text:
No, David Herdson, England's World Cup exit is not a 'boost for No'
Even before Mick Pork pointed me in the direction of David Herdson's piece in Political Betting (aka Stormfront Lite) today, I was toying with the idea of offering my thoughts on this subject, because it isn't just southern Tories like Herdson who take the view that a decent run for England at the World Cup would have have been good for the Yes campaign. The theory goes like this - the London media drive us crazy for the next few weeks by talking at their UK-wide audience as if we are all English, and we eventually become so offended that Don't Knows and soft Nos start asserting their own national identity in a political sense. But my guess is that it's largely people who have football fanatics as friends and family who imagine that would have happened. Indeed, it may well have happened within that section of the population, but that is far from being the whole of Scotland. By contrast, casual viewers of the World Cup could easily have ended up being swept along with the Eng-er-land fixation of the media and found themselves practically thinking they are English (brainwashing often works, remember). And then of course there is the large section of the population who wouldn't have given a monkey's one way or the other. So I personally think that the net effect of a good England run would have been neutral at best, and possibly mildly harmful for Yes at worst.
Frankly, I'm relieved to see England go out, because it means that our status as neutrals will henceforth be reflected in the television coverage we watch. Although now that all four "Home Nations" are in exactly the same position as countries who have been knocked out of the World Cup, it'll be interesting to see whether that is fully reflected in the coverage, or whether England's future prospects will still be considered worthy of discussion in a way that the prospects of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not. (OK, I think we already know the answer to that!)
Herdson goes on to indulge in this piece of fantastical thinking about how the Commonwealth Games might not be good for the Yes campaign either -
"There are of course other opportunities over the summer for Scottish patriotism to fuse with nationalism in a rather more positive way (i.e. rather than being simply anti-English), the Commonwealth Games being the most obvious. A successful Games, however, could be used by both sides: either to assert Scotland's ability to deliver top level events on its own or, alternatively, to show that independence is unnecessary to it being able to do so."
Jesus. Anyone who has been following the funding arrangements for the Commonwealth Games cannot help but conclude that this is something that Scotland has managed to do in spite of being part of the United Kingdom, in contrast to the Olympics, which London managed to do because of money drawn from every part of the UK, including Scotland.
However, I do agree that it remains to be seen what the effect of the Commonwealth Games will be. It will distract attention from the referendum campaign at a crucial moment. The BBC will present the event from a wholly British perspective, with no Scottish opt-outs, and with viewers invited to think of the distinction between the four "Home Nations" teams as being a mere formality. I still think the benefits will outweigh those factors, but at this stage it would be foolish to imagine we can be 100% confident of that.
Labels: Commonwealth Games, football, politics, sport, World Cup
Is Wales about to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council?
From the little I've seen of Welsh First Minister Carwyn Jones on TV over the years (and the fact I've seen so little speaks volumes about the extent to which the broadcasters buy into the guff about the UK being a "partnership of nations") he's always seemed like a relatively impressive figure. But his occasional contributions to the Scottish independence debate are making it increasingly obvious that he's actually a bit of a fantasist. First of all, we had his bizarre claim that Wales would somehow "veto" an independent Scotland's entry into a currency union, in spite of the fact that a devolved territory within the UK cannot possibly have any say over such matters. And now he's surpassed himself with the suggestion that the real "danger" of independence is that it might prompt England to "leave the union", with Wales and Northern Ireland ending up stranded -
"But it also means that I can see a scenario where in two or three years time there are calls in England to get out of the union with these expensive Celts in the west and over the Irish Sea.
If Scotland can leave the UK, so can England.
That leaves us and Northern Ireland."
Yeah, because of course the Westminster elite are famous for not wanting to rule as much territory as humanly possible. I do rather like that idea, though, because if the anti-independence propagandists are right, it would by definition mean that the remaining Welsh-Northern Irish union would be the sole legal successor state to the UK, and would be able to decide whether England should be "allowed" to continue using the pound. It would also take over from London as one of the world's five permitted nuclear weapons powers under international treaty arrangements, and would automatically become one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. England, by contrast, would naturally be thrown out of the EU and forced to join the euro (presumably on the same day).
Sounds far-fetched? "IT'S THE LAW!" screams Adam Tomkins (before demanding a written apology for your impertinence in thinking yourself worthy of sharing a planet with him).
No Campaign Fib-Watch, Day 452
Hot on the heels of the No campaign making boastful claims about the new YouGov poll that are utterly irreconcilable with other claims they made only a few weeks ago on a glossy Twitter graphic, they've now excelled themselves with yet another glossy Twitter graphic - this time on the theme of national unity (yes, really!) and featuring the SNP logo in place of the 'o' in 'No Thanks'. (But full marks to them for resisting the temptation to "unite the nation" by once again portraying the logo as a hangman's noose.) The text reads as follows -
"NO THANKS
1 in 4 SNP supporters are voting No for more powers within the United Kingdom
Source : YouGov poll of Scottish voters for the Sun newspaper, June 2014"
Hmmm. Firstly, what do they actually mean by the word 'supporters'? I'd suggest that most reasonable people would interpret it as meaning respondents who would vote SNP in an election now, and if taken that way the claim is an out-and-out falsehood. In fact, the YouGov poll cited as a source shows that only 9% of current SNP supporters are planning to vote No, which compares rather favourably to the 17% of current Labour supporters who are planning to vote Yes.
But presumably what they really mean by the "1 in 4" claim is 1 in 4 of the people who voted for the SNP in the unprecedented landslide victory of 2011, regardless of whether those voters are now supporters of other parties. On that measure, it's true that the YouGov poll shows that 24% of 2011 SNP voters are in the No column, but the poll also shows that 21% of 2011 Labour voters are in the Yes column. You'll probably already have spotted that those two numbers are remarkably similar, which is a touch startling given that in 2011 Labour were down to their rump, core, "come hell or high water" vote. But I'm sure the No-bots would have mentioned all of that in the graphic if there had been space - after all, it's their mission in life to give people "the facts you need for the big decision", without fear or favour.
Having said that, it's on the word 'fact' that the graphic becomes somewhat unstuck. You see, in order to justify their use of the YouGov poll as a "source" for their claim, it's not sufficient to be able to demonstrate that the poll shows that 1 in 4 SNP "supporters" (ambiguously defined) are planning to vote No. It's also necessary to demonstrate that the poll shows that all of those people are voting No specifically because they want "more powers within the United Kingdom", and are credulous enough to think that a No vote will result in those powers being delivered. Unfortunately, it's literally impossible to demonstrate that, because there isn't the slightest suggestion in the YouGov datasets of people having been asked whether they want new powers, whether they believe new powers would be delivered after a No, or whether they're voting No in spite of being fully resigned to the status quo being maintained, or indeed to powers being removed from the Scottish Parliament.
But leaving aside those minor quibbles, let's pay homage once again to the No-bots and their inspiring commitment to "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me Gideon".
Labels: independence referendum, politics, polls
YouGov poll shows swing to Yes among definite voters
Blair McDougall and his Abominable No-Men will be thanking their lucky stars today that YouGov are one of only two BPC pollsters that do not apply any turnout filter or weighting to their headline results. That's the one and only reason why YouGov have not just become the fourth pollster in a row to report an increase in support for Yes. Here is the result of today's poll when only respondents who are certain to vote are taken into account (that's the filter Ipsos-Mori use for their headline numbers) -
Should Scotland be an independent country? (excluding Don't Knows)
Yes 42% (+1)
No 58% (-1)
Should Scotland be an independent country? (not excluding Don't Knows)
No 55% (n/c)
And here is the result when only respondents who give at least an 8/10 likelihood to vote are taken into account (that's the filter Panelbase use for their headline numbers) -
Yes 41% (n/c)
No 55% (+1)
In case you're wondering, the logic for applying what may look like quite extreme filters is that people generally overestimate their own likelihood to vote. Ipsos-Mori only include people who say they are certain to vote in their headline numbers because there has been such a strong correlation in the past between the numerical strength of that group and actual turnouts in elections. No fewer than 82% of the sample in today's YouGov poll say they are absolutely certain to vote, so unless you think the turnout in September is going to be ridiculously high, the voting intentions of those people may well be a better guide to the state of play than the reported headline numbers.
As pointed out by Scottish Skier on the earlier thread, there are a couple of oddities about this poll. The first is that Labour have a small lead in Holyrood voting intentions - that's in contrast to an SNP lead in the last YouGov poll, an SNP lead in actual votes cast in the European elections, and a very handsome SNP lead reported in the first post-Euro poll to be conducted by No-friendly firm Ipsos-Mori. So that might make us wonder if YouGov have ended up with a particularly "Nat-light" sample in this poll, in which case the referendum figures might also be slightly suspect.
But the most peculiar thing of all is the result of the supplementary question about the J K Rowling non-story, and how it will affect people's voting intentions. What normally happens with this sort of question is that the respondents who claim that they are more likely to vote Yes or No as a result of Event X or Y are for the most part people who were planning to vote in that way anyway. So given that slightly more people said that the Rowling garbage would make them more likely to vote No than said it would make them more likely to vote Yes, we should find an implied No lead that is either the same or greater than in the headline numbers. Instead, we find the polar opposite -
Does the abuse directed at J K Rowling make you more likely to vote YES in the referendum, more likely to vote NO, or does it make no difference?
More likely to vote Yes : 6%
No difference, I would have voted Yes anyway : 35%
TOTAL YES : 41%
More likely to vote No : 12%
No difference, I would have voted No anyway : 39%
TOTAL NO : 51%
With Don't Knows excluded, it works out as...
Yes 45%
I'm struggling to interpret those numbers in any other way than as meaning that there are considerably more people in the YouGov sample thinking about voting Yes than are willing to say so when asked a more direct question.
There's one other reason for being a touch cautious about the headline numbers in this poll, and it's effectively the Survation problem in reverse. In many previous YouGov polls, 18-24 year olds (they STILL aren't bothering to interview 16 and 17 year olds!) have been the most Yes-friendly age group - for example, in the last poll Yes were only 1% behind in that group. But in this poll, young voters have swung in the other direction to such a wildly implausible extent that they're now the most No-friendly age group. The impact of that swing (which in reality is likely to be an illusion caused by random sampling variation) has been magnified because the 74 real respondents in the group have been upweighted to count as 123 'virtual' respondents. That isn't quite as extreme as the upweighting Survation had to do, but it's still plenty enough to have had a potentially distorting effect.
Wisdom on Wednesday : Rachel Reeves, look away now
"We are called upon at the beginning of the 20th century to decide the question propounded in the Sermon on the Mount, as to whether we will worship God or Mammon. The present day is a Mammon worshipping age. Socialism proposes to dethrone the brute god Mammon and to lift humanity into its place."
Keir Hardie, one of the founders of the Labour party, and a man who Blair McDougall cites as his hero. Now just look into your heart for a moment, Blair - do you honestly believe that the neoliberal UK of today is closer to Hardie's ideal than an independent Scotland would be? Truly?
Labels: Labour, politics
According to Better Together's own logic, the No lead has slumped by 3% in tonight's YouGov poll
The results of tonight's YouGov referendum poll have just been released, and they show the firm consolidating its status as one of this campaign's extreme No-friendly outliers -
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 36% (-1)
Now, the percentage changes I've listed above are accurate, and are from the most recent YouGov poll in April. It's worth making the point, though, that the No campaign have for several weeks been insisting that there was a more recent YouGov poll than that - the one conducted by Progressive Partnership. That's a load of garbage (Progressive are an entirely different pollster with their own weighting procedures), but they've been doing it so they could claim that YouGov were showing a six-point increase in the No lead (in fact both YouGov and Progressive had shown a decrease in the No lead). So according to the No campaign's own logic, the changes in tonight's poll must actually be reported as follows -
In the interests of consistency, we can doubtless look forward to a "Momentum for Yes" graphic appearing on Blair McDougall's Twitter feed any second now. What's that? Don't be cynical - of course they're not going to do another "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia" pivot, and suddenly decide that the Progressive poll was not a YouGov poll after all. These guys have integrity.
This is also an appropriate moment to repost an observation I made about Kevin Schofield of the Sun (who commissioned the poll) before the results were published -
I was also amused to spot Kevin Schofield almost biting someone's head off for accurately pointing out that the last YouGov poll for the Sun showed a 60-40 lead for No. It's actually normal practice for a newspaper to make the comparison with the previous poll commissioned by themselves, even if the same polling company has conducted a poll for another client more recently. So clearly Schofield is determined to make the comparison with the poll that gives the highest baseline figure for Yes, in order to push the "momentum for No" spin. He's nothing if not transparent.
So how does tonight's result rank for Yes when compared to previous polls from this most No-friendly of firms? Pretty well, actually - it's the third lowest No lead reported by YouGov during the campaign so far, only being beaten by the previous two polls which showed leads of 15 and 14 points respectively. Those numbers are well within the standard margin of error when compared to tonight's poll, so it's perfectly conceivable that nothing has changed, or even that Yes has made further progress. In normal circumstances you'd say the latter possibility is far less likely, but the situation is considerably less clear-cut when you've just had record-breaking highs for Yes reported by both Panelbase and Survation. As recently as the 1st of March, a YouGov poll was published showing a No lead of 18 points - 1 point higher than tonight, and yet at the time that was as good as it had ever been for Yes. It must also never be forgotten that YouGov were showing a No lead of 30 points as recently as last August, meaning that it's still true to say that the gap has essentially halved since then. So we have a pattern that is at least consistent with the possibility of Yes being at an all-time high across all the pollsters (with the trend being masked in this particular YouGov poll by random sampling variation), but obviously we'll have to wait for further evidence to see if that is actually the case.
We've now had four polls from different firms over recent days (I'm excluding TNS-BMRB because the fieldwork for that was much, much earlier), and three of them have shown decreases in the No lead, with only one showing an increase. And it's not only the case that YouGov are contradicting a general trend - the extent of the increase they're suggesting in the No lead is less than the decreases reported by ICM, Panelbase and Survation. The chances that there have been any real world gains for No of late therefore seem vanishingly small - unless of course they happened only over the last few days as a direct result of the absurd reporting of the Lally/Rowling non-stories. I think that's unlikely, but even if it is the case my guess is that it will prove to be a pyrrhic victory for the Abominable No-Men. Our lazy journalists may have fallen hook, line and sinker for the 'Cybernat' nonsense, but they'll get bored with it quickly enough, and any temporary benefit the No camp have cynically squeezed out of the whole thing will melt away.
In another sense, You Gov isn't the outright odd-one-out of the four recent polls. YouGov and ICM may be contradicting each other by showing very different directions of travel, but the common factor with both polls is that they can be seen as reversions to the mean after an unusual finding in the previous poll. By contrast Panelbase and Survation are both showing tiny No leads that are well below those firm's normal ranges. So if we set aside the possibility of a very recent swing to No caused by the Rowling/Lally garbage, that essentially leaves us with two roughly equal possibilities - a) the position has been relatively steady recently, or b) Yes have surged to their highest ever level of support. At least one or two more polls will be required to resolve the uncertainty.
We heard a couple of days ago from someone who took part in the YouGov poll (or at least I assume it was this poll). He mentioned that he was asked for his country of birth. I'll be watching like a hawk to see if those figures are published, because on the one previous occasion that YouGov released that sort of data, it turned out they had far too many English-born people in their sample, and far too few Scottish-born people. If that's a consistent problem for the firm, it could cast doubt on the size of the No leads that they typically report. We saw with the weekend's ICM poll that reweighting to the correct country of birth target figures from the census was sufficient to reduce the No lead by 2.4%.
As soon as I saw Kevin Schofield mention that a YouGov poll was on its way, I had an inkling that it wasn't going to show further movement towards Yes, because I had only just read an astonishingly conceited article on the YouGov website that effectively said : "We're completely ignoring the fact that other major pollsters are showing a virtually tied race. Only our own polls matter, and because we're showing a wider gap, Alex Salmond will be desperate for a game-changer." Back in the real world, there is far more than just one possible scenario for a Yes victory. The first scenario is that Panelbase are the most accurate firm, in which case it doesn't matter if every other pollster continues to show a No lead between now and polling day, and it doesn't matter if the Yes vote in the Poll of Polls never gets any higher than 45% or 46% - all we need is a tiny further swing, and we'll be there. In some ways that would be the most satisfying way of all to win, because it would absolutely stun the London establishment - but they'd have no-one else but themselves to blame for failing to take the Panelbase results seriously enough. A second scenario is that ICM and Survation are closest to the truth, in which case a more middling swing is required - although even then it's still possible that Yes could win after never quite taking the lead in the Poll of Polls. And the third scenario is that the No-friendly pollsters are right, in which case Yes will need a heftier swing and an outright lead in the Poll of Polls - but that won't necessarily require a "game-changer". The SNP pulled off exactly that kind of swing over a short period of time in 2011 without any specific game-changing moment (unless you count Iain Gray taking cover in a sandwich shop).
I've been having a look at the datasets from the ComRes regional poll for the Borders and Dumfries & Galloway. The exact swing to Yes since the previous poll in January is 1.2% (although over on Planet McDougall that somehow constitutes "momentum for No").
English-born respondents make up a whopping 24% of the ComRes sample - I've no idea if that means they've been over-represented, but it certainly goes a long way towards explaining the size of the No lead in the poll. (For comparison, the 2011 census showed that just 9.6% of the Scottish population are English-born.) Among Scottish-born respondents in the Borders and D&G, the Yes vote is a full five points higher than among the full sample.
I must say that I think ITV Border are being a bit thick in the way they're approaching these polls. If they can afford telephone polls of 1000 people in the Borders and D&G, then by definition they can afford Scotland-wide telephone polls of 1000 people. That would tell us far more, and it would also attract much more interest in ITV Border programmes that release details of the polls (ie. Lookaround and Representing Border). But as things stand, it's only STV that are bothering to commission national telephone polls - or at least ones that are intended for public consumption.
The mild disappointment of the YouGov poll hasn't had a huge impact on the trend shown by the Poll of Polls - the last update showed the lowest No lead ever, while tonight's update merely shows the second-lowest No lead ever.
MEAN AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 43.8% (-0.3)
No 56.2% (+0.3)
MEAN AVERAGE (not excluding Don't Knows) :
MEDIAN AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :
(The Poll of Polls is based on a rolling average of the most recent poll from each of the pollsters that have been active in the referendum campaign since September 2013, and that adhere to British Polling Council rules. At present, there are six - YouGov, TNS-BMRB, Survation, Panelbase, Ipsos-Mori and ICM. Whenever a new poll is published, it replaces the last poll from the same company in the sample. Changes in the Poll of Polls are generally glacial in nature due to the fact that only a small portion of the sample is updated each time.)
The median is now being calculated as the mid-point between ICM and TNS-BMRB. Having moved into a more middling ranking with their last couple of polls, YouGov have now reverted to their customary place at the extreme No-friendly end of the spectrum.
The No campaign's lead in the Poll of Polls mean average (not excluding Don't Knows) :
Sep 2013 - 21.6%
Oct 2013 - 18.8%
Nov 2013 - 18.4%
Dec 2013 - 17.0%
Jan 2014 - 14.4%
Feb 2014 - 15.0%
Mar 2014 - 14.2%
Apr 2014 - 12.5%
May 2014 - 11.2%
Jun 2014 - 12.1%
Jun 2014 - 9.9%
Last but not least, many thanks to Philip Jack for giving me to permission to use the graph below, which illustrates the Poll of Polls trend in visual form. It doesn't include the last couple of updates, but it'll give you the general idea!
(Click to enlarge.)
New ComRes poll shows swing to independence in the Borders and Dumfries & Galloway
The political editor of ITV Border has just tweeted the results of a "south of Scotland" poll. It's important to stress that this does not refer to the South of Scotland electoral region, but only to the much smaller area covered by ITV Border - ie. the Borders and Dumfries & Galloway, which between them cover just 5% of the Scottish population, and can reasonably be assumed to be the most anti-independence part of the country.
The rounded headline figures with Don't Knows excluded are Yes 30%, No 70%, which represents a small swing in favour of independence since the January poll when (on the unrounded numbers) Yes were on 28.7% and No were on 71.3%. That does of course assume that the methodology was sufficiently similar this time around to make the two polls comparable - the January poll was conducted by ComRes, using telephone fieldwork.
Is there any way of extrapolating these numbers to get a sense of the national picture? I know that might seem a bit of a redundant exercise given that we've just had several nationwide polls showing significant progress for Yes, but if this does turn out to be a ComRes telephone poll it's of special interest because we've had no ComRes national polls at all, and very few national telephone polls from any firm. The only possible extrapolation method I can think of is to look at the regional differences exhibited in the 1997 devolution referendum, when the Yes vote in the Borders and Dumfries & Galloway was 12.7% lower than the national Yes vote. On the second question about tax-varying powers, the Yes vote was 14% lower than nationally. So if as a Peter Snow-esque "just a bit of fun" exercise we assume that the differential will be exactly the same this time (unlikely), that means this poll would imply a national Yes vote of about 43% or 44% - somewhat higher than suggested by Ipsos-Mori in the most recent nationwide telephone poll.
UPDATE : Judging from the latest post by "Better Together"/"Non Merci", this was indeed another ComRes poll. Curiously, the headline chosen by the No campaign is "Momentum is with the campaign for Scotland to stay in the UK" - which is a rather creative interpretation of a poll that shows a 1% increase in the Yes vote and a 1% decrease in the No vote. Oh, how I'm going to miss my daily fix of McDougall Logic when this is all over...
UPDATE II : There's a new (nationwide) YouGov referendum coming out overnight. This will be the first poll to properly factor in any fallout from the Lally/Rowling nonsense. As always, Twitter Kremlinology might offer the earliest clues as to what the poll shows. I'm afraid Nat-Basher Extraordinaire Kevin Schofield was the first to mention it (although to be fair that may just be because it's in his paper!).
UPDATE III : Judging from the retweets of Schofield's comment by assorted thuggish anti-independence campaign staffers, it's clear that they think they can spin this one in their favour. It's worth bearing in mind, though, that the last YouGov poll in April showed the No lead at an all-time low for the firm of 14 points, so any increase tonight has to be seen in that light. YouGov have consistently been one of the most No-friendly pollsters, and will seemingly be consolidating that status.
More amusingly, it's also worth bearing in mind that the No campaign have until now falsely claimed that the last YouGov poll was in the fact the poll conducted by Progressive Partnership showing a No lead of 20 points - they've been doing that so they could lie through their teeth and pretend that YouGov had shown a six point increase in the lead (in fact both the YouGov and Progressive polls showed a decrease in the No lead). So if tonight's lead falls anywhere between 15 and 19 points, we can sit back and enjoy the spectacle of the No camp doing yet another "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia" pivot, and suddenly discovering that the last comparable YouGov poll was the one showing a 14-point lead, thus allowing them to say that the No lead has increased in this one as well. On Planet McDougall, EVERY poll shows "momentum for No" - it's the law!
Labels: independence referendum, politics, poll
No, Andrew Neil, this "new" poll does not show that Scots are pro-Trident
I didn't see it, but Mick Pork has mentioned on the previous thread that Andrew Neil has been abusing his position as a BBC host to crow about a poll that purports to show that Scots want Trident to stay here. As Neil always takes such sadistic pleasure in taking apart interviewees who don't have a proper understanding of the numbers (and somehow got away with it in a recent interview with Douglas Alexander even though he'd made a catastrophic schoolboy slip-up in his own sums), I wouldn't mind seeing someone do the same to him in respect of this poll. This is what he appears not to have taken account of -
1) It actually shows that the Scottish public do not want Britain to have nuclear weapons at all, by a margin of 46% to 37%. (That makes it uncannily similar to an Ashcroft poll which was also brazenly misreported as showing that Scots were pro-Trident.) It's impossible to argue that the public want Trident to stay when they do not think it should even exist.
2) The question that has generated such excitement among the nuclear weapon loving Brit Nats (Johann Lamont must be so proud) implicitly presupposes that Westminster will be retaining the inhuman weapons against our wishes, and merely poses a practical query about what should happen to them after independence.
3) This is not a full-scale Scottish poll at all, but a small subsample of a Britain-wide poll. It's therefore of limited validity. Even if it had been a full-scale poll, the tiny 4% lead for keeping Trident on the Clyde after independence would have been within the standard margin of error. As it is, the margin of error for a small subsample is incalculable, and it's therefore entirely conceivable that the same question posed to a full-scale, properly weighted Scottish sample would produce the opposite result.
Incidentally, the Herald's reporting of it as a "new poll" is also somewhat misleading - it may have only just been released, but the fieldwork for it concluded last October!
Labels: independence referendum, nuclear weapons, politics
ICM poll : Yes vote at 46.4% after 'undecided leaners' are taken into account
The datasets for yesterday's ICM poll are now up, and just like last month they make for fascinating reading. Most importantly, they show that undecided voters are breaking heavily for Yes -
Which way do you think you are most likely to vote, "Yes" or "No"? (Asked to undecided voters only)
That's a really striking finding, and it's considerably more important than it would have been in earlier ICM polls, because the firm introduced a huge methodological change two months ago that significantly increased the reported number of undecided voters. It's crucial to stress that this can't be taken as proof that undecided voters in general are breaking for Yes - different polls are showing conflicting evidence on that front, and the sample sizes are too small to draw firm conclusions anyway. But a better way of looking at it is that undecided voters who say Yes when pressed are on exactly the same spectrum as the people who say Yes on the original question - it's just a different level of certainty. For some reason Yes leaners were more likely than No leaners to say they were undecided on the original question in this particular poll, and that may just be a freakish occurrence that has helped to suppress the Yes vote on the headline numbers. When 'undecided leaners' are added into the main results (with the hard-core of true undecideds excluded), it's sufficient to increase the Yes vote by 1.2%, and of course to decrease the No vote by the same amount.
Should Scotland be an independent country? (Including undecided leaners, excluding other undecideds)
That's after turnout weighting is applied - yet another extremely recent ICM methodological innovation. Without turnout weighting the Yes vote is 0.2% higher - not a huge difference, but enough to tip the balance on the rounded numbers and make it Yes 47%, No 53%. In the interests of fairness, though, I should point out that turnout weighting is probably a very good idea, and has actually helped the Yes vote slightly on the reported headline numbers (and that was also the case last month).
But the biggest methodological change of all is undoubtedly acting to suppress the reported Yes vote. Starting with the Easter poll, ICM have been massively upweighting respondents who report that they didn't vote in the 2011 Holyrood election. In the case of this poll, 188 real respondents have been upweighted to count as 313 'virtual' respondents. Although that portion of the sample isn't ridiculously No-friendly by any means, it does have a somewhat bigger No lead than the rest of the sample, so the effect of the upweighting is obviously to give No a small boost.
Respondents who recall voting for any of the four major parties in 2011 are naturally weighted down to make way for the non-voters, and it's interesting to note that SNP voters are weighted down by almost exactly the same amount as Labour voters. Not much succour there for the theory that weighting by 2011 vote recall is leading to an artificially "Nat-heavy" sample, and thus increasing the reported Yes vote.
When the poll was published, I pointed out that it would be well worth checking whether ICM had once again under-represented male respondents and over-represented English-born respondents - both errors that have the inevitable effect of suppressing the reported Yes vote. The answer turns out to be "yes", and incredibly the degree of error is almost identical to last month. Just 45.2% of the sample are male, even though the 2011 census showed that 47.9% of the over-16 population are male. And 14.6% of the sample were born in England, even though the census showed that only 9.6% of the over-16 population were born there.
I've reweighted the numbers for the whole sample to the correct target figures for country of birth, and it increases the Yes vote from 45.1% to 46.3% (and of course decreases the No vote from 54.9% to 53.7%). Those figures take no account of undecided leaners or indeed of turnout weighting, but presumably the margin of increase would be in the same ball-park on each measure - so Yes might well be above 47% when undecided leaners are added in. (In fact there's probably enough information in the datasets to attempt that calculation, so if anyone has got three hours to spare...!)
The under-representation of men has a much more marginal effect, but as we saw last month that can sometimes still be enough to tip the balance on the rounded numbers used for publication.
As I've said before, the error on the country of birth is probably caused by 'institutional inertia'. I would imagine ICM are only asking where people were born to judge the extent to which English-born and Scottish-born respondents are diverging, and it hasn't seriously occurred to them to weight by those findings because it's not something they do as a matter of routine. But the gender error is much more baffling, because it must be something that ICM are doing deliberately. Why would they think that there are 10% more women than men in the adult population? Perhaps they reckon there's been a disproportionate influx of female immigrants to Scotland since the census was conducted? And even if that is their reasoning (doubtful), why do they claim to weight by target figures derived from the census? It just doesn't make any sense.
The unrounded Panelbase figures are even better for Yes
Panelbase have got into the rather refreshing habit of releasing the datasets for their Sunday polls on the Sunday itself. With ICM it's not unusual to have to wait several days (although to be fair they were a bit quicker last time). First things first - here are what the Panelbase numbers look like if you only round them to one decimal place...
Yes 48.3% (+2.1)
No 51.7% (-2.1)
Unless we count the Panelbase poll from last summer that used an unusual question sequence, that's the narrowest No lead shown by any pollster in the campaign so far. It even beats the famous Easter Sunday poll from ICM, which had Yes at 48.0% and No at 52.0%. It's also better for Yes than this week's Survation poll by a slightly wider margin than the rounded numbers would make you think - Survation had Yes at 46.6% and No at 53.4%.
And unlike Survation, there's nothing that leaps out at me in the Panelbase datasets that would raise any question marks over the swing to Yes - there hasn't been any radical upweighting of a particularly Yes-friendly group. As is the case in most polls, the No lead is slightly wider on the unweighted numbers, but that mainly happens because pollsters start with too many older and "ABC1" respondents, who have to be scaled back. In this case there were also slightly too many women. But there was no upweighting of respondents who recalled voting SNP in 2011, whereas Labour voters were actually upweighted quite significantly.
Evidence for the remarkable strength of the Yes campaign among men continues to build - in this poll Yes lead by 55.8% to 44.2% with male respondents, after undecideds are excluded. I understand the importance that is attached to closing the gender gap, but given the significance of social proof, I do wonder if there might still be scope for a substantial further swing to Yes among men. It certainly seems that in some male-dominated social circles (especially working-class ones) undecided voters are now more likely to encounter Yes voices than No voices, which must surely have an effect. In other words, I don't find it totally implausible that Yes might win with a gender gap that stays the same or widens further.
One interesting detail, which may just be coincidence, is that there were exactly the same number of respondents - 397 - who said 'Yes' to the referendum question, and who said they "very likely" to vote for independence if they thought there would be another Tory or Tory-led government after next year's UK general election. An additional 61 respondents said they were "quite likely" to vote for independence in those circumstances. So it almost looks as if the 397 respondents are the 'baseload' figure for Yes, with there being an additional potential source of support among anti-Tory voters who currently say they are undecided or voting No. Admittedly, though, some of the 397 drift away (albeit probably only to "quite likely to vote for independence") if they assume that Labour will win the general election.
Pro-independence campaign close the gap to just 7% in dramatic poll from "gold standard" ICM
The second referendum poll of this evening is now out, from the firm that is often regarded as the UK's "gold standard" polling organisation. It shows the No lead almost halving from 12% to 7% -
With Don't Knows excluded, it works out as -
When the datasets are released, the first thing I'll be looking out for is whether Yes were unlucky not to be rounded up to 46%, which of course would also have meant No being rounded down to 54%. A rough calculation suggests that may well have been case. If so, it would be a repeat of the March ICM poll, when Yes missed out on being rounded up to 46% by the tiniest fraction imaginable.
So we've had three polls since Wednesday evening, and every single one has shown Yes closing the gap by a significant degree. It must be conceded now that, by any rational measure, the chances of Scotland becoming an independent country have increased markedly of late. However, it's true that there is a difference between Panelbase and Survation on the one hand, who are both showing the No lead at its lowest point ever, and ICM on the other hand who are showing a result that is within their previous normal range, even though the No lead has slumped since the most recent poll. I'm sure John Curtice will be seizing upon that fact to make the case that we do not yet have absolutely conclusive proof that there has been a renewed momentum towards Yes in recent weeks. But the problem with that argument is that ICM keep changing their methodology, and it's therefore a touch meaningless to talk about a normal range - if they had been using their current methodology all along, it's absolutely impossible to know what they would have been showing in February or March. All we can really say for sure is that they're back to showing an extremely close race, and in that sense they're providing corroboration for Panelbase and Survation.
We can also officially welcome ICM back into the fold of relatively Yes-friendly pollsters. As Calum Findlay pointed out a month ago, in their last poll ICM somehow went at a stroke from being the most Yes-friendly pollster of the lot to being one of the most No-friendly. Indeed, if they hadn't introduced turnout weighting in that poll, they would have showed a Yes vote of just 40% after rounding - exactly the same as Ipsos-Mori reported a couple of weeks ago. That poll just smelt all wrong from start to finish, and although it's possible that it showed an inflated No lead due to an extreme case of margin of error noise, my gut feeling is that it had more to do with the utter folly of experimenting with an introductory question that would have affected respondents' mindsets before they reached the referendum question. Fortunately, we already know that the introductory question has been removed from tonight's poll, so in that sense there's no reason to question the results. However, when the datasets arrive it'll certainly be worth checking whether ICM have once again significantly under-represented men and Scottish-born respondents, and over-represented English-born respondents. If they have, that in itself might be sufficient to explain the remaining small difference between the 45% Yes vote they are reporting, and the 48% Yes vote reported by Panelbase.
Where are we left now in terms of the overall state of play? As always (and this will presumably continue to be the case all the way up to polling day), there is huge uncertainty on what the true numbers on the ground are - the estimates of the Yes vote range from 40% to 48%. It's not even the case that there is a broad consensus being contradicted by one or two outliers - the six polling firms are in fact spaced out reasonably evenly along that range. Because so many polls are reliant on volunteer online panels, it's particularly important to pay attention to the two firms who actually go and seek people out in the 'real world' - and although it's true that both Ipsos-Mori and TNS-BMRB are broadly on the No-friendly end of the spectrum, there's actually an important contradiction between the two. Ipsos-Mori report a Yes vote of 40% regardless of whether a turnout filter is applied, but by complete contrast the turnout filter makes a huge difference to the TNS results. Among those certain to vote, Yes is at 44%, and if you add in 'undecided leaners' the figure is 45% - exactly the same as ICM are reporting tonight.
And as we all know in life, where you are right now is a hell of a lot less important than where you're going. Incredibly, it's now the case that five out of six BPC-affiliated pollsters have shown a decrease in the No lead in their most recent poll - the only exception is TNS-BMRB who showed a static position. Four out of the six firms have shown the No lead at its outright lowest point of the campaign so far in their most recent poll, while a fifth (TNS-BMRB again) showed it at its joint lowest point. Well, we know McDougall's minions can be very creative in serving the forces of darkness, but I think even they'd struggle to reconcile those trends with a repeat of the notorious "Momentum Is With No" graphic!
I've just caught up with John Curtice's analysis of tonight's polls, and although it's very fair and detailed, I find it most interesting for what it doesn't say than for what it does. You can be 99.99% certain that Curtice will already have seen the full datasets for the Yes Scotland-commissioned Panelbase poll, which means that if there had been any funny business with leading wording or with the question sequence he would have mentioned it. No objection is raised at all, meaning that we can regard the 48% figure as robust - Yes really have reached their highest level of support of the campaign so far with Panelbase.
Curtice also reveals that the headline Panelbase figures (ie. not excluding Don't Knows) are -
What's striking about that is just how high the raw Yes vote is - it's 2% higher than in any previous Panelbase poll that didn't use an unusual question sequence.
NO LEAD SLUMPS TO ALL-TIME LOW IN SCOT GOES POP POLL OF POLLS
The last update of the Poll of Polls showed the No lead returning to a position very close to the previous all-time low, so it was always inevitable that two polls showing substantial swings to Yes tonight were going to see a new record being set by a good distance. As it turns out, the swings are just about big enough to take the lead below the psychological 10% threshold on the average that takes account of Don't Knows. As recently as September of last year, the No campaign had an advantage of 21.6% - more than half of that has now been wiped out.
In case you're wondering, ICM are solely responsible for the bigger shift in the median average, which is currently calculated as the mid-point between ICM and YouGov.
Here are the long-term trend figures, with the updates prior to Easter recalculated to exclude the inactive pollster Angus Reid...
It's been a while since I bothered to do an average for online pollsters only, but this somehow seems like quite a good moment to revive the tradition...
MEAN AVERAGE OF ONLINE POLLSTERS (excluding Don't Knows) :
MEAN AVERAGE OF ONLINE POLLSTERS (not excluding Don't Knows) :
MEDIAN AVERAGE OF ONLINE POLLSTERS (excluding Don't Knows) :
Don't forget the Generation Yes fundraiser, which now only has a few hours left to run.
Posted by James Kelly at 12:18 AM 10 comments


Having recorded The Alpine HS band using the Sony 300, martin was hooked and his parents bought him this Webcor as a graduation present. See more about the initial recording with the recorder by clicking here.
One of Webcors last recorders, the CP-2550 Professional. We have wanted to add this unit to the collection for some time. I'd never seen anything except the ad and alway wondered if Webcor went all out on one of their last reel tape recorders. Here's comments with more information from one of the Webcor engineers. Here's some additional pics. Click on the photos for larger versions.
One of the first recorders acquired by Martin.


Car Reliability: Which Vehicles Hold Up Best Over the Long Haul?
Which Vehicles Hold Up Best Over the Long Haul?
Each one of us has a unique perspective when buying a new or used car, truck or SUV. One purchaser has to have a 4x4 truck, another wants a sports car, and another will take pretty much anything—as long as it's yellow. But one important aspect that most of us can agree on is car reliability. We want a vehicle that doesn't break down often and will require minimal repairs for the life of the ride. But often times the importance of reliability is overlooked, instead we focus on performance, luxury, price, cup holder placement—the color yellow—and so on.
Such as: exterior, interior, engine mechanical, engine electrical and so on. One vehicle may be problem-free in one area, yet continually breaks down in another. We should also keep in mind that initial quality and car reliability can be two different things. For example: a sharp looking truck with a high performance engine runs smooth, sounds great and has all the horsepower you could ask for. When the odometer reaches about 30,000 miles (well below normal engine lifespan), the engine blows a head gasket. And the failure is not just a freak of nature, but an engineering defect which has caused the same premature failure on a high number of vehicles with the same design engine.
Of course, no vehicle is perfect, and failures occur to the best of the best. But we want to avoid vehicles which have a history of failures in several areas. Lemons do exist. Those are the cars that are continually in the auto repair shop for a wide range of problems following relatively low mileage. The worst is when it all hits the fan just as the manufacturer's warranty expires. That's why it's important to analyze histories, expert opinions and Car Reliability Ratings Reports on any new or used vehicle you're getting ready to buy. As a matter of fact, a smart consumer should do the same type of research when purchasing any product of significant value.
Check out the ShopTalk articles regarding Car & Truck Reliability.


Easy, self-explanatory method to record make-up work for absent students from Tlsbooks.com.
The printable forms in this set will provide primary grade teachers with an easy, efficient, self-explanatory method of tracking assignments for absent students. The first form is blank and allows you to write in the subject area, due date, assignment, and directions for up to five areas of study. The second form is labeled with the subject areas of math, science, reading, and social studies with a blank space enabling you to include additional coursework. Again, this set includes a space to record the due date, assignment, and directions for your students.
These missed assignment forms are best printed in full color but are almost as eye-catching in black and white! No answer keys are included.
While You Were Out Missing Assignment Log.
• Be the first to provide your comments on this missing assignment log.


We spent our first few months finding dog sitters, dog groomers, babysitters, daycare, where to buy paint, trash cans, ant killer, rugs, Duraflame-like lighters so I could stop using matches to light my stove, birthday candles, kids clothes, light bulbs, lamps, a toaster, a mop, and a vacuum cleaner. Finally, my last and final frontier to step over into the world of the Dutch service sector: a hairdresser. It seems simple, enough, but it is not. My friend who lives in Germany is terrified of getting her hair cut. She admits that she nearly cries through the hour and a half 'trim' as she sees her hair becoming shorter and shorter with each visit. Another friend here in The Netherlands told me a story of highlights-gone-wrong. It took at least 3 tries to fix the disaster and she explained that last years summer's pictures were just all, well, not cute. To sum it up, an international hairdresser is a BIG deal.
My hairdresser at home: he's my college roommate's uncle, but he treats me as if we were family. He went to my college graduation. He took me from brunette to blonde years ago and we've never looked back. He performed miracles for me and my bridesmaids' hair when the Louisiana 100% humidity was upon us on my wedding day. This man has heard countless dramatic stories about work, love, family, and friends as I sit in his chair. This man knows me. He also understands that I default to him. I'm a CPA and I'm okay with that. HE is the hair professional. I sit in his chair and say "Oh, whatever you feel like today, just make me look pretty," and he does.
I peruse the Expat website and find that there's a hairdresser highly recommended in Haarlem, a town outside of Amsterdam. In April, 3 months after my beloved last visit to Uncle Oscar in Dallas (and probably at least a few weeks overdue for my roots), my husband makes me an appointment and we drive the 30 minutes to Haarlem on Good Friday, the kids in the backseat. We're already running late because, well, we have two kids under two and then the GPS tries to direct us down a street that has been blocked off as pedestrian only. I'm starting to stress as we maneuver the car through a market and I realize there's no hope of getting any closer via vehicle. This is it. I kiss him goodbye and with little piece of paper in hand, I jump out of the car while memorizing his verbal directions as the horns honk on the cobblestone road behind us. I high-tail it through the market and pedestrian footpaths and I find it: Toni and Guy, my destination. I open the door, flustered and 15 minutes late. The concrete steel grey interior of the salon is bathed in an industrial light, and every employee is dressed in black. I am SO out of my element. I tell the receptionist my name, apologize for my misunderstanding of the pedestrian-only streets and she leads me to my chair. She kindly asks if I'd like something to drink, perhaps a tea or cappuccino, and I nod a thank you and pick out a tea bag from a large wooden case. I am introduced to the woman who is in charge of the highlights. She's tall with dark flowy hair, dark eyes, and bright red lipstick. She is Dutch and speaks superb English. In her Dutch (direct) way, she tells me that we will have to hurry because I was late. I apologize again and explain the GPS mishap, but she is less impressed than the receptionist, who didn't seem to mind too much. I mention that I had gotten her name off of an Expat message board and she admits that she had a lot of Expat clientele. "Oh yes, I've seen all SORTS of horrible circumstances come through that door. Horrible. It's amazing what some of these Dutch hairdressers will do. But I fix all their problems," she says, with a wave of her hand. "You are used to highlights using foil, correct?" she asks me. I'm still processing the 'horrible circumstances' comment, but manage to mumble a 'yes, foil" in confusion. What are the other options? Reading my mind, she explained that some Dutch hairdressers use a "board." I don't know what that means. And I don't really care to find out. This girl, whether intentional or not, is dishing out a scare tactic, ensuring herself some long-term job security, and I'm buying it hook, line, and sinker. She continues, "What type of shampoo do you use?" I swallow. Oh goodness. This is a trick question that I don't even know enough to be able to lie and give a good answer. At home, I used Toni and Guy, actually. But I haven't seen Toni and Guy products since I've been here, not even in this Toni and Guy salon. I panic and just tell her the truth. "Dove," I mumble. She frowns. "Well, you know, you have to be careful with those products. They can strip away your highlights," she says tactfully. I sip my tea and I miss Oscar. I miss the fact that he knows I'm going to be 10 minutes late for every appointment I make, and will always show up to his salon panicked and apologetic. He doesn't ask me silly guilt-ridden questions about my grooming habits; he'd rather know what the latest gossip is. I miss the fact that I know where his salon is and it doesn't require a 15-minute sprint down cobblestone roads. He gives me a glass of wine when I arrive. After the highlights and the rinse (another girl is in charge of the hair rinsing process), I am introduced to the person in charge of haircutting. I'm starting to feel like a Chipotle burrito or something. But I don't doubt. If this is what it takes to avoid hair-disaster in this country, okay. She's an American and she has a voice of a yoga instructor. I ask her suggestions of what to do when my family visits Paris and she says she could spend days in the Louve, just looking at art. I giggle at this, thinking of spending hours on end at a museum, just breathing in the beauty and swallowing the information around me. It is clear. None of these people have children. I don't even think they know a child. I used to be oblivious, too. But seeing as this is the longest I've been out of my house by myself since I had arrived here, the out-of-my-element-feeling-continues-to-rise. I ponder briefly about the professional career I left in the U.S. but yet how vulnerable I feel now in a strange country without a stroller in tow. I shake myself out of my daze. Her voice is soothing and beautiful, and in the end, she makes my hair look and feel fabulous. I'm pleased with the result and buy a ridiculously expensive bottle of shampoo on my way out.
Two months later, it's time for another visit. V makes me another appointment and this time, I'm going to take the train. I'd taken the train in The Netherlands by myself when we had visited years ago. I've even ridden the train in Paris and Tokyo solo when I worked at AA. Now that we live here, sometimes I feel like a version of myself that's been Xeroxed too many times. You can see the outline and know it used to be sharp and clear, but now, well, it's just a little grey and there's some dust in the picture. V writes down the times for the train and the platform. I walk briskly over to the station and as I approach the top step of platform 5a, the 10:28 train pulls away. That's okay. Geez, it looks as if it's only 10:26, according to the clocks, I wonder if they're running a little early. V had written the next train, just in case, which would still get me to Haarlem with time to spare. I needed to catch the 10:42 train. A train pulled up at 10:38. Oh good, this must be it. I jump on, proud of myself for being proactive and I sit. I brought a book, but I'm too anxious to read it so I just look out the window. I pass through fields of farmland but the peaceful countryside does little to calm my nerves. I have only ridden the train a handful of times since we've been here, and unlike most subways, there are no announcements or maps above the doors for you to track your progress. I start to panic when I see the Kyocera building. This doesn't look right. Finally, finally, a voice comes on and says – Amsterdam Schiphol Airport in both Dutch and English. My heart drops. My mind is thinking and saying things it shouldn't. I took the wrong train. I'm at the freakin' airport! Oh no. This is bad, bad, bad, bad. I exit the doors and am met with crowds upon crowds of people. I rush up the stairs and am met with more crowds of people. I've been doing yoga for a week straight but my chi is no longer centered, rather, it has exploded into a billion pieces and has been scattered all over the universe. It's 11:02 and my appointment is at 11:20. I am SO upset. "Get Celeste a cell phone" had been on our list of Things To Do for months. I had one in the states, but I needed a new phone and plan here. There are a million reasons why we just hadn't gotten one yet, but at that moment they all seemed pretty weak. My husband had written the salon number on my piece of paper, but it was hardly helpful without a phone. I see myself from above, a tiny wandering speck of confusion in this large, industrial type airport. I am trying to find a ticket desk, an information booth, a payphone, anything. There are so many people and nothing is clearly labeled, it takes me forever to find a smidgen of help. I finally find and race over to the train map and although it's completely confusing, I see a small red and white striped line between AMS and Haarlem, complete with a tiny man with a construction hat on. Fabulous. The direct route, which looks like it's the distance of a centimeter, is under construction. I'm panicking because I know the salon is going to call my husband's cell phone. No one is going to know where I am and to top it all off, these Toni and Guy girls are never going to want to see me again and I'm going to have horrible hair for the next two years. I'm about to cry, but the tears just won't come. The Me Party I'd been looking forward to for weeks – the Me Party where my husband gave me some money, kissed me goodbye and told me to have a good time - the Me Party where I have the day to myself, got a fabulous haircut and strolled around the women's clothing stores at my own leisure, was gone. All the attendees for the Me Party had gotten lost. I race around and find an information booth. With my biggest sorority girl smile and confidence, I walk up and ask, "Could you please tell me how to get to Haarlem?" (I'm sure I even added a head nod in there) The printer is having trouble printing my directions. She's humming and tapping on the machine. The people behind me start to get impatient, "Excuse me, may I ask you a question while you're waiting for that to print?" they ask anxiously. Her smile flips upside down. "NO!" She shouts. "NO you may not! You may not ask me a question, I am waiting on HER." It was nice. Thank you, fake flag-girl smile, or rather. . . maybe she just likes doing that to people because she can. Dutch authorities are confusing to me.
I get my directions. I have to connect to get to Haarlem. I'm not scheduled to arrive there until 11:42, and then, it's probably a 10 minute walk from the station to the salon. I race around and discover the long-abandoned pay phone booths. I frantically start shoving Euro coins into the machine and dial the Toni and Guy number. I don't know what I'm doing wrong, but a Dutch recording is playing. Apparently this lady is very pleasantly explaining to me that the stupid phone is just going to eat every coin I feed it while refusing to connect my call. Cha-Ching! The phone eats 3 or 4 Euros before I decide it is pointless. I feel so defeated, alone, and confused. I'm about to give up. I want to go home and be doomed to highlights gone wrong for the next two years, but I don't even know what train to take to give up and go home. I'm not going to stand in the information line again. I decide to take the train to Haarlem and try to save face. I'll walk to the Toni and Guy and apologize. I have the scene in my head: "I'm sorry, I know there's nothing you can do for me today, but I apologize for wasting your time, it was not my intention." And then I just walk out. I don't know if there's a penalty fee for canceling on an appointment. I hope not. But yes. That's what I'm going to do.
I arrived safely and without drama back to Leiden and later that evening, we biked the family over to the shopping district to comparison shop the cell phone options. 6:30 p.m. was hardly the ideal time, but Thursdays are the only evening the shops are open past 5, Saturdays they are a zoo, and Sunday they are closed. As I fed my children their dinner in the stroller, my husband negotiated with the salesmen and we left with a cell phone and plan. The rain started to pour as we attached the stroller to my bike. My perfectly and expensively styled hair-do didn't even last 3 hours. As I pedaled home, squinting through the raindrops, I decided that perhaps, it was time to go back to my natural hair color. I'm looking forward to my visit to Oscar in Dallas during the holidays. I think he can help me. So if you see photos of me in 2013, don't be surprised at the brunette looking back at you. I'm not sure if blondes have more fun in The Netherlands, anyway.
It's an "in-between" Saturday in spring and my family and I are at the train station, enjoying lunch before we head out to the market to purchase our weekly allotment of cheese, bread, fruit, vegetables, and flowers. "In-between", in that, the sun is shining for the first time in what seems like decades, and its radiance is reflected in large, overflowing smiles glowing on everyone around us, which is a stark contrast to the stoic faces we normally encounter at Leiden Centraal. But yet, "in-between", as it's not quite, well, what most people would call, warm. The crisp breeze whips through the station, down the street, and across all alleyways and canals. It is the breeze that accompanies us most days (at least, from what I've experienced so far) here in Leiden. Seeing as we have seagulls swarming our house at all hours of the day at night, squawking, crying, fighting with the crows, and thus, confusing me: "Is that the baby, the toddler, or those ridiculously annoying seagulls, again," I guess that the coastal breezes are to be expected.
I'm anxious to see what the Dutch wear when temperature rises above freezing cold. I am a keen observer of wardrobe. I love the expression of self. It used to be my favorite part of going to work. Coordinating accessories and makeup while experimenting with combining pieces, well, I just had a lot of fun doing it. Attending marketing meetings were a lesson on new wardrobe ideas. So far, here in The Netherlands, my eyes have observed nothing more exciting than wool or weatherproof coats, skinny jeans, leggings, boots, scarves, and a number of other grey, black, and brown garments. I can not wait to embrace my new European style and with this hopeful change in season, my eyes are anxious to observe. Like an A+ student on their first day of class, I have my mental pencil and paper ready. To my shock and surprise, every direction my head turns, my eyes feast on (drumroll, please): black pantyhose. What? Black pantyhose? (Okay. I have a supply of those in my top dresser drawer, I guess?) And what have my Dutch brethren paired these with? Jorts. Jean shorts. (Okay. I don't have those, at least, not since 1996.) Or tiny, tiny, black mini skirts that are almost small enough to be bikini tops. Everyone in the entire station is wearing either Vans or Converse sneakers – of multiple colors. On top, most coordinate the black pantyhose with spring jackets and then finalize the whole ensemble with a light, springy scarf. Oh my. I don't know if I can do this. Actually, I'm pretty sure I cannot. Ah. Sigh.
I've made some other observations around town, most of them involving bicycles. I saw a man air-drumming on his bike the other day. He was jamming to his iPhone headphones, just rat-at-tatting away on his handlebars. I couldn't help myself but smile and reminisce about the opening scene of Office Space. Another time, I was on my way to drop off the recycling at the end of our block and passed a guy trying to tie a wooden dining room chair to the tiny cargo platform on the back of his bike. He attempted all sorts of combinations. I later saw him pedaling down our street, carrying the chair in his left hand, while steering and riding his bike with his right. It was amazing. I've seen people balance Webber barbeque grills on their bikes while pushing them down our street. The Dutch can pedal their bicycles while dogs and suitcases keep pace along side. They hold hands with their lovers and keep a protective hand on their children as they ride down the roads and bike lanes. I saw a Dad show his very young son the importance of watching the light turn green on the bike path. (Ugh! If only I was 4 and not over 30 when I learned such things, life would be so much easier!) I've seen a guy and a girl bicycle around each other, pull their bikes real close, and successfully complete a goodbye kiss without an entangling of pedals, handlebars, or wheels, as one turned left towards the train station and the other went straight. The feat was beautiful and graceful, like watching a couples ice-skating routine. I found it equally romantic and impressive.
Between the fashion, the funny bike moves, and well, we've already discussed the playgroup and shopping observations in prior posts, my husband V, is the member of our household who has the perspective from the Dutch businessman. He too, has observed a number of things that has made him go "hmmmm". (He wanted to be a guest writer, but I told him, don't worry Honey, you just give me your ideas, and I'll make them pretty.) With that said, one of his first phone calls home to me (when I was still in Dallas and he had started his job in Rotterdam), he said, "Have I told you about lunch?" Now, I've experienced a variety of lunches during the ten years I worked in Corporate America. The Public Accounting Lunch: you must go out to-be-part-of-the-team-and-charge-it-to-the-account-lunch, The Internal Audit Lunch: we-actually-LIKE-each-other-let's-go-have-Pho-lunch, The Finance Lunch: I-don't-have-much-to-say-so-I'd-rather-just-eat-in-my-cube-lunch. So, I said, "No, V, you haven't, what is lunch like in your office?" He explained, basically, everyone just works away in their respective offices or cubes until the partner comes by and says "Want to go to lunch? (or rather, "Wil jij iets eten?" in Dutch)" then everyone files down to the corporate cafeteria, grabs a tray, two pieces of bread and the stuff to put on the bread. Choices: Ham. Cheese. OR chocolate sprinkles. (Sidenote: He grew up Dutch, right? He thought chocolate sprinkles were a kid's thing – like Cocoa Puffs. Apparently not so. Good thing we moved here to discover the truth.) Anyhow, all his co-workers are enjoying their thoroughly satisfying cheese OR ham sandwiches (heaven forbid they have both on the same sandwich, and let's just call the authorities if a tomato or lettuce wedge attempts to engage), and then, they stare at him. Not only has he eaten his lunch with his hands, but he has left a bite on his plate. A bite. They are bug-eyed, politely making small talk, and finally someone asks him. "Are you done?" Embarrassed, he scans every plate around him. They are all happy plates. No trace of lunch remains. This is what the Dutch do. They eat everything on their plates, with a knife and fork. (Early on, we once asked for a doggie box at a restaurant, and a flustered waitress brought us an entire roll of commercial-sized foil from the kitchen to pack up our chicken pasta in. Of course! There are no leftovers, ever, in this country.) After lunch, his co-workers take the stairs up to the 16th floor where their office is located, because cycling to work and eating bird food just isn't enough to keep your figure in shape.
So, anyway, the Friends Theme song is playing and I'm smiling. I have two friends in this country. And I've only been here 4 months. I think I'm doing pretty well for a stay-at-home mom who is exhausted and overwhelmed and well, a stay-at-home mom in The Netherlands. I'm used to making and keeping friends at work. 2/3 of my wedding party was friends from work. So, how did I find friends? Well, admittedly, there are playgroups and such around here. We did attend one. Once. There were about 200 people in a space about half the size of an elementary school gym and twice as loud. Kids of all ages and backgrounds were running around and shrieking. The parents around us were unaffected by the chaos and pleasantly sipped their coffees as the newcomers stood with eyes wide open as the scene unfolded around us. This was our first month. My family was still accustomed to the organization of daycare in America. You enter the cozy room, your daughter sits at a table with kids of her own age. One teacher leads the kids in singing grace as another one puts a small plate of food in front of each child. You're dressed in your suit and heels, quietly kiss your child on her head, and slip out the door while mouthing a silent 'thank you' to the instructors. "Playgroup" was not in our vocabulary. My daughter looked stunned. She stood, feet planted, mouth open. Luckily, my husband was with me. We decided to divide and conquer. I took the baby (then, 3-months old) to a very large, but questionably sanitary pillow where other babies were just lying there with their mothers talking. My husband took our daughter to a large, equally questionably sanitary, inflatable trampoline. After an hour or so of making straining-to-hear-you-as-if-I-was-drinking-in-a-loud-noisy-bar-but-I'm-unfortunately-not-small talk with people from around the world, it was time for singing time. The children and parents struggled to make a circle with the chairs as one of the instructors(?)/ lead parents (?)/ zealous volunteers (?) passed out song books and started to lead the choir in their first song. My husband was one of the few men in the room. As the chorus began, an extremely excited man wearing a pink shirt and baby carrier, practically tripped over my daughter as he encouraged his other child to get closer-to-the-action in the middle of the circle. It was clear. This man loved singing time. After we sang the Itsy-Bitsy spider in both English and Dutch, we justified that it would probably be ok to slip out a little early, like a Baylor football game in the 1990s: the event wasn't quite the success we had hoped for. To top it off, I ended up getting a cold for two weeks after the playgroup. Perhaps it came from somewhere else, but on top of everything, it shook me enough to decide not to go back. At least until cold season was over.
So, we found ourselves hanging out at the library. The library here has a cute children's area complete with a Pooh bear, rocking horses, miniature stroller, and tiny shopping cart. They mop the floor every morning and it's relatively quiet and organized. I had been to the library before and heard any number of languages, but on a particular day in early February, my two kids and I entered the children's corner of the library and heard English. American English. I had been here three weeks. I was weary and exhausted and as much as I just wanted to be an ostrich and stick my head in the ground, I knew this was important. "Look Cosette, they're speaking English!" I told her. The girls looked my way. I smiled, we started talking, and I found out they were both from Minnesota. One was named Erin, and she had fabulous hair and boots (later, I found out, which were both obtained in Italy, where her husband is from). The other was named Janelle. She started her bio, like I'm sure she has, so many times before. "I've been here for 10 years. I came to The Netherlands to study, but I just never left." This rang a bell with me. Previous to moving here, I had found a blog on Expatica.com of a woman who lived in Leiden. She had given birth in the country. Her story (for better or worse) made me decide that was not something I was interesting in doing. She loved Amsterdam, but Leiden suited her well, as it too has picturesque canals, but a lack of tourists as she described in her post, Amsterdam vs Leiden. Well, it had me. All signs pointed towards Leiden, and this mysterious blogger justified all the cosmic forces. After the playgroup adventure, my husband had suggested I contact her. "Are you serious? I'm not going to contact her like a ridiculous groupie!" But as she reiterated her bio to me in the children's section of the library, I could not help myself. "Ten years? From Minnesota? You wouldn't happen to be the girl who writes the 'BlondeButBright" blog? Would you?" She threw her head back, slightly embarrassed, and laughed. "Yes. Yes, I am." I was no longer aloof and far, far from cool. I was SO excited. I was a total super-fan and treated her like a celebrity. "OMG! Let me shake your hand!" I exclaimed! She obliged, with a slightly-uncomfortable smile. She probably thought I was crazy. I'm sure she did. But after she had said to please contact her, packed up her son and left the library, Erin admitted that she too had found her blog on-line, had contacted her about giving birth in The Netherlands, and now they were good friends. Wheew. Okay. Erin gave me her number and email address. Happy, but still overwhelmed by just, well, moving here, I contacted her a month later. Ever since then, all three of us have been in touch, meeting up for coffee, hanging out at the library, and anyone who knows me, knows I LOVE hosting parties, and I'm pleased to say I brought one of my favorite traditions to Leiden: Brunch, with my new friends and their families.
