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%.


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

1 2 3 4
  1. @oldnat

    “Wrong question. Why are some Scots becoming more Eurosceptic, and why are they primarily No voters?”

    ———

    It’s not just no voters, There’s been an increase in Yes voters saying EU powers should be cut back. At least Peter had summat useful to say on it!!

    And guess I shouldn’t be surprised you don’t want to consider the possibility of more Euroscepticism either. The new reality prolly still a bit raw. Oh well, we can always return to it…

  2. ‘This idea that it’s either Corbyn or ‘Nulab’ is what is killing Labour.’

    With greatest respect to Guymonde, I think that currently it is Corbyn or Nulab.

    The attacks on Corbyn certainly surpass those on the quintessentially, soft left Ed Miliband but that doesn’t take away from how EM was constantly undermined and wounded by the attacks from within NuLab and their MSM links.

    I totally agree with Guymonde that there are very reasonable people who do not support Corbyn at the grassroots. There may even be some in the ABC PLP but what we have seen is a ruthless disregard from the NuLab elite for the survival of the LP in E&W. To paraphrase Tony Blair, they would rather see the LP dead than red.

    Despite the spin, Corbyn is no hard leftist bogeyman… but it seems that even Ed Miliband was too leftwing for the NuLab powers that be.

  3. we shall see but iMHO there will be no general election before 2020, Jeremy C. will lead the labour party into that election and there will be no scottish referendum before that date. I am looking for that bet.

    I think tM is a pretty cautious politician ,perhaps over sensitve, but i think you play into her strengths where you make inaction appear to be resolution.She probably cannot decide when to allow a referendum and will not grant one at all rather than make a mistake. After all if she loses then this will resonate prior to 2020 election whereas if she loses in 2022 she will have until 2025 to recover and would have been a 9 year PM then in any event.

    As an alternative she could grant Scotland 2 referenda. The first to enter into negotiations to leave the Uk to b e held in 19 and a second in 22 to decide on final outcome which would have to include the option to remain part of the uk.

  4. Carfrew

    Last response to you on this.

    I didn’t say it was solely among No voters. You complain about others misrepresenting you – but you happily misrepresent others.

    Since I won’t respond again, that will leave you in the happy position of having the last word – and imagining that you have “won”. Does make you a bit of a saddo – but heyho!

  5. @oldnat

    Thanks for the UBI link, an interesting read, though it falls into the trap of conventional economics, where he’s very much concerned where the money comes from to pay for it.

    But to revisit MMT, we control our own currency, and so the government doesn’t have to tax summat to pay for summat else. The money doesn’t have to “come from somewhere”, the government can in effect just print what it needs.

    Now, this can lead to inflation, especially if near full employment, so money may have to be subsequently removed from the economy, but they can do this any way they see fit. It’s decoupled from the UBI. If they are already making anti-inflationary investments then may not have to remove much anyway.

    In practice they may find it politically expedient to link the UBI to some notional source of funding, but it isn’t that necessary.

  6. @oldnat

    “I didn’t say it was solely among No voters. You complain about others misrepresenting you – but you happily misrepresent others.
    Since I won’t respond again, that will leave you in the happy position of having the last word – and imagining that you have “won”. Does make you a bit of a saddo – but hey ho”

    ———

    Don’t care about winning but don’t like to see you confused again. No one claimed you said it was solely no voters. That’s another straw man. I just pointed out that you were ignoring the Yes voters, which is pretty bad news for you, if you’d rather switch to the UBI rather than think of the Yessers!! Wouldn’t be so rude as to call it “sad” though!!

  7. @Bantams

    “I chuckled loudly while reading your SNP adoration piece, talk about see things through rose tinted glasses.”

    ——–

    I dunno Bantams, I rather like Coups’ ruminations on the matter, she’s been right before, for eggers warning us of the potential Labour meltdown in Scotland before it happened. And it’s a window onto a different way of thinking about these things…

  8. One of the reasons for the renewed infight in Labour is the struggle for controlling organisational units. Both sides attempt to mobilise, and both leak to various media.

