Call it a foible, but I’m always very careful with my language. I always ask for a cola at the bar rather than a coke, I always make sure I use the correct term of Britain, Great Britain or UK depending on the situation and I always refer to Scotland the nation rather than Scotland the country.
That was my approach before today at least. However, as has been pointed out to me (by James), Scotland is actually, or at least can accurately be referred to as, a country. Consequently, I may have to rethink some things.
“A country is a region legally identified as a distinct entity in political geography. A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated peoples with distinct political characteristics” – Wikipedia
You can understand therefore that my mind is now all aflutter with regard the latest suggested independence question from the unionist camp:
‘Scotland should be an independent state. Agree/Disagree’
For me, the word ‘state’ conjurs up images of US states (e.g. Nebraska) or rogue states (e.g. Libya), neither constitutional arrangements that I would equate with the SNP’s ambition of an independent Scotland. France, to me, is not a state, Brazil is not a state, they are countries, and that is what Scotland should aspire to be, glossing over the fact, of course, that it is one already, apparently.
So, my initial reaction to this new suggested question was to consider that the following would be a considerable improvement:
‘Scotland should be an independent country. Agree/Disagree’
However, as above, and no doubt in many a person’s mind (albeit not mine), Scotland is a country already, so what exactly would we be voting on? Lawyers, lick your lips now.
The leaders of both sides of the debate may not always act like it, but a basic requirement of whatever the independence question turns out to be is that it should mitigate any risk of legal dubiety or public confusion. I have to gloomily conclude that the inclusion of ‘country’ risks inducing that very problem, though I still personally rail against the term ‘state’.
Alex Salmond’s supposed preference (assuming he really does prefer to just have the one question as opposed to two), is as follows:
Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?
The ‘agree’ element of the question is supposedly loaded, though those objecting didn’t seem to mind so much when the remarkably similar devolution question was asked: “I agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament.”
Perhaps therefore, the optimal question and the best compromise is as follows:
‘Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent state?’ Yes/No
The panel that came up with the question announced today are Lord Stewart Sutherland, Dr Matt Qvortrup and Ron Gould, as set up by Labour, the Lib Dems and the Conservatives. Male, pale and stale one could argue, but independent experts nonetheless, albeit with singularly biased paymasters.
I suspect, as subtle and insignificant the differences may to many appear to be, that to “agree” or not to agree will not be the only question for this particular question, but a debate around ‘country’ versus ‘state’ is only really just getting going.
For me, I’m knackered just thinking about it, and given today’s self-searching revelations about what is a country and what isn’t, I’m dropping my opinions for now and just going to sit back as the debate ensues.
With a cola, because at least some definitions are still dependable.
#1 by Duncan Hothersall (@dhothersall) on August 22, 2012 - 12:13 pm
Dare I mention the S word? No, not that one.
Shouldn’t we be talking about sovereignty here, rather than “independence” for a nation that has never been dependent? So:
Should Scotland become a sovereign state? Yes/No
This also avoids any confusion of “state” with the US meaning, I think. And it includes a sop to the “Yes Scotland” campaign which has rather foolishly hitched its wagon to a particular format of question before the question has been agreed.
#2 by Jeff on August 22, 2012 - 12:18 pm
I would be happy to include the word ‘sovereign’ ahead of state “sovereign independent country” sounds rather clunky.
I guess one potential downside with ‘sovereign’ is that people might think they are voting to get rid of the Queen.
#3 by Thomas Widmann on August 22, 2012 - 12:16 pm
Perhaps ‘sovereign state’ would actually be more precise — the only problem is that everybody knows the word ‘independent’ but probably not ‘sovereign’.
Anyway, am I the only one thinking that the ‘I agree/I disagree’ part of the panel’s suggestion is ludicrous? Would we have to stop talking about the Yes Campaign and the No Campaign and start talking about the Agreement Campaign and the Disagreement Campaign? Would there be posters, balloons and other campaign materials proudly announcing that ‘I agree’ or ‘I disagree’ rather than just ‘Yes’ or ‘No’? I really think that no matter what the question is, the possibly answers have to be just ‘Yes’ and ‘No’.
#4 by Jeff on August 22, 2012 - 12:19 pm
I fully agree.
I mean…. Yes!
It’s possible that the problem with experts running such things is that they overcomplicate matters to justify their position.
#5 by David on August 22, 2012 - 12:18 pm
There’s been a fair few attempts at equating the SNP’s proposal with the 1997 referendum. In reality, they’re very different. It asked to select a preference between:
“I agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament.”
or “I do not agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament.”
Even then, there was discussion over the wording in Parliament. In the history of British referendums, it was pretty atypical.
