Dramatic Survation online poll confirms the telephone findings : there is now a majority for independence

Should Scotland be an independent country? (Survation, online, 24th-28th June)

Yes 53% (+5)
No 47% (-5)

As this is an online poll, the percentage changes above are measured from the last directly comparable Survation online poll back in April.

Although the figures are almost identical to the Survation telephone poll from a couple of days ago, they're still significant, because there was never any guarantee that an online poll would produce the same result.  Remember that the relatively small number of polls to have put Yes in the lead since the indyref have been disproportionately 'real world' polls (telephone or face-to-face), and most have been unweighted by recalled indyref vote.  Survation said that they decided against weighting their phone poll by 2014 vote because they found evidence of false recall, but that doesn't seem to have been an issue in today's poll - meaning this is the best ever result for Yes in a poll weighted by indyref vote (from any firm).

Incidentally, the result is even closer to being identical to the telephone poll than it appears at first glance, because No have been flattered by rounding - it's actually Yes 53.5%, No 46.5%.  This time, though, there's a reasonably clear majority in favour of actually holding a second indyref -

Following the result of the UK's referendum on membership of the European Union, where the UK voted to leave, which of the following statements is closest to your opinion?

Scotland should hold a second independence referendum : 47%
Scotland should not hold a second independence referendum : 42%

And perhaps more significantly, there is overwhelming support for Nicola Sturgeon's view that it would be "democratically unacceptable" for Scotland to be dragged out of the EU against its will...

Following the result of the UK's referendum on membership of the European Union, where the UK as a whole voted to leave but Scotland voted to Remain, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said that it was "democratically unacceptable" that Scotland faced the prospect of leaving the EU. To what extent to you agree or disagree with the comments made by the First Minister?

TOTAL AGREE : 52%
TOTAL DISAGREE : 33%

Although the fieldwork dates make it look like this poll is more up to date than the others we've seen since Thursday, the nature of online polls means that most participants are likely to have responded to the survey invitation on Friday or Saturday (unless Survation staggered the invitations).  So we'll still have to wait and see whether the new support for independence holds up once the dust settles a little - although, as I've said before, there'll be no real "getting back to normal" on Planet Brexit.

*  *  *

Don't all faint with amazement at once (some of you might be needed to fill vacancies in the Shadow Cabinet), but it appears that the Liberal Democrats have said something profoundly hypocritical.  They have announced that they will go into the next general election with a manifesto commitment to overturn the result of the Brexit referendum - and that's not dependent on any material change of circumstances, but simply on the fact that the Leave campaign told lies.  That's EXTRAORDINARY.  It comes from the same party that denounced the SNP in 2014 for even daring to raise the possibility of a second independence referendum if there was an extreme change of circumstances such as Scotland being dragged out of Europe, and indeed Nick Clegg infamously described Alex Salmond as being like a Japanese soldier in the jungle who didn't know the war was over.  And yet if the Lib Dems have their way, there could be a second EU referendum within just a couple of years without anything having changed AT ALL.

Any intellectually coherent Liberal Democrat case against a second independence referendum has now been obliterated.  If the winning side telling lies is a good enough excuse for a repeat referendum, the second indyref should have taken place on 19th September 2014.

*  *  *

There has been a lot of talk in recent days about devising a model that would allow Scotland, Gibraltar and possibly Northern Ireland to remain part of both the UK and the EU.  Here are a few reasons why that is very unlikely to happen -

1)  Even if England and Wales received Greenland-style exemptions from the treaties, the United Kingdom itself would almost certainly have to remain a member state of the European Union - and it has just voted to Leave.  Continued membership would arguably only be a technicality, but the triumphalist Brexiteers still wouldn't stand for it.

2) It would be almost impossible to resolve the dilemma of whether Northern Ireland should be in the UK's "EU zone" or "zone libre", because its government is split.  The DUP are likely to take the view that leaving the EU is a UK-wide decision and that Northern Ireland - regardless of how it voted - must leave along with the rest of the UK.

3) In many ways, Scotland would become a de facto independent country anyway.  To reverse the catchphrase of the American revolution, you can't have representation without taxation, and so if only Scotland and Gibraltar were contributing to the EU budget, it logically follows that the Scottish and Gibraltarian governments would control the UK's vote in the Council of Ministers, and would also be responsible for determining the UK's negotiating position on future treaties or treaty amendments.  That's an enormous power that has thus far been reserved for sovereign governments, and in practice would presumably be wielded by the Scottish Government in consultation with Gibraltar (given the huge disparity between the populations, it's hard to see how Scotland and Gibraltar could be on a completely equal footing).  Can anyone imagine London agreeing to that?

4) There would have to be a real border between Scotland and England.  That would be the case even if Boris Johnson gets his miracle "Norway minus" deal - because even that would involve restrictions on freedom of movement, but only within the UK's "zone libre", ie. England and Wales.  So movement between Scotland and England would have to be controlled just as much as movement between England and France.  People will understandably be inclined to think - if all this is going to happen anyway, what is the point in Scotland not becoming formally independent?

*  *  *

I don't think words can adequately convey the contempt I increasingly have for the Labour plotters and their increasingly cowardly attempts to depose Jeremy Corbyn by increasingly undemocratic means while using the word "increasingly" as much as humanly possible.  There is a very simple rule that allows the incumbent leader to be challenged if an alternative candidate receives 50 nominations, so if Corbyn's opponents really thought they had the support of the wider party, they would have got on and done that, instead of trying to bypass the membership altogether by handing Corbyn a revolver and telling him to do the "decent thing".  This is eerily similar to the Lib Dem coup against Charles Kennedy in 2006, when the plotters still weren't satisfied even after Kennedy resigned - they refused to call off the dogs until Kennedy changed his mind about standing in the subsequent leadership election, because they knew the membership might well give him a renewed mandate.  I just hope Corbyn doesn't follow Kennedy's example by eventually giving in to the bullying and blackmail.

There's a line that sticks in my mind from the 1990s TV series Sharpe -

"All you have to do to hold off the French is stand, and fire three rounds a minute.  Now, you and I know that you can fire three rounds a minute, but the question is - can you stand?"

Which is another way of saying that Corbyn's chances of seeing off the coup largely depend on his own calmness and resolve.  If he can avoid getting caught up in the Westminster bubble narrative that insists his position is "increasingly" untenable, there's no reason why he can't hang on - especially if the overrated Angela Eagle is the sole challenger.