DO REFERENDUMS COME IN THREES?
A few years ago I received an invitation, right out of the blue, to a reunion of my primary school class, on the 50th anniversary of us all meeting for the first time. So I went along, curious to know what more than four decades had done to people I had once known on a daily basis, but were now complete strangers.
It was fun, with most of us being totally unrecognisable from our twelve year old selves, and a couple looking like they'd hardly changed at all. Funny what time does to us. And, in learning a bit about each other, I discovered one thing that took me aback.
My professional background was in IT (or 'working with computers' as it was when I began, the term IT not having appeared yet) so dealing with change and new technology has been a big part of most of my adult life. It came as a bit of shock to realise that, out of the couple of dozen people in that room, about a quarter of them didn't have, didn't even want, an email address. And another quarter only had one because their work provided it. Of the remaining half, only a half of them used social media, basically just Facebook, and I was the only person active on Twitter. I couldn't help wondering how that first few, with no email, no internet access, managed to function in the modern world. Clearly they do, but in ways that would now seem near alien to me - and probably to you since you're reading this on-line.
With last week's big event out of the way, I have now cast a vote in two referendums in less than two years. On both occasions, I have to admit, putting my cross against the losing side. The fallout from Friday morning may yet lead to me having to choose for a third time, so I'm interested in what the differences and similarities were between the two that have been, to inform what might happen in the future.
One clearly related aspect is that both offered a binary choice, ostensibly between maintaining the status quo, and introducing major constitutional change and upheaval. But on the first occasion it was the former that emerged the winner, latterly it was change that came through.
Of course there are a huge number of differences between the two, and the circumstances under which they were conducted. I don't pretend I can even think of, let alone discuss, all of these, for it's a complex subject, so I'm going to be reduced to doing some things I generally dislike - picking on a particular aspect I feel is important for the future, and talking in sweeping generalisations because there's no way not to on this occasion.
In 2014 IndyRef saw the incumbent Scottish Government, and the wider Yes campaign, push for independence. Ranged against them was the full force of the British establishment. Every one of the three main established political parties. And, more crucially for my purposes, almost the entire mainstream media. Only one national newspaper, and that a relatively small circulation Sunday paper, editorialised for a Yes vote. The TV and radio, particularly the BBC, were at best neutral, sometimes appeared to give the No a bit more leeway, and on at least one occasion the BBC deliberately lied in an effort to smear Alex Salmond.
In contrast the the EURef has been the British Establishment fighting itself. Forget all this nonsense of leave representing the common man - this was two Bullingdon boys slugging it out and the only reason it came to happen at all was down to Tory party infighting. This time the challengers to the crown had much of the traditional media on their side. The Sun, the Fail, the Excess, the Torygraph, all spouted Leave propaganda throughout. (I haven't been able to find the latest figures, but these from May last year give a fair indication of what that means in terms of relative numbers) And the TV and radio failed in their public service duty by doing little to emphasise that much of the Leave campaign was based on outright lies (we've already had two major U turns on campaign promises within two days of the result).
So what has all this got to do with that reunion? One of the most salient factors in both referendums was the split across the age groups. In both cases the side that one did so with most support coming from older generations, while the losing side appealed more to the young (see what I mean about sweeping generalisations!). If you were under forty you were much, much more likely to vote Yes or Remain, if you were over fifty you were probably for No and Leave (younger readers please note - I'm sixty but voted Yes and Remain, so please don't blame all of us!).
OK, my reunion sample wasn't of valid statistical significance, but I still think it gives us some indication of why this age split was so noticeable. If you're connected to the world digitally you have access to news and information sources far beyond the traditional media. You can fact check quickly, you can look for other sources to confirm or deny stories you come across. You are better informed. You are not at the mercy of the editorial line of whatever rag you might choose to subscribe to.
But if you're not connected? Who else are you going to believe if the only source of information you have is the likes of the Mail - Britain's most complained about "news"paper on account of the number of totally fabricated stories they publish. And the state broadcaster is failing you by not explaining why this information you're being fed isn't worth the paper it's printed on. What hope is there of making an informed and rational decision? No, I'm not suggesting this is the case for all No or Leave voters - many will have reached their decision for perfectly valid reasons having looked at the options. But there are still going to have been a lot of people who decided in a state of ignorance. There are already enough leave voters admitting they didn't know what they were really voting for, and are shocked by what they've let us in for, to make that a certainty.
So what does this mean for the next referendum, whenever it comes? I very much doubt that that's going to be a rerun of the last week's vote, however many leave voters wish for a chance to change their minds. Or indeed because of this petition which is meaningless in reality, but utterly hilarious because it was set up a far right Leave supporter before the 23rd in an effort to subvert democracy when his side lost, and has now been hijacked by the Remain side. As right wingers are so fond of saying, you couldn't make it up....
That probably means another IndyRef, unless some EU solution akin to the Denmark/Greenland position can be achieved, although our having a land border with England could make that tricky. If a Yes vote is to win this time around then it will need to reach older voters, and to do that it has to ensure fair treatment from the traditional media. I doubt that the likes of the Fail, Sun etc could be anything other than against, but it was amazing to see the Daily Record, Scotland's second biggest selling tabloid, come out with pro Indy front page the other day. In the past it has been firmly aligned to Labour and unionism. Whether or not this represents a blip or a permanent change remains to be seen. And as for the BBC....?
We do know that second IndyRef will be fought on very different grounds. This time around the Yes vote could be one, in part, for the status quo - to retain our EU membership and citizenship. That makes for a very different starting point, especially after such a decisive Remain vote across the country on Thursday. But the mainstream media may continue to be the biggest obstacle to getting the case for Indy across. We have to find ways to reach the disconnected, or the over sixties could let down their grandchildren once again.
No comments:
Post a Comment