THE precise choice of question in a second independence referendum could have a dramatic effect on the result, academics have confirmed.
Polling by a trio of political science professors found the precise wording could depress support for independence relative to 2014, or help propel the Yes side to victory.
“If voters are evenly divided, as they are currently on independence, then even seemingly innocuous matters such as the question options could change the course of a nation’s history,” they concluded.
The researchers found that the most neutral question was the formula used seven years ago: “Should Scotland be an independent country? Yes or No.”
However if it was “Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country? Yes or No”, which was the SNP’s first choice in 2014, then Yes topped 50 per cent.
And if the wording echoed the Brexit referendum of 2016, “Should Scotland remain in the United Kingdom or leave the United Kingdom”, it helped the Unionist cause.
The findings are reported in an LSE blog today written by Rob Ford, professor of political science at the University of Manchester, Rob Johns, Professor of Politics at the University of Essex, and John Garry, Professor of Political Behaviour at Queen’s University Belfast.
Could the outcome of a second Scottish independence referendum depend on the question put on the ballot paper? M'learned colleagues @robjohns75 John Garry and I ran an experiment to find out. You can read about it here...https://t.co/ApyohBy5T8
— Rob Ford (@robfordmancs) October 5, 2021
The academics polled almost 3,000 Scots voters in May and June, randomly assigning them one of the three question options.
The 2014 formula gave Yes around 48% support, the Do you agree formula put Yes just over 50%, and the Remain/Leave formula put Yes below the 45% achieved in 2014.
The researchers concluded the differences were “certainly politically significant”, even if the statistical differences were slight.
They said: “It seems the instincts of both nationalists and unionists about wordings are correct – each side’s preferred question is associated with higher support for their preferred outcome, and the difference between those two is just about statistically significant.”
The use of the word “agree” in the question was blocked by the Electoral Commission in 2014, as it was seen to favour the Yes side.
The academics said questions that begin with ‘Do you agree’ encourage “acquiescence bias”, increasing agreement, particularly among people without strong starting views.
Many unionists now favour the Remain/Leave formula used in 2016 for Indyref2, precisely because it is seen as more favourable to the Union, given most Scots associated themselves with the Remain cause in the EU vote.
The researchers said: “The results highlight an important structural feature of referendums as binary choices with much at stake. If voters are evenly divided, as they are currently on independence, then even seemingly innocuous matters such as the question options could change the course of a nation’s history.
“We should acknowledge that experiments like these are better at capturing the likely direction of wording effects than their likely scale."
They said the question most likely to be asked again was the same one as in 2014.
They also warned that a snap poll was different from a long campaign.
Nevertheless, they said that, despite the debate on independence being so well known, the precise choice of question still had the ability to sway some voters.
"Our experiment simply presented respondents with a question whereas, if a second referendum campaign is anything like as long and hotly contested as the first, then voters will already have given the question extensive thought before they are confronted with the ballot question.
“Two points can be made in response, though. One is that the effects seen...occurred despite a decade of arguing about independence.
"Clearly some people can still be swayed.
“The other is that the question does not appear for the first time on the ballot paper. Rather, it can define the whole debate.
“And the terms ‘Remain’ and ‘Leave’ are so potent that, if they are the frame for IndyRef2, things could look very different from the Yes/No battle of ‘IndyRef1’.”
Aileen McHarg, professor of Public Law at Durham University, and an expert on the independence debate, tweeted in response: “While Remain/Leave might have been a more neutral wording that Yes/No in 2016, it certainly isn't now.”
When the SNP Government introduced a generic referendum framework bill in the last parliament, they attempted to bypass the Electoral Commission in order to be able to ask the Yes/No question of 2014 again without any prior checks.
However after an opposition backlash, they reluctantly agreed to let the Commission test the question for intelligibility in the event of Indyref2.
Pamela Nash, chief executive of the anti-independence Scotland in Union group, said: “The people of Scotland don’t want another divisive referendum any time soon and the SNP should drop its constitutional obsession and focus on what really matters to people.
“We know that, despite this, the SNP will never stop its negative campaign to pull communities apart and is desperate to use a biased question to help its cause.
“While the SNP wants to rig the debate, the rest of us want to move on from 2014.
“The simple truth is that the SNP proposal for separation is a choice between remaining part of the UK or leaving the UK - and any question should reflect that clearly.
“We are stronger together as part of the UK and can invest more in our schools and hospitals, keep the pound, and use our influence to tackle the climate emergency.”
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel