tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/scotland-decides-2014-12346/articlesScotland Decides 2014 – The Conversation2015-05-06T19:50:51Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/410982015-05-06T19:50:51Z2015-05-06T19:50:51ZThe Scottish questions linger, forcing a shift in British politics<p>Scotland’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/scotland-decides-14">independence referendum</a> last September captured the international imagination. Ultimately, Scotland’s electorate voted 55% to 45% to stay in the United Kingdom, but this is clearly not the end of the story.</p>
<p>Mainstream politics have been shaken up, especially in Scotland, and the political elite now has to confront a bigger issue: the ongoing evolution of its political landscape and the lingering confusion over the UK’s constitutional make-up.</p>
<h2>Referendum’s legacies live on</h2>
<p>One of the largest impacts and successes of the referendum was the mass mobilising of a political conversation at grassroots level. Certainly the guiding compass of the debate earned plaudits for being centred on a civic national question, not an ethnic one. </p>
<p>Arguably this debate, with the exception of its extremes, was not about nationalism at all. Rather, it was about a contemporary internationalism and a new settlement between nations (the UK is a collection of nations after all). </p>
<p>Certainly, there was to be no simple disappearing of “Britain” with independence. For example, the monarchy would have remained. Unless a separate referendum on a republic was held, the monarchy is British (that is, there is technically no Queen of England), made from a union of the Scottish and English crowns.</p>
<p>Importantly, much of the referendum debate centred on issues of social justice and social democracy outcomes, on protecting the National Health Service from privatisation and starting to unhitch from the neo-liberal economic agenda of mainstream Westminster. Oh, and Trident – there is a strong anti-nuclear weapons edge to the Scottish electorate’s concerns, as the UK nuclear arsenal is housed in deep water on the west coast of Scotland.</p>
<p>Social media massively aided this grassroots engagement with politics. The Yes camp was particularly active and successful in this regard, and did so across traditional party lines – to mobilise for a movement and not for a specific party (the SNP). In the end, 45% voting for independence probably surprised many people. It was a very close call.</p>
<p>The vote may well have been more like a 50-50 result had the Westminster leaders not all high-tailed it to Scotland in the final week of the referendum campaign. They campaigned hard to reinforce their relatively negative strategy of focusing on the economic risks of leaving the UK and some hasty promises on further devolution for Scotland.</p>
<h2>‘Business as usual’ approach fails</h2>
<p>Nevertheless, the referendum outcome has not led to a return to the status quo – at least, not as much as the mainstream Westminster UK parties had hoped for. In fact, the Westminster response and “business as usual” approach has been perceived as an obdurate dismissal of the Scottish electorate’s concerns.</p>
<p>For example, after promising in the wake of the referendum to deliver more on Scotland’s concerns for devolution, the Westminster and media debate quickly gravitated to discussion on a perceived democratic deficit and a stoking up of Scotland versus England rhetoric. This included debates over the democratic deficit for English voters, with the Conservatives and UK Independence Party (UKIP) playing on petty nationalist fears by proposing EVEL (<a href="https://theconversation.com/dilly-dallying-coalition-is-still-baffled-by-the-english-question-35606">English Votes for English Laws</a>) at Westminster. </p>
<p>Therein lies the conceit because there is a default assumption that Westminster is a de facto English parliament, which it is not: it is a British parliament and responsible to represent all of the UK’s constituent interests. So confusion reigns, with strategies of playing on the fears and misapprehension of voters as a mode of realpolitik due to the small matter of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/uk-general-election-2015">UK general election</a> on May 7 (and the need to shore up English confidence in Westminster). </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/29/the-sun-backs-the-tories-for-election-but-scottish-edition-backs-the-snp">front pages of the UK and Scottish editions</a> of The Sun (a Murdoch instrument) – one endorsing the Conservatives, the other the SNP – neatly sum up the aspirations of both the paper and the Conservatives in terms of keeping Labour out of office.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80402/original/image-20150505-8421-14df75b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80402/original/image-20150505-8421-14df75b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80402/original/image-20150505-8421-14df75b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80402/original/image-20150505-8421-14df75b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80402/original/image-20150505-8421-14df75b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80402/original/image-20150505-8421-14df75b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80402/original/image-20150505-8421-14df75b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Sun newspaper headlines for the UK and Scottish editions.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Nevertheless, and to his credit, Labour leader <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2015-32560887">Ed Miliband has pushed back</a> against the stirring of petty nationalism in England, recognising that the Conservative strategy is to divide and rule.</p>
<h2>SNP reshapes electoral calculus</h2>
<p>The problem for Labour is that the party is on the verge of a <a href="http://may2015.com/featured/election-2015-will-half-of-scotland-vote-for-the-snp-their-poll-lead-has-only-strengthened/">wipe-out in Scotland</a>, and Labour has always depended on a significant swathe of Scottish seats to form a government in Westminster. Indeed, Labour may well still <a href="http://may2015.com/featured/election-2015-do-polls-and-predictions-now-suggest-david-cameron-can-win/">depend on Scottish seats but with SNP MPs</a> sitting in them. </p>
<p>The SNP is widely predicted to win around 55 of Scotland’s 59 seats come the morning of May 8. The party currently has only six seats and in UK terms has been relatively insignificant. Not any more.</p>
<p>Yet mis-direction is freely available; not least due to the highly complex nature of UK constitutional arrangements and its election process. If you were to go by the BBC poll tracker below, then you’d really have no sense that the SNP is not only a credible political force but on the verge of being the <a href="http://may2015.com/category/seat-calculator/">third-largest political party</a> in the UK, where it may well remain for a generation.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80399/original/image-20150505-8415-z80xjp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80399/original/image-20150505-8415-z80xjp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/80399/original/image-20150505-8415-z80xjp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=347&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80399/original/image-20150505-8415-z80xjp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=347&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80399/original/image-20150505-8415-z80xjp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=347&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80399/original/image-20150505-8415-z80xjp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=436&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80399/original/image-20150505-8415-z80xjp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=436&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/80399/original/image-20150505-8415-z80xjp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=436&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A screenshot from the BBC’s online Election 2015: Poll Tracker.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Going by this poll, UKIP appears in a strong position but can only really expect to win a few seats. The SNP is not even on the chart (but mixed in with “Others”) and yet can feasibly win between 54 and 59 seats. The SNP membership has surged and is the third-largest party membership in the UK – well over 100,000 and only just short of the Conservative’s membership numbers – so the party is also becoming wealthy. </p>
<h2>Establishment politics under challenge</h2>
<p>It is the current system that has both caused confusion and enabled this political shift, and the establishment is doing its best to shout it all down as if it’s some sort of undemocratic revolution. Of course, they don’t want the challenge to appear to be a legitimate threat to their own party-political rhetoric on democracy.</p>
<p>It is clear that a shift is happening. One of the most edifying outcomes of election is the prominence of woman politicians in the shape of the leaders of the Greens (Natalie Bennett), Plaid Cymru (Leanne Wood) and the SNP (Nicola Sturgeon). All have performed with and inspired confidence.</p>
<p>Sturgeon has performed <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/02/nicola-sturgeon-im-the-boss-now">particularly well to a UK audience</a>, with voters in England even wondering if they could vote for her or the SNP. In fact, she is not even standing for Westminster election and the SNP (as you might expect) is not contesting any seats outside Scotland.</p>
<p>What is certain is that after May 7 it is out of the electorate’s hands. Come May 27, a party or coalition must win the confidence of the House of Commons to deliver the Queen’s speech to form a government. </p>
<p>Confusion reigns? To quote Francis Urquhart from the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz8RjPAD2Jk">original House of Cards</a>: you might very well think that, but of course, I couldn’t possibly comment.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>You can read more of The Conversation’s comprehensive UK election coverage <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/election-2015">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41098/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Oliver does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Last year’s independence referendum failed narrowly, but the Scottish electorate has emerged as a force that may well decide who forms the next British government.James Oliver, Senior Lecturer, Centre for Cultural Partnerships, Faculty of the VCA and MCM, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/375842015-02-17T05:47:58Z2015-02-17T05:47:58Z#indyref: the Scottish media and the independence referendum<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72075/original/image-20150216-13211-ihcebt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/scotland-decides-14">Scottish independence referendum</a> held in September 2014 provoked a public debate of unprecedented intensity and divisiveness in Scotland. Polls indicated a very close outcome and the real possibility that the United Kingdom would be broken up. </p>
<p>By its end, a mood of political crisis had gripped not just Scotland, but the UK as a whole. Coverage of the referendum reflected the view of many in Britain that major change in the structure and political configuration of a leading global power was imminent.</p>
<p>The anxieties, as it turned out, were exaggerated. When the votes were counted 55.3% had chosen “No” to independence, and 44.7% “Yes”. Although this ten-point gap was much larger than pre-poll opinion surveys had indicated – on the weekend before the poll, the Sunday Times, for example, predicted a small lead for the pro-independence camp – the pro-Union side had been leading opinion polls ever since the referendum was called by Alex Salmond in 2011. </p>
<p>In this sense, a “No” outcome was not surprising, even if the scale of the victory was.</p>
<p>Many were surprised, nonetheless. Those who had predicted a much closer outcome, even a “Yes” win, included some of the key media covering the campaign, such as the Sunday Times and the Herald. </p>
<p>These and other established media in Scotland were prominent in reporting the referendum campaign, but in the unique circumstances of a referendum to dissolve an existing, 300-year-old nation (or multi-nation) state, digital media outlets also played a major role. </p>
