It was never meant to be this way.
What if Mel McGibson had marshalled the troops at Stirling Bridge and tried a different type of inspiring rhetoric:
‘Imagine yourselves lying in your deathbeds, many years from now. Would you trade in all the days from this one to that, to stand here and fight, to say to your enemy that you may take our lives, but you will never take our £500!’. I don’t know if Scots had short arms and long sporrans back then, but it doesn’t exactly get my patriotic juices flowing.
Amidst this whimsy I am referring of course to the poll news yesterday (commissioned by the Scottish Government, curiously) that 32% of Scots are in favour of independence but 65% would vote Yes if Scotland proved to be £500 a year better off. I know times are tough but that’s a rather tawdry way to go about choosing your constitutional destiny, is it not? That said, I do wonder what the result would have been if the dangling trinket was 500 Euros rather than pounds. Isn’t it SNP policy to take us into the Euro before too long? I’m just saying…
Anyway, it will be a bit sad if this is what the next few years are going to come down to, a contest over who can convince Scots who they’d have more money with as their Government. It’s like some sort of unseemly Tesco vs Co-op price war. I can just see Salmond and Cameron jostling for position at Fort Kinnaird giving out clubcards. I understand that people are struggling to make ends meet and the prospect of more money in the wallet each month is appealing but noone really knows with any degree of certainty how much better/worse off Scotland would be after independence so what we end up with is all sides just yanking each other around, and the public seems to not only be caught in the middle, but falling for it gooing ga-ga over the shiniest entreatment before them.
I’m often disappointed at the idea that the richest in the UK have to be placated with financial incentives to stay here so if Scots were also seen to be selling their future to the highest bidder, that would be doubly depressing, triply depressing infact as this poll result will inevitably open to the door to more scare stories about how Scotland will be a basketcase of ah place if it goes it alone.
I suppose I should guard against being too cynical. After all, my personal belief is that Scotland will be better off as an independent country, albeit partially off the back of a foolhardy strategy surrounding its oil revenues and despite seemingly shunning the sensible option of a separate Scottish currency. Either way, would I be voting No if I thought Scotland would be worse off if independent? I like to hope not, I like to think that this choice runs deeper than the pound signs (or Euro signs) that are seemingly flashing in front of our eyes.
The prospect of building a new country in the mould of what Scots envisage a country should be, distinct from (but not separate to) the rest of the UK and Europe at large, is a tantalising prospect, an adventure that we can all tell the next generation(s) about and trust them to continue. I genuinely love the idea of a Scottish call to arms, a clarion call to Scots across the world to come ‘home’ and help build something special. It is a message built on emotion, on romance, on ambition. It is not a message that is built on creaming a few extra hundred quid for yourself.
Not that the SNP should be castigated if they do opt to tap into the strategy of promising more money for all after independence, it has to give the people what they want to get by, that’s how democratic politics works after all. Let’s be honest, a win is a win and, come the referendum, there isn’t really such a thing as winning ugly. The game is ensuring that your objective is appealing to the majority of the public, irrespective of how base their instincts may be. There is also a realism that has to be faced here; how many countries have chosen independence from a larger country and faced a poorer future? I am thinking of South Sudan, of UAE, of Norway. Plenty of oil, plenty of profit and plenty of people voting in favour of secession. Is that really so bad?
Either way, I remain hopeful that Scots can in time dig a little deeper and harden their opinion on the matter one way or the other. Voting Yes doesn’t come with a money-back guarantee, it is a decision taken for richer or poorer, so maybe we should take the £ signs out of the debate a bit more.
#1 by Indy on December 6, 2011 - 9:02 am
Couple of points. The SNP Scottish Government did not commission or set up the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey. It is actually a supplement to the British Social Attitudes Survey and has been conducting annual surveys since 1999 on a whole range of issues. It’s not run by the Government, it’s run by academic institutions, and the Government doesn’t write the questions. So to imply that the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey is actually an opinion poll commissioned by the SNP is not accurate. You might just as well say that the Scottish Government commissioned the poll that found that a majority of people support same sex marriage because that came from the same source. But that would be no more accurate than claiming that the findings on attitudes towards independence represent an SNP opinion poll.
