Lesley Riddoch: Scotswomen take the lead as gender gap in Yes support disappears

Actually, though it may seem contradictory – the answer could be yes to all the above.

Let’s start with the poll commissioned by Scot Goes Pop and published yesterday which suggests more than half of Scottish voters would back the next Holyrood election being used as an “opportunity to vote for or against independence”. James Kelly interprets that as backing for the Plan B option favoured by Chris McEleny and Angus Brendan MacNeil which anticipates that Boris Johnson will “dae an Osborne” and keep saying no to indyref2 no matter the size of the SNP’s likely majority in the May elections.

I wonder a wee bit about the wording of the Survation question: “Do you think pro-independence parties … should or should not include an outright independence pledge in their manifestos … to give people the opportunity to vote for or against independence?”

Is it clear that answering yes means thumbs up to Plan B and treating the forthcoming May 2021 elections as (effectively) indyref2?

READ MORE: Is George Osborne's indyref2 advice not just a joke at Boris Johnson's expense?

A few folk I’ve asked have not seen Plan B staring out of that question at all. Rather they thought it was asking about the importance of a clear commitment to independence in the SNP manifesto. Yes, that does seem like a statement of the bloomin’ obvious, but not everyone lives in Plan A or Plan B land and not everyone believes the SNP will include an indy commitment without a helpful kick up the posterior.

Looking at the way women responded suggests there was at least a bit of confusion about. Women were both less enthusiastic than men about treating the May poll as (essentially) indyref2 but also less opposed. They were also two-and-a-half times more likely than men to answer “don’t know”.

Does that prove women are just contrary bams – as some dismissive commentators concluded during the first indyref campaign? Or just more able to say, this doesn’t quite make sense?

Focusing on this tiny sub-result may seem pernickety in light of the bigger Survation poll finding – that women support Yes by 55% against 53% for men.

As James Kelly himself observes: “I’m fairly sure that will turn out to be a chance finding mostly caused by random sampling variation. My own view is that the gender gap has more or less disappeared and hasn’t [gone into] reverse.”

Still, that sampling variation does seem to be everywhere. A Savanta/ComRes poll published last week found 60% of women agree Scotland should be an independent country compared to 54% of men.

So, what is occurring?

There’s been a fair bit of speculation online.

Some think Nicola Sturgeon’s gradualist approach may be putting off gung-ho men (though it’d be a strange chap who wants independence so badly he’s prepared to vote No instead). Men were more likely to be pro-Brexit, and since Yes has become a fairly solid Remain vote too, that might be a factor. Or perhaps women are driving a surge in support for Scottish independence because it has become the least risky option for the future – in light of Brexit and a pandemic that’s had the greatest impact on working women with children.

This last point may be a lot closer to the truth than speculation about the impact of leaders and their personalities.

Way back in 2013, when a poll revealed only 28% of women planned to vote Yes against 41% of men (with 11% of both sexes are undecided), commentator John Curtice wrote: “Perhaps in inviting us to step boldly into a bright, but as yet unfamiliar future, the rhetoric of the Yes camp is one that resonates more with the hunter-gatherer, assertive side of our natures rather than our desire for calm and security. And stereotypical though the observation might be, maybe this appeals to fewer women than to their male, more macho counterparts.”

Well John, whaur’s yer cavemen noo?

It always struck me this was a tad o’er simplistic and the gender gap might be better explained by other factors.

But what if the safest path is now independence?

BREXIT has perhaps shown women that creating a separate Scottish state is perhaps the only way to maintain the status quo – the post-war settlement that prompted so many Scots to thole the Union for so long. It’s now being dismantled brick by brick in Westminster. Last week, it was the shameful drive to remove £20 from the poorest people on Universal Credit, this week it’s the notion of ditching statutory holiday pay, today it’s lowering the food standards that were going to stay at EU levels for the foreseeable future.

Safety through independence.

It’s not a heart-stopping slogan – but it might be an attractive one for many women.

A study of the 2011 Social Attitudes Survey (SSA) categorised 23% of men but only 10% of women as “heart” supporters of independence – people who would back change even if standards of living might fall.

ScotCen researcher, Rachel Ormston, observed that more men are “emotional” nationalists – supporting Scottish independence as a matter of conviction whilst: “The SNP is unlikely to convince women through appeals to national pride, freedom or other ‘emotional’ concepts. It will have to convince them through rational arguments about practical consequences.”

During the indyref that was hard to do. Claims, counter-claims, the downright lies of Project Fear and media debates full of rhetoric, fighting talk and highly technical debates about currency and deficits – in all of this, the practical focus of what independence might deliver was often missing. In 2012, I observed that: “Welfare and pensions made up 37% of UK public spending in 2012 – a more inclusive debate would ask how ‘women-friendly’ policies like affordable childcare and an early-years revolution could finally take place if that budget came north.”

Well since 2014 – we’ve been shown the answer.

The most visible change has certainly been the feminisation of the SNP. Beyond Nicola Sturgeon herself, charismatic personalities like Joanna Cherry and Mhairi Black and powerful new Cabinet members like Kate Forbes catch the ear and fill the headlines. But a more important policy change has been taking place, against the backdrop of austerity, Brexit and now Covid. The whole thrust of Holyrood over these six long years has been laid bare – its core purpose is to protect Scots from Westminster savagery.

READ MORE: Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: All of us in Scotland are expendable to the Tories

CERTAINLY, the building blocks of that instinct to protect were laid by others. It was Henry McLeish’s Labour Executive that brought in free personal care. It was individual Scots who challenged the Bedroom Tax in court. But the power to finally mitigate the most miserable measures of successive Tory governments with cash fell to Nicola Sturgeon’s administration and she’s used it big-time – blocking the writ of the Bedroom Tax in Scotland and making life more bearable for claimants on Universal Credit.

Next month, when Westminster removes £20 a week from UC claimants, low-income families in Scotland will be receiving the first Scottish Child Payments – a weekly payment of £10 for every child under the age of six.

It’s not enough – obviously.

But in this Tale of Two Governments we must endure awhile longer, it’s perfectly clear which one guarantees a future of right-wing dogmatic interference in everyday life and which instinctively acts to protect all of its citizens.

What can independence do for Scotland? Just look. The examples are all there before us – infinitely more powerful than empty promises.

As Joe Biden put it yesterday: “We will impress not by the example of our power but by the power of our example.”

It seems Scotswomen have already got the message.