<p>While the legacy media in print and broadcast channels remain the primary source of news for most people in Scotland as elsewhere, the rise of the internet and networked digital media are steadily eroding their dominance. Audiences for print and broadcast are migrating online, including to social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter where news content can be shared, and users can themselves contribute to political debate.</p>
<p>These platforms have become arenas of debate between friends and colleagues (as in Facebook) and also between opposing sides (Twitter), with the latter in particular becoming a space for unbridled, aggressive, often offensive and abusive commentary between rival positions and camps. Terms such as “shil”, “flaming” and “trolling” have become part of everyday language in response to the growing use of social media not merely to share content and debate issues, but to wage virtual war against one’s perceived political opponents and enemies.</p>
<p>The 2014 Scottish referendum can be seen as groundbreaking in the role played by social media, and Twitter in particular. So how did the entrance of these new platforms impact the outcome? Was the unexpectedness of the majority “No” vote related to the fact that the “Yes” campaign was especially active on digital channels? Did the prominence of Facebook and Twitter in the campaign lead to a misleading impression of the popularity of the “Yes” position?</p>
<h2>Legacy media and the independence referendum</h2>
<p>Scotland’s distinctiveness and sense of identity as a nation within the multi-nation UK is rooted in the presence of distinctively Scottish institutions such as the Church of Scotland, the legal and education systems, and <a href="http://www.euppublishing.com/book/9780748628001?template=toc&">the media</a>. Some of the oldest newspapers in the world were established in Scotland, and have contributed to what is by common agreement a uniquely Scottish public sphere, connected to but separate from that of the UK as a whole. </p>
<p>The devolution settlement of 1998, facilitated by the election of a New Labour government at Westminster, gave constitutional expression to this long-standing political reality. </p>
<p>In addition to the UK-wide media which are available north of the border with England, Scotland as of 2014 supported ten newspapers with “national” – that is, Scotland-wide – reach, such as the Daily Record and Sunday Mail, the Scotsman and Scotland On Sunday, the Herald and Sunday Herald, the West Highland Free Press and Aberdeen Press and Journal. Of these, the first six named above were the dominant outlets in terms of circulation and readership.</p>
<p>Scottish editions of London-based titles such as The Sun and Daily Mail were also prominent. The Murdoch-owned Sun overtook the mass circulation Record in 2006 – an achievement reported at the time as a major turning point in the evolution of the Scottish media.</p>
<p>All of these titles were launched and subsequently prospered within the political framework of the Union of 1707. Until the resurgence of Scottish nationalism as an electoral force after the establishment of the Scottish parliament, all were “pro” unionist, reporting politics and public affairs within a framework which took the UK as a given rather than a contested entity. In other words, while Scotland has had a rich national press ever since the Edinburgh Enlightenment, the main titles have never been nationalist.</p>
<p>This pro-union consensus reflected the views of the Scottish people, who had in three centuries never expressed majority support for independence. Throughout the 20th century, support for full separation from the UK hovered around the 25% mark. After 2007 did that figure began to rise, in what many observers have suggested was a response to the unpopularity of the Labour Party in Westminster, who were blamed for Britain’s active involvement in the Iraq war and for the economic and financial crisis of 2008.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72076/original/image-20150216-13215-tlnojn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72076/original/image-20150216-13215-tlnojn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=343&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72076/original/image-20150216-13215-tlnojn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=343&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72076/original/image-20150216-13215-tlnojn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=343&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72076/original/image-20150216-13215-tlnojn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=432&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72076/original/image-20150216-13215-tlnojn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=432&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72076/original/image-20150216-13215-tlnojn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=432&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Scottish voters first turned to the SNP in large numbers in 2007, giving the party a narrow mandate to lead the parliament in Edinburgh. Between 2007 and 2011, the SNP led a minority government in partnership with the Greens. The SNP achieved a full majority in the 2011 Scottish parliamentary election, upon which basis its leader, Alex Salmond, called the referendum. Only at that point did public support for independence, as opposed to an SNP government in Holyrood, begin to rise significantly above the long-term average.</p>
<p>In this context, a pro-Union consensus among the Scottish media prior to the referendum debate was not evidence of ideological bias so much as an accurate reflection of public opinion as expressed in elections over many decades. The SNP argued otherwise, of course, and in 2005 the weekly Scottish Standard was launched to try to redress the balance in advance of that year’s general election. </p>
<p>With a brief to support the nationalist cause and the SNP, the Scottish Standard never sold more than 12,000 copies of any edition, and closed after seven issues. In the subsequent election, the SNP obtained only 17.7% of the Scottish vote, compared to the combined 78% of unionist parties. Popular support for nationalism at this time simply could not sustain a newspaper.</p>
<p>The SNP’s share of the vote in Scotland began to climb not long after this election. The party won minority power in the Scottish parliamentary election of 2007, with a landslide majority in 2011. However, as the referendum was called, there was still no Scottish newspaper which openly editorialised in support of the SNP’s key policy goal of independence. </p>
<p>And at this point, with the nationalist movement unambiguously elected to run Scotland, claims of a media bias against it acquired greater resonance.</p>
<p>The first newspaper to depart from the Unionist consensus and support a “Yes” vote in the 2014 referendum was the Glasgow-based, US-owned Sunday Herald, which declared its position in an editorial of May 4 that year, nearly five months in advance of the poll. Its daily sister title, the Herald, remained in the Unionist camp, while stressing that its coverage had been and would continue to be “rigorous and impartial” towards both sides. </p>
<p>Of the remaining national Scottish newspapers which expressed a preference, such as the Sunday Post and Scotland On Sunday, all advocated “No” to independence on September 18. In this sense, there was a clear Scottish press bias in favour of the Union given that on the day some 45% of the electorate voted against it.</p>
<p>The broadcast media retained, as they are legally required to do, due impartiality in coverage of the campaign. However, the SNP and many Yes supporters repeatedly accused the BBC of pro-Union bias, citing examples such as the adversarial tone of interviews with SNP leader Alex Salmond conducted by senior BBC journalists Andrew Marr and Nick Robertson. </p>
<p>The BBC was accused of favouring the No campaign in various ways, such as leaks of sensitive information to the No campaign. In June 2014, Yes campaigners protested outside the BBC Scotland offices in Glasgow, and Salmond accused the BBC of bias a few days before the poll.</p>
<p>The BBC’s difficulties in maintaining a public perception of impartiality around independence arose, one can argue, from the very nature of the debate, in which one side, representing a small minority of the total UK population,and less than a majority of Scots, sought the dissolution of the UK. Given that the BBC is the <strong>British</strong> Broadcasting Corporation, and that the referendum was essentially a debate for or against the continued existence of Britain, the question of how the campaign should have been reported was more than usually contentious, and could not have been otherwise.</p>
<p>The BBC serves the UK as a whole, where the majority of the population was undoubtedly against Scottish independence. In that context, would absolute balance as between advocates of Yes and No be necessary for the provision of due impartiality? </p>
<p>For the same reason that the BBC is not balanced as between moderate and extreme Islam, or with respect to nationalist movements in England such as the English Defence League, it may reasonably be argued that the 44.7% of Scottish residents who voted Yes on September 18 – 1,618,000 people, or 2.5% of the UK population – could not have expected the BBC to behave other than it did in the campaign.</p>
<p>Coverage of the pro-independence position was substantial, respectful, and in the main uncontroversial. But the existence of the UK was self-evidently a fact, and the independence campaign an attack on the British state. Could the BBC reasonably have adopted a neutral position in a debate that, had the Yes campaign been victorious, would have meant its end in its current form?</p>
<p>We await a detailed content analysis of the coverage, but the allegations of bias made by the Yes camp are not in themselves reliable evidence that the BBC did not show due impartiality. On the contrary, there is a long history of complaints of bias against the BBC from advocacy groups who feel that their cause has not been adequately represented, and that this is one of the main reasons why others have failed to support them in their cause. </p>
<p>Criticism of the BBC from the SNP during the campaign was widely recognised as an attempt to influence coverage. Several commentators expressed concern that an independent, SNP-led Scotland would seek to impose a dangerous level of pro-nationalist ideological conformity on the media. Calls from SNP supporters for the sacking of BBC journalists judged to be anti-independence conveyed to many an unpleasant sense of what it might be like to live in an SNP-dominated state.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72072/original/image-20150216-13206-7eg7bw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72072/original/image-20150216-13206-7eg7bw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72072/original/image-20150216-13206-7eg7bw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72072/original/image-20150216-13206-7eg7bw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72072/original/image-20150216-13206-7eg7bw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72072/original/image-20150216-13206-7eg7bw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72072/original/image-20150216-13206-7eg7bw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Andy Rain</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>#indyref and the digital media</h2>
<p>In the Scottish referendum campaign, social media usage reached levels of visibility and influence never before seen in UK politics, influencing the shape and tone of mainstream coverage and driving campaign tactics in new and unfamiliar ways. For example, 2.6 million tweets about the referendum were sent in the 24-hour period between 7am on September 18 and 7am on the 19th (polling day). Research by scholars at the University of Strathclyde recorded ten million Facebook interactions in the five weeks before the vote. </p>
<p>Clearly, people were engaged in this debate to a degree rarely seen in British politics hitherto, and used social media to articulate their views, share articles they agreed with (or disagreed with), and communicate with others on the issues.</p>