Secondly, I haven’t seen the details of the survey but I would think it was fairly obvious that the figure of 500 pounds would be an illustrative one. It’s not meant to be taken literally and it’s pretty depressing that so many people in the media seem so stupid frankly that they actually think people would vote for independence for the price of 500 pounds.
What the survey tells us is that a majority of people would support independence if they believe that it will improve prosperity and would oppose it if they believe it would lead to greater poverty. Which on one level is kind of obvious. However it is worth knowing that the majority of Scots have no ideological problem with independence, they are open minded about it and would be prepared to support it if they believe it would improve the economy and lead to greater prosperity. That is an interesting fact whatever side of the debate you are on.
#2 by Jeff on December 6, 2011 - 12:48 pm
Fair enough Indy. What I was trying to get at was that the Scottish Government specifically included that question.
I disagree with your second paragraph. The £500 is illustrative of course but anything illustrative is meant to be taken literally in the mind so the media’s take is fair, in my view.
And I fully agree with your third paragraph. Lots of sympathetic potential Yes voters for the SNP to knock-up and leaflet. I’m sure some of that remaining 35% aren’t entirely immune to Salmond’s charms either 😉
#3 by Indy on December 6, 2011 - 3:30 pm
The Scottish Government really didn’t include that question.
The SG part funds the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey along with the Nuffield Foundation and Edinburgh University/the Leverhulme Foundation.
In fact the news page specifically says that the Nuffield Foundation funded the questions on options for Scotland’s future.
http://www.scotcen.org.uk/study/scottish-social-attitudes-2011
#4 by BaffieBox on December 6, 2011 - 9:02 am
I generally agree Jeff – looking at Independence through this prism is a pretty depressing exercise.
That said, isnt this the natural evolution of the Westminster-sponsored debate where Unionists tell us we’d be £x worse off, or the deficit is however many billions? When parties reduce the argument to the impact on our pocket, that’s how many people start to think about the question. However, I have to say, I cant really ever remember anyone thinking about independence, or devolution for that matter, in such acute and selfish economic terms. I think we are bigger, better and ultimately more socialist that that.
What the poll does say however, is that the Union isn’t as tight, conceptually or economically as we maybe all thought. If the bonds could be broken for such a modest sum, things are a lot worse/lot better, depending on your viewpoint, than we all thought.
#5 by Jeff on December 6, 2011 - 12:45 pm
Yes, I agree with that. Despite 32% being a very low number, this poll in its entirety is better news for the SNP than for unionists. Lots of capacity to get the Yes vote up if it can start winning more of the arguments, which it currently has the momentum to do. I still hope Scots will think more critically about the numerous issues at stake and up for grabs, but each to their own.
#6 by Doug Daniel on December 6, 2011 - 1:45 pm
Unionist politicians always say 32% is a low number. However, I wonder how many of them would mind losing 32% of their elected politicians? How many of them can say they receive 32% of the public vote?
It’s funny how 1/3 is only a tiny minority when it suits people…
#7 by Ken on December 6, 2011 - 2:33 pm
Seriously?
#8 by Doug Daniel on December 6, 2011 - 4:39 pm
You don’t think a third is a significant amount?
#9 by Ken on December 6, 2011 - 4:57 pm
I think a third is a significant minority.
More importantly, 2/3rds is a significant majority, and when votes / poll numbers / support levels etc are 2/3rds against your position, yes you have a low level of support.
You CAN say the level is increasing (to put a positive frame on the statement), but to bluntly deny that a third isn’t a low number in a straight Yes/No argument…. well, it reminds me of “Your arm’s off!” “Tis but a scratch… I’ve had worse” .
#10 by Indy on December 6, 2011 - 5:32 pm
The same survey shows that two thirds of Scots would support independence if they thought it would make them better off.
So we don’t really have a low level of support.
As others have pointed out we can roughly divide the electorate thus.
One third already sold on independence
One third loyal to the Union
One third undecided.
#11 by Ken on December 6, 2011 - 6:09 pm
I wasn’t commenting on the survey, the various permutations that can be pulled from it, or the SNP level of support – rather Doug Daniel’s statement in itself that 32% isn’t a low figure. I perhaps should have said “against one’s position”.
