tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/yes-scotland-11982/articlesYes Scotland – The Conversation2017-09-08T11:14:28Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/836812017-09-08T11:14:28Z2017-09-08T11:14:28ZScottish devolution at 20: some hits, some misses and that eternal maybe …<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/185148/original/file-20170907-9538-1t0ouib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Scottish parliament with Calton Hill in the background.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/brostad/5841297115/in/photolist-9Ubb8e-nJGsdK-7SoJRT-pApJ5e-TxvwiJ-6rKw8t-kky9Lx-6GQWR-2LgmSH-abcX9K-6rKvZx-74rSQ6-nGTrub-bkKxPM-5A5cFx-nqqKbB-UkEw42-Hh6YcA-tReQ3N-6vY6Xv-a8G1A9-dLZDQn-pFsbCe-6w3iys-9N3FgL-T8ciK8-cFV1fy-PvuC4-7haxbE-S16qEf-rbEUr-57G7VA-6vY742-iLJ6V6-6vY6XT-7bpyan-4pH12F-gFUsE1-83pMh2-63oks4-qBemvh-eeM3QK-PuTsY-S93UyB-a9Wi7j-gBZRqc-qRi6zJ-ah78um-c1YV3C-57Gjt3">Bernt Rostad</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It is the anniversary time of the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2013/sep/13/scotland-devolution-referendum-victory">Scottish referendum</a>, in which the electorate voted Yes in overwhelming numbers. I don’t mean the 2014 poll, of course, but its predecessor. It took place on September 11, 1997, a full 20 years ago, and was a vote in favour of a devolved parliament with tax-raising powers. </p>
<p>Within two years, a Scottish parliament was established at Holyrood following the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/contents">Scotland Act of 1998</a>. It was a pivotal moment in the history of Scotland and the United Kingdom. After nearly three centuries Scotland had begun to recover what had been lost in the <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/act-of-union-1707/">Union of 1707</a> with England. </p>
<p>It was the culmination of <a href="https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/171/29750.html">more than a century</a> of campaigning. National self-confidence grew over that time, as did a belief in the ability – and right – of the Scottish nation to govern itself. Post-war central planning under Labour had gone too far. Scots became increasingly dissatisfied with English insensitivity to Scottish distinctiveness, and Westminster’s inability to respond to Scotland’s particular needs. </p>
<p>Holyrood is now firmly embedded. Further Scotland acts in <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/11/contents/enacted">2012</a> and <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/11/contents/enacted">2016</a> extended the parliament’s powers significantly beyond those originally envisaged. Members of the Scottish parliament (MSPs) are more accessible and less distant, physically and metaphorically, than Westminster MPs. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/185147/original/file-20170907-9599-yqyjnn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/185147/original/file-20170907-9599-yqyjnn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/185147/original/file-20170907-9599-yqyjnn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=314&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/185147/original/file-20170907-9599-yqyjnn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=314&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/185147/original/file-20170907-9599-yqyjnn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=314&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/185147/original/file-20170907-9599-yqyjnn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/185147/original/file-20170907-9599-yqyjnn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/185147/original/file-20170907-9599-yqyjnn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Holyrood in session.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Scottish Government</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Scottish parliament has achieved much since its inception. Perhaps its greatest success has been the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-35901485">smoking ban</a> in 2006. In this regard Scotland can genuinely claim to have led the rest of the UK, which followed suit a year later. <a href="http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Health/Services/Alcohol/minimum-pricing">Minimum pricing of alcohol</a> is of the same order of importance, with Scotland again leading the way, but Holyrood cannot be held responsible for vested interests continuing <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-40718155">to delay</a> implementation.</p>
<p>Devolution has not solved all the nation’s ills, however. The <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/b81c3a14-179b-11e7-9c35-0dd2cb31823a">democratic deficit</a> has only partly been dealt with, as we saw with the recent <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum/results">Brexit vote</a> in which Scotland voted to stay in the EU but faces having to leave because it was outnumbered by England and Wales. </p>
<p>The Scottish parliament has also mostly failed to tackle seriously pressing social matters such as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/22/when-will-snp-tackle-scotlands-shaming-poverty">poverty</a>, <a href="http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2017/03/2213/0">inequality</a>, and lifestyle issues such as <a href="http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Health/TrendDiet">diet</a> and <a href="http://www.healthscotland.scot/health-topics/diet-and-obesity/obesity">obesity</a>. Education policy – regardless of party – has <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-nicola-sturgeon-put-her-biggest-hitter-in-charge-of-scottish-education-63965">been confused</a>, to the extent that the performance of Scottish schoolchildren is <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-38207729">falling relative</a> to other countries. </p>
<h2>The rise of the SNP</h2>
<p>Labour – the party that delivered devolution – dominated the Scottish parliament’s early years. But Iraq, dissatisfaction with <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-labour-20-years-on-assessing-the-legacy-of-the-tony-blair-years-76884">New Labour</a> and the party’s complacent, managerial approach at Holyrood left the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/may/04/scotland.devolution">door open to</a> an SNP that projected itself as a left-leaning, socially conscious counterweight to Westminster.</p>
<p>The first SNP government (2007-11) gave the appearance of being dynamic and effective. Competence mattered and the leadership team impressed – led by Alex Salmond as first minister, John Swinney as finance secretary and Nicola Sturgeon as deputy first minister/health secretary. The <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/election2011/overview/html/scotland.stm">SNP won</a> 69 of Holyrood’s 129 seats in 2011 -– an incredible feat given the voting system had been designed to prevent majority government. Independence was suddenly on the table.</p>
<p>In the days immediately prior to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/independence-referendum-one-year-on-nothing-is-settled-in-scotland-47712">Scottish independence referendum</a> in September 2014, it looked as if the Yes campaign might just win. And though a shattered Salmond ultimately had to admit defeat, the SNP had an <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11570769/SNP-rise-in-three-charts.html">army of new members</a>. In the weeks and months after the 45%-55% defeat, the party’s long march towards the dream that would “never die” appeared to have hastened. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hzO_dVOO21Y?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>When Scotland voted the opposite way to England and Wales in 2016’s EU referendum, it <a href="https://theconversation.com/scottish-independence-back-in-play-after-brexit-shock-with-a-note-of-caution-61457">initially looked</a> like it would be the trigger for a second independence referendum. The incremental slither to separation, forecast and feared by the opponents of any kind of devolution, seemed well under way.</p>
<p>But then came June 2017’s <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2017/results/england">UK election</a>, in which the irresistible rise of the SNP <a href="https://theconversation.com/nicola-sturgeon-is-overestimating-the-toxicity-of-tories-in-scotland-and-could-pay-for-it-77334">came to</a> a halt. More than one third of their MPs lost their seats. Not only did Labour win back some seats in Scotland, but against the odds, the Tories did even better. </p>
<p>Short-term factors were clearly at work, including much tactical voting. But looked at in historical context, it is perhaps not so surprising that support for independence may have peaked – for the present anyway. </p>
<h2>Opinion divided as ever</h2>
<p>There was no referendum in 1707. Had there been, Scotland would have resoundingly rejected the parliamentary incorporating union that ensued. </p>
<p>There was <a href="http://www.historytoday.com/shf-johnston/act-union-1707">strong support</a> in Scotland for a federal union, however. Despite longstanding rivalry and resentment of England, many Scottish parliamentarians recognised the potential benefits of a trade treaty with their larger, richer and more powerful neighbour. Out and out opponents of any kind of treaty with England were fewer in number.</p>
<p>In short, opinion about the most suitable relationship with England was divided. It has been the same ever since. Politicians who talk about the “Scottish people” or boldly declare that “the nation” has spoken, forget this or perhaps just ignore it. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/185149/original/file-20170907-9576-1df936b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/185149/original/file-20170907-9576-1df936b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/185149/original/file-20170907-9576-1df936b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=348&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/185149/original/file-20170907-9576-1df936b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=348&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/185149/original/file-20170907-9576-1df936b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=348&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/185149/original/file-20170907-9576-1df936b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=438&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/185149/original/file-20170907-9576-1df936b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=438&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/185149/original/file-20170907-9576-1df936b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=438&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Mebbes aye, mebbes naw.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/thepatman/11252977563/in/photolist-i9osbx-i9o9Gg-i9ozqn-i9oeuc-i9opEm-i9o7B4-i9o5NK-i9ocNh-i9owov-i9oaQ8-i9obCR-i9oA9r-i9o5cp-i9oiXE-i9okiY-i9oBtF-i9omDw-i9ojq3-i9oyNa-i9ok7f-i9oe3G-i9obcE-i9oaVt-i9o6GZ-i9oap8-i9o2we-i9owrB-i9oe8m-i9o7tP-i9okmm-i9oohG-i9ohuE-i9oatX-i9oDwZ-i9oeCQ-i9oB7i-i9orFe-i9ogto-i9oEQv-i9orSg-i9ou5c-i9ogAs-i9ofir-i9ohKE-i9oo3d-i9omYm-i9oCzi-i9oghQ-i9oeh8-i9oD2v">Rob Eaglesfield</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It’s obvious that commitment in Scotland to the union is much weaker now than in the 19th century. Yet Scottish national feeling was as intense then as that which fuelled independence movements elsewhere in Europe. Much of it in Scotland coalesced around celebrations to commemorate <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-nervy-elites-seized-robert-burns-before-radicals-got-there-71839">Robert Burns</a>. Yet few challenged the union. And despite its flaws, that remains an ingrained habit which large numbers of Scots have yet to break. </p>
<p>Many hoped devolution would kill nationalism stone dead, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-31129382">to paraphrase</a> George Robertson, Scottish secretary during the 1997 referendum. His Labour colleagues in particular failed to grasp Scots’ powerful sense of nationhood.</p>
<p>It was another Labour man, the late <a href="https://theconversation.com/tam-dalyell-never-held-office-but-he-was-margaret-thatchers-sternest-critic-72021">Tam Dalyell</a>, who argued that devolution could lead to independence. As you might expect, Salmond shares this view. He <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/general-election/alex-salmond-scots-will-vote-for-independence-within-4-years-1-4529994">recently asserted that</a> independence was “rendered inevitable when the Scottish parliament was established”. In his view, the Scots will vote for independence within four years. </p>
<p>Will they? Both sides may claim to know where Scotland is heading, but history tells us not to be so sure. When it comes to what relationship it wants with the rest of people in the British Isles, the reality is that Scotland has never quite made up its mind.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/83681/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christopher A Whatley is affiliated with the Labour Party. </span></em></p>Scotland voted for its own parliament in September 1997, but has yet to make its mind up about the biggest issue of all.Christopher A Whatley, Professor of Scottish History, University of DundeeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/714462017-01-18T14:25:36Z2017-01-18T14:25:36ZTo win a Scottish indyref2, Yes side must learn lessons of Brexit victory<p>Whatever the rights and wrongs of Theresa May’s speech about Brexit, the UK prime minister <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-38642213">appears to have</a> increased the chances of a second Scottish independence referendum. Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish first minister, had <a href="http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/12/9234">previously indicated</a> there would be another referendum unless either the UK or Scotland could stay in the European single market, and neither <a href="https://theconversation.com/theresa-may-confirms-itll-be-a-hard-brexit-heres-what-that-means-for-trade-71417">now looks</a> possible. </p>
