recently, 2 of them have the more comprehensive note yet you argue that the third should not. I think readers would find it more useful to have the fuller explanation, after all it is the standard for BPC doing national political polls and this should be drawn to users attention.

I am reverting your change Soosider3 (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Addendum, I had already looked at the fourth and last small poll, the Panelbase/Sunday Times of 25–26 Jun 2016, checked the data source but could find no information to confirm the 4% mentioned in the existing Notes. I was therefore reluctant to change this note until we have stronger data. Having said that the 4% does look correct for that sample size. Soosider3 (talk) 10:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

New Panelbase Poll

New poll just out. Could someone add it? Can never figure out how the colours are meant to work.

https://drg.global/our-work/political-polls/sunday-times-poll-19-aug-2022/

17 August 2022 - 19 August 2022

Yes 46%; No 48%; Don't know 6%

Elfwood (talk) 11:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I had a go at adding it earlier but was getting in a tangle so decided to leave it for someone that has done it before. Got colours, numbers link etc but could not get it to sort before the PM standing down statement. Soosider3 (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Done. Grinner (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Soosider3 (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

New Ipsos Poll 12-15th August

New poll published today from Ipsos, 1000 sample of 16+ Adults, conducted between 12 &15th August 2022 Article - https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/scottish-public-divided-whether-treating-next-general-election-as-referendum-would-establish-mandate Tables - https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2022-08/ipsos-scotland-independence-tables-august-2022.pdf Although it does not specifically ask the Independence question, there is much interesting data about polling for Arguments for the Union, Arguments for Independence, Mandates and possible routes to Independence amongst other matters. I would welcome views as to how we might capture this data in this article, given we capture data about Second referendum and timing of referendum etc I think we should try to capture this data as well but not sure how we might do this, do we need another section? something like reasons Arguments for Union/Independence What are folks views? Soosider3 (talk) 10:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Had a further think about this poll. It may fit in the Polling on Second Referendum section after "Polling on Second Referendum" and "Timing of second Referendum" but think it would need a new section, something around, Mandate, Legitimacy and Reasons for support for Union/Independence Soosider3 (talk) 09:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Survation 2022 August

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?".

https://cdn.survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/16085304/True-North-Archive-Tables-0822.xlsx

Elfwood (talk)

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%.

Elfwood (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

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)

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.

Elfwood (talk) 11:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

So I went back to check against a previous survey from Survation [20-22 April 2021 for The DC Thomson https://cdn.survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/23094326/Survation-DC-Thomson-Scotland-Survey-April-2021-Data-Tables-1.xlsx]. I'm doing the maths just on Y/N as the we can't split the don't knows from the would not votes (as you acknowledged above).

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)

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)

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)

Seems sensible to me in terms of the location and the sorting. I'm neutral on whether to try and trim the preamble. Grinner (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I've moved it to within multi-option polling, as that's what SSAS asks (indy, devo or direct rule) rather than a straight yes/no question. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Refresh Post-Ref polling text

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. 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%. 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.

RERTwiki (talk) 10:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

References

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

Size of sample"

This is very rough first draft and would welcome views Soosider3 (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

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.

RERTwiki (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Edits today per above etc

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)

It looks good to me, cheers. Grinner (talk) 10:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

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.

Polling, even using the same question, can show systematic differences between different polling organisations and sponsors." Soosider3 (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

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?

Elfwood (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

Potentially bias poll

I have added an efn as there has been accusations that Ipos Mori received money from the Scottish Government https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/revealed-ipsos-mori-snp-bias-28703346.amp ChefBear01 (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

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 intend to remove your addition and hope that you would recognise that this page is no place for this sort of behaviour. Soosider3 (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

Being a little flexible on the exact wording of the question seems very sensible to me. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

Graph wrong way up

Orientation of "Margin since 2014" graph is counterintuitive. "Yes" should be up, and "no" down. 2A00:23C8:7B09:FA01:E830:35E7:A95B:F02B (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

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' and rejected by opposition parties.

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?

Elfwood (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

References

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)

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.

It is most definitely a poll about Independence and must be included, I agree it fits better under other Formats Soosider3 (talk) 10:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Section 35 Order

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

I would welcome other views on this matter Soosider3 (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

I wish it were the case that the monarchy wields little power in British politics... Akerbeltz (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

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)

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.

I remember the old adage KISS - Keep it Simple and Straightforward Soosider3 (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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:DROPTHESTICK Soosider3 (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not. The note on the Smith Commission's report, for example, has a wikilink to the Smith Commission article, and not a direct link to the report's text. Glide08 (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 or by you gov for Sunday times Newmate12 (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

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.

Anyway, I think it adds something, and I hope folks agree. RERTwiki (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

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:

Year	Agree	Disagree	Lead
2009	40%	52%	12%
2007	39.5%	45%	5.5%
2006	51%	39%	12%
2001	45%	49%	4%
2000	47%	43%	4%
1999	43.5%	46%	2.5%
1998	52%	39.5%	12.5%

AlloDoon (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

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)

AlloDoon (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

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)

I didn't realise historical polls were in a separate article, and in which case fair enough! AlloDoon (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Removal of explanatory section

Hello,

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)

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)

Yes, remove it. The aim of this page should be to present the data, not as AlloDoon says to ‘spoon feed’ the reader in interpretation. Dunk the Lunk (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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"

Now away with you and your nonsense Soosider3 (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Soosider, you have serious ownership issues. Calm down. The article as it is now has more sourcing, which is better. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Aye, you might be right there, calm down it is Soosider3 (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Survation poll, 1-7 February

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)

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)

Teche Poll Feb 2023

Could people have a look at this as I am unclear what the data is actually telling us. In Techne website it says 502 people were questioned in Scotland https://www.techneuk.com/scotland/ In the data tables they state 502 people were questioned in Scotland were sampled https://www.techneuk.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/R56-UK-2023-2-24-DATA-SCOTLAND.pdf In there methodology paper they state the target was 127 people were sampled with no 'oversampling' https://www.techneuk.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/R56-UK-2023-2-24-METHODOLOGY.pdf It could well be that I am not understanding this correctly or there is a typo on one of their documents. Soosider3 (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)