• DOI:10.1111/2041-9066.12043
• Corpus ID: 157471691

Foresight: Scotland Decides

@article{Keating2014ForesightSD,
  title={Foresight: Scotland Decides},
  author={Michael Keating},
  journal={Political Insight},
  year={2014},
  volume={5},
  pages={18 - 19}
}

• M. Keating
• Published 1 April 2014
• History
• Political Insight

POLITICAL INSIGHT • APRIL 2014 O n 18 September, Scottish voters go to the polls to decide the issue of independence. After some haggling, the Scottish and UK governments agreed that there would be a single, straightforward question: ‘Should Scotland be an independent country?’ This was explicitly intended to exclude third options such as the ‘devolution-max’ being canvassed for by some groups in civil society. Yet if the question is clear, its meaning is anything but: the middle ground alternatives, formally excluded, still frame the debate. Indeed, there are several ironies in the Scottish debate. One is that both sides are talking the language of union. The label ‘unionist’, previously a highly charged term associated with the Conservative and Unionist Party and loaded with Irish implications, has been embraced by all UK parties, including Labour and (with the occasional qualification) Liberal Democrats. On the nationalist side, Alex Salmond has argued that there are six unions, of which an independent Scotland would keep five (currency, monarchy, society, Europe and defence). Meanwhile, both sides are seeking to position themselves in that very middle ground that is excluded by the single question, in the knowledge that occupying this space is the key to victory. Polls have regularly shown that most Scots want more devolution but only a minority supports independence. Recent polling suggests that what weighs most with voters is uncertainty and risk, especially about the economy, pensions, social entitlements and Europe. Both sides have thus sought to present their option as safe and the others’ as risky. Unionists Foresight Scotland Decides