Referendum Question

8/2/2019 Referendum Question

1/27

House of CommonsScottish Affairs Committee

The Referendum on

Separation forScotland:Do you agree this is abiased question?

Eighth Report of Session 201012

HC 1492


2/27


3/27

HC 1492Published on 08 May 2012

by authority of the House of CommonsLondon: The Stationery Office Limited

0.00

House of CommonsScottish Affairs Committee

The Referendum on

Separation forScotland:Do you agree this is abiased question?

Eighth Report of Session 201012

Report, together with formal minutes

Ordered by the House of Commons

to be printed 26 April 2012


4/27

The Scottish Affairs Committee

The Scottish Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to

examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Scotland Office

(including (i) relations with the Scottish Parliament and (ii) administration and

expenditure of the offices of the Advocate General for Scotland (but excluding

individual cases and advice given within government by the Advocate General)).

Current membership

Mr Ian Davidson MP (Labour/Co-op, Glasgow South West) (Chair)

Fiona Bruce MP (Conservative, Congleton)

Mike Freer MP (Conservative, Finchley and Golders Green)

Jim McGovern MP (Labour, Dundee West)

Iain McKenzie MP (Labour, Inverclyde)

David Mowat MP (Conservative, Warrington South)

Pamela Nash MP (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

Simon Reevell MP (Conservative, Dewsbury)

Mr Alan Reid MP (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Lindsay Roy MP (Labour, Glenrothes)

Dr Eilidh Whiteford MP (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The following members were also members of the committee during the

parliament:

Cathy Jamieson MP (Labour/Co-op, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Mark Menzies MP (Conservative, Fylde)

Graeme Morrice MP (Labour, Livingston)

Fiona ODonnell MP (Labour, East Lothian)

Julian Smith MP (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon)

Powers

The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of

which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No

152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk.

Publication

The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery

Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press

notices) are on the internet at www.parliament.uk/scotaffcom. A list of Reports

of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume.

The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oralevidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in a printed

volume.

Additional written evidence may be published on the internet only.

Committee staff

The current staff of the Committee are Mr Eliot Wilson (Clerk), Duma Langton

(Inquiry Manager), James Bowman (Senior Committee Assistant), Gabrielle Hill

(Committee Assistant) and Ravi Abhayaratne (Committee Support Assistant).

Contacts

All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Scottish AffairsCommittee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephonenumber for general enquiries is 020 7219 6123; the Committees email address [email protected]


5/27

The Referendum on separation for Scotland: Do you agree this is a biased question? 1

Contents

Report Page

Summary 31 Introduction 5

The Inquiry 5Background 5

2 The wording of a referendum question 8The principles behind a referendum question 8First draft question proposed by the Scottish Government 8Second draft question proposed by the Scottish Government 9The consequences of bias 10How can a fair question be drafted? 12Testing proposed questions 14

Conclusions and recommendations 18Annex 1 19Annex 2 20Formal Minutes 22

Formal Minutes 22List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 23


6/27


7/27


Summary

In this Report, we consider whether the wording of the referendum question proposed by

the Scottish Government is biased, and what should be done to ensure that a fair and clearquestion is put to the Scottish electorate.

Based on the evidence, we have no choice but to conclude that the question:

Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?

is biased. Experts told us that this was a leading question, biased towards a yes answer.

This is important because wording can affect the result of a referendum. This referendummust be, and be seen to be, fair and acceptable to those on both sides of the argument. It is

essential that the result commands wide acceptance.

It is now widely agreed that the Electoral Commission is the appropriate body to regulate areferendum and ensure that the wording of the question is clear and fair. This means anexhaustive process of testing of proposed words and how the options are put to the voters.

This will take some time, and therefore it must be started soon.

It need not wait until a referendum Bill is drafted.

Debate needs to move on to the policies and issues of separation.

Accordingly, we recommend that all parties approach the Electoral Commission now, sothat proposed question wordings can be tested.

The best course is for the parties to agree jointly what question wordings should be put tothe Commission.

If a consensus cannot be reached, those parties who can agree should approach theCommission together.

Our objective is that all can accept the advice of the Commission on a clear and neutralquestion, which can be incorporated into the legislative process from the very beginning.


