There were a couple of Scottish independence polls in the week, but both of these that had fieldwork that actually pre-dated Nicola Sturgeon’s call for a second referendum. The Sunday Times today have the first Scottish poll carried out after Sturgeon’s speech, conducted by Panelbase between Monday and Friday.

Voting intention in a second referendum stands at YES 44%, NO 56%, similar to that in the YouGov poll in the week. As I said then, there are conflicting pictures from different pollsters. YouGov and Panelbase are both showing support for independence at a very similar level to the 2014 referendum, the most recent BMG and MORI polls have shown a narrowing of the NO lead.

Scotland also remains split over whether or not to have a second referendum. About half want a referendum in the next few years (32% while Brexit negotiations are ongoing, 18% after the end of negoiations), 51% do not want a referendum in the next few years.

Westminster voting intentions in Scotland stand at SNP 47%, CON 28%, LAB 14%, LDEM 4%, UKIP 3%.

173 Responses to “Panelbase poll on Scottish Independence – YES 44, NO 56”

1 2 3 4

    …right…..thanks :-)

  2. @Colin

    No probs…

  3. @R HUCKLE

    “Of course QE is money printing because it is BoE buying bonds from Banks and Banks encouraged to lend the money to the public. BoE is creating the money.

    If you look at UK government debt, a good percentage is bought by BoE.”


    Indeed the QE mechanism as currently practised performs a variety of functions, including allowing banks to offload done toxic debt, and let the government sell some of its own debt.

    And yes not bring in the Euro lets us do this as well as do what we want with interest rates, rack up deficits etc. Regarding election timing, I find it non-trivial to read the minds of politicians. Partly why I’m here, and polling helps…

  4. @Carfrew

    To be honest, I think certain of Corbyn’s ‘friends’ are one of his chief liabilities. Not only are they trying to manipulate him and the membership, they are doing it unsubtly and badly.

    I am not sure how any political edfice can last if a faction takes the view that any criticism or dissent is inherently illegitimate as some of those at the top of Labour have right from the beginning.

  5. That said, it’s very good of HMG to take the focus off Labour infighting this morning.

  6. @Chris

    Yes, Article 50 has just knocked Labour woes off topic spot at the Indy. Regarding Labour woes, you may be right, but I’m outside the loop. Thats partly why I’m manoeuvring around it. Different peeps seem to have different experiences of the Labour thing.

  7. @bantams

    I think it is difficult to see how you can have a federal state with two heads of state. A loose confederation possibly but why would the English nationalists who have just decided to leave one supranational organisation want to join another new one in which England’s current determining power in the UK through its population size would need to be reduced to have any chance that Ireland would even consider joining it ( which seems unlikely in the extreme in any event).

  8. @Oldnat – “If you look at the ScotCen report, you would see that the rise in Euroscepticism has been mainly among committed No voters.”

    Isn’t that a problem for Sturgeon?

    Her schtick at the moment is saying, “I insist that people voted No because of their love of the EU rather than their love of the UK, therefore they must be forced to vote again.”

    But if they are eurosceptic and voted No because they wanted to stay in the UK (as it said on the ballot paper), then they are just going to be thoroughly irritated at Sturgeon’s attempt to force them out of the UK and back into the EU, which is the opposite of what they want.

    I wonder if she’s made this blunder because doesn’t actually know anyone who voted No and has no idea what they think.

  9. Good afternoon all from a mild but dull day here in Reigate (Sorry CHRISLANE, it’s another dull Reigate )..

    Poll Alert…

    Britain Elects? @britainelects 9m9 minutes ago
    Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 45% (+1)
    LAB: 26% (-2)
    UKIP: 10% (-1)
    LDEM: 9% (+1)
    GRN: 4% (-1)

    (via ICM / 17 – 19 Mar)

    I know it’s a Tartan thread but it’s also a polling site…. Excellent poll for the Tories, shocking for Labour (19 point gap) and Lib/Dems still in single figures..What a disaster for them.

  10. @Scouserlad

    Comment yesterday… What part are you disputing?

    So, big game this Sunday!

    Our record is obviously very impressive against our closest rivals, but City have looked very dangerous of late and I can see this one going to the wire.

    I’m worried about Sane and Sterling tearing our full backs apart. But then again, City’s defence isn’t exactly impenetrable!

    Henderson is ruled out, which is a blow. But hopefully Firmino and Lovren are able to come back into the starting XI.


