Max-Headache for the Unionist Parties

Saturday, 03 March 2012 10:10

By Dave Taylor (with thanks to scottish_skier)

The Times continues to drip feed the results of individual sets of questions from Ipsos MORI’s January Scottish poll. [1]

Unionist parties continue to insist that they can’t discuss greater powers until after a single question referendum on independence.

However, the January poll makes it clear that a huge majority of Scots (71%) want at least “the powers of the Scottish Parliament to include more laws and duties and control of most taxation”.

88% of independence supporters would support “Devo Max” as an alternative to the status quo, as would 53% of those who wish to remain part of the UK.

89% of SNP supporters, 62% of LD supporters and 59% of Labour supporters support at least “Devo Max”. Even 38% of Tory voters support it.

It is apparent that this isn’t uninformed opinion. 72% had heard of “Devo Max” and 55% wanted that option to appear on the ballot. Critically, for the Unionist parties, 46% of “No” supporters want a “Devo Max” option to be available.

Labour have no role in deciding anything on the referendum issues. Out of power in both Westminster and Holyrood, all they can do is snipe from the sidelines and try to ready themselves for when the big players – SNP and the Tory/LD coalition – make real decisions. For them, that must be the equivalent of a constant migraine.

The Tories and LDs have different headaches. The same poll puts their support for the constituency vote in Holyrood at 12% and 10% respectively – their combined score, half that of the SNP. Their hopes for power are focussed entirely on Westminster. The Tories don’t need Scotland, the LDs may still have some hope of retaining Westminster seats if they can keep their remaining Home Rule supporters on board. If they block the additional question, how much of that support will remain?

As Mark Diffley, Research Director at Ipsos MORI Scotland said:
“While the Scottish and UK governments continue to disagree over the number of questions to be included on the referendum ballot, the public is in favour of including a second question.

"This may be because ‘Devolution Max’ is the position that currently represents the views of the majority of Scots. In our most recent poll, support for independence falls short of a majority but there is clearly an appetite to move away from the status quo and devolve more powers to the Scottish Parliament and voters feel they should be given the opportunity to express that view in the referendum.”

While Diffley misrepresents “Devo Max” as the “views of the majority Scots”, it is simply the option around which most can coalesce, the choice for the Tories and LDs is whether to block the position held by most Scots.

[1]While the responses quoted in this article are of those “certain to vote”, the tables also include the numbers for all respondents

Comments

# Barontorc 2012-03-03 10:43

Apart from the trend shown in these statistics and the interpretation of these figures this way or that - there remains a hellish conundrum, just what needs to be done to convince, persuade, inform, beg, or just shout at, all those who still vote for a continuing status quo, despite being targeted in so many unfair ways by Mother-England's slick operators.

Right now the coalition forces seem to have a preferred attack mode agreed upon - muddy the waters, spread confusion, implant insecurity, recall previous togetherness victories, cynical emotive blackmail, spin, lie, obfuscate - anything, just anything that will perpetuate this damned union con.

# freeussoon 2012-03-03 11:18

No worries Barontorc,two years of the uk government introducing "savings" which affect the Scots and the yes vote should be pretty much guaranteed!

I don't believe that the no's have traction....they're slipping about all over the place!

# clootie 2012-03-03 10:52

Dave (SS) Thanks for the article. It will be interesting to see which of the unionist parties crack first and U-turn. I suspect Devo+ is just a way of testing the water. The LibDems have the greatest gap between what the claim to believe in and their actions at present.

# Macart 2012-03-03 11:00

From all sources evidence now points almost conclusively toward significant constitutional change. After autumn 2014 Scotland will almost certainly be radically changed in both political and public landscape. The position of status quo is no longer an option on the table and almost every concerned party outside of independence is already making noises toward further powers.

They blinked first!

These are merely the opening gambits in negotiating with the Scottish electorate and already the opposition know they are either losing or beaten. Why should we settle for anything short of independence? The only reason which comes to mind is because the electorate make that choice. But the electorate should remember that in Scotland they have a choice to be goverened as they see fit. They've always held the power to change the way things are.

My own opinion is that why should I wait for that jam tomorrow to be handed out by a complete stranger, when I can make my own and have it every day?

# Jim Johnston 2012-03-03 11:37

I like to keep an eye on the Unionist "campaign" as viewed from their media outlets.

E.g., more jam tomorrow rubbish, "sooner rather than later", a broad front is better than having a focal point leader.

Well, in my book they have a perfect situation to do something right now and lead by example. The Scotland Bill will have to come back in some shape or form as an offer to the Scottish people. Why not spell out exactly what the new super status quo is going to be ? That will mean there is no need for their dreaded second question. Vote YES for Independence, or just accept what Westminster are prepared to give you and vote NO.

Quite simple really.

The Unionists are blinding themselves with science, not the Scottish people.

# J Wil 2012-03-03 15:13

Even if a majority voted for Devo max it does not mean that the Westminster Government would implement it. They could spin it out interminably whilst making noises about their progress towards a solution, or just say, 'no more devolution'. They could also write all sorts of caveats into the legislation with the intention of tripping up a future Scottish government with ambitions for Scotland. There would continue to be interminable arguments between London and Edinburgh. I also notice that the pundits are now saying, ominously, it would be a good position for the Unionists to adopt and I expect the reasons are the ones I have just mentioned.

It is a risky thing to vote for. I am waiting for someone to ask the unionists why we should take them at their word when we know that they are prone to lying to the electorate.

# Marga B 2012-03-04 14:06

Don't forget that they're lying to or rather hiding from the rUK as well - Devo Max for Scotland is not politically viable down south.

# scottish_skier 2012-03-03 16:47

We should see the voting intention results soon too.

Only part information in the tables, but this is what party voting intention would be for people ‘certain to vote in the referendum’ (as I understand it - no data for elections but presumably numbers would be not too different), weighted totals:

SNP = 47%
Lab = 24%
Con = 13%
Lib = 10%
Others = 6%

MORI to confirm in due course.

Error on this sample size should be at least ~3%, so consistent with recent polls showing Labour on the way down and the SNP up since May 11 (even at 50%, which is within error on the above). Your ‘others’ continue to show signs of creeping up and of course are mainly other independence parties such as the Greens, SSP, Margo…

May 2012 looking very much like it shall be Scottish Spring Part Deux. The trouble in Glasgow, Stirling etc and the rather ‘quiet’ Labour conference are just the aperitif.

# oldnat 2012-03-03 19:04

The full tables should be available on Tuesday 6 March.

"The Times Conference - Scotland and the Union: what future?

The latest Ipsos MORI Scotland poll on Public Attitudes Towards Scotland’s Constitutional Future will provide the backdrop to the conference. Hosted by The Times, the conference will feature a keynote speech from the First Minister, Alex Salmond MSP, followed by panel discussions on the constitution and the economy, and a political debate on the future of the Union. The panel discussions and debate will feature some of the UK’s top academics and politicians:

The Constitution
Professor Tom Devine OBE Director, Scottish Centre of Diaspora Studies
Professor Vernon Bogdanor CBE, Professor of Government, Oxford University
Professor Robert Hazell CBE, Professor of Government and the Constitution, UCL
Chair: Magnus Linklater, Scotland Editor, The Times

The Economy
Professor David Bell, Professor of Economics, Stirling University
Professor John Kay, Visiting Professor of Economics, LSE
Ben Thomson, Chairman, Reform Scotland
Chair: James Harding Editor, The Times

The Union: can it survive?
Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP, Former Chancellor of the Exchequer
Duncan Hamilton, Advocate and former MSP
Sir Malcolm Rifkind MP, Former foreign secretary
Nicola Sturgeon MSP, Deputy First Minister
Chair: Andrew Marr, BBC

The results of the Public Attitudes towards Scotland’s Constitutional Future poll will feature in The Times on Friday 2nd March and in a special supplement published on Tuesday 6th March. Full results of the poll will also be available here as they are published." (Ipsos MORI)

# scottish_skier 2012-03-04 10:35

Even on raw yougov subsets SNP catching up with Labour. Remove the party political weighting (last page of tables, which ups the Labour share and heavily down weights those who answered SNP) and the SNP are on ~50% for GE intention, much like ICM and AR subsets.

# Marga B 2012-03-04 14:08

How can 10% still vote Liberal?

