Scottish Independence Talk

[Caledonian Craig]

1 hour ago, daviebee said:

They already had all the rights they could possibly want or need.  The problem is that they wanted even more than that.  You surely can't disagree that the SNP got sidetracked from their supposed reason for existing by that madness?

Anyway, that's derailing the thread a bit.  If anyone has an idea other than the English will suddenly cave in just because we want something and - well... "That'd just be cricket, old boy," then I'm all ears.

We both agree (I think) that there is no solution/quick route to independence. The English do not need to cave in for us to get a referendum (2014 is evidence of that). Random good polls like the recent one won't cut any ice either but a sustained spell of positive polls placing Yes way above 50% will certainly give the Yes movement a far stronger hand to deal with.

Now Reform's rise in England could work either way. They blitz next election and through support in England they get into power and follow up on promises to attempt to reverse devolution and return all devolved powers to Westminster. That can only fuel more support for Independence and I would then say that declaring UDI would be worth it as we would have nothing to lose and the international community would surely be more accepting of our move for independence. Or they garner plenty more seats but not enough to get into power but Labour certainly would not want us getting independence as I believe lack of Reform seats in Scotland in the union keeps Reform at bay.

[Ally Bongo]

Who would want another referendum with all of the media still controlled by London ?

Not me

That's why it has to be an electoral event and it is time for an all or nothing choice before there is fuck all left of Scotland 

Does anyone see the current SNP putting the country before the party ? 

 

[Caledonian Craig]

Just now, Ally Bongo said:

Who would want another referendum with all of the media still controlled by London ?

Not me

That's why it has to be an electoral event and it is time for an all or nothing choice before there is fuck all left of Scotland 

Does anyone see the current SNP putting the country before the party ? 

 

The thing is though no other pro- independence party has had anywhere near the same success as the SNP. All the promises made by Alba turned into nothing. And no other party is on the horizon either 

[Caledonian Craig]

And when Sturgeon proposed such an idea for a defacto referendum she was criticised by many on here for it and never got far in Holyrood.

[Dave78]

On 6/3/2025 at 2:51 PM, TDYER63 said:

I don’t care what anyone says, if support moved above 55-60 % over a sustained period there is absolutely no chance this could be ignored. It’s getting it to that sustained place thats the difficulty. It may take till 2034 till it happens, but if it happens before then the pressure will be too great. 

Arguably we're already in the sustained 55-60% territory. This hasn't been shown in the polls though, as the polls are still weighted to match the 2014 demographic sample. A sample that no longer exists, given the demographic changes over the past 11 years.

Mark McGeoghgan of Edinburgh Uni did some good research into the demographic changes, summarised in this article:

 

 

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/viewpoint/25112591.indy-inevitable-signs-looking-good-yessers/

 

 

Is indy inevitable? The signs are looking good for Yessers

Independence supporters often make what has been euphemistically called the "actuarial" argument: as older, more unionist voters pass away, and as younger, more pro-independence voters come of age, the level of overall support for secession will rise until a persistent majority are in favour of Scottish secession. Between the 2014 referendum and the end of last year, there were around 620,000 deaths in Scotland, and just under 550,000 teenagers turned 16 and became eligible to vote, equivalent to around one-eighth of the Scottish electorate.

---

The obvious counterargument to this, made predominantly by supporters of the Union, is that as younger people get older, they become more risk-averse. They accumulate assets, like savings and pensions. They become increasingly likely to own their own home. They are more likely to have children. In other words, they become more inclined to conserve what they have accumulated and less likely to support radical policies in general and secession from the United Kingdom in particular.

The problem for supporters of the Union is that this argument doesn’t appear to be supported by empirical evidence. My analysis of 23 years' worth of data collected by the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, published last week by Edinburgh University’s Centre on Constitutional Change, found strong support for a "cohort" effect, but no evidence that younger voters become less pro-independence as they age.

Edited June 4, 2025 by Dave78
added article headline

[mccaughey85]

31 minutes ago, Dave78 said:

Arguably we're already in the sustained 55-60% territory. This hasn't been shown in the polls though, as the polls are still weighted to match the 2014 demographic sample. A sample that no longer exists, given the demographic changes over the past 11 years.

Mark McGeoghgan of Edinburgh Uni did some good research into the demographic changes, summarised in this article:

 

 

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/viewpoint/25112591.indy-inevitable-signs-looking-good-yessers/

 

 

Is indy inevitable? The signs are looking good for Yessers

Independence supporters often make what has been euphemistically called the "actuarial" argument: as older, more unionist voters pass away, and as younger, more pro-independence voters come of age, the level of overall support for secession will rise until a persistent majority are in favour of Scottish secession. Between the 2014 referendum and the end of last year, there were around 620,000 deaths in Scotland, and just under 550,000 teenagers turned 16 and became eligible to vote, equivalent to around one-eighth of the Scottish electorate.

---

The obvious counterargument to this, made predominantly by supporters of the Union, is that as younger people get older, they become more risk-averse. They accumulate assets, like savings and pensions. They become increasingly likely to own their own home. They are more likely to have children. In other words, they become more inclined to conserve what they have accumulated and less likely to support radical policies in general and secession from the United Kingdom in particular.

The problem for supporters of the Union is that this argument doesn’t appear to be supported by empirical evidence. My analysis of 23 years' worth of data collected by the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, published last week by Edinburgh University’s Centre on Constitutional Change, found strong support for a "cohort" effect, but no evidence that younger voters become less pro-independence as they age.

Not sure what you mean by that first sentence but the recent(last few years)polls have shown quite an even split. 

Not sure what major demographic changes have happened. Might be an extra 100k or so in Scotland but thats mostly migrants and our population is probably similar in terms of being heavily weighted towards ppl being over 60.

Until we see continued 55% plus then there's no point in pushing for referendum. Even 55% isn't great. Better to be above 60% although I doubt that ever happens.

[Dave78]

15 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Not sure what you mean by that first sentence but the recent(last few years)polls have shown quite an even split. 

Right, but my point is the polls are exaggerating the No vote, because the pollsters adjust (i.e. weight) the demographic sample to make it match that of the 2014 result. They do this on an age basis, which has the effect of ignoring the fact 600k old folk have died and 500k young folk have joined the electorate.

 

 

15 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Not sure what major demographic changes have happened. Might be an extra 100k or so in Scotland but thats mostly migrants and our population is probably similar in terms of being heavily weighted towards ppl being over 60.

Did you read the bit of the article i posted? That's the demographic change i'm talking about.

 

Edited June 4, 2025 by Dave78

[daviebee]

23 minutes ago, Dave78 said:

Right, but my point is the polls are exaggerating the No vote, because the pollsters adjust (i.e. weight) the demographic sample to make it match that of the 2014 result. They do this on an age basis, which has the effect of ignoring the fact 600k old folk have died and 500k young folk have joined the electorate.

 

 

Did you read the bit of the article i posted? That's the demographic change i'm talking about.

 

How many of the 600k that have died have been replaced by incomers from south of the border?  That'd be interesting to know.  You can put that particular demographic at 80+% in favour of No I'd imagine.

[mccaughey85]

20 minutes ago, Dave78 said:

Right, but my point is the polls are exaggerating the No vote, because the pollsters adjust (i.e. weight) the demographic sample to make it match that of the 2014 result. They do this on an age basis, which has the effect of ignoring the fact 600k old folk have died and 500k young folk have joined the electorate.

 

 

Did you read the bit of the article i posted? That's the demographic change i'm talking about.

 

Sorry buddy I don't understand what all this weighted and unweighted means.

In what way are they adjusting the polls? Why would they adjust it to match the 2014 result. 

Are you saying they ask more older ppl because they make up a larger proportion of our population.

If thats the case then I don't see the problem with that and it should provide a more accurate poll as they are big section of society. Its irrelevant if 600k old ppl have died and replaced by 500k young ppl. If young ppl are more supportive of independence and continue to be so into their old age then that should start to show in the polls.

If a referendum was called tomorrow then the older generation would have a considerable say on the result purely based on numbers.

That article is just overly confusing and it's not really about demographic changes. Its basically saying the younger generation support independence compared to the older generation. Our demographic changes have been a rise in foreign born ppl in Scotland but in terms of overall population we are only 200k more and we still have an ageing population with a large section of population being over 60.

[Dave78]

7 minutes ago, daviebee said:

How many of the 600k that have died have been replaced by incomers from south of the border?  That'd be interesting to know.  You can put that particular demographic at 80+% in favour of No I'd imagine.

Before Brexit i'd have agreed with that number. I'm not so sure now. My guess would be 50-50 now.

 

4 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Sorry buddy I don't understand what all this weighted and unweighted means.

In what way are they adjusting the polls? Why would they adjust it to match the 2014 result. 

Ok, first off we need to remember that polling companies only ask 1000 people. To be able to extrapolate across the whole country, they have to make their sample as representative as possible. They do this via 'weighting'.

