The lesson for the SNP as new poll puts independence support at 54%
It's strikingly similar to a string of polls a few years ago which claimed there would be a big boost in independence support, in some cases taking the Yes vote into the high 50s, if Britain voted to leave the EU, or if Boris Johnson became Prime Minister, or if the UK government negotiated a hard Brexit rather than a soft Brexit. All of those three events came to pass, and yet the predicted instant effect on Yes support didn't materialise.
The reason is that people are generally bad at answering hypothetical questions accurately, and sometimes think a possible future event will have more of an impact on their own political attitudes than actually proves to be the case. It's far more important, then, that the Norstat poll shows that real independence support in the here-and-now stands at a very handsome 54%, a gain of four percentage points since the previous poll in the series.
That may well imply that the increasing danger of Farage grabbing the keys to 10 Downing Street has already shifted some voters into the Yes camp. And it's worth remembering that it's perfectly possible for hypothetical questions in polls to underestimate the impact of future events, as well as to overestimate them.
It's unlikely that many people in early 1979 would have guessed the full extent of the transformative effect that Margaret Thatcher's premiership was about to have on support for both devolution and independence over the course of 11 years. If Nigel Farage takes office and starts acting in a way that is fundamentally at odds with Scottish values, as Mrs Thatcher did, or if he tries to abolish or neuter the Scottish Parliament, a sea-change in public opinion could be triggered that might take the Yes vote well beyond the predicted 58% mark.
READ MORE: Nigel Farage visit to Aberdeen met by anti-racism protesters
There's a much more immediate concern about the impact of Farage and Reform UK on Scottish politics, though. The word from the ground in the Hamilton, Larkhall & Stonehouse by-election is that Reform are performing strongly, that they have a good chance of overtaking Labour to finish second, and that they may even have an outside chance of overtaking the SNP to win outright.
Because of that consideration, the SNP leadership will have been far more interested in what the Norstat poll shows about party political voting intentions than in what it shows about independence. The large 15-point gap between the SNP and Reform in Holyrood constituency voting intentions will settle the nerves that had been left jangling by a small series of Scottish subsamples from Britain-wide polls, which misleadingly implied that Reform had more or less drawn level.
Nevertheless, there's an ongoing frustration that the SNP hold their lead on only 33% of the vote, rather than something approaching the 54% vote for independence itself. It's well known that the biggest reason Labour were able to win a majority of Scottish seats at last year's Westminster General Election was that Yes support had become decoupled from SNP support, and that a great many people were voting Labour while still supporting independence.
READ MORE: Scottish Labour councillor defects to Reform UK
But Labour's support has collapsed since then, so if those "lost" independence supporters haven't returned to the SNP fold, where have they gone? The answer, according to the Norstat data tables, is that they are now dispersed between several different parties, mostly Unionist parties. Only 56% of those who would vote Yes in any independence referendum held now would also vote SNP on the Holyrood constituency ballot. Some 12% would vote Labour, 10% would vote Conservative, 9% would vote Green, 7% would vote Reform, and 5% would vote Liberal Democrat.
It's hard to escape the conclusion that voters are no longer casting their votes with independence at the forefront of their minds, and that there is consequently an opportunity for the SNP to win many of those people back if they can devise a strategy that stresses the urgency of independence and convincingly ties a vote for the SNP to the prospect of Scotland actually becoming an independent country in the relatively near future.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Murray hails ‘brilliant opportunities' of UK Government's industrial strategy
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer unveiled the document on Monday, pinpointing key industries believed to have the most potential for growth such as artificial intelligence, offshore wind and batteries for electric vehicles. The 160-page document put Scotland 'at the heart of the UK's energy transition', as well as talking up commitments to a £750 million supercomputer in Edinburgh and £200 million in development funding for the Acorn carbon capture and storage facility in Aberdeenshire. The Prime Minister also announced a cut to electricity bills for industrial businesses, £30 million for the video games sector – with a number of high profile developers based in Scotland – and £30 million for research and development for each of the devolved nations. Delighted to be in Cockenzie, East Lothian for the launch of the UK Industrial Strategy today. Lots of brilliant opportunities for Scotland from the 8 growth sectors. Jobs, investment, regeneration and skills. — Ian Murray MP (@IanMurrayMP) June 23, 2025 In a post on X following a visit to the promote the strategy, the Scottish Secretary said: 'Delighted to be in Cockenzie, East Lothian, for the launch of the UK industrial strategy today. 'Lots of brilliant opportunities for Scotland from the eight growth sectors. 'Jobs, investment, regeneration and skills.' The strategy was also praised by Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar. 'Labour's industrial strategy delivers for Scotland – unlocking economic potential, raising wages, boosting living standards, and delivering the growth we need,' he said. Asked about his response to the UK Government's announcement on Monday, First Minister John Swinney touted his own Government's work on industry. 'Of course, we have in Scotland our own approach to industrial strategy, which involves working with our universities, with our economic development agencies to ensure that we attract investment and can support development within the economy,' he told the PA news agency. 'Last week, we saw that Scotland, for the 10th year in a row, was the most successful part of the United Kingdom for the attraction of inward investment other than London and the south east. 'So that's an indication that the Scottish Government's got its priorities correct, its focus correct on the attraction of investment, because we're contributing to make Scotland an incredibly successful investment location.'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Starmer picks his winners in bid to revive British industry
