Generation Yes campaigners leaflet for the Scottish independence referendum on March 29, 2014 in Glasgow. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

How close is the Scottish independence race?

The No side's average poll lead has fallen from 24 points in November to eight today. But the odds remain against the SNP. 

For those wanting to gauge the state of the Scottish independence race, today's polls present a particularly murky picture. A new Survation survey in today's Daily Record puts the Yes side 12 points behind (56-44, excluding don't knows), but a Panelbase poll has them trailing by just six (53-47). Even less helpfully, the discrepancy cannot be explained by methodological differences since both companies use weightings based on the 2011 Scottish election, rather than the 2010 general election. 

But despite the gulf in the figures, there are three common trends worth noting. The first is that the race has indisputably narrowed (whatever your pollster of choice). Back in November, the Yes vote stood at an average of 38 per cent, compared to 62 per cent for No. But so far this month, Yes is on 46 per cent with No on 54 per cent. The Unionists' lead has fallen by two-thirds from 24 points to just eight. This is despite the No campaign using what many regarded as its most potent weapon - the pledge to veto a currency union - and José Manuel Barroso's warning that it would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible" for an independent Scotland to join the EU. 

The second is that, for now at least, the Yes side's advance has stalled. The six-point gap shown by Panelbase is identical to that shown four weeks ago and the 12-point gap shown by Survation is a point higher than that in last month's poll. It's too early to say for sure, but the Yes vote may well have hit a ceiling. 

Finally, it's worth making the obvious but significant point that every poll continues to show the No side clearly ahead (as has been the case since the campaign started). While it's not impossible that this will change before 18 September, it is unlikely. A narrow defeat might allow the SNP to press for devo max (and even to revisit the independence question at some point) but a defeat it will be. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.