THE Vow had next to no impact on the referendum, according to a group of academics.
The research conducted as part of the Scottish Referendum Survey, by academics from the universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow and Essex and released by the Centre for Constitutional Change said that only 3.4 per cent of No voters wanted extra powers.
Dr Rob Johns, who worked on the study, said: “The trajectory of opinion during the campaign suggests the drift back to No pre- dated the famous Vow on the Daily Record’s front cover. It is not unusual for a misleading narrative to develop about what swung an election or referendum. According to our data, anyone who thinks ‘It was the Vow wot won it’ is exaggerating, to say the least. However, once these narratives develop, they can be hard to shift. And we may well see the effect of this one when voters turn out for the General Election.”
Just under one third of No voters, according to the survey, came to the decision because of “feeling British/believe in Union”; almost one third (28.5 per cent) of No voters told researchers that there were “too many unanswered questions”; and around 26.3 per cent of voters believed, “Independence would make Scotland worse off”.
Only around 5.3 per cent of no voters “wanted to vote Yes but it seemed too risky”, and 5.2 per cent “don’t trust Salmond”.
However, 41.3 per cent of Yes voters polled by the survey believe the Vow was the main motivation for most No voters. Seventeen per cent of Yes voters thought that “press/BBC bias towards No” swayed No voters and 11.8 per cent believe the “electorate lost its nerve”. Another 11.2 per cent of Yes voters blamed “warnings from banks/business about Yes”, and 7.9 per cent blamed Better Together for running a negative campaign.
Responding to the findings, a Scottish Labour spokesman said: “While it is interesting to carry out these academic exercises, at the end of the day a substantial majority of the electorate voted to stay part of the UK. The SNP government drew up the rules on who should participate but seem reluctant to accept the result of what was supposed to a once-in-a-generation vote.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here