Long after I should have, I have finally got round to collecting up polling for the Scottish Independence Referendum next year on its own page here (though I’ve put the polls as they stand in this post too). This should include all the polls so far that have asked the referendum question since it was set last year (both before and after the Electoral Commission tweaked it!).

As you can see, there isn’t actually any obvious trend in the polling, each company’s figures seem to be roughly steady. The main variation there is actually between Panelbase, who do regular polling for the Sunday Times, and the polling done by Ipsos MORI, TNS BMRB and other companies, with Panelbase tending to show a much tighter race than the others. One can only speculate what the reasons might be. Panelbase take the slightly strange decision of only including people certain to vote in a Scottish Parliament election in their samples for referendum voting intention, which could have an impact. There could also be a mode effect – Panelbase use online fieldwork, MORI conduct interviews by telephone, TNS BRMB use face-to-face polling (a method that has otherwise all but vanished from British political polling). It is no doubt something we will return to closer to the actual referendum.

  Survey End Date Yes No Wouldn’t vote D/K Yes Lead
Panelbase/Sunday Times (1) 16/05/13 36 44 <1 20 -8
Ipsos-MORI/Times (1) 05/05/13 31 59 n/a 10 -28
Ashcroft (1) 02/05/13 30 56 2 11 -26
TNS-BMRB/Herald (1) 02/04/13 30 51 n/a 19 -21
Panelbase/Sunday Times (1) 22/03/13 36 46 0 18 -10
TNS-BMRB/Scottish CND (1) 28/02/13 33 52 n/a 15 -19
Ipsos-MORI/Times (1) 09/02/13 34 55 n/a 11 -21
Angus Reid/Mail on Sunday(1) 01/02/13 32 47 1 20 -15
Panelbase/Sunday Times (2) 22/01/13 34 47 <1 19 -13
Angus Reid/Sunday Express (2) 04/01/13 32 50 3 16 -18
YouGov/DC Thompson (2) 24/10/12 29 55 2 14 -26
Panelbase/Sunday Times (2) 19/10/12 37 45 0 17 -8
Ipsos-MORI/Times (2) 15/10/12 30 58 n/a 12 -28
Panelbase/Sunday Times (2) 10/08/12 35 44 0 21 -9
Panelbase/Sunday Times (2) 17/07/12 36 45 0 20 -9
Ipsos-MORI/Times (2) 14/06/12 35 55 n/a 11 -20
Panelbase/Sunday Times (2) 01/02/12 37 42 <1 21 -5
Ipsos-MORI/Times (2) 29/01/12 39 50 n/a 11 -11

UPDATE: With remarkable timing, the Sun Politics team have put up tonight’s YouGov figures (for Great Britain!) just as I put up a new post. Tonight’s daily poll stands at CON 27%, LAB 38%, LD 10%, UKIP 16%. The Conservative 27% matches their lowest score this Parliament with YouGov (previously seen just after the locals at the start of the month). Usual caveats apply, it may be a blip and be back to normal tomorrow, but coming after that Survation poll at the weekend it could be we are seeing damage from the latest bout of infighting. Keep an eye on it.

542 Responses to “Scottish Referendum Polling”

1 9 10 11
  1. I’m surprised AW hasn’t banned posting on this site for a couple of days.

    Just a handfull of people posting now, the rest have left, and frankely i’m not enjoying the comments either, so i’m off for now.

    Off to the foodbank soon, so back to the masses starving and freezing to death. Maybe politicians should put a pit of efffort into tackling these problems aswell. No wonder Con/Dems poll so badly.

  2. COLIN
    Entirely agree – but, as matters which can or should be acted on by government; and as matters on which the Opposition could make its position clear, as to actions which it would consider when and if in government?
    What are the licence and the constraints within which Muslim authorities or teachers can speak and act? What sanctions are available to government if Muslim authorities or councils do not do all in their power to stop extremists going beyond the law in what they teach or induce, or themselves fail provide backing to the government or to the police in stopping extremist and provocative speech and teachings?
    Relevant here, because your questions will be asked of government and the opposition and will remain on the table.

  3. @Simon

    I read that ‘article’ on climate change. As a scientist working in the field I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. Given it’s gross distortions of known science and it’s complete and utter failure to adhere to the laws of physics, I settled on laughter.

  4. “European Central Bank (ECB) president Mario Draghi has said he sees “encouraging signs of tangible improvements” in the UK economy.”


    From an unusual quarter-but interesting & welcome.