8/27


9/27


1 IntroductionThe Inquiry

1.On 12 October 2011, we launched two separate inquiries on the proposed Referendumon Separation for Scotland. One focused on the many unanswered questions which

would need to be addressed if the voters of Scotland were to make an informed choice

when they were invited to vote in a referendum. As a result, on 15 February 2012, we

published a Report entitled The Referendum on Separation for Scotland: Unanswered

Questions, which aimed to outline the major policy areas which would need to be debated

in advance of a referendum on separation.

2.The second inquiry was concerned with the process and mechanics by which such areferendum would be organised and conducted. It is an ongoing inquiry, but this Report

is the first to arise from it, and it focuses on one narrow but very important aspect of the

referendum: the wording of the question. We are issuing the Report now because of the

remarkable unanimity of the evidence we received on this point, and because we

recommend that early progress should now be made on it.

3.Although we are issuing a Report now on the wording of the question in a referendum,we continue to inquire into the process and mechanics of such a referendum. We have

taken a good deal of oral and written evidence, and will continue to do so. There are a

number of complex issues to be resolved, and we will return to them in later Reports.

4.We are grateful to all of those who have given evidence, both written and oral, to ourinquiry. We also pay tribute to the excellent work of our specialist adviser, Professor Jim

Gallagher.

Background

5.The Scottish National Partys manifesto for the 2007 Scottish Parliament elections,Manifesto 2007, promised the publication of a White Paper, encompassing a Bill,

detailing the concept of Scottish independence in the modern world as part ofpreparations for offering Scots the opportunity to decide on independence in a


10/27

6 The Referendum on separation for Scotland: Do you agree this is a biased question?

referendum. In February 2010, the Scottish Government published a draft Bill to achieve

separation, entitled Scotlands Future: Draft Referendum (Scotland) Bill Consultation

Paper. This document contained three proposals: the first would devolve all matters to

the Scottish Parliament except defence and foreign affairs; financial regulation,

monetary policy and the currency; the second would implement the recommendations

of the Calman Commission, to vary income tax and introduce a limited power to borrow

money; while the third proposal was for full separation from the UK. The consultation

contained a proposed question which was based on extending the Scottish Parliaments

powers to allow it to legislate for separation. The referendum would be overseen by a

commission set up specifically for the purpose.

6.In its manifesto for the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections, Re-elect, the SNP pledged tobring forward a Referendum Bill during the lifetime of the Parliament. In January 2012,

the Scottish Government issued a consultation document, Your Scotland, Your

Referendum.1 It set out the Scottish Governments proposals for the question to be asked

and the rules governing the campaign and the vote, and included a draft ballot paper,

with a new question: Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?, a

substantially different question from that proposed in the draft Bill of 2010. The deadline

for the consultation is 11 May 2012.

7.In February 2012, the UK Government published its own consultation paper entitledScotlands constitutional future: A consultation on facilitating a legal, fair and decisive

referendum on whether Scotland should leave the United Kingdom.2 This was intended to:

set out options by which the UK and Scottish Governments can remove the legalbarriers to holding a referendum while ensuring that its question, conduct andoutcome are fair to those on each side of the debate and to all Scottish voters.

The consultation paper contained the UK Governments views on the potential process of a

referendum on separation, especially its view that the Scottish Parliament did not have the

1 The Scottish Government, Your Scotland, Your Referendum, January 2012

2 Scotland Office, Scotlands constitutional future: A consultation on facilitating a legal, fair and decisive referendumon whether Scotland should leave the United Kingdom, Cm 8203 January 2012


11/27


power to legislate for such a referendum, and that, if it did, the matter would inevitably end

up in the courts where the legislation was likely to be struck down.

8.The consultation set out nine specific questions, one of which was on what question (orquestions) a referendum on separation should ask. The deadline for responses to the

consultation was 9 March 2012. A summary of the responses was published in April 2012.3

3 Scotland Office, Scotlands Constitutional future, Responses to the consultation, Cm 8326, April 2012


12/27


2The wording of a referendum questionThe principles behind a referendum question

9.If there is to be a referendum on separation, the wording of the question is offundamental importance. In the view of the Electoral Commission the ideal was:

A question that was easy to understand, to the point and unambiguous. The question[should avoid] leading the voter in one direction or another.4

Ipsos MORI in its written evidence said:

Our view is that the referendum question must satisfy two criteria, it must be clearso

that voters know exactly what they are being asked and it must be fairso that theresults of the referendum are undisputed.5

It added:

We know from years of experience, backed up by academic research, that thewording of an opinion poll question can affect the answers we get.6

10.Ruth Stevenson set out for the committee the professional standards of question designoutlined in good practice guidance provided by the Market Research Society. She proposed

that any question should be short, straightforward and clear [...] balanced so as not to lead

voters towards a particular response [... and] presented in a manner that does not

introduce bias.7These principles of clarity and balance are obviously correct and must

apply to any question put to the Scottish people in a referendum on separation.