Sir Keir Starmer has vowed to make Britain 'the best place to do business' with a new industrial strategy focused on eight key areas of the economy. At 160 pages, the lengthy document will form the centrepiece of Labour's economic policy as ministers try to navigate the impact of geopolitical crises and Donald Trump's tariffs. It is designed to provide a clear blueprint for the Government's priorities over the next 10 years, unlocking jobs and investment. But critics have argued it will do little to help businesses battling rising prices and higher taxes. Here we look at some of the most interesting policies in the strategy published on Monday. What are the eight sectors? The Industrial Strategy focuses on eight areas of the economy that it says have 'the highest potential' over the next decade. They are: Advanced manufacturing (including cars) The creative industries Life sciences Clean energy Defence Digital and technologies Professional and business services Financial services Britain's 'foundational' industries – steel, construction, chemicals, ports and so forth – are also included. The eight sectors are those the Government believes will be most important to the country's future economic success. But as with any attempt to choose favourites, those left out are not happy. 'Ignoring 70pc of the economy is at odds with the Government's ambition to create jobs and help people into work,' warned Kate Nicholls, chief executive of UKHospitality. Energy costs The biggest new policy to come out of the strategy is a scheme to help manufacturers with soaring energy bills. British companies have been paying the highest industrial electricity prices in the developed world, according to official data.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Kemi is displaying a Thatcherish readiness for political battle
I encountered two interesting interviews today. One I listened to on the BBC; the other I conducted myself at the think-tank Policy Exchange. The first was with David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary. He simply could not, or would not tell Justin Webb, who asked him, whether the American attack on Iran's nuclear missile sites was legal. The attack is arguably the most important military intervention of our most important ally since the Second World War. It is against sites which we know for a fact are trying to enrich uranium to weapons-grade; yet Labour cannot say whether it is for or against. The second interview was with Kemi Badenoch, Leader of the Opposition. The frame of our discussion was the centenary of the birth of Margaret Thatcher, which falls in October, and the half-century, also marked this year, since Mrs Thatcher became Conservative leader. Much of our talk was about the lessons of Thatcher: how to overcome the criticisms thrown at a new, largely untried leader – then, female and lower-middle-class; today, female and black – coming into the job at a time of crisis for her party and her country. This was the best I had seen Mrs Badenoch since she won the job last year. She was back to her old combative form, but with an added thoughtfulness which suits someone who needs to prove that her party can accomplish national rescue. Her preference for 'makers' over 'takers' in British society was an effective update of Mrs Thatcher's 'We back the workers not the shirkers', which helped her win the leadership in February 1975. She is starting to dig out the weeds of Conservative economic weakness which have appeared in recent years. But she was at her sharpest – with a Thatcherish readiness for political battle – over the Lammy non-answers. Her analysis is that the problem lies with Sir Keir's old friend, Lord Hermer, whom he made a peer and Attorney General after winning the general election last year. In the past, the role of Attorney General has been the most low-key of important government jobs. As the senior law officer of the Crown, he is supposed to ensure official compatibility with the law and, where necessary, act for the government in legal disputes. Lord Hermer sees it all quite differently. He wants the rule of lawyers, in which legal advisers become the arbiters of government policy. He approaches international and human rights law as if it were all settled, unambiguous and mandatory when in fact much of it is vague, declaratory and politicised. As a lawyer, he loved acting against the British government in court cases (hence his interest in surrendering the Chagos Islands and helping retired terrorists). As Attorney General, he seems obsessed with the wickedness of Israel and unconcerned by the oppressive, aggressive and theocratic states and terrorist groupings ranged against it. Today, Mrs Badenoch called this 'legal fetishism' which 'imposes the law on everything'. She said that Lord Hermer should, in the time-honoured phrase, 'consider his position'. I wonder if even Sir Keir himself may be coming to agree with her. It is a strong tradition in British foreign policy, closely related to our long global experience, that we cannot treat with other countries as litigants in a court. We need lasting alliances to promote and protect our interests. For that reason, we must be extremely reluctant to lay down the law for the behaviour of others. It is in tight spots that alliances are tested. In the case of America, Israel and Iran, Britain has an overwhelming interest in staying close to the first, protecting the rights to self-defence of the second and confronting the aggression of the third. Sir Keir sort of knows this, which is why he has put so much into efforts to placate President Trump. But such is his legal fetishism that now, when allies matter, he is almost literally incapable of speech. He claims friendship with America, but cannot think of anything to say. If I were at a White House press conference, I would like to ask Mr Trump, 'Mr President, your action in Iran is the boldest you have yet undertaken. How is the British Government assisting you in overcoming the Iranian nuclear threat?' Mr Trump tends to give frank answers. I don't think Sir Keir would be happy with his likely reply. De-escalation dogma The one word which Sir Keir Starmer and his Government do love to utter just now is 'de-escalation'. This is the approved code for criticising America and Israel, especially President Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu. Yet the real escalator is, and has been for its entire existence, the Islamist Iranian regime. This escalation culminated in its nuclear programme, a programme which the diplomacy Sir Keir advocates failed to stop. But do not suppose that this feebleness is a Labour invention. In January 2020, President Trump, then in his first term, ordered the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, the commander of the Iranian Quds force. In justification, Trump tweeted, 'Iran never won a war, but never lost a negotiation!' Britain, at that time, had a Conservative Government. Its reaction, expressed by the Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, was to call for, yes, 'de-escalation'. His line was hardly distinguishable from that of the then Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, who called the killing of Soleimani 'a dangerous escalation'.
