The Sunday Times had a Panelbase Scottish poll yesterday, with tables out today here – from memory I think it’s the first Scottish poll of the year. There are no voting intentions (or at least, none that have been published so far), instead it concentrates in Brexit and the potential for a second referendum on Scottish independence.

On independence voting intention remains little changed from the 2014 referendum – 46% would vote YES, 54% would vote NO. Opinion on whether there should be another referendum soon is pretty evenly split. Half want a referendum in the relatively near future (27% in the next year or two, 23% in “about two years, when the UK has finished negotiating to leave the EU”), half don’t want a second indyref in the next few years.

There is also little sign of any change of opinion on Europe since the referendum. Last year people in Scotland voted by 62% to 38% to remain in the EU, in a referendum tomorrow they say they would vote 61% to 39% to stay in the EU. Asking about some of the specifics on Brexit the poll asked about free trade and immigration, albeit in a slightly odd way (the question focused on just EU companies having access to Scottish markets, rather than vice-versa). By 65% to 11% people thought EU companies should still have free trade with Scotland, by just 40% to 36% they thought EU citizens should still have a right to live and work in Scotland.

Finally Panelbase asked if Britain left the EU, and then Scotland became independent, would people want an independent Scotland to join the European Union – an interesting question I don’t think I’ve seen asked before. 48% would support an independent Scotland joining the EU, 31% would be opposed.

167 Responses to “Panelbase Scottish poll”

1 2 3 4
  1. YouGov polling finds 49% support Trump visit, 36% oppose. Excluding DKs gives 58-42 in favour.

    Is a “Sky Data Snap Poll” as reliable as polling by a firm like YouGov?

  2. The Sky data poll is interesting in it’s contrast with the Yougov one, I can’t find any details on who carried it out for them, numbers polled etc?

  3. Doing it again, predictive text nightmares.

    @ Old Nat

    Ruth’s comments are what they are for the only opposition leader taken seriously in Scotland. She [is making a] case […snip…] that Nicola only has one objective in mind and all the pretence about the SIngle Market and EEA is a poorly disguised attempt at pulling the wool over the eyes of your voters.

  4. The YouGov poll details relating to President Trumps vistare now on there website. Looking at the crossbreaks, there seems to be a fair bit of correlation with leave and remain voting pattern. The Scottish crossbreak is narrowly against his visit, and the yioung are also anti. No surprises there IMO

  5. I the grumbling goes on about petitions.

    It seems to have achieved exactly what I thought it might and what a well signed petition is designed to do.

  6. OOps, I see… ( i should have started above)


    Well in the end it is up to each of us to set the standards of politeness we wish to follow within AW’s rules.

    If you had actually posted to the person your talking about and said that their last post was factually inaccurate with the explanation then I suggest nobody could complain. Why sneer?

  8. @ David Welch


    I forgot the original source re NI farming subsidies and did not go back over earlier posts to look. Instead I googled and found this

    ” T.he department has also confirmed that in the last 10 years (2005-2014) CAP Single Farm Payment alone – which is the main agricultural subsidy scheme for farmers and one of the CAP funding schemes – totalled £2.5billion in Northern Ireland. Direct EU payments to farmers represent 87% of annual farm income.”

    Here is the link:

    This does not mean that I am right and you wrong. As we agree, Brexit will be difficult for all UK farmers and especially those in Northern Ireland

  9. The petition explicitly stated that the President’s visit should go ahead but that it should not be a State occasion.

    The poll does not reflect that nuance.

    The petition specifically did not request that the President not be invited to the UK at all, which is something a lot of people in general seem to have failed to notice for one reason or another.

    It is also interesting that failure to notice that nuance also seems to break along political lines.

    It’s remarkable how often a failure to really read things properly when they don’t quite support the view you’d like them to support affects people who purport to be concerned about data and polling. (this goes for everyone).

    The data and polls you really ought to question are the ones that confirm your views. Alas, like all humans, we’re much happier questioning the ones that don’t.