First draft question proposed by the Scottish Government

11.The Scottish Ministers have twice proposed a specific question about separation to putto the voters. In 2010, the Scottish Government proposed a question on which it asserted it

was legally possible for the Scottish Parliament to legislate. It explained:

Scottish Parliament Legislation must conform to the provisions of the Scotland Act1998. The Scotland Act has in-built flexibility so that the Scottish Parliament'spowers can be extended over time. The Scottish Parliament has a role in such

4 Q 717 (The Referendum on Separation for Scotland, oral and written evidence, HC 1608)

5 Ev 216

6 ibid.

7 Ev 217


13/27


processes [] It is therefore legitimate for a referendum held under an Act of theScottish Parliament to ask the people questions related to an extension of its powersinsofar as this is within the framework of the Scotland Act.8

It therefore proposed the following question:

The Scottish Government proposes that, in addition to the extension of the powersand responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament set out in Proposal 1, the Parliamentspowers should also be extended to enable independence to be achieved.

YES I AGREE

NO I DO NOT AGREE9

12.This was, the Scottish Government acknowledged, drafted with the aim of satisfyingthe legislative constraints under which it operated. (The evidence we have heard strongly

suggests that even this contrived formulation does not succeed in being legally competent,

but the Committee will deal with that more fully in a subsequent Report.) So it is not

surprising that it does not score highly on tests of intelligibility: it is hardly simple, to the

point, or unambiguous. It is not even absolutely clear that, if it gained majority support, the

consequence would be separation: independence would merely be enabled, the exact

meaning of which is unclear. Therefore this convoluted question wholly fails to meet the

standards which should be expected of a question which determines a nations future. It is

neither simple nor clear.

Second draft question proposed by the Scottish Government

13.The Scottish Ministers have now proposed a different question. In the consultationpaper which they produced in response to the UK governments offer to remove the

problem of lack of legislative competence, the Scottish Government put forward a newformulation:

Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?

This question is undoubtedly shorter and simpler than their first attempt. But in evidence

to our inquiry it was uniformly characterised as unfair. Our witnesses agreed that they saw

this as a leading question. The eminent pollster Peter Kellner told us that As a pollster, I

8 Scotlands Future: Draft Referendum (Scotland) Bill Consultation Paper, p. 16

9 ibid., p. 20


14/27


try to avoid attitudinal questions to which the answers are yes or no [...] I would say as a

pollster, Do you agree or disagree? You offer both options.10

14.Matthew Elliott, of the NOtoAV campaign, put it simply. If you asked a pollster to askthat sort of question, they would say you were trying to rig the poll. It is a leading

question.11 Other professionals agreed. Martin Boon, of ICM Research, remarked that

The question presented beginning Do you agree fundamentally cannot be balanced if it

excludes the words or disagree. That is my primary starting point and fundamental

objection to it.12 Andrew Hawkins, the Chairman of ComRes, said that In the way it is

construed, I do agree it is a biased [question] because it does not present any of the

alternatives.13

15.This is an elementary point in question design. In Annex 1, we give an example of arecent GCSE Statistics question in 16-year-olds were asked why the question Do you agree

that canteen food is value for money? was biased.

16.Based on the evidence we have received, we have no choice but to conclude that thequestion currently proposed by the Scottish Government is biased in that it tends to

lead the respondent towards the answer yes.

