THE independence debate is leaving voters in the dark by failing to focus on the decisive economic issues, according to a survey.
Results from ScotCen's latest annual Scottish Social Attitudes Survey suggest voters are more likely than ever to base their decision in September's referendum on whether they think independence will be good for the economy and their own wallet.
However, in an analysis of the findings published today, Professor John Curtice, of Strathclyde University, claims the debate is "short-changing" people by focusing on peripheral issues, such as EU membership.
The survey found growing levels of confusion among voters "as a result of the apparent failure of the campaigns to focus on what matters most to voters," he warned.
Nearly two thirds of voters (64%) said they were "unsure" what would happen if Scotland became independent, up six points on the 2012 poll. Meanwhile, the number who felt "sure" about the consequences fell four points to 30%.
Fewer than a quarter of people questioned (22%) said they knew "a great deal" or "quite a lot" about independence.
The Scottish Social Attitudes survey, which questions about 1500 people each year, is seen as the most reliable measure of public views on issues, including independence, since devolution in 1999. Its latest poll, conducted between last June and October, produced stronger evidence than ever that the economy was the most important factor.
Asked how they would vote if they thought independence would make them £500 per year better off, backing for a split from the UK soared from 29% to 52%, while opposition fell to 30%.
By contrast, only 15% said they would back independence if they felt they would be £500 worse off, while 72% would vote No.
When the same question was put to voters in 2011, 65% said they would vote Yes if they thought they would be £500 better off.
Mr Curtice said this suggested "people now have to be even more convinced of the economic benefits of independence if they are to vote in favour".
He said arguments over Europe, welfare and currency, which have dominated the campaign, made "little difference" to how most Scots would vote.
He added: "The referendum campaign is at risk of short-changing the people of Scotland.
"So far it appears to have done little to help them be clear and confident about the decision they have to make.
"Voters want to hear about the economic and financial consequences of the choice they make, and it is on the outcome of that debate that the result of the referendum is likely to turn."
In a worrying sign for the Yes campaign, the survey suggested voters were more likely to take a pessimistic view of an independent Scotland's economic prospects. Only 9% agreed they would be personally better off if Scotland left the UK, against 29% who felt they would be worse off.
However, the 52% who believed independence would make no difference to their pocket suggested neither side had yet won the economic argument.
Posing the referendum question, support for independence rose from a record low of 23% in 2012 to 29% last year. However, the number who wanted Holyrood to take all the decision for Scotland fell four points to 31%.
Stripping out the 'don't knows' and 'won't' votes, 36% backed a Yes vote and 64% a No vote.
Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said: "This survey - carried out before the White Paper was published - shows significant movement in favour of independence. It also confirms that when we win the economic argument, we will win the referendum. "
However, Blair MacDougall, campaigns director of the pro-UK Better Together group, said: "This survey confirms what recent polls have shown - support for breaking up the UK remains below historic levels."
Scottish Labour's constitutional spokesman Drew Smith said: "We know from the Institute of Fiscal Studies that we would be £1000 worse off under independence while even [Finance Secretary] John Swinney admits in his private paper that he has doubts about whether we would be able to afford the state pension."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article