<p>In an <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-38642213">interview</a> after May’s speech, Sturgeon agreed it was “all but inevitable” that a second referendum would now take place, and that the plan to leave the single market brought it “undoubtedly closer”. Despite <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/9bc14948-d693-11e6-944b-e7eb37a6aa8e">some reports</a> that <a href="http://whatscotlandthinks.org">lukewarm polling</a> is making certain nationalists wary of another referendum, other campaigners have <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15020695.Second_referendum_in_early_2018__suggests_Green_leader/">speculated</a> it could come early next year – <a href="http://www.thenational.scot/politics/14962025.Alex_Neil_says_it_would_be_premature_to_hold_indyref2_before_Brexit_terms_are_known/?ref=rl&lp=3">or after</a> Brexit is completed <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/what-is-article-50-the-only-explanation-you-need-to-read/">a couple of years</a> down the line. </p>
<p>If Scotland is now heading for another referendum in the near future, the question for the Yes side is how best to proceed. Last time, <a href="https://medium.com/@gordonguthrie/why-we-lost-a5085f807703#.ua5uuwvkj">arguments like</a> the economic fallout and losing the pound helped deliver a 55% victory for the No side – thanks in particular to older voters. To overturn this, psychologists like myself would advise Sturgeon and her colleagues to study the political upsets of 2016. That means the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum/results">Brexit victory</a>, plus another unexpected result currently bearing fruit – the election of soon-to-be President <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/d-c-braced-900-000-protesters-during-trump-s-inauguration-n707226">Donald Trump</a>. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UEZPs7sXev0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Decisions, decisions</h2>
<p>Both results can be explained by psychological research into decision-making and voters’ biases. We <a href="http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1157&context=marketing_papers">know that</a> for complex and emotional decisions, people <a href="http://www.economiapsicologica.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/emotions-as-mechanisms-for-br-agents-1-muramatsu-e-hanoch.pdf">tend to be</a> led by intuition <a href="http://citeweb.info/20160854164">rather than</a> weighing the available evidence – intuitive decision making is guided by cognitive rule of thumb techniques called heuristics. Elections and referendums are very much in this category, but few more so than Brexit and Trump. </p>
<p>Immigration is a very emotive topic and featured heavily in both debates. Both were also complicated by contradictory information plus scandals in the case of the presidential election and, in the case of the EU referendum, a subject few people really understand. Voters probably relied heavily on their intuition in both cases. </p>
<p>This will have been driven by certain classic heuristics, such as “<a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/rev/103/4/650/">take the best</a>”. When voters are making a choice between two outcomes, they compare these against a small number of cues from campaigners such as slogans, suggested policies and so forth. One obvious cue was “making <a href="https://www.donaldjtrump.com">America</a>/<a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1314505/cameron-blasts-brexit-backing-michael-gove-for-donald-trump-style-tactics-in-debate/">Britain</a> great again”, for example. In the case of Brexit, others included things like “do you want control over your borders?” and “leaving the EU will free up money for the NHS”. </p>
<p>Voters rank cues from both sides from most to least valid, and choose their side based on the first piece of information that allows them to favour one outcome over the other. In the EU referendum, for example, voters seem to have processed the “take back control” cue and this enabled them to decide to vote Brexit. Thus the decision was made without evaluating all the available evidence. </p>
<p>When indviduals reach a decision, they <a href="http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1157&context=marketing_papers">often get</a> into a mindset where they will disregard conflicting information and see confirming information as being very positive. This is known as <a href="http://www.sakkyndig.com/psykologi/artvit/nickerson1998.pdf">confirmation bias</a>, and you’ll see it particularly on social media during any emotive election. </p>
<p>We saw it in the EU referendum when pro-Brexit voters reacted to expert advice that leaving the EU might damage the UK’s economy by apparently agreeing with Leave campaigner Michael Gove’s <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/21/in-defence-of-experts-whether-they-support-leave-or-remain/">claim that</a> they had had enough of experts. This allowed them to confirm their pre-decisional choice and disregard contradictory information, protecting their intuitive decision from appeals to reason. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GGgiGtJk7MA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>But why did this process lead voters to choose Brexit and Trump? The human mind doesn’t have much cognitive capacity so it <a href="http://innovbfa.viabloga.com/files/Herbert_Simon___theories_of_bounded_rationality___1972.pdf">avoids</a> wasting time unnecessarily. As a result, intuitive decision-making favours information that is simple. Politicians who are masters of simplistic messages and continually repeat words will be favoured – last year, Trump and the British Leave campaign did better in this regard. </p>
<h2>Lessons for Yes Scotland</h2>
<p>The lesson for a future Yes Scotland campaign is that it needs to create an emotive argument around independence, since this will promote an environment more conducive to voters relying on intuition. For instance, the campaign could focus on arguments such as “Britain dragged us out of Europe” and “decisions made south of the border have had a negative impact on Scotland’s economy”. </p>
<p>In many ways, this would amount to mirroring the No campaign of 2014. The No campaign was arguably blessed with the best emotive “cards” last time, such as the economy and the EU, which encouraged voters looking for short-cuts to the “right” choice to favour it. Now those cards may well be in the hands of the Yes side. At the same time, it might want to play to certain emotive strengths it chose to play down last time, such as Scotland’s culture and history. </p>
<p>The Yes side will also need to appeal to the intuition of the electorate by using simplistic language, promoting simple cues that allow independence to be favoured over the status quo. An example would be pushing a message that Scotland has no voice in the UK, using Brexit as the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36599102">prime exhibit</a>. Sturgeon already demonstrated an ability to do this when the SNP won almost every seat in Scotland in the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results/scotland">2015 UK election</a> by driving home the failings of the Westminster parties. </p>
<p>If the Yes campaign seizes the initiative with the right messaging early and gets some luck along the way, confirmation bias will also set in. Then pro-independence statistics and information would be seen as very positive by many voters while messages from the other side would get disregarded or skewed to suit the Yes side’s agenda. </p>
<p>The 2016 victors have demonstrated how to win a political campaign when the opinion polls are against you. In particular, it will be the ultimate irony if Sturgeon and her fellow campaigners end up winning Scottish independence having learned from the unionist Brexiteers how to cross the finishing line.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/71446/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lee John Curley 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>With a second Scottish referendum ‘all but inevitable’, here’s a strange pill for the nationalists to swallow.Lee John Curley, Pre-Doctoral Researcher in Decision Making Science, Edinburgh Napier UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/608402016-06-21T20:07:56Z2016-06-21T20:07:56ZWould Brexit be followed by breakup of the United Kingdom?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127610/original/image-20160621-29573-1jx4mnd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">An uncertain future... </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Union Jack via www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>British voters head to the polls this week to decide whether to “remain” in the European Union or “leave” it. The <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/results/">most recent surveys</a> suggest the outcome is too close to call, with those favoring an exit holding a slight lead and many undecided. </p>
<p>The campaign has been bitter, although the murder of pro-EU Labour Member of Parliament Jo Cox by an <a href="https://theintercept.com/2016/06/17/far-right-britain-first-party-tries-avoid-blame-lawmakers-assassination/">alleged “Britain First” supporter</a> led to some soul-searching by all sides. As British actor <a href="https://twitter.com/hughlaurie/status/743891022430670848">Hugh Laurie</a> tweeted:</p>
<p></p><blockquote><p>I hate this referendum, for turning a question of unfathomable complexity into Lord of the Flies.</p>— Hugh Laurie (@hughlaurie) <a href="https://twitter.com/hughlaurie/status/743891022430670848">June 17, 2016</a></blockquote> <p></p>
<p>While the referendum is over the U.K.’s place in the EU, a vote to leave could have far-reaching consequences for the kingdom itself because its constituent parts – England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – <a href="https://theconversation.com/divided-kingdom-how-england-could-force-a-brexit-even-if-others-vote-to-stay-52181">hold differing views on Europe</a>. </p>
<p>So the question is, if there’s a Brexit – a British exit from the EU – what happens to the regions of the U.K.? Does it mean a breakup might soon follow? </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iAgKHSNqxa8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">John Oliver on Brexit.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Trouble looming</h2>
<p>If you need a primer on the situation, John Oliver <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAgKHSNqxa8">has you covered</a>. The short version is that voters in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will vote on June 23 on whether to remain in the EU a little more than three decades after <a href="http://europa.eu/about-eu/eu-history/index_en.htm">joining it</a>. </p>
<p>One fascinating angle to this referendum for me, as someone who has long studied <a href="http://amzn.com/0472052594">Scottish and Welsh nationalism and its connection to the EU</a>, is what effect a Brexit vote would have on the United Kingdom’s own unity.</p>
<p>Recent polls have shown hints of trouble looming for the United Kingdom if Brexit happens, with its regions expressing disparate views on the referendum. In Scotland, which <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/events/scotland-decides/results">rejected independence</a> from the U.K. in its own referendum less than two years ago, a <a href="https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/0q7lmn19of/TimesResults_160613_EUReferendum_W_Headline.pdf">majority of voters say</a> they want to stay in the EU. These results suggest that a Brexit could be quickly followed by another Scottish referendum, this one on whether to leave the U.K. and perhaps join the EU. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/08/brexit-threat-northern-ireland-border-communities">Belfast telegraph poll</a> showed that Northern Irish voters also prefer to remain in the EU by a wide margin (54 percent to 35 percent). Except for Wales, the periphery of the United Kingdom opposes Brexit far more than their English counterparts.</p>
<p>And while London may be unlikely to secede from the U.K., its voters also favor staying in the EU (45 percent to 40 percent). </p>
<h2>Scotland and the EU</h2>
<p>In a recent <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-scotland-idUKKCN0Z117D">interview</a>, Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon argued that given the strength of the remain vote in her region, it would be “democratically indefensible, if we had voted to stay in, to face the prospect of being taken out.” </p>
<p>As such, both former British Prime Minister <a href="http://www.itv.com/news/2016-06-09/tony-blair-sir-john-major-eu-referendum-northern-ireland/">John Major</a> and Chancellor of the Exchequer <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/george-osborne-scottish-independence-off-the-table-if-uk-stays-in-eu-1-4150884">George Osborne</a> have warned of a second Scottish independence referendum in the case of Brexit.</p>
<p>Sturgeon has not yet officially advocated for another referendum in such an event, but she is campaigning strongly for the U.K. to remain in the EU. And in part, she is using Scottish political history over the last 40 years to bolster the case. </p>
<p>One of the chief <a href="http://amzn.com/0472052594">complaints</a> of Scottish nationalists from 1979 onwards was that the Tories, then led by Margaret Thatcher, ruled the UK from Westminster despite never winning in Scotland. This democratic deficit continued until former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s victory in 1997 and subsequent devolution referendum later that year. If Scotland is pulled out of the EU against its democratic wishes, it may fuel another round of Scottish nationalism.</p>