  5. @Colin – I have read the Indy article, and in truth I have some sympathy with your underlying points. As an atheist, I’m very free to see the damage all religions can mete out on people’s minds and societies in general, with the monotheistic varieties seemingly particularly prone to this kind of nonsense.

    I have myself been critical of Islam in the past, but in a UK context, I think much has been done and that opinion has hardened significantly against such radical and violent views, which is why the security services are now receiving a great deal of assistance from ordinary Muslims and the Islamic establishment in the UK.

    My second paragraph is perfectly valid however. It isn’t just Abdullah that failed to act on this – as far as we are aware, no one reported the rants outside Poundland. I would have done, if I heard threats of violence, and I would have expected charges to be brought. So yes, I apportion part of the blame wider than just a single Muslim and his unknown advisers.

    What I feel deeply, deeply uncomfortable about is the fact that we take this critical approach to Islam when such an event happens, but not to other organisations when other acts of violence, some equally grotesque, occur.

    Deaths from politically motivated racist attacks are not uncommon. The UK suffers a bit less of this, but elsewhere in Europe these things are killing many more people than Islamists, and I suspect the same holds true in the UK if we tot up the numbers. There is a trial going on right now in Germany of a white gang member who allegedly killed 9 immigrants, for example. Oklahoma, Norway and elsewhere also tell us that we can’t write these off as somehow of a lesser scale of threat than Islamists.

    Whenever EDL fanatics brutalise an immigrant, perhaps we should call on the CoE or the royal family to do more? Of course that would be nonsense, but it’s too easy to draw direct lines between acts of violence and people who are different to us.

  6. Academic

    @”I think that comment (and much of the rest of it) betrays little understanding of how Islam functions as a religion.”

    That is a perfectly reasonable conclusion, given my words.

    But those words were chosen with care. I used “Church ” with deliberation , because I was hoping that a Muslim ( perhaps RAF ?…forgive me if I have that wrong) might post with the same observation you made.

    I know that there is no central hierarchy like CoE.

    And that is part of the problem.

    But they cannot speak of a global “ummah” and at the same time have no means of expressing a UK wide sense what their faith means-and ensuring that it is not abused by would be murderers in their name.

    It’s a cop out-they have to find a way.

  7. The poll is probably the upper side of MoE for Labour, somewhat on the low side for UKIP and about right for the Cons. However now we have to wait to see if it represents a shift wbile the agenda has changed

    Am I right that with UKIP as a fourth party, it is now more feasible that not the whole poll is an outlier, only the VI for one or two parties?

  8. JOHN

    Thank you.

    I am not willing to think of sanctions on any Church or religion.

    They have a responsibility to ensure their religion is expressed peaceably & does no harm -directly or by proxy.

    No one else can do this for them.

  9. @ Colin

    “They have a responsibility to ensure their religion is expressed peaceably & does no harm -directly or by proxy.”

    It is really the same as saying that the Calvinists are responsible for the Catholics’ expressing Christianity peacefully, etc. To me – it is a bit far fetched.

  10. @Colin

    “Adebolajo was exposed to talks & films by extremists at Greenwich University…………….”

    I thought Peter Tatchell made some telling points on this issue on last night’s Question Time. Being rightly very careful about distinguishing between the mainstream Muslim faith and extreme Islamism, he cited many examples of where universities were providing platforms for proselytisers of extremist versions of Islam to vent their homophobic, misogynous and violent views and letting these arguments go more or less unchallenged. Tatchell said he knew of meetings on university campuses which were divided by gender, with some women being excluded, and he questioned whether these actually contravened our equal opportunity legislation.

    His overall view was that the right approach in a country that valued free speech wasn’t to ban these meetings, unless they were clearly illegal, but to offer up strong and convincing counter-arguments to what the extremists were saying. I couldn’t agree with this more and if the persuasive counter-arguments came from leading members of the Muslim faith, then all the better. It shouldn’t be just down to mainstream Muslim leaders, and all politicians have a role to play here too, but I’m not sure mere ritual denunciations are adequate any more. Coherent, persuasive and charismatic leadership is required to rebut the litany of hate that underpins so much of extreme Islamism.

  11. LASZLO

    I am not aware of Calvinists or Catholics have been preaching the use of violence against others. Nor am I aware that any murders ( at least in recent times !!!) have been committed in the names of those beliefs.

    If either event was apparent I have no doubt that the hierarchy of those Churches would do something about it.

    THe point-as Academic says-is that those religions, unlike the Muslim faith-have a hierarchy through which to impose a universal doctrine.