#12 by Doug Daniel on December 6, 2011 - 7:23 pm
But these polls are never a straight yes/no – there’s always a “don’t know” option, and as Indy says, they tend to be split pretty evenly among the three. So when unionist politicians waffle on about how tiny support for independence is, they’re ignoring the fact that their own position only commands about the same amount of definitive support.
Quite simply, a third is not an amount you can just wave off as a trifling number.
#13 by forfar-loon on December 6, 2011 - 8:28 pm
I’d have to agree with Doug. 1/3 is not an insignificant amount. Think of yourself and your dear old Ma and Pa. Which 1 of the 3 of you is a trivial, easily discounted part of the trio? Unless you had a major falling out with your folks I imagine you view all 3 as pretty important! In most families routinely ignoring the wishes of 1 of the 3 would result in a fair few problems.
In passing, I would remark that capturing a “mere” 1/3 of the electorate’s votes usually puts Labour within spitting distance of a majority when it comes to Westminster elections (albeit under a ludicrously unfair electoral system). But I suggest that this 1/3 would not be airily dismissed as irrelevant! Context is always important.
#14 by ReasonableNat on December 7, 2011 - 10:18 am
Most importantly in a referendum scenario, based on the thirds, if the “don’t know” group splits evenly, or doesn’t bother voting, then you get a 50:50 result, Unionist parties and the media have been banging on for years (and still are) about independence only having the support of about one third of the population – but completely fail to mention that the union also has the support of about one third. The tiniest of shifts one way or the other is all that is required to win a referendum; the most recent opinion poll showing 38% yes and 37% no would most likely have produced a small majority in favour, in a referendum. I’m no expert in either polling or statistics, so maybe I’m talking drivel here, but if not, then there’s an evens chance that a number of politicians and journalists are about to get quite a large shock.
#15 by Craig Kelly on December 6, 2011 - 9:47 am
I agree and disagree. Actually, I’m with indy on this one. Surely what we see with this poll is a populace who, as indy put it, ‘would support independence if they believe that it will improve prosperity.’ But more than that, the poll tells us something that is obvious but often overlooked; our constitutional future is not the priority for the majority of Scots. Most people are concerned about their health, their children’s education and safety; essentially, they’re concerned about their happiness which is underpinned by economics.
When we think about it in these terms, is it really so bad that people are coming to the constitutional question from the position of, ‘what scenario would most likely deliver more prosperity, and in turn a healthier society?’
I would love everyone to think in romantic, nationalistic terms about our constitutional future. I would love to see flag flying nationalism and civic pride. I would take great pleasure in vanquishing the ‘Scottish cringe’. But, for most people the reality of their everyday lives is more important than mere symbolism. I don’t think that’s a bad thing, in fact, it’s probably the best way for people to decide.
#16 by Jeff on December 6, 2011 - 12:43 pm
I certainly agree Craig that the constitution isn’t a priority for most people which is precisely why I am hoping that the debate starts going a bit deeper than pound signs that are magicked out of thin air, on both sides of the divide. We don’t know if we’ll be better off or worse off so this decision should be taken based on non-financial considerations – what would schools look like in an independent Scotland, health, social care, etc etc. That imagination hasn’t been set running within Scotland’s collective mind, but hopefully it will in time. And, when it does, hopefully we’ll see the difference between the 32% and 65% poll results closing considerably, irrespective of which direction.
#17 by ReasonableNat on December 6, 2011 - 11:39 am
On top of all the other polling evidence, this slightly different angle really just supports the notion that the electorate is split roughly into three equal parts. The referendum is going to be decided purely by the part that isn’t really fussed either way, ironically.
#18 by Jeff on December 6, 2011 - 12:40 pm
Good point, and the entreaties directed this third’s way could be more and more bizarre.
Independence for Scotland! Ponies for all!
#19 by Doug Daniel on December 6, 2011 - 12:03 pm
It makes sense, really. When I hear the arguments against independence from non-politicos, it’s always the same: the economy. So for all the bluster unionist politicians give us about being “stronger together”, or about Scotland’s influence on the world stage being diminished, or any other crud like that, the fact is no one really gives a toss. Likewise, when nationalists go on about forming stronger unions with other countries, being able to make decisions for ourselves, not having to kowtow to a larger country that takes us into illegal wars etc, no one really gives a toss.
As the saying goes, “it’s the economy, stupid”. Get that right, and people will vote for anything you put in front of them.
