Like the Peat Worrier and Kate Higgins, I think the headline figures on polls asking Scots whether they fancy independence or the Union are much less interesting than the numbers lurking beneath the surface. For it is these that reveal where Alex Salmond has the upper hand (at least for now) and where he most certainly does not. The latest Ipsos-Mori poll reports*, as Brother Jones noted the other day, that 39% of Scots certain to vote in the referendum favour independence. That’s dandy but not all that intriguing. Poke beneath the surface, however, and you find this:
This then, is where Alex Salmond has work to do. The SNP leader has been extremely successful in persuading Scots that he and his party can “stand up for Scotland” but this approach has its limits. It is not especially surprising that the elderly are less enthused by independence; nor is it astonishing that women are more resistant to Mr Salmond’s swaggering charms than men (one reason for Nicola Sturgeon’s increased visibility. I would also suggest that John Swinney needs to be given a higher profile, if only to counteract the suspicion, not wholly fair but definitely real, that the SNP are a one-man band.)45% of men back independence; just 30% of women do so. 45% of 18-34 year olds back independence; just 30% of Scots over 55 do so. 51% of those in the least affluent parts of Scotland support independence; just 26% of those in the wealthiest 40% of areas do so.
Despite the hard work the SNP has done “reaching out” to the business “community”, affluent Scots remain sceptical about independence. The party may not have reached its “ceiling” amongst poorer Scots but if support for independence is to increase, a good portion of that growth must come from Scots in the more affluent parts of the country. It is not unusual, in Edinburgh and other places, to hear folk express some measure of wonder that the issue of independence is even up for discussion. I don’t know anyone who supports the SNP is the kind of line one hears. The polling suggests this is not, in fact, the case but, nevertheless, that perception (that “no-one” supports the SNP) exists.
Salmond and his party have not yet succeeded in persuading better-off Scots that independence is not a needless leap into a perilous unknown. Doubtless there are some SNP partisans who view this as proof that the comfortably-off suffer from a dreadful brand of Caledonian false consciousness (this is better, mind you, than supposing they must be Quislings) but that’s a kind of revolutionary intolerance that’s no very liable to persuade many folk that their concerns are groundless.
All this also helps explain why the SNP has struggled to win the favour of the broadsheet press (endorsements for Holyrood elections are different from support for the SNP’s long-term goals). Salmond and his merry band have not yet found the language to appeal to Morningside and Newtonmearns. The party has benefited from being one thing in Aberdeenshire and another in Lanarkshire but there are limits to what even chameleons can achieve.
This scepticism is not altogether unwarranted. I fancy, for instance, that while some Scots are doubtless impressed by claims an independent Scotland would, per capita, be the sixth wealthiest country in the OECD just as many, including, rather importantly, many in the “elite” (to borrow an American piece of terminology) scoff at his, instinctively supposing Well that just can’t possibly be the case. Evidence is one thing; how it is presented quite another.
Here too, I suspect, the SNP’s (often understandable) disinclination to acknowledge there might be any downside to independence (even if trumped by its advantages) ill-serves the independence cause. It counterfeits their credibility and risks making them seem foolish. Who do you think you are kidding, Mr Salmond? Framing matters. There are many Scots, not all of them in lovely parts of the country but perhaps disproportionately those who do live in those Scotlands, who suspect the SNP’s promises are just too good to be wholly credible. Admitting some of the uncertainties that are an inevitable part of the independence package would, perhaps paradoxically, give the SNP greater credibility with some of those presently unpersuaded by their vision.
So too would a better prospectus advertising what would happen after independence. This need not be immensely detailed at this stage but there are a goodly number of Scots who could be persuaded but are hesitant to embrace independence because they fear, not necessarily unreasonably, they would be much more heavily taxed than they are at present (not that the UK is under-taxed as it is). Here too there is a fear that independence might revive the presently happily moribund Scottish Labour party, leading to any number of undesirable outcomes.
Salmond’s Hugo Young lecture, in which he boasted about “progressive Scotland” was, of course, an argument made to London’s left-wing elite. He would speak rather differently to the CBI. That’s braw but it might be said that, at present, he is not paying as much attention to that side of the ledger as he might or will have to at some point.
Then again, there are risks to the approach I suggest. Determining how you can appeal to affluent Scotland without losing support amongst those demographic platoons already enthused by the SNP’s vision is a delicate calculation to say the least. Nevertheless, it will have to be made. But doing so will require some deftness. Reassurance is required and this in turn needs some humility and, with that, an admission that the SNP holds no monopoly on wisdom.
There is an important and certainly influential part of the electorate that is not presently minded to give the nationalists much of a hearing, far less an endorsement. Getting folk to the listening stage is the SNP’s immediate challenge; persuasion comes next. But that requires a more nuanced strategy than that we’ve seen lately not least since the party may need to concede some ground now to make ground up in the future. The party needs a different approach to affluent Scotland and a different type of language too. They haven’t quite found it yet.
It would also, evidently, help the nationalists if the franchise were amended to prevent pensioners and other coffin-dodgers from voting but this proposal, modest as it may be, seems unlikely to prove popular.
*A note on the question used: Ipsos-Mori asked the formulation offered by the Scottish government’s consultation paper. some consider this question “loaded” or “leading”. Well, perhaps it is but so are many of the alternatives proferred. In 1997 punters were asked to endorse one of these propositions: I agree there should be a Scottish Parliament or I do not agree there should be a Scottish Parliament. I see little reason why that model cannot be applied to the independence question.
Comments