In a classic example of the type of political debate which excites politicians and excludes everyone else, much energy has been spent this week discussing the question which should be asked in Scotland's independence referendum.
The SNP government's preferred version is quite simple and to the point (on the face of it): 'Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?' However this has provoked an angry response from other parties who say it's a leading question.
It's worth asking the extent to which the question really matters. You could just ask "Do you prefer Burns or Shakespeare?", so long as people knew what each option really stood for. This of course assumes only one question/two options.
As facetious as this, it's surely the case that, overall, everyone will know what they are voting for before they go into the ballot box. But this is not to say that the question's wording will have no impact whatsoever.
As it is written the likely question is leading in the sense that it is always easier to say 'yes' than 'no'. Also numerous polling experts have lined up this week to say that people have a greater propensity to agree than disagree, again leading towards a 'yes' vote.
It's also true that while the SNP may say the question isn't key and accuse the Opposition of pettiness and sniping in fact they also believe that the wording matters, otherwise why would they be so determined to set the question?
It is actually possible to have a question without a 'yes' or 'no' answer e.g. two statements to choose from, 'Scotland should be an independent country' and 'Scotland should remain part of the United Kingdom'. This takes away any question bias for either side.
In a technical sense it's also worth asking if there's a problem with the question's exact meaning i.e. independent from what? The UK? The EU? Clearly it's the former so it's worth asking why it doesn't state this somewhere in the question.
This again takes us back to the importance of wording. Various opinion polls over the years show that the public is much warmer to the idea of greater Scottish control of issues i.e. independence than it is from the idea of breaking up the UK.
All of this being said - and whilst Labour and the Liberal Democrats may complain - this is obviously the same tactic that they employed to isolate the Conservatives during the 1997 devolution referendum. No-one wants to be on the 'no' side.
Whilst the public will probably only pay scant attention to the general furore around wording, it's a legitimate question if the SNP made a tactical error in setting the question themselves, unless they believe that their success is conditional on being able to set the question and so debate.
A better option - and one which would have insulated them from early criticism - would have been to have left the wording of any question either to the Electoral Commission or perhaps a Holyrood-appointed group of academics.
The Yes/No divide may influence a small number of votes. It may also aid the nationalist side in continuing a perceived positive campaign against negativity and griping. All of this will do Alex Salmond's chances of success no harm.
However overall the issue is surely likely to be starkly clear to voters. We are now - joy of joys - in the midst of a two-and-a-half year election campaign. The huge coverage and debate this will involve will leave no-one who actually casts in any doubt what they are going for.
All that remains is for the public not to be utterly disenchanted by the next few hundred days of campaigning and fighting. Because it's utterly certain this is one issue the public would have no problems in voting 'no' to.
28 Jan 2012
15 Jan 2012
The Old Firm and Independence
Anyone with even a passing interest in Scottish football is aware of the Old Firm, whether you want to be or not.
These two teams dominate everything. Not only do they win most things but media attention is focused on them more than any other team in the league.
So even if you support any of the 40 other league teams in Scotland, you will be forced to continually hear about Celtic and Rangers. To the extent that you might think no other team exists.
This fact has been on my mind these past few days as the debate over Independence has apparently taken off. Looking at the mainstream media, blogs and other online sites such as Twitter has seen an explosion of activity.
So logically then this means that across Scotland the general public are part of the debate and relishing the next 1000 days or so of campaigning? Except of course this isn't true.
Just as you can be forgiven for thinking at times that there are no football teams in Scotland outwith Celtic and Rangers, so too might you mistake all this activity for public engagement.
And yet it's hard to see that this is yet the case. The bulk of debate thus far appears to be those with a professional interest in politics i.e. politicians, journalists, party workers. There is little evidence of the debate extending into wider society.
This is not to say that it will not happen; it's hard to see how people can't engage in the weeks before the referendum (sometime in Autumn 2014). But we are certainly not there yet.
And it's also worth wondering if, like the Old Firm, some people are doing their best to ensure large parts of the population never take an interest, what with all the petty squabbling which has been evident from both sides.
Saturday night football radio phone-in shows usually feature one side of the Old Firm celebrating and the other berating the conspiracy against them. That or saying how evil the others' actions are.
The week later this will usually be reversed as the other claims either victimisation or moral superiority. And because of this most people roll their eyes and simply ignore the debate.
This could yet be the fate of the independence issue. If the majority of people who usually take but a passing interest are subjected to 1000 days of claim, counter-claim and acrimony they may come to the conclusion of 'a plague on all your houses'.
It's not entirely clear who this will benefit. If turnout and interest is lower it might aid the nationalists whose supporters will have more of a reason and desire to vote.
However if turnout gets very low it could lead to problems whereby the final result is legally challenged. Either way it would surely result in yet more fighting and more general public alienation.
So whether you believe that people who disagree with you are "anti-Scottish" or you think that ending the union will impoverish Scotland, it's probably best to keep some of these thoughts to yourself.
