photo by comedy_nose
A guest today from Dr Paul Cairney, Senior Lecturer in Politics, Head of Department of Politics and International Relations at Aberdeen University.
Say what you like about Lord Ashcroft, but he gets things done with money. While most of us might have been muttering under our breaths about the leading nature of the SNP Government’s proposed independence referendum question, Ashcroft just spent some of his money trying to show how leading it was. His comparison of three questions shows that the wording of the question does seem to have an effect on responses. While 41% agreed that ‘Scotland should be an independent country’ when merely asked to agree, 39% agree when invited to agree or disagree. That figure reduces further to 33% pro-independence when people were asked ‘Should Scotland become an independent country or should it remain part of the United Kingdom?’ (oddly, there were no ‘undecideds’ in these polls, so the remaining respondents go down as ‘no’ votes). We have always known that there would be this kind of effect. In fact, it was more marked when the first SNP Government produced the more convoluted question ‘I agree [I do not agree] that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state’. This wording is one of the few to produce a plurality in favour, presumably because many people will feel that they are not yet being asked to choose (although the latest poll takes us from a slim lead for ‘agree’ back to a slim lead for ‘disagree’). In most other cases, and at most other times, a different wording generally produces a lead for the ‘no’ vote (see the 14-plus different ways to ask the question in chapter 7 here; compare the survey approach with Susan Condor’s work (on English attitudes to change in Scotland), which just asks people what they think – it suggests that they care much less about these issues than forced choice surveys suggest).
The usual conclusion is that we should look at longer term trends, to see if the same question shows more or less support for constitutional change over time. For example, support for independence has, for decades, been about one-third to two-fifths when people are given the option of choosing to retain or extend devolution instead. It may fluctuate, and that fluctuation may be a good story for the papers, but the trends are fairly clear. This is not the argument I want to pursue here. Rather, I think we should focus more on the potential for fluctuation. The referendum will be held on a particular day in a particular context after a particular campaign. Therefore, while the trends will give us a broad idea of public attitudes, they will not tell us what will happen if we witness a ‘perfect storm’ of events that produces a particular attitude on a particular day. I am not suggesting that people will radically reverse their views at a moment’s notice. Rather, I am suggesting one or more of four things. First, some people will be torn between the options and, if not given the comfort of further devolution as a choice, will not know what to do. Second, some people will have a clear idea of what they want, but without doing much soul searching to come to that conclusion. Third, some people will base their decision on a very small amount of information. Fourth, some people will get that information from biased sources and might see things differently if subject to a competing view. Overall, if many people are unsure, or their certainty is based on limited and biased information, it may be possible for a strong campaign – combined with key events – to change people’s minds for a little while. The best example for me so far was the Conservative Government gambit on giving permission to hold the referendum in 18 months. This sort of nonsense could produce all sorts of emotional reactions in the most calculating or ambivalent people.
I want to give this issue more thought than Lord Ashcroft, but I have less money. So, with my colleagues in psychology and physics at Aberdeen, I am developing an online project that probes people’s views about independence and examines how likely it is that those views will change when they are presented with new (or newly framed and sourced) arguments. We will gauge people’s existing knowledge and searches for information, then present them with the chance to agree or disagree with new arguments as presented by different people (on the assumption that they will react differently to arguments presented by, say, Alex Salmond or George Osborne). I need your help. I have a decent idea of the key arguments made about independence so far, and can do a trawl of the papers to make sure. However, I am sure that I have not heard them all. Can you think of pro- or anti- devolution arguments that would not fit into these broad categories (for example, I am not sure where to place the idea that the SNP’s image of governing competence will/ will not affect support for independence)? Or, can you think of some unusual examples in each category?
Economic – e.g. an independent Scotland could not have bailed out the RBS/ the Scottish Government would have avoided the catastrophe; an independent Scottish Government can tailor taxes and growth strategies to Scotland; businesses are happy/ will leave in droves; Scots will be better/ worse off in an independent Scotland
Economic deficits and North Sea Oil – Scotland relies on UK subsidies; the UK relies on Scottish oil
The State – Scotland will be a high tax, high spending country; the Scottish Government will reduce taxes to promote growth
European Union – someone will veto Scotland’s EU membership; we can decide whether or not we want to join; we will have to negotiate our entry or exit; we will have a larger or smaller voice in the EU
The Euro – we will have to join it; we can keep the pound until we choose to join it
Defence – will radically change/ not change Scotland’s role regarding the armed forces and nuclear question; Scotland will lose soldiers and defence contracts
Scotland and the UK – we will have to rebuild Hadrian’s wall and present passports at the border; key relationships will not change
Social attitudes – more Scottish than British? Devolution as a compromise between Scottishness and Britishness? People want/ do not want independence or more powers
History – Scotland as a stateless nation which demands self-government; the UK as a stronger, united country
Constitutional Issues – independence will solve the ‘English question’; the English should have their say; a referendum in Scotland has no legal authority; Scotland will keep the Queen as head of state
International affairs – we will have a small international voice; we will have to recruit a new generation of diplomats
#1 by Indy on February 12, 2012 - 12:13 pm
The idea that after 2 and a half years of campaigning people are going to be influenced solely by the question is a bit tenuous I suggest. That might have been an issue if the SG had gone for a short sharp referendum as suggested by the unionists but they have chosen to give enough time for people to thoroughly assess all the arguments.
#2 by James on February 12, 2012 - 12:21 pm
I’m going to be really keen to get answers to Paul’s actual questions here, not meta-critiques, “my lot’s always right” or other debating positions. At least to begin with. So if your comment isn’t a pro- or anti-independence argument not covered here, or an example as requested, that’s why it may not appear initially at least.
#3 by Barbarian on February 12, 2012 - 1:20 pm
Health:
People will be much healthier in an independent Scotland
There will be no noticeable difference in the health of people.
(Did I get that right??)
#4 by Angus McLellan on February 12, 2012 - 2:10 pm
And not just physical wellbeing.
The suicide rate would go down in an independent Scotland. (Cf. Borgen and Nyborg’s trip to Greenland)
Or up. (Cf. Scandinavian suicide rates)
#5 by Indy on February 12, 2012 - 4:12 pm
About your questions, what you ought to do to start with is get hold of a booklet called Talking Independence which was written by Alasdair Allan and published in 2001 or 2002 which is a Q&A about independence, some of it might be out of date by now but a lot of it will still be relevant. SNP HQ could probably send you a copy, if not it will certainly be in the National Library. Would save some effort at the start if you looked at the established questions which the SNP has already identified and answered – though of course some of the answers may well have changed over time.
#6 by Indy on February 12, 2012 - 4:15 pm
You can also read it online here: http://www.scotsindependent.org/features/talking.htm
#7 by Barbarian on February 12, 2012 - 4:19 pm
Education:
Scots and/or Gaelic to be made compulsory for S1 and S2.
Curriculum will not be changed.
#8 by Barbarian on February 12, 2012 - 4:21 pm
Apologies, brain has warmed up.
Defence:
Armed Forces Pensions at least the same as current with UK.
Armed Forces Pensions reduced.
#9 by Topher Dawson on February 12, 2012 - 8:16 pm
The flip side of the referendum: If we vote No, Westminster will feel free to cut the Barnet formula and punish us for not voting Tory.
On the other hand, if we vote No, Westminster will reward us with unspecified devolution concessions for our continued loyalty.
#10 by Sandy Brownlee (oldchap) on February 13, 2012 - 11:36 am
This’ll be an interesting piece of work when it’s done! A couple of thoughts…
Maybe it fits under the heading of “the state” or “social attitudes”, but it could be argued that Scotland tends to be more politically left of centre. So argument in favour of independence would be that this could be the norm (ie no more tory rule), and against would be trying to provide that as a positive influence for the rest of the UK.
Similarly, one might argue that currently Scotland can’t have an electable right-of-centre party, whereas with independence one would likely come into being separate of the British Conservatives.
Another argument for/against: it’s a lot of work to split (especially at an economically difficult time) vs it’s the right thing to do (it’ll be worth it at any cost / or it won’t be as much work as it seems)
#11 by Doug Daniel on February 13, 2012 - 1:18 pm
EU – Scottish interests would be better represented by Scottish FM at EU summits etc than currently through UK PM.
International affairs – Scotland will finally have an international voice; Scotland will be free to forge new international relationships, e.g. with Scandinavia; Scotland has different immigration needs to UK.
Energy – independence will make it easier to fully realise Scotland’s massive potential for renewable energy generation.
British institutions – the NHS, welfare state and BBC are things that make Britain great; Scotland already has a separate NHS which is being protected from privatisation; Scotland needs control of welfare spending to protect it from Tory cuts; Scotland would still get the BBC in the same way Republic of Ireland gets it; biased nature of BBC News means it would be no great loss anyway.
Constitutional issues – independent Scotland is more likely to become a republic than UK; creation of written constitution will focus people’s minds on what kind of society we want and what it really means to be Scottish (in particular defining civic nature).
The state – Scotland will have to start new tax system from scratch; Scotland will be able to start new tax system from scratch, making it far simpler to work out, easier (and therefore cheaper) to administrate, and eliminating tax avoidance loopholes.
I find it difficult to come up with negative ones, mainly because I rubbish them as soon as I come up with them…
#12 by Doug Daniel on February 13, 2012 - 1:19 pm
Also, is it worth pointing out that the idea of Scotland having to bail out RBS is a complete fiction, due to liabilities following economic activity, hence why other banks in Europe received supranational bailouts? Maybe I’m missing the point of the exercise a bit, but wouldn’t it be good to steer clear of arguments that are factually misleading? Scotland being subsidised is an obvious one here, as it is increasingly being recognised by non-partisan sources that there is quite simply no factual basis for this argument.
#13 by Paul Cairney on February 13, 2012 - 2:14 pm
These are all valuable comments and that is a good question, Doug. We are interested in the sorts of arguments that people find persuasive, factual or not. Indeed, I would imagine that people are often persuaded by the more fanciful suggestions, if only because they are simple and easy to understand and make the headlines.
#14 by EphemeralDeception on February 13, 2012 - 10:45 pm
At the end of the day and especially since the questioner is not interested in truthful/factual comparisons questions can lead the respondents quite easily.
The comparisons are pre loaded with bias.
Try:
Independent Scotland will be less likely to use international terrorism / UK relies on international terrorism.
Which takes the assumption that UK is prone to terrorism.
However a more factual comparision would be:
Scotland less likely to engage in foreign conflict.
UK likely to engage in international conflict
Many easier comparisons eg:
Defence: Scotland get rid of Nuclear weapons (if we vote to)
UK to continue with its deterrant (whether we want them or not). <<< Compare to defence section in the article.
Scottish energy production based on mixed sourced , no Nuclear
Uk Energy production based on mixed sources with Nuclear as a basis.
etc.
Most of the comparisons in the article above are not based on fact and are at least misleading. The floating voter can be influenced by such arguments but to do so is basically simple deception.
As such, there is a good chance that newly phrased and sourced arguments ( deceptions ) will indeed be able to influence people. Isn't this already well known?
#15 by Matt Wardman on February 18, 2012 - 10:26 pm
I’m not going to try and frame pairs of statements, but these areas could be relevant for some:
Scotland able to define it’s own time zone more easily.
Domination of labdscape Wind Power – but may happen whether independent or not.
‘Eck has been comparing an indy Scotland to Ireland / Iceland / Denmark / Sweden / Norway / Holland. Some interesting differences that have not *yet* been in play.
Presence / absence of Top 50 world banks and the ability of a country to back them.
Presence / absence of world class national champion companies or world class industries which Govt can rely on. Where is the Scottish Philips / ARLA / NOKIA / Kvaerner /ABB / Unilever / Shell?