MPs accuse SNP of “biased” independence question

As the Scottish government’s consultation on an independence referendum enters its final week, MPs have condemned the SNP’s proposed question as being “biased”.

E-mail-sign-up Donate

 

.

As the Scottish government’s consultation on an independence referendum enters its final week, the cross-party Scottish affairs select committee has condemned the SNP administration’s proposed question as being “biased”.

Alex-Salmond-Rupert-MurdochIn January, Alex Salmond published the proposed wording for a referendum, which read:

“Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?”

At the time, writing for Left Foot Forward, Alex Hern noted:

As many picked up on, this question is may be “simple, straightforward and clear”, but it’s not quite as fair as Salmond suggests it is.

By phrasing the question as “do you agree…” rather than the more neutral options of “do you agree or disagree…” or simply using “should”, there is likely to be a small but significant increase in the amount of people voting yes.

Hern’s assertions have now been supported by Westminster’s Scottish affairs select committee in a report (pdf) looking at the referendum question published today.

Although the SNP have officially boycotted the committee’s evidence sessions in a belief it is not its place to be looking into the issue, the committee concludes:

Based on the evidence we have received, we have no choice but to conclude that the question currently proposed by the Scottish government is biased in that it tends to lead the respondent towards the answer “yes”.

 


See also:

Salmond’s screeching u-turn over independence consultation 3 Apr 2012

Salmond’s Scottish referendum is a textbook example of a leading question 27 Jan 2012

Déjà vu as Scottish referendum campaign turns nasty 25 Jan 2012

Salmond has questions to answer, because the evidence doesn’t support him 24 Jan 2012

Preview 2012 – Scotland 28 Dec 2011


 

The evidence supporting the committee’s assertion is twofold.

Firstly, polling by Lord Ashcroft in February; outlining the key findings on his blog at the time, he explained:

When we asked if they agreed that Scotland should be an independent country, as Mr Salmond intends to do, 41% of Scots answered “yes”, and 59% “no”.

Alongside this, to a separate sample, we asked a question with a subtle but important difference: “Do you agree or disagree that Scotland should be an independent country?” This time, 39% agreed, and 61% disagreed. Not a huge shift (indeed the change in both scores is within the margin of error) but if accurate this represents a four-point difference in the margin between union and independence.

It is easy to see how two words – “or disagree” – could, in a close campaign, decide the fate of a nation. Would it be too cynical to suppose this is why Mr Salmond left them out?

The second plank of evidence supporting the committee’s conclusion comes from a string of seasoned pollsters, all of whom agree the proposed wording is leading.

It quotes the following:

“As a pollster, I try to avoid attitudinal questions to which the answers are yes or no […] I would say as a pollster, “Do you agree or disagree?” You offer both options.” – Peter Kellner, president of YouGov

“The question presented beginning “Do you agree” fundamentally cannot be balanced if it excludes the words “or disagree”. That is my primary starting point and fundamental objection to it.” – Martin Boon, head of social and government research at ICM Research

“In the way it is construed, I do agree it is a biased [question] because it does not present any of the alternatives.” – Andrew Hawkins, chairman of ComRes

The committee went on to argue the Electoral Commission should have overall responsibility for the conduct of the referendum and that no question should be put to the people until the commission was completely satisfied with it.

Publishing the report, committee Chairman, Labour MP Ian Davidson, argued:

“It is now beyond doubt that the question proposed by the Scottish government is biased.

“A range of witnesses, with different backgrounds and from different sides of past referenda, were unanimous in the opinion that the question, as currently proposed by the Scottish government, is not fair.

“We cannot have a contest in which separatists are both player and referee. That goes against every notion of fairness and transparency.

“It must be for the Electoral Commission, an experienced and neutral body, to oversee the process and, crucially, to test alternative questions and words to make sure that any referendum question will be clearly understood.”

Responding for the Scottish government, however, Bruce Crawford, Cabinet Secretary for Parliamentary business sought, to discredit the committee’s recommendations, declaring:

“This exercise is devoid of credibility.

“The Scottish government’s proposed referendum question is straightforward and fair – as acknowledged by Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson – and the ‘agree’ formulation was also used in Labour’s 1997 devolution referendum, and is the same wording used by the Tory/Lib Dem coalition for local referendums in England.