Let's say they ask a question on women's rights. We know the female population of Scotland is 51.4%, but if the pollsters sample of 1000 people contains 58% men, they 'weight' (i.e. adjust) the result to give a more realistic result, which is fair enough.

When it comes to Indy polling, they use the 'recalled 2014 vote' when weighting their results, which was fair enough in the year or two after the indyref, but it doesn't make sense 11 years later, as 600k (heavily No-voting) auld yins have died and been replaced by 500k (heavily Yes-voting) youngsters).

Does that make it clearer?

 

4 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Are you saying they ask more older ppl because they make up a larger proportion of our population.

No

4 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

If thats the case then I don't see the problem with that and it should provide a more accurate poll as they are big section of society. Its irrelevant if 600k old ppl have died and replaced by 500k young ppl. If young ppl are more supportive of independence and continue to be so into their old age then that should start to show in the polls.

And it is, although the 'recalled 2014 vote' is masking a lot of the change.

4 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

If a referendum was called tomorrow then the older generation would have a considerable say on the result purely based on numbers.

That article is just overly confusing and it's not really about demographic changes. Its basically saying the younger generation support independence compared to the older generation. Our demographic changes have been a rise in foreign born ppl in Scotland but in terms of overall population we are only 200k more and we still have an ageing population with a large section of population being over 60.

I'm specifically referring to the age-related demographic changes that the pollsters are ignoring in their samples.

[Dave78]

Btw, i got confirmation of this from Ballot Box Scotland, who i consider an uber-nerd of this stuff....

Although where's @Clyde1998 when you need him?

 

 

[mccaughey85]

24 minutes ago, Dave78 said:

Before Brexit i'd have agreed with that number. I'm not so sure now. My guess would be 50-50 now.

 

Ok, first off we need to remember that polling companies only ask 1000 people. To be able to extrapolate across the whole country, they have to make their sample as representative as possible. They do this via 'weighting'.

Let's say they ask a question on women's rights. We know the female population of Scotland is 51.4%, but if the pollsters sample of 1000 people contains 58% men, they 'weight' (i.e. adjust) the result to give a more realistic result, which is fair enough.

When it comes to Indy polling, they use the 'recalled 2014 vote' when weighting their results, which was fair enough in the year or two after the indyref, but it doesn't make sense 11 years later, as 600k (heavily No-voting) auld yins have died and been replaced by 500k (heavily Yes-voting) youngsters).

Does that make it clearer?

 

No

And it is, although the 'recalled 2014 vote' is masking a lot of the change.

I'm specifically referring to the age-related demographic changes that the pollsters are ignoring in their samples.

Lol sorry bud it hasn't made it much clearer.

In what way do they use the 2014 vote?

What would be the point that?

I also don't see wha need to even consider the 2014 result in a poll. It shouldn't matter. 

A pollof 1k ppl should have the correct percentage of ppl from different age groups, ethnicities, religion, salary, gender etc.

If they end up with too much of any group then surely they can remove/trim what they want until they get the right/accurate cross section of society.

[Dave78]

43 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Lol sorry bud it hasn't made it much clearer.

In what way do they use the 2014 vote?

What would be the point that?

I don't think i can explain it any better.

43 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

I also don't see wha need to even consider the 2014 result in a poll. It shouldn't matter. 

Agreed. That's my point. It isn't relevant anymore.

43 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

A pollof 1k ppl should have the correct percentage of ppl from different age groups, ethnicities, religion, salary, gender etc.

If they end up with too much of any group then surely they can remove/trim what they want until they get the right/accurate cross section of society.

Exactly, but the pollsters are refusing to do that, which is why non-partisan academics are beginning to call them out on it.

Edited June 4, 2025 by Dave78

[mccaughey85]

21 minutes ago, Dave78 said:

I don't think i can explain it any better.

Agreed. That's my point. It isn't relevant anymore.

Exactly, but the pollsters are refusing to do that, which is why non-partisan academics are beginning to call them out on it.

Fair enough.

I think it would be good to know what exactly goes on with the reweighting of these polls and the methods they use.

Sounds like a heap of nonsense if they are sampling data from the 2014 vote to alter a poll.

[Caledonian Craig]

'Weighting' of polls I can see being done by polls done by pro-union sources which there are a lot. However, there are a few polls carried out by pro-independence sources which are going to pro-Yes biased and tweaked to favour Yes as much as possible but even those polls have not consistently placed Yes even above even 55%.

