A tale of two currencies: talking about money and (De)Securitising moves in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum

ABSTRACT

This article investigates a ‘tale of two currencies’ that played out during the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum. Taking our cue from securitisation literature, we examine what happens when currency is framed as a security issue and threat. Studying this case, however, we find that the Copenhagen School underestimate the ability of actors to perform (de)securitising moves within interactive games about financial security. In such instances, we contend that currency can have significant yet unpredictable effects on how security can be spoken, enacted, and contested. Drawing attention to the heated debates that erupted during the two televised debates aired by STV and BBC, we reveal that the question of currency shaped the ‘Better Together’ and ‘Yes’ campaigns during the 2014 referendum in divergent ways. In the process, we find that currency offers new opportunities for understanding how money can speak security in Scotland and beyond.

KEYWORDS:

• Currency
• (De)Securitising Moves
• Televised Debates
• Scottish Independence
• Money Talk

Acknowledgements

The initial version of this paper was presented at the Independence in an Interdependent and Multi-cultural World Workshop, sponsored by the School of International Relations, University of St. Andrews and the Centre for Cultural Relations, University of Edinburgh, University of St Andrews, 4 - 5 June 2015. We are very grateful to Gurchathen S. Sanghera for providing us with excellent comments on an earlier draft. We also thank Hilda McNae for helping us to identify and locate sources that were difficult to retrieve. Finally, we would like to thank Lukas Rosander for his research on the financial security literatures that we engaged with to revise this piece.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. On one side, Mr. Alistair Darling, then a serving Member of Parliament for the Labour Party in Edinburgh South West, and former Chancellor of the Exchequer (2007–2010) led the ‘Better Together’ or ‘No’ campaign. On the opposing side, then First Minister of Scotland and leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP), Alex Salmond, led the ‘Yes’ campaign for Scottish independence.

2. Space does not permit us to document the historical and complex relationships between Scotland and England when it comes to the issue of independence or secession. For the same reason, we are also not able to trace the extensive political gesturing that various actors took in the build up to 2014 Referendum vote. However, we openly acknowledge that there are indeed multiple speakers and multiple audiences at play in this evolving context. Hence, while we foreground the heated contestations that erupted during the two televised debates, there are other areas and actors that could and should be explored. For an excellent collection of analyses covering the range of issues debated see (Keating 2017).

3. For interested viewers outside of Scotland the online experience was difficult because the demand exceeded the capacity of the broadcaster’s online player (Parnell 2014). The debate was rebroadcast on the BBC Parliament channel the following day and remains available online.

4. Indeed, we could have looked at other sources (like newspapers) and, in this case, invite readers to look at Lin A. Mortensgaard (2018). Also, had space permitted another interesting area of study involves comparative case studies where currency was ‘successfully securitized’.

5. During this review process, we were repeatedly pushed to prove that emergency measures were generated in the 2014 Referendum on the question of currency. In tandem, we were asked to supply ‘concrete evidence of securitization’. On some level this is not possible because no emergency measures ever fully materialised in the context. As we know, the SNP lost the vote for Scottish independence in 2014. And, as such, the status quo prevailed. In this context, then, the currency issues and security threats that Darling talked about during the two televised debates never happened, or at least have not happened to date. We also believe that attempts to provide ‘concrete evidence’ of securitisation when it comes to questions of currency and other financial security issues is problematic and potentially unwise. Looking ahead, we think it is more useful for scholars not to predetermine in advance how currency can be framed as a security issue or threat since this will vary from case to case and even at different points in a single case study like ours.

6. Those well versed in discourse analysis will be aware that there is no uniform way of defining or interpreting texts (Doty 1996; Hansen 2006; Milliken 1999; McDonald 2013; Trombetta 2008; Neumann 2009, 63). To build our framework we focused on the speech acts uttered by different actors ranging from elite speakers to ordinary people. By bringing threads from media studies, securitisation and financial security together we hope to advance methodological debates that encourage pluralistic approaches. For excellent accounts see Aradau et al. (2015); Debbie Lisle (2017); Roland Bleiker (2015).

7. Technically, then, the Copenhagen School already note that security and finance are entangled in complex ways. Surprisingly, this claim is often unacknowledged in ongoing discussions seeking to examine ‘chains of securitization’.

8. Another dimension of the finance/security nexus considers money and finance as a tool for traditional security issues. In addition to the focus on money as a crucial requirement for terrorist organisations, it has been considered as an element of foreign and military strategy. The role of money may be one of several tools available to policy makers prior to and during a conflict, as well as part of a ‘hearts and minds’ programme and economic development post-conflict (Lin 2016; Gilbert 2017).

9. All time-stamps in this section refer to the first debate, (STV 2014).

10. The general questions covered topics including economic prosperity, social justice and the risks involved in Scottish independence.

11. The reader will recall that at the time of the Referendum vote the Europe Brent Spot Price FOB was $96.82/barrel, and two years later when the UK voted on exiting the European Union the spot price was $48.63/barrel. In October 2020 the spot price was between $38 and $42/barrel. See the US Energy Information Administration website, https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/RBRTED.htm.

12. In the original texts the format of the second debate was slightly different than the first.

13. All time-stamps in this section refer to the second debate, (BBC 2014).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Faye Donnelly

Faye Donnelly is a Lecturer in the School of International Relations at the University of St Andrews. She is the author of Securitization and the Iraq War: The Rules of Engagement in World Politics (Routledge, 2013). Her work been published in the European Journal of International Relations, Finance and Society; The International Review of the Red Cross and the European Journal of International Security.

William Vlcek

William Vlcek is Senior Lecturer in the School of International Relations at the University of St Andrews. His research investigates questions of global financial governance, international taxation, money laundering and terrorist finance. Examples of his work can be found in Review of International Political Economy, International Studies Perspectives, The Pacific Review; The British Journal of Politics and International Relations and Finance and Society. He is also the author of Offshore Finance and Small States: Sovereignty, Size and Money (Palgrave, 2008) and Offshore Finance and Global Governance: Disciplining the Tax Nomad (Palgrave, 2017).