An interesting thought: what happens if we can find someone who would be willing to give £500 to every person who votes for independence…?
#20 by Jeff on December 6, 2011 - 12:39 pm
“what happens if we can find someone who would be willing to give £500 to every person who votes for independence…?”
They’d quite possibly be sent to jail for bribery 😉
i agree that it makes sense that the more money you think you’ll get from independence then the more likely you are to vote for it but where did the £500 figure come from? What’s the margin of error? How can anyone know what the future holds? I mean, come on, look at the stock market yo-yoing around like nobody’s business. It’s as foolish to promise Scotland being a richer place after independence as it is to promise it being a poorer place, not that that’ll stop both sides from going for it.
So I don’t know, I just think we’re all going to get a bit short-changed if this keeps up, whatever the outcome.
#21 by ReasonableNat on December 6, 2011 - 1:14 pm
What they really should have done is ask the same question with differing amounts – 50, 500, 5000, 50000… Ach well.
#22 by Jeff on December 6, 2011 - 1:25 pm
Haha.
No, it’d be too depressing to see 65% support for £50 aswell as £500 (aswell as £5).
#23 by forfar-loon on December 6, 2011 - 8:38 pm
“what happens if we can find someone who would be willing to give £500 to every person who votes for independence…?â€
“They’d quite possibly be sent to jail for bribery 😉 “
Of course in Alaska their oil fund pays out a fair old dividend to each citizen every year, comfortably more than £500 in recent years if memory serves…it was bribery that took us into the union, maybe it will be bribery that takes us out!
#24 by Jeff on December 6, 2011 - 8:41 pm
There’s a big difference between giving every citizen £500 and giving every citizen who votes a certain way £500. Pretty sure the law will back me up on that one…
Sounds like a good day to have been an Alaskan though.
#25 by forfar-loon on December 6, 2011 - 10:21 pm
Indeed Jeff. What I was alluding to was that a cold, calculating politician (I’m quite sure we have no such devils in Scottish politics…ahem!) could dangle the prospect of an oil dividend in front of the voters ahead of the referendum: “Vote for independence and we’ll establish an oil fund that will pay you all £500 each year!” Not exactly bribery, given that the money would go to everyone regardless of how they had voted in the referendum. Of course a far better use of the money would be a Norwegian-style fund.
#26 by Doug Daniel on December 6, 2011 - 1:22 pm
The thing is, you can try focussing on other things, and it makes no difference. You ask people why they don’t want independence, and they come out with all sorts of reasons, all of which can be swatted away with ease. Yet they still feel attached to the union. Why? Because in the grand scheme of things, none of them really matter. No one is really going to vote “NO” in the referendum because they’re worried about getting Eastenders, or needing passports at the border, or whether Scots will still be able to serve in the British armed forces, or any of the kind of questions from the public which Salmond answered with ease on The One Show recently. When it comes down to it, all people are going to have in mind is “will I still be able to put food on the table if Scotland is independent?” You can answer all these other questions satisfactorily, but it won’t matter a hoot if people think their economic prospects will be worse. And if they’re not going to go up either, then people need a really big reason to vote for change.
We might end up getting short-changed by a narrow debate on which side can offer the best economic outcomes for people, but it’s our fault for being so narrow-minded in the first place – hence why government elections have become increasingly narrow-focussed. We get what we deserve, quite frankly.
#27 by Doug Daniel on December 6, 2011 - 4:52 pm
Incidentally, I think the main thing this poll tells us this: 21% would vote for independence, even if they were less well off than they are now; while
25% would vote against independence, even if they were better off than they are right now. So 25% of the population are unionist ideologists, and 21% are independence ideologists. That leaves 54% of the population open to persuasion either way. That’s a pretty massive amount.
From a nationalist perspective, that’s pretty exciting news, particularly as the findings also suggest that over half of those people need little more than the guarantee of better economic prospects in order to vote “Yes”. That’s exciting, because I believe it to be true, and that it won’t be difficult to convey this message as the referendum draws closer.
The majority of support for the Union hangs on the cost of a second-hand Gibson SG-X bass guitar.
#28 by Daniel J on December 6, 2011 - 5:02 pm
I can’t find it now but I’m sure the Herald had the figure that ~47% would support Independence if it was to have no impact on their standard of living. (Anyone find this?)
