SCOTTISH Labour leader Richard Leonard has claimed that the people of Scotland do not want a second independence referendum.
So, how true is that claim?
His comments came after Labour shadow chancellor John McDonnell indicated that if in government, Jeremy Corbyn's party would not make any attempt to block a Scottish request for indyref2.
This position stands in contrast with Scottish Labour, who oppose a second independence referendum.
Speaking the day after McDonnell made the remark, Leonard said: "I met with John this morning and I made clear to him that a second independence referendum is unwanted by the people of Scotland and it is unnecessary.
“The 2014 referendum was a once-in-a-generation vote. There is no economic case for independence, especially with the SNP’s new position of ditching the pound and new policy of turbo-charged austerity to bear down on the deficit.
“On that John McDonnell and I are in firm agreement – what Scotland needs is radical reforming Labour governments at Holyrood and Westminster.”
The crux of Leonard's claim is that indyref2 is "unwanted by the people of Scotland".
This was not the finding of the Lord Ashcroft poll published on Monday that sparked this most recent wave of debate on Scottish independence.
As well as finding 52% support for a Yes vote once "don't knows" are excluded, it revealed that 47% of Scots believed there should be a referendum on independence at some point in the next two years.
By contrast, only 45% felt there should not be another referendum in that timeframe.
According to this poll – the first taken since Boris Johnson visited Scotland as Prime Minister – the public are in agreement with First Minister Nicola Sturgeon on indyref2 timing.
However, Leonard's statement is not accurate when it comes to other recent polling either.
A YouGov poll showing a huge shift towards Scottish independence (49% in favour to 51% against) published in April asked Scots about indyref2 timing. It was the first carried out after the First Minister set out her plans to hold a new vote on the issue.
On the timing of a referendum, 42% of those polled wanted a vote in the next five years, and 48% did not – with 10% saying they were unsure. This only presented that binary option of within five years or not within five years.
A Survation poll published in March this year offered a greater variety of options, and specifically asked for those who "never wanted another independence referendum". That research found that 60% of Scots backed a fresh vote on the country's future, compared to only 32% who never wanted another independence referendum. This contradicts Leonard's claim.
And the picture has changed more fully in recent months. A Panelbase poll published in July revealed that 51% of Scots want indyref2 to be held either while the UK is negotiating to leave the EU or when it has finished negotiations. Only 48% were opposed to it taking place within the next few years.
At the time, polling expert Professor Sir John Curtice told the Sunday Times: “It seems that the days when Unionists could claim with confidence that Scots do not want another independence referendum any time soon may have come to an end.”
Indyref2 is not "unwanted by Scots", as Leonard claims – the debate has been over the timing, and recent polls show it is wanted sooner rather than later.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel