The simple Ipsos poll change that could be significant for independence
The 52% to 48% lead for Yes on the independence question is in fact a marginal improvement on the position shown by the Ipsos poll just over a year ago during the General Election campaign. It's true that there have been far more impressive results for Yes in other Ipsos polls over the years, but nevertheless the new poll offers grounds for optimism that the revised Ipsos methodology will continue to produce more favourable independence numbers than are typically seen from long-standing online firms such as Survation and YouGov, both of which showed a No lead in their most recent polls.
READ MORE: Minister responds to claims of 'Iranian Scottish independence X accounts'
Part of the reason for this ongoing contrast may be that most other pollsters differ from Ipsos in that they insist on weighting their results according to how respondents say they voted in the 2014 independence referendum – a practice that after such a long period of time carries the increasing risk of results being distorted by false recall.
The SNP's 31% vote share in Westminster voting intentions is firmly within their normal range of between 30% and 34% shown in recent months across all polling firms. However, the 22% share for Labour is the second-highest showing for Keir Starmer's party since February, while Reform UK's 16% is markedly lower than the 21% reported by both Survation and Norstat in May.
So it may be that the new Ipsos methodology will be a touch more Labour-friendly, and less Reform-friendly, than conventional online polling. That would make intuitive sense, because Reform supporters are perhaps disproportionately likely to be politically engaged and to sign up for volunteer polling panels. The Ipsos approach of recruiting panellists offline could produce a more realistic measure of where Reform truly stand with the Scottish public.
READ MORE: Labour MP Joani Reid caught out on 'didn't support welfare cuts' claim
It's a similar story in voting intentions for next year's Holyrood election, with the SNP's vote share of 34% on the constituency ballot mirroring other recent polls, but with their 11-point lead over Labour being less overwhelming than the leads recently reported by Survation and Norstat, due to a higher Labour vote and a lower Reform vote. A more significant cause for concern for John Swinney will be his party's 26% share on the list ballot, which is the second-lowest reported by any pollster this year. That may not matter much if the SNP's double-digit lead in the constituencies is maintained, but the voting system will start to skew heavily in Labour's favour if the lead contracts to low single digits.
In that scenario, the SNP might need to win lots of list seats simply to remain the largest party in the Scottish Parliament – and on 26% of the list vote they probably wouldn't be winning enough.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
8 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The case for a third runway at Heathrow remains as shaky as ever
SIR – Longstanding campaigners against a third Heathrow runway will have to dust off their posters and letters of protest (' Starmer takes on Khan over new runway at Heathrow ', report, August 1). Clearly we are going to have to go through the old arguments all over again. Nothing appears to have happened to change the analysis produced by the Department for Transport in 2017. This suggested that, if more airport capacity is really needed, it should be at Gatwick, on economic as well as environmental grounds. Andrew McLuskey Ashford, Middlesex SIR – The proposal for a third runway at Heathrow is misguided. With the additional possibility of a second runway at Gatwick, the skies over London and the south-east of England risk becoming even more crowded, increasing the likelihood of a catastrophic crash. The answer is to build a new four-runway, state-of-the-art airport in the Thames Estuary, with fast rail links to London and nationwide. This could serve Britain for at least the next century. Heathrow and Gatwick would gradually be closed down, freeing up valuable land for much-needed housing. The claimed disruption to bird life is overstated: they will simply move north to the wetlands of Suffolk and Norfolk. We need politicians with the vision to implement such a scheme, rather than the short-sighted ones we currently have. Sandy Pratt Storrington, West Sussex SIR – As a Tory, I am not particularly enamoured with Sir Sadiq Khan or Sir Keir Starmer. However, on the question of Heathrow, I side with Sir Keir. Sir Sadiq should be reminded that he is merely a mayor, while Sir Keir is the Prime Minister.
Telegraph
38 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour's Civil Service proposals are unfair and misguided
That the Civil Service is in dire need of a shake-up is accepted, at this point, across much of Westminster. The frustrations are justified. The public sector is, as George Staunton found Imperial China, felt to be staffed by those who feel that 'everything is excellent' and 'proposals for improvement would be superfluous'. This agreement stretches only as far as the sense that something must change, however. The proposals on the table for reform are deeply contested, and potentially harmful. Labour's proposal to limit Civil Service internships to those from ' lower socio-economic backgrounds ' is a retrograde step which would impoverish the pool of talent available to ministers by restricting entry based on family circumstance, and would represent another blow to the idea that parents should work for their children's futures. The Government would be better advised to hark back to the Northcote-Trevelyan report, which attempted to address a Civil Service which attracted the 'unambitious', 'indolent' and 'incapable' who did not fancy 'the competition of their contemporaries', but were attracted by 'the comparative lightness of the work'. The solutions put forward included, among other things, entrance examinations open to all, merit-based promotion, and ensuring that civil servants were fully employed to the full extent of their abilities. Such an embrace of meritocracy would surely be morally and practically preferable to further clumsy attempts at social engineering.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Ignore the bluster: as Netanyahu starves Gaza, the world is turning on him – and he knows it
'No one likes us, we don't care.' It may be rousing on the stadium terraces of south London, as the signature chant for Millwall football club, but as a national strategy it's a disaster. Even so, Israel has become a Millwall among the nations, apparently unbothered by and impervious to the condemnation of a watching world – condemnation which this week gained serious momentum. As one country after another pointed an accusing finger towards Israel, repelled by the starvation, devastation and bloodshed it has brought down on Gaza, Israeli officials offered the now-familiar middle finger in return. When Keir Starmer announced Britain's intention to recognise a state of Palestine, it was swiftly brushed aside by the deputy mayor of Jerusalem as 'much ado about nothing'. There was a similarly dismissive reaction to both France's earlier pledge to make the same diplomatic move and Canada's announcement on Wednesday that it would follow suit. Sometimes, the register is studied insouciance, a shrug of the shoulders; sometimes it's anger. But the message is consistent: we won't budge. As the Israeli ambassador to Canada put it: 'Israel will not bow to the distorted campaign of international pressure against it.' Yet for all the Shakespearean references, the 'diplomatic tsunami' which Benjamin Netanyahu's critics warned of for many years, and which now seems to have arrived, is not nothing. What's more, and underneath the Millwall bluster, there are signs that Netanyahu knows it. More than 140 of the 193 member states of the UN had already recognised Palestine, but that club will soon include major western powers: the shift by France, the UK and Canada means no fewer than three members of the G7 are now on board. This same week saw a special conference convened at the UN in New York, where 125 countries urged Netanyahu to commit to the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, as they sought to resurrect the long-moribund two-state solution. All this diplomatic activity has prompted a series of objections from Israel and its defenders. First comes the claim that Israel's critics are appeasers. Witness Netanyahu's tweeted riposte to Starmer, which included the line: 'Appeasement towards jihadist terrorists always fails.' Netanyahu often likes to invoke Winston Churchill and here he is again, casting himself as the Greatest Briton with Starmer as Neville Chamberlain, while his foreign minister is full of talk of Munich and 1938. As if there is any analogy between Nazi Germany grabbing a chunk of Czechoslovakia and Palestinians seeking self-determination in their historical homeland. It's a line of argument insulting in its ignorance. Next comes the charge that the likes of Starmer, Emmanuel Macron and Mark Carney are 'rewarding terror', handing Hamas a prize for the murderous series of atrocities it staged on 7 October 2023. But that's an odd way to read what just happened. This week's New York declaration, which was signed by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar and the Arab League, explicitly condemns 'the attacks committed by Hamas against civilians' on that day, the first such official denunciation by the Arab states. Moreover, the document is unambiguous that 'Hamas must end its rule in Gaza and hand over its weapons to the Palestinian Authority'. The same message comes through loud and clear in the declarations made by Starmer and his counterparts: it is the PA, currently led by Fatah, that they envisage as the recognised authority of a Palestinian state. The leaders can be faulted for failing to explain how this vision of theirs will be realised, but the vision itself is straightforward – and there is no place in it for Hamas. Hard to spin that as a 'reward'. More forceful is the objection made by those campaigning for the release of the 20 Israeli hostages still believed to be held alive in Gaza. They argue that Starmer erred badly in suggesting that the UK would not go ahead with recognition of a Palestinian state if there were soon to be a ceasefire deal between Hamas and Israel in Gaza. That, the campaigners argue, in effect incentivised Hamas to refuse to do any deal – which would have to include the freeing of at least some hostages – so that UK recognition goes ahead as promised. Starmer's defenders believe this line of argument rests on a misunderstanding of Hamas. That group is not interested, they say, in a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza, living alongside Israel. Hamas is not in the two-state business, but rather seeks to rule over a single, jihadist state across the entire land, from the river to the sea. Indeed, given that the international community supported the principle of Palestinian independence before 7 October, to abandon it afterwards would itself be to reward Hamas, allowing that group to derail the two-state solution which it has been determined to sabotage since it first sent suicide bombers on to Israeli buses more than 30 years ago. More powerful still is the charge that these announcements and declarations are displacement activity, gestures that reveal nothing so much as the various governments' impotence. There is something to that: diplomatic recognition will not feed a single child in Gaza. When Starmer's various demands on Netanyahu are blithely ignored, it will only advertise the British PM's weakness. In a way, the move this week tacitly recognises that reality. It is predicated on the notion that Israel continues to act in ways that make a two-state solution less viable. Previously, Starmer had always said he wanted to wait until UK recognition could play a part in an unfolding, meaningful peace process. Now he has acknowledged that there is no such thing, that he risked holding on to a card that was turning to dust in his hands. Better to play it now before it becomes entirely worthless. As Wes Streeting put it, the UK should recognise Palestine 'while there is still a state of Palestine to recognise'. The hope in London, Paris and elsewhere is that, when the Gaza war eventually ends, the parameters of what should follow will already have been staked out. But, of course, Netanyahu is not listening. He made the decision long ago that Israel can ignore everybody – that the EU and the UN, along with every global institution from the World Health Organization to the BBC, can all be written off as hopelessly biased, if not bigoted – with only one exception: the US. Over the past decade or more, he has gone further, writing off half of the US too, choosing to ignore all Democrats and focus only on the Republican party. So long as Israel has the GOP's backing, it'll be fine. That has always been a reckless strategy and this week confirmed the danger of it. For one thing, Israel needs the support of more than one country. The EU and UK may not match the US as arms suppliers, but, economically, Israel needs them as trading partners, on favourable terms. Besides, the US Republican party is not a wholly reliable ally: a substantial wing of the Maga movement is hostile to Israel. (This week, Marjorie Taylor Greene became the first US lawmaker to accuse the country of genocide.) And Trump himself does not entirely share Netanyahu's sweeping disregard for international opinion. He disdains it, but he also seeks its approval: he wants that Nobel prize. Steadily, the Israeli public is coming to see the price of the pariah status that Netanyahu has all but cultivated. A small portent is contained in the trouble currently greeting Israeli tourists in Greece. That may be the best way to understand the vehemence with which Israeli officials sought to dismiss Starmer et al this week, insisting in loud, furious statements that they weren't bothered at all. Increasing numbers of Israelis know they do not have the luxury of being Millwall: maybe no one likes them – but quite a lot of them care. Jonathan Freedland is a Guardian columnist Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