    In my view, the Corbyn-wing should have done it much earlier, and much more ruthlessly, but it didn’t happen. Now they havw lost quite a few CLP, but also won some. So, the split remains.

    The main problem with Corbyn, in my opinion, is not his policies as political inclination (as most of it are centrist), but that some of them are devolved matters, they lack details, and most importantly, he is actually clearly not up to date with the political developments (he doesn’t really knows what the government is doing at the level of details). Some of his colleagues seem to be absent minded, but hopefully not for serious reasons.

    As to media and Corbyn. While it is true that the media use to be anti-Corbyn in general, they also let him off relatively lightly about the Virgin train case, and his no show at the final Brexit vote.

  9. @ Laszlo

    ‘While it is true that the media use to be anti-Corbyn in general, they also let him off relatively lightly about …’

    Tbh I’m very surprised that you write this. It just doesn’t accord with my own observation of the media in recent days.

  10. @Syzygy

    “Tbh I’m very surprised that you write this. It just doesn’t accord with my own observation of the media in recent days.”

    ——-

    Yeah, this is clearly a different planet thing. On our planet, during the budget u-turn, obviously the press decided the important thing was not the budget snafu, but Corbyn’s response to the snafu during that weekly event which we can’t name. Even in the Independent, there was a headline on the matter slagging him off.

    Obviously some might have missed that headline, so there was another about his performance in that event. And just to ram it home, yet another slagging him about the very same thing.

    As for Indyref 2, stands to reason Corbyn must cop a load innit…

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/scottish-referendum-brexit-snp-sturgeon-may-corbyn-just-as-much-to-blame-a7631586.html

    “Jeremy Corbyn is just as much to blame as Theresa May for the Scottish referendum”

    Only seen one headline about that so far but it’s early days. Meanwhile Diane’s pic is pride of place in the Editorial, and no they’re not singing her praises either…

  11. @ Laszlo “The main problem with Corbyn, in my opinion, is not his policies as political inclination (as most of it are centrist),”

    I seem to have entered the UKPR Twilight Zone again.

    Corbyn’s stated policies and beliefs are Centrist, are they?

    * Abolition of the Monarchy
    * Scrapping of Trident 2
    * Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament
    * Open Borders with no limits on immigration
    * Describing terrorist groups as “Friends”
    * Joint administration of the Falklands with Argentina
    * Borrowing half a trillion more dollars on top of the current debt despite the ongoing deficit.
    * Withdrawal from Nato

  12. @Sea Change

    Don’t wanna alarm you any more than is possibly already the case, but the half-a-trillion, I’m not sure he wants to borrow it. I think he might be wanting to in effect print it…

  13. @Carfrew

    Is that in addition to, or instead of, a continuation of current monetary policy?

    Because since 2009 the Bank of England has undertaken £445 billion in quantitative easing (so half-a-trillion, give or take). Until such time as it is unwound (assuming it ever is) QE is just a form of money printing, differing only from directly printing to fund a budget in that it benefits those holding assets rather than citizens benefitting from government services.

    Given that this QE has been carried out by a nominally independent central bank under centre right governments, could we not call it a centrist policy if Corbyn wants to do the same?

  14. Is believing in an elected head of state left wing ? Never new that.

  15. SEA CHANGE

    @”Corbyn’s stated policies and beliefs are Centrist, are they?”

    All these locations are comparative, and defined by the viewer.

    This is Laszlo defining Corbyn as a “Centrist”. Most of the people Laszlo would define as “Left” are lying in in mausoleums underneath monolithic statues of themselves.

  16. They are like ferrets in a sack.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/tom-watson-momentum-jon-lansman_uk_58ced0cce4b00705db503eaa

    “Civil War” seems the right description for it.

    May is very fortunate with this.

