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

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

  1. Angus McLellan

    I don’t see why we can’t reuse the 1997 ballot paper as template. Nobody complained then as far as I can remember. So that’ll be me agreeing with Patricia Ferguson.

    Of course 1997 had two questions. But I’m perfectly happy to see compromise on that. One question then. That’s half way between two and the number of questions that Labour, Tories and Lib Dems want to see on the ballot. Just so long as it’s perfectly clear that the forces of darkness were responsible for depriving devomaxers and devoplusers of their pipe dream.

  2. Angus McLellan

    “Independence”, is that different from independence or did a stray particle of UKIPpery perhaps pass through your head as you typed that?

  3. Anonymous

    Alternatively, I’m dyslexic and you’re being rude.

    For that matter, far right zealots like you (since you can’t tell the difference between a left winger and the UKIP, you must be VERY far to the right) don’t know the meaning of the word, and I expect a rant as to how it’s imaginary.

  4. Gerard

    The two questions in 1997 were in two parts giving both the positive and the negative – it wasn’t just ‘Do you agree…?’

    1. I agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament
    or
    I do not agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament

    2. I agree that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers
    or
    I do not agree that a Scottish Parliament should have tax-varying powers.

    Now the SNP are desperate to claim that their question is the same as 1997 but it is not. In 1997 both options were given and people decided – by only giving the positive statement you skew the result.

    The SNP know this and it is why they are proposing the question thee way they are.

  5. Gerard

    I took the “independence” to be a dig at what the SNP propose.

    How independent will a separate Scotland be when it retains the pound (but loses any control over it); when it keeps the Queen; when it ties itself further into the EU, thereby removing itself from a union where it has a large say to being an even smaller part of a larger union?

Comments are closed.