The consequences of bias

17.Martin Boon of ICM Research told us that the wording of the question could have asignificant effect on the outcome:

You may have seen some public opinion research conducted and commissioned byLord Ashcroft, which asked three questions. The first one [...] is, Do you agree thatScotland should become an independent country?, which was yes 41 and no 59.Then he added the word disagree to the statement, and it moved from 41/59 to39/61. He then presented entirely that kind of option, which was, Should Scotlandbecome an independent country or should it remain part of the United Kingdom?,

10 Q 258

11 Q 469

12 Q 816

13 Q 891


15/27


and the numbers moved to 33/67 [...] these words will move the Scottish public oneway or the other.14

The research to which Mr Boon referred surveyed 3,090 Scottish adults. The full results are

reproduced in Annex 2. If the wording of the question can change opinion from 41/59 to

33/67, it is clear that the wording is of vital importance.

18.A number of our witnesses pointed out that a referendum was not the same as anopinion poll. Mr Kellner, for example, said that a biased question might not matter as

much at the end of a referendum campaign when the voters had heard all the arguments.15

Other witnesses made the same point: question bias mattered a great deal in surveys as

respondents answered a lot of questions quickly, but they would have more time to reflect

and consider their view in a referendum.

19.This, however, misses the central point. A referendum which will decide the future ofthe country must be, and be seen to be, scrupulously fair. There must be no scope

afterwards for either side to claim that the process was flawed. This was accepted by our

witnesses. For example, Ipsos MORI said It must be seen to be fair so that the losing side

in the ballot does not try to discredit or challenge the result on the basis of the question

wording.16

20.There must no bias whatsoever. Therefore, the process for determining the questionshould be designed to ensure that is so. Unfortunately, the proposals by the Scottish

Ministers are inconsistent with that aim. They are biased towards separation. It is also clear

that, as well as setting the question, the Scottish Government wants to set the timing and

rules of the referendum. Its consultation paper says:

It is for the Scottish Government to propose to the Scottish Parliament the timingand terms of the referendum and the rules under which it is to be conducted. TheScottish Parliament should decide these matters.17

14 Q 829

15 Q 258

16 Ev 217

17 Your Scotland, your Referendum, p. 5


16/27


21.This runs wholly contrary to the evidence given to us by the distinguishedconstitutionalist, Professor Vernon Bogdanor, who noted that The players should not also

be the referee.18 Other witnesses agreed. Starting the process by proposing first a contrived

question, and then secondly an obviously leading one certainly does not suggest that an

SNP administration can be trusted to play the role of referee in this process.

How can a fair question be drafted?

22.The Electoral Commission has a statutory responsibility for regulating referendums inthe UK, and has, since its creation, overseen three referendums: on the establishment of a

Regional Assembly in the North East of England, on increasing the powers of the Welsh

assembly, and on changing the voting system used for electing the House of Commons. In

the UK Governments consultation paper, it is proposed that the Electoral Commission

should also oversee this referendum, and it seems that the Scottish Government now seems

to be willing to amend its initial plans to set up a special, one-off, Commission appointed

by it and reporting to the Scottish Parliament alone to regulate the separation referendum.

We welcome this movement because otherwise it would have been seen as a participant

wishing to set the rules of the game as well as being a player and would clearly have been

wholly unacceptable.

23.Our witnesses thought that the Electoral Commission was the appropriate body toregulate the wording of a referendum question. Martin Boon of ICM Research told us that

We have the Electoral Commission in this country and it is an independent Executive

body19, while Nigel Smith concurred that the Commission should comment on any

proposed question.20 Mark Diffley of Ipsos MORI believed that the Electoral Commission

will have a key role.21 The Commission itself told us that clarity to us means that it is an

independent source of advice. We would like to be that source.22

18 Q 353

19 Q 835

20 Q 836

21 Q 898

22 Q 737


17/27


24.There was consensus among our witnesses that the advice of the Electoral Commissionshould be accepted. As Willie Sullivan of the Electoral Reform Society said:

If the Electoral Commission went back to the Scottish Parliament with the questionthat it had recommended and tested and the Scottish Parliament tried to change it,organisations like ours and othershopefully, everybodywould make quite a fussabout it and say they had no confidence in it.23

Professor Stephen Tierney, of the University of Edinburgh, added that the Electoral

Commission has a lawful role in this regard and I would imagine a question that they

thought unintelligible would clearly be open to judicial review.24 This position was

shared by other witnesses.

