An opinion poll commissioned by BBC Scotland has shown a clear majority (58%) of Scots want a referendum on independence next year.Good
The poll also suggests support for the Union outstrips that for independence from the UK.Even better.
However, the poll found the percentage of people saying they support "independence" varies widely, depending on how the question is phrased; the options"
1. Salmond’s preferred: "...the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state"
42% agreed with the statement, with 50% opposed
2. "In a referendum on independence for Scotland, how would you vote?",
38% believed Scotland should become an "independent" country, with 54% saying they did not believe it should become "independent".
3. "...which of a range of scenarios were closest to people's views of how Scotland should be governed."
28% backed the option of Scotland's separating from the rest of the UK.
47% were in favour of remaining in the UK, with the Scottish Parliament able to make "some decisions about the level of taxation and government spending in Scotland."
22% said Scotland should remain part of the UK, with "decisions about the level of taxation and spending in Scotland made by the UK Government".
Majority in favour of a referendum, majority in all three possible scenarios against separation. As Alan Cochrane says, it's high time the Scottish Unionist parties call Alex's bluff:
Let's give Alex Salmond and his separatists the fight they pretend to want!
9 comments:
Mind you, on the subject of opinion polls there is also a clear majority (67% of the total) in favour of the creation of an English Parliament, as can be seen with the following ICM Opinion Poll: PDF.
I hope the Scots get their vote and I hope they vote for independence.
Time this "union" was confined to the history books where it belongs.
Scotland the Brave - vote for freeeeeeedom.
It might look like a good idea at first glance, but wasn't it just last week you were writing of "yet another own-goal by the Unionist parties in Scotland"? This, I think, would be closer to shooting yourself in the head rather than something trivial like scoring a goal at the wrong end.
Were I a Unionist pol, perish the thought, there is no way I'd take such a huge risk, whatever the poll said. And this poll says that a form of question similar to that contained in the draft Referendum (Scotland) Bill - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/08/13103747/10 - got 42% yes and 50% no, hardly the most overwhelming of margins from a Unionist perspective. The worst case, if you are a Unionist, is that the Yes campaign only needs to mobilize about a 10% better turn out than the No campaign, or turn 5% of voters from Don't-Know to Yes or No to Don't Know, or some combination of these things, none of which is unthinkable.
So it's all very well to get excited about calling Salmond's bluff, but I don't think he is bluffing. I wouldn't be if it were me. I'd think I had a decent chance to win the first round and get the mandate to negotiate. After that, anything is possible.
Angus,
"Were I a Unionist pol, perish the thought, there is no way I'd take such a huge risk, whatever the poll said."
It's a risk of course but a calculated one and looking at the further figures not a huge one. Re the question, I'd doubt, if the Unionist parties do decide to go for referendum, that Salmond will get to choose the wording. Gray's comment on the link (which is certainly not ruling out a vote) states a straight "Yes or No" option. If they do go for that then they will have called Salmond's bluff (especially his comment about "20 years") and will be forcing him to fight on a battleground of their choosing.
Leaving it as it is at the minute, with the SNP winning hands down the phoney war, is long term more damaging for the Unionist cause.
Finally it's much easier to vote in an opinion poll to change the comfortable status quo- no real damage done. In the event of a referendum people would think about the real personal consequences much more deeply and that in all likelihood would lead a swing not towards the armageddon option but towards keeping the Union intact
Hang on, wasn't "calling Alex's bluff" exactly what whinge-faced Wendy Alexander was so roundly criticised for? Maybe if other pro-union parties had backed her on that (agreed, she was a joke in lots of other ways), things would be different now. I want a referendum NOW so that the media hot air balloon being inflated by Alex "Montgolfier" Salmond and his cohort can finally be popped. The world is at the start of what will inevitably be a (sorry about hackneyed journalistic language) seismic geopolitical shift. To me, proposals to massively dilute the international influence of our country are ridiculous, illogical and potentially treacherous. And don’t give me any “pooled European sovereignty” guff. It won’t wash. Forget the usual yadda of how “unfair the Barnett formula is” and let’s see the bigger picture. The real question we should be asking of Salmond etc now is “if you lose the referendum will you pack it all in and become a roadie for Capercaillie?”
O'Neill,
If today's Scotsman is to be believed (and the web edition matches what I read in the print one), we'll never know whether agreeing to a referendum would have been to the benefit of the Union or not.
One point to consider is that Gray's position - "a straight question" - hangs from a very shoogly peg. This story, which seems to have been written by someone less than keen on the idea of independence, makes the point that the Scottish government is quite limited as to the form of question which can be asked. The SNP draft may pass go, but Gray's "straight question" does not, stopped by an interim interdict according to the lawyers.
Annabel Goldie, in a 1990s flashback, was paraphrased by the Scotsman as saying that the general election will give the Scots the chance to vote for a referendum, if they want one. That's what Major and Forsyth and Rifkind and all used to say. So now we'll have to wait until about this time next year.
But tying a referendum to the outcome of the general election in Scotland could be another one of those own-goals you mentioned. This means that the man who'll be saving the Union from a referendum is Gordon Brown. Those seats which matter are all SNP-Labour battles. I know that Holyrood voting intentions are not Westminster ones, but today's STV poll is not happy reading for Brown, and even worse for Goldie and Cameron.
Angus,
Bringing together the two articles, this (from the first) seems to be the key point:
"But the leaders of the unionist parties in the Scottish Parliament insisted they would stick by their opposition to a referendum, despite rumours that the Tories in Westminster are considering supporting one"
If I understand the legal question correctly, then if a vote was passed at Westminster that would enable a referendum (with whatever wording) to take place?
The weakness with these figures from a nationalist pov I believe is the large discrepancy between those who wish for independence (28%) and those who would follow the SNP's wording and "ask" Salmond or whomever to start *negotiations* with the UK government.
So,(if I understand the legal opinion correctly) there would need to be 2 referendums before Scotland finally separated- the first with the SNP's wording and (if that passed) the second more direct "Yes" or "No" (ie the Unionist prefered option) on the proposals brought back from the negotiations with the Uk government...am I reading that correctly?
O'Neill,
Yes, I agree with your reading. But if the first round was initiated from Westminster, there would be much more flexibility as to the form of question to be asked. I suppose it's possible that the higher support for opening talks than for independence in a straight vote could be down to voters thinking that they wouldn't like the outcome of the negotiations. But likely that's too clever by half!
"I suppose it's possible that the higher support for opening talks than for independence in a straight vote could be down to voters thinking that they wouldn't like the outcome of the negotiations."
It's a mighty big difference for 2 questions that may deliver the same ultimate result. And no, I've no explanation for the discrepancy either!
Post a Comment