<p>Looking back, one of the keys to the defeat of its 2014 independence referendum was the uncertainty of an independent Scotland’s role in the EU. As I argued in my 2015 book “<a href="http://amzn.com/0472052594">The European Union and the Rise of Regionalist Parties</a>,” this uncertainty over whether Scotland would be able to immediately join the EU contributed to concerns over the viability of an independent Scotland, which hurt the “yes” campaign in the referendum. </p>
<p>While I believe that similar uncertainty over Brexit and a U.K. breakup will likely favor the status quo in this week’s vote, if things go the other way, a new Scottish independence referendum in the near future seems likely, as <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/nicola-sturgeon-euro-discussion-possible-in-event-of-brexit-1-4160424">Sturgeon and former SNP leader Alex Salmond</a> have made clear. </p>
<h2>Northern Ireland’s new border</h2>
<p>Elsewhere in the periphery, the questions are just as sharp. </p>
<p>For Northern Ireland, not only has the EU played a <a href="https://theconversation.com/northern-ireland-is-vital-for-the-remain-campaign-61169">significant role in the peace process</a>, but the border and trade agreements between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom would be fundamentally challenged after Brexit. As the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/09/how-would-brexit-affect-northern-ireland-and-scotland/">Telegraph reports</a>, if Brexit occurred, the boundary between Ireland and Northern Ireland – which currently allows free flow of trade and travel – would have to be strengthened. </p>
<p>The border would then be an external EU border, requiring more controls on either side to prevent unwanted migration and monitor customs flow. Any additional restrictions on immigration increase transactions costs and hinder trade and travel, as <a href="http://www.occ.ca/Publications/Cost-of-Border-Delays-to-Ontario_May-2004.pdf">residents along the American-Canadian border experienced after 9/11</a>. </p>
<p>Though the threat of an independence referendum in Northern Ireland does not seem to be in the cards (despite the wishes of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/21/northern-ireland-fear-brexit-conflict-good-friday-agreement-eu">Sinn Fein</a>), the risks and uncertainty associated with Brexit will undoubtedly affect relations in the region. A return to violence is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/21/northern-ireland-fear-brexit-conflict-good-friday-agreement-eu">not out of the question</a>.</p>
<h2>Weighing the odds of a Brexit</h2>
<p>Despite my own views on the likely outcome of the June 23 vote, as noted above, polls suggest Brexit might win. </p>
<p>Similar to what <a href="http://eup.sagepub.com/content/6/1/59.abstract">research</a> showed in earlier EU referendums in Netherlands and Denmark, <a href="https://theconversation.com/brexit-and-benefits-why-leaving-the-eu-wont-solve-britains-migration-issues-60916">anti-immigration attitudes</a> are a <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/2016/06/21/which-argument-will-win-the-referendum-immigration-or-the-economy/">key driver of Brexit votes</a>. But a major uncertainty about the referendum vote is turnout. </p>
<p>According to the polling firm <a href="https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/0q7lmn19of/TimesResults_160613_EUReferendum_W_Headline.pdf">YouGov</a>, the youngest voters (18-24) are the most supportive of remaining in the EU (60 percent for “remain”), while older ones (65+) are far more euroskeptical (59 percent for “leave”). </p>
<p>At the same time, young people are less likely to actually vote. Just 56 percent of 18-24-year-olds say they would be absolutely certain to vote, compared with 86 percent of 65+ voters. Thus, getting out the youth vote is crucial to the remain campaign’s success.</p>
<p>That being said, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/betting-on-brexit-stakes-high-but-the-big-money-backs-remain-61318">betting markets</a> suggest that a vote to remain is much more likely than a vote for Brexit. What makes them so sure despite the results of recent polling? Most significantly, risk aversion in British referendums tends to favor the status quo. Basically, voters <a href="http://politicscounter.com/?p=77">fear the risks associated with change</a> more when they are in the voting booth than when they are responding to polls. </p>
<p>And, as historian Timothy Garton Ash argues in a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/20/how-to-argue-against-brexit-eu-fate-europe-uk-at-stake">Guardian op-ed</a>, the uncertainty and risks associated with Brexit are tremendous, with <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-is-the-academic-consensus-on-the-cost-of-brexit-being-ignored-59540">most economists agreeing</a> that there would be serious short- and medium-term adverse consequences for the British economy.</p>
<p>In <a href="http://amzn.com/0472052594">my own work on the topic</a>, I’ve shown how actual voting in referendums can differ substantially from what the <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-opinion-polls-ever-be-accurate-probably-not-61097">survey polls suggest</a>, such as in the 1979 campaign to devolve powers to Scotland and more recently in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum. Thus, history suggests that the vote to remain will make up some ground on referendum day. </p>
<h2>But if voters thumb their nose at history…</h2>
<p>Hypothetically, though, if the leave campaign wins, what would that mean for the U.K.? </p>
<p>In the short run, the border issues between Northern Ireland and Ireland would be part of the messy and complicated divorce proceedings and involve the EU, U.K. and Ireland. In the longer term, if the EU/U.K. breakup weakens Irish dependence on the U.K. and leads to a greater continental focus for Ireland, then Northern Irish voters may reconsider whether Ireland or the U.K. is a better fit.</p>
<p>In Scotland, the short-run story seems similar. The latest polling suggests that Scottish voters would be more likely to take a wait-and-see approach rather than immediately opt for a new independence referendum. At <a href="http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2016/06/could-brexit-lead-to-indyref2/">whatscotlandthinks.org</a>, political scientist John Curtice has compiled eight recent polls that show a slight point swing in favor of independence in the case of Brexit. However, the swing is not quite enough to hit the 60 percent threshold that the Scottish National Party has said it would need to trigger a new independence referendum. </p>
<p>However, these hypothetical polls in Scotland are just that, hypotheticals. If the remain camp is right and Brexit leads to a <a href="https://theconversation.com/two-big-flaws-in-the-economists-for-brexit-plan-60878">dramatic recession</a> and decreased economic growth, then a downturn that can be directly linked to membership in the United Kingdom will increase support for a second referendum. </p>
<p>In short, the costs of Brexit for the United Kingdom will reverberate for years to come.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60840/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Seth Jolly does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The UK’s regions – England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – hold very different views about whether to remain in the EU, which means the country might not survive a Brexit in its current form.Seth Jolly, Associate Professor of Political Science, Syracuse UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/473782015-09-11T05:33:36Z2015-09-11T05:33:36ZCorbyn cometh: has 21st-century UK protest politics just fully bloomed?<p>The unthinkable has happened. Jeremy Corbyn <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/sep/12/labour-announces-leadership-election-result-with-corbyn-tipped-to-win-politics-live">has won</a> the Labour leadership election by a landslide, easily taking more than the other three candidates put together. With a huge groundswell of support from the several hundred thousand people who have joined the party since the last election, the radical democratic socialist has snatched Labour from under the noses of the establishment. </p>
<p>It comes at a time when the UK <a href="http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Audit-of-Political-Engagement-11-2014.pdf">has never been</a> more disillusioned with mainstream politics. The major parties are viewed as too similar, made up of representatives who are far-removed from the experiences of ordinary people – step forward Corbyn’s rival leadership contenders. What we are not used to is these perceptions affecting political participation. The way in which we used to register our discontent was by passively rejecting party politics. <a href="http://samples.sainsburysebooks.co.uk/9781317524328_sample_1076582.pdf">Only around</a> 1% of the electorate are members of a political party, compared to nearly 4% in 1983 <a href="http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN05125">for example</a>. </p>
<p>Corbynmania may be challenging this trend, however. In an extraordinary period in the history of the Labour party, an avowedly left-wing candidate has generated a level of support and enthusiasm that <a href="http://www.versobooks.com/books/1447-ruling-the-void">we don’t tend to associate</a> with modern UK politics, or indeed with established democracies. The full implications of these events are as yet unclear but they may have sparked an appetite for a more participatory model of politics in this country. </p>
<p>At the end of 2014, Labour membership <a href="http://samples.sainsburysebooks.co.uk/9781317524328_sample_1076582.pdf">stood at</a> 193,000, having not exceeded 250,000 since 2000. Then came <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/01/how-labours-proposed-new-leadership-election-system-would-work">Ed Miliband’s changes</a> to the party rules for leadership contests, aimed at extending democratic engagement. These created a selectorate of three groups – members, supporters and trade union affiliates. </p>
<p>Supporters and full members <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/26/labour-leadership-election-party-to-check-voting-history-of-new-supporters">have come</a> to the party in large numbers, generating substantial fees in the process. Of the 554,000 eligible to vote in the current election – which is after the party’s <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/20/labour-leadership-election-rejected-supporters-express-their-anger">weeding out</a> of illegitimate sign-ups – 293,000 are full members (fees vary, but can be £50), 113,000 are supporters (fees £3), and the remaining 148,000 are trade union affiliates. While Corbyn has been most popular among the union sign-ups, <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/10/corbyn-pull-ahead/">he has</a> enjoyed widespread support among all three groups. </p>
<p>On the face of it, participation in UK politics has obviously been enhanced by the Labour leadership campaign – albeit perhaps in a shallow form given it was possible to sign up for the price of a latte. The real test of engagement will be whether these £3 supporters remain involved. Harriet Harman <a href="http://www.sunnation.co.uk/5-things-we-learned-from-harriet-harmans-andrew-marr-interview/">has suggested</a> this group will naturally convert to full membership to influence policy, but these are probably false hopes.</p>
<h2>People power</h2>
<p>The Corbyn surge may also have wider implications. The swell of enthusiasm for this radical candidate involves rejecting right-wing austerity economics, inequality and elitism, and it has the feel of a mass movement. Clearly the UK is not immune to forces that have already been evident in <a href="http://revolting-europe.com">European</a> and <a href="http://occupywallst.org">US politics</a>. The Corbyn message has appeared authentic, sincere and consistent, not labels commonly attached to politicians. </p>
<p>Perhaps even more important has been its sense of hope and optimism, reminiscent of the <a href="http://www.yesscotland.net/thankyou.html">Yes campaign</a> in the Scottish independence referendum. A positive vision can be inspiring, particularly at a time when many citizens in the UK and elsewhere are desperate for some good political news. Corbyn recognises that popular trust in politics is critical and requires nurturing. This is why he advocates a Labour party built on genuine input from the grassroots. </p>
<p>Corbyn’s campaign has taken the shape of a traditional style of politics, namely the political meeting. He has addressed more than 100 meetings and rallies, with many spillover talks and many people turned away – further echoes of the Scottish Yes campaign – and this has combined with a modern, professional and energetic online campaign. </p>
<p>What we are observing in Labour politics might even have been inspired by events north of the border. Remember that Yes backers the <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/boost-for-snp-as-membership-hits-100-000-mark-1-3725308">SNP</a> and <a href="http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/news/membership-surge-sets-up-strong-scottish-green-mp-campaign/">Scottish Greens</a> both experienced a dramatic increase in membership following the referendum. There <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/11600345/Why-are-so-many-people-joining-the-Liberal-Democrats.html">was even</a> a rise in membership of the heavily defeated Liberal Democrats following the general election. Note the break from the past here: until recently, membership increases were associated with election success, not failure.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/94411/original/image-20150910-27309-amqzco.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/94411/original/image-20150910-27309-amqzco.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/94411/original/image-20150910-27309-amqzco.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94411/original/image-20150910-27309-amqzco.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94411/original/image-20150910-27309-amqzco.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94411/original/image-20150910-27309-amqzco.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94411/original/image-20150910-27309-amqzco.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/94411/original/image-20150910-27309-amqzco.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Scotland’s latest export?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&searchterm=Yes%20Scotland&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=205896952">EQRoy</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A new politics?</h2>
