Forgive the rather Cybernat headline, but I am taking my lead from a source as independent as YouGov.
Between Oct 10 and Oct 12 the polling company conducted a survey of ~1,000 Scots and asked, amongst other questions, the following:
Which ONE of the following people do you think would be best at standing up for Scotland’s interests?
Alex Salmond 43
Johann Lamont 6
Ruth Davidson 5
Willie Rennie 2
None of these 24
Don’t know 21
I find the above result really quite incredible and there are many talking points to be extracted from this one single question alone.
Alex Salmond
There’s no good reason why the above poll results shouldn’t follow the voter intention party breakdown. But there it is, the First Minister is greater than 700% more preferable as Scotland’s political guardian than his nearest challenger and 300% more preferable than the three nearest combined.
There were no Holyrood or Westminster polling results attached to this poll that I could see but 43% isn’t far off the 44%(constituency)/45%(list) who voted SNP at the last election which suggests a reassuring pat-on-the-back for the First Minister from the people who put him there.
It is interesting to note that Salmond is seemingly not adding to his 2011 support base which, given the derisory results for other leaders, is in a way somewhat disappointing and evidence that he really is a love him /loathe him politician. 43% is, of course, well short of 50% and I probably don’t need to explain why that may be a problem.
Others
Many derided Iain Gray for his lack of profile amongst the Scottish public in the last parliamentary term and one could be tempted to do the same here given Johann’s low figures above. I’m not going to do that but the question of why there is such a disintegration of respect for each of the unionist party leaders from their own would-be voters really does beg to be scrutinised.
The main conclusion that one comes to is that the public believes that Scotland is not currently devolved enough. That doesn’t mean that everyone is suddenly pro-independence, or will be in the future, but the public are watching and listening to the arguments that each party leader is making and, while many still clearly haven’t made their minds up as to what future they wish to see for Scotland, many more are finding the unionist leaders wanting.
There has been a meek unwillingness from each of these three leaders to push their individual party’s visions forwards. Johann Lamont personally announced a Commission on further powers but it is barely off the ground and won’t report its conclusions until after the referendum, Ruth Davidson has fallen into line behind David Cameron’s woolly ‘jam tomorrow’ promise of some sort of constitutional change after the referendum (if they still feel like it come then) and Willie Rennie has bizarrely ceded any Devo Max or federal initiative to Ming Campbell despite this quite possibly being the orange bullet that would salvage the Lib Dem’s reputation in Scotland, and Willie Rennie’s.
The Lib Dem leader occasionally states that a federal UK has been his party’s policy for over 100 years, but what have the Lib Dems actually done to advance that policy since the Scottish Parliament was up and running? Not much that I can remember and the party activists will only accept such atavism for so long.
It is particularly strange that all three unionist parties each have constitutional outlooks that are in theory closer to where the Scottish public seems to be right now but none of them can find a way to seize the agenda, elucidate their preferences and make a breakthrough in this area. If they did, and the ball is very much in their court with Yes Scotland visibly flummoxed, then they’d be a lot higher up the charts in poll questions like the one above.
Power wins prizes
To give the unionist party leaders their due, they haven’t had the opportunity to stand up for Scotland as none of them have held a position of significant power. How can they showcase to what extent they would defend the nation’s interests if their job is to hold a Nationalist Government to account?
Well, for me, this is still pretty weak as any of them could, at least in theory, defend Scotland’s interests from the opposition benches just as well as one can from within the Cabinet. Consequently, specifically for Johann Lamont, this poll is a warning that opposition to the SNP, on areas such as universal provision, council tax freezes and tuition fees, are simply not finding their mark within the public. Similar warnings apply to Ruth Davidson and Willie Rennie on, for example, contributors to the Scottish economy and cashing in on Scottish Water.
Scottish Green Party
They really aren’t getting a look in are they? The Lib Dems must be thanking their lucky stars that they still get included in these types of questions, and called upon so regularly at FMQs, when they have a mere taxi cab of individuals at the Scottish Parliament against the Greens’ tandem bike of representation. (suggested photo op for Alison and Patrick there…)
I’m not saying that Patrick Harvie would have rocketed to near the top of this chart had he been included but the Greens at least have something different and relatively radical to add to political debate in Scotland, from proposing revenue raising measures to Land Value Tax, and plenty more besides. They also took a lead in ‘standing up for Scotland’ through being the primary opposition to Donald Trump’s golf resort so they deserve being placed inside the public’s collective mind as a political option. After all, how would a Green voter answer the above question? Presumably acting the idiot with ‘None of these’ (see below).
