Unionist campaign group ‘These Islands’ has spent some of their £160k on more independence polling. They asked the official (Yes/No) question, the ‘Scotland in Union’ (Leave/Remain) question and a whole load of supplementary and hypothetical questions on timing and what particular issues matter most to people in relation to independence.
The main question
Famously, if you follow these things, when ‘Scotland in Union’ commission polls, they like to play around with the wording of questions used until they get the right result. They used to ask the original question, like everyone else, but that didn’t always work. So now they use ‘Should Scotland Remain a part of the UK or Leave the UK?’.
These Islands have followed that example with, the slightly tweaked, ‘Should Scotland Remain inside or Leave the United Kingdom?‘
It doesn’t take a total galaxy brain to work out why using the terminology of an unpopular Brexit might affect the result of an independence poll in a not insubstantial way. The outlier results of SiU polls have shown there’s a big effect every time but TI have decided to test it again.
‘YouGov’s polling for These Islands used a 50:50 sample split to test the impact of framing the question as “Should Scotland remain inside or leave the United Kingdom?”. Framed this way the balance excluding “don’t know” and “would not vote” is 59:41 in favour of Remain (compared to 47/53 yes/no). This starkly illustrates the importance of how the referendum question is posed and it should not be assumed that the SNP will benefit from their preferred Yes/No framing if there is to be a next time’.
It’s a bit more convoluted (shouldn’t it be ‘Remain Inside’ 59:41 ‘Leave’) than the official, straightforward and already understood question ‘Should Scotland be an independent country?’ ‘Yes or No’. And it shouldn’t be assumed that anyone serious will even suggest using a formulation so strongly associated with the EU referendum. Despite the enthusiasm Unionists on Twitter have for the idea. But, if they were to try, there is reason to think they’d be disappointed.
A Leave/Remain question doesn’t make sense
The biggest problem SiU, and now These Islands, have is their preferred Brexit framing just doesn’t make any sense in this instance.
With Brexit, the UK was already independent and it was leaving a union or trading bloc. Leave did not mean becoming independent, no matter what Nigel Farage said.
Scotland could, in theory ‘Leave’ the UK and still not be independent. Think of the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey but less tax avoidy.
They’re not inside the UK (all cosy and warm) and are, mainly, self-governing. But they’re not independent. They don’t control their own economy, are represented by the UK abroad and their people are British subjects with UK passports.
Leave is not a synonym for ‘become independent.
Timing
These Islands are the latest people of a Unionist persuasion to put more emphasis on polling than on votes cast in an election. This has become so common it’s not even commented on. We’re told:
The first and most immediate barrier to the SNP’s plans is that most people simply don’t want another referendum on their proposed timescale. Only 36% of those polled think there should be another referendum in 2023; excluding “don’t know” the balance is 60:40 against a 2023 referendum.
Meanwhile, people have elected the biggest pro-independence majority in the short history of Holyrood. The Government has a mandate however you look at it. If you’re a democrat.
And if you’re not a democrat and prefer polling – there’s polling that shows the public strongly believes the decision over timing is one for the Scottish Government. Along with the other details.
The economy
‘But the biggest hurdle the SNP face is not about the timing, current levels of support, or the wording of a future referendum question – it’s how to communicate their economic case for independence…
The economy was most important decision factor for 44% of yes voters (EU membership was more important) and 69% of no voters (ahead of level of state pension) in the poll. Currency, border, state pension, public spending. This is not such a shock really, is it. We know what Unionists have to say on this. Repetitively.
The next Yes campaign has answer those questions authoritatively, and repetitively. Robotically. It also needs to point out how our independent neighbours all do better and give some obvious examples of things we”d do differently if we controlled our own economy. It could actually be a massive opportunity if it’s grasped properly.
.
The ubiquitous scary hypothetical question
SiU polls always include scary hypothetical questions – the ‘would you still support independence if it means ‘something absolutely awful’ (and made up) will happen? Like Scotland being the first country to ever be forced to use the Euro or chips becoming really expensive. And, again, These Islands have followed their example.
‘When asked “it if became clear that an independent Scotland would have to cut public spending” fully 22% of those who indicated support for independence answered that they would be slightly or much more likely to oppose independence. This contrasts with only 8% who would be more likely to oppose independence “if more powers were devolved to the Scottish Government”. It seems that Scotland’s constitutional future may be in large part determined by voters’ perceptions of how public spending in Scotland would be impacted by independence.’
This is not the slam dunk for the Union that TI so obviously think it is. Unionist politicians, commentators and bloggers always tell us Scotland has higher public spending than some other parts of the UK. They warn us of the transition, sneakily, without actually saying transition.
It is long past time, however, that Scottish people were told just how low our public spending is in comparison to our independent neighbours. This information is scarcely compiled or seen and would surprise a lot of people.
Get that information out there and then conduct some polls.
Should Scotland be an independent country if it meant that an independent Scotland could afford much higher public spending like our richer international neighbours? Yes or No?
