Splitters

Over 100 academics put their names to a letter reported in the Herald today which was, in short, supportive of Scottish independence and positive about the opportunities it would bring to academia. And how did the Herald choose to report that fact? Under the headline "Academics divided on impact of a Yes vote" it said:

"ACADEMICS are split over the impact of independence on university research after more than 100 of them warned the real threat to Scotland's future comes from remaining part of the United Kingdom."

Is that not, on any view, a bizarrely misleading way to approach things? I don't remember any report of the views expressed by the No equivalent, "Academics Together", as starting off with the observation that the academic community was not unanimously united in its views. But the Herald has form here.
 
It has been breathtaking to watch over the last couple of years as campaigners and commentators have created an atmosphere where not only is it rendered respectable to articulate as a reason for voting No that you "hate Alex Salmond" but where No campaigners perfectly happily cite that as one of the two main reasons given to them by their own supporters:

Wings Over Scotland recently summarised things thus:

"Alex Salmond, throughout his political career but particularly since attaining power in 2007, has been subjected to the most relentless, remorseless barrage of personal smearing his political opponents and a mainly-hostile media can manage. He’s assailed almost daily with crude and often hysterical allegations of lying, along with various other slurs on his competence and character."

And all this has real, perfectly foreseeable effects.

I recall some fuss recently about the cost of providing security for the First Minister. I was only surprised at how low that cost was.

 

Yet despite this incessant (let's be charitable)  ad hominem tirade, one of the more surprising aspects of the campaign thus far has been the remarkable resiliance of the First Minister's ratings with voters. Wings again:

 "Yet he remains, challenged only by his own deputy, Scotland’s most popular and trusted politician by a country mile." 

That's been the case for some time. In August 2013, Panelbase asked 1,043 people aged 18 and over: "Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way the following political leader are doing their job?" The findings were:

 Alex Salmond: Very satisfied: 25%, Slightly satisfied: 23% (total 48%). Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 16%. Slightly dissatisfied: 14%, Very dissatisfied: 23% (total 37%). Overall rating +11.
David Cameron: Very satisfied: 5%, Slightly satisfied: 16% (total 21%). Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 13%. Slightly dissatisfied: 18%, Very dissatisfied: 48% (total 66%). Overall rating -45.
Ed Miliband: Very satisfied: 1%, Slightly satisfied: 12% (total 13%). Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 28%. Slightly dissatisfied: 20%, Very dissatisfied: 39% (total 59%). Overall rating -46
Nick Clegg: Very satisfied: 1% Slightly satisfied: 12% (total 13%). Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 21%. Slightly dissatisfied: 18%, Very dissatisfied: 48% (total 66%). Overall rating -53

 Just to make that clearer:

Alex Salmond: +11
David Cameron: -45
Ed Miliband: -46
Nick Clegg: -53

The Herald reported these startling results. The headline?:

"Poll: how Alex Salmond splits voter opinion"

That was what the Herald felt was the most useful, most accurate and most informative way to report that poll.

So. Really. We shouldn't be surprised.