John Curtice: Time to make a devo deal

The polls have shown little benefit to the SNP from the recent statements from Westminster

Published on Wednesday 25 January 2012 12:23

Opinion polls show that Salmond has gained nothing from Cameron’s meddling – and that devo-max may prove to be his best bet

Alex Salmond will doubtless present his proposals on how the independence referendum should be conducted with a confident air today. He probably feels that the UK government’s attempt a fortnight ago to muscle in on the decision misfired rather badly, leaving him with a golden opportunity to seize the initiative on this crucial and now highly controversial issue.

Above all, the First Minister and his colleagues reckon Westminster’s intervention has neatly served to remind Scots that, even under devolution, it remains the case that a UK government for which few of them voted can meddle in matters that are by rights ones that Scotland should be allowed to settle for itself.

“The more a Tory government tries to interfere in Scottish democracy, then I suspect the greater the support for independence will become,” Nicola Sturgeon told the Today programme when the row first broke out. A couple of days later, Mr Salmond himself said of David Cameron’s intervention: “I think it’s going to increase support for independence and the SNP”.

In practice, it has now become clear there has been no such public reaction at all. The outbreak of the referendum row was soon followed by four key polls of public opinion north of the Border, two by YouGov, one by ICM, and one by a relatively new polling company, Survation. They clearly show that the row has failed to deliver any immediate significant boost in support for leaving the UK at all.

Different polls using different questions can secure very different answers to questions about independence. So to establish whether support has increased or fallen, we have to be very careful to ensure that we compare like with like. We need to look at what has happened when the same company has asked the same question in exactly the same way as it did on a previous occasion before the row broke out.

Among the plethora of post-referendum row polls, there are three instances where that comparison can be made. The results, together with the findings the previous time the question was asked, are shown below.

The first example comes from YouGov. It has regularly asked people how they would vote in response to the question that the SNP originally suggested as long ago as the summer of 2007 might be included on the referendum ballot. It last asked this question before the referendum row – for our sister newspaper, Scotland on Sunday – in October and found that 34 per cent would vote in favour of independence.

Now, after the row, support for independence on this question is actually slightly lower – and at 32 per cent is not dissimilar to all of the many other readings that this question has elicited during the previous three years.

True, a second slightly later post-row reading by YouGov based on the same question puts the figure as high as 39 per cent. However, in that poll YouGov excluded from its calculations those who did not know how they would vote. If they had adopted the same practice in their previous polls, support would have been put at 40 per cent and 38 per cent, rather than 34 per cent and 32 per cent. So once again there is no sign of any change.

True, the responses obtained by a second question, also asked by YouGov after the referendum row, initially look rather more supportive of the SNP’s expectations. This question simply asks people whether they support or oppose independence. At 33 per cent, support proved to be four points higher than it was when previously posed in May of last year, shortly after the Scottish election.

However, that 33 per cent reading was still far from notable or exceptional. On two much earlier occasions when the question was also asked – back in January 2007 and April 2008 – support for independence stood at 40 per cent and 34 per cent respectively.

Our third and final piece of evidence, from ICM, also comes with a long lens. The slightly quaint wording of its question, asking whether people “approve” or “disapprove” of Scotland becoming independent, results in a higher level of support than either of the two questions posed by YouGov. But at 40 per cent, that level is now still no less than 11 points lower than it was when the question was last asked as long ago as January 2007, on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of Scotland’s decision to join the Union.

Westminster’s meddling has not proved toxic after all, because “the Scottish people” whom Mr Salmond is so keen to evoke are far from united in opposing either the UK government’s stance on how the referendum should be conducted or its attempt to have a say in the process in the first place.

YouGov, ICM and Survation all find that more or less as many people think the referendum should take place this year or next year as reckon it should not take place before 2014. Equally, although Survation reports that half the Scottish public feel the referendum should ask about both independence and devo-max while only just over a third feel the choice should be confined to independence, YouGov find support for the two forms of ballot to be more or less evenly balanced.

