Support for Scottish Independence
The recent YouGov polls for Channel 4 and the Sunday Times and an ICM poll for the Daily Mail have had some contrasting questions on support for Scottish independence.
ICM found that 51% of Scots supported independence with 36% opposed, though I haven’t tracked down the exact wording of the question. A straight YouGov question on “Do you support or oppose Scotland becoming a country independent from the rest of the United Kingdom” found only 40% support, compared to 44% of Scots opposed.
YouGov also asked two more detailed versions of the independence question. A second question in the Channel 4 poll gave a wider range of options: asked their favoured option 37% of people opted for maintaining the Union, but giving extra powers to the Scottish Parliament, with support for outright independence dropping slightly to 31%. 12% of respondents favoured the status quo with 12% of people supporting the reduction in powers of or total abolition of the Scottish Parliament.
In the Sunday Times poll YouGov asked people to take into account the tax and spending implications of Scottish independence. From 40% in the YouGov/C4 straight support/oppose question, the percentage of people who said they would support Scottish independence if they were sure it wouldn’t lead to higher taxes or lower public spending rose to 56% (including 18% of Scots would said they would support independence regardless).
Comparing the different questions it seems that some people who say they support independence in a direct choice between independence and the implied status quo actually prefer the option of maintaining the union but having a more powerful Scottish Parliament if given the choice. Secondly, it would appear that a large proportion of people’s opinions towards independence are coloured by what they think the tax and spending consequences would be.
Filed under: ICM, Scotland, YouGov
I get the awful feeling that the Scots want to get as good a deal from being still inked to the Union. It seems to indcate that their price for staying in is more money, and presumably influence at Westminster, from the rest of the UK. It is time to call their bluff. Good luck to them for trying but it is time to say no more concessions.
“Comparing the different questions it seems that some people who say they support independence in a direct choice between independence and the implied status quo actually prefer the option of maintaining the union but having a more powerful Scottish Parliament if given the choice.”
I think there is value in the Scots remaining in the Union BUT they should have no vote in affairs affecting England.
John,
So does everyone else, A lot of people in England who favour Independence do so because they think that it will mean they get a better deal.
I can’t actually think of any country that in negotiations doesn’t do what it can to get the best deal it can. It’s the same with Government departments, they all compete with each other to get as much of the pie as they can get.
Peter.
I doubt the English Parliament solution would be stable.
It would leave the Federal Parliament to decide things like the CAP, CFP, Trident replacement, War in Iraq, Trade and climate change.
All of these have the potential to divide along national lines, in a Scottish context particularly Iraq, trident and Fishing. Anyone of these could see Scotland rebel and go it alone.
If a UK Parliament decided to help the US attack Iran and Scotland was opposed to it, the whole thing could unravel.
So lets all vote for an English Parliament.
Peter.
Peter, you wrote” I can’t actually think of any country that in negotiations doesn’t do what it can to get the best deal it can.”
Yes of course and so does everyone else (the French, Germans et al). The present set up with Scotland is weak because the UK Westminster parliament was too eager to see devolution work and gave away too many concessions. Hence the the double voting ability of the Scots, dsiquiet over equality of funding and influence, which has made the whole system unbalanced. This was aired at the time, and since, but seemingly dismissed.
Now we are paying the price.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6264823.stm for today’s BBC polls on the issue
I would take any opinion polls on the issue of an English Parliament with a pinch of salt . When people are asked their views on a subject on which they do not feel strongly one way or the other they will not have considered the arguments for and against seriously .
The Mori monthly survey on what issues are the most important facing the country cosistently shows that 1% or less consider devolution and constitutional review an important issue and I expect that 1% are the few rabid nationalists in each country .
Mark,
You are right in that there is a big difference between ” What do you think about X” and “What do you think is important”. I think pollsters call it “salience”.
However the one to watch is where that 1% goes. As someone interested in defence I can tell you that just over five years ago defence rarely got over 5% in Mori and was rarely in the top ten concerns.
It’s now regularly in the top three, and can get 30% on occasions.
So to has immigration moved up three or four places in the last ten years. It’s a bit like the charts, and indeed polls, people focus on the headline percentage, but what is of more interesting is the movements over time and trends if any.
Anthony,
On a seperate issue has anyone ever asked where people think an English (or for that matter a UK Federal) Parliament should be.
We could move it into Westminster and use the House of Lords, getting rid of the peers at the same time.
We could use the London Assembly building for a Federal Parliament, as with an English Parliament would there be a need for the London Assembly.