<p>Where Scotland’s print and broadcast media were in the main pro-Union or “impartial” (given that their impartiality has been contested), social media provided space for subjectivity, opinion and overt ideological bias to be expressed. In this campaign, as never before in the UK, social media emerged not merely as a tool of communication, but as a weapon in a political campaign of huge constitutional significance. </p>
<p>Also, the globally networked nature of social media allowed people like this author, denied a vote because not resident in Scotland, to participate in the debate with an immediacy and impact which would not have been possible in the pre-internet age.</p>
<p>The subjectivity of social media also made it a hub for fierce debate, extending at times to abuse of the kind that has often accompanied the rise of nationalism in Europe. JK Rowling was described as a “bitch” by one online outlet after donating money to the No campaign. Many celebrities, Scottish and English, including David Bowie, who declared solidarity with and affection for the Scots and support for the United Kingdom, were attacked online with varying degrees of vitriol. Scots like this author who advocated for No in blog posts and tweets were denounced as traitors to the nationalist cause, undeserving of a voice.</p>
<p>Independence supporters, conversely, were described in some of the more aggressive pro-Union posts as “nazis”. Critics of the BBC’s alleged bias against the Yes camp were compared with Vladimir Putin and the efforts of Russian nationalists to close down dissent. For extremists on both sides, social media provided a platform for a distinctly uncivil dialogue to unfold.</p>
<p>That said, advocates of separatism were by common agreement more active and better organised online, contributing to a political environment in which, as the big day approached, independence came to be seen as a likely outcome of the vote on September 18. The volume of the “cybernats” drowned out what we might call the silent majority of No voters, who revealed themselves only on polling day.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72079/original/image-20150216-13215-1svnlp9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/72079/original/image-20150216-13215-1svnlp9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72079/original/image-20150216-13215-1svnlp9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72079/original/image-20150216-13215-1svnlp9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72079/original/image-20150216-13215-1svnlp9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72079/original/image-20150216-13215-1svnlp9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/72079/original/image-20150216-13215-1svnlp9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The Scottish independence campaign was a watershed in the growing centrality of social media within democratic politics. While the mainstream media played largely within the rules of the analog era, striving to maintain due impartiality and balance in the case of public service broadcasting, and adopting editorial positions for or against independence in the case of some newspapers (though not all), online and social media provided a platform and arena for a more partisan and polarised debate.</p>
<p>The online dominance of the pro-independence camp did not, however, translate into a majority of Yes votes on the day, suggesting that Twitter and Facebook are not yet (and may never be) powerful enough cultural forces to shift public opinion. They are useful tools for committed activists and opinionated voices of all affiliations, but should not be seen as guides to the views and voting intentions of the larger majority.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This is the English-language version of an article published by Norwegian website <a href="http://voxpublica.no/2015/02/indyref-sosiale-medier-ga-skjevt-inntrykk-av-folkemeningen/">Voxpublica</a> on February 6, 2015.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37584/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
The Scottish independence referendum held in September 2014 provoked a public debate of unprecedented intensity and divisiveness in Scotland. Polls indicated a very close outcome and the real possibility…Brian McNair, Professor of Journalism, Media and Communication, Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/319092014-09-19T11:20:50Z2014-09-19T11:20:50ZUS happy that democracy and union win the day in the UK<p>The average American may struggle with a keen understanding of exactly how the UK is made up, but it’s safe to say that there will be relief in the US at Scotland staying part of the Union. And, following a well-fought campaign by both sides, <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-uk-survives-as-scotland-votes-no-to-independence-31904">victory for the Better Together campaign</a> is one that Americans can respect and support.</p>
<p>Even though we have a “special relationship” with the UK, that relationship does not always extend to a close awareness of the differences among its constituent parts: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I shudder to admit that many Americans default to using the term “England” when referring to any or all of the component nations of the UK. </p>
<p>So, how do you truly ask someone to comment on the Scottish referendum debate when any explanation of what is happening has to start with the educational introduction: “Did you see the movie Braveheart?”</p>
<p>But basic historical and geographical ignorance is not the only problem for us Americans. We see the world through the lens of our own history. We are not an ethnic nation drawn together by a common past. We are an immigrant nation – although we too often forget that – bound together by the ideas of freedom, democracy and opportunity.</p>
<h2>A constitutional referendum?</h2>
<p>For Americans it is not easy to understand why a people who are already free and democratic and live in a land of opportunity would want to reshape their political bonds. Forever scarred by our own Civil War, many of us also hold dear <a href="http://www.ushistory.org/us/33.asp">Abraham Lincoln’s ringing words</a>: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Why would the United Kingdom want to divide against itself?</p>
<p>Finally, many Americans don’t understand that not all great democracies have written constitutions. My students have asked me: “Under what right can Scotland hold a referendum on its own independence?” They imagine that, as in the United States, a referendum to dissolve the Union by one of its constituent parts must be unconstitutional. </p>
<p>For Americans, our constitution is perceived as the nation’s highest will, higher than any other time-bound democratic expression of its own desires. This is not an ideal shared by many parliamentary democracies. So even at this transcendent moment in the history of the UK, it is hard for many Americans to thoughtfully evaluate the events of this week.</p>
<h2>Campaigns well-fought</h2>
<p>At the same time, we Americans admire an ideal of which we, alas, often fall short. That is an ideal of a true civic nationalism where the sovereign boundaries of your state are determined by the greatest good for the greatest number rather than the self-interest of a majority ethnic group. We admired the referendum campaign precisely because it was an unadulterated celebration of civic nationalism on both sides, rather than a tawdry attempt to appeal to narrow symbols of ethnicity such as kilts or haggis. </p>
<p>We Americans could learn from the civic high mindedness of the Scots during the campaign. Our own campaigns often fall well short of these high ideals. Even our neighbours in Quebec look like narrow-minded ethnic nationalists when comparing their 1980 and 1995 referendum campaigns to the Scottish campaign of 2014.</p>
<h2>Adding up the numbers</h2>
<p>Like the next American, I love a campaign well fought; but like most Americans, I never thought the Yes would win. Being a student of Scotland, nationalism and independence referendums, I just don’t think the numbers ever added up. </p>
<p>History has repeatedly shown that these referendums are decided by those people who respond to pre-election polls that they <a href="http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/independence-referendum-debate-undecided-voters-4107327">“don’t know”</a> how they will vote. If you have not decided yet whether you want to create your own state, with all the potential risk that entails, you are unlikely to join the Yes camp in the last three days. I always knew turnout would be high and the undecided voters would vote overwhelmingly No, safely tipping the balance in favour of the No side. </p>
<p>Although whether Scotland ever becomes independent will probably have a negligible impact on the United States, Americans don’t think that way. We still worry about the “snowball effect”. The collapse of the Soviet Union created a snowball effect that led to the <a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Third_Wave.html?id=6REC58gdt2sC">rapid democratisation</a> of many states, lacking the social structures to establish consolidated, free democracies. Instead, we are left with many democracies with authoritarian tendencies that make today’s world such a complex place for the US to manage.</p>
<p>Similarly, we feared that Scottish independence would result in a wave of velvet divorces throughout Europe in places like <a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-vote-may-change-little-in-catalonia-but-camerons-an-unlikely-hero-there-31652">Catalonia</a>, Euskadi, Flanders, Wallonia and others. This wave could spread out beyond Europe and a world we cannot manage now will surely spin out of our control. </p>
<p>This, of course, is both a scary and simplistic fear. But, of course, what do you expect from a country that believes that constitutional order is a higher ideal than the democratic will of the people and relies on Mel Gibson to explain Scottish history?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31909/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Saul Newman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The average American may struggle with a keen understanding of exactly how the UK is made up, but it’s safe to say that there will be relief in the US at Scotland staying part of the Union. And, following…Saul Newman, Associate Professor, Department of Government, American University School of Public AffairsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/319152014-09-19T08:47:44Z2014-09-19T08:47:44ZCameron makes lightning bid to be the great British reformer<p>The Flower of Scotland may well be blooming but a number of thorny issues face the prime minister and the leaders of the main parties in the UK. The prime minister’s commitment to a “<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/david-cameron-devolution-revolution-uk-scotland-vote">new and fair constitutional settlement</a>”, not just for Scotland but for the whole of the United Kingdom may well reflect the need to think in a joined-up manner about constitutional reform and the devolution of power but the simple rhetoric cannot veil the complexity of the challenges ahead. </p>
<p>Instead of waking up as the prime minister who dis-united the UK, David Cameron has suddenly emerged as the great reforming prime minister. Democracy could not be ducked, hard choices had to be made, democratic pressures vented and now Scotland had clearly spoken in favour of staying in the Union.</p>
<p>But what next? The status quo is not an option. <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29213418">Rushed commitments were made by all the main parties</a> in the past two weeks, commitment in relation to tax, spending and welfare, and must now be delivered, diluted or derailed. “We have a chance – a great opportunity – to change the way the British people are governed,” the prime minister declared with a relieved and somewhat shell-shocked look on his face. “Just as the people of Scotland will have more power over their affairs, so it follows that the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland must have a bigger say over theirs.”</p>
<p>Two constitutional entrepreneurs have been given the taks of answering this question. <a href="http://www.strath.ac.uk/officers/bio/chancellor/">Lord Smith of Kelvin</a> will lead on the delivery of those commitments that have been made to Scotland, while William Hague becomes (in essence) a new Secretary of State for the Isles with the job of dealing with the English question, the West Lothian question and the ratchet-like demands for more powers from Wales and Northern Ireland. </p>
