Arguably the most significant event in Scotland’s political history, the 18th September 2014 independence referendum was a remarkable triumph of democracy. It succeeded in bringing together groups of people from all areas of society and encouraged them to work towards a common goal. It engaged the vast majority of the population in political discussion and debate, encouraging them to take an active interest in the future of their country, with many voting for the first time ever. With an overall turnout of 84.59 per cent, just over 3.6 million voters, it was the most accurately representative vote that the United Kingdom has ever seen.[1] However, the Scottish referendum was equally as divisive as it was unifying. The ballot paper’s lack of “third option” saw the country divided into two irreconcilably different camps, each campaigning fervently for almost two and a half years until final polls predicted that the result would be almost too close to call. As the referendum drew nearer, independence became such a contentious issue that there was palpable tension whenever mentioned; and on the morning of the 19th, whilst some celebrated a victory for the union, others mourned the death of a dream.
Image courtesy of Màrtainn MacDhòmhnaill © 2013, some rights reserved.
As Yes Scotland, Better Together and their supporting politicians fought desperately to secure a win, the most basic principle of Scottish independence was frequently forgotten. At its core, the independence referendum was a question of whether the potential for complete control over Scotland’s own affairs by an accurately representative government was worth the potential risks of breaking away from the United Kingdom. Both sides presented equally valid and convincing arguments, yet the result showed a greater margin than predicted, with 45.7 per cent in favour and 55.3 per cent voting against independence. It would be easy to conclude that this result was due to a higher percentage of voters believing that the risks outweighed the potential benefits. However, there are various other factors that do not concern the pros or cons of independence that may have had a considerable impact on the result.
The first and most significant of these factors concerns the demographics of the electorate. Two principal polls, one by YouGov and the other by Lord Ashcroft, were conducted on the night of the count to ascertain how certain members of society voted, and several patterns can be found in the results.
Firstly, as predicted, statistics show that people aged 65 and over were far more likely to vote No than those of any other age group. Pensioners cited reasons such as fears for the future of the NHS, as the No campaign argued that the current standard of care provided, including free prescriptions, would not be sustainable or affordable in an independent Scotland.[2] Consequently, around three-quarters of people aged over 65 (73 per cent) declared that they had voted against independence in the Ashcroft poll. The difference in percentages of Yes and No voters was much less remarkable in most other age brackets, although the trend of older voters leaning towards No was evident, with 57 per cent of those aged 55-64 also voting No. A noticeable exception to the relatively equal division of voters was the bracket of 16-17 year olds, of whom 71 per cent voted Yes.[3] However, as pensioners make up around 18 per cent of Scotland’s population, their distinct bias for the union had a much greater impact on the overall result than the views of 16-17 year olds, who comprise around 3 per cent.[4] Interestingly, the 18-24 year old age bracket, which represents about 12.5 per cent of the population,[5] was one of the least likely groups to support independence, with only 48 per cent declaring that they had voted Yes. This group includes the majority of university students, many of whom were perhaps concerned about job prospects or the future of fees and funding for universities, given that Scottish universities would no longer be allowed to charge students from the rest of the UK (RUK) higher fees than Scottish students, and that a significant amount of research carried out in Scottish universities is funded by UK bodies.
Furthermore, voters born in the rest of the UK were less likely to support independence, as the YouGov poll confirms, only 26 per cent of voters born in the rest of the United Kingdom voted Yes.[6] This is reflected in the results of regions with higher percentages of residents born outside of Scotland, including the Orkney Islands (where 67.2 per cent voted No), and the Scottish Borders (66.6 per cent voted No). The latter result is particularly unsurprising, given that voters were concerned about the future of relations between an independent Scotland and the United Kingdom and therefore their freedom to pass between the two. These regions are also amongst those where a large percentage of people describe their identity as ‘British’ as opposed to ‘Scottish’ in the 2011 Census.