# clootie 2012-03-04 15:12

That's easy - the question is why! :D

# freeussoon 2012-03-03 18:34

OT but important to debate re-statistics.
Have tried to comment on this but yet again it has disappeared.Therefore will include on this site.

www.labourhame.com/.../3016

I’m afraid that women tend to keep their true views close to their chests(so to speak).They don’t tend to take part in surveys,so it’s difficult to be so sure of which way they vote.
However,I am a women ,I have a large circle of female friends,and my feelings are that a couple more years of Tories doing the dirty and the labour party can kiss goodbye to votes and hello to a new Scotland

# scottish_skier 2012-03-03 18:50

"A woman's place is in the Union".

Well, that's you lot telt anyway; "away back tae the kitchen hen. Oh and get off your behind and vote no while you're at it if you know what's good for you."

I'm sure female voters won't find that Labourhame article condescending at all.

# Taldor83 2012-03-05 13:55

I also posted a comment but I'll reproduce it here as well :-)

"Interesting article. What I did find a bit odd was that the premise for the whole article is that fewer women support Independence and then you go on to complain that there are fewer female SNP politicians in parliament than men…

Surely if less women support it, then there will be much less who would go into politics as a SNP politician…then they’ve got to get elected..so, given the figures you’ve cited I’d say 19 (although isn’t enough, I’d agree) isn’t really that surprising. Is the solution more female only short lists? Because I know I’d feel patronised if it took a separate list to get me a job.

I won’t even mention the recent showings of several incidents towards women since they’ve been mentioned above."

# Mac 2012-03-03 18:52

It looks like that Devo Max will be part of the referendum, be it a third option or a second question.

We could easily have a Yes-Yes campaign

# Dubai_scot 2012-03-03 19:54

I wonder, if Scotland voted no, then the SNP had as its Westminster manifesto, Devo-Max and won the majority...

Cat amongest the pigeons...again? LOL!

# scottish_skier 2012-03-03 19:59

A vote for the SNP at Westminster is a vote for independence; the unionists have said this consistently over the years.

The SNP can't form a UK government, ergo you only vote for them if you want out.

# Dubai_scot 2012-03-03 20:22

Yes, I understand that. My thoughts were along the lines of the SNP, having been given a steer by the Scottish electorate in the referendum, would make it obvious to Westminster we are effectiviely ripping up the current treaty and giving them an opportunity to renew or leave the Union.
I still want my cake and eat it, the SNP are the only vehicle in town that would stand up for Scotland during any negotiations.

# scottish_skier 2012-03-03 21:35

Sorry, yes, I imagine if Scots voted for Devo max but not independence, yet that was not forthcoming, then an SNP majority of MPs (e.g. 2015) could negotiate that with Westminster.

My hope is that the SNP always respect the wishes of the electorate and if Scots ask for Devo Maxx but not independence, the SNP will fight for that cause. This, I firmly believe, they would do.

# ScotFree1320 2012-03-04 09:03

If the SNP were given a Westminster majority by the electorate, I would expect them to negotiate all right... for nothing short of full independence.

The SNP exists to give independence for Scotland and there should be no question of back tracking on that. A vote for the SNP - and especially after a failure of the UK to deliver Devo Max - should be seen as a vote for independence. Nothing less.

Labour are the self proclaimed party of Devolution. Vote for them if you want Devo Max, then meekly accept the crumbs that fall from the master's table. If Westminster would not give DexoMax before an election, why should they yield after?

I'll be working & voting for the real deal and - in the event of a Westminster majority - expecting them to deliver.

# scottish_skier 2012-03-04 09:44

The problem of the FPTP system is the SNP could have a majority of MPs but not a majority of the vote share. I believe in PR as I'm not a unionist who prefers elective dictatorship. When Holyrood was given a PR-type system I was pleased, even though it would make a majority for independence parties very difficult. This was essentially achieved in terms of vote share in 2011; justifying the referendum.

If independence parties got a majority vote share for Westminster they could go for independence, if not, devo maxx.

I should note that I doubt it will come to that as I remain confident a YES will be returned in comfortable majority.

# Galen10 2012-03-04 10:43

I think the SNP should be much more forthright in their response to the totally confused Unionist response to questions around the referendum.

TheSNP have a clear mandate to hold the referendum in the 2nd half of this Holyrood term, so Moore and his ilk should simply be told to sling their hooks.

"If" (and I reckon it is a pretty big if!) the Unionist parties and civic groups can come up with a coherent Devo position of whatever flavour over the next few years, the SNP position should be that this will be allowed on the basis that there is overwhelming public support for it.