Should a UK Parliament be in London or indeed need to be in England. Should we have the UK Parliament in England’s capital or the English one in the UK’s.
It’s the kind of thing the campaign for an english parliament might have asked, or indeed the pro federalism Libdems.
Peter.
What staggers me is that so few people seem to view this on a party-political level. To rid England of the Union would change the face of government in England forever. Sure, there would be re-alignment and reforming of parties, but the political fight would no longer have Labour (and I include Nu-Labour in that) as a real political force that could command a majority in the English Parliament. Why this does not appeal to more Tories and Liberals beats me.
Looking at the Newsnight poll, the last question on whether there should be an English Parliament is worded in a way which is worth noting. It leads in to the question by commenting on the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales, and then asks whether an English Parliament should be established. This strongly encourages an answer along the lines of “The Scots and the Welsh have a Parliament, why shouldn’t England?” which is not necessarily a thought-through argument.
I suspect that few people have actually thought about what exactly an English Parliament would do (let’s assume it means within the UK, so that the UK Parliament continues to do Defence and Foreign Affairs etc.). The UK Parliament would have to continue to do all constitutional matters, and almost certainly social security issues too. What about crime and legal affairs? They are united between England and Wales, so probably that would have to go to the UK Parliament. The NHS shares much of its administration at a UK level. That would leave the substantial responsibilities of an English Parliament at England-level administration of education (most of which is local authority or individual school-led), and watching over local authorities. The English Parliament would have very little power at all.
That Midlothian question just won’t go away will it! I don’t think we should encourage a resurgent English nationalism leading to an English parliament - that really could spell the beginning of the end for the Union. England will remain the dominant force within the Union regardless, and so a Scottish desire for increased devolution is only natural. I just hope it does not lead to full independence, and it would seem from these poll results that most Scots agree.
I hope the Scots vote for independence. It will increase living standards in England and Wales, and will end the prospect of left-wing government in England.
David,
You can equally argue that as scotland has it’s own legl system and wales wants the same powers as Scotland that all four countries have their own and That there is a US style Uk supreme court, something that is being proposed anyway.
equallys the Scottish parliaent controls the NHS in scotland I see no reason why an English parliament can’t do the same.
It’s the UK parliament that would have a really limited role, and that’s one reason why it probably won’t happen.
It would mean almost certainly, less Mp’s with less power, and we all know what they say about Turkeys and Christmas.
It’s also the reason why so many Scottish Labour MP’s (vastly over represented under FPTP) are so against both Independence and PR.
Matthew,
Just exactly why don’t you want Scottish Independence ?
Peter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6265519.stm for further comments.
I suspect most want an English parliament but don’t care a lot about it; it’s hardly hip-pocket nerve. But, then again it is an issue of interest which will not disappear- there is interest in it. I have always argued Blair may also be remembered as a radical in the long term; I suspect devolution in a hundred years ( or sooner) will be seen as a process, not an answer and an independent Scotland (at least ) will exist). People may not care about Union - we don’t get a holiday or even a stamp- but the question is now in the public arena and will not go away. Even the English now ant a federal system.
[...] January 16th, 2007 This is interesting. The UK polling report blog, the house blog of the YouGov research agency, have a piece about how the wording of questions can skew the results of a poll quite considerably. Of course one expects top industry polling companies such as ICM to know this and factor it into their question authoring process. However it seems they might have dropped the ball a bit according to YouGov. [...]
The NHS is already run by the WAG. Crime and legal affairs is currently combined in England & Wales, but is being progressively unravelled, with a separate Welsh courts system established this year - and there is no reason why crime (i assume you mean policing of it) should not be a Welsh affair except that the Home Office dont want to let go…but will have to soon.
By 2011, Wales will have the same powers as the current Scottish Parliament, although Scotland may have moved on by then. The current half-thought out devolution is inherently unstable. The only long term stable solution is a fully federal UK - if this is not done proactively it will come by default anyway.
There is no need for an English Parliament, English votes for English issues is enough as far as that. Scottish taxes for Scottish expenditure should be the other thing as well. Already I believe Scottish MPs from all parties (excluding Labour) voluntarily abstain from all English votes. If Labour MPs were to be so honourable then this would be a non-issue, but the party that introduced this mess wants to take maximum advantage of the constitutional mess we have.
Forget all talk about “two classes of MPs”, the only reason Scottish Labour MPs vote on English matters is bare naked hypocrisy and seeking party political advantage.
