‘Party competition and dual accountability in multi-level systems’ the independence echo: the rise of the constitutional question in Scottish election manifestos and voter behaviour

References

• Adams, James. 2012. “Causes and Electoral Consequences of Party Policy Shifts in Multiparty Elections: Theoretical Results and Empirical Evidence.” Annual Review of Political Science 15 (1): 401–419. doi: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-031710-101450
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ansolabehere, S., and Shanto Iyengar. 1994. “Riding the Wave and Claiming Ownership Over Issues: The Joint Effects of Advertising and News Coverage in Campaigns.” Public Opinion Quarterly 58 (3): 335–357. doi: 10.1086/269431
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnott, Margaret, and Jenny Ozga. 2010. “Nationalism, Governance and Policy Making in Scotland: The Scottish National Party (SNP) in Power.” Public Money and Management 30 (2): 91–96. doi: 10.1080/09540961003665503
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bélanger, Éric, and Bonnie Meguid. 2008. “Issue Salience, Issue Ownership, and Issue-Based Vote Choice.” Electoral Studies 27 (3): 477–491. doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2008.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bisgaard, Martin, and Rune Slothuus. 2018. Partisan Elites as Culprits? How Party Cues Shape Partisan Perceptual Gaps.” American Journal of Political Science 62 (2): 456–469. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12349
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boussalis, Constantine, Travis Coan, and Mirya Holman. 2018. “Climate Change Communication from Cities in the USA.” Climatic Change 149 (2): 173–187. doi: 10.1007/s10584-018-2223-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cairney, P., and N. McGarvey. 2013. Scottish Politics: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. 1980. The American Voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ceron, Andrea. 2012. “Bounded Oligarchy: How and When Factions Constrain Leaders in Party Position-Taking.” Electoral Studies 31 (4): 689–701. doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2012.07.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ceron, Andrea, and Zachary Greene. 2019. “Verba Volant, Scripta Manent? Intra-Party Politics, Party Conferences, and Issue Salience in France.” Party Politics. doi:1354068819836034.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Sio, Lorenzo, and Till Weber. 2014. “Issue Yield: A Model of Party Strategy in Multidimensional Space.” American Political Science Review 108 (4): 870–885. doi: 10.1017/S0003055414000379
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druckman, James, Erik Peterson, and Rune Slothuus. 2013. “How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation.” American Political Science Review 107 (1): 57–79. doi: 10.1017/S0003055412000500
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egan, Patrick. 2013. Partisan Priorities: How Issue Ownership Drives and Distorts American Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ezrow, Lawrence, Catherine De Vries, Marco Steenbergen, and Erica Edwards. 2011. “Mean Voter Representation and Partisan Constituency Representation: Do Parties Respond to the Mean Voter Position or to Their Supporters?” Party Politics 17 (3): 275–301. doi: 10.1177/1354068810372100
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farrell, David, and Rüdiger Schmitt-Beck. 2003. Do Political Campaigns Matter? Campaign Effects in Elections and Referendums. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Freire, André. 2008. “Party Polarization and Citizens’ Left—Right Orientations.” Party Politics 14 (2): 189–209. doi: 10.1177/1354068807085889
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Genovese, Federica. 2015. “Politics ex Cathedra: Religious Authority and the Pope in Modern International Relations.” Research & Politics 2 (4): 2053168015612808. doi: 10.1177/2053168015612808
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gómez, Braulio, Sonia Alonso, and Laura Cabeza. 2018. Regional Manifestos Project Dataset (Version 11/2018). www.regionalmanifestosproject.com.
