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”
uglyfatbloke
There’s a good deal of heat, but little light from either side. In practice, everybody in Scotland understands the question perfectly well. The independence/seperatism issue is relatively new to Westminster but in Scotland it has been the only really big politcal question since the advent of devolution, and devloution itself came about through pressure from the Council of Europe and fear of the gnats.
As Professor Mitchell (no great pal to the gnats) puts it, other than the constitutional question there is very little difference between the two main parties; in fact scrapping Trident is probably the most significant single issue. Given that Holyrood is more representative of Scottish politcal opinion than Westminster, it makes sense that Holyrood should make the decisions about the referendum and it make sense that the Electoral Commission should have a significant role. Ther might be something to be said for forming a body based on the Electoral Commission that would reflect Scottish opinion more accurately given that it is currently dominated by appointees of the Westminster parties, but there is nothihg very challenging about that.
The curious thing is that no party – tory, Labour, glib-dumbs, gnats or greens is interested in pursuing the agenda that is most popular with the people. Most Scots would prefer FFA (Full Fiscal Autonomy) over independence, but the attitudes of Cameron/Milliband/Clegg do not help the wider Unionist cause. The promise that there will be ‘something better’ than the current arrangement if Scots reject independence is not very credible given past behaviour (Thatcher/Wilson/Callaghan), so their refusal to offer FFA (or similar) as an option actually pushes voters toward the gnats. If FFA is good enough for Man and the Channel Islands it’s hard to make a case that it is not acceptable for Scotland, but if there is a case, then somebody should be making it, not ignoring the premise.
You could say the same about some of the posturing that goes on. Ian Davidson’s bleating that the referendum is ‘rigged’ smacks of resentment at losing elections; chucking the ratle out of the pram does n’t play well with the electorate so the gnats only have to appear calm and collected to pick up votes. Being a bit more constructive would serve much better. However sweet victory in Glasgow might be, the fact is that the gnats still made solid progress last Thursday despite a masive amount of flak and despite being in governemt for 5 years.
They won’t be defeated by shouting, so it is down to Labour (the tories and glib-dumbs are irrelevant in Scotland and have only been saved by PR) to devise a poilcy approach that is both practical and popular. The leftist middle-class vote and aspirational working class vote is prety firmly in the SNP camp now, and those are the people that Labour must attract if the Union is to be preserved. The referendum is not a lost cause, but somebody, somewhere has to be doing the spadework. So far we don’t even know who will lead the campaign, though in effect the camapign is already under way. It’s easy to identify who can’t lead it. It must be led by someone in Scotland and it really can’t be Brown or Darling, so who? Charlie Kennedy might be a not-bad option, but I doubt if he’d take the job. Lamont or Baker would relish the challenge but neither of them is realy up to the task. Chisholm is well-respected across the country, but would toil in debate with Salmond and a lot of MSPs don’t like him. Scottish MSPs will never really get behind Ruth Davidson and Rennie has compromised himself by his attacks on the Civil Service. Ken MacIntosh would be a good choice, but maybe does n’t (yet) have enough profile.
Frederick Cowell
“Wastemonster” is possibly the most strained and pathetic thing I have read all week. I bet you “think” the question is a lot fairer, I mean after all you sat at your keyboard thinking long and hard about the different evidence and reviewing election data from the last four referendums in the UK. Oh no, wait you didn’t. You thought aha “wastemonster” this cunning little invented word makes a lot cleverer than I actually am, why bother looking at evidence. I must be right to paraphrase Descartes “I come up with silly made up word therefore I am”. Have fun bashing you head against the keyboard it would make more sense than using your fingers.
Angus McLellan
I thought we’d already agreed on those points, minus the spin?
The SNP’s position on the question is another one of those tar babies that the unionist parties can’t resist fighting. And if it’s not wrestling with the tar baby it’s crying wolf. There must be a lot of politicians had very sad childhoods, seeing as how they were never read stories by their parents and never read any books at primary school.
hearthammer
You’re Scottish?
hearthammer
The “right” are not dead in Scotland. Labour is holding on to their London roots and right wing politics.