In addition, across Europe there were people expressing their desire for Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom. This is particularly true of Spain, where people were concerned about the impact a Yes vote would have on Catalonia’s campaign for independence. Furthermore, after European Commission President Barroso’s declaration that it would be “extremely difficult” for an independent Scotland to join the EU, it is understandable that EU citizens living in Scotland would not welcome such uncertainty about their future freedom of movement. Although their number was not great enough to have a significant impact on the overall result, the decision to allow non-Scottish people living in Scotland to vote in the referendum may have been the nail in the Yes campaign’s coffin. Even those who were only living temporarily in Scotland were entitled to vote if they were British, EU or Commonwealth citizens, despite the fact that they may not have had a vested interest in the future of Scotland if they were not planning to stay. This, when coupled with natural bias felt by other British citizens living in Scotland, undeniably contributed to the vote for the union.
In addition to the impact of nationality on the result, polls show that social class also affected how people voted in the referendum. According to YouGov’s poll, 50 per cent of those in C2DE working-class jobs voted Yes, compared with 41 per cent of those in ABC1 middle-class employment. Working-class voters cited reasons such as disaffection with austerity measures implemented by Westminster, as well as the prospect of hope for a better future for Scotland. There has also been a significant shift in voting patterns as working-class Scottish voters continue to move away from Labour and towards the Scottish National Party (SNP). However, middle-class voters are more likely to remain loyal to their favoured traditional (and unionist) party. This trend has had a clear impact on the result of the vote. The four regions where the majority of voters voted Yes are also the regions with the highest unemployment figures. Dundee City and Glasgow, whose unemployment figures are 17 per cent and 19.1 per cent respectively,[7] were also the regions with the lowest voter turnout, at 79 per cent and 75 per cent compared to the average of 84.59 per cent. Therefore, in short, more voters who supported the union actually voted.
The statistics explain the percentages of people who voted for each side, but there are also other underlying explanations for the reasons why the majority of Scots voted No. One such example is the SNP itself. They were champions of the independence movement, but little did they realise their very presence within the campaign, their leader Alex Salmond and their history discouraged people from supporting it. The SNP’s history as a nationalist movement is one of the primary reasons for people’s hesitation to support them. ‘Nationalism’ can be considered a dirty word, sometimes associated with racism and fascism, and it is undeniable that it can be a dangerous concept, particularly when coupled with extremism. This is clearly not the stance taken by the Scottish National Party, whose brand of nationalism promotes the best interests of their nation’s citizens as opposed to xenophobia or cultural supremacy, but it means that the party suffers from a rather negative portrayal in most mainstream media (who frequently refer to its members as “nationalists” or “the Nats”), which is enough to put many voters off.
The controversial Saltire-wielding figure of then-First Minister and Yes campaign leader Alex Salmond did little to alleviate any fears concerning this matter. The idea of Salmond as the leader of an independent Scotland did not appeal to many voters, including those who supported independence, perhaps because he is far from a traditional, tactful politician. Salmond is perceived as a ruthless risk-taker, and his various public gaffes as well as the questions he simply could not answer about Scotland’s future did not inspire enough trust amongst the general public for his confidence and oratory skills to charm them into his way of thinking.
The campaign for independence, which was primarily represented by the organisation Yes Scotland, was based on Salmond’s visionary brand of politics, which further contributed to its eventual failure. The future of an independent Scotland was inevitably uncertain, but this fact was used repeatedly against the Yes campaign by their unionist opponents, Alistair Darling’s Better Together. The pro-independence movement was continually denounced as idealistic, based on hope and potential in the absence of solid information, despite the fact that many matters, including Scotland’s membership of the EU, could not truly be determined before the announcement of a Yes vote. However, the campaign’s reluctance to respond to threats regarding these matters, particularly the lack of currency solution in the event that the United Kingdom refused a currency union, proved to be yet another nail in the coffin of Scottish independence. Better Together effectively exploited this uncertainty to wage a campaign arguably based on fear of the unknown, but founded on tangible information that made their argument seem more trustworthy. They adopted a ‘better the devil you know’ approach, and it served them well. Furthermore, Yes Scotland faced criticism from several high-profile figures both within Britain and overseas, including former chairman of the US Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, who accused them of making promises they could not keep.[8] They also did not manage to attract as many high-profile supporters as Better Together, who counted J.K. Rowling and Sir Alex Ferguson amongst their ranks. Politicians they are not, but their influence is undeniable. In addition, Yes Scotland arguably had the more difficult campaign to run, considering that support for independence was low when the referendum was announced and that Better Together had all of the traditional parties on its side and consequently a wider pool of potential donors and supporters. Yes Scotland was perhaps not as well-managed as it could have been either, judging from the clear internal tensions demonstrated by frequent staffing changes, yet another aspect which weakened what was already a fragile campaign.