  17. the real problem for jC is that no-one cares what he believes because no one really believes he is ever going to be elected.And I quite like him….

  18. S Thomas very true.Nobody is listening because he has no chance of winning.Even the thought that he might made sure they hit him hard early on to make sure.Now they can just ignore.However he still gets a lot of interest and name recognition due to the derision of his leadership.It proves their point you can never win in England from the left.

  19. Good morning all from a blustery mild rural Hampshire.

    AW

    This being a Tartan thread I was hoping to comment on my Grannies superb mince and tatties she left in my fridge over the weekend, however, the thread looks to be descending into some sort of anti ol Corby quagmire wich might be acceptable on UK threads but hardly palatable on a mince and tatties thread…sorry I mean Tartan thread. ;-)

  20. @AC

    I agree wholeheartedly. AW posted a national thread and a Scottish thread not far apart, and in the spirit of his earlier request, I think discussion of the future for the national Labour party and her leader should be on the other thread.

  21. # I did mean which…
    ………..

    Just a reminder of the latest Scottish parliament voting intentions….

    Holyrood voting intention (const):

    SNP: 51% (+3)
    CON: 24% (-1)
    LAB: 14% (-1)
    LDEM: 6% (-)
    GRN: 4% (+1)

    The SNP would probably win an overall majority just on the constituency vote alone.

  22. If the UK government proposed a federal state with an English Parliament .Tried to get as much consensus then put that to a referendum .They might get on the front foot for a change over the constitution.

  23. ALLAN CHRISTIE

    Ah yes-forgot!

    Mea Culpa.

    Must try to remember where I am :-)

  24. NEIL A

    Absolutely…
    ……………
    DEZ

    I agree. The constitutional arrangements in the UK should involve England as well, unfortunately, we don’t have a party dedicated to it.
    A federal UK where all matters are devolved to England, Scotland, Wales, and NI and Westminster remains in control of defence and foreign affairs might help address some of the current constitutional issues within the UK.

    Simply booting Scottish MP’s out of English only matters in a UK parliament ain’t the way to go about it.

  25. I think there is a clear desire amongst Corbyn supporters to label Labour’s struggles as Corbyn vs Nulab, or Corbyn vs Nulab + the MSM, but again, I see this as largely just blame sliding.

    Again, no one I know of in Labour or on UKPR suggests that everything that was done under New Labour was great, or that there weren’t policy problems with long term consequences left untended that have harmed some Labour supporters. Quite why this is repeatedly thrown back at those who raise the simple point that Corbyn is actually much worse for Labour supporter’s prospects than anything that went before, baffles me. It’s merely repeating what we ourselves have already said, many times over. Except that we are inteligent enough to recognise those areas where New Labour made some real differences.

    What on earth is so difficult about achieving a more balanced view of history?

    From this problem, stems much of the angst in the Momentum/Corbyn camps, in my view. If you are incapable of recognising that there were lots of positives from Labour’s period in office, alongside many negatives, the idea of internal criticism of Corbyn becomes a religious issue of devotion and betrayal, rather than a genuine discussion about what strategic and tactical stances the party needs to take to best represent those it seeks to help in society.

    So everyone elses motives are impugned, and their leader’s culpability for Labour’s dire position is denied. Three times before the cock crows, it seems.

    Two final thoughts; While of course I can accept that the New Labour vestiges in the party seek to undermine JC (just as JC spent forty years trying to undermine New Labour) it’s genuinely difficult to comprehend why his fans can’t see the ever growing list of his former backers and supporters who have walked away from his administration in despair at his incompetence. There are an awful lot of them. Perhaps the New Labour adherents want rid of him because,like his former fans, they recognise he is so dreadfully incapable?

    Second, the idea of blaming everyone else for their leader’s woes is so typical of the whingeing left. ‘We’re left wing – deal with it’, might be an appropriate response.

    Trump faced 138 major mainstream media organisations, of which 137 endorsed his opponent, and most of these attacked him savagely and relentlessly – yet he won. I hate that fact, but it’s true.

