A POLLING expert has spelled out an important caveat to a shock poll which showed Scottish Labour overtaking the SNP on the Holyrood regional list.
It comes after a survey from Redfield & Wilton Strategies, published on Wednesday evening, showed Labour had narrowed the gap with the SNP significantly in Westminster and Holyrood constituency voting intentions.
Humza Yousaf’s party polled at 35% and 36% respectively on constituency votes for both the London and Edinburgh parliaments, putting them narrowly ahead of Anas Sarwar’s Labour, who polled at 32% for both.
However, for the Scottish parliament regional list vote, Labour (on 27%) was shown to be slightly ahead of their SNP rivals (on 25%).
READ MORE: Shock poll shows Labour overtaking SNP on Holyrood regional list vote
But pollster Mark McGeoghegan told The National that a quirk in the question used by Redfield & Wilton Strategies was likely to be overinflating the Labour list vote.
The firm posed the question: “If there were to be a Scottish Parliament election tomorrow, which party would you vote for in your second (regional list) vote?”
McGeoghegan said: "In the past few Scottish Parliament elections, pollsters that characterise the regional list vote as a 'second vote' have tended to find a lower SNP list vote than there actually is on the day.
“In 2021, pollsters using 'second vote' wording underestimated the SNP list vote by an average of 5.3 percentage points, compared to an average error of just 1.4 points among pollsters not using 'second vote' wording.
“Given that, we should avoid over-relying on polls using 'second vote' wording. In a tight election, a five-point difference could significantly change the outcome.
“That said, even correcting for any 'second vote' effect, Redfield & Wilton would still have found Labour and the SNP neck-and-neck."
Marco Biagi, a former Scottish government minister who now serves as an SNP councillor in Edinburgh, also raised questions around the “second vote” terminology.
READ MORE: Gordon Brown's think tank 'shamed for secrecy' as funding kept hidden
He said: “The list vote has a long history of being commonly referred to as the ‘second’ vote, with all that implies about it being a voter’s second choice or second preference.
“The 2007 Holyrood election ballot paper fiasco [which saw several vote counts suspended and more than 140,000 ballot papers rejected] occurred in part because the Labour government of the day wanted to get rid of this ‘second’ vote issue by putting both votes on one paper, with the list vote first.
"Research after the 2003 ‘rainbow’ parliament election had found that around half the public thought the list vote was a second preference vote.”
Biagi (above) said that some of the “biggest polling misses have been in the list vote”, going on: “In 2021, there was a natural experiment where one regular pollster, Opinium, avoided using the word ‘second’ in their question. It showed list vote shares for the SNP that were consistently about 2-3 points higher than the others – and their final pre-election poll was the most accurate.
“Parties that are generally popular second choices with voters tend to do better when presented with this wording. The Greens, for example, are often the second choice of SNP and Labour voters.
“Ask any long-standing Green activist though and they’ll tell you stories of their disappointment come election day when, yet again, heady predictions of ten or more Green MSPs from the polls haven’t materialised when the actual votes were done and counted.”
Redfield & Wilton Strategies has been approached for comment.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel