YouGov have a new Scottish poll in yesterday and today’s Times. Topline voting intention figures for Holyrood are CON 25%, LAB 15%, LDEM 6%, SNP 48% for the constituency vote; CON 24%, LAB 14%, LDEM 6%, SNP 39%, GRN 11% for the regional vote. The SNP obviously remain dominant, but the Conservatives are now in a very clear second place. Since the referendum Scottish voting behaviour appears to have been increasingly based on independence vs unionism – the SNP have recieved the overwhelming support of those who voted Yes back in 2014 (85% of them would give their constituency vote to the SNP in an election tomorrow). The Conservatives – the most unabashedly unionist of the Scottish parties – increasingly seem to get the largest share of those who voted NO. They are probably also helped by Ruth Davidson’s continuing popularity and that fact that they are the largest opposition party in Holyrood, so are in some sense the natural home for those opposed to the SNP government.

What it is probably isn’t is a continuation of Theresa May’s honeymoon. While May’s ratings are still very high in GB polling they’ve started to turn in this Scottish poll. 40% now think May is doing badly as PM (up from 22%), only 35% well (unchanged).

On the other leaders, Nicola Sturgeon’s ratings are down from the Summer, but still positive. 50% think she is doing well, 39% badly, a net rating of plus 11 compared to plus 20 in August. Ruth Davidson’s ratings continue to far outstrip her party – 49% think she is doing well, 24% badly. Looking at the crossbreaks it’s clear that there are some SNP supporters and a majority of Labour supporters who can think that Davidson is doing a good job without being tempted to actually vote for her party.

Moving onto Scottish independence there is still no sign of any post-EU Ref movement in favour of independence. Asked how they’d vote in a referendum tomorrow 44% would vote YES to Scottish independence, 56% would vote NO. While the change since the summer is not in itself significant, for the record it’s the first time since the IndyRef that YouGov have shown a larger lead for NO than at the referendum itself. I think we can now be confident that the EU referendum result in itself has not lead to any increase in support for Scottish Independence. When the details of Brexit start to become clear that may change of course, but only time can tell us that – the mere threat of Brexit has not been enough to make Scotland want out.

On the subject of Brexit, Scots are evenly split over whether they would support Scotland seeking to remain within the European Union if Britain as a whole leaves – 42% would support attempting to do so, 41% of people would be opposed. The majority think any such attempt would be unlikely to succeed anyway (or at least, would be unlikely to work unless Scottish independence has been achieved). 62% think it would probably not be possible, only 22% think it would be.

Full tabs are here.

162 Responses to “YouGov Scottish polling”

1 2 3 4
  1. CMJ
    If that’s true then they’re just as bad as the rest of them. Parties should stand for their own principles and not do cosy deals with each other. It stinks.


    “The national poll for the Conservatives might well hide the issues they face in keeping the seats they won from the Lib Dems. Which could well negate the gains.”

    Hmmm, not sure. In a GE the turnout would be much higher and the zimmer frame brigade would be out in force to help the Tories.

  3. It will be interesting to see if a by-election win can be alloyed with the recent slight improvement in LD polling fortunes to create a bit of a roll for them.

    Although we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that their current polling is still in the same ball park as their 2015 debacle.

  4. The way to PR is via a single issue referendum in my view.

    I would vote for any party with a serious chance of winning a GE, if they were offering PR for one election only.

    I don’t think the Lib Dems can win a GE, so are unlikely to qualify for my vote.

    I don’t care about a seat in a coalition. That’s window dressing.

  5. @Neil A

    I mean in demographics, not vote share. There’s a lot more places *demographically* similar to Richmond. There’s even some ‘safe’ conservative seats that are. What’s changed is that the Conservative party are now the party of Brexit. This will certainly have changed the demographics of Conservative Support. They currently gain on a national poll… But we don’t know what the constituency levels look like, and this dramatic change is going to affect them.

  6. CMJ
    “…if they were offering PR for one election only.”

    I’m not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying that they would revert to FPTP in subsequent elections?

  7. No, I’m missing a comma.

    I mean I would vote for any party for one election only, if they introduced PR.

  8. CMJ

    “The way to PR is via a single issue referendum in my view.”

    Compare that view with how PR was brought in for Scotland, Wales, & NI. No referendum, just a decision (obviously mainly by MPs from England) that it would happen that way.

    The introduction of STV for local elections in Scotland was the result of a deal between the two parties in the then Scottish Executive.

    Why are some folk in England so reluctant to accept the right of (what is arguably more “their” Parliament than “ours”) to take the decisions on the mechanism of how parliamentary democracy works?

    Where was the referendum on extending the franchise to 18 year olds (or women)?

    Why no referendum on extending the vote to 16-17 year olds? (Scotland just did it – without any messing around.

  9. @Jayblanc

    Indeed. Some of the 48% were conservative voters and are increasingly unhappy with what they are seeing. They are looking for a new political home.

    The funny thing about national polls is they only seem to change after a budget or by election.

    Look at this graph

    Labour voters unhappy about the Iraq war. But the national polls didn’t show that until months later a real vote in a by election.

    And then look at how the polls change just before an election. Indeed look at what happened here, the last “poll” a few weeks ago had Zac winning a landslide!

  10. @Oldnat

    I wish our Government would bring in PR without a Referendum. Sadly, the blue team will never do that.

    The next best way for me would be a Referendum.

    The ‘Progressive Alliance’ is the least likely path in my view, as it excludes UKIP.

  11. CMJ
    Thanks, that’s what I hoped you meant. PR is one of UKIP’s policies, though they are unlikely to win the next GE.

    I used to be opposed to PR, but various versions of it seem to work quite well in various elections such as Scotland, EU etc. At a time when there seem to be increasing political rifts, perhaps PR is required because it would force parties to work together to some extent.

  12. CMJ

    “I wish our Government would bring in PR without a Referendum. Sadly, the blue team will never do that.”

    But Labour didn’t do it for England either, while they were delivering it elsewhere in the UK.

    The UK LDs couldn’t be arsed to put that as a condition for leaping into the Tory marital bed either.

    I don’t think it’s anything to do with which colour of party is in power (or influences it) at Westminster. None of them have any wish to change the way that England votes – possibly because they all just want to cling on to their own safe seats and damn the country?

  13. I’m confused (so no change I hear people say)

    UKIP have no candidate at Richmond, but a spokesperson is on the BBC broadcast,

    There are no candidates at Richmond from the Greens (North or South), SNP. Plaid, DUP, UUP, SDLP, etc either.

    I see from Twitter that Dimblebum has Farage on QT next week too.

    Are UKIP the creation of the BBC – or have they simply facilitated their delivery of their chosen message?

  14. Sky news

    data crunchers:
    “there has been a structural collapse in people who voted Conservative and remain”

    Now why didn’t the polls pick that up? Why did we have to wait for a real election?

  15. Time for polls to start weighting by referendum vote.

  16. All,
    this question of the meaning of ‘normally’ is rather a big one. There seems to be some question of whether Westminster gave away rather more power than it intended.

    The advice quoted above and the argument of government lawyers, that courts should not seek to define ‘normally’ as used in statute is pretty perverse, because defining statutes is exactly what lawyers do. The fact statutes do not hitherto contain the word ‘normally’ simply means a new opportunity has arisen for lawyers to get busy creating a legal definition for it.

    It seems there does exist some legal definition of the word which will be a guide, and which might lead to quite a restrictive defintion of when an abnormal condition exists which would allow the Scottish veto to be overridden. I agree with people above who suggest that while a non-binding referendum might be an unusual occurrence, it does not imply anything abnormal about political pocess or parliamentary procedure. It could perfectly well be taken that abnormal meant a national emergency of some sort. We shall see.

    But on a further point, the fact that the crown and westminster parliament have made legislation which gives Scotland a veto upon further legislation might potentially overturn the sovereignty of the westminster parliament. Sovereignty is absolute, but precedent already exists that once it has been delegated with a veto to withdrawing that delegation, this is binding on all future law. That is how the westminster parliament received its own authority from the crown, and how the crown can not take it back unilaterally.

    So it would seem the westminster parliament cannot simply pass a new law annulling the veto it gave to Scotland. Except in an abnormal situation. If it was ruled that Scotland does have a veto over Brexit, that ruling might also imply westminster cannot simply pass a new statute taking away that veto.

    The generally quoted phrase is that parliament cannot pass a law which binds its successors. But in this context, its successor is the parliament run by Sturgeon, not the one run by May.

