ON September 18, 2014, more than 3.6 million Scots voted on their country’s future: would it be as an independent nation, or within the Union?
The vote came after years of campaigning from both the Yes and No side, which turned out some memorable moments.
Some of the key points of the 2014 referendum campaign impacted the vote – and they are continuing to have an impact today.
Here, The National looks back at five key moments from the first independence referendum.
The Vow
a survey project called Yes We Didnae since May this year – and he asked some 1600 voters for their views on key moments of the referendum campaign.
Stewart Kirkpatrick, the former head of digital for Yes Scotland, has been runningIn a report sent out last week, Kirkpatrick said that respondents made clear their number one turning point of the 2014 vote happened just two days before it was held: The Vow.
Now infamous among Yes campaigners, the “Vow” was printed on the front page of the Daily Record on September 16, 2014 and saw the leaders of the three main Unionist parties (David Cameron, Ed Miliband, and Nick Clegg) promised further devolved powers for Scotland if its people voted No.
Respondents told Kirkpatrick’s survey that the paper’s front page, which was then widely reported elsewhere, had created the impression that No was actually a vote for a “halfway house” between Unionism and independence, influencing the outcome of the referendum.
Incidentally, the man known as the “architect” of the Vow, then-Daily Record editor Murray Foote, has since had something of a Damascene conversion and is now the chief executive of the SNP.
The Scottish Government’s white paper
"Scotland's Future" white paper produced by the SNP government was the Yes side’s chance to lay out its case to the people of Scotland.
If the Unionist parties had the Vow, thePublished on November 26, 2013, the 670-page document was supposed to spell out how issues such as health, the economy, education, justice, culture, international relations and defence – in short, everything – would be managed in an independent Scotland.
However, despite its length the paper met criticism from some in the Yes camp – and plenty on the No side – for failing to clearly address key issues.
Then first minister Alex Salmond called it the “most comprehensive blueprint for an independent country ever published”, but Better Together head Alistair Darling said that instead of a “credible and costed plan”, the SNP had published a “wish-list of political promises”.
The first TV debate
On August 4, 2014, just six weeks before the referendum date, a two-hour long TV debate between Salmond and Darling was broadcast on STV.
As Kirkpatrick noted in his report, there was excitement in the Yes camp and a feeling that the debate represented a real opportunity. As a Survation poll before the broadcast found, 37% of Scots expected the SNP man to win, while just 11% thought Darling would come out on top.
“Alex Salmond was at the top of his game and Alistair Darling was a pretty dour character,” Kirkpatrick wrote. “This was the Yes side's chance to answer people's doubts and inspire voters. We'd use the enormous advantage we had on social media to amplify every triumphant moment.”
Instead, what happened was seen as a defeat for Salmond which left the Yes movement lacking something in credibility.
Currency – and George Osborne
Despite Better Together’s repeated claims that the Yes side had not addressed what currency Scotland would use after independence, the white paper had made clear the SNP’s plans to continue using the pound.
However, that gave the No side an opportunity, one which they united around.
In February 2014, then-Tory chancellor George Osborne travelled to Edinburgh to claim that should Scotland vote Yes the country would not be allowed to use the pound sterling.
Osborne would have no power to enforce this – the UK Government even admitted as much – but the claim stuck, and won the backing of both Labour and the LibDems.
Concerns about what currency Scotland could use then dominated media narratives, and were a key point of the Salmond vs Darling debate.
In fact, the discussion of what currency to use post-independence is still ongoing even today.
Giving 16-year-olds the right to vote
Ahead of the 2014 referendum, the SNP government brought in a bill to enact one of its long-standing commitments: extending the right to vote to people aged 16 and above.
In June 2013, in line with details in the Edinburgh Agreement, the The Scottish Referendum (Franchise) Bill passed at Holyrood. It was then made permanent in the Scottish Elections (Reduction of Voting Age) Bill two years later.
The decision has had long-term effects for Scottish democracy.
In 2021, a report from the University of Edinburgh noted that “Scotland has maintained a boost in electoral engagement among first-time voters enfranchised at 16 or 17”.
It said that people who were enfranchised at 16 were more likely to vote in the 2021 Holyrood elections, saying it showed “a lasting positive effect of being allowed to vote from 16”.
After John Swinney noted an “independence generation” of Yes supporting Scots in a poll over the weekend, those young people’s political engagement will be crucial moving forward.
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