[TDYER63]

23 hours ago, daviebee said:

Seriously???  OF COURSE THEY WOULD!  Theirs is an establishment that still think they run half the globe, with a built-in superiority complex, who had no problem enslaving millions while extracting trillions from them.  They're quite proud of it in fact and many of them long to have these days back.  They absolutely cannot afford to let us go and will do anything to "keep her fast".

The reason I have doubts about the referendum is simply because of the lack of exit polls.  When I got to our polling station before it even opened it was mobbed with folk waiting to vote Yes, absolutely mobbed.  The postal vote done us and the discrepancy would've been glaringly obvious.  Postal returns were suspiciously high and anyone who thinks they couldn't have been easily rigged is pretty naive tbh.

60% of Scotland wanting independence and being refused the opportunity would make world news. I think its pretty clear the UK is becoming less and less relevant as a power house in the world and with that eroding power comes eroding support. I think the external pressure would be too great. You disagree. Neither of us will know till that situation ever arises. 

23 hours ago, daviebee said:

I don't have one.  I just know that if I'm banging my head against a brick wall it feels good when I stop.

I'm interested in hearing more about what Salvo and Liberate Scotland have to offer and the latest "all or nothing" idea on Wings is pretty good.  The SNP are trough-swilling grifters though who are making an easy living off the back of the pro-indy vote.  They need to GTF out the way and let a real movement take over.  Could you imagine these fkin idiots negotiating independence anyway?  They'd be more interested in having a proportionate number of trannies on their committee.

Their campaign in the UN is an example of the pressure that can be used to make greater awareness.

19 hours ago, scotlad said:

Sadly, you're right. They only agreed to a referendum last time because 1) they thought they'd skoosh it; and 2) if they'd refused they knew Salmond, having recently won the Holyrood election handsomely and with political momentum on his side, would have raised merry hell if they'd refused.

Nowadays, however, they're facing a much, much tamer incarnation of the SNP, one led by managerial types possessing little to no apparent vision or strategy either to achieve independence or to get the new state off the ground.

The only set of circumstances I can think of where a WM government might, might agree to another referendum would be as part of a deal if there was a hung parliament and, say, Labour needed the support of the SNP to remain in government; and even then I wouldn't trust the current SNP to hold their ground and insist on those terms.

From a purely democratic perspective there was far less reason for them to grant a referendum at 25% support than there is at 60% . I would like to hear them try and explain their reasoning for refusing a referendum at that level.

 

[TDYER63]

14 hours ago, Dave78 said:

Arguably we're already in the sustained 55-60% territory. This hasn't been shown in the polls though, as the polls are still weighted to match the 2014 demographic sample. A sample that no longer exists, given the demographic changes over the past 11 years.

Mark McGeoghgan of Edinburgh Uni did some good research into the demographic changes, summarised in this article:

 

 

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/viewpoint/25112591.indy-inevitable-signs-looking-good-yessers/

 

 

Is indy inevitable? The signs are looking good for Yessers

Independence supporters often make what has been euphemistically called the "actuarial" argument: as older, more unionist voters pass away, and as younger, more pro-independence voters come of age, the level of overall support for secession will rise until a persistent majority are in favour of Scottish secession. Between the 2014 referendum and the end of last year, there were around 620,000 deaths in Scotland, and just under 550,000 teenagers turned 16 and became eligible to vote, equivalent to around one-eighth of the Scottish electorate.

---

The obvious counterargument to this, made predominantly by supporters of the Union, is that as younger people get older, they become more risk-averse. They accumulate assets, like savings and pensions. They become increasingly likely to own their own home. They are more likely to have children. In other words, they become more inclined to conserve what they have accumulated and less likely to support radical policies in general and secession from the United Kingdom in particular.

The problem for supporters of the Union is that this argument doesn’t appear to be supported by empirical evidence. My analysis of 23 years' worth of data collected by the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, published last week by Edinburgh University’s Centre on Constitutional Change, found strong support for a "cohort" effect, but no evidence that younger voters become less pro-independence as they age.

Thanks. This seems utterly ridiculous . Poling data is volatile enough as it is , without using out of date weightings. 

