As my esteemed blogging colleague, Jeff highlighted, today’s Com Res poll for the Independent on Sunday produces the astonishing finding that a majority of folk south of the border support independence.
The whole poll sampled over 2000 voters across the UK, but only 176 were in Scotland, so caveats apply about the representativeness of the sample size. But the really interesting findings are on voting intentions and opinions about the performance of various leaders and parties.
First, the headline indie finding in Scotland – support is up to 49%, an increase of 11% since the last Com Res poll, and firmly within the direction of travel reported by other polls over the summer.
Apparently, at the last General Election, 28% of Scots voted “other”, one presumes mainly for the SNP. If there was a UK election tomorrow, 33% would vote SNP, 30% would vote Labour, 11% would vote Conservative and 6% vote Liberal Democrat. Again, in tune with other polls, the SNP is increasingly becoming the party of choice for voters at all elections. Would a 33% result be enough to see constituencies topple like dominoes, as happened in May? Doubtful. They need more swing towards them and away from Labour, particularly in the central belt.
The poll suggests the Lib Dems are finished in Scotland, at least for the foreseeable future. On a series of attitudinal statements, the Scots are much more down on the Liberal Democrats than other parts of the UK or indeed the UK as a whole.
*Nick Clegg is turning out to be a good leader for the Liberal Democrats* – 83% of Scots disagreed compared to 53% at UK level
*The Liberal Democrats have done a good job of moderating Conservative policies in the Coalition* – an oft repeated assertion by Scottish Lib Dems in particular – 61% of Scots disagree compared to 47% for the UK
*Being in coalition with the Conservatives has shown the Liberal Democrats to be a credible party of government* – 17% of Scots agree compared to 24% of total participants across the UK. Only Wales has a lower percentage agreeing (15%).
There is divergence in opinion amongst Scots voters compared to the UK as a whole and whatever the Scottish Liberal Democrats do, they are facing an uphill battle the whole time their party is in coalition with the Conservatives at UK level, because Scots do not believe it is making any difference to UK government policies or behaviour. That belief is no doubt affirmed every time a Scottish Liberal Democrat MP pops up in the news bearing bad news – as the water carriers for the government in Scotland they are intrinsically linked to it all and it is doing nothing for their reputation with Scottish voters.
The poll also suggests a link between the Conservatives being in power, the austerity of the times we live in and growing support for independence.
*The Coalition Government’s policies share the burden of hard times fairly so that we are “all in it together”* – over one in four UK participants agree with this statement (27%) but in Scotland it’s less than one in five (18%).
And while one third of respondents think David Cameron is turning out to be a good Prime Minister across the UK, in Scotland only 18% think so. If the Liberal Democrats have a hill to climb to turn around their electoral fortunes in Scotland, then the Conservatives clearly have a mountain to scale.
It is supposition – and it would be great if someone, other than the parties themselves, was prepared to engage in qualitative research that explores why Scottish voters are headed towards independence – but with a UK Government not to their liking, and not behaving in a way which finds favour with Scottish voters, you can see why people might be turning towards independence as a credible alternative.
And there are other polls indicating the key role that the economic situation might just be playing in that shift. To be blogged on later….
#1 by Nikostratos on October 16, 2011 - 11:28 am
‘so caveats apply’
Didn’t stop you from drawing massive if very doubtful conclusions from very little evidence still it was ever thus with the Nationalists…
lets have a referendum and we will see
#2 by Phil Brammer on October 16, 2011 - 12:23 pm
Thanks for the breakdown – a good read.
#3 by The Burd on October 16, 2011 - 12:55 pm
I do wish folk would read posts properly. I think I kind of skite over SNP related findings and focus on what this poll – with all the caveats about sample size – says about the Lib Dems and Scots opinion of them, and I do say, “it is supposition” but there is increasing poll evidence that suggests Tories in power, and the economic situation combine to encourage more Scots to view independence as a positive alternative. Don’t think a majority are there yet, but it is all pointing in that direction. I’ve just blogged over at ABEV on the economic stuff, you won’t like what it has to say.
