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”.
.
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”.
In 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”.
• 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.
63 Responses to “MPs accuse SNP of “biased” independence question”
Paul Marsh
Every voter in Scotland will be allowed to have a say on this issue, presumably in 2014. That seems democratic enough to me. Why was similar wording in the Scottish Parliament referendum in 1997, or in referendums in England, not a problem? Whether you want Scotland to leave or stay put, you put your cross in the appropriate box. What’s so difficult? Maybe the wording is biased (that’s a very subjective thing, of course), but will the British Parliament form a fairer question? They might, but it doesn’t have a strong track record on democracy or fairness. By the way, the mainstream parties are all as one on this issue, so if you attack one, you attack them all, in effect. Presonally, I wish a plague on all their houses, and I don’t bother to vote at all these days, as they’re all anti-democracy.
Divide and rule ? No, I just have the interests of the Scottish paople at heart. It’s their chance to escape the British Establishment for good. I hope they take it, because they might regret it if they don’t.
I’ve never been given a say in any referendum concerning governance. The fact that such a referendum has not been granted to 85% of the UK’s population, even though we’re tax-paying citizens, shows a contempt for democracy.
If you think Labour needs MPs from Scotland in order to form a government, cast your mind back to 1997. Labour’s English seats alone were enough to form an outright majority in the Commons. If they’ve won so heavily in the past, they’re capable of repeating the trick. It just needs positive thinking.
Anonymous
Exactly. The fact is that the wording will proceed and the Scottish people WILL have their say. It’ll be close, but I feel sure that the people will rise to the occasion and say goodbye to corrupt Westminster.
Let’s face it, only the uionist party hacks tryst Westminster these days and that’s the whole of the UK, not just Scotland!
Anonymous
Of course, it’s “democratic enough” to rig the referendum by using a biased question. Great. It’s not “subjective” at all, there are well known standards in Human psychology for polling.
And your complete denial of the Tory gerrymandering and other assaults on democracy is entirely typical, given your push for rigging the Scottish referendum.
Now, me, I like *actual* democracy. So sorry it’s utterly intolerable to you.
“Positive thinking can overcome Totalitarianism”. Of course, and so can a quick beating of the offenders by the state’s cops.
As Thatcher put it (and Atlee said much the same), tyrants and demagogues like you love your referendums.
What Scotland would regret is a hostile, non-EU one party state on it’s Southern border. But hey, no skin off YOUR nose, right? I mean, it’s not like the right you belong to think it’s acceptable for people to leave your countries in the first place, so…
Gerard
Why – because it wasn’t formed in Westminster?
I think you may be missing something here; the Westminster report encourages the SCOTTISH parties to get together to create a fair and transparent question that passes the Electoral Commission’s standards. Westminster is not proposing a question; what they did was look at similar questions to see the impact on voting behaviour.
The only reason the SNP say the report lacks credibility is because it doesn’t agree with their view on the form of the question and is from Westminster.
Take off the yellow tinted specs and look at the problem objectively instead of simply shouting down anything that is proposed by big bad ‘Wastemonster’ (how childish is that?).
The question is unfair and should provide an either/or choice for the electorate – perhaps you fear the will of the Scottish people and would prefer to gerrymander a result to fit your own narrow ideology?
Thathistorybloke
If the question read ‘do you agree that Scotland should remain part of the United Kingdom’ the committee would doubtless have thought that was fair. An important point is that the gnats were the only major party campaigning for a referendum at all. Since none of the others was remotely interested it is hardly ‘fair’ that a committee wich consists almost entirely of parties opposed to having a referendum should have much say over a decision of a different parliament. Like it or not (and I can’t say I’m overjoyed) the gnats won an overwhelming mandate under a system that had been deliberately designed (as Jack McConnel told everyone at the time) to make sure that the SNP could not win at all, let alone win a majority. Even so, if the last two Holyrood elections had been FPTP the gnats would have secured bigger majorities than they did.
A spot of fair play is called for here; if the Unionist parties did not want a vote in the first place, they can hardly expect to set the ground rules.