Off the point, but the YouGov poll in today’s Yorkshire Post is interesting, but not startling if you’re a politico here. If those figures were fulfilled, it will be fascinating.
Peter - to respond to your point, i feel we are more than the sum of our parts. If Scotland went independent, England’s international and commercial negotiating position would be diminished, and other countries would seeek to exploit the England/Scotland schism, which would only make matters worse and increase the “Little Englander” mentality. Ultimately, we all lose.
Scotland shouldn’t be Independant because it would be bad for England.
True they might try to exploit Scotland two, but given that most Scots think that the deals the Uk negotiates on Scotlands behalf ( fishing being the most cited), aren’t as good as the ones Norway or Ireland get, then I think well might well want to take our chances.
I had a friend who was in Brussels and who got to talking about Scottish Independence with a multinational group of people who almost all worked for the EU.
The conversation went well and it was a good discussion covering the pros and cons, for Scotland, the UK and the EU.
Then my friend jokingly said ” and well it might cut Britain down to size”, at which point you could here a pin drop while everyone who wasn’t British smiled.
Anecdotal true, but I think it has the ring of truth about it, which is why I am confident the EU side won’t be a problem.
Peter.
There are two reasons to feel sorry for Tony Blair’s bad luck on this issue.
Firstly he is sometimes perceived as Scottish in England and usually as English in Scotland.
Secondly it’s not his fault that several things coincide: his third-term-blues period; a pre-election surge in the polls for the SNP; the start of the election campaign after the New Year on the 300th anniversary of the passing of the Act of Union; the 300th Anniversary of the signing of the Act the day before the election for the Scottish parliament.
The momentum is increasing and I think that by May even those who are against independence will expect it to happen and have largely given up the fight.
Many voters who should know better think the second vote is for a second preference. It is not. If they learn how to use it tactically, a pro-independence government is guaranteed.
There are things which could have been done to avoid the situation, an English Parliament is one of them, but it’s too late now. Scots MP’s not voting on English matters will not resolve the problem of Scottish Cabinet Ministers, not least Gordon Brown.
What is entirely his fault is that he has chosen needlessly to force the Trident issue on to the agenda while it could easily have been left till after the election, and that will be the tipping point.
By coincidence, the four anti-trident parties are the pro-independence parties. You can split your vote tactically. Many who are unenthused by the SNP’s economic arguments will vote for them to get rid of Trident from Scottish Waters as a matter of conscience. If the consequence of that is the end of the Union, then so be it.
I am aware that Tony Blair’s period in government has not been free of criticism, that not all of his decisions have been universally welcomed, and that a putatively illegal war which kills thousands is a serious matter, but if his legacy is to be the unintended break up of his own country, I think that must count as his greatest failure. You may think that the war or the Trident decision itself is strategically or morally wrong and dangerous but it is the timing of the decision that is a failure of political judgement of a different order.
It is I think worth remembering on this issue that many countries of the world have a happy federal system where the parts of the federation are of different size but have equal powers. Australia is a clear example. secondly it is worth remembering that the Union was never complete; the Scots legal and edcuation system, for example were never in the Union.Thirdly, once a genie is uncorked it is hard to put it back in the battle; the process of devolution has started and it is unclear where it will stop. Yes, in England it may not yet be a major issue in importance but it is a major issue in the sense that people have views on it and the party which taps into it will get a positive feeling from potential supports for it… I mean, yes the English may like the eccentric but logic also has its appeal; no separate parliament for England where everyone else has one is patently absurd. It’s a very tabloid orientated issue…
an english parliament is the ‘jade’ of politics.talked about but whats the point.
the english realise that regulation and government is now out of control.the prospect of more regulation would not be well received.
blair is a lawyer,so is intrinsically a regulator.
the tables have turned and it is back to business as usual in england,reducing regulation and tax.the scots will just keep slipping down the league tables with this sort of lefty narrow debate.
Peter cairns Says:
January 16th, 2007 at 10:45 am
… the English Parliament solution … would leave the Federal Parliament to decide things like the CAP, CFP, Trident replacement, War in Iraq, Trade and climate change.
All of these have the potential to divide along national lines, in a Scottish context particularly Iraq, trident and Fishing. Anyone of these could see Scotland rebel and go it alone.
——–
I’ve been reading far too many of the thousands of comments on the Scotsman pages on Trident.
My impression is that the comments from England are fairly evenly balanced but that there is a significant anti-Trident majority in Scotland. That is consistent with many other things we know about the difference between Scotland and England and you can trace the causes to the different course of the reformation in each country. There is also the fact that the weapons will be based in Scotland. SNP activists scent victory.
