Publication - Consultation analysis

Miners' strike 1984/85 pardon consultation: analysis of responses

Published: 17 Aug 2021

Findings from the analysis of the responses received to the consultation, which ran from 12 March 2021 to 4 June 2021.

Miners' strike 1984/85 pardon consultation: analysis of responses
Footnotes

Footnotes

1 Scottish Government (2021) Miners’ Strike 1984/85 Pardon: Consultation.

2 Scottish Government (2021) Miners’ Strike 1984/85 Pardon: Consultation.

3 Scottish Government (2020) Policing of the Miners’ Strike 1984-85 – Impact on communities: Independent review.

4 Question 11 in the offline consultation paper did not offer respondents the opportunity to tick a box to indicate their preferred response – where possible, however responses to the closed part of this question were ‘imputed’ based on the respondents’ comments. See paragraph 1.14 for a discussion of the approach taken in relation to imputing responses.

5 Of the personalised responses, 308 were received through the Scottish Government’s online consultation hub, and 10 were received by email or post.

6 Two further substantive responses were received from individuals after the closing date for the consultation. These responses were not included in the analysis. However, their content was considered and would not have changed the findings of the report.

7 Campaign responses were reviewed by the Scottish Government and confirmed to be identical with regard to the substance of the text submitted. No independent verification of the number or nature of the campaign responses was undertaken by the analysts.

8 The respondent made reference to the case of Cardle v Murray (8 1993 SLT 525).

9 This organisation submitted its response by email and used its own standardised template for submitting its answers to the consultation question. This response featured, and provided a view on, the following question: ‘Do you agree that miners who had been convicted of an offence before the strike began in March 1984 should be pardoned for offences committed before the strike?’ – rather than Question 6 set out in the consultation paper.

10 In fact, a small number of respondents who answered ‘yes’ at Question 8 also expressed one or more of these four views – which is possibly the result of confusion about the meaning of the question. In addition, a small number of respondents who answered ‘no’ at Question 8 expressed opposition to the principle of a pardon for miners, arguing that ‘They broke the law, so they pay the price’.


Contact

Email: minersstrikepardon@gov.scot