  17. Tancred,
    “Only a big Lib-Dem win would generate a momentum for remainers.”

    I don’t agree. National polls for liberals have been well rehearsed here, and their notional support is far worse than labours. This isnt a protest vote against an unpopular government but against an unpopular Brexit. For the lib dems it is an issue which can potentially rehabilitate them a lot in politics. For once their identification with the conservatives from the coalition might do them some good in stealing remain voters or waverers away from the conservatives, who are the ones pushing Brexit.

    I don’t give it a high probablity, but notwithstanding the polls, one potential result of a general election today or next year could be a three way split in parliament with conservatives largest party, but once again liberals having a big enough chunk to make a difference. This would now be a parliament with four big blocks, considering the SNP’s progress since 2010. Very dangerous times for the PM to call an election.

    But this will also be seen as licence for more MPs to oppose Brexit in parliament where their own voters oppose it.

  18. The by-election result should concentrate a few minds among the MPs, mostly those in the government.

    It should also have the effect of preventing so much grandstanding among MPs and stop them resigning on petulant grounds when they wish to make a
    political point. Crossing the floor without a by-election is much more in keeping with our electoral system.

    As for PR: I can’t foresee it being introduced within the next twenty years, it if it were then a reformed second chamber is the place to do so. Though I’d rather see the HoL abolished than reformed – and expect neither.

  19. Although the main headline for me in the by-election was Mr Goldsmith’s petulance and naivety in calling it, the result does remind everyone of what the 48% can do!

    It is time the Government “get’s real” – we voted to leave the EU. Leaving the free market also is a huge, huge risk, and doing so was not part of the referendum outcome remit in my view. The majority would be in favour of continued EFTA / EEA membership – we do get a lot of power back that way anyway. Hard brexit will be stupidly painful and I hope it is just negotiation rhetoric and bluster!

    The Government should be tackling the immigration issue through curbs on in-work / free NHS benefit availability on a basis that you pay in for 3-5 years before they pay out.

  20. Twickenham is important, as some by elections can be, as it feeds into a narrative. This will undoubtedly embolden pre-remain Tories, and the value to Lib Dems is huge. It’s worth remembering that we are talking about a government with a tiny majority, who came very close to losing Witney a few weeks ago as well. I suspect this will scotch any talk of an early GE as well, which politically clears the way for parliamentary rebels to obstruct and delay.

    Many by elections are more or less meaningless, even when there is an upset. Every now and then one comes along which is significant, and I hink that’s what we’ve just seen.

  21. @Neil A – re migration stats. I don’ think my figure is overly contrived, really. If we barred non EU migration, what you are saying is that those countries would bar emigration from us to them, but it isn’t clear why they would do this. There would still be some leaving the country, not least because some of them would not be UK nationals so would have the right to leave anyway.

    But that isn’t really the point. The point is that we have had a government who for nearly 7 years has promised to reduce net migration, but who haven’t done anything about that part of migration that they control totally. Then, parts of that party used EU migration as a central weapon in the referendum.

    Some (many) Brexit voters apparently lacked the intelligence to put these two factors together and ask some difficult questions about why only leaving the EU would solve the perceived problem, when the other and obvious solution had not been applied first.

    I maintain my long held view that many Brexit backers will be sorely disappointed when reality comes knocking.

  22. Good morning all from a cold but dry morning here in Itchen Valley.

    Ok it being a saltire thread I will start off on a tartan note. Good poll for the SNP considering they have been in gov for nearly 10 years. Scottish Labour look like being the political wing of Sevco and languishing in 3rd place.

    Right about that by-election last night…WTFook happened? I mean how can someone lose a staggering 23,000 majority to a Lib/Dem?

    Goldmansachs or whatever his name is must be feeling like a right pleb and the Tories must be worried that their majority has slipped down to just 11….Ouch!!

  23. Just been catching up on some of the by election coverage, where Andrew Neil on BBC had a rollicking debate going on over the democratic process and second referenda. It pretty much seems to be the liberal against the rest arguing that there should be a second referendum on an actual deal, whereas everyone else argues it would be undemocratic.