<h2>But what are we trying to achieve?</h2>
<p>This is the million-dollar question where answers are sparse. <a href="http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/pluralismvpopulism">David Marquand</a> once accused New Labour of overseeing a very British constitutional revolution. It was “a revolution of sleepwalkers who don’t know quite where they are going or quite why”, Marquand noted. “But muddle and mess are often the midwives of change.”</p>
<p>This may well be true but I cannot help but think that Cameron now risks unleashing a constitutional revolution forged upon ridiculously rapid hyper-activism. The timescales set out will bring tears to the eyes of even the driest constitutional anorak – constitutional agreements decided and mapped out by November with draft legislation published by January 2015. Such speed brings risks and little time for any public engagement beyond the shallowest tokenism. </p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/map-how-scotland-voted-in-the-independence-referendum-31907">Scotland has spoken</a> and the rest of the UK has listened. Democracy has triumphed but now is not the time for constitutional hyper-activism. At the very least there is a case for delivering what has been promised to Scotland before then pausing to draw breath before considering the spill-over effects for the rest of the UK. My message to the three main party leaders is therefore clear: a new constitutional settlement cannot be rushed.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31915/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Flinders does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Flower of Scotland may well be blooming but a number of thorny issues face the prime minister and the leaders of the main parties in the UK. The prime minister’s commitment to a “new and fair constitutional…Matthew Flinders, Founding Director of the Sir Bernard Crick Centre for the Public Understanding of Politics , University of SheffieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/318552014-09-18T13:46:20Z2014-09-18T13:46:20ZHard Evidence: #indyref – why the bookies expect No to win<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59432/original/3sygppw2-1411038038.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Have the bookies got it right?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/velvetjo/15083350900/in/photolist-oYS7J9-djX85X-djWZLc-buzG28-buzFtk-51onL4-pgCRxT-naHwpg-oUG6tg-bvuGJM-pgxuVV-eiRqMH-9Fpp8N-51oo32-bvuGMt-p7rqW5-bvuGAB-51szs5-pabsNy-51szE1-oDHSzR-51sxqq-51okhB-eHHG2z-hnyimi-oP9pQm-or7fJg-51ooTn-51sx9f-m71mba-51okB4-o9ChiL-paqHpZ-oTdbeu-p7rBmc-ofvQ96-oqU3Js-oYB6bN-dkSkFP-51ooAr-oRw1rC-op68C7-eFfcTu-eFfcYE-oqU5Eb-ordfgv-oqVXLV-o9HChm-ordfkP-nNAU4R">Vol'turdu</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The only question worth asking right now is, who’s going to win? Bookmakers’ odds should be fairly representative of movements in sentiment around the debate, so they can be a great guide to what is happening during the referendum campaign. What follows is my analysis of what the bookmakers think will be the outcome of the independence referendum, updating and deepening <a href="https://theconversation.com/are-bookies-having-a-change-of-heart-about-the-scottish-independence-referendum-31147">the piece I wrote for The Conversation</a> a couple of weeks ago. I’ve used data from 23 bookmakers published between April 1 and September 17. </p>
<p>Even in the day before the vote, there is a great deal of change with the average decimal odds for a Yes vote at about 10/3 (4.3 in decimal odds), which had drifted out from less than 3/1 (or 3.9) the day before. There’s a bit of movement that isn’t quite consistent. Fourteen of the bookmakers have odds which are lengthening for a No vote, while six show odds reducing. But the typical No vote is 2/9 (1.2), so at this point there is still a fairly wide gap in the odds.</p>
<p><strong>Betting on a Yes vote, May 1 to September 17</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59422/original/jjcvgyt4-1411033533.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59422/original/jjcvgyt4-1411033533.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59422/original/jjcvgyt4-1411033533.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=411&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59422/original/jjcvgyt4-1411033533.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=411&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59422/original/jjcvgyt4-1411033533.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=411&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59422/original/jjcvgyt4-1411033533.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=517&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59422/original/jjcvgyt4-1411033533.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=517&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59422/original/jjcvgyt4-1411033533.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=517&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bill Buchanan</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The past 30 days have seen most of the action (see figure below), which will come as no surprise. The key turn-around in the odds for the No vote happened after August 22, several days before the <a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-decides-14-salmond-strikes-back-in-tv-debate-but-will-it-be-a-game-changer-30892">second TV debate</a> that did so much for the Yes campaign. At that point the odds for Yes were in some cases further out than 5/1. Their subsequent move inwards as everything suggested Yes had the momentum hit a plateau in the period between September 7 and 10 beneath 2/1 (2.78). Then they rose back to almost 7/2, spent four days coming back in, and then moved out again in the past day – perhaps reflecting the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11103258/Scotland-will-reject-independence-but-only-just-says-biggest-poll-so-far.html">small lead</a> in the polls for a No vote. The odds for a No vote are now approximately where they were in early May. </p>
<p><strong>The odds for a Yes vote over the past 30 days</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59425/original/wm3q32rq-1411035796.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59425/original/wm3q32rq-1411035796.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59425/original/wm3q32rq-1411035796.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59425/original/wm3q32rq-1411035796.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59425/original/wm3q32rq-1411035796.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59425/original/wm3q32rq-1411035796.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59425/original/wm3q32rq-1411035796.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59425/original/wm3q32rq-1411035796.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bill Buchanan</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Percentage share of the vote and turnout</h2>
<p>But what do the bookies think the actual outcome will be, beyond backing No as the winner? If you analyse the figures, they reflect the closeness of the vote. The betting on Yes ending up with between 45% and 50% of the vote is almost evens. The chances of a lower Yes vote are greater than those of a higher Yes vote, though, according to the bookmakers. You can get about 5/2 (3.5 in decimal odds) on Yes finishing at 40% to 45%, but over 4/1 (5.1) on a 50% to 55% Yes. All the same, the chances of this kind of narrow Yes win are still higher than a heavy defeat in No’s favour. The odds of Yes finishing at 40% or lower are nudging 6/1 (6.8). </p>
<p><strong>The final Yes vote (September 17 odds)</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59424/original/3zgsjvv8-1411034756.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59424/original/3zgsjvv8-1411034756.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59424/original/3zgsjvv8-1411034756.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=391&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59424/original/3zgsjvv8-1411034756.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=391&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59424/original/3zgsjvv8-1411034756.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=391&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59424/original/3zgsjvv8-1411034756.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59424/original/3zgsjvv8-1411034756.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59424/original/3zgsjvv8-1411034756.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bill Buchanan</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Another interesting question, which will probably affect what happens to the outcome, is turnout. As many as 97% of people <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/11/referendum-registered-voters-scotland-four-million-97-per-cent">have registered</a> to vote and the received wisdom is that turnout <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29235191">could be 80%+</a>. </p>
<p>The bookmakers think it will be higher still. The possibilities break down as follows: </p>
<p>Over 85%: 8/5 </p>
<p>80%–85%: 2/1</p>
<p>75%–80%: 5/2</p>
<p>70%–75%: 9/2</p>
<p>65%–70%: 16/1</p>
<h2>Geographical trends</h2>
<p>In terms of voting for the place that is most likely to have the strongest Yes vote, Dundee has been out in front for many months, with current odds of them having the largest Yes vote at two to one (1.5). Of the areas which are the strongest Yes backers, it is difficult to generalise. But the Highland areas and the west of Scotland tend in that direction strongest, while the south, east and northern isles are least keen on independence. Overall the major population areas on the east coast of Scotland, apart from Dundee, are generally in the bottom half of the geographical split. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59444/original/th82nvbh-1411045204.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59444/original/th82nvbh-1411045204.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59444/original/th82nvbh-1411045204.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59444/original/th82nvbh-1411045204.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59444/original/th82nvbh-1411045204.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59444/original/th82nvbh-1411045204.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=578&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59444/original/th82nvbh-1411045204.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=578&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59444/original/th82nvbh-1411045204.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=578&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bill Buchanan</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As useful as all this analysis is in tracking sentiment, it must be said there is a strange dynamic going on in the betting market. The polls are saying it is close, but the bookmakers are not reflecting that. It is a reminder that, just like with the opinion polls, bookmaker odds are only best guesses on what will happen – and are swayed by customer demand. It has been a vote in which most of the printed media outlets have backed the No campaign, but in these days of social media, they are not necessarily the main outlets for information or the best reflections of what has been happening.</p>
<p>To end on a disappointing note, Betfair <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-betfair-pay-out-on-no-vote-1-3543402">has already started</a> to pay out on a No vote, as they reckon it is 78% certain. In fact, that’s the odds of not pulling out the ace of spades from among four ace cards. I may do maths and not politics, but I do understand that 78% is nowhere near certain. Will they end up looking stupid after the announcement? We won’t have to wait long to find out.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31855/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bill Buchanan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The only question worth asking right now is, who’s going to win? Bookmakers’ odds should be fairly representative of movements in sentiment around the debate, so they can be a great guide to what is happening…Bill Buchanan, Head, Centre for Distributed Computing, Networks and Security, Edinburgh Napier UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/318512014-09-18T06:13:08Z2014-09-18T06:13:08ZThis Scot tips an agonising ‘no’ befitting a melancholy nationalism<p>On Friday morning, I, an expatriate “British Scot”, could wake up to find that I have lost my identity. Because <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-independence-referendum-in-scotland-a-beginners-guide-31496">today Scottish voters might decide</a> that a United Kingdom that includes Scotland ought no longer to exist.</p>
<p>It will all depend on the answer to a deceptively simple question: should Scotland become an independent country? As usual, everyone seems to have strong views.</p>
<p>The “Yes” campaign, led by the pugnacious Scottish First Minister, <a href="https://theconversation.com/alex-salmond-the-man-who-would-end-the-uk-31816">Alex Salmond</a>, and his deputy, Nicola Sturgeon (yes!), has emphasised the enormous benefits of renewed Scottish nationhood. Scotland will have a seat at the United Nations, recognition as a sovereign by other states, an independent fiscal and defence policy, the right to send teams to the Olympics, and access to North Sea oil and the economic boon that this might provide.</p>
<p>The “No” campaign, with its slightly downbeat slogan, “Better Together”, has spent a fair bit of energy warning voters that independence could lead to disaster on many fronts. This includes exile from Europe, an exodus of the great Scottish banks to London, border controls between England and Scotland, the destruction of the United Kingdom and an Iceland-style financial crash.</p>
<p>Even Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/advocates-of-scottish-independence-not-friends-of-freedom-and-justice-tony-abbott-20140816-104xem.html">weighed in</a> on the side of the “No” campaign by saying that an independent Scotland would delight “enemies of freedom and justice”.</p>
<p>These are all important matters but it is highly likely that the nationalists have overstated the benefits of independence just as the misery predicted by the “No” campaign is unlikely to occur.</p>
<p>So when people ask me how I would vote (if I had a vote), I answer in uncertain terms: “an agonising no”, as I recently told a radio interviewer.</p>
<h2>Being anti-English is not enough</h2>
<p>Being Scottish is a complicated business. I was brought up, after all, to be suspicious of the English. I remember being taken as an eight-year-old to the <a href="http://www.nts.org.uk/culloden/">battlefield at Culloden</a> near Inverness in the heart of the Highlands.</p>
<p>This is where the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobite_rising_of_1745">Jacobite rising</a> of 1745 ended in catastrophe for the Highland clans. It is perhaps the key historical moment in the construction of a modern Scottish national identity.</p>
<p>Here a certain form of Scottish political nationalism based around the clan system was extinguished. At the same time, a later cultural nationalism arising out of exactly the same clan system was established and, indeed, became and remained closely linked in the public mind with Scottish nationhood.</p>
<p>Inside the battlefield museum, at the doorway, was a large oblong painting of an English redcoat bayoneting a dying Scottish clansman (fully kilted and helplessly wielding a claymore). I stopped to look at the painting and a primitive form of nationalism was born in me. I took up – as an early hobby – “despising the English”.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59391/original/x2nck5p6-1411019299.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59391/original/x2nck5p6-1411019299.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=357&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59391/original/x2nck5p6-1411019299.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=357&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59391/original/x2nck5p6-1411019299.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=357&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59391/original/x2nck5p6-1411019299.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59391/original/x2nck5p6-1411019299.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59391/original/x2nck5p6-1411019299.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Scots may be reared on the legends of the doomed 1745-46 uprising against the English, but that does not make independence the logical conclusion.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">"Culloden" by David Morier</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>What did this mean? Well, if England played Uruguay in a soccer match I would bone up on Uruguayan culture and politics, and become a fully committed Uruguayan for a few weeks.</p>
<p>Later, though, I became a fully anglicised Scot with many English friends and cultural and institutional affiliations. Now I experience Scottish anti-Englishness (a growing and deplorable tendency on the outskirts of Scottish cultural and political life) as a hugely immature provincialism.</p>
<p>And so, if I was resident in Scotland I would vote, with some regret, against independence. This is hardly Gaza and Israel, but I find it remarkable that so few people in the mass media and on blogs seem anguished by the moral and political issues at stake. As usual, everyone seems so certain.</p>
<h2>Beware the seductive but suspect yearnings</h2>
<p>Here I make a plea for what I will call melancholy nationalism, a political and cultural nationalism that both revels in and rebels against national sentiment. It is a nationalism that understands itself as a yearning for something that has never existed, a nationalism that allows itself to suspend that knowingness every so often in order to be moved by quixotic tribal gestures, a nationalism that feels the threat from global sameness, yet escapes regularly into cosmopolitan plural identity.</p>
<p>To be Scottish, then, is to feel at once a powerful attraction exerted by the symbols of crude Scottish nationalism, a nostalgia for a Scottish commitment to strongly redistributive democracy and proletarian protest, and a belief in the distinctiveness and distinctive contribution of Scottish cultural and intellectual elites in the world. But it is also to harbour serious doubts about each of these.</p>
<p>What will happen? I think the “No” vote will be stronger. The Scots are not averse to celebrating their victories but it is the defeats that matter.</p>
<p>This is true of Scottish contemporary identity: bound up, as it is, with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_at_the_FIFA_World_Cup">generally miserable, occasionally heroic performance</a>, of the Scottish football team at the World Cup, for example.</p>
<p>Indeed, there is a self-mythologising streak of defeatism or defeat-obsession that might well result in an aftermath to the referendum today in which the Scots wake up to discover that they have voted against independence, and collectively mourn the fact.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31851/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gerry Simpson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>On Friday morning, I, an expatriate “British Scot”, could wake up to find that I have lost my identity. Because today Scottish voters might decide that a United Kingdom that includes Scotland ought no…Gerry Simpson, Kenneth Bailey Professor of Law, Director of Studies, International Law and Co-Director of Studies, Public and International Law, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/317622014-09-17T05:15:26Z2014-09-17T05:15:26ZBan pre-election opinion polls at your peril<p>I really thought we might make it. We’d got past the publication of YouGov’s potentially constitution-changing poll showing a minuscule lead for the Yes campaign without anyone grabbing for an easy headline by calling for opinion polls to be banned in the run-up to elections and referendums. </p>
<p>Less than two days to go and still no political grandee had wheeled out the old arguments. But then, even at this effectively 13th hour, Baroness Boothroyd, the former House of Commons Speaker, just couldn’t stop herself. In an interview with The Independent, she <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-ban-opinion-polls-in-the-runup-to-elections-says-baroness-boothroyd-9734315.html">explained her concerns</a>.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The polls on the referendum are very confusing and contradictory. I am worried that they potentially could influence the outcome of the vote. I think the time has really come to do as the French do. We should ban them up to a week before polling day. Then people can make up their minds without all these confusing polls.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There’s so much to question about the reasoning in these five short sentences that it’s hard to know where to begin. Still, since Lady Boothroyd raised them, let’s start with the French – who don’t, in fact, do what she suggests. What they have, partly to accommodate early voting in French overseas territories, is a 32-hour period of electoral silence. During the period just before polling stations open at 8am on Sunday, electioneering generally, including the publication of opinion polls, is banned.</p>
<p>It’s true that, back in the 1990s, when the Baroness was Speaker, the French did have a week-long, pre-election day ban on the publication of polls. But, even in that Jurassic age of the internet, they had difficulty enforcing it, with Swiss newspapers and web sites publishing illicit poll results that were readily accessible across the border.</p>
<p>In 2001, though, this French farce was ended when the country’s highest judicial court ruled that it infringed Article 10.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Paraphrased, this states that <a href="http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/treaties/html/005.htm">freedom of expression includes freedom to hold opinions</a> and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority, except where warranted by considerations such as national security, territorial integrity or public safety.</p>
<p>I guess it might be argued that territorial integrity is an issue here, but it’s hard to believe it’s quite what the Convention framers had in mind.</p>
<p>Many supposed that French ruling would fairly quickly end all such European bans, particularly in those countries where they conflicted with their own constitutions. But, presuming the Baroness doesn’t object to this particular curtailment of our freedoms, she will be encouraged by the fact that it didn’t. </p>
<p>Practices vary, in Europe as elsewhere, and, although they are in a minority, there are still plenty of banners around. Honduras appears to hold the world record, with a proclaimed <a href="http://hkupop.hku.hk/english/report/freedom/FTP_2012.pdf">45-day embargo</a> on the publication of poll findings before an election. This puts the Italians’ mere 15-day ban to shame, but they are the European record holders, particularly since the Greeks lifted their 15-day ban in advance of this year’s European parliamentary elections – again less on the grounds of its unconstitutionality than that the internet made it increasingly ridiculous.</p>
<p>Spain retains a five-day ban, but is about the only European country left with longer than a French-style period of electoral silence for supposedly sober and considered reflection.</p>
<p>Used properly, opinion polls help inform and enhance our democratic choice. It’s important to remember that they are representative snapshots of opinion, not election predictors – but they can be an important tool for measuring, and indeed telling politicians, what voters think about particular issues, parties and candidates.</p>
<p>Yes, of course they can influence our behaviour, especially in first-past-the-post elections, where their findings can enable us to vote tactically, rather than waste our vote on a candidate we know won’t win. But the obvious answer to that is to change the electoral system, not deprive us of the information to get at least something out of it.</p>
<p>There have been more than 50 polls relating to the independence referendum published since the start of the year. They have recorded the major opinion swings, have surely contributed massively to the extraordinary level of public interest and, as far as I am able to judge, the overwhelming majority have been rigorously conducted using genuinely statistically representative samples of almost always more than a thousand voters.</p>