#6 by Jeff on August 22, 2012 - 12:23 pm
I genuinely don’t see much of a difference David, the question for devolution hinged on the words ‘agree’ and ‘should’.
If that was deemed suitably clear for Scots in 1997, I don’t see why it isn’t similarly clear for 2014.
Also, if Salmond’s question is loaded today, was the devolution question loaded back in 1997?
#7 by David on August 22, 2012 - 12:44 pm
It’s inevitably something of a sliding scale. Do I think the 1997 referendum question could’ve been improved? Quite possibly.
As a standard, I’d say the best drafted question we’ve had in a UK referendum came in the shape of the 1973 Border Poll for Northern Ireland. Voters were asked to show their preference:
“Do you want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom?”
or
“Do you want Northern Ireland to be joined with the Republic of Ireland outside the United Kingdom?”
I’m not explicitly rejecting a Yes/No choice, as some people seem to have, but that’s not what we had in 1997 – and if we are, then the introductory question really ought to be neutral as to the outcome. We’ve managed to do it in referendums before, after all: the EC vote, the NE England devolution referendum etc.
#8 by Commenter on August 22, 2012 - 12:55 pm
Do I think the 1997 referendum question could’ve been improved? Quite possibly.
Improved to make it less confusing? As far as I can see it’s devoid of ambiguity. I think we are over-thinking this.
#9 by David on August 22, 2012 - 1:02 pm
It’s not necessarily confusion alone, it’s coming up with as unbiased a question as possible. Whilst the political anoraks among us probably don’t understand it, polling has shown that the framing of the question does make a difference to the outcome by at least a few percentage points.
#10 by Commenter on August 22, 2012 - 1:25 pm
I’m trying to think back to the 1997 referendum…
I honestly believe that the question could have been in Swahili and, as long as I knew which answer was in favour of a Scottish Parliament with tax varying powers, I’d have picked the answer that I had already decided upon.
I have seen polls that supposedly reveal huge discrepancies in peoples’ votes depending on the question wording, but I think that to some extent people are subconsciously playing up to the narrative on ‘wording affects response’.
After 2 years of campaign (where believe it or not, voters will be subjected to some biased information!), people will be acting like I did – they’ll have an answer in mind and the wording will not be relevant. It is important to avoid obvious bias, but the minutiae wont be significant.
#11 by Commenter on August 22, 2012 - 1:27 pm
Also: during the 1997 campaign, the answers were always expressed in terms of ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, but this didn’t reflect the actual wording of the questions. I think this illustrates how the actual wording took a back seat.
#12 by CW on August 22, 2012 - 1:17 pm
Is it just me or does the “outside the United Kingdom” bit seem to add an unnecessary sense of bias to that?
#13 by Iain Menzies on August 22, 2012 - 1:56 pm
how is it that the truth can be biased?
#14 by Craig Gallagher on August 22, 2012 - 4:32 pm
Any historian will tell you that truth is always subjective nowadays. That is the postmodernist legacy. As a Unionist, I thought you’d be quite familiar with this, seeing as your camp is arguing that in the event Scotland would be “outside the United Kingdom” but retained sterling, it wouldn’t really be independent.
#15 by Iain Menzies on August 22, 2012 - 5:27 pm
oh i can think of a couple of historians that i had as tutors that might disagree with you on that one.
The retetntion of sterling (which would have to be a temporary arrangement) isnt the biggest problem with ‘independence so much as membership of the EU would be for a country like scotland….
#16 by Craig Gallagher on August 22, 2012 - 7:48 pm
I had a few tutors who would say the same thing as well. In fact, I say it myself, but as a historian-in-training I can’t just completely ignore the last twenty years of historiography asking whether we can ever really know the truth of what happens, anywhere. Better to engage with it and come up with an answer yourself. I happen to have decided that you can know.
And your example proves my point. The “truth” as you read it is different from the “truth” I read it. You imply Scotland wouldn’t be independent in the EU, I say that’s preposterous, of course it would, repeat ad finitum
#17 by CW on August 22, 2012 - 9:09 pm
There’s not the same negative caveat attached the other option, that’s why. It’s a matter of emphasis.
#18 by Doug Daniel on August 22, 2012 - 12:30 pm
Scotland is a country, but it’s not an independent country. France is an independent country. Brazil is an independent country. Scotland is in a political union with three other countries, so it’s not independent.
(Cue calls of “how is that any different to France being in the EU?” etc.)
I can’t help feeling that when it comes to the actual vote, regardless of what the wording is, people will know what they are voting for. If anyone is going into the polling booth unsure what the two options are, then they’re a bit dim, quite frankly.
You might as well just have the question worded: “WELL?” and the options “AYE” and “NAH”.
Maybe even “who do you agree with: Yes Scotland or Better Together?”
If we’re seriously saying that there’s a likelihood of people going to vote unsure of what the two options are, then perhaps the only way to solve it is to have two wee blurbs setting out the two options, and then asking which one you prefer – option 1 or option 2. If we have to go down that route though, then people will wonder how the Scots managed to invent so many things when they apparently have difficulty understanding such a basic concept as a country being independent.
#19 by Duncan Hothersall (@dhothersall) on August 22, 2012 - 12:40 pm
The vast majority of Scots haven’t given this a single thought, let alone reached a view as to what independence would actually mean. Both sides know this from canvassing data.
On top of which in the next two years Scots will be bombarded with propaganda from both sides suggesting that independence means no more nukes and oil money for all, or a loss of security and influence in the world.
The idea that everyone will know what they are voting for is a political bubble fallacy.
#20 by Allan on August 22, 2012 - 8:19 pm
Duncan.
The vast majority of Scot’s are probably waiting for the politicians to stop bickering over the piddling minutiae that is the question for this referendum.
In the meantime, there are much more importaint questions being asked up and down the land. Like where’s my next wage-packet coming from?
#21 by Doug Daniel on August 23, 2012 - 6:30 pm
Maybe not at the moment, but they’ll have given it a fair bit of thought by the time the referendum comes. And if people don’t know what they’re voting for when they step into the voting booth, there isn’t a conceivable way of wording the question such that all suddenly becomes clear when they look at their ballot sheet. Unless we’re going to supply every voter with a booklet detailing both sides and stand over them until they’ve read it cover to cover before letting them vote!
Seeing “independent state” instead of “independent country” isn’t suddenly going to make someone think “oh NOW I understand! Why didn’t those people at my door say state instead of country?”
#22 by Ken on August 22, 2012 - 12:33 pm
“France, to me, is not a state, Brazil is not a state, they are countries”
And yet we say the ‘State of Israel’. We also say ‘ Member States’ of the EU and ‘Member States’ of the UN, so state/country is a bit nitpicky to me.
I agree with sovereign being in there – that’s the crux of the whole independence debate I would of thought!
I doubt people would be confused over whether or not this means the Head of State would still be the UK Monarch. Canada, Australia etc etc all retain her as the Head of State though they are independent, sovereign states.
#23 by Jeff on August 22, 2012 - 12:59 pm
We do say State of Israel but it’s one of the few countries that we use the term with and, for me, that backs up my assertion that it’s typically problem nations that we tend to reserve the term for.
People use ‘country’ in day to day parlance for independent, sovereign nations, they don’t tend to use ‘state’.
#24 by Iain Menzies on August 22, 2012 - 1:58 pm
The only other state i can think of is the Vatican State…..i make no comment as to how that connection would play in Larkhall.
#25 by Commenter on August 22, 2012 - 12:42 pm
no doubt in many a person’s mind […] Scotland is an independent country already
Blimey. Alright, all those eedj- uh, chaps, who believe Scotland is an independent country, please put your hands up!
If you’re rocking back and forth with a beautific grin humming Flower of Scotland, you’re excused.
On the subject of the question: I don’t think, barring obviously dumb formulations where someone has crowbarred the word ‘separate’ in, that the wording will have an effect on the result. Not after two years of campaigning. I suspect we will end up with a 1997-style question with two long-winded agree/disagree answers.
#26 by Jeff on August 22, 2012 - 12:55 pm
typo – should have been “believe Scotland is a country already”. Fixed.
#27 by Commenter on August 22, 2012 - 1:28 pm
Ah, OK 🙂
#28 by BM on August 22, 2012 - 12:47 pm
The point isn’t to come up with a compromise, but to come up with a concise and unambiguous question. We want the best question on these terms, not the compromise.
#29 by Hugh on August 22, 2012 - 1:16 pm
I think that its inevitable that the final question will have to be a compromise. You can’t have a question that is going to satisfy both sides in a debate as polarising and emotionally charged as this one. Ambiguity is not the problem: everyone knows the question will be about Scotland’s independence; what will be difficult is finding a question that contains words that do not stir certain emotions, and therefore make people more likely to vote one way or another.
Personally, I think this challenge is impossible. Psephologists tell us that words such as ‘agree’ and ‘union’ trigger positive feelings, whilst ‘separate’ and ‘disagree’ obviously do the opposite.
Some experts have claimed that by using the words ‘agree’ (rather than disagree, or simply yes/no), ‘country’ (rather than ‘state’), and ‘independent’ (rather than ‘separate’) and giving no reference to the ‘union’ in the question, could give Yes Scotland up to an 8% boost, nearing what they would need to win based on average polling. I do feel that this is unfair, but then again it would be nigh on impossible to find a solution that satisfies both sides.
