Just realised I’ve missed an Ipsos MORI poll of Scottish voting intentions here, MORI’s first Scottish voting figures since the general election.

Westminster: CON 14%, LAB 40%, LDEM 13%, SNP 29%
Holyrood Constituency: CON 11%, LAB 37%, LDEM 13%, SNP 34%
Holyrood Regional: CON 12%, LAB 38%, LDEM 12%, SNP 29%

The poll also asked if people in Scotland supported the release of Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi one year on. 35% think it was right, 54% wrong. This compares to 42% right and 45% wrong when MORI orginally asked back in 2008.

264 Responses to “Latest Ipsos MORI Scottish poll”

1 4 5 6
  1. Roland

    ” It seems a government cannot tamper with the status quo of the social security industry ”

    Yes-it seems that is the stance Roland.
    It is certainly at the heart of political difference.

    Charitably one could just accept that fear of change is based on opening up cracks through which those who shouldn’t may fall…..Amber & I discussed this a short while ago-and it is a fear I share.

    Equally perhaps, one just gets the feeling that they see massive , widespread, and universal welfare benefits as a means of redistributive policy, and social “equality”.

    Even when people like GB try to fine tune that approach with widespread attempts at “targetting” ( some of which was successful) ,my opinion would be that it creates a terrible welfare trap , ghettos of “entitlement” culture , and all the social downside that flows from it.

    I believe IDS has made a case for this having happened & he clearly has a solution in mind. Whether it emerges into the light of day, and quashes the fears of people like Amber ( & I !!) remains to be seen.

    But there is certainly a large & I think growing voice on their side that it is much easier/less risky to leave the thirteen year old structure ,incase it topples over if you remove some of its bits-and just tax the “wealthy” .

    Back to the good old days of Spend & Tax.

    At least it’s clear blue water Roland .

    But the harder social/welfare policy to sell is “ours” -their’s is risk free-ours isn’t.

    The public look like they are beginning to weigh those risks up.

    Its early days though-nothing to pick holes in till September ;-)

  2. Oooooh Steve-you are really for it now!

    They will throw their sporrans out of the pram big time !

  3. @COLIN
    I don’t want to oversimplify or go over old ground, but the “free bus pass” scam is a classic example of how the Labour supporters mind works. Heavy topics are discussed, IT up VAT down endlessly endorsed, but the justification of Mr School master retired and his
    school secretary wife retired, receiving free travel seems to be considered a birth right. The fact that these two have an income of £30,000 plus a further £12,000 when the OAP clicks in, matters not at all.
    Continuing to fund people who have absolutely no NEED, is a luxury the UK cannot afford and should never have been started. In the scheme of things its small, but I reiterate it illustrates the state of mind.

  4. Colin,

    I am glad you drew attention to the difficulties, which some reds (B) had in persuading others that universality is inherently inefficient and too expensive…

    MEans testings (or whatever IDS chooses to call it) is in my view more egalitarian to that to make benefits payable to those that dont need them…

    I will say this though.. 40k per couple goes a lot less far that one might imagine, especially if there are two working parents.

  5. Eoin


    I valued your comments on real life , and it’s social consequences in your experience.

    If I may say so , I noted it’s effect on your Social attitude .

  6. Roland

    I agree.

  7. Colin,

    Let me give you a scenario that is 10)% accurate. Mindnumbingly so.

    A woman I know c.50 has three children- two of them adults one of them 18. She gets £425 per mont CTC for the 18 year old (he’s in education). He gets EMA (£30 per week I think). She is married to an alcoholic on DLA who gets £70 p.w. They live in a council flat rent free. She gets a Renult Scenic fully paid for by the gov. Her mum (83) is still alive but has bad lungs.. has had for half a generation. Her oxygen tank (home use) apparently is bad on the electricity so both homes (hers and her daughters) get their electricity in real tersm paid for. In addition, this women gets I beleive £54 p.w. to look after her mum (who also has a pension) as a carer. In addition, Child Support Agency charger her former husband for the 18 year old I forget how much… In addition this woman has sciatica so she is on DLA….

    Not bad eh?


    also for your interest:

    h ttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1305621/Mother-claims-75-000-benefits-pretending-single-parent.html

    none of the four subjects work.

  8. Eoin

    Thank you -again.

    How to unravel this sort of situation in a humane way ?

    I don’t know.

    But it can’t go on-it’s crazy madness.