    I just think, ‘wake up and smell the coffee’. I cannot comprehend how anyone in a democracy can defend the proposition that once there has been one vote there should never, ever be another. England had a revolution over that point which led to the collapse of the form of government then in place. Voters will in the end be no happier being railroaded into Brexit if the deal starts to look bad than they were in being railroaded into being part of the EU.

    The politicians are basically arguing that not respecting the views of voters is perfectly fine. Its this same problem of attacking your own supporters.

  24. Oh aye almost forgot….The Scottish independence VI looks like it’s stuck in limbo since the actual referendum in 2014. I never thought BREXIT would change matters and also don’t think Scottish opinion on the EU is that different from the rest of the UK when pushed. I mean the leave side never had a campaign in Scotland yet still polled 36%.

    However if Scotland’s economy starts to suffer as a result of Brexit then as AW has said, public opinion might shift and the Scots might decide to give Theresa May and Westminster the boot.

  25. @ Alec

    Agree with your post 7.52am. I would add that that as a percentage of population, net migration to the UK has been similar to many other countries. If people look at the statistics worldwide, they will see migration is down to many factors. New Zealand has full control over its immigration, yet as a percentage, i believe their net migration percentage was higher than UK.

    I keep hearing politicians say that the people voted to leave the EU and therefore we are leaving the EU. Very few who support remaining in the EU are willing to make any public statement, because they are worried by public reaction and the security of them and their staff. The murder of Jo Cox will be in the forefront of their minds. At some stage once the public mood has cooled down and there is a sensible discussion, then i could see politicians more willing to debate Brexits pros/cons.

    Zac Goldsmith probably lost support of Tory remain voters and gained from other parties remain voters, while those who supported leave in Richmond were not motivated to vote in a by-election. The Heathrow issue was not a win for Goldsmith, as the other candidates were against a third runway. So the by-election was mostly about Brexit and the polls did not pick up a likely big surge to the Lib Dems.

  26. Correction
    Zac Goldsmith probably lost support of Tory remain voters to Lib Dems and Lib Dems picked up support from other parties remain voters.

  27. Instinctively, I thought that the reaction of the government to the vote by (at least appearing) to be hard Brexit ought to badly damage thier vote amongst remain or soft Brexit Tory voters.

    The polls did not pick it up here.

    I think the lesson is that very strong a priori arguments have more weight than imperfect polls in unstable times like this.

  28. I notice several politicians of all stripes (except lib) denying that a by election has any consequences for a general election result. I think they are missing the elephant in the room. If brexit is done and dusted before the next election, then fine, it will have no effect.

    Any election before we leave will be utterly dominated by voters view on Brexit and which party best accords with this. It is highly likely the Richmond result will be reproduced, though potentially with opposite effect in pro Brexit constituencies. But even there it will depend on how split the vote of the remain and leave factions is between parties, as any single party being the only one supporting one faction is likely to get a massive boost.

    If the next election is after Brexit, we will still be running a post mortem on whether it is a good or bad deal, and on any economic consequences which have come to light. There will continue to be a faction of voters who will not forgive their traditional party for being on the wrong side of the debate. The conservative party is in the classic position of a government which has pushed through a policy massively unpopular to a big chunk of electors.

    Incidentally, news just described the Richmond result as ‘a massive upset’. Do people here think it an upset? If any polls thought so, how did they get it so wrong?

  29. @Alec

    Forgive me if I think you’re being a little contrarian.

    Are you really suggesting that the UK could impose a complete ban on people from the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Caribbean etc moving to the UK to live and/or work?

    And are you really suggesting that if the UK imposed a total ban on US citizens (for example) moving to the UK, as part of some “We Don’t Like Foreigners So Bugroff” Act that the willingness of the US to grant visas to UK citizens would be completely unaffected?

    And are you really suggesting that no foreign students should be allowed to study in the UK, that the spouses of UK citizens shouldn’t be allowed to move to the UK, that no academics should be allowed to work on projects at UK universities, that no refugees should ever be granted asylum in the UK?

    Lastly do you not realise that net migration figures include returners in both directions. To prevent net migration from the non-EU countries to the UK completely you’d have to actually legislate to remove the rights of Britons living abroad to come back to their own country.

    I understand the point that your trying to make, which is that the government could have done more to reduce non-EU migration. I agree, but it’s not a new point. We all know the difficulties, legal and ethical, that the government faces in trying to meet its targets. Look at the reaction to the “Go Home” vans etc.

    But as before I don’t accept that a failure to tighten up and reduce by a few tens of thousands the numbers of non-EU migrants coming in completely invalidates the desire to set some rules as to who is allowed in from the EU. It’s just a non-sequitur in my view.

    A point I’ve made before is that if the percentage of the non-EU population that made their way to the UK was as high as the percentage of the EU population that made its way to the UK then net migration would be in the millions not the hundreds of thousands. Even allowing for differentials in the distance, and the ability to pay for the journey, that is a strong indication to me that the ability to control non-EU migration, however gently applied, has a major effect on the numbers. Non-EU migration is not remotely “uncontrolled” even if it isn’t as controlled as a lot of UK citizens would like. EU migration is completely and unapologetically uncontrolled.


    @”result does remind everyone of what the 48% can do!”

    No it doesn’t.

    That’s the National Remain vote.

    This is Richmond-which voted 69.3% to Remain.

    ………..20% pts more than the Lib Dem MP just got.

  31. @R Huckle,

    NZ is in a position to make educated judgements over how many migrants is an appropriate number, based on its economic and demographic needs, population density, availability of services (or the land to provide them), availability of natural resource and the impact of human settlement on her natural environment.

    It is completely up to them what judgement they make, and I am sure they would be loath to give up that right, even if currently their judgement is that they are able to accept significant inflows of people.

    The fact that they accept so many is not evidence that having control over immigration is pointless. Should their assessment change their policies could change too.

    In relation to EU migration, we no longer have the right to make that assessment or adjust our policies.

    If we did have the right, we might well decide to continue receiving EU migrants at the same rate (certainly if Corbyn were to become PM that would be his personal preference) but it would be our policy, based on our assessment.

  32. Richmond

    IMHO the consequences are as follows:

    1.Theresa May will not call an election before 2020:

    2.We are in a time of issue politics and the issue is Brexit;

    3.Opinion polls concentrating on traditional questions do not reveal how people vote when confronted by the issue of Brexit:

    4.Labour is in real trouble. It needs to be clear on brexit other wise will be squeezed between Libs in south and ukip in north.

  33. It might surprise you to learn – and it certainly surprised me, that those who voted to leave the EU did so because the schools in the North of England are pretty poor !

    Well that’s according to Sir Michael WIlshaw

    The Brexit vote was fuelled by ‘resentment’ in poorer communities over a north-south divide in education, the Ofsted chief has said.
    Sir Michael Wilshaw said many people in the more economically deprived areas of northern England felt ‘alienated’.

    This was a final speech before a retirement, but it’s a clear political signal which will do nothing for his reputation.

  34. NEILA

    @”EU migration is completely and unapologetically uncontrolled.”

    Yep-an open door through which hundreds of thousands have fled the nirvana that is the European Union in search of a job in the cold ,racist , neo- liberal sweat shop that is the United Kingdom.

  35. @R Huckle

    New Zealand is a small country, similar in size to Great Britain or Japan. With a population of only four million people it’s gloriously uncrowded.
    Australia 5.6 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2016 est.)
    The Office for National Statistics (ONS) estimate that in 2014, 8.3 million people living in the UK were born abroad, around 13% of the total population of the UK.
    So double the population of New Zealand and 25% of the pop of Australia
    In the year from July 2015 to June 2016, there were 320,932 immigrants to Canada.Population of Canada 36.4million.immigration levels to Canada (roughly 0.7% per year) are considerably higher per capita than to the United States

  36. @Neil A – to be honest, you’ve very neatly made my entire point for me.

    You and I are not too distant on this issue, as we both agree on the need for some controls and that un-managed migration is not a good thing.

    However, you very neatly list all the reasons why terminating the rights of people to come to the UK can’t happen, which is precisely what I am saying. My point is that if it were possible to just stop immigration from any given country, presumably the government would have done just that. For seven years they haven’t.

    Brexit voters appear to believe that leaving the EU will mean we can stop immigration from that particular group of 27 countries, while we haven’t been able to stop the higher migration from the other 150 countries in the world.
    So Brexit supporters should really start to consider whether the central promise made in the campaign was valid and workable, because, as you have kindly pointed out, just topping migration is actually quite difficult.

    If we do get Brexit, many of it’s backers will be highly disappointed when they realise it has damaged the economy without doing very much at all to stop migration. That is the point that you have so helpfully expounded.

  37. NeilA

    Your 12.28 post, agree entirely, of no significance other than it drops the Governments majority to two which won’t help in tight votes.

  38. Catching the posts that crossed with my last one, I would point out that I too do not favour uncontrolled migration. As I’ve said many times previously, England is now the most crowded country in the EU and is one of the most crowded states in the world, if you exclude the small city states.

    I am not arguing about whether controlled or uncontrolled migration is a good or bad thing, or whether the EU’s principle if free movement is a good or a bad policy.

    I am merely pointing out that despite having a government wishing to substantially eliminate net migration, and despite that government having very significant powers to do so, net migration has grown for the last seven years. This fact should be enough to tell Brexit voters that leaving the EU and controlling all migration will not necessarily give them what they want.

  39. @ Neil A

    In regard to NZ, there are concerns there about house prices affected by population increases and all the other issues you might expect.

    The point i was trying to make, is that there has been a massive increase in human populations worldwide during the last 30 years. Of course, the instinct is to close borders and to think you can control the situation. But the UK does not have the same border security as NZ or Australia.

    In NZ and Australia, they have systems in place, where it is more difficult for illegal immigrants to find work and they deal with them effectively when found. All that would happen after Brexit, is that EU citizens and those from other countries, will find their way to the UK to stay here illegally. They will find work and places to live, with border security ineffective in dealing with it. So very little will change, apart from the number of people classed as illegal immigrants being in the UK. If they were legal migrants at least you can ensure proper standards for them, they pay tax into the system, kids go to school etc.

    I totally understand why people voted Brexit, but i just don’t think it will actually solve the issues they are unhappy about. I can just see a future UK version of Trump promising to build a giant wall around the east coast of the UK, as the existing border security stopping illegal immigration has not worked.

  40. @Alec

    I agree we are not that far apart, which is why I was genuinely quite surprised at your foray into what I consider to be quite unlogical arguments.

    I also think you’re creating a bit of a straw man by suggesting that the motivation of Brexit voters (and like with Tancred, it would be good to at least put a rider to that – “some”, “a proportion of” or something) is to eliminate inward migration completely.

    There will of course be some Brexit voters who want that, and a subset of those will be ignorant enough to believe it might happen. We do of course know that there are quite a few people that believe Brexit will reduce migration from non-EU countries despite there being no logical reason to think that. People can be dumb.

    But I don’t know of a single political representative on the Brexit side, including Nigel “Married to a Foreigner” Farage, who is proposing that all migration be halted, or even suggesting that this would be feasible.

    If you want to put your tin hat on and jump in to a trench to fight a few hundred thousand idiotic r*cists who disagree with all migration, you’d better move over and make space for the 90% of Leave voters who’ll stand next to you.

    What I can tell you is that if a UK government decided to apply the immigration rules it has with the EU to the rest of the world, there’d be violence and chaos, and 90% of Leave voters would be in the opposing trench. I know you’re not proposing that they would or should, but it is for me a silly comparator.

  41. @R Huckle

    I agree that some people would move here illegally, but I don’t think they would represent more than a small minority of the people who would move here legally given the chance.

    There are many, many people from Africa and Asia here illegally at the current time. That doesn’t mean that if we removed all barriers to migration from Africa and Asia that noone else would come.

    I am also of the view that the regime for detecting and deporting illegal migrants is ineffective and needs tightening up, however hard that is in terms of presentation and ethics. I think all services, including health and education, should be contigent on the person accessing it presenting valid identification to show their entitlement (part of the reason I supported New Labour’s ID card proposals).

  42. Despite the Lib-Dem success I don’t think this is a particularly earth shattering result. The majority is less than 2,000 and, although a good result in the light of UKIP’s attempted gerry-mandering, we have to bear in mind that over 2/3 of the inhabitants of this constituency voted remain. Still, it’s a slap in the face to the government and I hope it will help to concentrate their minds.

  43. @Neil A – I both agree and disagree with you. I think it’s unarguable that controlling immigration was a central part of the leave campaign, and one that gained a great deal of traction.