  12. CB 11

    I agree with you-and Peter Tatchell ( though I didn’t see QT) copmpletely.

    Mere platitudes are useless.

    But Structure is a problem in Islam.

    I don’t know how you do what Tatchell wants unless you can impose a nationwide blueprint of doctrine.

  13. CB11

    :”Tatchell said he knew of meetings on university campuses which were divided by gender, with some women being excluded, and he questioned whether these actually contravened our equal opportunity legislation.”

    I missed that.

    This is obviously very wrong-and must be a matter for the University Authority. Presumably if gender segregation had been refused, the lecturer would have declined to “preach”?

    I am amazed that any Uni allowed that.

  14. NICKP
    Ali Miraj, the author of the Independent article, served as an adviser to the Conservative Foreign Affairs Team from 2001-2003 and as a member of the Conservative Party’s Policy Commission on International and National Security. He is Director of the UK Board of the Abraham Fund Initiatives, a charity based in Israel that fosters co-operation between Jews and Arabs..
    Where and who would you and Alec prefer to start, or do you think that individual Islamic jihadist murderous attacks on the streets of London are a passing fad, and are not subject to influence by the Muslim community in consultation with Government and the Opposition?
    Neither Nigeria, where there have been bloody massacres of Christians in the North in recent months, not Pakistan, are small countries of which we know little. We’ve known them since their birth as independent countries, have had their students at London University in thousands since the ‘fifties, and continue to aid them, and harbour their migrants to this country.
    Colin is right to ask that the Muslim community itself calls to account Islamic fundamentalists who would like that long association to end in hatred and casual bloodshed.
    Anguish, Alec? I think rather than Colin spoke logically, and with a timely and necessary good sense.

  15. @ Colin

    There are many religions without such a structure.

    @ Crossba11

    As far as I know the extremists do accept the doctrine that makes them Muslim (recognising Allah as the only god and Mohamed as his prophet, praying, keeping the Ramadan, paying the poor tax and making the pilgrimage) thus the condemnation cannot really be done on a religious basis. It should really be as citizens or group of citizens.

  16. @ Colin

    If either event was apparent I have no doubt that the hierarchy of those Churches would do something about it.
    Yes, because they moved swiftly to prevent child abuse & molestation; they also speak out strongly against women being exploited & discriminated against…

  17. AMBER

    A point well made-and whilst I might try and draw a distinction between killing & abusing…….I won’t.

    I would just suggest-that whilst the will was sadly lacking-the structure with which to impose it exists.

    I think that is the relevant point -whilst accepting with complete agreement the criticism you make.

  18. Laszlo,

    Thanks for the explanation. “I don’t believe in God, means that there is God (otherwise you cannot make the affirmative)” – I agree that there’s a certain awkwardness introduced when the term “God” is used as a proper noun, but I don’t see that the same problem remains when one says, more carefully, “I don’t believe that there are any deities”, or the much stronger “I believe that there are no deities”. And does the latter claim have a significantly different interpretation than “There are no deities”?

  19. Sorry John but although I ussually support your arguments you are arguing that Islam in the UK is answerable for what some people do in its name, and somehow it is the fault of all Muslims that these nutters attacked the soldier.

    It’s a conflation similar to the “defence expert” and Tory MP who finished his omment on the BBC the other day by saying we should scrap the HumanRights Act and deport “these people”. Except they live here and come from here and there is nowhere to deoprt them.

    There is a difference between engaging islamic authorities to address such radicalisation and demanding that they do something and blaming them for not having prevented it.

    It’s stirring up unpleasant sh*t.

  20. This poll shows LD defections to Labour back to the kind of level where Labour enjoys a 10+% lead.

    There must be worries that come the GE enough of those former LD will turn out to vote Labour in the Con/Lab marginals… rather than a) being enticed back to a differentiated (concievably with a new leader) post-coalition LD party, b) opting for another party such as UKIP or Green, or c) not voting.

    Longer term I worry about the sustainablity of that type of VI make-up. In the latter years of a Labour administration (assuming a majority) the UK government would still be bound by the terms of the UKUSA strategic alliance but with a possible GOP President (Jeb Bush?), while LDs would be clearly demarcated from a likely an even more hardline neocon Tory party in opposition.

  21. @ Colin

    What I am trying to say is: It is not a competition where comparisons of faiths or churches is valid. The churches will not move to resolve these issues. The state & its citizens will be required to find the answers to the questions which you asked. The churches appear to have no real desire to do so.

