Wednesday, July 5, 2023

Westminster REELS IN SHOCK as support for independence SURGES in new BOMBSHELL Redfield & Wilton poll - but Humza Yousaf's personal popularity slumps again, and the SNP are clinging on to a barely-there lead

Should Scotland be an independent country?  (Redfield & Wilton Strategies, 1st-2nd July 2023)

Yes 48% (+3)
No 52% (-3)

To some extent that's a reversion to the mean, because the 45% in the previous poll for Yes was unusually low, but a three-point jump does give me the opportunity to use the word "surges" in the headline in almost a non-ironic way.  The evidence that independence support is holding up irrespective of what happens to the SNP is now overwhelming - no matter how far the SNP slip, the Yes vote seems to remain in the familiar range, and that's a pattern across all polling firms.  Perhaps even more importantly, this is the second Redfield & Wilton poll in a row to show that a plurality of voters (41% to 40% in this case) want an independence referendum to be held within the next twelve months, providing a timely reminder that the likes of Alex Massie have no factual basis for their repeated claims that Scotland does not want a referendum.

Voters are almost split down the middle on what they think the result of an early independence referendum would be - 38% think Yes would win, and 42% think No would win.  That's potentially significant, because people will be basing their expectations on the views of their friends and families.  There's clearly still a lot of enthusiasm for independence out there, and not just among the members of volunteer online polling panels.

And now to the bad news - away from the independence numbers, this poll makes grim reading for the SNP in general and Humza Yousaf in particular.  The leadership will doubtless point out that the SNP are in the lead on all three ballots (Westminster, Holyrood constituency and Holyrood list) but as in yesterday's Survation poll, that lead is now barely there in all three cases.

Scottish voting intentions for the next UK general election:

SNP 35% (-2)
Labour 32% (+4)
Conservatives 21% (+1)
Liberal Democrats 7% (-2)
Greens 2% (-1)
Reform UK 2% (-1)

Seats projection (with changes from 2019 election): SNP 24 (-24), Labour 22 (+21), Conservatives 8 (+2), Liberal Democrats 5 (+1)

Among the predicted carnage here, Alison Thewliss, Anne McLaughlin, Stewart McDonald, Patrick Grady, David Linden, Tommy Sheppard and Deidre Brock would all be losing their seats, and ironically a big part of the reason for that is the unpopularity of the man most of them pressurised SNP members to install as leader, even though Kate Forbes was clearly far more liked by the public.  Humza Yousaf's net personal rating has slipped back to -10 in this poll, putting him well behind Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar (+4) and also behind UK Labour leader Keir Starmer (-1). And although he's ahead of Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross (-19), it's not exactly the gap of light-years you would customarily expect.

The leadership were clearly thinking on the right strategic lines when they reversed course to some extent by saying they will allow people to vote directly for independence at the general election.  With independence now so much more popular than the SNP (a gap that appears to be growing even further), it plainly makes sense to make a big offer to independence supporters who have drifted off to Labour, and who quite simply have little interest in the SNP unless independence is back on the table.  But it does look like the leadership problem is going to have to be addressed too if the SNP are to have any chance of averting electoral disaster next year.  Either Yousaf will have to go, or he'll have to belatedly swallow his pride and bring Kate Forbes, Ash Regan, and one or two key Forbes supporters into senior positions in a Unity Cabinet with essentially a collective leadership.

One glimmer of light for the SNP is that the net rating for the whole party is -2, which is only very slightly behind Labour's +1.  So there isn't necessarily a mountain to climb if only the leadership problem can be sorted out before the general election.

Scottish Parliament constituency ballot: 

SNP 33% (-3)
Labour 30% (+1)
Conservatives 21% (-)
Liberal Democrats 10% (+2)
Greens 2% (-)
Reform UK 2% (-)
Alba 1% (-)

Scottish Parliament regional list ballot: 

SNP 28% (+3)
Labour 26% (-1)
Conservatives 19% (-)
Liberal Democrats 12% (+2)
Greens 8% (-5)
Reform UK 4% (+2)
Alba 2% (-)

Seats projection (with changes from 2021 election): SNP 40 (-24), Labour 38 (+16), Conservatives 26 (-5), Liberal Democrats 15 (+11), Greens 10 (+2)

Off the top of my head, I can't recall a worse projection than that for the SNP in well over a decade.  40 seats is seven lower than they had when they first took power under Alex Salmond by the slenderest of margins in 2007.  It's possible that they could repeat the trick given that on these numbers they would remain two seats ahead of Labour, but I'm not at all convinced.  The momentum against the SNP would be such that Labour might feel justified in using external support from the Tories to install a Labour-Lib Dem minority coalition government.  An additional problem here is the five-point slump for the Greens on the list vote - we'll have to wait to see whether that's a freak result or the start of a trend caused by the public losing patience with the key role played by Green ministers in some of the Scottish Government's most high-profile failures.  The SNP and Greens in combination are projected to have just 50 seats, far behind the combined total of 79 for unionist parties.

*  *  *

I launched the Scot Goes Pop fundraiser for 2023 a few weeks ago, and the running total has now passed £2000.  The target figure is £8500, however, so there's still quite some distance to travel.  If you'd like to help Scot Goes Pop continue by making a donation, please click HERE.  Many thanks to everyone who has donated so far.

23 comments:

  1. Thanks for his James, needed some positivity today.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There have been 30 polls on the Independence question during 2023 with the YES average around 48% so this latest R&W Strategies survey result looks like it is a decent weather vane for pro-Independence sentiment.

    (Incidentally I noticed that the actual numbers weighted by likelihood to vote in the prior R&W Strategies 3-5 Jun 2023 poll had YES on 554 and NO on 644 i.e. YES at 46%. I might be wrong but is the increase in this latest survey +2% rather than +3%? https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fredfieldandwiltonstrategies.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2023%2F06%2FScottish-Independence-Referendum-Westminster-Voting-Intention-3-5-June-2023.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK)

    The SNP nose-dive over the half-year is fairly dramatic and half a dozen of those representatives at Westminster have seen the writing on the wall and have decided to scarper before the 2024 British general election rather than face the predicted backlash from the electorate for their prioritising unpopular policies in Scotland rather than Independence.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The SNP leadership won't be too worried about losing so many seats. They'll just see it as part of the britnat political process they have happily accepted. It's Labour's turn now; it'll be ours again in a decade's time. Independence? Only when their English masters allow it. Meanwhile the SNP will continue to help prolong the union by conning genuine pro-indy voters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it will do the SNP some good to experience a Labour government's authentic hostility to them again. Nicola's SNP views itself as a social democratic chum to the UK establishment. They're a willing vanguard of the Progressive Alliance that would surely bring the Tories down all those elections in a row when England voted Tory and got Tory rule in any case. An alliance that does not exist. Labour hates their guts! They'll never forgive them for losing them their ancestral grip on Scotland.

      Would the SNP flourish under Starmer's hostile rule? I doubt it. Scotgov has 2 years to prove its mettle. Red tories are just as deadly as blue.

      Delete
  4. From the National: "SNP MP [Tommy Sheppard] calls for end to bishops in 'unelected' House of Lords"

    Who gives a flying (trapeze)? It's total Independence we're after.

    He's a sad disappointment, a reason for declining SNP support.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A reason, yes, but not *the* reason. The big one is the public taking the expected stance regards Nicola and the police. (The exact same one Nicola explicitly call for and was so delighted that they took against Eck.) Her reputation is as low as her polling suggests. Loathe her or loathe her, we all know the N in SNP stands for Nicola. The party needs an abrupt and unmistakable break from the past not to sink with her into the deep where she now belongs.

      Honestly, I doubt Kate Forbes would be doing any better quite yet, and I judge her to be 100 times better than Humza. The whole party is having to eat what Nicola just dropped on them. It’s not pretty.

      Delete
  5. So how bad is humza? because I can't see anything there!! Please detail!!
    If Kate was first minister what would she have differently and not the brightest ASH!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A few things:

      She wouldn’t have purged her cabinet along clique lines, which Humza did.
      She would have halted the marine protected areas plan in its tracks, which is devastating the party’s support in coastal communities. (She wrote an excellent piece in the National about this.)
      She’s probably smart enough to know the right thing to do on coronation day was to send a stooge to Chaerlie and keep her appointment with the movement in Glasgow.
      Ditto re: scheduling the “Indy convention” on the same day as the Bannockburn Indy march.
      She might have actually listened to the party, too.
      And Nicola would be an ex-party member, as she belongs. No flowers in the post, no hotline to Bute House and no sympathy. Nicola burnt her bridges with Forbes in the way she fixed and framed the contest.

      Even so, the events playing out with Nicola and her husband, and still to reach their conclusion, would be a headwind on the SNP under any leadership. But this leadership, this Nicola tribute act and fan club? What we’re seeing is the base line for just how bad it can possibly be. And what sickens many of us is we saw it coming and told them so, before Humza was even leader. He’s the wrong man for the job. Was and still is. The public decided the moment they saw him, and he’s played into their low expectations and our worst fears ever since. His polling is awful. He’s dragging down the SNP and with it the only available vehicle for independence.

      Continuity? When you’re sinking?

      Delete
    2. I'll give this a bash. I have no idea if you were one of the folk who thought Sturgeon did a good job (I wasn't) but many folk were already falling away from the SNP because of her administration and it's lack of furthering the independence agenda and he was a big part of that. He's duff because he put together the Hate Crime Bill that no one understands including the police. He's duff because he lacks inspiration. He's duff because his hands are marked with everything the Sturgeon regime did. He's duff because he has failed to take the initiative since he took over. He had a small window at the start of his tenure to make big changes to set an example to energise the project (which I hope might still be independence) and he didn't.

      So what would Kate Forbes have done? Again as so often is the case, this is a 'how the eff should I know' question but she could have done any of the things that he didn't. And the one thing about Forbes is she tells the truth. Strange one that, so many people against her because she didn't lie about her beliefs whilst so many others hide their views and beliefs. As for Ash Regan, she was slaughtered by the media. She started off her campaign lacking confidence but found her voice as the campaign continued but by that time the media had decided to make the whole thing a Yousaf versus Forbes narrative, some times they didn't even include her picture in their articles. And with Yousaf lining up against an avowed truth teller Christian Forbes had no chance of a good hearing. With regard to Regan you have to ask is confidence the only thing that matters? Sturgeon had oodles of confidence and she broke her pledge, the pledge that I and countless others believed and so we continued to vote for her party, the pledge that she would lead us to independence. That's what she said to us several times,. well, she didn't. Give me Ash Regan any day. If you make a pledge keep it otherwise you are a 'non pledge keeper'. There's another name for that but it doesn't apply to Kate Forbes. Does it apply to any others associated with the 'leading us to independence' pledge? well I suppose we'll have to wait and see.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous at 8.31pm you say Regan is not the brightest but your comment re " but I can't see anything there" marks you as not being that bright. Indeed probably a WGD numpty.

      Delete
    4. Another difference: upon Forbes election, the Greens would have resigned from the coalition, meaning a certain startlingly incompetent minister would have been relieved of her responsibilities over the Bottle Bùrach without Fergus Ewing having to lose the whip for being the only one to vote with his conscience.

      Throwing the Greens out the cabinet (by their own prejudiced free will) would have been a great opportunity for a real shakeup of the government, too. And a shakeup is what they still badly need.

      Delete
  6. WGD numpty Bathtub Admiral posts on WGD that he believes we need charlieboy to get Scottish independence. Aye he is definately on the magic mushrooms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not quite, you should stick to the humour, you're pretty good at that to be fair. This is from electric scotland:

      "A Petition to the Queen on the issue remains unanswered to this day. This, however, was an essential step, because in order to make a convincing case at international level we had to demonstrate that all possibility of obtaining redress at domestic level had been tried and failed. Some international organisations make this a condition of accepting a submission, and the unanswered petition was all the evidence that we needed."

      The Scotland-UN Committee without whom we might never have got Devolution:

      https://electricscotland.com/independence/uncommittee.htm

      Thanks for the reminder to post this here and thanks to someone on WGD for finding it :-) Same could be true if the great efforts by Hanvey come to fruition.

      Delete
    2. You may like the humour in some of my posts but I do not like people questioning the integrity of my posts.

      Yesindyref2 posted on WGD 6th July a comment including the following:- " And it's also a reason why no Indy supporter should support a British Republic. We might need King Chuck even in his silence, to achieve Indy, specially before, dare I say, a UDI."

      So yes you ARE promoting we need charlieboy for independence. You have always been a royalist groveller but now you are trying to dress it up as something that might assist independence.

      I'm guessing your true love of the royals is down to your infatuation with the ROYAL Navy and it's warships etc.

      The Royal family will NEVER do anything to assist Scottish independence. They are part of the English establishment - coming to Scotland on your hols and wearing a kilt now and again does not change that fact. If you think otherwise you are most definately on the mushrooms.

      Delete
    3. Was Alex Salmond up to something when he complained that he wanted a proper full coronation of King Charles in Scotland?

      Delete
    4. You consistently cut and paste a bit of my postings from that other blog, totally out of context. That's the problem. What I said was this, in reply to a poster with the link from electricscotland about the The Scotland-UN Committee who possibly actually got us devolution:

      ------------------
      "Thanks for that. Here’s an interesting bit:

      A Petition to the Queen on the issue remains unanswered to this day. This, however, was an essential step, because in order to make a convincing case at international level we had to demonstrate that all possibility of obtaining redress at domestic level had been tried and failed. Some international organisations make this a condition of accepting a submission, and the unanswered petition was all the evidence that we needed.

      The bit I put in bold is as relevant today, considering Hanvey’s sought opinion, as it was then. And it’s also a reason why no Indy supporter should support a British Republic. We might need King Chuck even in his silence, to achieve Indy, specially before, dare I say, a UDI."
      --------------

      The link is this:

      https://electricscotland.com/independence/uncommittee.htm

      and now it's put in context I'm sure you'll agree that the right time to get rid of the monarchy if you want would be AFTER Independence, not BEFORE.

      Supporting a BRITISH Republic could be the end of Scotland as a nation, and any chance of Independence. I'm sure you wouldn't want that, would you?

      Delete
  7. A question for the Royal groveller that is posting more frequently on SGP.

    Yesindyref2 do you believe charlieboy has been crowned King of Scots?

    Or are you happy to worship an English king who calls himself Charles 111 of the UK of Great Britain and Northern Ireland despite the inconvenient fact that there has never been any other King Charles of the UK.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That complaint applied to Lizzie—Elizabeth I was Queen of England, never Scotland—but Charlies 1 through 3 are all just as legitimate as the next to that claim. Charlies I and II were London kings after James VI shafted the lot of us.

      Delete
    2. Charles I and II may have come before the Acts of Union but they were I and II of England and Scotland. Your preferred "Charles the First of the United Kingdom" would have to be renumbered as the third of both Kingdoms anyway when we dissolve the union.

      Independence for Scotland is a certain thing. The crowned twat has accepted it. ;)

      Delete
    3. Independence for Scotland - is there some reason for the persistent ad hominems and misrepresentation?

      Could you give it a rest please? It's disturbingly obsessive.

      Delete
    4. Don't flatter yourself Admiral. You are just another WGD Sturgeon worshipper with the added level of Royal worshipping. Your whining about ad Homs is pathetic and hypocritical as you have indulged heavily in ad Homs yourself.
      Your other whine about being misrepresented is just bullshit and you know it.

      You are so pathetic you do not deserve the title of Bathtub Admiral - petty officer is more appropriate with an obsssession about weapons of war.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous at 1.02 pm. I do not have a 'preferred' Charles the First of the United Kingdom.

      Delete
  8. Unusually prompt release of data from YouGov.
    Westminster voting intention, Scottish sub-sample, field work 5 - 6th July, sample size 179.
    Con - 13%, Lab - 36%, LibDem - 9%, SNP - 33%, RefUK - 2%, Greens - 5%, Others - 3%.
    Seat prediction: Con 3(-3), Lab 30(+29), LibDem 5(+1), SNP 21(-27).
    That’s 30 very disgruntled colleagues for Stephen “the skull” Flynn to try and placate (well 6 have already thrown in the towel).

    ReplyDelete