I'm paraphrasing in the post title above, but this is what Professor John Curtice of Strathclyde University actually told the House of Commons Justice Committee:
“…The other grumble in England, allegedly, which is about public spending - it’s not as obviously a grumble - or at least it’s not obviously as salient a grumble as perhaps you might imagine.
“What we’ve done here with this question is to simply ask people: Do you think Scotland gets more or less than its fair share of public spending? and we’ve asked it on both sides of the border.
“WE DON’T TELL PEOPLE - as most commercial polling evidence is done - that actually…what the difference in level of spending is, because that leads people, that makes it obvious to them what the difference is, OK?"
You are clearly saying that you don't inform people of the facts. No that IS NOT "OK"! How could you think it?
Here, the Constitution Unit describes Professor Curtis as a "polling expert". Not as I understand polls. They don't usually depend on not furnishing people with relevant information. And furnishing people with relevant information is not "leading them".
I'm indebted to Al Wilson on the CEP comment thread here for highlighting Professor Curtice's warped and hugely unfair sense of logic.