The importance of the”salience” of Trident is not just that it is high, it is increasing, despite a host of other issues. Ruth Kelly has just turned the gay vote towards independence.
Over the next 14 weeks I will be looking for any data I can find which tests my hypothesis that the Trident issue is bigger in Scotland; that Scots are more opposed to replacement; that it is the tipping point and, together with other factors, will result in the break up of the union.
It is now too late for an English Parliament to pre-empt that.
I promise that, if I am wrong, I will never again make a prediction on this site.
Peter cairns Says:
” …. CAP, CFP, Trident replacement, War in Iraq, Trade and climate change.
All of these have the potential to divide along national lines, in a Scottish context particularly Iraq, trident and Fishing. Anyone of these could see Scotland rebel and go it alone.”
——–
Peter, it’s much worse than that. Give me three issues - devolved or not - off the top of your head and let me show you how they are different. I would expect that at least two of them will be. Don’t mention the war!! Often the issues are not just different, the solutions are diametrically opposed. Here are two obvious ones: faith schools and immigration.
Faith Schools:
In England:
- its about getting your child a better education in a private School.
- its about equality for Islamics.
- its about not raising taxes for education by getting the middle classes to pay for it themselves.
In Scotland:
- its about football violence.
Immigration
In England:
- it’s about coloured people taking our jobs/houses/benefits and keeping them out.
In Scotland:
- its about needing more immigration in the only declining population in Europe.
- its about 12 immigration officers breaking down a door in the middle of the night and removing an 18 year old in handcuffs and his younger sister still in her pyjamas because their parents are failed asylum seekers.
- its about the girl’s classmates and teachers telling the First Minister (himself an ex teacher) what they thought of it when they found out the next day.
- its about the Scottish Parliament’s outrage not being enough to stop dawn raids.
- its about Scottish values being applied in Scotland for the relief of Scottish consciences.
- its about Inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these my brethern, you have done it unto me.
The SNP have been barking up the wrong tree for two generations. The cultural differences are not important after 300 years of union and 100 years of Mickey Mouse. The economic case is complex, sefish, partisan and boring. Despite the SNP, not because of it, this time Scotland is leaving the union.
The SNP’s slogan is “It’s time”
It’s not about Scotland’s oil any more.
It’s about Scotland’s values.
Matthew Mcilvenna Says:
January 17th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
If Scotland went independent, England’s international and commercial negotiating position would be diminished.
Matthew, may I correct you:
If Scotland went independent, Britain’s international and commercial negotiating position would be diminished. Britain would cease to exist.
That sort of confusion is endemic in England. Lord Tebbit once got it wrong both ways in the same sentence. He said something to the effect that people wanted to live in England because they admired Britain’s legal system. Aside from whether that opinion is correct, there is no British Legal system.
Using “Britain” and “England” the wrong way round is a minor irritant but if you care to ask in England about whether Gordon Brown can be Prime Minister of England, these minor irritants are so numerous that they remind you of something for which Scotland is famous: the midge.
If you are saying that England (or rather rUK) would not deserve a seat at the Security Council, and that there would even less justification for Trident, or going to war in Iraq, then there are many in Scotland that would agree. The difference is that they would think your argument supports the case for independence.
It wouldn’t surprise me to hear that the first Scottish ambassador to the UN was putting forward just that argument.
John Hawkesworth Says:
January 16th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
“What staggers me is that so few people seem to view this on a party-political level. To rid England of the Union would change the face of government in England forever. Why this does not appeal to more Tories and Liberals beats me.”
I’m baffled too. That’s one side of the issue. If in the PR Scottish Parliament the Conservatives were the junior party in government with Labour half the Westminster parties would be in therapy. The SNP have only one pre-election policy with regard to coalitions. They will not go into coalition with the Conservatives.
The Conservative Party in Scotland is in terminal decline, yet as its ageing members too well remember, it is the only party in any part of the UK which has ever had a majority of the popular vote in an election. Its only hope is a realignment with the substantial economic right within the SNP and a rebranding which breaks the association with the party in England.
They might not even need to do a U turn on independence. They might be able to do a deal that they would support a referendum bill, perhaps insisting that the matter not be raised for a decade, or two parliaments. The could campaign against independence (thereby persuading many to vote for it) and vote in a secret ballot for independence. Then they could graciously accept the settled will of the Scottish people as they did with devolution.
Why not?
