Tom Peterkin: Indy ref consultation proves such exercises are flawed

GIVEN the accusations of shenanigans blighting the various independence referendum consultations, it is easy to view the way that governments engage with the public with a great deal of cynicism.

The stushie over the apparent ease with which the Scottish Government allowed multiple anonymous responses to be submitted to its consultation exercise has led to Labour accusations of referendum rigging.

Having then climbed down and announced that responses from those who cannot be identified will be rejected, the SNP showed a certain amount of chutzpah and questioned the integrity of the UK government’s consultation.

Even without the mud-slinging, it is clear that these consultation exercises are a flawed process when it comes to accurately gauging public opinion. Who would be bold enough or stupid enough to bet against the Scotland Office producing a consultation that would not back its aim of a quick, decisive single question on independence?

Consultation exercises are not surveys of public opinion conducted with a random sample of the population. It is those with strong views that feel inclined to respond to these exercises. That doesn’t mean that we should pay no attention to the UK government’s findings, but perhaps it is unsurprising that those of a Nationalist persuasion are tempted to treat them with a pinch of salt. No doubt the Scottish Government’s own consultation – already facing a credibility problem – will come to conclusions that are more sympathetic to the Nationalists’ aims.

Talks between Westminster and Holyrood are likely to stumble at the same hurdles. As the same old arguments are regurgitated, these attempts to engage the public will seem like a pretty pointless exercise.

Even so, Scottish Secretary Michael Moore’s remarks after the publication of his consultation give us a very strong clue about the approach that will be taken by the UK government when it negotiates with Alex Salmond. Moore said that getting a ballot paper with one straightforward question was the UK government’s “highest priority”.

All the signs are that the SNP as still holding a candle for a devo-max option. But Moore said it was “really hard” to see where the argument was coming from.

Salmond had hoped that “civic Scotland” would demand a second question. So far, however, there has been no clamour for a devo-max option, and it is difficult to see where one might come from. The devo-plus campaign has said that, although it was looking at constitutional change, it was not calling for a second question.

Westminster’s consultation saw only 12 per cent of respondents support a devo-max question. Is anyone prepared to bet against the Scottish Government consultation coming back with figure far in excess of that?