Otherwise the independence debate - like at times Scottish football - risks being fought by two partisan groups and ignored by everyone else in the country.
These two teams dominate everything. Not only do they win most things but media attention is focused on them more than any other team in the league.
So even if you support any of the 40 other league teams in Scotland, you will be forced to continually hear about Celtic and Rangers. To the extent that you might think no other team exists.
This fact has been on my mind these past few days as the debate over Independence has apparently taken off. Looking at the mainstream media, blogs and other online sites such as Twitter has seen an explosion of activity.
So logically then this means that across Scotland the general public are part of the debate and relishing the next 1000 days or so of campaigning? Except of course this isn't true.
Just as you can be forgiven for thinking at times that there are no football teams in Scotland outwith Celtic and Rangers, so too might you mistake all this activity for public engagement.
And yet it's hard to see that this is yet the case. The bulk of debate thus far appears to be those with a professional interest in politics i.e. politicians, journalists, party workers. There is little evidence of the debate extending into wider society.
This is not to say that it will not happen; it's hard to see how people can't engage in the weeks before the referendum (sometime in Autumn 2014). But we are certainly not there yet.
And it's also worth wondering if, like the Old Firm, some people are doing their best to ensure large parts of the population never take an interest, what with all the petty squabbling which has been evident from both sides.
Saturday night football radio phone-in shows usually feature one side of the Old Firm celebrating and the other berating the conspiracy against them. That or saying how evil the others' actions are.
The week later this will usually be reversed as the other claims either victimisation or moral superiority. And because of this most people roll their eyes and simply ignore the debate.
This could yet be the fate of the independence issue. If the majority of people who usually take but a passing interest are subjected to 1000 days of claim, counter-claim and acrimony they may come to the conclusion of 'a plague on all your houses'.
It's not entirely clear who this will benefit. If turnout and interest is lower it might aid the nationalists whose supporters will have more of a reason and desire to vote.
However if turnout gets very low it could lead to problems whereby the final result is legally challenged. Either way it would surely result in yet more fighting and more general public alienation.
So whether you believe that people who disagree with you are "anti-Scottish" or you think that ending the union will impoverish Scotland, it's probably best to keep some of these thoughts to yourself.
Otherwise the independence debate - like at times Scottish football - risks being fought by two partisan groups and ignored by everyone else in the country.
10 Jan 2012
The public, social media and the independence referendum
A quick look at my Facebook and Twitter pages over the past few days has seen an explosion of argument and debate about the intricacies of an independence referendum.
Given the fury and energy being expended it seems that this is an issue of absolute public concern and interest. Except it’s not really.
Of all the people classed as my online friends there is a great mix of backgrounds. And yet to a man – or woman – the only people commenting on the referendum are politicians, journalists and party members.
Even in my workplace, discussion of this issue has been fairly muted, with one sole colleague mentioning it briefly.
All of this is obviously anecdotal but it does hint at the problem which all sides in this debate face; a general level of public disinterest in the matter, certainly the background to such a vote taking place.
This matters for two important reasons. One there is just the increasing alienation between what voters care about and what politicians spend their time discussing.
But it also has some repercussions for the eventual vote and its aftermath. Once we get through the current furore let’s say the vote finally happens, whether 2012, 2013 or 2014.
Imagine that the public have been increasingly turned off the issue by party political bickering and turnout is low. Will the losing side then be prepared to accept defeat?
So if the ‘unionist’ side (for all this is an untidy description) wins, especially narrowly, will the SNP go away or fight for another vote soon after (the so-called neverendum)?
Or instead if the nationalist side win, again narrowly, will the result not be challenged either in parliament or in the courts by the losers?
Whatever your position on the constitution this matters, because ultimately the loser in either scenario would be the democratic process as the public becomes even more disenchanted.
And the worst thing of all is that if such a scenario comes to pass the only people talking about it on Facebook, Twitter or anywhere else will surely be the same, narrow grouping.
20 Aug 2011
Do we need a Scottish Studies course?
What about that furore at Holyrood this week over whether we should have a Scottish Studies course? Why it was like when William Wallace led the Scots to victory at the Battle of Culloden in 1925.
You remember that famous conflict surely? It was chronicled by Sir Walter Scott in his best-selling book Miss Jean Brodie meets the Cone Gatherers, which I think was published sometime around 2001.
Preventing the above nonsense is of course what has been focusing the minds of the SNP this week as they launch plans for a Scottish Studies course in schools, something which has been met with Opposition opposition.
The SNP's belief is that young people are not currently exposed to enough Scottish history or literature whereas the opposition (notably Labour) claim it is a form of indoctrination and a distraction in an otherwise crowded curriculum.
On the face of it it's hard to argue with the idea of with a Scottish Studies course. Why should children not learn more about Scottish literature, history, etc to give them an understanding of their country?
It's misplaced to describe it as 'indoctrination'. Scottish heritage is no less valuable than other countries' and indeed Scottish Studies may serve to undermine misplaced nationalism by presenting a greater genuine understanding of Scotland.
Whilst this is fair enough there are still many unanswered questions. Firstly how do you fit an extra subject into what is already a very full curriculum? And secondly does this not utterly undermine recent changes to the education system?
Scottish primary pupils should concentrate on the basics and secondary pupils already study up to 16 subjects in their first two years; if a brand new course is to be introduced then something else has to go. What is that going to be?
It would be worrying if it was an established subject like history. Scottish history is important and usually already studied in primary and secondary schools. But other history is important too to develop a genuine world understanding.
If instead Scottish Studies is not to be a stand alone course but rather one that is weaved into current subjects then this is surely what is already supposed to be happening through the new Curriculum for Excellence (CfE)?
This is exactly why some teachers are often reluctant to fully embrace educational change - because they know another shift will be close behind. CfE is meant to achieve much of these outcomes yet already might be circumvented.
It's also not unreasonable to say there are other education matters which are a greater priority; not least the fact that in less than two years new qualifications will be introduced yet no-one knows what they will look like or how they'll be assessed.
The SNP will point to their manifesto and an opinion poll suggesting 90% support as reasons why Scottish Studies should be introduced. But it should only be done if it is a sensible course which fits with other subjects already taught.
If Scottish Studies enhances understanding of Scotland whilst also keeping an important world view then all well and good. But it should not just be about being seen to do something which doesn't add much except to appease SNP supporters.
And let's face it, the main person to oppose such misplaced actions would have been Ivanhoe's Captain Robert the Bruce.
You remember that famous conflict surely? It was chronicled by Sir Walter Scott in his best-selling book Miss Jean Brodie meets the Cone Gatherers, which I think was published sometime around 2001.
Preventing the above nonsense is of course what has been focusing the minds of the SNP this week as they launch plans for a Scottish Studies course in schools, something which has been met with Opposition opposition.
The SNP's belief is that young people are not currently exposed to enough Scottish history or literature whereas the opposition (notably Labour) claim it is a form of indoctrination and a distraction in an otherwise crowded curriculum.
On the face of it it's hard to argue with the idea of with a Scottish Studies course. Why should children not learn more about Scottish literature, history, etc to give them an understanding of their country?
It's misplaced to describe it as 'indoctrination'. Scottish heritage is no less valuable than other countries' and indeed Scottish Studies may serve to undermine misplaced nationalism by presenting a greater genuine understanding of Scotland.
Whilst this is fair enough there are still many unanswered questions. Firstly how do you fit an extra subject into what is already a very full curriculum? And secondly does this not utterly undermine recent changes to the education system?
Scottish primary pupils should concentrate on the basics and secondary pupils already study up to 16 subjects in their first two years; if a brand new course is to be introduced then something else has to go. What is that going to be?
It would be worrying if it was an established subject like history. Scottish history is important and usually already studied in primary and secondary schools. But other history is important too to develop a genuine world understanding.
If instead Scottish Studies is not to be a stand alone course but rather one that is weaved into current subjects then this is surely what is already supposed to be happening through the new Curriculum for Excellence (CfE)?
This is exactly why some teachers are often reluctant to fully embrace educational change - because they know another shift will be close behind. CfE is meant to achieve much of these outcomes yet already might be circumvented.
It's also not unreasonable to say there are other education matters which are a greater priority; not least the fact that in less than two years new qualifications will be introduced yet no-one knows what they will look like or how they'll be assessed.
The SNP will point to their manifesto and an opinion poll suggesting 90% support as reasons why Scottish Studies should be introduced. But it should only be done if it is a sensible course which fits with other subjects already taught.
If Scottish Studies enhances understanding of Scotland whilst also keeping an important world view then all well and good. But it should not just be about being seen to do something which doesn't add much except to appease SNP supporters.
And let's face it, the main person to oppose such misplaced actions would have been Ivanhoe's Captain Robert the Bruce.
Scottish Studies - The Great Battle of Newspapers
As an aside to the above post about Scottish Studies it's interesting to note how newspapers work and the (small p) politics involved in reporting.
The Scottish Studies story was run as an exclusive in The Herald and followed by several other newspapers, TV channels and radio stations.
However nowhere has any reference to it appeared in The Scotsman who are clearly angry that the exclusive interview went to their main rivals (an action which would surely have happened if the reverse were true too).
Isn't it nice to see that the media rises above the petty politics they usually decry our elected representatives for? No doubt they'll be telling tales of this famous battle in the course for years to come.
The Scottish Studies story was run as an exclusive in The Herald and followed by several other newspapers, TV channels and radio stations.
However nowhere has any reference to it appeared in The Scotsman who are clearly angry that the exclusive interview went to their main rivals (an action which would surely have happened if the reverse were true too).
Isn't it nice to see that the media rises above the petty politics they usually decry our elected representatives for? No doubt they'll be telling tales of this famous battle in the course for years to come.
