As well as the YouGov and Opinium national polls, there were also two Scottish referendum polls. Regular readers will recall that ICM’s Scottish poll a week ago showed an interesting narrowing in the race, so the question is whether this will be repeated elsewhere.

Survation’s first referendum poll in the Mail on Sunday had topline figures of YES 32%, NO 52% and don’t know 16%, very similar to the recent YouGov and Ipsos-MORI polls. Given it’s Survation’s first Scottish referendum poll we obviously don’t have any changes from last time.

More interesting are the figures from TNS-BMRB which have YES on 29% (up 2 points since December), NO on 41% (unchanged). The change is small in isolation, but looking at the broader trend from TNS there does appear to be a gradual increase in Yes support. In August they has Yes on 25%, October on 25%, November 26%, December 27%, now 29%.


232 Responses to “New TNS-BMRB and Survation Scottish polls”

1 3 4 5
  1. I see Holyrood Magazine has sacked Galloway as a columnist.

    http://www.holyrood.com/2012/08/george-galloway-statement-from-the-editor/

    Report comment

  2. @STATGEEK

    “Partisanship is brewing from all directions on this issue and it won’t go away any time in the next seven months. I refuse to get to this level in this place. It’s against site rules.

    If you are going to debate with others, I suggest you don’t take the POV that somehow one sides owes the other side a debt. If that’s your intention, all the best with those debates.

    As a proponent of having the right to decide (either way) on my future, but with no certain vote cast as yet, these debates are useful. They bring out the best and worst in people, and dare I say it, they give an insight as to how people really see people. If there’s a Yes /No scale the weight tipped 2 notches to the Yes. One for the finance and one for the reaction to being advised that a union should be exactly that. ‘A wonderful collaboration’ you called it.

    Why not? It is so impossible, or is the reality that the two nations can’t exist together without one having control over the other?

    Enjoyed my evening so far.”

    ———–

    Lol, nice try Statty. You’ve resorted to throwing around the partisan barb a fair bit lately, but it’s an ad hominem and you need to be sqeeky clean yourself if you are gonna do it. Personally I consider such ad hominems an irrelevance anyway. To me, if someone is right, it matters not if they are partisan or not. if they make a valid point, it’s a valid point regardless of their motives.

    To give a simple example: in my early days here, Colin once corrected me on some UK/EU trade figures. Do I care if he’s partisan or not? No, he was right so I ceded that point.

    Then you progress to mischaracterising my argument as being a case of one side owing the other a debt, and then claim it’s all tipping you towards independence. Well just speaking personally, you’ve always come across to me as a closet “yes” man anyway, but it’s another irrelevance. Whether you choose to support Independence or not is an irrelevance to me, because I am not campaigning for or against. I’m just interested in getting to the bottom of things.

    I can see telling arguments for and against… from the info I have so far, it seems quite tricky to me to come down firmly on one side or another. For example, one can see wanting to be free of the Westminster yoke etc., but there are on the other hand some rather awkward practicalities…

    Your attempt to mischaracterize my point about “collaboration” also doesn’t work. You are introducing another straw man. A motherhood-and-apple-pie plea that surely two nations should be able to work together. Well, it’s a nice ideal: who in an ideal world wouldn’t wish for that?

    But it is yet another dodge around the mucky real world that I was getting to grips with. A real world in which this collaboration involves taking the oil, then wanting us to create a risky shared currency mechanism, only perhaps to find you are gonna leave for the Euro anyway.

    Now, that doesn’t sound quite so wonderful in the “real union” stakes, and of course, it’s quite difficult to deal with that reality so instead we get all this noise, about partisanship, mischaracterisations, straw men abound etc.

    I’m glad your evening is going well. Mine’s been a bit “meh” to be honest…

    Report comment

  3. “Lol, nice try Statty. You’ve resorted to throwing around the partisan barb a fair bit lately”

    If folk keep posting in partisan fashion, I’ll keep using it. Stick to the site rules more, and I’ll shut up.

    You were trying to say that Scotland was ‘taking’ it’s own oil, as if it somehow shouldn’t. Then Scotland shouldn’t try to get the best deal for itself in any or every way.

    If Scotland wanted out, could it lay claim to the fracking areas of England? Should it? Why is the reverse such a problem then?

    I’m generally a realist, but I don’t let that stop me from being an optimist, while your argument was based on ‘they won’t get along nicely’. Sometimes they will and sometimes they won’t. Just like street neighbours. No big deal.

    Mis-characterisation and straw men?

    Have you followed the BT arguments over the past 2-3 years? Please.

    Report comment

  4. @Statgeek

    You’re doing it again. Misrepresenting. I don’t have a problem with Scotland having the oil. I didn’t mention it because I thought they shouldn’t have it, I mentioned it as being at odds with the idea that rUK should see it all as a wonderful collaboration from which they will inevitably benefit. As with the shared currency thing.

    Report comment

  5. @Oldnat

    “That seems especially likely in this case, since the fields involved are coming to the end of their lives.”