I don’t know how the Greens are going to push their way into getting the recognition they deserve, but polls like these with an arbitrary limit of party options don’t help.
People are idiots
I’m sorry, that may be a bit harsh, but they are. The question asks “which one” of the party leaders is best placed to stand up to Scotland. The idiotic answer, “None of these”, which 24% of respondents went for, isn’t even an answer and YouGov should really remove it as an option. “Don’t know” is more understandable, if still nonetheless a moronic (moronic being officially preferable to idiotic) option for those that claim to have no clue who is leading them politically and how.
It is despairing that so few people are interested in what happens at Holyrood. That 45% of people are basically saying ‘don’t know’, ‘don’t care’, ‘they’re all a bunch of numpties’, ‘can I go now please?’ just disappoints me so very deeply.
Politics is about going for the least worst option, picking the cleanest dirty shirt, and the longer people mump and moan waiting for things to be perfect then the worse off we all are. (No offence James). It is a two way street though and our political leaders need to strive to inspire as best they can. Salmond is doing his bit and the quickest way for Johann, Ruth and Willie to boost their numbers by taking votes away from ‘None’, ‘Don’t Know’ and even the ‘Alex Salmond’ votes is to do as follows:
(JL) – resist opposition for opposition’s sake and join the SNP in standing up to the UK coalition where genuine cross-party agreement exists on behalf of Scotland, be it Trident, minimum pricing, council tax freezes, UK cuts (their not SNP cuts when it’s a block grant, let’s get serious), tuition fees or free care for the elderly. We’re stronger together and weaker apart, apparently. Also, arrive at a party decision on what type of Scotland you want to live in and don’t look back.
(RD) – use accurate arithmetic and clear figures to outline why Scotland would benefit from less Government rather than more. Explain and defend Osborne’s decisions in a Scottish context or loudly argue against them. Silence is not an option there.
(WL) – go for it wholeheartedly on extending devolution beyond the status quo, putting into words this apparently long held belief that the UK should be federal. In the absence of any other policy options given the Clegg-Cameron coalition mauling received in 2011, this should be an easy decision to make.
(PH) – keep pounding the SNP on their light green policies and lip-service to climate change despite policies towards oil, cars and roads. Also, keep the radical edge of being anti-Nato and for a Scottish pound under independence.
Some may wonder aloud how any party leader can outdo Salmond when it comes to standing up for Scotland but when it is a person’s job to do so, my sympathy for that plight diminishes as sharply as the polling gradient above. I genuinely hope for better from Lamont, Davidson and Rennie, but, whether they are successful or not, don’t forget Harvie.
And what else was in the poll? Nothing to get excited about, only that Yes Scotland would be ahead by 9% if they successfully persuaded Scots that they’d be economically better off to go it alone…
#1 by James on November 12, 2012 - 8:46 am
Jeff, minor niggle – they’re SNP cuts when it’s a Council Tax freeze imposed from Holyrood and where the SNP are actually entirely free to let local authorities take their own democratic decisions.
I also think it’s totally reasonable to look at that field and be unimpressed by all of them. “Which of these giraffes is best able to play chess?” … “None of them” … “Come on, pick the best, pick the best..”
#2 by Jeff on November 12, 2012 - 9:49 am
Giraffes playing chess is, of course, nonsensical. But we’re talking about the political governance of the nation here and, whether we like it or not, these four (it should be five) are the party leaders in place at the moment. We cheapen our democracy when we say they are all as bad as each other when scientifically even that is not possible given they all stand for different things and go about their business in different ways.
I have no doubt that each of Salmond, Lamont, Davidson and Rennie are trying their best in their own way and they deserve much more credit for that than they’re getting, at least enough for Scots to utter which is the least worst in their view without so much as a grumble.
#3 by Indy on November 12, 2012 - 9:32 am
There is a fairly straightforward explanation. The SNP’s priority is to stand up for Scotland. That’s the specific aim of the party – the restoration of Scottish sovereignty and the furtherance of Scottish interests. Of course people could debate what those interests are and how they are best furthered! But if that is your aim then you are going to hit the target fairly frequently.