“As set out in the consultation document, the ballot paper will be subject to testing during autumn and winter this year, and we will be delighted to receive advice from the Electoral Commission and other electoral professionals.”

The report comes as the Sunday Herald reported over the weekend Alex Salmond will formally launch the “Yes to Independence” campaign on May 25th.

 


Sign-up to our weekly email • Donate to Left Foot Forward

Like this article? Sign up to Left Foot Forward's weekday email for the latest progressive news and comment - and support campaigning journalism by making a donation today. 

63 Responses to “MPs accuse SNP of “biased” independence question”

  1. Anonymous

    Yes, I’m sure your desires for violence and bloodshed are nothing you’re ashamed of, given you so far to the right that you feel the need to try and inflict your sins onto others.

    I’m SO sorry I believe in gradualism, that I’m a mutualist, that your kind of intolerance is something I actively work against, and I believe in my country, *Britain*.

    The concept of a left winger rather than a centralist Labourite is simply inconceivable to you, I see. And I’m sure you’d be leading your kind’s campaign for “racial purity” in Scotland…I’ve seen your buddies plans, Ned.

    (Their security was crap, I’m told)

  2. Anonymous

    I it perfectly – the fact that you’re a self-confessed far right winger who is attacking me here simply because I’m Jewish. It’s typical far-right doctrine, and your activity on other sites for your friends is telling. (What, you think I didn’t check? lol)

    That you can’t even recognise a left wing separate from the (centralist) labour party is another typical symptom of your extremism.

    So sorry the Tories are not nearly far enough right for you, Ned.

  3. Anonymous

    Because you are, by your own confession, a far right winger. Why would I be interested in discussion with someone whose own interest is smashing my face in?

    You’re a typical example of your violent kind, Ned.

  4. uglyfatbloke

    You have to wonder about the wisdom of making alliance with the tories since the only coomon ground is keeping the gnats out. Other than the independence issue there’s nothing much seperating Labour and the snp. Working withe tories has not done the glib-dumbs much good

  5. Anonymous

    Liar! And what’s more, you’re a great example of NuLab blindness. If we assume you’re more than 12 and you’re old enough to vote, can we also assume that you can’t remember when Labour actually approached socialism with an open mind?

    Or perhaps you’re a Blairite who wouldn’t know socialism if it smacked him on the jaw?

    The fact is that I used to vote LAbour but stopped when they became indistinguishable from the Tories.

  6. Anonymous

    And another thing. Where have I ptoved to be, “by your own confession, a far right winger.”

    You won’t shout me down with your lies. You are the perfect example of an agent provocateur – a fascist puporting to be a socialist.

  7. Anonymous

    More idiocy! Do you ever have a look at what you’re writing before pressing “post”?

    Cite where I desired violence and bloodshed!

    You are NOT a left winger! You’re deluding yourself! Everything you write on here marks you out as a knee jerk Tory of the worst kind!

    And what’s more, when we go from “your country”, you’ll still have it, so what are you whining about?

    Jeez, what a right wing empire builder you are!

  8. Anonymous

    I’m attacking you because you’re Jewish? That’s the first I’ve heard of this.

    Get help and get it now!

  9. Anonymous

    Ah yes, social darwinist as well as a far right winger, I see. The typical assault on the mental health of anyone who dares disagree with the Party Line.

  10. Anonymous

    You accuse me of your own sins, as usual.

    And that you accuse me, a committed left-winger and a Jew of being a Jew is right out the BNP dirty tricks handbook, which I’ve read a copy of.

  11. Anonymous

    You called for a violent revolution. This is typical of your far-right wing aims.

    Moreover, terror-favouring separatists like you refuse to admit that breaking up the United Kingdom would end it, as usual… “we only want OUR independence” ignoring the wider effects.

    You accuse of being a right winger to cover up your own fanaticism.

  12. Anonymous

    You. And I have copies of the posts, editing them now won’t help you.

  13. Momentum builds for Scotland’s ‘Yes to Independence’ campaign | Left Foot Forward

    […] MPs accuse SNP of “biased” independence question 8 May […]

Leave a Reply