    Perhaps. Given that Scotland has laid no claim to waters that would obviously be English, but I have heard several instances (all on-line, so mostly trolling (not referring to Pete B)) of this line being extended North East to Dundee, Aberdeen and so on. It’s such a ludicrous suggestion.

    I would rather there is no scope for future disagreement, and both sides take their chances with the luck of what happenes in their own area. There might be future fishing or renewable energy, to name two possibilities.

    That will prove interesting in the future, when fish learn that the wind farm areas are safer than open areas.

    The funny thing is Oldnat, contrary to what readers might think, I’m not even pro-independence. I just want a fair fight before the vote and a fair result if it happens. My vote won’t change the outcome.

    Report comment

  6. @Statgeek

    “I’m generally a realist, but I don’t let that stop me from being an optimist, while your argument was based on ‘they won’t get along nicely’. Sometimes they will and sometimes they won’t. Just like street neighbours. No big deal.”

    ———

    Nope, yet another mischaracterisation. My argument was based on the shared currency thing having issues. Which you are studiously avoiding while inventing other stuff to have a go at instead.

    Report comment

  7. I get a bit impatient with all the
    ‘they need to tell what will happen with …X”
    “How do they propose…X.”

    The question is not about ‘they’ it is about ‘us’ the Scottish people. Do we believe we would do better as an independent nation? Do we believe we are capable of running our own affairs? No one is going to tell us what to do post-independence – that is the point of independence – the aliances we form, the currency we use, will be our decision.

    Report comment

  8. Although I am instinctive por-Union, I’ve got to reiterate that the currency thing is a wee red herring.

    If the Scots vote for independence their fiscal policy will be partly (mostly?) in England while they remain part of a shared pound. But having voted for independence, at some time in the future they can change that, if it suits them, and go with the Euro or the MacPoond or whatever they want.

    So they will choose to be bound to Westminster but can dissolve those ties in the future, if for instance Gove or IDS became PM.

    Report comment

  9. “But having voted for independence, at some time in the future they can change that, if it suits them, and go with the Euro or the MacPoond or whatever they want.”

    And that’s exactly why the rUK won’t countenance a currency union; the problems of being in an agreement with an unreliable partner.

    “So they will choose to be bound to Westminster but can dissolve those ties in the future, if for instance Gove or IDS became PM.”

    I’m no fan of the tories, but this reads as if Scotland, being unable to wag the dog within the union, wants independence so that it can try to wag the dog as a separate country. This is a further reason that the rUK will not countenance a currency union.

    Report comment

  10. I don’t see the logic MissG.

    Are you saying the est of the UK won’t let Scotland share the pound on the grounds that they might get their own currency one day n the future?

    If that’s the case, why are they letting them vote on independence? That creates exactly the same situation, does it not?

    Report comment

  11. @NickP

    You’re possibly not seeing the logic because you are taking issue with the wrong thing. She didn’t take issue with Scotland having its own currency, she quite explicitly took issue with the currency UNION, and our potentially getting messed about in the process.

    And sure, it may all turn out to be a red herring, IF nothing screws up. But that’s not a given with shared currencies, and there even seems to be a bit of a vague on the EU thing…

    Report comment

  12. Thing is, if Scotland vote for independence they are already sharing the pound and barring acts of madness they will remain so until other arrangements are made.

    Report comment

  13. “If that’s the case, why are they letting them vote on independence? That creates exactly the same situation, does it not?”
    __________

    I think with a comment like that even many unionists in Scotland would have the hackles up.

    Report comment

  14. BARNEY

    On the issue of CyberNats. So what you are suggesting is that people like Carfrew and Alec and NICKP can have an opinion on independence (which is their right and should be encouraged) but people who dare to question their logic are labelled cybernats?

    Old Scottish Labour at its best.

    Report comment

  15. @NICKP

    “Thing is, if Scotland vote for independence they are already sharing the pound and barring acts of madness they will remain so until other arrangements are made.”

    ———–

    Arrangements will have to be made, even I they share automatically share pound, Nick. Hence all the discussion about deficit limits, interest rates, etc.

    Report comment

  16. @Allan Christie

    “…but people who dare to question their logic are labelled cybernats?”

    ———-

    If only they would question the logic!! One longs for them to question the logic, Allan. They will question many, many things, except the point at issue, what one actually said…

    Report comment

  17. CARFREW

    I’m not taking sides and to be fair yourself Alec, NICKP, OLDNAT, STATGEEK, PeterCairns and a few others have put up some really good arguments on this thread and passions have run high but no nasty comments or personal (well ignoring some of the tongue in cheek comments) have been chucked at anyone but Barney still comes out with this stupid and offensive Cybernat dross.

    I don’t know if you live in Scotland or not but as soon as someone dares to questions Labour they are ladled as a cybernat.

    Maybe if the media was less biased we would see less of the so called cybernats.

    Report comment

  18. Allan

    Agree about Barney. He is one of my local councillors in Aberdeen. My earlier question about effects on core voters about Lab/Tory alliances on councils was a bit tongue in cheek as I was a solid Labour voter south of the border, a tactical voter north of the border for SNP , Labour and Green depending on the election. Since the Lab/Tory alliance and Labour setting aside the result of a local referendum in Aberdeen I am now solid SNP with a tinge of Green.