   Google Scholar
• Goren, Paul, Christopher Federico, and Miki Kittilson. 2009. “Source Cues, Partisan Identities, and Political Value Expression.” American Journal of Political Science 53 (4): 805–820. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00402.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green-Pedersen, Christoffer. 2007. “The Growing Importance of Issue Competition: The Changing Nature of Party Competition in Western Europe.” Political Studies 55 (3): 607–628. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00686.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, Jane, and Will Jennings. 2012. “The Dynamics of Issue Competence and Vote for Parties in and out of Power: An Analysis of Valence in Britain, 1979–1997.” European Journal of Political Research 51 (4): 469–503. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2011.02004.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, Zachary. 2016. “Competing on the Issues: How Experience in Government and Economic Conditions Influence the Scope of Parties’ Policy Messages.” Party Politics 22 (6): 809–822. doi: 10.1177/1354068814567026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, Zachary. 2018. “Being Heard Above the Noise: The Role of Incumbent Issue Diversity in Election Campaigns.” Political Behavior. doi:10.1007/s11109-018-9504-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, Z. D., and M. Haber. 2015. “The Consequences of Appearing Divided: An Analysis of Party Evaluations and Vote Choice.” Electoral Studies 37: 15–27. doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2014.11.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, Zachary, and Matthias Haber. 2016. “Leadership Competition and Disagreement at Party National Congresses.” British Journal of Political Science 46 (03): 611–632. doi: 10.1017/S0007123414000283
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, Zachary, Jae-Jae Spoon, and Christopher Williams. 2018. “Reading Between the Lines: Party Cues and SNP Support for Scottish Independence and Brexit.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 28 (3): 307–329. doi: 10.1080/17457289.2017.1394311
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hibbs Jr, Douglas. 1977. “Political Parties and Macroeconomic Policy.” The American Political Science Review 71 (04): 1467–1487. doi: 10.1017/S0003055400269712
   Google Scholar
• Hillygus, Sunshine, and T. G. Shields. 2008. The Persuadable Voter: Wedge Issues in Presidential Campaigns. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hobolt, Sara, and Catherine de Vries. 2015. “Issue Entrepreneurship and Multiparty Competition.” Comparative Political Studies 48 (9): 1159–1185. doi: 10.1177/0010414015575030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hooghe, Liesbet, and Gary Marks. 2005. “Calculation, Community and Cues: Public Opinion on European Integration.” European Union Politics 6 (4): 419–443. doi: 10.1177/1465116505057816
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobson, Gary. 2015. “How Do Campaigns Matter.” Annual Review of Political Science 18: 31–47. doi: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-072012-113556
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johns, Robert, and James Mitchell. 2016. Takeover: Explaining the Extraordinary Rise of the SNP. London: Biteback.
   Google Scholar
• Johns, Robert, James Mitchell, David Denver, and Charles Pattie. 2009. “Valence Politics in Scotland: Towards an Explanation of the 2007 Election.” Political Studies 57 (1): 207–233. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2008.00762.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Key, V. O. 1966. The Responsible Electorate. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Klüver, Heike, and Iñaki Sagarzazu. 2016. “Setting the Agenda or Responding to Voters? Political Parties, Voters and Issue Attention.” West European Politics 39 (2): 380–398. doi: 10.1080/01402382.2015.1101295
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klüver, Heike, and Jae-Jae Spoon. 2016. “Who Responds? Voters, Parties and Issue Attention.” British Journal of Political Science 46 (03): 633–654. doi: 10.1017/S0007123414000313
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liñeira, Robert, and Ailsa Henderson. 2019. “Risk Attitudes and Independence Vote Choice.” Political Behaviour 1–20. (advance online publication).doi:10.1007/s11109-019-09560-x.
   Google Scholar
• Listhaug, Ola, Stuart Macdonald, and George Rabinowitz. 1990. “A Comparative Spatial Analysis of European Party Systems.” Scandinavian Political Studies 13 (3): 227–254. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9477.1990.tb00107.x
   Google Scholar
• Lundberg, Thomas. 2013. “Politics is Still an Adversarial Business: Minority Government and Mixed-Member Proportional Representation in Scotland and in New Zealand.” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 15 (4): 609–625. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-856X.2012.00522.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lupia, A., and M. D. McCubbins. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know?. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McCombs, Maxwell, and A. Amy Reynolds. 2009. “How the News Shapes our Civic Agenda.” In Media Effects, edited by Jennings Bryant, Mary Beth Oliver, 17–32. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• McCrone, David. 2019. “Pebble them wi’ stanes: Twenty Years of the Scottish Parliament.” Scottish Affairs 28 (2): 125–151. doi: 10.3366/scot.2019.0274
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McMillan, Fraser. 2019. “Devolution, “New Politics” and Election Pledge Fulfilment in Scotland, 1999–2011.” British Politics 1–19. (advance online publication). doi:10.1057/s41293-019-00120-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meguid, Bonnie. 2005. “Competition between Unequals: The Role of Mainstream Party Strategy in Niche Party Success.” American Political Science Review 99 (03): 347–359. doi: 10.1017/S0003055405051701
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, Thomas M., and Markus Wagner. 2019. “It Sounds Like They are Moving: Understanding and Modeling Emphasis-Based Policy Change.” Political Science Research and Methods 7 (4): 757–774. doi: 10.1017/psrm.2017.30
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neundorf, Anja, and James Adams. 2018. “The Micro-Foundations of Party Competition and Issue Ownership: The Reciprocal Effects of Citizens’ Issue Salience and Party Attachments.” British Journal of Political Science 48 (2): 385–406. doi: 10.1017/S0007123415000642
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park, A., E. Clery, J. Curtice, M. Phillips, and D. Utting, eds. 2012. British Social Attitudes: the 29th Report. London: NatCen Social Research.