Any attempt by Unionists to stop this can simply be shown for what it is; undemocratic. Kenyon Wright's recent Scottish review position should be shouted from the rooftops in this regard.

In addition, the SNP should point out that the planned Devo question should be detailed enough, no simply a vague statement. This would require proponents of Devo to get serious and tell us exactly what it means rather than believe their promises of jam tomorrow. Trying to sell us a pig in a poke isn't going to work.

I am perhaps less sanguine than scottish skier that a yes vote will be achieved (tho' I pray it will be so!). However, I remain hopeful given the direction of recent polls and the continued hopelessness of the Unionist opposition.

Even in the event of a no vote however, I don't think it is necessarily disastrous; the focus then should be on campaigning for Devo Max, and ensuring that a ringing mandate is achieved by returning more SNP's and MSP's. It should also be pointed out that in the event the SNP gained a majority of seats in either parliament, it would be used a springboard for another referendum.

I seem to recall the SNP position used to be that independence would be automatic if they won 50% +1 of Westminster seats, irrespective of the popular vote (things are of course different since there is a Parliament in Holyrood), but I agree with you that it would of course be necessary to show you had majority electoral support for the SNP before you could credibly declare "UDI" without a referendum.

# Holebender 2012-03-04 11:04

I don't think that was ever the SNP position. It has been said by several unionists in the past (as they believed it would never happen) but not by the SNP.

# Galen10 2012-03-04 11:28

You may be right... altho' what's sauce for the goose...? ;)

# Holebender 2012-03-04 11:54

Oh, without question... their house their rules and all that!

# ScotFree1320 2012-03-04 13:58

All parties play by the particular rules of any election they participate in. The FPTP system has been good enough for the LibLabCons since the year dot and regularly, governments have been elected on less than a majority vote without any complaint. If it's good enough for them it's good enough for the SNP, therefore if the majority of Scots MPs returned are SNP it is legitimate to declare UDI.

# Marga B 2012-03-04 14:05

Surely the reason for not putting Devo Max on the ballot or defining it in any way is so as not to open the can of worms on the rUK issue.

Whatever the "No" campaign may promise before a referendum, it simply will not be able to deliver. The English will say no. What else could they say?

The English giant has not yet awoken, but when they realise what the Coalition is promising, even verbally, to the Scots, there will be trouble.

# Barbazenzero 2012-03-04 16:37

There's bound to be trouble sooner or later when England actually understands what the oil revenues - included even in this week's DevoPlus - will mean.

By the end of the SG consultation in May, the Plus and Max options will have been defined and the FM could then offer to be really helpful by using Moore's 2013 date for a two question Status Quo vs Plus vs Max referendum, with the rest of the UK having a vote, should the ConDems see fit, on whether to implement the result.

So that everyone will be happy, with the ConDems having a whole year to implement everything, in time for a single question referendum in 2014 on independence vs the new status quo.

What could be fairer than that?

# oldnat 2012-03-04 17:02

Under such an arrangement, the Scottish Parliament could mandate itself, in the 2013 referendum legislation, that it would immediately pass a Section 30 order transferring the agreed powers to Scotland, and send it to Westminster for their approval.

Fair and simple.

# Barbazenzero 2012-03-04 17:21

Quite so, with all the hard work done at Holyrood, but I have this sneaking suspicion that neither Moore nor Cameron would be grateful for all the heavy lifting done on their behalf.

# ramstam 2012-03-04 21:04

As I understand Devo+ the proposal to allocate a "Geographical" share of Oil revenues means not a population share which would be 8.5% but the 92% which lies in our Scottish sector. Whether this was meant to produce a Unionist response or not, there has been a deafening silence from the "London-must-rule brigade"on this and you must wonder how long they can stonewall on further powers being added to the Devo-wee Scotland bill. Mibbe a guid gubbin in the council elections will concentrate the minds!

# scottish_skier 2012-03-04 21:12

With devo maxx, the idea that this would require all UK home nations to have a say on it is being aired frequently.

Now, consider this:

Devo 1997. Scotland gets a block grant based on the barnet formula. This could theoretically mean Scotland gets more than it puts in (of course that is not the case but go with me on this). Scots MPs can still vote on English domestic matters. Very unfair on the English, but Westminster believes there is no need to ask them if it's ok to do this.