#4 by Barbarian on October 16, 2011 - 1:27 pm
I like the way the questions have been broken down here. It makes interesting reading and must be extremely worrying for the Lib Dems. There is a consistent loss of support for the Lib Dems and it shows no sign of bottoming out. Next year’s council elections could be interesting, even taking into account local issues. I think they are in for a shock.
#5 by Observer on October 16, 2011 - 1:46 pm
”Why are Scots leaning towards independence?”
Because there is a Tory government in Westminster that Scots did not vote for & don’t like, & Labour are completely useless.
As long as these two factors continue, then the SNP would need to do something absolutely awful not to continue to gain in strength. They might do that, right enough, but my fingers are crossed that they won’t.
#6 by Allan on October 16, 2011 - 2:13 pm
“It is supposition – and it would be great if someone, other than the parties themselves, was prepared to engage in qualitative research that explores why Scottish voters are headed towards independence”
I suspect, and rather like you I would like someone to look into this, that the movement of opinion towards Independence is linked to the percieved convergence of the main parties. In particular the adoption of Osbornes Scorched Earth policy by all of the main parties (bar the SNP) as being the only alternative.
After all, if the only choice is (from the scottish voters point of view) the three Westminster based parties pushing various versions of Thatcherism, then of course Independence will become a more attractive proposition.
#7 by Observer on October 16, 2011 - 4:37 pm
We have so much to thank Thatcher for! God it was terrible at the time, but her lasting legacy is a sense of Scottishness & a belief that we don’t need to do it her way.
#8 by James Morton on October 16, 2011 - 9:16 pm
I would say they are leaning towards independence because of the increasing hostility of the English press and English conservatives peddling the myths of scrounging Scots who dip into English pockets to pay for their grannies prescriptions. I would say it’s happening because when the Unionists attempt to defend and promote the Union, they can only do so now in the most negative manner. When they try to define it in emotional terms and in a good light, its clear their vision of Scotland is one that doesn’t exist any more. I think it fair to say the conservatives have to shoulder most of the blame on this one. In their pursuit of monetarist nirvana they swept away the very foundations of their support and with it the very notions of being part of something larger and important were swept away with it.
I have said it here before and on other forums: I used to believe that the Union should remain intact. But now, if there was a referendum tomorrow I would vote to see it consigned to the history books. I am heart sick and disgusted at the belligerent imbecility on display by so called unionists. According to them we all living on the good graces of the English, without them, then why they say, it’d be a Greek style melt down.
Good God in heaven, who would vote to remain in partnership with such a reckless and stupid race of people as the Scots? No right thinking Englishman would, but in the really real world Scotland does pay it’s way and has done for some time. So it makes me angry when I all I hear from Scottish Unionists on these slanderous lies is thunderous silence. Now if you approach it from the the pro-independence side, then the argument is why would you want to vote with people who think so lowly of you and hold all you believe in utter contempt. the answer is no right thinking Scot would.
Salmond doesn’t need to make a case for independence, the Unionists are doing it for him, with every breath they draw and every lie they tell, every scare story they cook up.
Now a Scots Labour MP thinks he can take away the decision to hold a referendum from the Scottish Government, who won a majority with a clear mandate to govern Scotland and hold a referendum on the issue of independence by the end of the term of this Parliament. Who does this man think he is. Doesn’t he know that his party lost? I will say it again: Historically the side that loses does not get to dictate terms to the victor, its the other way around.
#9 by Tris on October 16, 2011 - 11:48 pm
Observer has it in a nutshell. The Scots didn’t vote Tory, but they have a Tory government attacking their living standards to pay for a largely London based financial hole… and of course following a Tory agenda.
If they vote for independence it will be a damned long time before they have another Tory government looking after the elite and crushing them.
People must wonder at a time when we have this Tory government why the Labour Party is sniping at the SNP when, as far as people can see the SNP is carrying out left of centre policies. Labour stopped doing that so that they could appeal to the voters in Berks and Huntingdonshire. They have effectively become an English party.
Voters in Scotland might be entitled to think that Scottish Labour politicians are more concerned that, by the time it’s their turn for power again, they won’t be entitled to a seat in Westminster or Downing Street. They can see the G8 and the UN, the world stage slipping through their fingers. They are fighting for themselves, not for the working people of the country.
The SNP is building council houses and looking after poorer people. Alex Salmond isn’t interested in the riches of London. But just like King James the Labour leadership long for the warm sun of the south of England, and the world stage.
I think it’s unstoppable unless Labour returns to its roots and the Tories become something entirely different under Murdo. Even then I don’t know anyone would trust them. The Liberals are finished. 6%? I wonder if they will get more than the Northern Isles next time round.
#10 by John B Dick on October 17, 2011 - 10:21 am
Now a Scots Labour MP thinks he can take away the decision to hold a referendum from the Scottish Government, who won a majority with a clear mandate to govern Scotland and hold a referendum on the issue of independence by the end of the term of this Parliament. Who does this man think he is. Doesn’t he know that his party lost? I will say it again: Historically the side that loses does not get to dictate terms to the victor, its the other way around.
So the SNP is planning to run a divisive partisan campaign on independence? Excellent, good luck with that.
#11 by Doug Daniel on October 17, 2011 - 3:50 pm
How on earth do you arrive at that conclusion from the bit you’ve quoted?
Any opposition MSPs (and MPs) who want to join the independence campaign would be welcomed with open arms. If you want divisive, partisan campaigns, look no further than Jim “I won’t share a stage with him” Murphy.
#12 by Indy on October 17, 2011 - 12:06 pm
What I think is interesting is that, at the same time that polls are showing a leaning towards independence (yes, it’s small samples etc and nothing to bet the house on but it’s still there) opinion in the unionist parties appears to be hardening against having any third option on the ballot.
That’s a thing I don’t understand because I don’t see how it can be in their interests that the debate is polarised between the status quo and independence. Yet that is how it is starting to look. I can’t work out if this is a strategy or just a kind of circle the wagons response to events which are happening too fast for them.
#13 by Don McC on October 17, 2011 - 7:02 pm
Yeah, I don’t understand that one either, Indy. The Scottish people want more power for Holyrood, that much is undeniable. In a straight fight between “This line and no further” and independence, what exactly does the status quo offer Scots?
As far as I can see, a third option of devo-max or independence-lite would be very attractive to the majority of people and could kill independence off (but then they said that about devolution too!!)
#14 by Indy on October 18, 2011 - 8:48 am
I think we can win independence on a three question referendum. There seems to be an assumption that we can’t but I don’t share that. And I am not a cock-eyed optimist either – it’s not that I wish we could win independence on a three question referendum, I believe for perfectly rational reasons that we can.
But I also think that if there exists a majority at this time for Devo Max, however that is defined, then that should also be considered. The most important outcome of the referendum after all is that it should give a clear picture of what the majority of Scots actually want.
In that sense, it is those who wish to exclude a third question who really want to rig the referendum.
#15 by Indy on October 17, 2011 - 2:26 pm
Indy @ 11,
Seems to me that it would be worthwhile running bigger, Scotland only, polls. I suspect they might give the SNP even more of a favourable outcome.
I’d like the referendum to have a single question, in or out of the UK? Anything short of that is a waste of time.
#16 by Doug Daniel on October 17, 2011 - 3:09 pm
Eh? TWO Indys?
At least the multiple Dougs who comment on this blog have unique monikers!
#17 by Doug Daniel on October 17, 2011 - 3:35 pm
As for your final sentence, I don’t think it would be a waste of time to have a second question, although having tried to get the Lib Dems on board last time by offering a third option, the SNP are well within their rights to stick to two options.
People need to be given a referendum that presents them with the choices people want. The AV referendum was a shambles because no one wanted AV, they wanted PR. So many people who were in favour of PR actually voted “no”, since AV wasn’t the change that they wanted. We don’t want the status quo vote being boosted by people who don’t want things to remain the same, but also don’t quite want independence.
Unless the single question was “do you want FFA or independence?”…
#18 by Random Lurking Scotsman on October 17, 2011 - 6:37 pm
“In or out” might seem simple, but despite the polls I don’t think it’s as simple as that. Outside of those who think about independence, the question may need to be a bit more nuanced in order to capture the broad range of opinion.
I think the full independence/full fiscal autonomy/status quo choice is just about right, as it represents the three main strands of opinion that could be sensibly represented on a ballot. “Union Yes or No” would be a rather emotive campaign and it’s not guaranteed that an SNP government in five years time would be able to swing it as unless we have 300 year old people we’ve all grown up under the Union and if forced to make a split second choice, people can be surprisingly conservative.
Independence/FFA/Status quo allows for a better debate, and FFA would be more attractive to a lot of people than most SNP activists might like to admit. It would make for a more staggered form of independence, and any post-UK arrangement could emerge organically with time.
I’ve gone from skeptical to being pro-independence due to the wonderful Westminster government we have, but although Scotland gave the SNP its majority without fearing independence it didn’t have independence at the very top of the agenda. It did it because the SNP was first and foremost a competent administration, and although heart can rule head it’s very important to remember that.
I think that quite a number of Scots who voted for it might very well place their vote elsewhere if suddenly it reverts to rabid Union-bashing as its top priority if a “Union Yes or No” question was asked, because the SNP’s election winning style has been a cautious, gradualist approach rather than using government as a platform to bash the Union 24/7.
#19 by Indy on October 17, 2011 - 3:33 pm
There’s only one Indy.
#20 by Observer on October 17, 2011 - 5:32 pm
I think there needs to be a third option because that is what people appear to want. What is the point in the government conducting social attitude surveys & then ignoring the results? I believe the unionist parties want a straightforward yes/no question because they think they could run a negative scaremongering campaign to maintain the union. If the debate was opened up, then that policy would not work.
#21 by Doug Daniel on October 17, 2011 - 8:30 pm
That’s certainly true about making a negative campaign easier, as it’s easy to say “choose us because we’re not them“, but as soon as you throw a third option in, you then have to convince people that you should be their alternative, rather than the third option.
However, a third “not quite independence” option would stand an excellent chance of winning, and with a little bit of campaigning, it would be fairly easy to convince people to go that way instead of full independence. So the fact that Tories and Labour both appear unhappy with having it as an option suggests that, rather than just being against independence, they’re actually staunchly in favour of the status quo. This current trend amongst creeps like Douglas Alexander and Ken Macintosh for describing themselves as “devolutionists” is utter rubbish – they’re just as rabidly unionist as the most right-wing Tory.
Pingback: The Salmond Problem |
#22 by Tris on October 17, 2011 - 8:59 pm
I want total complete independence, mainly because I don’t like the idea of Scotland’s foreign policy being in the hands of people like William Hague, with all that that entails. Remember that he was a part of Atlantic Bridge. And I don’t want Scotland’s very limited needs in defence to include the WMD we currently hold for the UK; nor do I want to be a leading part of the world’s police force directed by America.
If the parent country were Switzerland, I’d he happy with the devo-max that Lichtenstein has. But the UK? No sir. They are too ready to be off killing whoever America wants killed at that particular time.
That said, it seems to be what Scots want. If we are going to have a referendum, we must not fall into the stupid (but planned) hole that Clegg allowed with his referendum for AV. As Doug said, no one really wanted that fudge. So some PR people (including some Liberals) voted against it. Which of course Cameron could interpret as a vote FOR FPTP.
It seems that many, if not most people wanted PR, but Cameron did not, so he refused to put that possibility on the ballot.
Likewise Calman, looking at the future of Scotland’s democracy, ironically, refused to consider independence as a possibility or a topic for discussion, when the SNP formed the government. It’s hard to believe, but it’s true. Elephants in rooms, or what?
Good democracy. That’s what the people seem to want so let’s deny them the opportunity to say so.
In the end that attitude bears sour fruit, as can be seen from recent elections and polling. We are nearly at 50% for independence. So Calman’s sweeping it under the carpet can hardly be said to have been a success.
On the basis, then, that many many people want devo-max, it is ridiculous not to included it even if it’s not what I want, what Cameron wants or what Salmond wants.
#23 by Dubbieside on October 17, 2011 - 9:52 pm
Tris/Doug
I think the main reason that both Labour and the Torys are against Devo Max! is that they both know it would provide only a very short term fix.