    There is, I would contend, a widespread view among many leave voters that one of the benefits of leaving will be a reduction in immigration. Given the lack of ability to limit the greater immigration from non EU countries since 2010, I am suggesting that many Brexit supporters are highly likely to be disappointed post leaving, as it’s unlikely that immigration will fall significantly without substantial economic damage.

    Yesterday we began to see more running commentary emerge, this time on the fees we will pay to get a good trade deal, and there will be more of this kind of story as the negotiations kick in. While sensible leavers like yourself will shrug your shoulders and say ‘this is sensible and worth it’, many leave voters were not sensible, and will express ‘outrage’. We had Peter Bone MP yesterday being outraged, seemingly denying that the UK had an obligation to pay into the pension funds of EU workers employed partly on our behalf for the last forty years, so ‘outraged’ was he of the notion that we might continue to pay into the EU’s coffers.

    We’ve also heard very strong statements from the Indian PM that we will have to accept less stringent migration rules from there if we want a bilateral trade deal – not something vote leave promised it’s supporters.

    This is about reality dawning on leave voters. Some knew what the truth was likely to look like, but many do not, an keeping these people happy is going to be very difficult.

  44. Construction PMI – same old story. Growth up slightly, remaining slightly positive, but cost inflation rising strongly to a 5 1/2 year high, almost entirely down to Brexit induced devaluation.

    It’s beginning to look like inflation is becoming entrenched, and suppliers are losing their inhibitions about upping prices.

  45. @ Neil A

    I think you severly underestimate the potential illegal immigration problem there will be after Brexit. The UK will end up with a similar problem to the US. Replace hispanic existing population attracting relatives and friends from abroad with Romanians, Bulgarians etc living in the UK legally attracting their relatives and friends to the UK.

    If you want control because you believe it will make a difference, then i think in 10 years after any Brexit, you will be disappointed. I actually think Brexit could make the situation far worse, as you will get a confusing situation with so many people with confused residency rights in the UK. We struggle at the moment with immigration centres and applications to stay in the UK.

    Also when the UK tries to make trade deals with countries all around the world, they often come with agreements on visa requirements for citizens. So a deal with India or China might come with extra rights for Indians and Chinese to come to the UK.

  46. DANNY
    ‘It pretty much seems to be the liberal against the rest arguing that there should be a second referendum on an actual deal, whereas everyone else argues it would be undemocratic.’
    I thought Tim Farron dealt with this issue pretty well on breakfast this morning. Given that there was very little clarity from vote leave on the type of deal they would seek to deliver (and there is even less clarity on what they will actually achieve), personally I do not see how voting on the outcome can be undemocratic. It is an overused expression but the fact that we voted to leave the station does not mean voting on if we should end up in Brighton or Bournemouth is undemocratic.
    People can argue that it is not necessary, they can say that it is OK for us to just go where TM says we must, but it is not undemocratic. In the end it is a political strategy for the LDs. They will be judging that if, as we get closer to the destination, people decide they do not like where they are being taken the popularity of their position will increase. Time will tell.

  47. I don’t think people are as unsophisticated over immigration as you are all implying.

    Yet again this is an out of touch elitist view of the proles who simply react to their environment, like the Epsilons of ‘Brave New World’.

    It is the total lack of control on immigration, and the scale of it which people have reacted, on top of Blairs mass immigration policy, which they reacted to.

    It was insane EU policies which prevented states from deporting serious criminals or from banning them entering the country. Even convicted murderers were allowed to travel to the UK without the authorities being made aware of their history, and carry out more murders on the citizens of the UK.

    To make matters worse when policy failings are pointed out to the EU, it moves at a speed best measured in geological terms if it moves at all.

    This is not democracy, when the people have a problem they expect their elected representatives to take action, and when they are prevented from doing so by another body, then that body has to go.

    If our politicians are remote and detached – brainwashed by our universities, then EU are more so.

    We are seeing widespread dissatisfaction in the countries of the EU, but instead of the executive trying to find out why, and moving to put it right, in true oppressive dictatorial style they screw it all down even harder.

    A state like this cannot survive, because they never have, unless the dictators make radical changes – which they seem unable to do, the EU is doomed.


    I fully understand your comment at 10.15am, but i don’t think you will find that Brexit will deliver a UK position that many are satisfied with. All you will end up with is UK politicians taking more of the blame for anything negatively viewed by the public, because they can’t blame the EU. Well they will probably try to continue blaming the EU for the next 20 years, just like Tories blamed the last Labour government for everything.