    Mignolet, Clyne, Matip, Lovren, Milner, Can, Wijnaldum, Lallana, Coutinho, Firmino, Mane

    Karius, Alexander-Arnold, Klavan, Lucas, Woodburn, Wilson, Origi

  11. Ooops, please ignore my last comment. Wrong forum… I meant to post this…That’s what happens when you don’t copy & paste correctly.

    Britain Elects? @britainelects 19m19 minutes ago
    Party perceptions:
    Honest / Dishonest ratings:

    CON: 19 / 26
    LAB: 13 / 24
    LDEM: 11 / 25
    UKIP: 8 / 38


    @”Indeed the QE mechanism as currently practised performs a variety of functions, including allowing banks to offload done toxic debt, and let the government sell some of its own debt.”

    Oh dear-here we go again.

    The “Banks” didn’t “offload toxic debt” . Where on earth did you read that.?

    The “Banks” ( actually BoE bought from Insurance companies in large part) . sold UK Treasury Bonds to BoE.

    They “government” didn’t sell to BoE. That was specifically disallowed by BoE-that would be financing Government Spending.
    BoE Asset Purchase Program is an excercise in increasing market liquidity by exchanging UK Gilts ALREADY IN ISSUE- & held by their market purchasers-for newly created credits with BoE.

  13. @Carfrew “let us introduce you to the wonderful world of banking”
    I’m aware of that aspect of the world of banking, and the behaviour you describe does not change my view that the economy is harmed by such behaviour just as it is harmed by the activities of forgers.
    I read commentators concerned by the high levels of private debt on top of the enormous national debt. If banks were not allowed to lend money they do not have, private debt would be much lower.
    I’ve always taken the view that banks were places to deposit money away from burglars, with interest paid to me, so that they could lend it to encourage business, though much of that idea seems to have gone by the board lately.
    I am tempted at my time of life to withdraw my savings and spend them for my own enjoyment, rather than future security. If everyone in my position did that, the banking system would probably collapse, though eating out more might help the pub trade. Perhaps I should just offer loans to private individuals at interest rates lower than the banks’ and cut out the middle man – but if I misjudge the borrower, I might not have the clout to get my money back. I’m not really in favour of my money being lent to a borrower to buy a new necklace, or go on holiday, when some small business is thought by the bank to be too great a risk. I can see who benefits when repayments are delayed while inflation makes them less onerous. So far I’m just subsidising my son’s mortgage so that the body which lent to him doesn’t actually get a return beyond his paying down the capital.
    Pushed to extremes, on the system you describe, banks don’t really need depositors so long as enough borrowers keep up their repayments.
    As you say, it’s a wonderful world. Alice would be quite at home, though the mathematician in C.L. Dodgson might be a bit worried.

  14. @ Allan Christie

    So, big game this Sunday!

    Now I thought you could only mean the upcoming Scunny vs Bradford hugely important promotion match but you seem to be talking about yesterday’s minor match but quite entertaining game in Manchester? 1-1.

  15. @Colin

    Lol, don’t be patronising me with an “oh dear”, especially when quibbling to no good effect.

    Yes, it’s true the Banks mostly sold Treasuries to the BoE. But QE does not have to be confined to this and in the U.S., the banks also sold a good deal of Mortgage-backed Securities to their Central Bank.

    Secondly, I didn’t say that the Governent sell to the BoE. That’s an unhelpful misrepresentation. I said that it was a means of the Government to sell more debt. Which it is.

    But I was on about the govt. selling it to the BANKS, not the BoE. When the BoE buys assets from the banks, the banks can then use this money to buy more government debt.

    None of this should be news to you, I’ve seen you discuss it extensively with Amber etc.

  16. @Dave

    You are not alone in having concerns about the current arrangements!! There are a numepber of potential consequences to this system, one of them being some people inevitably defaulting on their loans. Because there may not be enough money around for everyone to repay. Because the money is issued by the banks, but they want it back with interest. This can create a demand for constant growth to keep the plates spinning.

    Regarding investing, of course now with crowd funding and peer-to-peer lending (some peeps on the board do it) you can lend to some worthwhile and quite groovy projects. Even synths!! To insure against loss one can do conventional things like diversify etc…

  17. @AC

    “Oops, please ignore my last comment. Wrong forum… I meant to post this…That’s what happens when you don’t copy & paste correctly.”


    Have you ever posted polling stuff to a footie board? Bet that’d freak them out more!! Or Indy stuff. Summat about Westminster or the Vow,..