What worries them in my opinion is the reaction from the Scottish people when we got an honest look at the books. If as we suspect that Scotland has been short changed, or even down right lied to about the Scottish finances the reaction would be huge.
They will bet the lot on a straight yes or no, and hope that 30 years of propaganda works, and they can maintain the sham of this United Kingdom.
#24 by Doug Daniel on October 18, 2011 - 12:47 am
It could be that, although I feel many unionist politicians truly do believe that Scotland gets more money from the treasury than it gets back. I think the idea that it would then be just one small step to independence is probably a more likely reason.
A thought I’ve just had: if Scotland does go for FFA, and people do then start feeling like we might as well just go the whole hog after all a few years later, would this require a further referendum, or would there be so little to take back from the union that we could just have a Unilateral Declaration of Independence? Could we find a vastly more empowered government feeling that it needs to have its own defence and foreign affairs ministers anyway to lobby Westminster – after all, with FFA, we would presumably be giving money to Westminster for shared services, rather than getting it back for everything else – and Scotland ends up thinking “look, let’s just sneak out without telling them”?
#25 by Dubbieside on October 18, 2011 - 11:48 am
Doug
Im not sure about UDI, I think we need all the cooperation from countrys round the world that we can get. I would worry that UDI could change that. Lets just use the ballot box.
Another point about FFA, anything that still gave Westminster the right to send Scottish military to fight illegal wars, and to park Trident on our doorstep would not last long.
#26 by Tris on October 18, 2011 - 12:25 am
Good point Dubs. Everything that was supposed to stop the rise of the Scottish nation has simply been a step on the ladder to freedom for our country. Why would dev-max not be.
#27 by Holebender on October 18, 2011 - 10:17 am
The problem with a FFA option in the referendum is that the SNP cannot actually deliver FFA. Independence is straightforward – negotiate, repatriate all powers, shake hands and wish each other luck.
FFA, on the other hand, requires the active cooperation of Wastemonster. Only the UK Parliament can devolve more powers from itself and I don’t find it hard to believe they wouldn’t play fair or be completely honest with us. If the Wastemonster parties object to an FFA option on the ballot, how could FFA be delivered in the event it wins the day?
#28 by Doug Daniel on October 18, 2011 - 12:17 pm
Well, this is why the unionist parties need to pick this up and start running with it. The SNP’s responsibility is to make sure the referendum offers the electorate the choices people want, and also to campaign for its preferred option – independence. But if no one has set out the parameters for FFA, then the SNP can’t include it as an option. That won’t be the SNP’s fault, as they’ll have done their bit – the onus is on one of the unionist parties to recognise there is an appetite there for FFA and champion that cause. If none of them do, then they’ve failed in their task to represent the public.
You would assume the Lib Dems are the most likely candidates for this – the Tories barely believe in devolving any powers, and Labour are not much better. But the Lib Dems were supposed to be behind some sort of devo max option last time round, and their position in the UK government makes them ideally placed to negotiate pre-agreements with Westminster. If they want to improve their performance at the ballot box, then they could do worse than choose this as their “big idea” for people to get behind. Otherwise, the SNP will just have to just say “sorry, we can’t include an option if no one is going to campaign for it”.
#29 by Doug Daniel on October 18, 2011 - 12:20 pm
And yes, independence is very straightforward. I find it bizarre that certain commentators on this blog insist it is a complicated process, and would instead prefer to have Calmanesque Commissions every few years to transfer powers at a snail’s pace.
#30 by Andra on October 18, 2011 - 3:48 pm
The status quo and independence both have the beauty of relative simplicity. Neither require the RUK to implement change (apart from to run without us in the case of independence of course). But devo-max clearly would require not only RUK compliance but also substantial changes for them, changes I have to wonder whether they would choose to make.
I can’t see a devo max settlement with Scotland not resulting in changes in the relationship between England and Wales, and probabaly N Ireland as well, although this is a different case. England may decide it just isn’t worth retaining whats left of a relationship with Scotland if to do so it has to adopt a new UK altogether.
Devo max could well fail to get off the ground even as a proposal. The RUK can force an in/out question just by not agreeing to a devo max deal with Scotland.