Making time for the referendum

Last week I attended two dinners organised by SCVO which gave third sector representatives an opportunity to hear from the Better Together and the Yes campaigns, with a view to getting us talking about where Scotland might be headed following the referendum. As these took place soon after SCVO published the results of their survey which showed the third sector is distinctly uninspired by the independence debate, I wasn’t sure what to expect. Actually, that’s not true – my expectations were of two slightly dull evenings! I was wrong. While the survey showed that charities and voluntary organisations have found the debate to be predictable and do not feel engaged, the chat last week showed that when folk take a bit of time to sit down with others, they can create their own debate which is animated and inclusive.

When folk take a bit of time to sit down with others, they can create their own debate which is animated and inclusive.

On one level the discussions at many tables was clearly identifiable third sector territory – welfare reform, children’s rights, poverty and inequality, democratic participation – and these topics were reflected in the questions posed to the campaigns. There was a clear sense of passion in the way that some of these questions were framed. Many in our sector are deeply concerned about the damage being caused by welfare reform and alarmed at the lack of prospects for our young people, not to mention the daily battle for dignity faced by many disabled and older people. If the third sector did not take the opportunity to shine a spotlight on these issues in the context of a debate about the future of the country, then there would be something very amiss, and it is clear that a number of organisations are working hard to give the communities they serve the opportunity to do just that. However, there was another side to the conversations. Some spoke at a personal level about the sense they have of this being a crucial decision – that we are moving towards a historic time, regardless of the final outcome of the vote. This big picture reflection was offset to an extent by discussions on the lack of detail offered by both campaigns; some attendees wanted to know more about the financial implications, whilst others were concerned about relationships with the rest of the UK, Europe and the wider world. While it is natural to look for certainties, the difficulty here is that both campaigns will contend that they have their facts straight. Ultimately, the way we cast our votes will depend on the individual judgements we make – and because we are human, we cannot ignore the role of the heart as well as the head. I came away from these events feeling freshly engaged – with the third sector and the debate about the Scotland of tomorrow. I would love this sense of engagement to be passed on to people up and down the country. What will it take for all of us to share this sense of being part of something which is bigger than our individual lives, but is also highly personal? I don’t have the answers, but I know the third sector can play a part in this, as a trusted neutral party which gives people the space to come together and have the conversations that matter to them. We can all play a part in getting people talking, while at the same time becoming better listeners. In fact, energising the debate might be about speaking less and listening more – especially to those whose voices are seldom heard. The third sector can make sure that we are really listening and making an extra effort to reach those whose voices have been silenced. Maybe then we can have the conversations which engage people’s hearts and minds.