Inanimate Carbon Rod Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 2 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said: As a result of the end of the Brexit transition period on 31 December 2020, British people have lost their rights as EU citizens. Do you think it should be a priority for the Scottish Government to regain these rights for the people of Scotland, such as being able to live and work in any EU country? (Scot Goes Pop / Survation poll, 11th-13th January 2021): Yes 52% No 30% At the end of the Brexit transition period on 31 December, the UK Government chose to withdraw from the Erasmus programme, which has given university students the opportunity to study in other European countries. Do you think it should be a priority for the Scottish Government to regain access to the Erasmus programme for Scottish students? Yes 52% No 29% https://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/ How do they weigh that with dont knows removed? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erih Shtrep Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said: How do they weigh that with dont knows removed? surely you can do that by yourself? https://www.tomscott.com/usvsth3m/maths/ Edited January 21, 2021 by Erih Shtrep 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inanimate Carbon Rod Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Erih Shtrep said: surely you can do that by yourself? No because I dont know what weighting is being used, i was shite at using SPSS and the likes at uni. I get the arithmetic of working it out from the 52% of 82% of the votes being yes, but wasnt sure if there was any form of weighting based on trends and the background dynamics of the don’t knows ie gender/age etc etc. Edited January 21, 2021 by Inanimate Carbon Rod 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 (edited) 29 minutes ago, GordonS said: FWIW rolling averages have exactly the same margin of error as the individual polls within them. You can't add the polls together because they're taken at different times and using different methodologies, and even if you could you'd only reduce the margin of error to about 2.5% points by increasing the sample size to 5,000. The benefit of rolling averages is that they knock the edges off outliers. But if pollsters are systematically off, as is normally the case, then averages just confirm the gap. I'm all for making this a stats chat. Are you sure about that 2.5%? I did a quick calculation and got 1.4%, which tallies with some other sources. I do get that it's not quite a nice as saying well 1k is now 5k and so we drop from 3 to 1.4. However, it's definitely not the case that margins of error just don't reduce. For example, polls that were taken years apart would have a much higher margin of error than polls taken on consecutive days. I certainly don't know what the formula to work that out would be there must be some kind of error calculation inverse to how long ago the poll was taken. For example, polls are reported as being taken over a number of days. We don't say that the MoE for a 1000 person poll is the same as for a 1 person poll because the 1000 responders didn't answer simultaneously. Edited January 21, 2021 by Gordon EF 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erih Shtrep Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 4 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said: No because I dont know what weighting is being used, i was shite at using SPSS and the likes at uni. I get the arithmetic of working it out from the 52% of 82% of the votes being yes, but wasnt sure if there was any form of weighting based on trends and the background dynamics of the don’t knows ie gender/age etc etc. weighting begins earlier in the process. The 52% will be a weighted adjustment using social class, previous vote etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 7 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said: SPSS Sitting with a Python terminal open here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inanimate Carbon Rod Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 Just now, Gordon EF said: Sitting with a Python terminal open here. All that stuff just brings back horrible memories, I genuinely have no idea how I passed that class. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonS Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 37 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said: Oh absolutely no one came out of that covered in glory, the person i feel sorry for is the child who was targetted, thats the only person. I respectfully disagree, a 16 year old is considered a child in Scotland, Mackay(?) knew this because he voted for the legislation that framed it that way in the Children and Young People act 2014. Ferrier was a grade A fuckwit also, I suppose on reflection its a difficult one to say which is worse, Im biased because of my experiences with victims of grooming. The Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 makes no reference to sexual offences, or indeed any offences against children and young people. Depending on the purpose, a 16 year old is both an adult and a child in Scotland. They can have sex, get married and form contracts. FWIW we're the only country in Europe to have 16 as the age of majority. As I'm guessing you know, it's only an offence for a person over 17 to engage in sexual activity with a person under the age of 18 if they are in a position of trust. That's defined reasonably narrowly in s.43 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 and it wouldn't have covered Mackay. In any case, there was no sexual activity. Grooming is covered in the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005, which you probably know too. It only applies to under 16s, except for indecent images which apply to under 18s. In any case, I don't think the messages that Mackay sent crossed the lines for those offences, and presumably the police didn't either. I totally respect your moral judgement of Mackay of course, and if you think it's worse than Ferrier's behaviour that's every bit as good an opinion as mine. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inanimate Carbon Rod Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 4 minutes ago, GordonS said: The Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 makes no reference to sexual offences, or indeed any offences against children and young people. Depending on the purpose, a 16 year old is both an adult and a child in Scotland. They can have sex, get married and form contracts. FWIW we're the only country in Europe to have 16 as the age of majority. As I'm guessing you know, it's only an offence for a person over 17 to engage in sexual activity with a person under the age of 18 if they are in a position of trust. That's defined reasonably narrowly in s.43 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 and it wouldn't have covered Mackay. In any case, there was no sexual activity. Grooming is covered in the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005, which you probably know too. It only applies to under 16s, except for indecent images which apply to under 18s. In any case, I don't think the messages that Mackay sent crossed the lines for those offences, and presumably the police didn't either. I totally respect your moral judgement of Mackay of course, and if you think it's worse than Ferrier's behaviour that's every bit as good an opinion as mine. Appreciate the polite discourse! Yes I know it didnt cross the boundaries of criminality because the threshold is of that of the age of consent, I suppose again thats a debate for another place! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonS Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 39 minutes ago, Gordon EF said: I'm all for making this a stats chat. Are you sure about that 2.5%? I did a quick calculation and got 1.4%, which tallies with some other sources. I do get that it's not quite a nice as saying well 1k is now 5k and so we drop from 3 to 1.4. However, it's definitely not the case that margins of error just don't reduce. For example, polls that were taken years apart would have a much higher margin of error than polls taken on consecutive days. I certainly don't know what the formula to work that out would be there must be some kind of error calculation inverse to how long ago the poll was taken. For example, polls are reported as being taken over a number of days. We don't say that the MoE for a 1000 person poll is the same as for a 1 person poll because the 1000 responders didn't answer simultaneously. Well, this thread is supposed to be about polls! I was guessing about 2.5% because I'm sure I saw a big poll sample of about 6,000 pull an error margin down to 2.3%. But I checked too and obviously you're right, it's 1.4%. Scottish opinion polls are usually weeks apart. A 5 poll average just now would take you back to 11 November last year, with only one since 15 December. It would also cover four different companies. You can't just add those together for a super poll. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 (edited) 6 minutes ago, GordonS said: Well, this thread is supposed to be about polls! I was guessing about 2.5% because I'm sure I saw a big poll sample of about 6,000 pull an error margin down to 2.3%. But I checked too and obviously you're right, it's 1.4%. Scottish opinion polls are usually weeks apart. A 5 poll average just now would take you back to 11 November last year, with only one since 15 December. It would also cover four different companies. You can't just add those together for a super poll. Yeah, I'm not saying you could add them up into one super poll but the margin of error would still be less than with one individual poll one fifth of the size. Also, I'd imagine that diversity in the wording would actually increase the confidence in the result. One poll with misleading wording could throw up an anomaly. 5 different wordings / methodologies giving similar results would essentially be a form of corroboration. Also, you've got the slight complication that looking at a trend of 5-rolling average polls actually isn't just 5 polls contributing. If we looked at the previous 10 5-rolling average polls, there's actually 14 polls contributing to that so you'd have to weight their margins of error. I'm sure there's some standard way of of doing it but I suspect trying to figure out if that trend is significant is fiendishly difficult. Edited January 21, 2021 by Gordon EF 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonS Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 3 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said: Appreciate the polite discourse! Yes I know it didnt cross the boundaries of criminality because the threshold is of that of the age of consent, I suppose again thats a debate for another place! There are a lot of things that aren't illegal that are thoroughly repugnant. And thankfully we'll never know how far Mackay might have taken it. On a tangent, I've often wondered why very religious people get so angry about abortion, on which the Bible is ambiguous and the Gospels silent, but they never want to criminalise adultery which is against the Ten Commandments 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inanimate Carbon Rod Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 7 minutes ago, GordonS said: There are a lot of things that aren't illegal that are thoroughly repugnant. And thankfully we'll never know how far Mackay might have taken it. On a tangent, I've often wondered why very religious people get so angry about abortion, on which the Bible is ambiguous and the Gospels silent, but they never want to criminalise adultery which is against the Ten Commandments Agreed on all counts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 The Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 makes no reference to sexual offences, or indeed any offences against children and young people. Depending on the purpose, a 16 year old is both an adult and a child in Scotland. They can have sex, get married and form contracts. FWIW we're the only country in Europe to have 16 as the age of majority. As I'm guessing you know, it's only an offence for a person over 17 to engage in sexual activity with a person under the age of 18 if they are in a position of trust. That's defined reasonably narrowly in s.43 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 and it wouldn't have covered Mackay. In any case, there was no sexual activity. Grooming is covered in the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005, which you probably know too. It only applies to under 16s, except for indecent images which apply to under 18s. In any case, I don't think the messages that Mackay sent crossed the lines for those offences, and presumably the police didn't either. I totally respect your moral judgement of Mackay of course, and if you think it's worse than Ferrier's behaviour that's every bit as good an opinion as mine.In a way no different from Salmond.Nothing illegal but the behaviour was completely inappropriate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonS Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 4 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said: In a way no different from Salmond. Nothing illegal but the behaviour was completely inappropriate. Assuming you agree with the jury and don't believe the prosecution witnesses, of course. There are differences of opinion on that but with Mackay the facts aren't disputed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 Assuming you agree with the jury and don't believe the prosecution witnesses, of course. There are differences of opinion on that but with Mackay the facts aren't disputed.Even if it's the other way it does not matter - Salmond was found not guilty on all charges bar one which was not proven. He faced the charges and was cleared.It does not mean that his behaviour was acceptable.If I think he's a creepy old lech who was lucky is irrelevant 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonS Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 Two days into the Keating case. I'm going to take a totally ill-informed guess that the court will say it's hypothetical until, at least, a Bill is introduced and the Presiding Officer has ruled on competence. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 But...teh brod sholders! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted January 23, 2021 Author Share Posted January 23, 2021 But...teh brod sholders!Can't understand why the Lib Dems are even a thing anymore 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colkitto Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.