  22. @ Colin

    I appreciate your 11:30 comment. My expansion was an unnecessary addition because I had not seen your 11:30 at the time I wrote it.

  23. For those who think that the SNP only 2% above Cons in Scotland, please look at the results from 2010:

    Lab 42.0%
    SNP 19.9%
    LD 18.9%
    Con 16.7%

    So in 2010, the SNP were “only” 3% above Cons.

    What a truly nightmarish scenario. But I rather see Hilary in the White House, and the centre left led in Government by a pragmatic and proficient EM, for a long, long time.

    This is a debate between people of like interests, and doesn’t foster anything out there in the big, big world. I simply agree with Colin on this issue, that there is the prospect of continued street violence with extremist Islamic teachings behind it, and that the Islamic community and leaders, should take responsibility for stopping it – I also think this must be done with strong and sustained support from Government, actually along lines which I think a Labour rather than a Tory government would be likely to put in place, for the simple reason that the structrure for such a cooperation and for sustained and active intervention by Muslim leaders appears to have no internal structure, and would not come from a laissez-faire government. It is towards that that I believed Colin’s post was directed.

  25. OZWALD
    Actually, it is keeping the conker in your sock drawer till it is bone-hard that really does it; the polyurethane varnish is more of a magico-mytholigical stunt.
    Have you ever seen the carpet of conkers lying gleaming untouched in the grass under the horse-chestnut trees around the Parc St. Cloud in Paris come Autumn? That’s the trouble with the French. No moral fibre. No wonder the Euro is falling apart.

  26. JOHN PILGRIM Your comment is awaiting moderation


  27. COLIN

    I am not willing to think of sanctions on any Church or religion.

    They have a responsibility to ensure their religion is expressed peaceably & does no harm -directly or by proxy.

    No one else can do this for them.

    Well you can’t have responsibility without power. The only way that “they” (who exactly?) could possibly “ensure” that the followers of a particular religion behaved correctly would be to have some sort of decision and enforcement regime. You would need some sort of heirarchy in each religion to decide how its followers should behave and what they should believe and say. You would need some sort of police force to enforce those standards and courts to decide when they have been broken.

    In other words you are implicitly demanding what would be for Muslims the compulsory enforcement of Shariah Law[1] and for the more hierarchical Christians (such as Anglicans or Roman Catholics) the re-introduction of Church Courts for their particular sects. You would also have to insist on similar structures for other sects, religions and non-believers and punish those not willing to join and stay with any on the approved list. Otherwise you could just switch religions to suit whichever ‘sins’ you were currently committing (down the pub you’re Catholic, smoking dope you’re Rasta).

    Alternatively you could just expect everyone to follow the laws of the land and, when those are broken, for leaders in (rather than of) particular religions to condemn such acts ostensibly made in the name of that particular religion. Which they did in this case.

    [1] Note to any security services monitoring. ‘Colin’ is clearly an undercover Islamic extremist advocating the revival of the Caliphate and you should put him under 24 hour surveillance and possibly preventative detention immediately


    I refer you to the article by Ali Miraj in the Indy today ( link upthread), to CB11’s post & his record of Peter Tatchell’s opinions on extremism in places of learning, and finally to John Pilgrim’s posts here this morning.

    I don’t have anything to add to those, all of which I agree with -and certainly not to your rather silly contribution.

  29. Anthony

    Can you please remove the ludicrous comment on racism, aimed at me by “reg/bnp” on page 9, before I need to take legal advice on it? I found it deeply offensive.



  30. Paul – it is removed.

    My normal course of action after people threaten legal action over comments on the site is to put a pre-moderation on ALL comments mentioning their name, to cover myself.

    Naturally, this also blocks all the comments they make too.

  31. Thanks very much Anthony: I only suggested that I may have to take legal advice as I have never been accused of such a thing before and have no idea of the law on the matter.

    Quite clearly the comments were the responsibility of one person only. I have no idea how they could be seen to logically follow what I felt was a serious, intellectually based attempt to pose the problems that clearly follow from belief based systems which are then subject to wildly different interpretations.

    In the course of my lifetime my experience of religion seems to have gone from the typical vicarage tea party, raising funds for good causes, to daily reports of multiple murders accompanied by claims that “god is great”.

    Its all a bit sad and depressing – and very worrying for the future.


    @” I also think this must be done with strong and sustained support from Government, actually along lines which I think a Labour rather than a Tory government would be likely to put in place, for the simple reason that the structrure for such a cooperation and for sustained and active intervention by Muslim leaders appears to have no internal structure, and would not come from a laissez-faire government.”

