The SNP’s desired wording for a possible constitutional referendum, in which voters would be asked whether or not “the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the government of the UK”, glosses over and sugarcoats some of the most challenging issues surrounding political separation.Such wording would create the false impression that we were being asked to sanction a gentle process of exploratory fireside chats involving Holyrood and Westminster buddies. No real harm in that, is there? It’s good to talk, isn’t it? That nice Mr Salmond said so!
So the SNP’s contrived wording gives no indication of the consequent reality of no holds barred, high stakes wrangling with the likelihood of protracted legal proceedings of indeterminate outcome.
The nationalists’ chosen words also introduce a serious ambiguity: it would be unclear whether a second plebiscite might be needed to approve the eventual outcome of such a “settlement”. That perceived buffer, together with the long timescales which would be involved, could be exploited to encourage seemingly risk-free yes votes. Softly, softly – the essence of nationalist gradualism.
If the foregoing analysis seems contentious, just consider the opinion poll evidence. The average support for independence suggested by the five polls conducted this year which used the SNP’s preferred wording was an implausibly high 38%, albeit apparently declining.
By contrast, the four polls which used a range of more natural forms of wording averaged just 29%, which is much closer to the average 22% “active support” suggested by the year’s three multi-option polls. Each of those figures is loosely consistent with Alex Salmond’s seemingly unguarded admission earlier this year that “support for independence is now about a quarter”.
Single-option: SNP’s pro-independence wording:
10 Apr 2008: Progressive Scottish Opinion/Daily Mail – 41%
13 Apr 2008: TNS System Three/Herald – 41%
07 July 2008: TNS System Three/Herald – 39%
11 July 2008: YouGov/Telegraph – 36%
08 Sep 2008: YouGov/Sunday Times – 34%
Single-option: neutral or slightly pro-Union wording:
15 Jan 2008: YouGov/Daily Express – 27%
04 Apr 2008: YouGov/Scottish Sun – 34%
30 Apr 2008: YouGov/Telegraph – 25%
16 May 2008: Progressive Scottish Opinion/STV – 31%
Multi-option: active support for independence:
16 Mar 2008: MRUK/Sunday Times – 23%
30 Apr 2008: YouGov/Telegraph – 19%
16 May 2008: Progressive Scottish Opinion/STV – 25%
I really don't know where to start with this so I probably shouldn't. But... I can't resist. I'll try to be brief.
1) "Glosses over and sugarcoats"? In what way? It simply asks if people want Scotland to negotiate a way out of the union - which is what would happen. IF the referendum vote came up with a positive response to that question, wouldn't the SNP then be justified in opening such negotiatons? Are you suggesting that - even with the public's backing - that this would be wrong?
2)"An implausibly high 38%" - just out of interest - why IMPLAUSIBLY? Or is a vote for independence a thought that a unionist cannot fathom - and thereby it is implausible? I'm not judging - just curious!
3)In what way is the SNP's wording judged as "pro-independence"? Isn't the fact that the question is being asked at all pro-independence? Just as 1997's referendum was pro-devolution in the sense that it was why the question was asked.
4)What constitutes "more natural wording" of a question? Or is this a subjective viewpoint?
5)Do you really have such little confidence in your position (as a unionist) that you have no confidence in people to vote the way you hope they do in a referendum if the wording is not "neutral or pro-union"? I mean, do you think people would stake their future on the basis of a nicely worded question without doing any thinking about whether independence would be good or bad?
I probably come across more obnoxious about this than I meant to. Basically, you're arguing that an independence referendum will come down to semantics. Don't you think its more complicated than that?
1) I explained that in the post. There's absolutely no guarantee that a "settlement" could be negotiated. Legal recourse would very likely be required. This isn't without implications.
2) Yes - implausibly. Single-option polls are to my mind close to being undemocratic. A referendum on how best to develop devolution could legitimately omit scrapping Holyrood and all-out independence, but if a referendum included both the status quo and independence, how could anyone justify leaving out a Calman-derived option which sat between those two?
3. The SNP's desired wording is pro-independence because it gives a false impression of how straightforward the separation process would be. On the other hand, the poll which resulted in independence showing only 19% support against 72% for devolution was worded in a somewhat biased manner in the other direction.
4. A more natural wording would be one which didn't use evocative language, which didsn't hit any unionist or nationalist "hot buttons", etc.
5. What a peculiar question! Look again at the opinion poll results. The referendum type and question wording could make a huge difference.
Single option, SNP question: 38%
Single-option, range of other questions: 29%
Multi-option, range of questions: 22%
Scottish Unionist and Malc you should read this document which is what will apply to any referendum in terms of the phrasing of the question. If you have criticisms of the question they should be made in the context of the guidance to be valid.
Trying to fit in a third option to my mind would be very tricky which means that you can validly criticise the SNP for saying to the other parties yes OK we can have a third option on the ballot paper. They know that is not going to happen and the devolution parties don’t think it necessary as, legally, it is not. The powers of the parliament can be changed by agreement between UK and Scottish ministers, it is not necessary to ask the people if they agree and the unionist/devolutionist parties would not do so given the choice.
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/58594/QuestionAssesmentGuidelines.pdf
Thanks Indy. That's an interesting document, and on the face of it the SNP's suggested question may fall foul of several of those guidelines. A topic for another post, perhaps!
You make a fair point about the lack of a need for a referendum to change the balance of responsibility between central and devolved government.
Personally, I don't see any problem with a three-way referendum. But then again, I wouldn't have any hang-ups about Westminster taking the lead.
But you might like to share your concerns about a multi-option referendum with Nicola Sturgeon. Last December, she moved amendment S3M-976.2, which called for “a referendum in this parliamentary term in which the people of Scotland have the right to choose independence, the status quo, or more responsibilities for Scotland”.