Support for independence has fallen to its lowest point in 10 years, according to the most in-depth survey of public opinion.
The research shows Alex Salmond's popularity with voters was more of a factor to explain the surge in his party's support than the standing of Labour's Jack McConnell, which changed little.
The Scottish Social Attitudes Survey has been carried out annually over the past 10 years, and while support for independence has fluctuated over that time, it fell to 23% this year. Between 2004 and 2006, it ran at 32%, 35% and 30%, but appeared to suffer this year under the Labour onslaught.
Some 55% backed devolution with taxation powers - the highest point ever - and 8% would prefer an elected parliament with no taxation powers. There are 10% who want to abolish Holyrood.
The research results from the survey of 1300 people selected at random and interviewed between May and August. Organised by academics at the Scottish Centre for Social Research, it gives far more depth than commercial polls.
Labour's Cathy Jamieson said the poll showed the SNP's claims of support for independence are ringing hollow.
"This shows most Scots don't agree with Alex Salmond and that the majority of people in Scotland don't want to separate from the rest of the UK," she said.
Tory leader Annabel Goldie said: "There is a clear implication for the three unionist parties - hold true to your principles, overwhelmingly Scotland agrees with you. But there is also a stark message for the SNP. You are not there to grandstand on the world stage. You are not there to bicker for bickering's sake with Westminster. You are there to deliver on the bread and butter issues".
LibDem leader Nicol Stephen said the poll was a signal to Mr Salmond to drop his independence plans and focus on more powers within the UK.
An SNP spokesman responded that a more recent poll, taken in September, had shown independence support running at 35%, suggesting a rise in support of 12%: "The better the SNP Government governs, the stronger the case will be".
Mr Salmond's ratings ran much higher than his predecessor, John Swinney's, after the 2003 election. His leadership was rated well by 44% of people, up from 9% four years ago. Jack McConnell's "good" ratings actually rose two points to 25%, but his poor ratings also rose from 20% to 27%.
Annabel Goldie's good ratings were stronger than her Tory predecessor David McLetchie's, up nine points to 20%. And while Nicol Stephen was rated well by only 10% of those surveyed, down by eight points on his LibDem predecessor Jim Wallace in 2003, the humiliation for the former Deputy First Minister is that he was more than twice as likely to provoke no opinion at all, scoring 46% compared with Jack McConnell on 3%.
The survey also suggests Labour may have lost vital, pro-independence voters by attacking the independence cause.
According to Professor John Curtice of Strathclyde University, the May elections for Holyrood were determined more than before by how much people felt politicians were willing to stand up for Scotland. Labour did poorly in that.
Professor Curtice, a co-director of the study, summarised the main outcome: "The SNP's victory in May was a success for the party rather than the cause of independence that it espouses. It had a popular leader and tapped a feeling that Holyrood should put Scotland, rather than partnership with London, first.
"This enabled the party to win the votes of those who already backed independence rather than win new converts to the independence cause."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article