[Ally Bongo]

Just had Davy Linden at my door - he was a bit taken aback that i said Hello David and recognised him

Said i would go and vote afer 1 

Can't have English Nationalist Colonialist bastards winning in my constituency 

Then again that's what the SNP are relying on  

[TDYER63]

7 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

Just had Davy Linden at my door - he was a bit taken aback that i said Hello David and recognised him

Said i would go and vote afer 1 

Can't have English Nationalist Colonialist bastards winning in my constituency 

Then again that's what the SNP are relying on  

👍 👏

[Orraloon]

1 hour ago, Ally Bongo said:

Just had Davy Linden at my door - he was a bit taken aback that i said Hello David and recognised him

Said i would go and vote afer 1 

Can't have English Nationalist Colonialist bastards winning in my constituency 

Then again that's what the SNP are relying on  

The BBC website says "Voters do not need ID to cast their ballot". Is that correct? I thought they had changed that for the last election? Do we have different voting rules in Scotland?

[Ally Bongo]

10 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

The BBC website says "Voters do not need ID to cast their ballot". Is that correct? I thought they had changed that for the last election? Do we have different voting rules in Scotland?

Westminster changed it for General Elections where you need voter ID

Holyrood Elections same as it has always been 

[Orraloon]

43 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

Westminster changed it for General Elections where you need voter ID

Holyrood Elections same as it has always been 

Thanks.

For some reason I had gotten the impression that this bi election was for a Westminster seat. It might have been something to do with these foreigners, from foreign political parties, coming up here and interfering in our Scottish elections? They are quite happy to slag off Putin for trying to interfere with other countries elections, but have no qualms about doing it themselves.

[StirlingEgg]

16 hours ago, Dave78 said:

Right, but my point is the polls are exaggerating the No vote, because the pollsters adjust (i.e. weight) the demographic sample to make it match that of the 2014 result. They do this on an age basis, which has the effect of ignoring the fact 600k old folk have died and 500k young folk have joined the electorate.

 

 

Did you read the bit of the article i posted? That's the demographic change i'm talking about.

 

57% would be a nice starting point 🙂

[Ally Bongo]

31 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

Thanks.

For some reason I had gotten the impression that this bi election was for a Westminster seat. It might have been something to do with these foreigners, from foreign political parties, coming up here and interfering in our Scottish elections? They are quite happy to slag off Putin for trying to interfere with other countries elections, but have no qualms about doing it themselves.

You would be forgiven for thinking that as i have never known campaigning like this for any election previously 

The leafleting alone must have wasted enough paper to fill a forest ...and i am not exaggerating if you think about every household getting leaflets from all parties including at least five each from SNP, Labour and Reform 

When the SNP were riding high i can remember Christina and Margaret Ferrier chapping doors but there was nothing from the other parties - and there were no high profile elected SNP members doing the rounds - maybe its because they have nothing better to do after being voted out

I can remember the SNP activists on polling day chapping doors and asking if anyone wanted a lift to the polling station 

That has only happened once but as i say it was when the SNP were riding high

The campaigning for Reform went all out in Larkhall - umpteen activists waving leaflets and flags on the main street and cars peeping them

Katie across the road from me doesnt normally vote but i have pestered her that much that she told the Reform guy to fuck off 

It was also the busiest i have seen at the polling station - and ours is normally quiet - even on referendum day

I keep wondering if there are any implications at Holyrood if the SNP lose this seat with regards their majority - but i cant see it  

Edited June 5, 2025 by Ally Bongo

[TDYER63]

1 hour ago, Ally Bongo said:

You would be forgiven for thinking that as i have never known campaigning like this for any election previously 

The leafleting alone must have wasted enough paper to fill a forest ...and i am not exaggerating if you think about every household getting leaflets from all parties including at least five each from SNP, Labour and Reform 

When the SNP were riding high i can remember Christina and Margaret Ferrier chapping doors but there was nothing from the other parties - and there were no high profile elected SNP members doing the rounds - maybe its because they have nothing better to do after being voted out

I can remember the SNP activists on polling day chapping doors and asking if anyone wanted a lift to the polling station 

That has only happened once but as i say it was when the SNP were riding high

The campaigning for Reform went all out in Larkhall - umpteen activists waving leaflets and flags on the main street and cars peeping them

Katie across the road from me doesnt normally vote but i have pestered her that much that she told the Reform guy to fuck off 

It was also the busiest i have seen at the polling station - and ours is normally quiet - even on referendum day

I keep wondering if there are any implications at Holyrood if the SNP lose this seat with regards their majority - but i cant see it  

With big turnout you never know which way it will go. I just hope a large amount of disenchanted  independence supporters hold their nose and vote SNP if only to show their dislike for Reform.
Larkhall will be creaming themselves, probably helping to blot out all thoughts of their uninspiring new gaffer at The Rangers. 

How any sane working class Scottish person could vote for Farage is beyond me. Openly talking about privatising the NHS and binning the Barnett formula. There’s nowt so queer as folk.