Devo Maxx. Scotland can only spend what it raises, ergo, Scotland could not end up in the situation where it was being 'subsidised'. The WLQ could not avoid being fixed as it would be impossible to justify Scots MPs voting on English domestic matters under FFA. So, a much fairer, more transparent system than at present. However, this time a referendum for the English is required yet not for the very unfair 1997 settlement?

Personally, I would not mind an FFA for home nations UK-wide referendum. I doubt our southern neighbours would vote against that, what with most decent people supporting scottish self determination and the rest thinking Scots are subsidy junkies but strangely still wanting to rule us...

Even the most ardent independence supporter should keep in mind that devo maxx is our friend. It is being mentioned by the SNP for a very good reason. Not because they want it, but because it seems a perfectly reasonable request from 70% of Scots yet will not be permitted by Westminster as it would destroy their wee elite, power-driven little world. Independence - or Devo Maxx Excel - is then the alternative to the already rejected status quo.

# G. P. Walrus 2012-03-04 22:37

Devo Max is being offered by the SNP to forestall the old Alec Douglas-Home ploy of offering more powers if we vote no to independence. This is precisely what the Unionists are trying just now but it can't fly because the Devo Max option exists as a blank space provided for them to fill with their best offer.

I predict the unionists will come up with an offer that will propose more powers but hung round with double-talk and obfuscation.

In the end, Scots will vote for who they can trust most to run their affairs -themselves.

# highlander 2012-03-05 02:35

Sorry Skier, I can't agree Devo-anything is our friend.

Without independence and the potential will of international law, it would be up to Westminster to hand over 90% of a current UK asset to just 8.4% of it's citizens, to the detriment of the remaining 91.6%

That will never happen. No party in Westminster would dare run with that. Really, how could they and hope to retain any credibility amongst the rest of the UK's voters?

It's a very dangerous ruse that will be propogated by the dependency parties should the polls turn against them in the YES/NO stakes. If they have to, they'll use it and it must not be allowed to muddy the waters as it's a promise that can't ever be delivered.

# oldnat 2012-03-05 03:34

There is reality, and there are political games.

The more that Scots want increased "Devo" Max or Plus, as opposed to Calman's Minimus, the more difficult it is for the Unionists to hold any coherent stance against transferring Scottish resources to Scottish control.

That they will hold to an incoherent stance, we take for granted. As always, the decision won't be in the hands of committed Independistas or Unionists - but in the third(?) of Scots who support Devo Max, but are a bit scared of independence.

# scottish_skier 2012-03-05 16:55

This is what I was getting at about Devo Maxx. 70% of Scots want it. It is being talked about by the SNP here and there for a purpose; to show that Westminster could offer it but will not, even though it seems perfectly reasonable. Based on that, most of the 30/70 devo maxers which are hesitant about independence will put their X next to yes.

We may be offered devo this and devo that, but they will all be weak versions which the Scottish government will say is not what Scots want and why not give devo maxx if 70% of Scots wish it....

# velofello 2012-03-05 21:09

For Devo-max to be credible it needs to be a firm offer presented to the Scottish people. The Scotland Bill currently being used as a football by our Scottish "Lords" Foulkes and Forsyth could serve as that vehicle. Revise it to include full fiscal autonomy and control of resources. There is plenty of time to withdraw the silly contents of the Bill, revise to offer FFA and propose it to the Scottish Parliament either before the referendum, or include within the referendum.
Do I believe this may happen? Not a chance!
i'm for independence, no devo-whatever, but at least the challenge to the Unionists to "put their money where their mouth is" may tease out their deceptions.
Oil and gas, water, renewable energy, 1/3rd of the landmass.Westminster will do whatever it takes to try and hold on to its "legacy".
Westminster will twist and turn, lie and cheat as necessary.
Scottish unionists at Westminster will be suitably "respected' and rewarded to be loyal to the Union.
Stairheid Curran. Everytime she appears on TV I patiently wait for her to say "We have a big decision to make". Collectively they are hopeless. Peter Curran drew the comparison of Alex Salmon's interview with Andra Neil - concise techno-economic discussion, with Lamentable Lament's leadership speech and BBC interview.

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post.

You must be logged-in in order to post a comment.

JComments

Max-Headache for the Unionist Parties

Comments

Donate to Newsnet Scotland

Latest Comments