<p>Certainly that is true of all the major pollsters, who, as members of the <a href="http://www.britishpollingcouncil.org/">British Polling Council</a>, report their sampling methods and sample sizes, their modes and dates of interviewing, the actual wording of questions asked and, most importantly, the margin we must allow any individual finding due to possible sampling error.</p>
<p>Ban the publication of these reputable polls and you’ll be left with the internet-transmitted findings of the disreputable ones. And, if you really want to ban something, how about party leaders unilaterally adding what amounts to a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29213418">third question</a> after postal ballots have been sent out and votes already cast? Now that really would be worthwhile.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31762/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chris Game does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>I really thought we might make it. We’d got past the publication of YouGov’s potentially constitution-changing poll showing a minuscule lead for the Yes campaign without anyone grabbing for an easy headline…Chris Game, Honorary Senior Lecturer, Institute of Local Government Studies, University of BirminghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/317242014-09-17T00:37:14Z2014-09-17T00:37:14ZWhat a Scottish ‘yes’ vote would mean for Australian markets<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59204/original/n89rqspb-1410911586.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">All eyes are on tomorrow's Scottish independence vote, currency traders among them.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Adrian Clark/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A “yes” vote to Scottish independence on September 18 would mean a great many things for Scotland, and also for England. But what would it mean for Australian business and financial markets?</p>
<p>It’s tempting to say “very little” — what do internal politics half a globe away have to do with us? Yet the Australian dollar strengthened markedly against the pound last week, almost surely due to a poll suggesting that the “yes” vote was ahead 47-45%.</p>
<p>To begin to understand what Scottish independence might do to Australian firms and markets it’s important to understand what it would do to Scotland and England. The key economic question here is what currency the Scots would use.</p>
<p>The pro-independence “team” has been pretty clear about this. They’ll keep using the pound. And it’s true that England can’t stop them — just as Australia can’t stop New Zealand from using the Aussie dollar.</p>
<p>At first this sounds sensible — the pound is a big, liquid currency. The Haggis — or whatever a Scottish currency would be called — would not be. Case closed, right?</p>
<p>Actually, no. Having a common currency without economic and political integration is a very, very dangerous thing. Monetary policy would be set by the Bank of England, presumably without reference to Scottish economic conditions. So if there was a recession in Scotland one would want lower interest rates, but unless England was also in recession of a similar magnitude the Bank of England would be unlikely to cut rates. </p>
<p>Worse, losing control of the ability to print money means that if Scottish debt got out of control it could not be inflated away. Ask Spain how that works out.</p>
<h2>The risk for banks</h2>
<p>Worse still, Scottish banks would no longer be implicitly guaranteed by England. This is a huge deal. </p>
<p>The events of 2008 taught us how quickly modern-day bank runs can happen, how devastating the effects can be, and how only overwhelming credibility can prevent disaster. Scotland wouldn’t have that — and England would have no incentive to help out. Even if England wanted to, markets would have to believe it, and that’s far from a sure thing.</p>
<p>So it’s clear Scotland would be in a dangerous economic position — not obviously in trouble right away, but without any macroeconomic fire extinguishers if trouble arises.</p>
<p>This is a potential worry for major Australian exporters to Scotland — but there just aren’t very many of those. Australian companies with operations in Scotland could be affected. </p>
<p>A notable example is National Australia Bank, whose subsidiary Clydesdale Bank is located in Scotland and could face higher borrowing costs under independence. NAB has said it would seek to <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-12/nab-clydesdale-bank-plans-to-leave-independent-scotland/5738822">shift</a> Clydesdale bank’s corporate registration to England in the event of a “yes” vote. But even in that case it’s a small part of the NAB.</p>
<p>The bigger concern would be if independence affects England in a significant way, since this is a bigger trading partner for Australia. As we saw last week, markets have rightly been concerned about the impact on England. At the very least there would be an 18-month plus process of “demerging” two countries, a process that would be complicated and distracting.</p>
<h2>Keep calm</h2>
<p>Yet, whatever the impact on England, it’s hard to see how it would materially impact Australian business. The pound might weaken relative to the Australian dollar, potentially hurting Australian exporters. Having said that, we would all do well to heed former treasury secretary Ken Henry’s advice on Tuesday to be less focused on the real exchange rate in this country. The impact of a modest devaluation of the pound just won’t make much difference.</p>
<p>Could independence lead to a major blow-up of the English economy? As we learnt in 2008, a major problem in any significant economy can quickly reverberate around the world. We are all interconnected now. A big problem in England could be a big problem for world financial markets, Australia’s among them.</p>
<p>This is possible, but it seems highly unlikely. England is a very large economy with its own currency and a broad web of international economic connections. Scotland is close, historic, and important – but independence is not likely to lead to an economic meltdown in England.</p>
<p>Perhaps it could change politics in England in a big way and this could have an effect. Perhaps a more conservative Tory leader would emerge. And perhaps that would lead to different economic policies. But that’s a lot of perhapses.</p>
<p>Demerging two countries would be wrenching. It would affect those countries — especially Scotland — in lots of ways, including economically. </p>
<p>Whatever the pros of a “yes” vote for Scotland, it would bring with it huge economic risks. And some for England, too. For Australia and Australian businesses, the risk is small.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31724/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Holden is an Australian Research Council Future Fellow.</span></em></p>A “yes” vote to Scottish independence on September 18 would mean a great many things for Scotland, and also for England. But what would it mean for Australian business and financial markets? It’s tempting…Richard Holden, Professor of Economics, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/314672014-09-16T20:30:52Z2014-09-16T20:30:52ZYes or No? The moment for Scots when extremes of their being meet<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59010/original/dq83kxrb-1410761242.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Home to many Scots, including this Highland terrier, is now on the other side of the world in Australia. None of them get to vote but they are still deeply affected by Scotland's independence referendum. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/inspirekelly/11503873053/in/photolist-iwymER-iwy1yQ-8UdAe7-8CbDV9-d6wm4E-8UauEv-8UavaX-8HfTgH-8UauR8-jnu77j-jnrMss-8UdzTG-bSS6VF-5EnrGE-5mRu8a-dmZLQX-dhZVQx-bU2bjR-jnrKaw-jnrJmC-6iu916-jnrf7F-4YFCD4-5mVJg9-61Ce9q-5mRtVR-f3J9zv-5mVJj3-5mRu2B-ccYAKf-8W3a4P-jepacA-jepv5w-jem6Pr-b3Lvk4-9KgTLB-7boGdX">Kelly Hunter/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The upcoming referendum in Scotland is premised on a simple “yes” or “no” vote: should Scotland be an independent country? Except it’s not so simple. It’s a deeply personal question for the nation and its residents, however that nation is imagined.</p>
<p>I have been wondering what the media headlines will be on March 24, 2016. According to the current Scottish government, this <em>should</em> be the day marking Scotland’s independence as a <a href="http://scotreferendum.com/">fully sovereign nation-state</a>. In a sense it is a prophecy, a future already imagined, and that can be powerful. Of course it may just be a pipe dream; this all depends on the outcome of a democratic election this Thursday.</p>
<p>March 24 is not just a random date. It is the anniversary of when James VI of Scotland also <a href="http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/299922/James-I">inherited the English crown</a> in 1603, and it is the date of the signing of the <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/act-of-union-1707/">Acts of Union</a> in 1707, to unite the sovereign Scottish and English parliaments, forming Great Britain. The date, therefore, is symbolic.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, that internal and shared history remains, and is fundamental to where Scottish civil society finds itself in relation to the UK – betwixt and between possible futures.</p>
<h2>Scots engaged and divided</h2>
<p>As I am sure readers are aware, the referendum has aroused great passions and political engagement within Scotland (and the UK more broadly). <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-29083268">According to</a> Scotland’s First Minister, Alex Salmond, “what the world is seeing is an articulate, peaceful, energised debate”. </p>
<p>I must confess that I, like many others I am sure, was quite cynical about the referendum when it was first proposed. I imagined it would be a symbolic showing of hands, and that ultimately this would not exert too much pressure on the established state of affairs. After all, the apparent proponents of independence (led by Salmond’s Scottish National Party and including Greens and Socialists) regularly garner less than <a href="http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2014/09/party-support-at-scottish-elections.html">a majority of the Scottish electorate</a> in general elections. </p>
<p>Well? The independence momentum has clearly changed, well beyond party lines and the confines of the SNP. Amazingly, in a country where there is no compulsory voting, a record <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28748212">80% turnout is being predicted</a>, with <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/11/referendum-registered-voters-scotland-four-million-97-per-cent">97% registered to vote</a>. </p>
<p>Certainly, judging by digital and social media, passions are starting to run quite high. Opinion polls are basically <a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-referendum-and-nz-election-previews-31665">suggesting a very even split</a>. </p>
<p>This is tense stuff and, as the outcome will be a strict majority one, almost half the voters will be deeply disappointed. But whatever the outcome it is not wrong, or a political dead end. It is about democracy in action and that is not wrong - exactly because there is an active space for disagreement. <a href="http://www.newcastle.edu.au/Resources/Schools/Economics%20Politics%20and%20Tourism/APSA%202006/POLSOCTHEORY/Crowder,%20George.pdf">Agonistic pluralism</a>, Chantal Mouffe calls it.</p>
<p>In many respects, then, it is a nation divided - and doubly so – in both the Scottish and the British political sphere. Such is the heat being felt among the pro-Union parties, they are effectively decreeing a federal Britain if they get their “No” vote. The referendum is already having major consequences for how Britain imagines itself.</p>
<p>What I think is very interesting about the question is that, for a relatively closed and binary question (demanding yes/no <em>extreme</em> responses), it is incredibly conflicting and equivocal. By this I mean that the very use of the word “should” in <a href="http://scotreferendum.com/questions/what-question-is-being-asked/">the referendum question</a> - “Should Scotland be an independent country?” - demands people to draw on their imagining of the nation, and potentially their reimagining of it.</p>
<h2>A question both national and personal</h2>
<p>The question makes the voter ask, what should Scotland be? This then explicitly becomes about individual interpretations, understandings and expectations of what makes Scotland and what makes Britain, and does that distinction even matter? Or more to the point, does it matter enough?</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59006/original/fttz5r39-1410760106.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59006/original/fttz5r39-1410760106.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=853&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59006/original/fttz5r39-1410760106.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=853&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59006/original/fttz5r39-1410760106.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=853&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59006/original/fttz5r39-1410760106.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1072&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59006/original/fttz5r39-1410760106.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1072&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/59006/original/fttz5r39-1410760106.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1072&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The debate has left almost no issue untouched: Alex Salmond fields a Facebook question about the televised ‘match of the day’.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Facebook</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Yes, there are questions about oil and finances, about health and infrastructure, among a whole host of questions that are relevant and proper for any nation. That is exactly what the debate should be about. The clamour for “facts” (on either side of the arguments) would always be insatiable.</p>
<p>But facts do not speak for themselves. At a deeper and internalised level, the referendum is a very personal question. Families and friends are in disagreement with each other, and deeper again there is each individual’s personal struggle. </p>
<p>Indeed, there is a trope of internalised contradictions (where extremes meet) that has been well referenced in Scottish history and literature. This is the so-called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonian_Antisyzygy">Caledonian Antisyzygy</a> - the “idea of dueling polarities within one entity” - as later referenced by poet and polemicist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_MacDiarmid">Hugh MacDiarmid</a>. Again, this divided self (whether individual or national) is not wrong, it will probably continue long after the referendum, regardless of the result. It’s part of being sentient. </p>
<p>Like many thousands of Scots, I have been <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/08/for-this-scottish-expat-the-aye-is-a-no-brainer-even-without-a-vote">living in Australia</a> as a British citizen. Before moving to Melbourne in 2008, I lived in my native country Scotland until I was 35 years old. I even worked as a researcher and press officer at the Scottish Parliament for a short time (I still have my fancy electronic security pass as a souvenir). I had a very idyllic and parochial childhood in a quiet corner of the Hebridean Isles, very rooted to land, genealogy and culture.</p>
<p>Yet now I am almost as far as I could possibly be from my homeland, and I am not <a href="http://www.yesscotland.net/answers/who-can-vote-referendum-scottish-independence">eligible to vote</a>. As a consequence, I have tried to be very reticent and careful about expressing my opinion on the referendum, by which I mean on social media.</p>
<p>What I have seen as voyeur from the sidelines is some incredibly intelligent, thoughtful discussion and sharing of knowledge, and a great sense of fun. I have also been saddened by disagreements (which are not wrong) that have turned to insults and disrespect among friends.</p>
<p>At the moment I feel very remote from and yet keenly intimate with my country. I am ostensibly writing here to an Australian audience, but in a sense I am writing a letter home, urging people to have assurance in however they vote, that it won’t be wrong. I believe this is effectively a vote of conscience.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>And would some Power the small gift give us
<br>
To see ourselves as others see us!
<br>
<strong>- Robert Burns, <a href="http://www.robertburns.org/works/97.shtml">To a Louse</a></strong></p>
<p>To err is human;
<br>
to forgive, divine.
<br><strong>- Alexander Pope, <a href="http://poetry.eserver.org/essay-on-criticism.html">Essay on Criticism</a></strong></p>
</blockquote><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31467/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Oliver does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The upcoming referendum in Scotland is premised on a simple “yes” or “no” vote: should Scotland be an independent country? Except it’s not so simple. It’s a deeply personal question for the nation and…James Oliver, Senior Lecturer, Centre for Cultural Partnerships, Faculty of the VCA and MCM, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/317482014-09-16T11:26:56Z2014-09-16T11:26:56ZWhy a Yes win in tight indyref fight might be the way to keep Scotland united<p>The polls in the Scottish independence referendum indicate that the Yes and No votes have narrowed to such an extent that it is now impossible to predict with any certainty what the outcome will be. Indeed, two <a href="http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/09/06/latest-scottish-referendum-poll-yes-lead/">polls</a> have even predicted a <a href="http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/09/icm-put-yes-ahead-perhaps/">Yes victory</a>. </p>
<p>There is always the remote possibility of a “draw”, although of course this is exceedingly unlikely. If it actually did happen, we would be in uncharted territory. There is nothing to provide for such an outcome in the <a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/About/Government/concordats/Referendum-on-independence">Edinburgh agreement</a> that was signed by both the UK and Scottish governments. <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/referendum-recount-ruling.24533645">We do know</a> that there is no possibility of a recount, unless there are questions over the integrity of the process in one of the 32 counting areas. One wonders if the two sides would agree to bend this rule in such circumstances to avoid having to hold another referendum.</p>
<p>If that didn’t break the deadlock, I doubt that a second legal referendum in the sense of what we have now would be forthcoming. The expense of it all would become a much bigger issue than it has been. The Scottish government could hold its own referendum but it wouldn’t be legally binding. There is the fact that the UK government would still want the matter settled, but that might not justify a rerun. It would be a delicately balanced situation, but Yes probably has more to lose from a tie than No. </p>
<p>What is more plausible than this situation is a painfully narrow result that separates both the Yes and No vote by a few thousand, or even a few hundred, votes. The Edinburgh agreement also states that the result will be respected no matter the margin of victory. Conceivably, therefore, Scotland could vote to leave the UK and become an independent nation-state on the most wafer-thin of majorities. Equally, the Yes campaign could be denied their dream of an independent Scotland by just a handful votes.</p>
<h2>What if it’s No?</h2>
<p>The post-referendum consolidation process is thus all important. This could be easier if Scotland votes No because those advocating independence will not have had anything taken away from them. This seems like an obvious point to make, but the dream of achieving something and not quite making it is different from having something taken away and fundamentally changed. Debates aside about whether or not an independent Scotland would be that different, there will be many in Scotland that would not see it that way. So the scale of recalibration required by particular groups is less acute in the event of a No vote. </p>
<p>No would also mean less fundamental reconciliation, however. Post-No Scotland would enter into a very technocratic debate about the devolution of income tax and some fairly minor aspects of the welfare state, among other things. Although these things are undoubtedly important, it is unlikely that the heightened level of civic engagement that Scotland has enjoyed over the past couple of years will continue. It is difficult to imagine a town hall getting packed out for a discussion about the devolution of stamp duty. </p>
<p>At the same time, the debate over more powers would undoubtedly continue. The proposals on more powers for the Scottish parliament drawn up by the pro-UK parties do not represent the end-point of devolution and therefore the question over Scotland’s constitutional status would be far from resolved.</p>
<h2>What if it’s Yes?</h2>
<p>If Scotland marginally votes Yes, on the other hand, expect a reconciliation process that would be hard but possibly more fundamental in the long run. The result would deeply upsetting for some, and the blame game may ensue as to who was responsible for allowing the Yes campaign to win. In the event of any narrow result it is human nature to ponder what could have been done differently. </p>
<p>Yet an independent Scotland would undergo a process of putting together a written constitution. Although the process is still vague, it is broadly understood that some sort of constitutional convention would take place which would aim to draw in political parties, civic society, trade unions and even individuals. This convention would have the dual purpose of showing the wider public that an independent Scotland does not belong to the SNP and giving those groups originally hostile to independence a sense that they have a meaningful and important stake in the construction of this new Scottish state. </p>
<p>As the constitutional expert Eliot Bulmer <a href="http://www.luath.co.uk/a-model-constitution-for-scotland.html">argued in a recent book</a> on an independent Scotland’s written constitution, one of the roles of such a document would be as a covenant that can potentially reflect the values of Scottish society, promote the common good and check against the oligarchic tendencies of political elites. Not only would this help reunite the country, it would also have to be ratified by another referendum.</p>
<h2>Lessons from Wales</h2>
<p>Wales provides a useful precedent for a close Scottish vote. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_devolution_referendum,_1997">In 1997</a>, the referendum on Welsh devolution returned a 50.3% vote in favour of creating a Welsh Assembly. Research carried out by psephologist John Curtice using survey data suggested that if there was a higher turnout on the day, the result would have likely been a No. <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-12482561">Fast forward to 2011</a>, when there was a Welsh referendum on transferring primary law-making powers to Cardiff. It was passed with a Yes vote of 63.5%, albeit on a turnout of just 35.2%. This indicates that after a narrow vote in favour of devolution in 1997, Welsh society has come to the point of largely accepting the assembly as a normal feature of public life. <a href="http://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/electionsinwales/2014/03/11/what-are-our-true-constitutional-preferences/">Research into public attitudes</a> has reached the same conclusion. </p>
<p>Creating a new independent state is a slightly bigger deal, of course, but the Welsh experience does suggest that in time, Scotland would reach a similar position after a Yes vote. If this were to happen, it would be imperative that the post-Yes consolidation process made plenty of room for those groups and individuals who voted No. <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/14/scottish-referendum-salmond-team-scotand-yes-vote">Alex Salmond’s announcement</a> that the negotiating team responsible for discussions with the UK government after a Yes vote would be cross-party is an important signal that the Scottish government understands this point. This bodes well for what might be to come after Thursday.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31748/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Craig is a Research Fellow on the Future of the UK and Scotland project and the Scottish Centre on Constitutional Change.</span></em></p>The polls in the Scottish independence referendum indicate that the Yes and No votes have narrowed to such an extent that it is now impossible to predict with any certainty what the outcome will be. Indeed…Craig McAngus, Research Fellow, University of StirlingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/317142014-09-16T05:19:29Z2014-09-16T05:19:29ZBright and breezy future for renewables in an independent Scotland<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/59052/original/swf7sywn-1410796618.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Scotland's future?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ardrossan,_Scotland,_United_Kingdom.JPG">Vincent van Zeijst</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Scotland might traditionally be known for its North Sea gas reserves but it also leads the way in renewable power. The current devolved Scottish government wants 100% of the nation’s electricity generation to come from renewables <a href="http://scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0044/00441628.pdf">by 2020</a>. But the wind industry that may power Scotland towards the target developed while part of the UK. How might renewables fare after independence?</p>