(a) they are too dim to have thought of it
(b) they have already done the deal with the SNP
(c) they will read this and do it now
(d) they expect to get into government at Westminster soon
(e) the conspiracy theorists who see Trident as a penis substitute are right, and the Westminster alternate elites both need it to support their egos.
Are there any other better explanations? Then take your pick
I’m sorry. I know. It’s too many, and picking up on my own posts is sad and I should get a life but …
I said that maybe ..
(e) the conspiracy theorists who see Trident as a penis substitute are right, and the Westminster alternate elites both need it to support their egos.
Did you know that the Scottish parliament has 40% of women MSP’s and that there are many more women MSP’s in the Scottish Parliament than there ever have been Scottish women MP’s in total in the entire 300 years of the UK parliament.
What difference do you think that makes to dawn raids, Iraq Trident?
I must stop this and see if my kilt still fits. I’m going to need it in just 14 weeks.
I wonder at the intelligence on both sides of the border (the Scottish/English one) sometimes.
Why Scots believe that the Union is better for them than making their own decisions, or that we are beholden to England for wealth in beyond me. We must be the only country in the world that thinks that someone else should govern it.
Why the English are also fooled by this ‘Scottish dependency on England’ is also beyond me. Do the math - check the Government’s own figures - its all there on the Treasury’s website I am told. And why the English are now displeased with Scots MPs determining their future, it is pretty crass given that for 300 years they havent minded in the least the opposite effect that has meant that despite the VAST majority of MPs and people in Scotland, English MPs and their Cabinets have given us war, poll tax, nuclear weapons and power - and a host of other things WE didnt want.
Come on people - both sides of the Tweed - wake up, smell the roses …. and the thistles …. and wise up. Equality is the name of the game and an equitable relationship means the debate has to mature and informed, and we both should treat the biased Media and disinformation that seems to pass off for real insight from the body politik.
Oh - and by the way anyone who thinks that Scotland and the Scots have been conned should read of the Governments attempts to conceal Scotlands oil wealth:
http://www.tomgriffin.org/the_green_ribbon/2006/12/state_papers_ma.html
Then go away and ask you own awkward questions of your politicians and others as to why ‘our’ Government feels the need to do this and continues to act against the interests and wishes of the Scottish people so consistently, then ask yourself why you believe the myths that are peddled and what England can do to better democratise itself, rid itself of lying war-mongerers and have a good English Parliament that would welcome a proper and mature relationship with its northern neighbour!
It’s worth remembering that devolution was only delivered twenty years after a majority vote in favour in 1979 which was unconstitutionally denied. At the time the Conservatives (in opposition) said they would provide a better devolved settlement but forgot about it in Government.
Devolution was therefore inevitable. The West Lothian Question does of course arise however with over 90% of the population the idea England is discriminated against at Westminster is absurd.
The truth is that the British union was in England’s interests originally just as it was in their interest earlier to annexe Wales and Cornwall. England managed to force through a parliamentary union with Ireland as well. As Jack Straw admitted recently the British union still amplifies England’s voice on the international stage. The Westminster parliament effectively acts as an English parliament because of the enormous difference in population between England and the other countries.
The quid pro quo of that however is that Scotland has no voice internationally at the UN and only a tiny influence in the EU. This is not acceptable.
We need to have the right to decide whether we want Scottish soldiers to fight in pointless imperialist wars, whether we want Trident on our soil and we need to raise and spend our own revenue in Scotland without the British Government massaging the figures.
The Barnett formula is designed to reduce expenditure in Scotland but it should be our choice as to what we wish to spend our taxes on and exactly what kind of economy we want to have.
Scottish independence is not about getting a ‘better deal’ it’s about equality of our nation with others. once that happens England will have her own government and it will be equal with ours. That is not the case at the moment.
Hi,
Can anyone give me the economic reasons why the English should want independence. Many people argue that it costs England a great deal in keeping the Union, but I can find no figures to back this up.
Terry
Terry,
It’s hard to get a handle on this as everybody quotes the figures they like. There is a growing resentment about the Barnet formula that gives Scotland a population based share of what is greed for England, as some people believe it should be wealth based.
Whatever way you do it there are winners and losers.
As to England going it, there is a lot of talk about Scots getting £1,500 extra each, but multiply that by 5m Scots and then redistribute it among 55m in the rest of the Uk and you get £136 each.
Hardly a windfall for the people of England, and you lose North sea oil as well. Not the end of the world, but it’s a nice little earner for the treasury and it wouldn’t look good on the balance of payments.
Peter.