    Report comment

  19. allan christie

    ““If that’s the case, why are they letting them vote on independence? That creates exactly the same situation, does it not?”

    “I think with a comment like that even many unionists in Scotland would have the hackles up.”

    I was responding to poster who said that the BoE would not allow an independent Scotland to share the pound. But, having allowed a vote for independence, a Yes vote will create that situation by default…i.e. an independent Scotland that uses the pound. We can hardly say, “you must stop using it RIGHT NOW!!!”

    Report comment

  20. HIRETON

    If Barney is a local councillor and I have no reason to doubt you then the criteria for becoming a councillor must had been lowered by a great deal.

    The Tory/Labour alliance in Aberdeen is quite common around Scotland these days but I see it from a slightly different angle and wonder why on earth any Tory would want to get into bed with Scottish Labour.

    I voted SNP at the last election because like many other people I found it was a breath of fresh air from the old grievance politics of Scottish Labour.

    At UK level I would say I’m more inclined to favour the Tories but I really don’t know if my mind is being warped by Scottish Labour who have gone right down hill over the past 7 years.

    Report comment

  21. NICKP

    My apologies and I should had read a few more comments before I posted mine.

    Why are Labour posters from South of the border more tolerable from those north of the border?

    Report comment

  22. Allan,

    “Why are Labour posters from South of the border more tolerable from those north of the border?”

    I suspect it ‘s because they aren’t in a fight for their lives!

    If Scotland votes “Yes” forty Labour MP’s have to find new jobs and the forty most likely ones belong to Labour MSP’s!

    Peter.

    Report comment

  23. PETER

    I’m sure they will find a job soon enough in the Moscow State Circus.

    Clowns. ;-)

    Report comment

  24. “You’re possibly not seeing the logic because you are taking issue with the wrong thing. She didn’t take issue with Scotland having its own currency, she quite explicitly took issue with the currency UNION, and our potentially getting messed about in the process.”

    Absolutely. I have no problem with Scotland having it’s own currency, and nobody can stop Scotland from using the pound outwith a currency union in the interim, or forever; whatever Scotland wants, really. I do have issue with Scotland promising that it can control the fiscal management of the pound by rUK to it’s advantage, and I strongly suspect that rUK will see no advantage in being in a currency union with Scotland specifically because of the effect of an unreliable partner on the markets.

    I think the pro-secessionists are really holding up a big fat lie to the electorate when they say that Scotland can choose the conditions upon which it will use the pound.

    If I were a Scottish voter, I would be asking Salmond to make public at least what he thinks will happen if Scotland has to use the pound outside a currency union.

    Report comment

  25. On the currency union note; after Ladbroke’s widely circulated statement that it would accept bets on a currency union at 1:100 and not a currency union at 50:1 or similar, I went looking for the market so that I could place a tenner on the not a currency union option – an easy 500 quid, should the yes vote prevail, I thought.

    The market doesn’t exist. It rather looks like Scotland used the ceaselessly retweeting habits of the online supporters of Independence to get itself a bit of free publicity.

    Report comment

  26. ” It rather looks like Scotland used the ceaselessly retweeting habits of the online supporters of Independence to get itself a bit of free publicity”

    This should read “It rather looks like Ladbrokes … ” Apologies. Stupid fingers.

    Report comment

  27. MissGlenghis

    Serves you right for yielding to the temptations of gambling. :-)

    Report comment

  28. That January YG poll is somewhat weird. It shows the overall Yes/No vote as the same as December, but only due to a significant shift from No to Yes among Lab & LD supporters, matched by an equivalent shift from Yes to No among SNP supporters!

    Seems like a poll to be parked in the “interesting, but distinctly odd” pile.

    Report comment

  29. ALLAN CHRISTIE

    Barney is not only a councillor he is Leader of Aberdeen City Council.

    Report comment

  30. HIRETON

    Poor people of Aberdeen. Maybe he should spend more time addressing peoples needs rather than calling members of the public cybernats.

    From what I gather I think the Labour led council’s days are numbered. Huge discontent over the town centre project being pulled by idiots in the council. .

    Report comment

  31. Allan Christie

    Barney should turn his attention to the cybermusketeers in GCHQ!

    http://rt.com/news/gchq-ddos-attacks-anonymous-670/

    Report comment

  32. Hireton:

    I have to disagree with your comments on Barney Crockett, being that I have long lived on the outskirts of Aberdeen.

    It is a distortion to say that turning down a scheme supported only 52% to 48% was “the rejection of a referendum”, especially since the scheme being voted on for the Union Terrace Gardens was NOT the one preferred by the public when six schemes were put to the vote prior to the referendum..

    And tens of thousands of us living just outside Aberdeen were not allowed to vote by the SNP/LibDem City Council because it was well known by them that extending the franchise to the shire would cause the SNP scheme to be voted down.

    Report comment

1 3 4 5