    Immigration controls will prove to be an illusion, as population continues to rise by the same amount as it has been. There will be more illegal immigrants with government services inadequate to deal with it. These illegal immigrants will no doubt be willing to work way below minimum wage and live in conditions that would be unacceptable to most. It will be worse than now, because EU mainland nationals coming to the UK to work, may have no way of registering to work legally.

    Many who voted Brexit did so because they want UK politicians democratically accountable to the people making decisions. But this forgets that the UK will sign up to many international agreements on all sorts of things and is not able to deliver what some people may want. Blaming the EU for so many things is convenient, but the UK would have done most of what the EU has decided anyway. Even outside of the EU, i expect a UK Parliament to implement most of what the EU does. The UK is part of an international community and many decisions are taken outside the UK.


    “It is the total lack of control on immigration, and the scale of it which people have reacted, on top of Blairs mass immigration policy, which they reacted to.”

    There is no total lack of control – non-EU immigration is subject to controls. Leaving the EU will remove that control and allow a flood of immigrants with the excuse of ‘skill shortages’.

    “It was insane EU policies which prevented states from deporting serious criminals or from banning them entering the country. Even convicted murderers were allowed to travel to the UK without the authorities being made aware of their history, and carry out more murders on the citizens of the UK.”

    Ridiculous tabloid hype. Moreover these matters can easily be resolved between EU nations at the ministerial level.

    “To make matters worse when policy failings are pointed out to the EU, it moves at a speed best measured in geological terms if it moves at all.”

    What policy failings? The only policy failings I find are from central government, not the EU. The UK government has full control of fiscal and spending policies, defence, foreign policy and many other key areas of national sovereignty. This was never in dispute.

    “This is not democracy, when the people have a problem they expect their elected representatives to take action, and when they are prevented from doing so by another body, then that body has to go.”

    Nonsense. The EU has never prevented any MPs or MEPs from fulfilling their duties.

    “We are seeing widespread dissatisfaction in the countries of the EU, but instead of the executive trying to find out why, and moving to put it right, in true oppressive dictatorial style they screw it all down even harder.”

    Dissatisfaction is always normal, understandable and concerns can be expressed through the standard democratic processes. Unilaterally abandoning the EU is an unfriendly act towards our neighbours and allies.

    “A state like this cannot survive, because they never have, unless the dictators make radical changes – which they seem unable to do, the EU is doomed.”

    The EU is an association, not a state. Changes need to be agreed by all or at least the great majority of members, like in any corporate body.

  50. Thoughtful
    “It might surprise you to learn – and it certainly surprised me, that those who voted to leave the EU did so because the schools in the North of England are pretty poor !”

    Since I think they are universally pretty poor, it makes sense to me that it did contribute to a general sense that the EU has destroyed quality of life in the Uk. The thesis of Leave is that the EU is responsible for everything wrong in the UK. This general view has been pushed by many politicians over many years for their own self interest reasons. Its a pretty good example, because in reality the EU has very little to do with the Uk education system.

    Similarly, the EU has little to do with immigration to the Uk. Succesive governments could have taken steps to limit immigration. They chose not to. Even where we could not ban it (the minority of cases), we could have discouraged it. There are still steps which could be taken to restrict rights of people moving here, but no government wants to do it. Yesterday more conservative MPs were saying they want to have a system which would allow them to control immigration, but they do not forsee actually using it. To my mind, that is simple insanity. The real situation is that EU immigration has simply met demand for workers, and the number of migrants has been self limiting.

    S Thomas
    “Labour is in real trouble. It needs to be clear on brexit other wise will be squeezed between Libs in south and ukip in north.”
    i agree they are in trouble. They are very close to repeating their performance in Scotland in northern England. Where I disagree is that a brexit policy could save them. On balance they would have to choose Remain, but remain plus continuing their previous policies would not help them recover support in the north. They need policies which would actively help those areas, which very probably means traditional socialist ones. Probably Corbinista policies.

    An ideal scenario for them could have been an alliance between Corbyn and his MPs. A radical campaign to help the north, but anchored by his centrist MPs. Instead they chose to accept the conservative’s narrative that socialism is bad, whereas their heartland supporters are demanding it.

1 2 3 4