<p>Put this all together and it begins to look like we may be entering a new age of protest politics, born of deep disillusionment with the political mainstream. Voters on the centre-left may be persuaded that a viable alternative exists and politicians who can articulate this alternative might inspire a new generation – in a reversal of the <a href="http://www.britannica.com/topic/New-Right">politics that ended</a> the social-democratic consensus of the 1970s. </p>
<p>Then again, we must bear in mind that the politics of party membership is unrepresentative of the electorate at large. What wins an internal party debate is unlikely to win a general election. Conventional wisdom suggests this will be protest to no end. That won’t stop the Corbynistas hoping that this is the beginning of a reshaping of the ideological debate in UK politics – and perhaps even a new model of democratic politics. But for them to be right we’ll still need to see the sort of sea change that has not happened in this country for a very long time.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/47378/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lynn Bennie 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>As the Labour Left’s fourth choice of candidate prepares to take the party reins, he may have taken the lead from Scotland’s Yes campaign and ushered in a new age in UK politics.Lynn Bennie, Reader in Politics, University of AberdeenLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/316472014-09-12T11:33:15Z2014-09-12T11:33:15ZIgnore the scaremongers – banks will not be leaving Scotland if the Yes vote wins<p>Recent media reports might have you thinking that banks will move out of Scotland if there is a Yes vote in the independence referendum. But even a cursory glance at what these banks have actually said makes it clear that they will not be leaving. The <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29151798">Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds TSB</a> have been the focus of reports which – once analysed – pose little, if any, threat to employees, operations or customers.</p>
<h2>Wrong reports</h2>
<p>Reports proliferated that Lloyds TSB will <a href="http://www.cityam.com/1410398811/city-giants-show-hand-vote">move its headquarters to London</a>. This is an odd statement since Lloyds has had its HQ in London for more than 100 years. What Lloyds said was that it was moving its legal entity status to London, that this was merely a legal procedure and “there would be no immediate changes or issues”. </p>
<p>The perpetuation of the idea that the Royal Bank of Scotland would be leaving too led its <a href="http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/rbs-ceo-tells-staff-zero-rbs-job-losses-when-scotland-votes-yes/">CEO Ross McEwan to issue a letter to staff</a> saying, while it would “re-domicile the bank’s holding company”, there was “no intention to move operations or jobs”.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/matheson-bank-move-is-a-vision-of-future-180199n.25304178">Clydesdale Bank</a>, which is part of National Australia Bank, has also confirmed its commitment to Scotland regardless of the outcome of the vote. Chief executive David Thorburn stated there is no threat to jobs, operations or customers: “We have strong roots in Scotland and we remain fully committed to our customers, staff and the communities in which we operate.” For Clydesdale Bank, a change to legal structures has no impact on the “vast majority” of the bank’s staff. Glasgow will continue as the main operational centre. </p>
<p>Other financial giants have also stated there is no issue. The chief executive of Scotland’s biggest asset manager, Aberdeen Asset Manager, this year the new owner of Scottish Widows Partnership, said Scotland would be prosperous regardless of the outcome of the referendum vote.</p>
<h2>We’ve been here before</h2>
<p>This kind of scaremongering is nothing new in the debates over Scottish independence. In 1997, in the run up to the referendum on Scottish devolution, the Scotsman newspaper published the views of the then head of Scottish Widows bank. He said Widows’ business would be damaged by devolution for Scotland and selling financial products to markets elsewhere would become difficult. No such thing happened. Widows successfully continued its operations in Scotland employing some 3,000 people while enjoying, it says, “being one of the most seriously considered brands for life, pensions and investment products”.</p>
<p>The move of a legal domicile involves completing some paperwork and putting up a name plate. Companies are cheap to create and register so it’s not as if banks have gone to any massive expense and put any serious money behind these changes, which are most likely related to tax planning and retaining the Bank of England as lender of last resort in the event of a currency union not being available – something that at least one senior government minister <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/28/independent-scotland-may-keep-pound">has dismissed</a>. </p>
<p>Plus, legal residence is not an indicator of where or to which jurisdiction corporation tax is paid. The location of economic activity is just as important a driver of where corporations pay their tax.</p>
<h2>Size doesn’t matter</h2>
<p>The financial sector is an important sector in the Scottish economy. The idea that this is a handicap, as has been stated by some advocating a No vote, is laughable when we see what other countries have achieved. And these countries even managed to avoid a banking crisis, unlike the UK. The <a href="http://www.zyen.com/research/gfci.html">Global Financial Centres Index</a>, a ranking of the competitiveness of financial centres round the world, places Edinburgh 64th and Glasgow at 74th place. But Luxembourg is in 12th place, while Oslo, Norway is 33rd and Wellington, New Zealand is 39th. </p>
<p>Country size does not affect the success of the financial services industries in these small countries. They are are smaller than Scotland, yet have capitalised on their financial services capabilities in a way that Scotland cannot while long-term fiscal and other policy is set in, and largely for, the giant that is London. </p>
<p>Flexibility to adapt to change is an advantage of smaller countries which have, like Luxembourg, exploited this extensively taking the positive impact on jobs, tax take, revenue and the economy: Luxembourg has the <a href="http://www.quantumbooks.com/business/economy/richest-countries-world-based-gdp-per-capita-2004-2014/">highest GDP wealth per capita in the world</a>. Norway is second, followed by other small countries: Switzerland, Austria, Sweden, and Denmark. We have to ask why financial services companies are happy to operate in successful countries like Luxembourg and Norway yet would, as it is claimed, be “leaving” an independent Scotland.</p>
<p>There’s a lot of noise surrounding this highly political issue. A look beyond superficial reporting on the idea of banks leaving Scotland shows a different view – not least from what the banks say themselves, but also from what other small countries manage to achieve in terms of their financial services. Despite Scotland’s successes to date, there is the possibility of doing even better should Scotland become independent.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31647/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The views expressed in this article are Rachel Holmes' and not Edinburgh Napier University's. Rachel Holmes is a member of the SNP and Business for Scotland.</span></em></p>Recent media reports might have you thinking that banks will move out of Scotland if there is a Yes vote in the independence referendum. But even a cursory glance at what these banks have actually said…Rachel Holmes, Lecturer in finance, investment management and taxation, Edinburgh Napier UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/314852014-09-09T13:22:59Z2014-09-09T13:22:59ZCould Scotland’s unionists push for a second referendum if Yes wins next week?<p>A <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11080907/We-have-10-days-to-save-the-Union-theres-no-going-back.html">common refrain</a> of the Better Together campaign in the Scottish independence referendum is that it is unlike any other poll. If the nation’s choice at a General Election was in error, the government can be removed four or five years later. Not so with a referendum on independence. Once Scotland has voted to remove itself from the United Kingdom, the argument runs, it cannot then turn around and change its mind should this prove detrimental to Scotland’s interests.</p>
<p>The first period in relation to which there is “no going back” is between a Yes vote and independence taking effect. In the event of a Yes vote, there would be complex negotiations, both between the Scottish and UK governments and internationally, to facilitate independence. This would include the division of assets and liabilities, and the reworking of governmental institutions, to create the new state. </p>
<p>If the Scottish government, or indeed the Scottish people, disliked the terms of the settlement, perhaps having been denied a currency union, it is unlikely they would have an opportunity to call the whole thing off. There is a clear commitment on both sides that, in the event of a Yes vote, Scotland would become an independent state.</p>
<h2>The new unionist package</h2>
<p>The closeness of the opinion polls entering this final week has prompted <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29113547">political manoeuvrings</a> to try to stem the tide for a Yes vote. The unionist parties have undertaken to produce a common and more substantial constitutional settlement, potentially even of a federal character, following a No vote. </p>
<p>Whether this approach has any impact on undecided or soft-Yes voters remains to be seen, but the difficulty with any promise is that it can be no more than political and, at this stage, indeterminate. If the Scots ignore these promises and vote Yes anyway, some have tentatively suggested that the unionists could push for a more thorough devolution package to be put before the Scottish people in a second referendum ahead of the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/24/scottish-independence-day-march">proposed independence day</a> on March 24 2016. </p>
<p>This is unlikely. It should be remembered that the next set of Holyrood elections are not scheduled until May 2016. The unionist parties would be trying to unravel the independence negotiations from the opposition benches in the Scottish Parliament. Several unionist politicians, including the current Secretary of State for Scotland, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28965416">Alistair Carmichael</a>, have even said they would agree to join “Team Scotland” in post-Yes negotiations. </p>
<p>The unionists <a href="http://www.clickonwales.org/2012/01/unionists-miscalculate-in-blocking-devo-max/">were also insistent</a> that a third option be kept away from the ballot paper on September 18. Given their emphasis on a “fair, legal and decisive” referendum, underpinned by the <a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/About/Government/concordats/Referendum-on-independence">Edinburgh agreement</a>, any attempt to put greater autonomy to the electorate after a Yes vote would be seen as reneging on that undertaking.</p>
<h2>The view after March 2016</h2>
<p>Another question is whether there could be any going back after independence. The track record for states seceding, following a free and fair referendum, is overwhelmingly against reunification further down the line. This has been the case even where independence has at least arguably been detrimental to the interests of the country in question. </p>
<p>Where retrospective reunification has happened, it has typically taken place by force or considerable electoral manipulation, the recent case of Crimea being a pertinent example. The reason for this is as much one of inertia as it is of principle. Integrating the institutions of separate sovereign states is a more delicate exercise than creating a new state, as the experience of multinational co-operation in bodies like the EU demonstrates.</p>
<p>Although Scotland presently has four unionist political parties with some level of national representation, it seems unlikely that they would campaign for reunification in the event of a Yes vote, whether in the 2016 Holyrood elections or in the future. There is no guarantee that these parties would continue to exist in their present form in a decade’s time. </p>
<p>The nationalist-unionist cleavage would no longer be the primary dividing line of Scottish politics in the way it has been thus far. There would inevitably be a degree of institutional decoupling of the Scottish unionist parties from their UK counterparts, both functionally and politically, and realignment within Scotland itself. The debate within these parties would surely turn to coping with the new political terrain, rather than exacerbating internal divisions by calling for a reversal of the constitutional arrangements.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/58581/original/zq87jkd7-1410264532.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/58581/original/zq87jkd7-1410264532.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/58581/original/zq87jkd7-1410264532.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58581/original/zq87jkd7-1410264532.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58581/original/zq87jkd7-1410264532.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58581/original/zq87jkd7-1410264532.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58581/original/zq87jkd7-1410264532.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/58581/original/zq87jkd7-1410264532.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Scottish parliament could be a very different place after independence.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://images.pressassociation.com/meta/2.20749457.html">Andrew Bowden</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Even if the unionist parties were to campaign for reunification in a future Scottish general election, there is no guarantee that their electoral success would lead to a restored union. The principle of self-determination cuts both ways. Just as it is right that Scotland alone should determine whether it should leave the UK, so too the unification of Scotland with the rest of the UK is a matter of separate consent for both of the sovereign states. This would surely entail referendums on both sides of the border. </p>
<p>Any union formed from such negotiations would be very different, both in form and substance, from the one we have just now. There would be questions about the role not just of Scotland, but the three other nations within that union and how they all relate to one another.</p>
<h2>A second nationalist referendum?</h2>
<p>The other issue that has often arisen during the referendum campaign is the question of further referendums following a No vote. This would be particularly pertinent in the event of a narrow vote against independence of the sort that now looks very possible. If such a No vote were not to be followed up with significant further powers for Holyrood, it is likely that the independence question would return within a decade. </p>
<p>It is worth remembering, however, that Holyrood’s power to hold the referendum is a temporary power, granted by the section 30 Order under the Edinburgh Agreement. Whether Westminster would be prepared to devolve that power in the future, and if so in what circumstances, is not altogether clear. Either way, what was once seen as a minority pursuit, unthinkable and unrealistic, is now something almost half of the Scottish electorate is prepared to vote for at the ballot box. If a significant proportion of Scots do vote No on the basis of promises of further powers, and those promises are broken, they are unlikely to be so forgiving the second time around.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31485/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Graeme Cowie 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>A common refrain of the Better Together campaign in the Scottish independence referendum is that it is unlike any other poll. If the nation’s choice at a General Election was in error, the government can…Graeme Cowie, Public Law PhD Research Student, University of GlasgowLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/312542014-09-03T17:49:20Z2014-09-03T17:49:20ZScotland Decides ’14: if Yes wins, what happens next?<p>The people of Scotland are suddenly facing the realistic prospect that monumental change may be in the offing. As most recently confirmed by a <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2f224ef6-322e-11e4-b929-00144feabdc0.html">shock YouGov poll</a>, support for Yes appears to be rising fast.</p>
<p>We asked our panel what would happen next if Scotland does indeed vote in favour of breaking away from the United Kingdom on September 18. </p>
<hr>
<p><strong>John Curtice, Professor of Politics, University of Strathclyde/ScotCen Social Research</strong></p>
<p>We must start with what happens at 8am on the Friday morning when the markets open in London. We got a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2014/sep/02/swiss-economy-stagnation-uk-construction-pmi-live">rumble from the markets</a> following YouGov’s poll showing the race tightening. The markets basically have No priced into them. A Yes vote would be a significant shock. Some people are suggesting the UK government should declare a bank holiday on September 19 to avoid any risk of immediate panic – though the pound would still trade overseas.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, all the jigsaw pieces people think are in place for the May 2015 general election would get thrown up in the air. It is unlikely David Cameron would survive until the election. This would be the man who lost the Union. I couldn’t see the Conservatives wanting to fight the election with him as their leader. This might cause a problem for Boris Johnson, who would not yet be in the House of Commons to mount a challenge. </p>
<p>Who would people in England blame? Would they blame the Tories for allowing Scotland to have the referendum, or Labour because they have run much of the No campaign? Would we see the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems arguing with each other about who was responsible? Maybe the principal beneficiaries would be UKIP.</p>
<p>Existing Scottish MPs would have to decide whether to fight the May 2015 general election for what might be less than a 12-month tenure. They would have to consider whether they were going to try to stand for the Scottish parliament in May 2016, though many an existing MSP might not be too keen on that. And if Labour won a UK majority in 2015 thanks to support in Scotland, the government negotiating separation with Scotland on behalf of the rest of the UK would be dependent on Scottish MPs.</p>
<p>North of the border, many politicians and voters on the No side would be devastated. More long term, it is hard to believe that two centre-left parties would continue to dominate. The Conservatives would probably reinvent themselves as a distinct Scottish party of the centre right.</p>
<p>In theory independence negotiations would begin soon after the referendum vote. But the UK government will not be in a position to strike any deals until after May 2015 election. It is not in the UK government’s interests to play negotiations short. It would be in its interests to wait until after the next Scottish election in 2016, in the hope that the SNP no longer had a majority in the Scottish parliament. Of course this assumes that the financial markets were willing to tolerate a long period of negotiation. </p>
<p><strong>Arthur Midwinter, Visiting Professor of Politics, University of Edinburgh</strong></p>
<p>I am worried that relations are now so bad between the SNP and the other side that they can’t recover. I have my doubts that Scottish No campaigners would join independence negotiations. People – Gordon Brown in particular – are very bitter about how Salmond has argued his case. And I am not sure they would want to associate themselves with the economic fall-out. </p>
<p>Market instability would be a factor that both sides would need to consider during negotiations. I could see benefits for both sides in agreeing a deal quickly. But I can’t see a situation in which the UK government would be forced to make any kind of concessions on currency union in the run-up to the 2015 election. That would just undermine their credibility. </p>
<p>I am not sure Cameron would have to go. He has distanced himself from the campaign. In the end his survival will depend more on Tory politics than the referendum.</p>
<p>Cameron is the kind of character that would brazen it out if there was a Yes vote. It is true he wanted only two questions on the ballot, which would have contributed to a defeat if Yes wins, but Labour didn’t want a two-part question either. And there would still have to be a UK election next May. By law they must have it. </p>
<p><strong>Michael Keating, Professor of Politics, University of Aberdeen</strong></p>
<p>There would be shock waves in the rest of the world at what would be a very unusual example of a developed Western country breaking up. There would be huge implications in Spain because the Catalans and the Basques would see that it is possible to secede democratically. There would also be repercussions in Flanders, and people in the north of Italy would get excited but not do very much. Governments all over the world would worry that a political precedent had been set. </p>
<p>The US would want to make sure independence happened as smoothly as possible, and keep Scotland in NATO and the EU. They would have no interest in punishing Scotland. It would be in the interests of the EU member states for a quick settlement that created as little precedent as possible. The smart strategy would be to say it was being done by mutual consent, not unilaterally, and recognised only because the UK is doing so. This would even give the Spanish legal ground to stand on, not that they could avoid setting a precedent. </p>
<p>There would be all kinds of bad feeling on the No side. It would be up to the victorious Yes side to address any resentment, which I think they would do. But if the negotiations became difficult, things could become quite unpleasant.</p>
<p>After a Yes victory, certain things would be sorted out very quickly to reassure the markets, such as currency and debt. There are various possibilities between full currency union and sterlingisation. It would be very much in the Yes side’s interests to avoid doing anything irresponsible, so it might well agree a deal well short of a currency union of equals to maintain use of the pound. </p>
<p>This could involve sterlingisation with a pact on the UK’s terms, including commitments over deficits and debts that would not apply south of the border. The UK government has left itself with enough wriggle room that it could say that its previous refusals to share currency did not include this type of agreement.</p>
<p>I doubt the UK would act vindictively against Scotland. Though opinion in England has hardened over the referendum, it has not gone beyond the point where the UK government could sell a deal to the electorate on the rationale that we are not going to create difficulties that could rebound on us.</p>
<p><em>To read other editions of Scotland Decides ‘14, click <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/scotland-decides-14">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31254/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>As an adviser to Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont, Arthur was appointed chair of the party's Welfare Commission, which is putting together a series of proposals for the future of Scotland.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Curtice and Michael Keating do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The people of Scotland are suddenly facing the realistic prospect that monumental change may be in the offing. As most recently confirmed by a shock YouGov poll, support for Yes appears to be rising fast…Arthur Midwinter, Associate Professor, Institute of Public Sector Accounting Research, The University of EdinburghJohn Curtice, Professor of Politics, University of Strathclyde Michael Keating, Chair in Scottish Politics, University of AberdeenLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/308502014-08-25T09:03:14Z2014-08-25T09:03:14ZChris Whatley: why Tom Devine switch to Yes is confusing and short-sighted<p>Sir Tom Devine’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/tom-devine-why-i-now-say-yes-to-independence-for-scotland-30733">conversion to the Yes cause</a> may seem like a road-to-Damascus event, but should occasion little surprise. </p>
<p>Most Scottish historians who have come out on the independence question are yes supporters. Their reasons for so doing differ from individual to individual but will owe at least something to their pioneering work in discovering aspects of Scotland’s history which for too long have been hidden, untold and unappreciated. </p>
<p>In itself this is uplifting and adds to a sense of pride and self-respect both on a personal level and for the nation as a whole. Sir Tom is right to point this out and can feel rightly proud of his own pre-eminence in the field – though it is worth remarking that the Scottish history project, which has gone from strength to strength since the 1970s, has been a collective endeavour that has involved many scholars. Unlike historians of some other nations that have been part of union states, in Britain they have been free to explore what they want and write without fear. </p>
<p>I too am a historian of Scotland and, like Sir Tom, my family’s roots lie deep in the traditions of the Labour movement. I agree with Sir Tom that since the devolved Scottish parliament was inaugurated in 1999, our MSPs have demonstrated that they are capable of governing and -– at times – of holding the executive to account. This was never seriously in question, it must be said, given the influence and high offices of Scottish politicians at Westminster and other key British institutions; and the remarkable achievements of Scotland’s local authorities (in the past – they have less autonomy under the present administration). </p>
<p>Nor do I have any doubt that an independent Scotland could be a success economically – though I suspect this will take time, due to the dislocation caused by breaking with the rest of the UK; the costs of setting up a new state (which the Scottish government has surely seriously underestimated); and finding a currency arrangement that has the confidence of savers, the financial markets and investors.</p>
<h2>Curious timing</h2>
<p>What is somewhat puzzling is why Sir Tom should have allied himself with the Yes campaign so late in the day. None of his new-found allies will mind, of course. A last-minute conversion is a lot better than no conversion and, given Sir Tom’s high public profile, might even cause a handful of voters to follow suit. </p>
<p>Yet few if any of the factors he presents as having led to his change of mind are of recent origin. Like Sir Tom was, I am still persuaded that what he terms the “devolution maximus” option is the best for Scotland. But unlike him I see nothing in his portentous explanation for his own changed position to persuade me to do likewise at this stage in the campaign. </p>
<p>It is difficult to follow the argument that the “catalyst” for his apparent volte-face “has been how threadbare the union has become” since the early 1980s – a point he links to the “transformation of Scotland”. It is not as if this transformation has just happened, even if few would disagree that it has taken place. It includes a more diversified economy, along with the employment generated by what Sir Tom calls the “vibrant” public sector. He argues that Scotland’s economy has become both resilient and independently sustainable, owing to its oil and wind power assets. It is no longer dominated by the “industrial dinosaurs” of the past (the decline of which, uncharacteristically for such a forensically-minded historian, he attributes at one point to the “radical surgery” of Thatcherism and elsewhere to “historic inevitability”).</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57194/original/vkdfgkxz-1408731399.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57194/original/vkdfgkxz-1408731399.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57194/original/vkdfgkxz-1408731399.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57194/original/vkdfgkxz-1408731399.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57194/original/vkdfgkxz-1408731399.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57194/original/vkdfgkxz-1408731399.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57194/original/vkdfgkxz-1408731399.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57194/original/vkdfgkxz-1408731399.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Dundee is a city being transformed.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/pamilne/5993901284/in/photolist-9iW2iX-77sNhJ-77oSR4-77oSN8-77oSTK-7H1whq-7GWB8p-eVwEtw-8z8rjs-5gcZp7-6dCjSa-a8Btdc-eZEB8s-6Zp1aM-a8EaTG-a8EmgE-a8Ej2A-a8BxKP-a8EnoA-a8EtrA-a8BFuz-a8Es8w-a8ByWF-a8EuMA-a8EvZS-a8Eovf-a8EeMf-a8BqSp-a8EgU3-a8BoJe-eZtwr8-a8E9Wy-a8BjL4-a8BmGV-a8Bg8k-a8E98y-7H1wzU-a8BkKB-8yTgga-e7DC9W-8urP12-8urNq2-kbejS6-8jddCd-ebpWZ7-3bqhxY-3bqpTo-3bkpFp-3bpCCN-aas2j7">Philip Milne</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Most of this may be true, but the case being made here seems less compelling now than it was a few months ago. That Scotland’s economy is adjusting to its post-industrial status is undoubtedly welcome. Aberdeen is Europe’s oil capital. Dundee is reinventing itself from its days as the world’s jute-manufacturing centre to a city of learning and innovation, world-class scientific research, and creativity. The Commonwealth Games have been a major stimulus for Glasgow. But in both these former industrial powerhouses – as elsewhere – there is still a high level of dependence upon public sector employment and other state funding.</p>
<h2>Nationalist cracks</h2>
<p>Awkward questions have been asked, mainly by the UK treasury and Better Together (No) campaigners, about an independent Scotland’s currency arrangements. The first minister’s responses have hardly been persuasive, while his normally sure-footed finance minister <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11044552/John-Swinney-admits-no-Bank-of-England-talks-over-currency-union.html">has had to</a> correct the understanding that the Scottish government and the Bank of England had been in discussions on the matter. Little wonder then that the <a href="https://theconversation.com/scotland-decides-14-is-the-nhs-fair-game-30750">Yes campaign has diverted attention to the NHS</a>, although the grim picture painted in the event of a No vote of this entirely devolved organisation’s future smacks of desperation. It is hard to square with the seriousness of what is a debate about the future of a nation and its people. </p>
<p>Industry voices <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/salmond-faces-grilling-after-tycoon-warns-oil-running-out.25104443">have been raised lately</a> about the manner in which potential gains from North Sea and other oil fields off Scotland’s coast have been based on the upper end of what are estimated barrel numbers rather than geological certainty. Some energy experts <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/70bacdb0-987a-11e2-867f-00144feabdc0.html">have begun to</a> visualise a not-so-distant future in which global demand for oil will subdue, with a consequent lowering of its price, owing to new discoveries of natural gas (including the shale revolution); more efficient oil-fuel usage (in vehicles for example); and scientists making substantial advances in solar power. In Scotland the wind blows, but intermittently and often at the wrong time. </p>
<p>None of this is to suggest that Scotland shouldn’t be independent or indeed that even diminished oil reserves aren’t a unique asset, as indeed is wave power. It does however raise the question of how well prepared those who are leading the Yes movement are for independence. </p>
<p>It’s difficult for a historian of the union like me – though not a unionist historian, <a href="http://ourscotland.myfreeforum.org/archive/scottish-history-event-in-dundee__o_t__t_2952.html">as is sometimes alleged</a> – not to offer the observation that those Scots who took the nation into the British union state in 1706-07 had a far more detailed knowledge of what was being planned than those who want to take us out of it today. Scotland was to adopt sterling, and the country’s share of England’s national debt and compensation for the Scottish losses <a href="http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofScotland/The-Darien-Scheme/">incurred at Darien</a> were agreed down to the last half-penny. Tax rates too were settled prior to ratification. True, today’s London-based ministers don’t want to talk divorce terms at this stage, but even so it should come as no surprise that the other party is not going to agree to give away the shared assets without a fight.</p>
<h2>Don’t dismiss sentiment</h2>
<p>Which takes us to Sir Tom’s reference to the union as forged in 1707. This he describes as a “marriage of convenience”. Maybe so – if we ignore the enthusiasm of Queen Anne and those (admittedly few) Scottish politicians who saw union as a means of preserving constitutional monarchy and other civil liberties hard-won at the time of the revolution of 1688-9. But there’s no doubt that for most of its 300-plus years it’s been a marriage in which both partners have been content – and at times, very happy. Now, says Sir Tom, all that’s left is “sentiment, history and family”.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57195/original/5f72w82b-1408731564.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57195/original/5f72w82b-1408731564.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57195/original/5f72w82b-1408731564.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=879&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57195/original/5f72w82b-1408731564.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=879&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57195/original/5f72w82b-1408731564.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=879&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57195/original/5f72w82b-1408731564.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1105&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57195/original/5f72w82b-1408731564.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1105&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57195/original/5f72w82b-1408731564.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1105&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Queen Anne: unionophile.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain#mediaviewer/File:Queen_Anne_of_Great_Britain.jpg">Charles Jervas</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But these shouldn’t be dismissed as irrelevant. Families spread across the current UK don’t want their members to become foreign nationals. The welcome ascendancy of Scottish history can’t erase the many generations of shared British history. The peoples of England and Scotland have lived in harmony for three centuries, whereas beforehand the two nations were often rivals, even resorting to war at times. There’s little likelihood of this recurring post-independence, but already we can see signs of the re-appearance of the inter-nation bitterness at a popular level that was a factor in persuading reflective people in the early 18th century on both sides of the border of the calming potential of closer union. </p>
<p>Similar to the position of the Scottish government, Sir Tom asserts that only through sovereignty “can we develop a truly amicable and equal relationship with our great southern neighbour in every possible field”. This should, he says, encompass economic sharing, including research costs and cultural relationships. But should is not will, and proclamation is not mutual agreement. If these things are in our former partner England’s interest, yes they’ll happen. But even if they do, that is no guarantee for the future.</p>
<p>The union as agreed in 1707 was also about defence – of Protestant Britain united against French aggression and resurgent Roman Catholicism. Happily, for all but a few die-hards, religion is no longer a pillar of the British union state. Yet Sir Tom is much more sanguine than I am about the external environment. He can see no “obvious other” threat that has galvanised and united the British people in the past. Yet Russia under President Putin seems to be on the march again, posing a grave threat to those smaller states on its borders. The emergence of Islamic states in Iraq and Syria, Jihadism, political turmoil in Libya, the conflict over Gaza, and Chinese expansionism in the east represent potential challenges to the west. Arguably they would be best countered if necessary by the greater strength of a British military force as part of NATO, which is currently over-dependent upon the United States. </p>
<p>It seems to me that rather than walk away from a marriage that has lasted for so long, we should explore first what’s not working, whether it can be saved, and whether indeed it can become harmonious once more. Is the prospect of a finding a new partner – or maybe a number of new partners – so attractive that the price and pain of permanent separation are worth enduring? (Committed nationalists will answer in the affirmative – an honest position for which I have every respect, but the current campaign for independence is premised on little cost and greater prosperity.) </p>
<p>Only two years ago, it would seem, this was Sir Tom’s position. He’s now anxious that as many people vote Yes as possible so that in the event of a No result, pressure will be put on the pro-union parties to deliver on their assurances of greater devolution. I share the aim but the tactics are risky. With a Yes vote there is no way back. The marriage is over.</p>
<h2>The real risk on September 18</h2>
<p>Unlike Sir Tom, my concern isn’t about the consequences of a crushing No vote (which is highly unlikely), but of a narrow No victory. My guess is that a greater sense of grievance, disappointment and distress would follow. It could conceivably turn into a witch-hunt against the “guilty” men and women who allegedly “betrayed” Scotland. This is hinted at in one of the comments beneath Sir Tom’s piece, which refers to the prospect of Scotland “once again” becoming a peripheral nation in the eyes of an unspecified “international interest” if there’s a No vote. (An independent voice may be louder but on the European or world stages there’s no certainty that it would have greater force than it does as part of the UK – a reason why some Scots wanted the union in the first place.) </p>
<p>Essential then in the event of a close No vote would be delivery of the promises on further powers for the Scottish parliament made recently by the Conservative, Labour and Liberal-Democrat parties. Supplemented by pressure from the English regions, there should also be a serious examination of the prospect of a federal Britain. This would require a series of parliaments with economic powers to spread the advantages of London’s success but also to counter its adverse effects, operating with the levers required to implement policies according to local needs. </p>
<p>The union, for many of the reasons Sir Tom Devine articulates, is seriously at risk and has been for some time. There are moments when I’ve been tempted to opt for independence. Having read much European history I can’t but concur with him that neither nations nor union states are forever. But contrary to Sir Tom, I’ve been struck in recent weeks by the growing determination of pro-union politicians to make the union fit for purpose in the early 21st century. If there’s a No vote and they don’t deliver quickly and with enthusiasm and genuine recognition of Scotland as a nation within a restructured union state, it could well implode. And I for one would then be for going it alone.</p>
<p><em>Now, read this: <a href="https://theconversation.com/tom-devine-why-i-now-say-yes-to-independence-for-scotland-30733">Tom Devine: why I say Yes to independence for Scotland</a></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/30850/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christopher A Whatley 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>Sir Tom Devine’s conversion to the Yes cause may seem like a road-to-Damascus event, but should occasion little surprise. Most Scottish historians who have come out on the independence question are yes…Christopher A Whatley, Professor of Scottish History, University of DundeeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/308062014-08-22T14:50:04Z2014-08-22T14:50:04ZReading the public mood – why #indyref mass canvassing is no match for opinion polls<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57097/original/38b4s95x-1408636544.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Can canvassers believe what Scots are telling them on doorsteps?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/duncan/14584367988/in/photolist-6pHMGK-odLGuu-4X9Te-6SwZop-hnt95K-joHfys-tcLeZ-qPukR-aB3WK8-eHHG2z-7P9k31-qbXfg-aB3XGz-axAxBD-7DNhya-8dSm1L-ibDReg-4vvQkW-o3sai5-NpoQ6-mAgnAz-88qxyX-eVaahr-2dWohR-atKC2y-52U1U8-nzdi73-dAxVfe-gG1qZT-bWAMmK-fUAwGy-muj2Rg-kLMgkY-iw8juR-kLMbZ3-8VHoAu-iw98jk-biWcLM-pE3Nf-5zUKmJ-a4bp7N-5t9o6m-ibE7N3-6ePMY6-8jYU9x-f76hrm-cnMa5m-56wpQB-nHjtUq-7mwcsf">Duncan C</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Political campaigners can often be heard complaining that opinion polls do not reflect what they hear on the doorstep. Arguing that they have spoken to many more people than the 1,000 or so typically interviewed for a poll, they claim the polls must be biased or just plain wrong.</p>