In contrast to the hope expressed by Yes Scotland, Better Together’s campaign came across as overwhelmingly negative, thanks in part to the fact that they drew the ‘No’ side of the debate. While Yes Scotland focused on listing the potential benefits of an independent Scotland, Better Together’s strategy seemed to involve listing the disadvantages and the dangers of independence, as opposed to the advantages of the status quo and the benefits for Scotland’s future as part of the United Kingdom. In other words, their campaign was primarily based on anti-independence negativity rather than pro-union positivity. This led to gains of a large number of supporters possibly because it effectively highlighted the potential for disaster in an independent Scotland whilst actively not reminding voters of their disaffection with Westminster politics.
It can also be argued that media coverage of the referendum campaign contributed to influencing voters. Only one major newspaper in the country, the Scottish Herald, announced its support for the referendum, despite the fact that support for major parties is usually fairly equally distributed during other political campaigns. In addition, the coverage in other major newspapers was often extremely critical both of the campaign for independence and the Yes voters themselves. This is perhaps most evident in an article published in The Times on 9 September 2014, where columnist Melanie Reid proclaims “What spoilt, selfish, childlike fools those Scots are… They simply don’t have a clue how lucky they are.”[9] Even the supposedly neutral BBC came under fire from thousands of Yes voters for alleged bias towards the No campaign, particularly after a report on a press conference with Salmond was edited to suggest that the then-First Minister avoided answering a question posed by the BBC’s Nick Robinson. The lack of pro-independence coverage simply emphasised the reasons to support the union, as well as making it difficult for voters to access information and facts about the opposing argument. The implication was that there were few reasons to vote Yes and a very small number of people who supported it.
The result of Scotland’s referendum on independence was not solely based on the arguments of either campaign, as the final polls before the vote indicated that both sides were predicted to see a fairly equal result. Arguably, the demographics of those who actually turned out to vote and the influence this information had on their voting patterns had a serious impact on the result. Their preferences were also most likely influenced by the strengths and weaknesses of the two principal campaigns as well as their portrayal in the media. Although the final result showed enough of a margin to be indisputable, the surge in SNP membership in the days following the referendum demonstrates that a considerable number of Scots remain unhappy with the current system of political representation and will continue to campaign for positive change. Perhaps this result was the final push that they needed to take action for what they believe in.
[1] “Scotland Decides.” British Broadcasting Corporation
[2] Magnanti, Brooke. “The real reason older women are saying ‘no’ to an independent Scotland.” The Telegraph. 4 September 2014.
[3] Ashcroft, Michael. “How Scotland voted, and why.” Lord Ashcroft Polls. 19 September 2014.
[4] “Summary: Age Demographics.” The Scottish Government. <www.gov.scot>
[5] Grundy, Sue and Lynn Jamieson. “Demography: 18-24 year olds in the population. UK Socio Demographic Profile of 18-24 year olds.” In Orientations of Young Men and Women to Citizenship and European Identity Workpackage No. 4, Socio Demographic Profile Scotland and England, UK 2002. 1-38. <www.sociology.ed.ac.uk/youth/docs/UK_sociodem.pdf>
[6] “YouGov – Scottish Referendum Final Prediction.” YouGov UK. 19 September 2014.
[7] “Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 2012.” Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation. 18 December 2012.
[8] Harding, Robin with Richard McGregor and Geoff Dyer. “US alarmed by prospect of Scottish ‘Yes’ in independence vote.” Financial Times. 15 September 2014.
[9] Reid, Melanie. “Selfish Scots don’t know how lucky they are.” The Times. 9 September 2014.