Whereas none of the unionist parties have that as a specific goal so far as I am aware. It does not permeate their thinking on every issue as it does with the SNP.
It’s a fairly basic point I guess but political parties do need an aim. They need to have something they are working towards. With the Greens that is fairly clear. I honestly don’t think it is clear with any of the unionist parties and suggest that is why they have lost their mojo. In the case of the Tories I suggest the lack of clarity about their aims is probably a good thing – if they were clearer, they would get even fewer votes. In the case of Labour and the Lib Dems, I think they have just lost their way.
#4 by Doug Daniel on November 12, 2012 - 9:54 am
“If they did, and the ball is very much in their court with Yes Scotland visibly flummoxed, then they’d be a lot higher up the charts in poll questions like the one above.”
I wouldn’t pay an awful lot of attention to an article by Tom Gordon, who is making his personal views on the referendum increasingly obvious when he says things like “Founded in 2005 as a cross-party vehicle for separation…” Still, the report from SIC that his article is based on is actually extremely good and makes a lot of important points.
However, having been to the Yes Aberdeen meeting on Saturday, I’m far more confident in how Yes Scotland are doing than I was beforehand. I would say they are very much playing the long game here, and there were a lot of interesting bits of information to come out of it, not least that they seem to have struck upon a rather ingenious little tactic that has completely bamboozled the BetterTogether campaign – putting forward non-politicians when asked to put forward a representative on TV debates etc.
They’re doing this precisely for the reasons that report states, because as Anas Sarwar’s performance in The Big Debate last week in particular highlighted, the “NO” arguments are thus far entirely based on attacking the SNP. This is why Alistair Darling has already pulled out of media debates on two occasions when he found out his opposite number would be Blair Jenkins rather than an SNP politician, and if I recall Sarwar’s last head-to-head with Jenkins on the Sunday Politics Show correctly, he really struggled to make his pre-prepared lines work against someone who can simply say “well I’m not in the SNP”.
This is very much a tortoise and the hare style race…
#5 by Angus McLellan on November 12, 2012 - 12:06 pm
Kezia Dugdale had similar problems Blair Jenkins on TV, so it’s not just Sarwar.
But what does a poll about political leaders have to do with the referendum anyway? And unless Jeff knows that voting will be compulsory – news to me at least – I think he really does need to explain why 50% is significant. For the very little that it is worth, 43 of 79 is a majority.
#6 by Jeff on November 12, 2012 - 12:19 pm
Fair point re 50%. I do think it’ll be a record turnout though.
I also think party leader popularity has a heck of a lot to do with the referendum.
The AV vote ended up being a vote on Nick Clegg’s popularity and the same, albeit to a lesser extent, may well apply to the First Minister in 2014. At the end of the day, if you trust Salmond to not be telling porkies, you’re much more likely to go with him towards a Yes vote. Something that has been undermined with the EU debacle in recent weeks…
#7 by Doug Daniel on November 12, 2012 - 2:37 pm
This train of thought is certainly one of the reasons why the BetterTogether campaign are so determined to turn the referendum into a referendum on the SNP, rather than a referendum on independence. Clearly they recognised how the AV referendum was lost, and want to follow that. It’s far easier to attack a person than an idea.
Of course, the fatal flaw in that idea is that Nick Clegg sold out the Lib Dems, whereas Alex Salmond is, as can be seen, still very much trusted. Still, never interfere with an enemy when he’s making a mistake and all that…
#8 by Commenter on November 12, 2012 - 10:35 am
I suspect many prospective No voters recognise that Salmond Stands Up etc, but at the same time it makes them uncomfortable in a “f***sake man pipe down or we’ll get a kicking” way, the sensible sober position being to know your limits and not get carried away about what is possible. Canny Scot syndrome. The other politicians they just don’t respect.
#9 by David on November 12, 2012 - 11:57 am
I think it’s a little hard, perhaps deliberately so, to say the Lib Dems have done nothing about Federalism etc.
They set up the Steel Commission – subtitled “Moving towards Federalism” – which was the starting point for Calman and therefore for the Scotland Act and therefore for the whole second question debate.