<p>In Scotland the <a href="http://radicalindependence.org">Radical Independence Campaign</a> has carried out several mass canvasses in which its activists have contacted more than 5,000 households. After undecided voters are excluded, they report a majority for yes by around 60% to 40% against. This is almost the polar opposite of the picture presented by the polls. The most recent <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/scottish-independence/scottish-independence-poll-of-polls-shows-no-at-57/">“poll of polls”</a>, based on an average of the previous six polls published, puts yes support at 43% and no at 57%. </p>
<h2>Lessons from America</h2>
<p>So who is right? To understand why bigger isn’t always better, it’s worth telling the story of George Gallup and the Literary Digest magazine. In 1936 the Literary Digest carried out a straw poll of 2.4m people to find out how they planned to vote in the US presidential election. It confidently predicted that Alfred Landon, the Republican candidate, would win by some margin. </p>
<p>George Gallup’s American Institute of Public Opinion predicted that Franklin D Roosevelt would win, based on a much smaller sample of around 5,000. In the end, of course, Gallup was proved correct – Roosevelt was returned to the White House with 61% of the vote. And Gallup’s success was in part responsible for the more widespread adoption of modern opinion-polling techniques. The Literary Digest, meanwhile, went out of business shortly after. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57098/original/5bpk436x-1408636867.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57098/original/5bpk436x-1408636867.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57098/original/5bpk436x-1408636867.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=680&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57098/original/5bpk436x-1408636867.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=680&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57098/original/5bpk436x-1408636867.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=680&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57098/original/5bpk436x-1408636867.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=854&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57098/original/5bpk436x-1408636867.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=854&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57098/original/5bpk436x-1408636867.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=854&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Alf Landon: White House cert 1936</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alf_Landon#mediaviewer/File:LandonPortr.jpg">Library of Congress</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The reason Gallup got it right and the Literary Digest got it wrong, in spite of its far bigger sample size, lay in the nature of the two samples. The Literary Digest primarily polled its own readers as well as people on automobile registration lists. As a result, its sample was heavily biased towards those on higher incomes. The response rate to the survey was also very low – more than 10m mock ballot papers were sent out to achieve those 2.4m responses. </p>
<p>On the other hand, Gallup set quotas for the number of interviews for different demographic categories like men and women, people on low and high incomes and so forth. Each quota was based on what was known about the actual profile of the population as a whole. This meant that the final sample was far more representative – it looked like the population whose views it was meant to reflect. </p>
<h2>Poll the other one</h2>
<p>The gold standard of survey research is often held to be probability sampling (which ScotCen and our sister organisation NatCen use on the Scottish and British Social Attitudes surveys). This method selects participants at random from a list that includes all (or almost all) those people your sample is meant to represent. This list is sometimes “stratified” or ordered to ensure that people with different characteristics are included in proportion to their prevalence in the larger population. By giving everyone a chance of being included and then selecting them at random, probability sampling arguably remains the best way of ensuring a representative sample. </p>
<p>Other opinion polls currently being conducted in Scotland use methods such as quota sampling (TNS BMRB), random digit dialling (Ipsos MORI), and what might be termed stratified “volunteer” sampling (YouGov, Panelbase, Survation and ICM, who all conduct online polls). </p>
<p>As the name suggests, quota sampling involves having target numbers of respondents in particular demographic categories with a view to creating a representative sample of the overall population. Random digit dialling involves contacting (usually large numbers of) land-line numbers on a random basis. Interviewees may then be selected to meet quotas to ensure the achieved sample includes people with specific characteristics to reflect the population as a whole. </p>
<p>Stratified volunteer samples are used for online surveys, whereby the sample is selected from a large database of people who have volunteered to take part. The issued sample is typically stratified to try and ensure a balance of respondents of different ages, genders and so on. Most surveys and polls then apply weighting to the achieved sample to try and correct any imbalance in the demographic profiles compared to the population as a whole. </p>
<p>It is true that none of these methods are immune from criticism. Probability samples suffer from lower response rates than they once achieved (although most surveys based on other kinds of samples do not quote any response rate at all). Quota samples might control for certain characteristics, such as age, gender and past vote, but can easily over or under-represent characteristics for which quotas are not set – resulting, for example, in a more politically interested sample than the population as a whole. </p>
<p>Volunteer samples may diverge from the population as a whole even further: by definition, volunteer panels are comprised of people who are more interested in taking part in surveys than people selected at random from the population. It is also the case that the polls for the referendum show far more variation than is typical for election polls, as my colleague John Curtice has discussed <a href="https://theconversation.com/scotlands-referendum-can-we-trust-the-polls-24674">here</a> and <a href="http://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/scot.2014.0028">elsewhere</a> before. </p>
<p>But whatever your views of the methods of a specific survey or poll, the Literary Digest/Gallup story clearly illustrates the merits of a more scientific approach to sampling and the dangers of assuming that simply by speaking to lots of people you will get an accurate measure of what a population as a whole is thinking. </p>
<h2>Spoil on canvass</h2>
<p>Information about the methods adopted by political canvassers is often thin on the ground. But typically it involves sending as many partisan activists as are available to particular streets or areas and encouraging them to knock on as many doors as possible. The aim is usually to identify supporters who may need encouragement or help to get to a polling station on voting day. </p>
<p>Unlike pollsters, canvassers are not set quotas which would help them achieve a sample that is representative in terms of age, gender, working status, region and so on. </p>
<p>We might also ask whether people are likely to give a truthful answer to someone who may be wearing a badge or t-shirt that makes their own voting intentions clear. Interviewers for polling and survey companies, in contrast, are trained to be scrupulously neutral and to avoid giving anything away about their own views. </p>
<p>Mass canvasses may well be a useful tool to mobilise campaigners to get their messages across. But as a mechanism for gauging the state of opinion in the population as a whole, they are far less reliable. In interpreting their findings, we should remember that a badly designed large sample tells you far less than a well designed small sample. In other words, bigger is not always better.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/30806/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rachel Ormston 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>Political campaigners can often be heard complaining that opinion polls do not reflect what they hear on the doorstep. Arguing that they have spoken to many more people than the 1,000 or so typically interviewed…Rachel Ormston, Senior Research Director (Social Attitudes), ScotCen Social ResearchLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/307332014-08-20T19:45:35Z2014-08-20T19:45:35ZTom Devine: why I now say Yes to independence for Scotland<p><em>Tom Devine, Scotland’s most celebrated historian of recent years, sent shockwaves through the country when he revealed in a news report in The Observer newspaper last weekend that he intends to vote in favour of independence on September 18. Now, for the first time, the full text of Devine’s declaration, made on August 15, in the Grill on the Corner restaurant, Glasgow, is published by The Conversation. It was made in the presence of New Zealand academic Angela McCarthy and Observer correspondent Kevin McKenna.</em></p>
<p>My engagement in the Scottish independence referendum campaign before now has been restricted to impartial academic interviews. And although I’ve only come to a Yes conclusion over the last fortnight this has been a long journey for me. My preferred option would previously have been devolution maximus, but that’s not available. Moreover, even if there is not to be a Yes win, it’s imperative that the Yes vote is as high as possible in order to put pressure on the unionist parties to commit themselves to granting increased devolved powers, and as soon as possible thereafter. </p>
<p>I’ve never been a member of a party and am still not, so my position does not indicate support for the SNP; it’s simply in favour of independence. The SNP just happens to be a significant force in the campaign. The Yes campaign is now a widespread movement and that’s encouraging for me. </p>
<h2>My journey with Scottish nationhood</h2>
<p>I come from a Labour background that includes my grandfather, mother and father and I was very much anti-independence at the start of the campaign. For me, the catalyst for change has been how threadbare the union has become since the early 1980s and linked to that is the transformation of Scotland. I wouldn’t have voted for this in the Scotland of the 1970s or 80s. It’s the Scotland that has evolved since the late 80s and 90s that is fuelling my Yes vote. It now seems to me to be in a fit condition to run a successful economy. There is a list of reasons for this. </p>
<p>There has been a Scottish parliament which has demonstrated competent government and that parliament has also indicated, by the electoral response to it, that the Scottish people seem to be wedded to a social democratic agenda and the kind of political values which sustained and were embedded in the welfare state of the 1950s. In fact, you could argue that it is the Scots who have tried to preserve the idea of Britishness in terms of state support and intervention, and that it is England that has chosen to go on a separate journey since the 1980s.</p>
<p>There has been an enormous increase in a sense of Scottishness and pride in Scottish identity which has itself been sustained by an explosion in Scottish writing and creative arts since the 1980s, especially in relation to my own subject. We now have a proper modern history of Scotland which we didn’t have until as late as the 1970s and 1980s. We now have a clear national narrative sustained by objective and rigorous academic research. In 1964, one of my great predecessors Professor Hargreaves said that the history of modern Scotland is less studied than the history of Yorkshire. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/56914/original/5y6dz2md-1408534953.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/56914/original/5y6dz2md-1408534953.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/56914/original/5y6dz2md-1408534953.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/56914/original/5y6dz2md-1408534953.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/56914/original/5y6dz2md-1408534953.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/56914/original/5y6dz2md-1408534953.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/56914/original/5y6dz2md-1408534953.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/56914/original/5y6dz2md-1408534953.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Declining heavy industry such as Clydeside shipbuilding made independence a hard sell a generation ago.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/mariancraig/8626055930/in/photolist-GMm4-akJhCA-5vrwSy-dvRQrD-9vfQ6f-6rzDTL-akJhzh-7S6wBH-BkNb-zzkyX-mdofeD-mdorHk-mdngHV-mdnyNM-e9fMUf-h7C3W8-mdndqc-mdo9Hi-9aqwdY-7AfkCK-8ZSXYB-8ZT3HP-8ZWamE-8ZW1Kh-8ZT1r8-8ZWaZu-4M2BL2-acTqjo-oei3og-ovLYBV-oehhHn-ovuRie-ovuFUe-ovK4VG-oegWZf-ovyNUS-5wrNZC-7kQcRt-7zHHxF-93Pag8-8ZVWp7-8ZVUvo-7GLoLA-e1X1q9-6Y8kof-2S22L8-2cUAxC-ovKg79-oxwQrR-otK37N">Marian Craig</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There has also been a silent transformation of the Scottish economy. As late as early 1980s it was not sustainable owing to the continuing domination of the dinosaur heavy industries. The problem there was simply that labour costs not be sustained in an emerging global economy where goods and machines could be made cheaper elsewhere. Of course the process could have been managed much more sensitively and more thoughtfully by a Labour government, instead it was the radical surgery of Thatcherism and Toryism that had its way. What we have now – and this has been the case since the mid-1990s and de-industrialisation – is a diversified economy in which heavy industry, light manufacturing, the electronics sector, tourism, financial services have come together. And the vibrant public sector is important in terms of employment. We now have a resilient economic system. </p>