    Having just spotted this, I must respond.

    First-thank you for your support today, I appreciated it very much, & was pleased to find common purpose with you.

    I think it unfortunate, however that you choose to introduce party politics in to this topic in the above remark. The subject is best dealt with on an all party, bi-partisan basis & we have seen this operating in the wake of Woolwich, I am pleased & relieved to say.

    So to respond briefly & reluctantly to you :-

    You will not convince me that the previous administration is an advert for the most effective way to combat open , public expression of jihadist propaganda in the name of Islam in this country.

    So far as “laissez-faire” is concerned, there have been two supreme examples that approach to this topic on this thread, and neither of them was expressed by a Conservative supporter.

    Thanks again for your contributions on this subject.

  33. A plane is being escarted to Stanstead by fighter jets – scarey.

  34. escorted I mean because of an ‘incident’ in British airspace. Stanstead is the anti-terrorism airport.

  35. Colin

    I don’t see solutions, just serious problems which wil get deeper.

    The only practical thing I would like to see immediately is the introduction of zero tolerance: a sign declaring that christanity or white people or – say, for example – islam – will “dominate the world” is clearly an example of something that should be banned under current legislation for a whole raft of legal reasons.

  36. PAUL

    I don’t really understand the minutae of current legislation on this topic. One still hears of publicly voiced opinions which seem to me to be inimical to public order / social cohesion etc.Clearly & incredibly, the murderer of the young soldier was an example.

    No doubt it’s all a question of balance with freedom of speech.

    So because the law seems so inexact ( perhaps it has to be) , I really do think that the Muslim Church (1) has to step up & step in to stop evil men preaching violence in it’s name.-and of course explain what the true teaching is.

    But I’m bound to admit that I share your pessimism.

    (1) I don’t know what the correct word is for the collective Muslim religion in UK-perhaps there isn’t one-which is also a problem I think.

  37. COLIN
    Yes, I agreed with your position, and did not accept the argument that a lack of a structured institutional basis of Islam would prevent a more active response from Moslem leaders, not just in words.
    As for my thoughts on which party might offer the support which should come from Government, yes, I wondered if that might be taken as partisan, but it was not meant so. I followed Milleband’s strong statement on language training and related support to better integrate minority immigrant communities into UK society and his intended strengthening of human resources development in “pre-distribution” – vocational training in harness with employment generation – and thought that this would be needed in responding to the immilgration issue by action other than restricting immigration. It was this that was in my mind.

  38. In general I err on the side of mad\bad people will find an excuse to do mad\bad things and that really their religion is neither here nor there.

    The issue I have with Muslim’s is their attitude to woman and women’s rights and I cannot see past that – so every time I feel a bit of sympathy I come against the status of women in the Muslim world.

    We would not tolerate this if it was race but because it is gender we are fine about it. We did not tolerate apartheid but we are happy to treat states in which woman have few rights and are completely second class citizens as equals

  39. sorry bad, bad apostrophe usage

  40. NICK P
    If I may return to the question of what response we might expect from the Muslim community, the following from BBC News today suggests that the division in responses between fundamentalists, pursuing a political agenda, and the wider community is not going to disappear of its own accord. There may, however, be little division between that community and the UK public at large, and a gulf of belief and attitude between them and radical Islamists:
    “then-leader of the now banned al-Muhajiroun organisation, Anjem Choudary,……..appeared on Newsnight on Thursday and said Mr Adebolajo had made comments that “I think not many Muslims can disagree with”.
    The radical Islamist preacher said he was “shocked” by what had happened. He also said: “One man killed in the street does not equate to the hundreds and thousands and millions, in fact, who’ve been slaughtered by the British and American foreign policy.”
    “Meanwhile, thousands of members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community are expected to gather in London to offer prayers for the dead soldier and his family and to “express solidarity against extremism”.

    “National president Rafiq Hayat said: “We hope that the perpetrators of this crime, that is based on a twisted and warped ideology, are brought to justice.”

  41. couper2802

    Sorry to keep banging on but there is far too much “respect” for religions which show little respect for anyone or anything themselves. This does not occur in other fields and is, to a large extent, probably based on fear.

    Religion will be the trojan horse that destroys the world the way we are going.

  42. ‘The issue I have with Muslim’s is their attitude to woman and women’s rights’

    I assume therefore you totally oppose the Catholic Church and all Orthodox Churches as well?

1 9 10 11