And it was Willie Rennie who picked Ming Campbell to chair the Home Rule Commission which, whatever you think of it, is the first thought-out post-Scotland Act response. Oh, and it’s called “Federalism: The Best Solution for Scotland”…
#10 by James on November 12, 2012 - 12:00 pm
Really? They were in government when this debate was happening and that option’s not on the ballot paper? Looks like a whole lot of nothing to me.
Incidentally, I’m okay with that: I think federalism is a fudge with such a wide range of sizes of component parts, and it’d quickly go the way of the Eurozone.
#11 by David on November 12, 2012 - 12:24 pm
It’s not a fudge, it’s a system, and a more sophisticated solution than simply chopping limbs off and seeing if each one does better alone.
Eurozone will be round longer than Salmond, as will the €.
It doesn’t need to be on a ballot paper.
That’s the point.
Read the Report and there is a proposal for allowing institutional change in the UK – from whatever corner – through a proper grown-up mechanism rather than the occasional constitutional spasm.
You only need a referendum when you are proposing something like independence – which incidentally is not abad name for it – “something like independence”.
#12 by Doug Daniel on November 12, 2012 - 2:34 pm
The federalism the Lib Dems are proposing is a UK solution to a Scottish problem. We’re the ones moaning about wanting more powers, yet the Lib Dems suggest a fundamental change to the entire UK system of governance.
England continuously spurns any attempts at constitutional change – see the aborted attempts to set up regional assemblies and the lack of interest in elected mayors (although that was a naff idea anyway, but people can only vote on what is put in front of them…) Yet the Lib Dems think Scots should put all their eggs in a basket which requires:
a) the Lib Dems to be in government next term;
b) the Lib Dems to use federalism as a red-line issue (“hello No Tuition Fees and Proportional Representation, where did you disappear off to in 2010?”) to get the next government to enact it;
c) the rest of the UK (particularly England) to vote in favour of federalism;
d) the rest of the UK depending on England voting to split itself up into around 10 federal regions.
Point d) is exactly why the federalism proposed by Ming’s report is preposterous – he proposes leaving it up to England to decide how to split itself up, and there is simply no reason to think this would happen. A federal state where one of the federal subjects contains 83% of the population (and, presumably, the power to match – hardly fair to those 83% otherwise) is actually WORSE than what we have today. Not in Canada, the US, Germany or anywhere else is there a federal country where one state can effectively dictate federal policy single-handedly.
Besides, if federalism is the answer to the questions posed by those of us who are pro-independence, why does Canada have one of the most prominent independence movements in the world? And why do “de facto” federal states like Spain and Belgium have independence movements?
Federalism is just a way of structuring government in a single country. It can not be used as a way of stifling independence movements. And if we need a referendum on a namby-pamby change to the voting system like AV, then we would absolutely need one that fundamentally changes how the UK is governed.
(Incidentally, the starting point for Calman was the SNP winning power in 2007, which led to the unionist parties soiling their pants and realising devolution hadn’t “killed nationalism stone dead” after all…)
#13 by Indy on November 12, 2012 - 2:53 pm
Proper grown up mechanism meaning not actually asking people to vote on it perchance?
#14 by Angus McLellan on November 12, 2012 - 8:21 pm
I’ve read the report. What it proposes, other than those things which might happen in some distant federal future in a galaxy far away, might be described as Calman-plus as opposed to the Scotland Bill’s Calman-minus.
Assigned VAT revenues, lost in the transition from Calman to the Scotland Bill, are replaced by assigned corporation tax ones. There’s rather more control over income tax than Calman envisaged, some tidying up regarding reserve powers, and some things moved from Holyrood’s control to local government. But in the end Holyrood is still reliant on control of just one major tax stream. A block grant – with which I include assigned revenues since Westminster ultimately controls those – makes up the majority of funding.
Probably just as well that the Lib Dems decided in advance that they wouldn’t need to put these proposals to a referendum. They weren’t exactly greeted with general rejoicing, were they? The response wouldn’t even qualify as a collective meh. Perhaps that Japanese word, the one that contributed to Hiroshima and Nagasaki being bombed, would be best: mokasatsu.
#15 by gavin on November 12, 2012 - 2:39 pm
David, sorry but it does seem like a fudge. Without serious support from the major Unionist parties it will not, can not happen, and they are intent on maintaining Westminsters political and economic hegemony. Ironically, if at the start of the SNPs time in office in 2007, or when the referendum consultation was ongoing, the LibDems had ASKED for federalism to have been included on a ballot, they might have backed the winner in the constitutional derby and been the BIG winners. Now they are on the verge of irrelevance. The Scottish LibDems have had three disasterous leaders in a row, though whether they made all their own decisions is to be doubted.
#16 by David on November 12, 2012 - 3:27 pm
Each to his own.
I never said Federalism was an answer designed to kill the desire of those people who wish to secure independence from the UK, Canada, Belgium or anywhere else – it’s just an alternative for the majority that don’t.
To suggest that one party’s policy is solely based on disagreeing with another party’s philosophy is precisely what the SNP have accused the other parties of doing for years…
I want a referendum, if we have to have one, to be on independence as that is the question the SNP etc wanted to raise. No-one now in the YES campaign has been advocating for decades for a referendum on more powers to a devolved Scottish Parliament.
It would appear that the respondents to the SG consultation agreed, btw.
The Campbell Report very clearly said that if the rest of the UK wanted to follow suit, it was up to them, but that the arrangments could be made to work for Scotland first.
And I just love the idea that political parties have to back an idea in the “political derby” – whether they agree with it or not…
#17 by Doug Daniel on November 12, 2012 - 9:35 pm
“I never said Federalism was an answer designed to kill the desire of those people who wish to secure independence from the UK, Canada, Belgium or anywhere else – it’s just an alternative for the majority that don’t.”
No, but that’s the reason it’s coming up. Any time Scotland gets more powers, it’s in reaction to progress made (real or perceived) by the SNP – devolution was supposed to “kill nationalism stone dead”, Calman was a reaction to the SNP getting into power, and the Jam Tomorrow claims of further increases in powers if we vote NO are simply a reaction to the SNP finally getting to table an independence referendum. We had eight years of devolution with no appetite for more powers, and then all of a sudden we get a commission on more powers, and those powers haven’t even been put in place before those same parties are claiming they don’t go far enough. Quite simply, the unionist parties will always look to devolve the least amount of power they think they can get away with, so we either vote for independence, or we vote for the SNP eternally – because the second they lose power, it’ll be “you’ll have had your devolution?” as usual.
And nobody really wants the SNP in perpetual government!
There just feels like there’s something a bit dishonest about the way the Lib Dems are suddenly touting federalism, like it’s an answer to a non-existent problem and they’re just looking for something to latch onto so they can say “federalism would solve that.” Where has this love of federalism been over the past couple of decades? We’ve all known they’re meant to be the party of federalism, but they never mention it.
“The Campbell Report very clearly said that if the rest of the UK wanted to follow suit, it was up to them, but that the arrangments could be made to work for Scotland first.”
I don’t get this, how do you “make” federalism work in Scotland but not the rest of the UK, and how would it be different to devolution in that respect? It’s bits like that which lead to the rest of us calling it a fudge, I’m afraid.
#18 by David on November 12, 2012 - 3:36 pm
Is there anyone left who believes in representative parliamentary democracy, by the way, rather than plebiscites every time the power balance within the UK (short of indy) shifts?
#19 by Indy on November 12, 2012 - 10:31 pm
I think most people support referendums on major constitutional changes and issues which transcend normal party allegiance. Independence falls into both of those categories and so did Devo Max or indeed federalism,
I don’t want to go over the whole Devo Max argument again and I am personally quite happy that we are having a Yes/No referendum on independence.
But the fact that an option which was supported by many was unable to find any real champions among the non-independence supporting parties shows the limitations of representative parliamentary democracy actually.
Whatever the outcome of the referendum I think future historians will be quite fascinated by the way that the pro-independence parties were willing to recognise Devo Max as a legitimate option for those who supported it, albeit one they did not support, but the devolutionist/unionist parties were not prepared to countenance even debating it.
#20 by Doug Daniel on November 12, 2012 - 10:36 pm
To be fair David, that’s a bit rich coming from someone whose party (I assume you’re a Lib Dem) has, in the past 20 years, called for or backed referendums on:
The EU
Lords reform
Joining the Euro (see 2010 manifesto)
Elected Mayors
AV
Welsh Devolution (2011)
Northern Irish Devolution
London Mayor/GLA
Welsh Devolution (1997)
Scottish Devolution
Have I missed any?