If true it shows that right now the presumption would seem to be that Independence will make us poorer?
#29 by Doug Daniel on December 6, 2011 - 5:32 pm
46% actually – the BBC has the figure in their story (which already seems to have disappeared from the main page…) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16024399
That’s a damn good point, incidentally.
#30 by Barbarian on December 6, 2011 - 9:06 pm
I think trying to use an argument of £500 is trivial and patronising from both sides of the argument.
As to the “500 Euros”: I fear there may be more than a grain of truth in that.
Any party making a policy statement of being “closer to Europe” is asking for trouble at this moment in time.
#31 by Indy on December 7, 2011 - 8:04 am
But Barbarian no-one is using 500 pounds as an argument. This is my point. This is an anual academic survey, it’s not political. It’s true that political parties – all of them – take the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey very seriously because it’s one of the most consistent and robust sources of data about public opinion that exists. It was actually the media that took the illustrative figure of 500 and siezed on it to say that people would vote for independence for 500 quid, missing the real point of what the survey tells us.
#32 by Chris on December 6, 2011 - 10:05 pm
Jeff
it is easy to be blinded by numbers here, particularly the one that manages to find a majority for independence if it was worth £500 a year. Puts me in mind of the phrase “if my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle”
If you turn the question round it really does point to the death knell of independence.
Let me explain….
21% support independence whatever. So nationalists need to convince 29% of the population of the economic case for independence.
Support for independence stands at 32%. So despite a successful SNP goverment, the opposition in disarray, an unpopular government in London (even if they did get more Scots voting for them than the government in Edinburgh), the pound on the rocks and every pop singer, lottery winner, homophobic bus magnate and panto star from Stranraer to Lerwick telling us how good independence would be ONLY an additional 11% of the population believe the economic case.
So for every convert to date you would need to find nearly another 2 more. Getting from 11% to 29% looks highly unlikely. Particularly as the economic case for independence has not really had much scrutiny in the general populace. This 11% could fall too once the media start asking tough questions. In most elections support for independence falls during the campaign as the hard questions get asked.
More than anything else it shows the degree of stickiness on support for independence.
Ultimately I am in the £500 club, indeed a time-served 90-minute nationalist. The economic case is weak and remains so.
#33 by Barbarian on December 6, 2011 - 11:54 pm
You missed out the tax exile film star!
#34 by Indy on December 7, 2011 - 8:15 am
No it really doesn’t spell the death knell of independence Chris. Because 21 per cent is also the proportion of people who support the status quo come what may. It’s the people in the middle who will decide – not the 21 per cent who are completely committed to independence or the 21 per cent who are completely committed to the Union.
So let’s look at how the people in the middle seem to be thinking.
65% for independence if £500 better off; 25% against.
21% for independence if £500 worse off; 66% against.
46% for independence if standard of living unchanged; 32% against
Also, 43% of people agreed that the Scottish Parliament should make all decisions for Scotland – up from 28% last year.
The Scottish Parliament making all decisions about Scotland is actually independence. It just isn’t described as independence.
#35 by rullko on December 8, 2011 - 12:08 am
an unpopular government in London (even if they did get more Scots voting for them than the government in Edinburgh)
Michael Moore is fond of implying this without actually saying it, in the hopes that it will be popularly accepted to be the case. Looks like it’s working!
#36 by Jeff on December 9, 2011 - 10:30 pm
Just to follow on from that fact check:
2010 election:
SNP – 491,386 votes
LDs – 465,471 votes
So you’re right. One could cheekily suggest that if the Lib Dems believed in PR then a few of them would cross the floor to the Nats….
#37 by Aidan on December 9, 2011 - 11:44 pm
The claim, as originally put by Ruth Davidson, is that “the UK coalition Government secured more votes in Scotland than those who backed Alex Salmond for First Minister in May”, which is put quite carefully and compares the combined Westminster Tory and Lib Dem votes with the SNP list votes.
Westminster:
Lib Dems: 465,471
Conservatives: 412,855
Holyrood:
SNP regional: 876,421
The combined totals are less than the SNP got on constituency votes (902,915) but it does serve to illustrate the point, especially given the emphasis on “Alex Salmond For First Minister”.