Perhaps
‘Do you agree that Scotland should secede from the United Kingdom’ would work better? It contains a mixture of positive/negative words.
#30 by Commenter on August 22, 2012 - 1:31 pm
Hmm. I’ve been arguing elsewhere that the exact wording isn’t important, but having read your proposed question I think I may have to take that back. It’s a doozy, and a good argument for how one person’s unbiased question is another person’s hilarious joke of a question.
#31 by Jeff on August 22, 2012 - 1:39 pm
Good one, but I don’t think you’ll find many Nats happy with the word ‘secede’, even though that’s precisely what is being argued for. It sounds cold and unfeeling, and not in keeping with the great positive adventure that is on sale.
#32 by Alasdair Stirling on August 22, 2012 - 3:47 pm
The position of a Scotland that has seceded from the United Kingdom is markedly different from a Scotland that emerges from a break-up of the Great Britain. Very specifically, secession allows rUK to remain as a continuing legal entity and retain all of its existing assets, rights and privileges whilst secessionist new Scotland would have to carve out a new place in the world without having inherited any share of the UK’s assets, rights and privileges (much as happened with the Irish Free State in 1922 – although the UK did impose upon it a share of the national debt). On the other hand, a Scotland that emerges from a break of the existing United Kingdom will inherit a proportionate share of the former UK’s assets, rights and privileges.
#33 by Doug Daniel on August 23, 2012 - 6:11 pm
“Some experts have claimed that by using the words ‘agree’ (rather than disagree, or simply yes/no), ‘country’ (rather than ‘state’), and ‘independent’ (rather than ‘separate’) and giving no reference to the ‘union’ in the question, could give Yes Scotland up to an 8% boost, nearing what they would need to win based on average polling. I do feel that this is unfair, but then again it would be nigh on impossible to find a solution that satisfies both sides.”
Let’s look at this bit another way: using “disagree” instead of “agree”, “state” instead of “country”, “separate” instead of “independent” and giving reference to the “union” in the question, could give Better Together up to an 8% boost.
I definitely feel this is unfair!
#34 by James Morton on August 22, 2012 - 1:23 pm
How About:
Should Scotland Leave the Union and become an Independent nation once more?
#35 by Duncan Hothersall (@dhothersall) on August 22, 2012 - 1:58 pm
Needs something about proud Edward’s army being sent homewards tae think again…
#36 by James Morton on August 22, 2012 - 3:02 pm
No that would be silly – since Edwards invasion pre-dates the treaty of Union. We could use Westminster instead 😉
#37 by Paul on August 22, 2012 - 2:17 pm
“No country for old men” wrong film.
How about Fight Club
1. You do not talk about the REFERENDUM
2. You DO NOT talk about the REFERENDUM
3. If someone says “stop” or goes limp, taps out the referendum is over.
4. Only two side to a REFERENDUM.
5. One question at a time.
6. No shirts, no shoes.
7. The Referendum will go on as long as they have to.*
8. If this is your first night in SCOTLAND, you HAVE to vote.
* oh dear
#38 by Shave on August 22, 2012 - 2:25 pm
Should Scotland cast off the yoke of dastardly oppression?
YES/NO
Should the strength and solidarity of the Union that has shone down the centuries continue to shine whilst Britannia urges us forward. Forward!!
YES/NO
(It’s quite tricky to keep it balanced)
#39 by Commenter on August 22, 2012 - 2:28 pm
I don’t want to throw another spanner in the works, but what about the Font that gets used on the ballot paper? Fonts are known to influence people.
#40 by Jeff on August 22, 2012 - 2:35 pm
I think the SNP’s best chances of returning a Yes vote is through the font being Wingdings.
#41 by Duncan Hothersall (@dhothersall) on August 22, 2012 - 3:09 pm
Serif fonts might suggest an association with tradition, favouring the unionist cause, while a sans serif font’s modern look might suggest dispensing with the old order and therefore favour independence… The worrying thing is, I bet someone somewhere in St Andrew’s House has had this conversation.
#42 by Colin Dunn on August 24, 2012 - 12:05 pm
Indeed. You should see some of the online discussions about the fonts used in the last US election – Gotham in Obama’s case.
Maybe we could try American Uncial? 😉
#43 by Juteman on August 22, 2012 - 5:35 pm
You just did, Duncan.
#44 by Duncan Hothersall (@dhothersall) on August 22, 2012 - 9:23 pm
It may surprise you to learn that I’m not in St Andrew’s House. 🙂
#45 by Colin on August 24, 2012 - 1:00 am
Am I missing something? This isn’t a “latest suggested independence question”, where is the question mark? It’s a statement that we are asking to affirm or deny. Don’t call it a question, cause it’s not.