Now, I’m not criticising them for liking referendums – I think they’re a good way of engaging the electorate if you ask the right question – but a Lib Dem decrying referendum-mania would be a bit like a Nat moaning about people going on about independence!
#21 by Dubbieside on November 12, 2012 - 4:48 pm
“And what else was in the poll? Nothing to get excited about, only that Yes Scotland would be ahead by 9% if they successfully persuaded Scots that they’d be economically better off to go it alone.”
Jeff, nothing to get excited about, I disagree with that, I think that there is plenty to get excited about in that one statement.
The Yes campaign has two years in which to make the economic arguments, and if these polls are accurate, once, not if, we show that an independent Scotland would be better off financially, all the other reasons for wanting independence like Scots making Scotlands decisions would be icing on the top of the cake.
Like Doug I have been at a Yes meeting and was very impressed by the quality of the campaign thus far, even though it is early days, and the campaign has hardly started.
I also wonder what the rating for Lamont would be now, after her something for nothing speech? Would all pensioners like myself who contributed to the UK treasury for many years, really like to be be called “a something for nothing culture” Would they be more or less inclined to say that Lamont would stand up for Scotlands interests, remembering the great numbers that are pensioners, disabled, long term sick or minimum wage earners.
#22 by Allan on November 12, 2012 - 6:48 pm
“The Yes campaign has two years in which to make the economic arguments”
It’s just that you need to get on to the front foot first…
#23 by Dubbieside on November 12, 2012 - 7:53 pm
Two years is plenty of time. However if all the Better Together people have is the fact that after independence we will no longer have “British Music” whatever that is, Chavs and call me Dave maybe? Even The Scotsman thought that was the stupidest argument yet in the Better Together debate. Or that my relations who live in England will be foreign while my relations who live in Australia and Canada will not be foreign. Can someone explain Darlings logic or the lack of it with that one?
If you include the comment from Darling last month that independence would be forever with no going back (Hurrah) to Friday when using the pound would mean eventually rejoining the union (hiss) its easy to think the No campaign have no positive arguments for continuing with this one sided union.
Two years to go, with every poll showing that the vast majority of Scots want change with more control over our own destiny, I know which side of the argument is on the back foot.
#24 by Jeff on November 12, 2012 - 6:52 pm
I see my rather droll irony never got across.
I agree with you, plenty to get excited about there, as it shows that a majority of Scots are not ideologically opposed to independence which would have been a huge blocker for Yes Scotland. I really think there is the potential to move the dial towards Yes once/if the facts get out in the open.
Yes Scotland could do with chopping down unnecessary fear over being the next Ireland/Iceland. Or maybe I’ll get in first and have a go on the blog instead. (I’ve been reading ‘Boomerang’ which talks about it in great detail. Great book.)
#25 by Dubbieside on November 12, 2012 - 7:56 pm
Sorry Jeff, that was so droll it went right over my head.
Maybe pointing out that at present both Ireland/Iceland appear to be in better shape than the UK would be a good starting point.
#26 by Allan on November 12, 2012 - 7:12 pm
“I find the above result really quite incredible and there are many talking points to be extracted from this one single question alone.”
Ummm, not really.
There are several things to bear in mind here. Firstly, Salmond (whether you like him or not) has essentially set the standard for future First Ministers. His first term was good with only really 4 or 5 controversial moments that could have gone either way. His second term has been an altogether more shakier affair with 4 or 5 policy mistakes in the first 18 months of this term.
Secondly, the opposition have just not stepped up to the plate. Ruth Davidson’s been OK, but you have to say the other two leaders of the main parties have been awful. Rennie prehaps has been tied to the unpopular coalition, Lamont does not have that excuse. As far as I can tell Lamont does not have any political nous. There are at several area’s where “Scottish” Labour could outflank the SNP from the left ( for example advocating reforms to Local Authority funding) but have chosen to go down the same route as the Labour Party nationwide.
The third thing to remember is the low stock in the public’s mind of politicians. It’s not really surprising that 43% went for “None of these (?)/Don’t Know. Remember as well that the politicians quoted represent parties very comfortably sitting on the centre/centre-right of the Scottish political spectrum so don’t really represent all of Scotland.