A new YouGov poll of Scottish opinion for the Telegraph has, for what is apparently (according to the SNP and the Telegraph) the first time, the sNP ahead of Labour in Westminster voting intentions. The topline voting intention figures are CON 20%, LAB 29%, LDEM 14%, SNP 33%.

We are used to seeing voting intention polls for the Scottish Parliament showing the SNP ahead of Labour, but the SNP tend to do better in Holyrood elections than in Westminster ones. These figures – if repeated at an actual general election – would represent a massive switch in support. On a uniform swing it would produce 31 seats for Labour (down 10), 14 seats for the SNP (up 8), 10 for the Lib Dems (down 1) and 4 for the Conservatives.

Asked about voting intention in a referendum on independence, in a question using the referendum wording, 36% said they would vote yes, 48% no. This is a slight narrowing of the gap since the last time I can find YouGov asking the actual referendum question, back in April 2007.

UPDATE: A coveted gold star award for atrocious media reporting of polls – the Guardian reports a “Blow for Labour as poll gives SNP four-point lead in Glasgow East byelection”. No, it doesn’t. It’s the same poll as this one, and the question asked people across the whole of Scotland who they would like to see win Glasgow East, not people actually in Glasgow East who they would vote for. The Guardian’s article is actually correct – it’s just the headline that’s wholly misleading.


54 Responses to “SNP overtake Labour in Westminster support”

1 2
  1. Personally, I am in favour of British withdrawal from the EU. Then we could adopt policies that would hopefully rebuild Scotland’s fishing industry and those in the other parts of the United Kingdom as well as some other industries. Britain hasn’t really gained economically from being a member of the EU. Indeed, to take one example, the last Tory government wasted £67 billion pounds during our ERM membership through direct costs and also the support given in benefits as unemployment went up by about a million.

  2. zx,
    exactly – that argument is a non-sequitur.

    Peter,
    you are shifting your argument. Firstly you professed to desire impact, after I highlighted how such negativity is meaningless posturing you attempt to appropriate my counterargument.

    Do you think Danes pat themselves on the back for exercising a veto? Or do you think they’d prefer to have found a solution which benefits them more?

    What you are arguing for is political expediency at the expense of positive solutions – so stop confusing real and relative terms if you don’t want to look like an overly partisan fool.

    Personally I don’t think Scotland should get a better deal that states of comparable sizes, only an equal deal. Nor do I think you can show how Scotland wouldn’t have less influence as a result of secession.

    Keep conjecturing and you’ll keep exposing your inferiority complex.

  3. thomas,

    “exactly – that argument is a non-sequitur.”

    Indeed, it is a non-sequitur to suggest that a Scottish Prime Minister will deliver more for Scotland, but that was exactly your argument.

    That point aside, whether or not England and Scotland both get a raw deal doesn’t mean that Scotland shouldn’t try to get a better deal through independence. There is no shame in trying to improve your lot, after all!

1 2