Meanwhile, although 44 per cent feel that decisions about how the referendum should be conducted are for the Scottish Government alone to take, just over half, 51 per cent, accept that the UK government does have some role to play. All in all, rather than hoping to profit from further confrontation with Westminster, it looks as though Mr Salmond would be wise to seek an accommodation if at all possible.

Securing such an accommodation looks likely to prove most difficult on the issue of whether the ballot paper should contain one question or two. Advocates of devo-max argue that not least of the reasons why it should appear on the ballot paper is that it represents the settlement that most Scots want.

Up to a point. In truth, opinion is split three ways so far as the settlement people would most like to see introduced. ICM finds that when people are asked to choose which they most prefer, 37 per cent now back the status quo, while support for both independence and devo-max stands at 26 per cent. Scotland is a nation of minorities when it comes to its constitutional future – which is why securing any kind of “decisive” referendum outcome of the kind the UK government says it wants could well prove elusive.

Moreover, the level of support for devo-max appears to depend a great deal on how it is described and presented. Described by Survation as “full financial independence”, only 32 per cent support the idea while 35 per cent are opposed. In contrast, when described by YouGov as “further significant devolution”, no less than 58 per cent indicate they would vote in favour and only 42 per cent against.

Evidently, more of what of Scotland already has sounds attractive. But anything that sounds too much like going it alone under another name seemingly causes some people to pull up short. The packaging of devo-max matters.

In any event, the only reason why a Yes/No vote on devo-max appears potentially capable of securing majority support is that most of those who would really like independence are willing to back it in preference to a continuation of the status quo. According to YouGov, no less than three-quarters of those who would vote Yes to independence would also vote Yes to devo-max.

Devo-max looks like a potential winner not because it is clearly the most popular option, but rather because it is one around which those with very different views about the future of the Union might be willing to coalesce.

Perhaps, in a nation of minorities, that is the best that can possibly be hoped for.

• John Curtice is professor of politics at Strathclyde University.

Comments

There are 23 comments to this article

Order by:

Page 1 of 2

isobel.waller

Thursday, March 8, 2012 at 07:44 PM

The biggest problem with having two questions, is that-we cannot really trust the Westminster Government to deliver extra powers -as they are infact very vague about which powers if any ! that they would be prepared to deliver. The point is that in Scotland, our ideology is mainly socialist -few of us even consider the Conservatives as a party to vote for -so why on earth should we continue to have our policies dictated to us from England ,who generally cannot make up their minds what sort of governance that they would like.? From this point of view -I am finding it difficult to understand why Scottish Labour continue to appear to be supporting a conservative Prime Minister who is just annoyed that Scotland will not now or ever be conservative , --It appears to me that Cameron is just stirring it , and using the divide and conquer method to separate socialists in Scotland --Also that the Labour MPs at Westminster are career politicians ,more interested in their own selves than the electorate of Scotland . --This has been a very disturbing discovery for me as I had always previously voted for Labour--However I cannot continue to do this ,because it seems obvious to me that ,Scottish labour have totally neglected Holy Rood parliament and without doubt it is obvious to most people with any level of understanding that Alex Salmond IS the only person in the Scottish parliament who is fit and capable to be the First Minister for Scotland --So who is to blame for that ?? -I say to you that it is the Labour Party themselves -who have not taken the Scottish parliament seriously at any level. Anyway for this reason I also believe there is an element of envy among the politicians at Holy Rood and their childish nasty negative behaviour is disgraceful, as they are in fact doing the Scottish people a big disservice--I would say to them who wish to work shoulder to shoulder with their enemy David Cameron at your peril ,-because you may never be forgiven in a democratic Scotland if this behaviour continues.

John Curtice: Time to make a devo deal

Comments

isobel.waller

samcoldstream

SNP for me

Gordon Hay

Gordon Hay

Buford Van Stomm

Biscuit McVittie

SlyFifer

Broon Bairn

The auld lies will nae wash any mair

florian albert

Kon

Hearthammer

christelijk_recht

christelijk_recht

Your view

Top stories

The Scotsman

Opinion

Looking for...

Featured advertisers

Jobs

Search for a job

Motors

Search for a car

Property

Search for a house

Weather for Edinburgh

Home

Services & Offers

Send to a friend

Report

Weather for Edinburgh