Although I'll unfortunately never hear the song on a Dutch radio station due to the decade in which it was written, I am on the same continent of the fabulous Beatles song which resonates, "I get by with a little help from my friends. By with a little help from my friends." In a country where language, logistics, and just the daily way of life is completely foreign, nothing could be truer.
The birds here must be exhausted. I've never lived north of well, Highway 121 in Texas until now. Currently, the sunrises at 5:23 a.m. and sets at 10:00 p.m., and we haven't even hit the equinox. Desperate to understand where in the United States Leiden, The Netherlands is similar to as far as latitude goes, I googled latitude of major North American cities. I found that there is nowhere in the United States that is equivalent to where I am now. Nowhere. At 52 degrees north, the nearest North American city is Moose Jaw, Canada. I don't even know where Moose Jaw, Canada is – but it sounds pretty ridiculously far from civilization. So, there we are. Birds chirping at 3:30 a.m., and our bedroom is not equipped with the black-out curtains which are found in the bedrooms in the front of the house. This was the driving force behind moving our baby from our room into his own room. After he started taking cues to start his day from the sun and birds, without ceremonial ado or a lot of heart-wrenching reflections, he started sleeping in his crib out of practicality. He's still not sleeping through the night, while disheartening, is completely expected. Actually, considering I'm the mother of two sweet babies 18 months apart, I have rarely slept through the night since 2009.
While I still reminisce periodically about 8-hours uninterrupted sleep, in all honesty, like any mother, doctor, or finals-cramming college student, my body has proven to run pretty efficiently by now on broken hours of sleep. The biggest challenge and surprise I've been overcoming for the past few months, is the total physical exhaustion I encounter on a daily basis. Most people recognize the feeling. You're lying in bed the morning after a difficult workout. You pushed your limits at the gym or ran a few miles too many before your body was ready. Maybe you've just started a new routine with an intense trainer, picked up a new (or old sport), or perhaps it's January 2nd and this is the result of a hopeful new resolution. Your eyes open wide and you stare at the ceiling. Your eyelids are the only part of your body which can move without pain at this particular moment. The cause and effect is clear. You knew it was coming, perhaps, not quite as severe, but you take a day or two off and start to feel great. You're stronger, happier, and proud of yourself for accomplishing a small goal. I remember talking with my co-workers, just a few months ago, about how I'd hope to put the kids in daycare at least once a week to give me a break. We discussed the possibilities - perhaps I'd 'work out' or run errands. I laugh at this now. "Work out." I would agree - my ideal day to myself in the U.S. included a fantastic run through the neighborhood and a bubble bath at home. That's what Americans do. We schedule time for such events, whereas in Europe just everyday life is a workout.
Our first few weekend here, we ventured outside our home to explore our new town. The double stroller hadn't arrived from America yet, so with confidence, we loaded the baby in his stroller so he could sleep, and strapped our toddler to my husband's back. We grabbed a steamy cup of coffee from the walk-up service, crossed over picturesque canals, and weaved our way throughout the cobblestone streets. As we navigated through the market vendors, our eyes feasting on wheels of cheese, endless bouquets of tulips, and loaves of freshly baked bread, I prided myself on our resourcefulness of carrying one child. I smiled at the ladies pushing their love-seat sized double strollers down the bricked sidewalks. I marveled as to why no one else had a sling. It seemed pretty handy as we weaved among the stalls and people. It wasn't until we returned home and had repeated the act a couple more times before I realized the truth of all this. Pushing two kids around town (which, inevitably results in at least a 2-mile round trip) is hard work. Carrying one while pushing another is making a difficult task even more unreasonably exhausting and therefore, ridiculous.
So. To expedite the trip around town, we invested in a bike. This is what the Dutch do. We're going to try it. Ah, biking. It still amazes me. As I've mentioned before, everyone here rides a bike. It's no wonder that Americans are overweight, but to the same tone, it's no wonder that Europeans are not. It's not a conscious effort on their part or an unconscious effort our part I don't believe to be healthy or fit - it's just a result of the system. Cycling and walking is built into European society, whereas, in America it's not. Between the enticing bike lanes, the lack of parking, the fact that you will never drive over 10 miles per hour through town, etc. – it's just not the efficient way to go. With that said, cycling myself plus two kids all over town is more challenging than I had expected. For months I had watched mothers zoom by me in their bakfiets as I pushed my strollers. They looked happy and healthy, no trace of strain or exhaustion on their faces. I've never seen a Dutch person gasping for breath. They make biking around town look like an effortless, even pleasurable experience. Of course they do. They've developed and maintained the muscles to do such things since they were 4. I'm not afraid of physical exertion – I was in marching band throughout high school and college (insert funny comment here), and ran a ½ marathon 7 months after my daughter was born, but this is a whole new ballgame. It seemed like such a simple answer – of course I'd bike my kids around town! – We only have one car and I can't get that American-made 2-ton double stroller with the 6 cup holders on the train. But yeah, here I am, winded after every time I take my daughter to school on the other side of town. I'm sure the neighbors have noticed. On the last turn onto our street, with my two precious babies snug and peacefully asleep inside the neon green carrier, I just stop pedaling. I am gasping for breath, my shoulders collapse, and hang my head. I'm happy and tired and thankful that we made it back home again. Jiggity Jig. I can only hope that I will gain the endurance after a few months to prevent the laying-in-bed-eyelids-thing from happening every time.
After walking, pushing, and/or biking the kids around town, I'm at home at last. It's time to relax and unwind, right? Not quite so. From what I've seen, it appears that the Dutch don't build out, they build up. Truth be told, I have 35 stairs inside my house, which basically equates to having a Stairmaster workout, all day long. Don't get me wrong, I love my house with all its charms. But as I explored the Dutch version of Realtor.com last fall, eyeing each home, all of them with at least two or three floors, the consequences of living life in a tri-level home never entered my realm of consideration. The first floor is the living and kitchen areas. The second is the bedrooms and main bath. The third is the guest bedroom, office, bath and laundry area. It's a nice set-up, to be able to separate the three areas of your life with the floors. There are 17 stairs from the first to the 2nd and 18 stairs from the 2nd to the 3rd floors. (Believe me, I know - I use them to practice counting with my 2-year old everyday). The stairs are the width of a dollar bill, so even my petite 5 ½ foot shoe, barely fits. The height is almost the same size, so if you're not careful (especially on the stairs to the third floor) your knees can easily hit the stairs above. After my buns were starting to not-so-much feel like steel, I put a pad of paper and pen at the top of each flight for a week, just to calculate my exertion and I discovered that I averaged climbing and descending the stairs at least 20-25 times a day. Laundry days are even more (which, due to the largish-size of my family and the smallish-size of the washer, results in an every-other day washing event). As if that wasn't enough, while I felt comfortable letting my daughter climb our lovely carpeted, completely railed stairs at home in Texas, there was no way I'd let her ascend the stairs here unattended – as beautiful as they are, there is no railing on the left side of the first flight and there would be nothing to stop her from falling to the tiled floor 8-feet below. So, I've been carrying my two children up and down the stairs for months. "Hold on honey, I'm going to take your brother up first, and then I'll come back and get you." I know it sounds a little ridiculous, but it took me about 3 months to do this effortlessly. I'm not sure which I'm more proud of – the ½ marathon in a little over 2 hours, or being able to carry my kids without gasping for breath. I think it might be a toss up.
This all said, as with everything, it gets better and easier everyday. I finally had enough of carrying my daughter up the stairs and have started to let her "hold Mama's hand!" and climb up (but not down) the stairs. I smiled and began to doubt my first attempt at letting her ascend the stairs as I had a death-grip on her precious hand. I steadied her as her tiny legs climbed the intensely steep staircase. We counted - "Fiiifteeen, Siiiixxteeeeen, and SEVVEEENTEEN! Steps" We cheered her accomplishment and then I had to giggle as she collapsed on the 2nd floor landing out of pure exhaustion. I'm glad it's not just me. At least it made nap time easier for her.
I'm currently reading a fantastic book called Expat: Women's True Tales of Life Abroad. Along with the Paris guidebook, it was also a gift from my husband for Christmas (it was an easy-gift-themed-Christmas). The book has made its way around my house for four months with hopes of being opened and read. It smiled for some time in the guest room with the other books about travel, rested patiently on my bedside table for weeks, and then started incessantly tapping its foot on the coffee table in the living room before I opened it last week. I had to be prepared to laugh. The first few months we were here I just didn't have the perspective or the distance to laugh at anything, yet. (Not consequently, is also why the blog began in April, and not January. I just don't think anyone would want to read what I was really going through and thinking at the beginning in my jet-lagged, sleep-deprived, overwhelmed state. I was intimidated by everything outside my home, and most things inside: the stairs, the washing machine, my children, and the gas stove which requires lighting with a match. You get the idea.) So last week, seeking a literary deviation from the History of Europe book I've been exploring, I decided I was ready to open it. Snuggly settled on our couch, glass of white wine in hand, ESPN America showing a day-time baseball game to entertain my husband, I opened the book after both my children had been put to bed by 9:00 p.m. I was welcomed to an array of colorful, insightful, and eerily relatable short-stories from women across the globe. I couldn't help myself as I laughed hysterically and re-read an essay to my husband about a 27-year old girl who moved to France in the footsteps of her father, who completed the exact same move in reverse to America when he was the same age. She entertainingly illustrated that despite her French roots, knowledge of conversational French, and numerous visits to Paris throughout her childhood, none of these experiences truly prepared her for the reality which was to become, finding a job and living on her own in Paris. "I realized that language fluency and love of a culture, even a passport with Republique Francaise emblazoned in gold, do not make for an intuitive understanding of a place. Real cultural integration lurks quietly in the subtleties, waiting to trip you up when you think you know what you're doing," Christina Henry de Tessan writes. Beautiful and insightful, V and I laughed relating her experiences with our naivety of moving to the country in which he was born and where the majority of his family still remains. We reflected on our struggles thus far, and will continue to have, as we navigate the Dutch culture which could have so nearly become his own, like a simple page turn in a Choose Your Own Adventure novel, had his parents not immigrated during his infancy.
I've been reflecting a lot on my experience here, thus far. It's an interesting challenge as not only have I moved across the world, but my job has completely changed. I never knew life as a stay-at-home mom in the States. I never really knew life with two children in America, either. It's been a challenging transition from all perspectives, and it's difficult to pinpoint with accuracy what the driving force is behind my frustrations as well as my joys. But in reality, it does not matter. We're here, and we're living it, best as we can and every day is an improvement upon the last.
With that said, I was also thinking about some of my status updates on Facebook. I've cooked fried chicken twice and announced it to the world. I've written about my excitement of finding Dr. Pepper at our local Jumbo and after months of fruitless searches for cornmeal in Dutch grocery stores, my surprise and relief of finding some in France. I made a Betty Crocker cake for my daughter's 2nd b-day, after finding the mix and frosting at a small shop in Leiden which specializes in imported goods. Although, not publicized, I have eaten at Burger King more than once. (I haven't even eaten at a BK since I was probably 10 in the U.S., but a lack of Five Guys and an honest attempt at eating a 'local' Dutch hamburger, made me desperate.) Our train station boasts one of three Starbucks in the country and their caramel macchiato is even better here than at home. I won't even get started about the Mad Men Season 1 we bought (which we can watch in English, Dutch, or Flemish, if we choose to do so.) As a self-proclaimed adventurous woman, who prides herself on becoming bored with routine, do I feel a little guilty about all these things? Perhaps. Do I feel like a fraud for not completely embracing my new Dutch culture? At least, a little. And what in the world would explain my obsessive-compulsive-like behavior of trying to track down cornmeal?!? How can I possibly justify myself?
Luckily, the introduction to the book helped me gain a little perspective. "When we travel, we are craving a break from routine, so we seek out the different and exotic at every turn because we know that in a week or two, we will be back in our safe little worlds. But when we move away, the home we've left behind can tug at us in surprising ways. . . Having wanted to take travel to its furthest extreme, we end up coming full circle as we learn to cope with the most mundane tasks in a foreign place. . . Balancing the need for the familiar with our desire for the exotic is at the heart of the expat experience," Christina Henry de Tessan writes. This is fantastic. I love it! This justifies my bike-riding in the rain with my two kids with my jumbo travel mug of coffee tucked into the pocket next to the bike lock. This explains my love of kaas and beschuit for breakfast every morning and fajita cooking at the same time. This clarifies the pre-sets on my internet radio: 99.5 The Wolf country station out of DFW, NPR, and a lovely Paris Jazz station where I find even the French commercials soothing. I can alternate my Burger King Combo meal with the Doner kebab kapsalon special across the street without guilt. And those are the extremes, the opposites. I'm enchanted by the idea of finding the balance between the two. Nowhere is this more apparent than in our home. We were fortunate, as part of the rotation through E&Y, to ship our furniture from the U.S. Anyone who has been to my home knows that I have an eclectic collection of furniture from my grandmother, parents, and some purchases of my own. The baker's rack that spent my pre-childhood displaying pots and pans in a Hemphill Wells department store in Lubbock, my childhood in my Grandmother's kitchen, and my newly married days in my home in Plano, looks fantastic in a Dutch home built 100 years ago, as does all of the beautiful antique furniture we shipped that once belonged to my Grandma. After transporting my daughter's crib, Pottery Barn Kid's rug, and miniature ice cream parlor table and chairs my siblings and I used to play on when we were kids, we fully rounded-out her bedroom with a daybed and wardrobe from Ikea. And I have to say, it looks pretty cute! Newly purchased lamps outfit every room (we didn't bother to ship any of ours due to the wattage conversion requirements). I found an antique dealer in a nearby suburb and complemented my style with a few more endtables, one in which was created from antique crates from a Delft salad dressing company (Delftsche Slaolie) which has since gone out of business. I'm proud to say it is home, with the furniture full of sentimental value and with its three floors and width of 6.7 yards – it's displayed in a style and setting you'd never find in America. It's been fun to decorate and mesh the two cultures.
We'll continue to find the happy medium behind exotic and familiar, as we bike, explore museums, travel to different countries, and cook at home because it's just easier with two kids. In the meantime, my husband came home today with a product proudly displayed on the Dutch shelves as "Nieuw!" With a smile on his face, he handed me a 1000 gram package of "Polenta". There are instructions in seven languages on the package on how to make it, including boiling water and emptying the polenta onto a wooden board, but for my practical purposes, it is cornmeal. Now I just have to hunt down some black-eyed peas.


AfPP welcome their 7,000th member.
AfPP Residential continues its successful run with another sell out event in 2016 - over 300 Delegates and 38 exhibitors attend the University of York.
The Infection Prevention Society and AfPP hold their inaugural joint event - Working Together to Prevent Infection in the Surgical Patient Pathway.
AfPP and the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh hold their inaugural joint event - The Perioperative Practitioner: Advancing Surgical Care.
AfPP celebrate their 50th Anniversary.
Inaugural AfPP Residential event at the University of York.
NAASP (National Association of Assistants in Surgical Practice) merges with AfPP.
AfPP is the founding partner, along with 3M of the 'OneTogether' programme to fight against healthcare acquired infection.
AfPP Academy formed – our dedicated training arm designed to provide the highest quality bespoke clinical education to suit the needs of healthcare providers and medical device companies.
3M Academy (professional development programme) launched, in collaboration with AfPP.
NATN change name to AfPP. In April 2005 NATN changed its name, structures and systems in recognition of the significant changes that were happening in the healthcare sector and the wider perioperative environment. The Association for Perioperative Practice (AfPP) was chosen to accommodate the growing numbers of Operating Department Practitioners and Healthcare Support Workers who were previously not eligible for full membership.
NATN instrumental in establishing the Perioperative Care Collaborative (PCC). The PCC was formed with a clear aim to explore perioperative issues and reach a consensus view on how they should be addressed.
Silver anniversary – 21 years old!
NATN Education and Research Fellowship fund established (ERFF) to provide funding and bursaries for education and volunteer work – still helping practitioners today.
Three members representing NATN attend the first world conference of theatre nurses arranged by AORN.
First NATN Headquarters purchased – 22 Mount Parade, Harrogate.
NATN rented their first office space.
NATN theatre nursing and research fellowship formed.
NATN (National Association of Theatre Nurses) founded by Daisy Ayris MBE, a passionate ambassador for excellence in patient care and forward thinking theatre nurse.
Inaugural meeting held on 30 May 1964, following which 235 members had enrolled.


Our 2010 Road Trip, Part 17 of 17: Outtakes for the Drive Home « Midlife Crisis Crossover!
DAY THREE: Our family and our wonderful guide at Hersheypark, ensnared by one of those photogs that lies in wait at amusement park entrances to herd you together for a pricey photo op.
…and then we came home. But first: one last round of photos from days past, bonus shots from the previous sixteen chapters' worth of vacation fun.
DAY ONE: Puffy clouds greet us upon our return to West Virginia.
DAY THREE: Three of us on the Wild Mouse coaster at Hersheypark.
DAY FOUR: the view from our ferry ride to the Statue of Liberty.
The surface of Upper New York Bay in our ferry's wake.
A nosy bird watching us at lunchtime on Liberty Island, wanting to know if we're gonna finish that.
After we visited Lady Liberty from the New Jersey side, Pennsylvania was happy to have us back.
DAY FIVE: Independence Hall featuring our tour guide Eric at far left.
Among the many historic graves in Christ Church Burial Ground is one James Pickering, who, despite this dignified picture, was a relative nobody.
Cheetah in repose at the spacious Philadelphia Zoo.
DAY SIX: Guard tower and randomly leaning frames at Eastern State Penitentiary.
Eastern State alternate shot of another bi-level cell block.
My turn to pose with the amazing colossal Mac at the Big Mac Museum.
DAY SEVEN: Once more through the upper strip of West Virginia, this time in the opposite direction.
Kudos to this inflatable blue Gorilla, the only new sight that caught our eye in Ohio on the way back.
After much dull coasting through the rest of Pennsylvania, part of West Virginia, and all of big fat Ohio, we returned to Indiana in time for dinner. Anne had hoped for some nice place of unusual stature, but this exhausted and slightly homesick driver aimed for a simple populist Applebee's instead. At least it wasn't McDonald's.
We reached home at 7 p.m. to find our lawn had gone berserk without my constant glaring, our dog missed us so desperately that his fawning nearly clawed Anne to pieces, and our Internet connection had turned emo and disabled itself in some kind of complicated snit fit.
Nevertheless, even if our home wasn't in one piece, I was glad we were, to say nothing of the rental car, which survived the week's harrowing drive without a scratch.
The same couldn't be said for one of our beloved restaurants down the street. Once the Internet was alive and cooperating once again, we learned that on the previous Tuesday an elderly woman tried to park in front of our new Five Guys burger joint and instead ramrodded through the front window.
That night on TV: a Starz! Kids & Family airing of The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, a film about a leader returning home to inventory everything that had gone horribly wrong in his extended absence.
Thus our week concluded after 2,080 miles on the rental car and what felt like $2,920 in turnpike fees alone.