Time to put to bed myth of big rise in Yes support during Referendum campaign

Tom Peterkin (“The secret of successful politics: it’s all in the timing”, 29 December) is the latest Scotsman writer to have repeated the Nationalist “postfact” allegation that support for independence rose markedly during the independence referendum campaign. In Mr Peterkin’s words, from “about one third to 45 per cent”.

This conclusion can be arrived at only by including “don’t knows” in the starting figure and excluding them from the final one.

The campaign started on 21 March 2013, when Alex Salmond announced the referendum date. The closest poll to 21 March 2013 is that conducted by Panelbase for the Sunday Times between 18 and 22 March 2013.

This shows support for Yes at 36 per cent, No at 46 per cent and 18 per cent undecided. The final result was Yes, 37.8 per cent; No, 46.8 per cent; and undecided, 15.4 per cent. So both the Yes and No sides marginally increased their support during the campaign by slightly reducing the percentage of undecided voters.

If you prefer to exclude the undecided from both counts, the Yes side advances slightly from 43.9 per cent to 44.7 per cent and the No side retires slightly from 56.1 per cent to 55.3 per cent.

Either way, nothing much changed and only a little over one in three voters voted for independence. Mr Peterkin’s point about timing, however, remains entirely valid.

JAMES BIRRELL Callanish, Methven Tom Peterkin makes a strong point in his article about the importance of timing on political results, and rightly identifies that Nicola Sturgeon might come to regret her haste in flagging the prospect of a second independence referendum in the wake of the Brexit result.

Yet as critical as timing has proven to be for politicians as diverse as David Cameron, Alex Salmond and Wendy Alexander, the deeper ramifications for the country at large seem at times to be lost on leaders embroiled in their personal political calculations.

The First Minister was so quick to link the Brexit result with the prospects of Scottish independence that it is tempting to wonder just how much reflection there was amongst Nicola Sturgeon and her top team about the potential impact of her plans on Scotland.

Many have pointed out the unnecessary risks of compounding the uncertainty of Brexit with the prospect of separating from the UK, not least because Ms Sturgeon’s approach of trying to leave the UK before it leaves the EU, holds the very real prospect of Scotland engineering itself into being a member of neither union while it tries to satisfy conditions of EU membership. Why should those making decisions about investment choose Scotland when its leader is so clearly willing to bet its future in pursuit of her lifelong ambition?

KEITH HOWELL West Linton, Peeblesshire