![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
This article investigates the Labour and Conservative parties’ decisions to offer referendums on constitutional change. We focus on Labour’s Scottish devolution referendum and the Conservatives’ EU referendum. Rather than responding to public demand, we argue each party offered referendums based on short-term electoral calculations. Both parties believed their commitments would resolve intra-party dissension, neutralise emergent electoral threats and expand their electorate. While each party won the subsequent election, the referendums produced long-term unintended outcomes counter to their initial objectives: an invigorated Scottish National Party and an impending EU exit. Ultimately, the consequences of both may lead to Scottish independence.
Acknowledgement
We would like to thank Dr Craig Parsons, Dr Conor O’Dwyer, Dr Lawrence Dodd and Dr Douglas Cantor for their comments and feedback on various drafts of the manuscript. We would also like to thank the four anonymous reviewers for their feedback.
Notes
1. North, “Institutional Change.”
2. Stepan, “Electorally Generated Veto Players,” 333.
3. Capoccia and Kelemen, “The Study of Critical Junctures,” 341.
4. Gourevitch, Politics in Hard Times; Katznelson, “Periodization and Preference”; Soifer, “The Causal Logic of Critical Junctures.”
5. Bognador, “Referendums in British Politics,” 13.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid., 14.
8. Lijphart, “Democratic Political Systems,” 35.
9. Dur and Mateo, “To Call or Not to Call”; Opperman, “The Politics of Discretionary Government Commitments”; Qvortrup, “Democracy by Delegation”; Sussman, “The Referendum as an Electoral Device.”
10. Abramson and Inglehart, Value Change in Global Perspective; Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy; Inglehart, The Silent Revolution; March and Rommerskerchin, “Out of Left Field?”
11. Berman, “The Life of the Party”; Harmel and Janda, Parties and their Environment; Kitschelt, The Transformation of European Social Democracy; Sartori, Parties and Party Systems.
12. Meguid, Party Competition Between Unequals.
13. Cowley, “The Cambusters.”
14. Duclos, “Les référendums sur la dévolution en Écosse et au pays de Galles.”
15. Bennett, “Process Tracing and Causal Inference,” 179.
16. Ibid., 179.
17. McEwen, “State Welfare Nationalism,” 73.
18. Devine, The Scottish Nation, 557.
19. Denver et al., Scotland Decides, 5.
20. Meguid, Party Competition Between Unequals, 195.
21. Ibid., 196.
22. Devine, The Scottish Nation, 574.
23. Ibid., 575.
24. Ibid., 581.
25. Denver et al., Scotland Decides, 6.
26. Ibid., 11.
27. Devine, The Scottish Nation, 586.
28. Ibid., 587.
29. Bogdanor, “Referendums in British Politics,” 13.
30. Jones, “Labour’s Referendum Plan,” 8.
31. Devine, The Scottish Nation, 603.
32. Devine, The Scottish Nation, 606.
33. Ibid., 31.
34. Ibid., 31.
35. Ibid., 612.
36. Ibid.
37. Denver et al., Scotland Decides, 29.
38. Hassan and Shaw, The Strange Death of Labour Scotland, 36.
39. Adams, Ideology and Politics in Britain Today, 144.
40. Blair, A Journey, 253.
41. Devine, The Scottish Nation, 608.
42. Denver et al., Scotland Decides, 49.
43. Blair, A Journey, 251.
44. Bogdanor, The New British Constitution, 6.
45. Macdonell, Uncharted Territory, 50.
46. The Scottish Parliament utilizes a combination of first-past-the-post and proportional representation to elect the 129 Members of Scottish Parliament.
47. Curtice, “Devolution, the SNP, and the Electorate,” 61.
48. Maddox, “Scottish Labour’s Downfall.”
49. Financial Times, “British Poll Tracker.”
50. Copsey and Haughton, “Farwell Britannia?”; Gamble, “Better Off Out?”; Matthijs, “David Cameron’s Dangerous Game.”
51. Byrne, Randall, and Theakston, “Evaluating British Prime Ministerial Performance”; Copsey and Haughton, “Farewell Britannia?”; Gamble, “Better Off Out”; Lynch, “Conservative Modernisation and European Integration”; Matthijs, “David Cameron’s Dangerous Game.”
52. “Eurobarometer, Attitudes toward the EU in the UK: Analytical Report.”
53. Fontana and Parsons, “One Women’s Prejudice”; Heppell, “Cameron and Liberal Conservatism.”
54. YouGov, “Top Issues Tracker.”
55. Gamble, “Better Off Out?” 468.
56. Winnett, “Cameron Rules Out Vote on EU Membership,” 4.
57. YouGov, “Top Issues Tracker.”
58. Dearden, “UK Migration.”
59. Winnett, “Cameron Rules Out Vote on EU Membership,” 4.
60. Bale, Hampshire, and Partos, “Having One’s Cake and Eating It Too.”
61. Copsey and Haughton, “Farewell Britannia?” 83.
62. Lynch, “Conservative Modernisation and European Integration,” 193.
63. Norton, “The Politics of Coalition.”
64. Bale, The Conservative Party; Evans, “Euroscepticism and Conservative Electoral Support”; Fontana and Parsons, “One Woman’s Prejudice”; Matthijs, “David Cameron’s Dangerous Game.”
65. Webb and Childs, “Wets and Dries Resurgent?” 391.
66. Heppell, “Cameron and Liberal Conservatism”; Lynch and Whitaker, “Where There is Discord, Can They Bring Harmony?”
67. Heppell, “Cameron and Liberal Conservatism.”
68. Copsey and Haughton, “Farwell Britannia?”
69. Lynch, “Conservative Modernisation and European Integration,” 200.
70. Heppell, “Cameron and Liberal Conservatism.”
71. Copsey and Haughton, “Farewell Britannia?” 83.
72. Ibid.; Kirkup, “Cameron’s Backbenchers Demand EU Referendum.”
73. Kirkup, “Coalition Defeated on EU Budget Vote.”
74. Byrne, Randall, Theakston, “Evaluating British Prime Ministerial Performance,” 217.
75. Webb and Bale, “Why Do Tories Defect to UKIP.”
76. Davies, “Ukip Enjoys Record Local Election Results.”
77. Ibid.
78. Lynch and Whitaker, “Rivalry on the Right.”
79. Webb and Bale, “Why Do Tories Defect to UKIP?”
80. Lynch and Whitaker, “Rivalry on the Right.”
81. Helm, “Labour Keeps Lead Over Tories.”
82. Lynch and Whitaker, “Rivalry on the Right.”
83. IPSOS-MORI, “Voting Intentions in Great Britain.”