<p>We also have considerable reserves of one of the most important things for an independent state and that is power; power through the assets of oil and also through the potential of wind energy. Scotland is disproportionately endowed with these, compared to almost all other European countries. So, in other words, because of this economic transformation, which has undoubtedly led to social dislocation for many communities – and let’s not forget that – we now have an economy that can sustain itself in a resilient way in world markets.</p>
<h2>The Irish Catholic dimension</h2>
<p>One of the chief manifestations of that is the emancipation of the Catholic Irish working class. In 1901 their American cousins gained wage, occupational and educational parity. In 2001 the same thing happened here. So that tells us a substantial upward mobility has been going on in Scotland which took place between the early 1960s and the mid-1980s. </p>
<p>It’s important to state here that I reject the view, chiefly espoused by George Galloway and some others, that Catholics in Scotland would become more vulnerable in a smaller country. This is nonsense; George is, as usual, talking rhetoric. None of those assertions is based on any academic understanding or knowledge. The ordinary Catholic population of Scotland simply doesn’t share this view. Indeed the most recent data from the <a href="http://www.natcen.ac.uk/media/176046/2012-who-supports-and-opposes-independence-and-why.pdf">Scottish Social Attitudes Survey in 2012</a> demonstrated that, of the three main Scottish groupings – Catholics - Protestants and non-believers - the Catholic sample indicated that 36% were committed to Scottish independence; non-believers were about 27% and the Kirk 16%.</p>
<p>This, I think, demonstrated further that people of Irish Catholic ethnicity for the first time felt comfortable in their Scottish skins. This may also be attributed to the decline of Britishness, in a similar way to the experience of the Asian community. I think that Irish community finds it easier to identify with Scottishness rather than Britishness because the latter still has vibrations of former imperial power. </p>
<p>There has also been a transformation in Scottish higher education. As late as the 1950s, we were pretty second rate in research terms, but there has been a revolution here. Four Scottish universities are now in the world’s top 200. And in my own field of humanities, the University of Edinburgh is ranked 11th. In terms of citation indices, Scotland has regularly been in the top three and sometimes number one. We get 16% of the UK’s competitive funding despite having only 10% in terms of population. That means that, as long as we can get the application of research into industry and into the economy, the future, which will be all about brain-intensive industry, will be a bright one for Scotland which will have a significant head start. This also adds to the potential resilience of the economy. </p>
<p>What we need to do much, much better in, though, is in the performance of our schools. We need to engage in long-term investment of the type implemented by Finland to bring them up to the models of the elite countries of the world because there is no doubt in my mind that the future lies in a highly educated workforce engaged in what you might call value-added activity and not simply routine activity. </p>
<p>So all of this means that Scotland is a much more resilient nation and this is underpinned by our proven track record since devolution. We can actually run a country effectively and the electoral record of the Scottish parliament over the last six or seven years shows that the Scottish people want a certain type of governance. They are also seeking a certain type of political approach which is different from that currently favoured south of the border. </p>
<h2>The trouble with devo max</h2>
<p>I’ve also come to the conclusion that even devolution max would just prolong a running sore. Even if you accept the positive spin of devo-max in terms of more powers granted, would that not make many English people unhappy? They’re already unhappy about the Barnett formula which they think favours Scotland. This is one of the other reasons why I think there has to be sovereignty. Only through sovereignty can we truly develop a truly amicable and equal relationship with our great southern neighbour in every possible field. This should include economic sharing, sharing of research support costs and it should also include close cultural relationships. The final legislative authority, in order to secure that amity, really has to remain north of the border. </p>
<p>Up until the early 1980s the relationship between England and Scotland, from the Jacobite rebellion of 1745, was stable. There was hardly any gross interference from the London governments in those areas we regarded as specifically Scottish. And when big government did happen after World War Two, Scotland probably gained in the birth of the welfare state. It also benefited from state intervention in the nationalisation of the big industries. There was also duality: Scottish identity was strong within the union. This was also manifested in the convergence of voting patterns. If England voted Tory, Scotland tended to vote Tory. If we voted Labour, ditto. </p>
<p>From about 1979 on, the cracks begin to appear. And here I don’t think we should get hung up on Thatcherism. The changes in our industrial landscape were almost an historic inevitability, though they could, perhaps, have been a little more benign under a Labour government. Whatever the reasons, there was now a structural gap in electoral behaviour between Scotland and England. In a highly centralised state, which the UK was before devolution, that’s a recipe for tension.</p>
<p>I think it’s also important to state here that there’s absolutely no evidence for claims that Scotland has become a divided society, as espoused by people such as the author Alexander McCall Smith at the Edinburgh book festival. What I see in families and in pubs and in the public debates that I’ve attended is serious, sometimes fierce, sometimes very strong, engagement. But I simply don’t see any evidence that the political division has caused the kind of societal division that McCall Smith talks about. Where do people like these, like George Galloway, get their evidence? My trade is based on generalisation and evidence and the teasing out of the tensions between the two. And unless they can come up with some data to support this it’s just whistling in the wind. </p>
<p>I also believe that because of all these changes in the nature of the union and Scotland’s cultural and economic re-emergence, not even the most enthusiastic unionist nowadays would seriously suggest that the Scottish nation cannot go it alone.</p>
<h2>Worst of all worlds: a heavy Yes defeat</h2>
<p>What I dread most in the referendum is the possibility of what happens in the event of a crushing defeat for the Yes campaign. I don’t think that would be a good thing for the collective psychology of the nation. I can remember what occurred after 1979 (the first devolution vote) among certain social groups. A crushing defeat could lead to a substantial portion of the population feeling very aggrieved, disappointed and, in some cases, distressed. I think it’s different for the No camp. I sense that the majority of them haven’t invested the same degree of emotional capital as Yes.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/56918/original/xx9ymc2k-1408535801.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/56918/original/xx9ymc2k-1408535801.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/56918/original/xx9ymc2k-1408535801.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/56918/original/xx9ymc2k-1408535801.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/56918/original/xx9ymc2k-1408535801.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/56918/original/xx9ymc2k-1408535801.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/56918/original/xx9ymc2k-1408535801.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/56918/original/xx9ymc2k-1408535801.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Beware the independence enthusiasts if they are badly beaten.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/martainn/9883206373/in/photolist-eFfcTu-eFfcYE-4uLyRs-ancit-nzdi73-eiABox-beMbcF-g4jwxz-g4m1VT-iZa41u-iZ7tpc-iZ8jPW-d7E4Uw-oCWsQK-omHFS6-omHFzH-8fL6YH-dNkRDm-5nXfNb-o3sai5-beMbpD-ddqJBA-ov5T3e-ddqSHe-dS6BQY-dd2xHF-oLRsew-gbZU8Q-dds1ZS-ddqR6u-ddqL8z-oqXuUd-dpFD3o-ddrUZf-ddqzQJ-emh4LK-dds6pL-dd2pYn-dd2giB-dd2vMK-dd2sCD-dd2pV7-dd2ukg-dd2rxB-dd2va3-dd2p2a-obNidP-aAZWP6-8fPjc1-ajv2ig">Màrtainn MacDhòmhnaill</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>I’m not suggesting that this will manifest itself in any violence. But there’s a real political dynamic going on in the country over the referendum and that will, in my view, completely collapse, in the event of a heavy defeat for Yes. There has also been a huge degree of international interest in what’s going on here and in their eyes we may once again become merely a peripheral nation. </p>
<p>However, I also have a degree of sympathy for the No campaign in terms of its perceived negativity. It’s very difficult to support a negative with any enthusiasm. Many of these people are enthusiastic Scottish patriots but I also accept that they are at ease with Britishness and they see major risks in the collapse of the union. In the event of a No vote and after the Yes campaigners have recovered from the trauma, we’ll be back on to the same problem of destabilisation and tension within the union. </p>
<h2>The reality of the union</h2>
<p>The Union of England and Scotland was not a marriage based on love; it was a marriage of convenience. It was pragmatic. That’s why I don’t think there’s the same degree of interest in England about the possible dissolution of the union. To begin with, the union was very unstable between 1707 and the 1750s and was one of the main stimuli for the Jacobite risings. From the 1750s down to the 1980s there was stability in the relationship. Now, though, all the primary foundations of that stability have gone, or have been massively diluted: the empire; Protestantism as a unionist ideaology; the Church of Scotland, which has lost two-thirds of its membership since the early 1950s. </p>
<p>The English and imperial markets were once a great seduction for Scotland, but now Europe is of great importance. In terms of Scottish militarism we had 13 regiments as late as 1957 and now there’s only one. Then there has been the weakening influence of the monarch and the absence of an external and potentially hostile force which once would have induced internal collective solidarity. I refer here to the end of World War Two and the collapse of the old Soviet empire. There is no obvious other at the moment. When you put all of these together it’s possible to argue that there’s very little left in the union except sentiment, history and family. Most of the pragmatic reasons for the union which emerged in the 18th and 19th centuries are now no longer there. And alongside this weakening and in parallel to it you’ve got the emergence of a more powerful and more mature Scottish democracy and economy. It is an idea therefore, you could say, that’s time has come. </p>
<p>It’s these two factors coming together which has caused the destabilisation of the union. And this will never end – devo-max will just be a sticking plaster – until you get an amicable separation and a full set of equal relationships between the two countries after independence. </p>
<p>The great French historian Ernest Renan in the late 1880s <a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5guRLMVcYGoC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=Ernest+Renan+blood+and+soil&source=bl&ots=WYaO9Ga1aj&sig=qzGverKK9Igoc7SsMWlgShQOu6k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6n_0U46_FeeZ0QX3zYCQBQ&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Ernest%20Renan%20blood%20and%20soil&f=false">denied that</a> a nation was based on ethnicity and language or blood-and-soil nationality. His argument was that a nation consists of people who have a collective shared sentiment and that sentiment is based on myth and history and a series of symbols and markers of identity. There is a constant referendum going as to whether that sentiment still exists in the union. Renan’s concept of a nation is that it can be ephemeral; it’s not there forever, it is not a permanency as it varies according to circumstances. This is a very intriguing parallel with what’s going on in the UK today.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/30733/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tom Devine 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>Tom Devine, Scotland’s most celebrated historian of recent years, sent shockwaves through the country when he revealed in a news report in The Observer newspaper last weekend that he intends to vote in…Tom Devine, Personal Senior Research Chair of History, The University of EdinburghLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.