<p>The short answer is that, in the event of a Yes vote, renewable energy would go from strength to strength. The rest of the UK would have no choice other than to co-operate with Scotland on energy matters.</p>
<p>The negative attitude of the coalition government towards renewable energy has long been evident and also includes plans for a <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/10670115/Wind-farm-plans-in-tatters-after-subsidy-rethink.html">significant reduction</a> in renewable energy subsidies. In the event of a No vote it is highly unlikely that the UK government would change its position and encourage investment in renewable power.</p>
<p>Wind energy is doing well, for instance. <a href="http://www.renewableuk.com/en/news/press-releases.cfm/2014-09-01-wind-power-beats-nuclear-and-coal-in-record-breaking-august">According to RenewableUK</a> wind energy set new UK records during August 2014, surpassing the amount of energy generated by coal power in the UK on five different days that month and overtaking nuclear generation on one occasion. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/public-attitudes-tracking-survey-wave-10">latest government polling</a> put public support for renewable energy sources at a very high 79%. But despite this the UK government continues to support unsafe and costly new nuclear stations at the expense of wind, solar or tidal power. Its position could only worsen in the event of a No vote, and would represent a disaster for Scotland’s renewables ambitions.</p>
<h2>Yes to renewables</h2>
<p>A Yes vote, on the other hand, would surely place the future of renewable power in the hands of the Scots, who are committed to a future powered by wind and sea. The more optimistic reading of Scotland’s reserves, one that echoes the estimates of industry lobbyists <a href="http://www.oilandgasuk.co.uk/2012economic_report.cfm">Oil and Gas UK</a>, would ensure energy security for Scotland. This would in turn provide revenue which could be invested in the further development of renewables.</p>
<p>The more pessimistic version, where Scotland’s <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11046740/Sir-Ian-Wood-15-years-of-oil-left-before-independent-Scotland-spending-cuts.html">oil and gas reserves are declining</a>, means developing renewables becomes an even more important aspect of energy security. </p>
<p>The Scottish government’s own report <a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/06/3446/downloads#res454995">Energy Regulation in an Independent Scotland</a> declares the country should position itself as the best place to generate renewable power and it seems set to follow up this plan in the event of a Yes. Whichever way you look at its oil reserves, Scottish renewables would grow stronger under independence. Scotland has the wind, and it knows how to use it.</p>
<p>The renewables industry is clearly concerned about <a href="http://about.bnef.com/bnef-news/scots-independence-is-risk-for-clean-energy-projects-bnef-says/">the effect of a Yes vote on subsidies</a> currently regulated by UK bodies. However, Scotland can deal with regulatory uncertainty by relying on its clear long-term policy direction and the introduction of new subsidies that will focus on specific growth opportunities for renewables.</p>
<h2>Hitting targets</h2>
<p>Whatever the outcome of the referendum, the UK still has its climate change targets to meet – and wind energy from Scotland would help. As a result, it is highly likely that the rest of the UK would have no choice but to continue importing electricity from Scotland. This would place independent Scotland in a better position to negotiate an arrangement for an integrated energy market, in line with the <a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/06/3446/downloads#res454995">stated policy goal</a> of forming an effective energy partnership with the rest of the UK.</p>
<p>In summary, a Yes vote would definitely be the better choice for meeting the aspirations of renewable energy generation in Scotland and to ensure security of supply in the long term. The rest of the UK would have no choice but to co-operate with an independent Scotland under these circumstances to meet its climate change targets and to avoid blackouts.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31714/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Abhishek Agarwal does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Scotland might traditionally be known for its North Sea gas reserves but it also leads the way in renewable power. The current devolved Scottish government wants 100% of the nation’s electricity generation…Abhishek Agarwal, Senior Lecturer, Energy Policy and Strategy, Robert Gordon UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/316992014-09-15T14:57:12Z2014-09-15T14:57:12ZCampaigns fight to define what Scottish social justice means<p>From the way Ed Miliband’s <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/10931880/Ed-Miliband-Reject-Scottish-independence-to-secure-social-justice-for-all.html">recent turn on the campaign trail</a> in Scotland was reported, you might think that his chosen theme of social justice has just suddenly appeared in the independence debate, just another rhetorical weapon to be deployed as the vote draws near.</p>
<p>Many <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29052861">reports</a> have focused on Miliband’s <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/ed-miliband-urges-no-vote-for-social-justice-1-3530775">assertion</a> that the best way to guarantee social justice is to vote “No” because “a Labour government is on the way, a Labour government with genuine proposals for social justice.”</p>
<p>The truth is that Miliband is rather late to the party. Not only has the idea of social justice been deployed regularly throughout the referendum campaign, but ever since the advent of devolution in 1999, there have also been repeated claims by numerous politicians from different parties that their agendas and commitments indicate a strong commitment to social justice.</p>
<p>This is all well and good, if perhaps unsurprising – who, after all, would come out against social justice? But the problem is that there’s precious little clarity about what “social justice” actually means in today’s politics – and its taken-for-granted status means it’s rarely subject to any real interrogation.</p>
<h2>Skirting the issue</h2>
<p>Labour, the SNP, the Liberal Democrats and even the Tories all profess to be supporters of “social justice” – the Tories not least through Iain Duncan Smith’s <a href="http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/">Centre for Social Justice</a>, which purports to be “an independent think-tank, established to put social justice at the heart of British politics.”</p>
<p>This superficial consensus is possible precisely because social justice has become a vacuous buzzword, so endlessly flexible that it’s now of hardly any practical use. Take any recent UK government as well as the Scottish government and you don’t have to look far to find a claim that x or y policy is “social justice-inspired” or “-informed”. </p>
<p>This has largely held true in the referendum campaign. The main constitutional question aside, there is little obvious daylight between the SNP, Labour and perhaps even Tory visions of what social justice would mean for Scotland and how it can be achieved. On all sides the idea seems to be that it will somehow be guaranteed by healthier economic growth, enhanced competitiveness and so on.</p>
<p>This sounds a lot like New Labour’s much-vaunted and widely criticised “<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/feb/10/labour.uk1">Third Way</a>”, with its emphasis on competition and “cohesion”. Indeed, the SNP’s professed vision is almost a Scottish version of Third Way politics, with the same theme of a national collective solidarity built on global competitiveness – and, just as with New Labour, the Yes campaign has hardly explained what social justice would look like at all.</p>
<h2>Nation and territory</h2>
<p>That partly reflects how, in Scottish politics, social justice has generally taken a back seat to another form of justice: territorial or even national justice, justice for “Scotland”, for “the nation”, for the <a href="http://www.nationalismproject.org/what/anderson.htm">imagined national collective</a>. If we achieve territorial justice, so this argument goes, we will by definition find ourselves at our goal of social justice too.</p>
<p>This is not new. Demands for devolution were always demands for territorial justice of some kind; today’s demands for more and more devolution (<a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-will-not-be-offered-devo-max-after-a-no-vote-heres-why-31500">Devo Max</a>) or for full independence are similarly demands for more territorial justice, increasingly badged and branded as “national”. </p>
<p>The idea of a “<a href="http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/7664-only-a-yes-vote-can-end-this-democratic-deficit-as-yes-scotland-takes-off-kid-gloves">democratic deficit</a>”: that Scotland has been the loser in decades of UK government policy, plays to this idea. In the hands of the SNP and the Yes campaign, much of the point of independence is to make the nation “equal, fair and kind,” as Alex Salmond <a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Speeches/FM-Statement-26-05-11">expressed it in 2011</a></p>
<p>Miliband’s pitch, on the other hand, is that only under a future Labour government can social justice for Scotland and the rest of the UK be secured. It’s difficult to see how this is any clearer a vision. <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/16/labour-doomed-tory-austerity-george-osborne-ed-balls">Disturbingly to many on the party’s left</a>, Labour’s <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100281301/now-that-ed-miliband-has-accepted-reality-labour-might-be-ready-for-the-2020-election/">commitment to austerity</a> and what amounts to a free-market worldview has been consolidated over its years in opposition; it has also adopted an <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/18/labour-welfare-plan-benefits-means-testing-training-ed-miliband">increasingly punitive</a> tone on welfare.</p>
<p>Regardless of the outcome of the independence vote, greater territorial divergence will continue across the British isles. And in an increasingly volatile climate of territorial politics, constitutional issues and the question of territorial justice may be far easier to address than the more fundamental issues of social justice, understood in its traditional sense: a far-reaching redistributive justice, tackling deep inequalities, vested interests and established power. </p>
<p>The pursuit of those goals has the power to shake the UK and Scottish establishment far more deeply than constitutional issues alone. And however woolly political leaders’ thinking might be, it is this bolder, clearer vision of social justice that has drawn many to the Yes campaign in particular.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31699/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gerry Mooney does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>From the way Ed Miliband’s recent turn on the campaign trail in Scotland was reported, you might think that his chosen theme of social justice has just suddenly appeared in the independence debate, just…Gerry Mooney, Senior Lecturer in Social Policy and Criminology, The Open UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.