  9. Colin,

    I know the woman a dozen or so years. I’ll say this, I have never met anybody given the right job in comfortable surroundings were they feel valued and happy in their workplace, that are not prepared to hold down a job. The mental health issues (she is on tranquilizers) and esteem issues that prevent someone grasping the chance for a catering post, a cleaning post, and customer service role are far too big. We need parole type officers for the long term unemployed. We need free gym memebrship for them (exercise is key) less benefits more vouchers… for good food, for health related activities… We could give them free transport, whcih would negate the need for a car (which she replaces every two years). Doctors should not be allowed to presecribe medication so readily just to hide the problem…

    The same woman and her freinds gather and funeral wakes and divide up the deceased’s tranquilizers. There was a riot at a Derry Doctor’s surgery because the doctor shut up for three days (due to ill health) and was not able to prescribe their medication…

    I think lonlieness, depression and esteem isssues need to be tackled.

    Alan Johnson announced (off the top of my head £390mill for mentla health related services) It should be at least three times that… cut their beenfits replaced them with vouchers, and tailored help…

    The same woman, and many like her have vivacity and charisma, the kind that you only see soemtimes among th every poor. I have no doubt she could be a valuable contributor to her lcoal economy.

  10. Colin,

    Gee that was 2007 when johnson announced that… time does fly (see link) A case of too little to late for Labour but I hope blues take it up..

    htt p://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7037400.stm

  11. Steve

    “And there it is, written in black and white, that Scotland received an extra £3.8 billion from the rest of the UK in 2008-09, on top of all other spending including oil revenues.”

    I’m glad that you had a look at GERS. Pity that you didn’t understand it!

    The £3.8 billion is not from “the rest of the UK” – it’s Scotland’s fiscal deficit – including our share of the UK Government’s fiscal intervention. Now let’s see where else has a fiscal deficit …. could it possibly be the UK. Let’s see …

    Good heavens! There it is in the very next sentence to the section you based your distorted comment on “This is comparable with the estimate of UK net borrowing published in the March 2010 UK Budget.”

    Next time, try reading with understanding.

  12. @Colin – “But the harder social/welfare policy to sell is “ours” -their’s is risk free-ours isn’t.”

    I think that’s the hard part. In tax and benefits losers always shout loudly, and there will be losers. I think that there is also the Tory record to contend with. While Labour had to struggle with deep fears on tax rises, the Tories have a poor historic record on benefits and this will inevitably mean they have a mountain to climb at the start. It’s a great shame that Labour didn’t do more to reform welfare as psychologically they were in a much better place to persuade the public.

    I would say however that in my view the universal vs means tested is something of a red herring. It serves to separate benefits from the tax system, and while it doesn’t make sense to give benefits to wealthy people, restricting benefits to a relative small group of ‘needy’ people will over time undermine the entire emotional edifice of the welfare state and introduce widespread and expensive means testing, which often fails to get resources to those who need it due to underclaiming.

    I would be more in favour of keeping some of the universal benefits but making them all taxable and adjusting tax thresholds and rates to compensate.

    There are also some choices to be made about what is needed. For example, any age related benefit (bus passes, winter fuel allowance etc) should be correlated with state pension age. Indeed why have separate allowances – if we think they are necessary, add them to basic pension and be done with the administration of separate benefits.

    Why do we need child benefit at all? We’ve got a tax credit system that provides additional cash for families with children, those not in work can have other benefits adjusted to compensate, but why an entire separate system of payments just for having kids?

    I still think there’s great mileage in having different benefit rates depending on which way you’re travelling through the system (high benefits when going into work, lower when going into unemployment) and I wouldn’t necessaily exclude a lifetime limit on certain employment related benefits.

  13. Oldnat. Give. It. Up.

    “The £3.8 billion is not from “the rest of the UK” – it’s Scotland’s fiscal deficit – including our share of the UK Government’s fiscal intervention.”

    “including our share of the UK Government’s fiscal intervention”? Really? To quote your GERS, the deficit was £3bn without Scotland’s share of the fiscal intervention, and £3.8bn with a share.

    So, according to the SNP, Scotland’s share of the UK bail-outs is just £800million?

    Unless, I’m very much mistaken, that’s quite a bit less than the £470bn spent on just bailing out Scottish banks (so says a Scottish Parliament report).

    To put that another way, the nationalists believe that Scotland should only be responsible for 0.17% of the amount spent on bailing out Scottish banks. That’s their ‘share’ apparently covered. Job done. Move along please.

    Only other nationalists will swallow such bull!

  14. Steve

    In the highly unlikely event of anyone reading this thread again!

    You really should read the report, not just cherry pick from it, and misinterpret that.

    Table 3.1 shows the allocation of Financial Sector Expenditure

    £8,312 million for the UK and £700 million for Scotland. ie 8.4% – as is the same case for other allocations.

    Where you so dismally fail is to misunderstand fiscal deficit. If Scotland’s fiscal deficit is less than our share of the UK fiscal deficit then we are doing better than the UK average. If it is greater, then we are doing worse than the UK average. Go do some sums.

1 4 5 6