25.None of our witnesses thought that the SNPs plan was acceptable and all agreedthat the Electoral Commission, which is experienced and neutral, was the appropriate

body to ensure that this referendum is as fair as possible. The Electoral Commission

itself is prepared to do so. We recommend that the Electoral Commission should have

that responsibility.

26.This task will include dealing with the wording of the question: the Commissionpresently has a statutory duty of testing proposed questions for intelligibility. This will

extend to the words used and the structure of the question. John McCormick, of the

Commission, explained:

What we mean by clarity and intelligibility. It is that the voters get the result that theywant, so therefore they understand the question and its implications [] that is partof the question testing process [] we are looking for clarity about outcomes and

clarity about the question, and an unbiased question.25

27.All our witnesses agreed that thorough testing of the question was of great importance.Ipsos MORI advised that Our view is that there also needs to be a significant testing of

different question options before a final decision can be made.26 They added that such

testing could be done in a number of ways. With proper polling, they would have a better

23 Q 465

24 Q 234

25 Q 718

26 Ev 216


18/27


idea of whether a question is fair once different options have been tested rigorously and

analysed against differently-worded questions, with robust sample sizes.27

28.In addition, it was felt that cognitive testing of questions would also be essential.Cognitive testing is an approach we use to assess how questions are understood andanswered by respondents [] this would be extremely helpful in providing evidencefrom voters about the wording of different question options.28

As the Commission explained to us, such tests can sometimes produce surprising results:

voters do not always take the meaning which legislators believe or hope that they will from

the words which have been proposed. Andrew Scallan explained that The research

demonstrates that each word has to be considered in each question to make sure that

people understand it.29

29.No question should be placed before the electorate unless the Electoral Commissionis completely satisfied as to the intelligibility and fairness of the wording. The

Commission should conduct a very thorough programme of testing of a number of

different question options before coming to a view on the wording which is clearest and

fairest.

30.Professor John Curtice of the University of Strathclyde added:Certainly, whatever is initially proposed, we need to ensure that the ElectoralCommission has the right not just simply to test a single proposition but indeed isable to test what it regards as reasonable alternatives.30

Testing proposed questions

31.Testing the question must be done carefully and thoroughly, and consider the fullrange of options so as to choose the best. That will take time. Mr McCormick said:

We are recommending that we have twenty weeks to test. That is based on theexperience last time of testing and re-testing and going round the circuit again. Thisis based on the experience of the single question referendums last year.31

27 Ev 217

28 ibid.

29 Q 750

30 Q 316


19/27


Mark Diffley thought the timescale would be three or six months [...] you would need to

go through a process where you cognitively tested the question with enough people, while

Andrew Hawkins, of ComRes, felt that two to three months would be an appropriate

length of time.32

32.We accept that the process of testing should not be skimped or rushed; but we alsohave concerns that the period of uncertainty before this referendum is to be held is already

too long, even on the basis of the timetable proposed by the UK Government, which would

allow it to take place in 2013. The evidence from business on the effects of this uncertainty

was clear. For example, Martin Wolf, of the Financial Times, said Uncertainty is itself

costly [...] for this reason, it would seem to me to be very much in the interests of all

concerned to minimise the period of uncertainty.33 It is therefore a matter of some

concern to us that there is no sign at present of any work on testing possible questions.

33.The Electoral Commissions role is advisory and not decisive. It can only work withquestions which are proposed to it, and it was made clear to us in evidence by the

Commission that it was not for it to initiate the drafting of a neutral, unbiased question: it

would simply respond to what is proposed.

34.Dr Matt Qvortrup, of Cranfield University, made the point that What is important isthat the question is seen to be fair by both sides of the argument. He went on to give an

example:

In Montenegro when they voted for independence there, they had a representativefrom the yes side, a representative from the no side and then a neutral person I

believe a Supreme Court judge to sit between them. They then came up with aquestion they could all agree on.34

35.In our view, it is of great importance that the Electoral Commission is able toconsider and test a question agreed by all concerned, failing which alternative wordings

which have been proposed both by those who support separation and by those who do

31 Q 716

32 Q 905

33 Q 410

34 Q 629


20/27


not. In that way, the Commission will be able to recommend on the basis of a rigorous

and objective process of testing a question that both sides of the argument will be able

to agree to.

36.The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA) gives powers tothe Electoral Commission which would enable this to happen. This could wait until a

section 30 Order is passed, and the Scottish Government is considering draft legislation. If

the Electoral Commission were given powers under that legislation of the same sort that it

has under Westminster legislation, it could then test a proposed question and advise on it.

There is, however, no reason for the necessary work to be delayed as long as that, and two

very strong arguments why it should not.

37.The first is that debate on a separation referendum needs to move as swiftly as possiblefrom questions of procedure and drafting, like the wording of the question, to the

substantive choice which faces the Scottish electorate: whether or not to leave the United

Kingdom. Given that it is widely agreed that the Electoral Commission should play the key

role in setting the question, there is absolutely no reason for them not to start on that as

soon as possible. Indeed, there is every reason for them to get ahead. They themselves

recommended that they should be allowed 20 weeks to do this work thoroughly, and some

of our witnesses thought that rather longer than that might be needed. It is important that

the electorate knows as soon as possible the question that it will be asked.

38.There is a second reason for getting ahead with this work now. We agree with ourwitnesses that the question must be, and be seen to be, a fair one. If the result of the

referendum is to command wide acceptance, then the question must be agreed in advance

by both sides of the argument. An obvious way to do that would be for those on both sides

of the argument to have access to the fullest possible advice from the Electoral Commission

before the legislative process begins in Westminster or Holyrood. That way, once their

advice has been accepted, their neutral view will be incorporated in the legislation from the

very beginning, removing a potential source of conflict, and reassuring the electorate that

this aspect of the process is wholly unbiased.


21/27


39.The Commission made clear to us that it was not its role to propose questions, butrather to test the questions proposed by Governments or others. We understand this, but

that puts the onus on others to place before the Commission questions which it can test for

clarity and fairness, and then advise which best meets the needs of a separation

referendum. The Commission should test, as they rightly argued, how every word in a

proposed question is understood; this should include the words separation,

independence, state, country, nation, remain and become, and other relevant

words. It should also test the structure of the question paper, including whether it is better

to have a question which solicits the answer yes or no, or a formulation that invites the

voter to say I agree or I disagree and if so to what sort of statement.

40.There is a mechanism for achieving this. The Electoral Commission does not have towait for draft legislation before offering advice. Section 10 of PPERA provides that:

The Commission may, at the request of any relevant body, provide the body withadvice and assistance as respects any matter in which the Commission have skill andexperience.

A relevant body includes the UK or Scottish Governments. The Commission may alsoprovide advice to registered [political] parties. It is therefore entirely possible for either or

both Governments or the political parties involved to seek the advice of the Commission.

They should do so on an agreed selection of possible questions, ideally jointly.

41.The Scottish Governments proposed question (or some variant of it, if it acceptsthe criticisms we have made of how it is presently drafted) and a question proposed by

the opponents of separation could therefore be referred to the Commission for advice.The best way of achieving that would be for the political parties represented in the

Scottish Parliament to agree jointly on a question, or, if they cannot, a range of

questions, on which the Commissions advice should be taken. If a consensus cannot be

reached, then an individual party or group of parties should submit a question, or

range of questions. Both sides should agree in advance to accept the Commissions

advice in order to remove from dispute the wording of the question and allow the

people of Scotland to focus on the important issues of substance involved in the SNPs

proposals for separation.


22/27


Conclusions and recommendations

The principles behind a referendum question

1. These principles of clarity and balance are obviously correct and must apply to anyquestion put to the Scottish people in a referendum on separation. (Paragraph 10)

Second draft question proposed by the Scottish Government

2. Based on the evidence we have received, we have no choice but to conclude that thequestion currently proposed by the Scottish Government is biased in that it tends tolead the respondent towards the answer yes. (Paragraph 16)

How can a fair question be drafted?