    He had the wit and organisation to be able to identify those voters he needed and craft and communicate a message for them. UKIP did something similar over here, although their task was somewhat easier, as although they lacked MSM support, some of their main themes were normalized within the press.

    The point is, if you stop blaming everyone else for your failings and start thinking about your message and how to communicate this to voters, it is possible to win while under sustained and total media assault, and even while large parts of your own party disown you.

  26. @Colin – I posted this story yesterday. For my money, the more interesting element of it is that Lansman is openly discussing Corbyn standing down.

    To all- yes, some apologies for discussing Labour on a Scottish thread. However, recall that Corbyn did make recovery in Scotland one of his priorities, and they have instead gone backwards, so there is relevance here.

  27. @Alec

    You’re not engaging with the arguments, you’re having an argument with summat easier to deal with, summat you invented.

    For a start, I am not a Corbyn supporter. I am not defending Corbyn, or even saying that he should lead the party. I am saying that to some extent to keep targeting Corbyn is a straw man. That even if we take him as useless, and if he goes, critical issues remain.

    Notably, the problem that what Syzygy calls the elite of the party clearly don’t just have a problem with Corbyn, but with his policies, else they would lower the nominations bar, and would have given even Miliband an easier ride. Notably the problem with MSM targeting views more to the left, and the dilemma that moving to the right costs support anyway. Because the policies may have short term appeal, but long term not so much.

    So you might see it as a good thing to provide more benefits, but long term that has issues and people would rather have a proper job. Or be able to afford a house. And not have big tuition fee debt hanging over them etc. Which is another problem. You may feel that only Coalition should get blame for upping tuition fees, but some will understandably blame Labour for bringing tuition fees in in the first place.

    You write as if people can’t see anything good but this is unfair. The point is that OVERALL good stuff gets outweighed/undermined.

    All you can do in the face of this is just chuck in some ad hominems. But this isn’t about people like me. As long as the issues remain it’ll be a struggle for Labour. I’ve been at pains to point out the MSM thing isn’t all about Corbyn, or even Labour, e.g. what happened with Omnishambles, with immigration.

    You can claim peeps are just Labour supporters or quibble over NuLab all you like, but the other issues will remain…

  28. Meant to say Corbyn supporters, as opposed to Labour, in the last line….

  29. ALEC

    Have posted on the non-Scot . Indy thread.

  30. @POPEYE

    ” that in addition to, or instead of, a continuation of current monetary policy?”

    ———–

    My understanding is that it’s in addition.

    I agree QE is a form of money printing. Colin disputes this, because in theory it has to be paid back. In practice, it may not be, as you suggest, and even if it is, it may be so far down the line inflation has eroded a good deal of it.

    Obviously we tend to use inflation measures that don’t factor in the big rises in assets in the SE, part fuelled by QE. Government assets might appreciate considerably as a result, further offsetting things should QE by unwound at some point. Growth due to the stimulus will offset it some more…

  31. CARFREW

    @” in theory it has to be paid back. In practice, it may not be,”

    The Gilts held by BoE under the Asset Purchase Program ( QE) are dated-ie they have redemption dates, on which date, The Treasury repays the then bearer the face value.

    To date BoE has received the following redemption funds from maturing Gilts held under the APP:-
    7/3/2013 £ 6.6bn
    27/9/2013 £1.9bn
    7/3/2014 £8.1 bn
    7/9/2014 £14.4bn
    22/1/2015 £ 4.35bn
    7/9/2015 £16.9bn
    7/12/2015£6.3bn
    22/1/2016 £ 8.4bn
    22/1/2017 £ 11.6 bn

    In accordance with current policy all these funds were reinvested in Gilts in issue in the market, in order to maintain the stock of the Asset Purchase Program.

    There is -as yet-no signal from BoE that it either intends to retain redemptions & start running down the stock of QE ; or indeed start selling APP Gilts back into the market before their maturity dates.

    Either policy will signal a withdrawal of the Liquidity Stimulus & an end to the era of loose Monetary Policy.

  32. The problem inherent in almost all the federal solutions for he UK is the next Iraq.

    If all the Uk does collectively is defence and foreign affairs what happens when the federal government starts a war that one of the nations doesn’t want.

    much like the current situation over Brexit, what happens when the Federal Government decides to leave the EU but one of the four parts doesn’t want to go.

    A federal system relies on a common will on the non devolved issues and be it orient or the EU I don’t think you can guarantee that.

    The US largely seems to have it but does the UK?

    Peter.

  33. @Colin

    Yes, they can keep rolling it over and watch inflation wash it away. Even if they stop that, because inflation and growth in effect they may only pay part of it back…

  34. @Carfrew “The money doesn’t have to “come from somewhere”, the government can in effect just print what it needs. ”
    “I agree QE is a form of money printing. Colin disputes this, because in theory it has to be paid back. In practice, it may not be, as you suggest, and even if it is, it may be so far down the line inflation has eroded a good deal of it.”

    We are about to introduce a new £1 coin to prevent this process being undertaken by private enterprise. There it is considered harmful to the economy, called ‘forgery’ and punished by imprisonment.

  35. @ Carfrew

    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.

    The UK is doing better than most EU countries because we are not part of the Eurozone and constrained by the EU financial rules. UK budget deficits have exceeded the 3% required by the EU since the 07/08 financial crash.

    Theresa May is going to find it incredibly difficult to keep Tory MP’s happy, with all of the financial pressures and Brexit. The demands for an early election to obtain a bigger majority are going to be difficult to ignore. Jeremy Corbyn is going to face another challenge within weeks, as most Labour MP’s are going to fear an election with Corbyn.

  36. @Carfrew – “For a start, I am not a Corbyn supporter.”

    That’s fine then. My post wasn’t addressed to you.

    [A fuller reply will be posted shortly on the last thread].

  37. @Carfrew

    “The elite of the party clearly don’t just have a problem with Corbyn, but with his policies”

    This point is *partly* true, but only partly. Even Corbyn’s critics admit that there are actually large parts of his policy agenda that they don’t have a problem with. But his defenders then tend to do two things

    – they ignore the bits that his critics do dislike (generally foreign and defence policies – and, of course, his performance on Brexit) and pretend that Corbyn’s critics don’t like any of the perfectly mainstream Labour policies he has on other domestic issues. This insults the intelligence of everyone involved in the debate. It’s completely transparent.

    – they also then retort ‘so why not get behind him them’, deliberately ignoring that there’s a difference between agreeing with the broad policy agenda and then believing that the leadership has the ability to develop that agenda and effectively sell it to the public. It is (delicate cough) not entirely clear that Corbyn possesses that ability.

  38. CARFREW

    @” Even if they stop that, because inflation and growth in effect they may only pay part of it back…”

    I don’t know what this means.

    All dated Gilts are repaid at maturity-to the then holder, by The Treasury. They pay the face value of the security. The BoE’s holdings are no different to anyone elses.

    If you mean that Government debt is effectively eroded by inflation, -yes it can be -but of course The Treasury is paying interest on its Gilt issues. If Inflation exceeds nominal Gilt coupon rates there is a gain to the borrower. But Gilt yields will respond to inflation trends anyway.

    Of course the absolutely fundamental feature of major economies since the Credit Crash has been very low inflation & ultra low interest rates.

  39. @ Carfew

    You are a joy… and to even manage to slip in some MMT!

  40. I’ve commented on this last week, I do like the sound of a federal approach to government once we’re out of the EU. The difference is I would want to court Southern Ireland to join as well, unless I’m missing something there’s no reason they can’t stay as a Republic and thus avoiding arguments about the Head of State. It would leave the discussion as to what an elected Senate would be responsible for as a shared responsibility.

  41. “Surely it should be Scotcheggsit? Been staring us in the face all along…”

    A chance to escape from the English yoke…

  42. @Colin

    “If you mean that Government debt is effectively eroded by inflation, -yes it can be -but of course The Treasury is paying interest on its Gilt issues. If Inflation exceeds nominal Gilt coupon rates there is a gain to the borrower. But Gilt yields will respond to inflation trends anyway.”

    ———-

    Yes I anticipated this, which is why I added in the additional erosion, due to growth, and assets like property in the SE which may appreciate rather more.

    It’s the total erosion that matters, not just cherry-picking the smallest bit!!

  43. CARFREW

    @”It’s the total erosion that matters, not just cherry-picking the smallest bit!!”

    I don’t know what this means either.

  44. @Chris Riley

    Yes, that may be the case for some. I’m basically obviatjng criticisms of Corbyn, controlling the variable, by just assuming the worst, and highlighting that even if Corbyn is the worst thing ever, there are still issues. This in turn helps explain some of the polling. Why some back him regardless, because they are trying to reshape things post-Corbyn. And why even Ed M had issues with the media, and even Tories for a while…

  45. @Colin

    “I don’t know what this means either”

    ——–

    You do surprise me!! But ok, to make it really simple.

    If we spend money in the economy, that may well stoke growth. Our national income goes up, and any debt becomes less burdensome. If you have a pay rise, it becomes easier to pay off any debt.

    For example, our big postwar loan from the Americans was initially a burden to repay. But the time of the last payment a few years ago, the £2m it cost was a trifle compared to normal government expenditure these days.

    Similarly, inflation can have a similar effect. If as a result of QE property prices go up a lot, beyind typical inflation, this can cover the cost of the debt if the government owns quite a bit of property etc.

  46. @Dave

    “We are about to introduce a new £1 coin to prevent this process being undertaken by private enterprise. There it is considered harmful to the economy, called ‘forgery’ and punished by imprisonment.”

    ———

    Ah, well let us introduce you to the wonderful world of banking. Because actually a lot of money creation does in fact occur in the private sector. When you take out a loan from your bank they may well not have the money, or only a fraction. They are permitted to just credit the money to your account even if they don’t have it. A lot of money gets created this way, via debt.

    Sounds fantastical, but it’s true….

  47. @Syzygy

    “You are a joy… and to even manage to slip in some MMT!”

    ———–

    Yes, glad you like, I keep chipping away at it. Also it confounds those given to trying to FUD things up…

  48. CARFREW

    @” If as a result of QE property prices go up a lot, beyind typical inflation, this can cover the cost of the debt if the government owns quite a bit of property etc.”

    ………OK…

    So-the State owes £1,683 billion at end Jan 2017

    How does the increase in the value of State property help fund that debt-unless they sell it?

  49. @Colin

    You don’t have to use the property to fund the debt. You can use summat else, but you may still be quids in overall.

    Like with a mortgage. You may use your wages to cover the debt, rather than selling the property. But you still make money on the property.

    Even despite this, they don’t necessarily have to sell it. They may be able to charge more for renting it out…

  50. The section 30 motion for Holyrood debate on Wednesday has been published. It is as strong a motion as possible. It states that the referendum question, timing and franchise will be decided by the Scottish Parliament. It gives the timeframe autumn ’18 when deal known to Spring ’19 before UK leaves. There is no compromising here.

    Interestingly it invokes the language of the 1989 Claim of Right signed by all political parties, the claim declares the Scottish people sovereign. The claim dates back to 1689 and an act of the Scottish Parliament where the parliament removed the King as the people are sovereign and if Scotland is treated badly then the parliament can remove the ruler (in this case King James but may apply to Westminster).

    The Holyrood Parliament is the reconvened 1707 Scottish Parliament so I was wondering last night if the Scottish Government had some legal recourse. Now with the publication of the motion I think perhaps they do.

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)