  18. Griffin gave an interview to a Hungarian liberal tabloid news portal (444) at an identity politics conference where the journalists outnumbered the participants.

    Among other things he said that Hungary wold become the hq of the far right (he didn’t use this expression) as it built a great fence, fights Romany crime, fights Soros, who from the money he made on the attack on the UK (I suppose he meant the pound) to finance groups who would make European youth deprived in thinking, that liberalism was treason, that he liked Ashotthalom, but he prefers hills so he would move to Budapest instead within six months. Oh, and he also attacked one of the Jewish weeklies.

    In contrast, Schultz in a major speech in the weekend declared the Turkish, Polish and Hungarian government as enemies of democracy and promised that he would defeat them.

    [By the way Corbyn’s 10 pledges, which are now Labour’s are centrist, and incompetent, and his team is incompetent, and cannot compensate for the leader’s incompetence].


    It always seems odd to me, when partisan supporters of a particular party feel impelled to publicly praise one of their own.

    Doing so in the context of a debate on political leadership might have some reason or purpose, but randomly posting that “X, from my party is wonderful” seems bizarre behaviour.

    No one (I think) would question that Davidson is a good communicator, and can forcefully and loudly repeat her core message.

    When up against her main rival (that’s Kezia Dugdale, not Nicola Sturgeon) who has poor communication talents, and an inability to portray any consistency of message, that’s a huge advantage.

    That neither Davidson nor Dugdale have actually had consistency of message is neither here nor there. It’s perception that matters in politics that matters.

    If we are attributing shifts in VI to the effectiveness of political leaders (and that is by no means the whole story) then Sturgeon and Davidson may be compared with Charles the Bald and Louis the German dismembering Lotharingia in 870 – as another Empire bit the dust.

    However, I have a couple of questions for you. If Davidson is “sooo good”, is that because she currently effectively espouses policies that you agree with?

    Was she “soooo bad” when she passionately argued for the UK remaining in the Single Market and the EU? Was she a bad politician when she said that if the SNP and Greens had a majority at Holyrood, then Scotland should have an indy referendum?

    Since few politicians actually do display consistency of aims and objectives, any partisan uttering such admiration of one of their own would be subject to the same questioning.

    Of course, on a polling site, a measure of the effectiveness or popularity of a politician can be found by just looking at polling figures when such questions are asked. Have you done so?

    Bob – Over the last 50 years, I’ve met a lot of politicians from several parties. Some have been damp squibs : some create an air of excitement around them.

    It never seemed to make much difference to their electoral prospects, and certainly not to their debating ability or strategic thinking.

    While I have met both Salmond and Sturgeon (and several SLab and SCon leaders) in the past. I haven’t met Dugdale or Davidson personally – just seen them in debate, and looked at poll numbers.

    I would be hesitant at making any assertion that a brief meeting with any politician would give any credibility to a claim that the one I had met would outdo the ones I hadn’t.

    But then, I don’t go in for partisan hero worship – Salmond was very effective in a whole lot of ways, but debating wasn’t one of his strong points.

    Is there something in ECon psyche which makes you behave in this odd way, or is it a personal oddity?

  20. oldnat

    Quite a response when I was only in fact replying to Rich – I am going to leave it at that other than to repeat I liked her and thought she was fresh air to an otherwise sterile party I have often campaigned for over the past 40 years – (exclusively in marginals but I have never been on a battle bus.) I have some knowledge of Scottish politics as my mother is Scottish and I have lots of friends and family north of the border so I do not necessarily pronounce exclusively from an ignorant ECon point of view.

  21. Rational people might have expected the nationalist broadcaster to report on the SLab, SCon and SLD voting to withdraw the franchise from EU citizens and 16-17 year olds.

    It doesn’t.

    The Green amendment to the substantive motion was accepted by the SNP and was voted through, despite the three Unionist parties all combining to restrict the franchise and limit democracy.

  22. On the 4th May, EU citizens and 16-17 year olds will have the vote in Scotland.

    Some might be more motivated to exercise that vote, after today’s Holyrood vote.

    I doubt that it will be for SCon, SLab or SLD.

1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply

NB: Before commenting please make sure you are familiar with the Comments Policy. UKPollingReport is a site for non-partisan discussion of polls.

You are not currently logged into UKPollingReport. Registration is not compulsory, but is strongly encouraged. Either login here, or register here (commenters who have previously registered on the Constituency Guide section of the site *should* be able to use their existing login)