  10. @AndyJS
    “Is a “Sky Data Snap Poll” as reliable as polling by a firm like YouGov?”
    “The Sky data poll is interesting in it’s contrast with the Yougov one, I can’t find any details on who carried it out for them, numbers polled etc?”

    I have no knowledge on the quality or reliability of their polling, but from the Sky website, it appears at least aim to be a proper poll:

    “Sky Data interviewed a nationally representative sample of 1,091 Sky customers by SMS on 30 January 2017. Data are weighted to the profile of the population”

    There’s no indication of who conducted the poll. However, as the sample is made up entirely of Sky customers, I suspect it was done in-house. There’s also no indication of quite how they’ve gone from a sample of Sky customers, to a “nationally representative” sample.

    The SkyData tables, without any info on methodology, are here:

  11. Good morning all from a rather dull damp central London.

    Allan Christie
    “Also Davidson has turned SCon into the most constitutionally obsessed party in Scotland – a polity not known for being uninterested in constitutional issues! :-)”

    “Whatever side of both constitutional issues we are on, there are lots of other things in politics, and there are probably quite low boundaries on what you can achieve, in VI gain, just by being a protest party on constitutional matters”

    Sorry for the late response…internet crashed last night.

    Yes Ruth does appear to be obsessed with the constitution and her whole political arguments against the SNP be it from breeding pig farmers on Barra to the Forth rail bridge always have a constitutional theme to them.

    I laugh when politicians in Scotland moan about the SNP’s obsession on independence yet they are the ones who consistently bring it up even when discussing none constitutional matters.

    The SNP not so long ago were labeled as a one issue party…well I’m afraid the Scottish Tories are what the SNP used to be labeled as but in constitutional reverse ..

    Looking at the wider picture of politics across the UK…It’s clear Scotland is drifting further and further away from rUK socially, constitutionally and politically. Surely now is the time to have a federal Scotland with all major decision making devolved to Edinburgh…The current union ain’t working and will probably end up breaking apart because of the lack of real reforms…but like the current EU.. ;-)

    My own personal feelings having lived in Scotland and England is that the SNP are the right fit for Scotland (although I do disagree with them on EU integration, immigration and a few other bits n bobs and in England the Tories are the right fit although I disagree with their austerity measures and wish that they would set up some federal structure between rUK and Scotland otherwise it will lead to the eventual break up of the Union…

  12. New Thread


    The 30% I quoted for Ruth Davidson’s seat was not a percentage of those eligible to vote but 30% of the popular vote. If I had quoted the % Ruth won of the eligible vote then her share in Edinburgh central would had been around 18%.

    New Thread

    That’s a pure bugger…I was just settling into this one lol

  15. Thanks Sam for giving us the link on Northern Ireland farm subsidies.

    I can`t be sure that my interpretation is correct, but from the figures contained in the article £350,000,000 was paid to 38,000 farmers. So the average subsidy per farm was £9210.

    That would hardly be enough income for any family to live on, and tells me it is 87% of the farm profit, not of the farm income.

    This word play is often made use of by those claiming farmers are “featherbedded” and that the CAP is outrageously expensive. 87% sounds a big sum; £9210 not too big. For the say 46 families benefitting from lower food prices in supermarkets resulting from each farm`s performance and financing, it works out at £200 cost a year.

    Balancing that against an annual spend of c £2000 of a family on food, it would be all square if removal of CAP caused supermarket prices to rise by 10%.

    Maybe the farming industry and government departments should make their wording more understandable..

  16. @David Welch

    TV has had a few farmers from New Zealand talking about how the removal of subsidies has helped them and how it’s inevitable subsidies in the UK won’t last for ever. UKIP made a lot about how the CAP cost British taxpayers; it’s clear where this is going.

  17. This Panelbase poll published WM voting figures today

    SNP 47
    Con 27
    Lab 15
    Lib 4
    Oth 7

1 2 3 4