3. None of our witnesses thought that the SNPs plan was acceptable and all agreed thatthe Electoral Commission, which is experienced and neutral, was the appropriatebody to ensure that this referendum is as fair as possible. The Electoral Commissionitself is prepared to do so. We recommend that the Electoral Commission shouldhave that responsibility. (Paragraph 25)

4. No question should be placed before the electorate unless the Electoral Commissionis completely satisfied as to the intelligibility and fairness of the wording. TheCommission should conduct a very thorough programme of testing of a number of

different question options before coming to a view on the wording which is clearestand fairest. (Paragraph 29)

Testing proposed questions

5. In our view, it is of great importance that the Electoral Commission is able toconsider and test a question agreed by all concerned, failing which alternativewordings which have been proposed both by those who support separation and bythose who do not. In that way, the Commission will be able to recommend on thebasis of a rigorous and objective process of testing a question that both sides of the

argument will be able to agree to. (Paragraph 35)6. The Scottish Governments proposed question (or some variant of it, if it accepts the

criticisms we have made of how it is presently drafted) and a question proposed bythe opponents of separation could therefore be referred to the Commission foradvice. The best way of achieving that would be for the political parties representedin the Scottish Parliament to agree jointly on a question, or, if they cannot, a range ofquestions, on which the Commissions advice should be taken. If a consensus cannotbe reached, then an individual party or group of parties should submit a question, orrange of questions. Both sides should agree in advance to accept the Commissionsadvice in order to remove from dispute the wording of the question and allow the

people of Scotland to focus on the important issues of substance involved in theSNPs proposals for separation. (Paragraph 41)


23/27


Annex 1

A specimen GCSE Statistics (Higher Tier) paper produced by Edexcel in 2003 included the

following question:

8. Mary is carrying out an investigation into the cost of food at her college canteen.

She asks people in the queue for canteen food

Do you agree that canteen food is value for money?

(a) Why is her sample of people likely to be biased?

............................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................... (1)

(b) Why is her question biased?

....................................................................................................................................... (1)

(c) Suggest two reasons for her to carry out a pilot survey.

(i)..................................................................................................................................

(ii).................................................................................................................... (2)

For another investigation Mary selects a sample of 30 students from the 720 students at her

college.

(d) Describe how she would select a simple random sample.

.............................................................................................................................................

.............................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................... (2)35

35 Edexcel GCSE Statistics (Higher Tier) Paper 1H (1389), 2003


24/27


Annex 2

Lord Ashcroft commissioned a survey on the effect of the wording of referendum

questions, for which the fieldwork was carried out between 26 and 31 January 2012. The

results are below.

Question: Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?

Total Male Female Age18-24

Age25-39

Age40-59

Age60+

SocialGradeABC1

SocialGradeC2DE

Yes(%)

41 46 35 42 39 43 38 37 44

No(%)

59 54 65 58 61 57 62 63 56

Question: Do you agree or disagree that Scotland should be an independent country?

Total Male Female Age18-24

Age25-39

Age40-59

Age60+

SocialGradeABC1

SocialGradeC2DE

Agree(%)

39 38 39 35 36 45 34 37 40

Disagree(%)

61 62 61 65 64 55 66 63 60

Question: Should Scotland become an independent country, or should it remain part of the

United Kingdom?

Total Male Female Age

18-24

Age

25-39

Age

40-50

Age

60+

Social

GradeABC1

Social

GradeC2DE


25/27


Independent(%)

33 35 31 28 33 37 30 29 37

UK (%) 67 65 69 72 67 63 70 71 63

36

36 www.lordashcroftpolls.com


26/27


Formal Minutes

Wednesday 25 April 2012

Members present:

Mr Ian Davidson, in the Chair

Fiona BruceJim McGovernIain McKenzieDavid Mowat

Pamela NashSimon ReevellMr Alan ReidLindsay Roy

Draft Report (The Referendum on Separation for Scotland: Do you agree this is a biased question?), proposedby the Chair, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 41 read and agreed to.

Summary agreed to.

Resolved, That the Report be the Eighth Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.

Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the provisions ofStanding Order No. 134.

[Adjourned till Wednesday 16 May 2012 at 2.00 p.m


27/27


List of Reports from the Committee duringthe current Parliament

The reference number of the Governments response to each Report is printed in brackets after the

HC printing number.

Session 201012

First Report Postal Services in Scotland HC 669 (HC 884)

Second Report Video Games Industry in Scotland HC 500 (Cm 8067)

Third Report

Fourth Report

UK Border Agency and Glasgow City Council

The Scotland Bill

HC 733

HC 775

Fifth Report Student Immigration System in Scotland HC 912 (Cm 8192)

Sixth Report The Referendum on Separation for Scotland:

Unanswered Question

HC 1806

Seventh Report The Crown Estate in Scotland HC 1117

Referendum Question

Documents