   Google Scholar
• Paterson, Lindsay, Alice Brown, John Curtice, Kerstin Hinds, David McCrone, Alison Park, and Kerry Sproston. 2001. New Scotland, New Politics?. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Petrocik, John. 1996. “Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (3): 825–850. doi: 10.2307/2111797
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pyeatt, Nicholas, and Alixandra Yanus. 2016. “Sending Mixed Signals: The Role of Partisanship in Evaluations of Political Leaders.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 26 (4): 423–434. doi: 10.1080/17457289.2016.1181638
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabinowitz, George, and Stuart Macdonald. 1989. “A Directional Theory of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 83 (1): 93–121. doi: 10.2307/1956436
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reher, Stefanie. 2016. “The Effects of Congruence in Policy Priorities on Satisfaction with Democracy.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 26 (1): 40–57. doi: 10.1080/17457289.2015.1064436
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renwick, A. 2014. “Don’t Trust Your Poll Lead: How Public Opinion Changes During Referendum Campaigns.” In Sex, Lies and the Ballot Box, edited by P. Cowley, R. Ford, 79–84. London: Biteback.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, Margaret, Brandon M. Stewart, Dustin Tingley, Christopher Lucas, Jetson Leder-Luis, Shana Kushner Gadarian, Bethany Albertson, and David G. Rand. 2014. “Structural Topic Models for Open-Ended Survey Responses.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (4): 1064–1082. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schumacher, Gijs, Martijn Schoonvelde, Denise Traber, Tanushree Dahiya, and Erik De Vries. 2016. “EUSpeech: a New Dataset of EU Elite Speeches.” In proceedings of the international conference on the Advances in Computational Analysis of Political Text, 75–80.
   Google Scholar
• Soroka, Stuart, and Christopher Wlezien. 2010. Degrees of Democracy: Politics, Public Opinion, and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Spoon, Jae-Jae, and Heike Klüver. 2015. “Voter Polarisation and Party Responsiveness: Why Parties Emphasise Divided Issues, but Remain Silent on Unified Issues.” European Journal of Political Research 54 (2): 343–362. doi: 10.1111/1475-6765.12087
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stimson, James, Michael Mackuen, and Robert Erikson. 1995. “Dynamic Representation.” The American Political Science Review 89 (3): 543–565. doi: 10.2307/2082973
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Brug, Wouter. 2004. “Issue Ownership and Party Choice.” Electoral Studies 23 (2): 209–233. doi: 10.1016/S0261-3794(02)00061-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vegetti, Federico. 2014. “From Political Conflict to Partisan Evaluations: How Citizens Assess Party Ideology and Competence in Polarized Elections.” Electoral Studies 35: 230–241. doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2014.01.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner, Markus. 2012. “When Do Parties Emphasise Extreme Positions? How Strategic Incentives for Policy Differentiation Influence Issue Importance.” European Journal of Political Research 51 (1): 64–88. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2011.01989.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walgrave, Stefaan, Jonas Lefevere, and Anke Tresch. 2014. “The Limits of Issue Ownership Dynamics: The Constraining Effect of Party Preference.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties 24 (1): 1–19. doi: 10.1080/17457289.2013.811245
   Google Scholar