Volume 24, Number 2, November 2014
Exam tips
Using the Scottish independence
referendum in an exam answer
Rowena Hammal
This AS article suggests five ways to use the referendum in exam questions on UK politics.
The Scottish independence referendum offers a host of examples for you to use in exam questions.
The best answers use examples to develop an argument, and often bring in contrasting or similar
examples to support their case. Five different suggestions are given below.
Reasons for calling a referendum
If you’re asked about why governments call referendums, you can point out that governments often
use referendums to gain a mandate for constitutional change (e.g. Tony Blair’s Labour government
held referendums on devolution for Scotland and Wales in 1997, and Northern Ireland in 1998).
However, in the case of the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, the coalition government was
hoping to use the referendum to avoid constitutional change, as it was confident that Scotland would
vote ‘no’. It was the Scottish government, led by first minister Alex Salmond (leader of the Scottish
Nationalist Party or SNP), which hoped for constitutional change and which called for an
independence referendum following the SNP’s victory in the 2011 Scottish Parliament general
election.
The coalition government was under no legal obligation to hold a referendum on Scottish
independence, but decided to do so for two main reasons. First, there was a great deal of pressure
from the Scottish people and the media. By winning a majority in 2011 (an incredibly impressive feat,
given that voting took place using the Additional Member System (AMS) which makes it difficult for a
party to win a majority), the SNP convincingly argued that it had a mandate from the Scottish people
for a referendum, as this was one of its main manifesto pledges. Second, and probably more
importantly, the coalition government assumed it would easily win. You should be clear that
governments generally only hold referendums if they think they will win the outcome that they desire.
(Occasionally, governments misjudge it, as was the case in 2004 when the Labour government was
surprised to find that the North East voted ‘no’ to its proposed regional assembly for the North East.)
The coalition government probably regretted its confidence: in the event, despite the support of the
three main UK parties for the ‘Better Together’ campaign, the ‘yes’ campaign increased its support
significantly in the final weeks before the referendum. Frenetic efforts by the party leaders and former
prime minister Gordon Brown were required to ensure a ‘no’ vote: it was certainly not the easy victory
expected by the coalition government. Ultimately though, the referendum served its purpose for the
coalition, with David Cameron proclaiming that the issue of independence had ‘been settled for a
generation, or as Alex Salmond has said, “Perhaps for a lifetime”’.
Philip Allan Updates © 2014
1
Participation
If you get an exam question about participation, be sure to mention the Scottish referendum, which
was characterised by exceptionally high levels of participation. Of those eligible to vote, 97% chose to
register to vote, and according to a TNS poll almost three quarters of Scots participated in at least one
activity that was relevant to the referendum (such as talking to friends and family about the debate,
writing to a newspaper, working with the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ campaigns, and contributing to online
discussions). The referendum was a visible presence across the country, with many individuals putting
up billboards and signs proclaiming ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Many participated online, using social media such as
Twitter to debate the issues, but traditional methods of campaigning were also popular, with
thousands taking part in public rallies.
It was also noticeable that all age groups were involved in the discussion, including 16- and 17-yearolds, who had the right to vote for the first time in Scotland. This has now generated a debate about
whether 16- and 17-year-olds should have the vote in the UK. You can read more on this here.
When writing about participation, consider why participation levels were so much higher in the Scottish
independence referendum than in UK general, local and European elections. Think about the enormity
of the decision that Scotland had to make, the sense that it really could ‘go either way’, and the
knowledge that there were no voting system constraints so every vote counted.
Turnout
The Scottish independence referendum had a very high turnout of 84.6%, which reflects the high
levels of participation during the campaigning period. You should make the point that this is higher
than for any UK general election since 1910, and significantly higher than the 65% turnout in the 2010
UK general election, probably for the reasons discussed above (under the heading ‘Participation’).
However, this referendum also had an unusually high turnout compared to other referendums. The
Scottish devolution election of 1997 had a 60.4% turnout, for example. In a discussion of turnout, you
should explain that this is probably because the Scottish independence referendum offered profound
and permanent change, so the result would have a fundamental and irreversible impact upon the
electorate. When people feel their vote makes a real difference, they are more likely to vote.
You could point out that the only other UK referendum with a comparable turnout — of 81% — was
the 1998 Northern Ireland referendum on the Good Friday Agreement. Northern Irish voters were
being offered a potentially transformative solution to the Troubles: with so much at stake, the turnout
was high. In comparison, the enhanced devolution offered in the 2011 Welsh referendum on primary
legislative powers was a less significant change, and the turnout was accordingly lower, at 35.6%.
Voting behaviour
Have a look at this article to see how Scots voted. The BBC also has some useful maps here. You’ll
notice that older people were more likely to vote ‘no’, and that poorer areas with high unemployment,
such as Glasgow, were more likely to vote ‘yes’ than comparatively affluent areas, such as Edinburgh.
In an essay on voting behaviour, you can point out that at first glance these results appear to show a
degree of class alignment, and the importance of age in determining how people vote. However, you
could then go on to explain that rational choice was arguably much more important in this
referendum. Opinion polls showed that people were swayed by the televised debates on the
Philip Allan Updates © 2014
2
referendum, and that the economy was consistently the issue that mattered most to voters. The ‘Better
Together’ campaign focused on highlighting the economic dangers of independence, and in doing so
was able to win over many of the large number of undecided voters.
The importance of economic factors can also help to explain the demographic influences: older people
have more economic investment in the Union as they look to the UK to provide their pensions, health
and social care. Those living in poorer areas with high unemployment have experienced less
economic benefit from the Union, and are likely to be more inclined to embrace the risks and
uncertainties of independence, in the hope of securing a better future.
Constitutional change
If you are asked about constitutional change, you should explain that the Scottish referendum has
unleashed a new round of constitutional reform. While the coalition government originally intended to
use a ‘no’ vote in the referendum to avoid constitutional change, it became evident during the
campaign that most Scots wanted further devolution, if not full independence. As opinion polls
narrowed and then showed the ‘yes’ camp pulling ahead in the weeks before the vote, the leaders of
the main Westminster parties all promised an enhanced form of devolution. Former prime minister
Gordon Brown delivered a detailed timeline, which said that a new Scotland bill would be ready by the
end of January 2015.
You should point out that this new constitutional change presents a significant challenge to the UK. If
Scotland receives greater powers, many within England will question the generous funding given to
Scotland by the Barnett formula. The West Lothian question (whereby Scottish, Welsh and Northern
Irish MPs can currently vote on matters that concern only England) will need to be resolved. David
Cameron has promised to change the law so that only English MPs will be allowed to vote on laws
which affect England alone.
However, this raises further problems. Given that Labour has traditionally gained a significant
proportion of their MPs from Scotland and Wales, it is entirely possible that a future Labour
government might have a majority in Parliament when all UK MPs are counted, but that the
Conservatives might actually have more seats when only English MPs are counted. In effect, there
would be two governments — one for the UK as a whole, and another for England. The UK would
effectively be transforming from a unitary state to a more federal state. These issues will be resolved
in the coming months, so you should follow this debate carefully.
Rowena Hammal teaches politics at Portsmouth Grammar School, and is
the online editor of POLITICS REVIEW.
This resource is part of POLITICS REVIEW, a magazine written for A-level students by subject experts.
To subscribe to the full magazine go to www.hoddereducation.co.uk/politicsreview
Philip Allan Updates © 2014
3