UK Referendums
Five Teaching Activities for A Level Politics
Level: A Level Politics (suitable for AQA 7152 and Edexcel 9PL0)
Topic: Referendums: use, arguments for and against, and impact on UK political life since 1997
Format: Five adaptable activities, timed for a single lesson or split across a short scheme of work
Teacher notes
These activities are designed to be adapted rather than used verbatim.
Timings assume a 60-minute lesson but each activity can be shortened for a starter or extended into a full lesson.
Each activity is now staged explicitly around AO1, AO2 and AO3, so that students practise recall, analysis and evaluation as distinct, progressive steps rather than jumping straight to judgement.
Activities 1 to 4 build the case-study knowledge and evaluative vocabulary needed for Activity 5, which is an exam-question planning clinic covering one AQA-style question and one Edexcel-style question.
Specification coverage: AQA 7152 3.1.2.2 (Elections and referendums) and 3.1.2.1 (Democracy and participation), with synoptic links to devolution (3.1.1.5) and the judiciary (3.1.1.4). Edexcel 9PL0 Component 1, content area 3.2 (Referendums and how they are used) and 1.1 (Democracy and participation).
A note on currency: Edexcel’s Politics specification moved to Issue 4 for first teaching from September 2026 (first assessment June 2028). Its published summary of changes lists only three amendments to Paper 1, none touching referendums: added wording on leadership in 2.4 and 4.1, and the Supplementary Vote replaced by the Closed Proportional List System in 3.1 (electoral systems, reflecting its adoption for Senedd elections). Content area 3.2, referendums, and the Section A source-question format used in Activities 3 and 5 are unchanged, so this resource holds for a Year 1 cohort starting on Issue 4.
Assessment objectives at a glance
Both AQA (7152) and Edexcel (9PL0) assess Politics against the same subject-level framework of three assessment objectives, though each board weights them slightly differently in its mark schemes.
AQA weights approximately AO1 30 to 40%, AO2 35 to 45% and AO3 25 to 35% across the qualification.
Edexcel typically splits extended-response questions into equal or near-equal thirds, for example 10 marks each for AO1, AO2 and AO3 on many Paper 1 and Paper 2 essay questions.
| AO | Definition | What this looks like in a referendums answer |
| AO1 | Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of political institutions, processes, concepts, theories and issues | Accurate recall of referendum dates, results and turnout; correct use of terms such as advisory, binding, mandatory, popular initiative; naming the correct case study for a given point |
| AO2 | Analyse aspects of politics and political information, including in relation to parallels, connections, similarities and differences | Explaining why a case study supports or challenges a given argument; comparing the UK approach with Switzerland, Ireland or the USA; linking referendums to devolution, party politics or the judiciary |
| AO3 | Evaluate aspects of politics and political information, including to construct arguments, make substantiated judgements and draw conclusions | Weighing competing arguments against each other and reaching a justified conclusion on the extent to which referendums enhance or undermine democracy |
What the Examiners Say
AQA and Edexcel examiners’ reports both flag the same recurring error: students assume all UK referendums are legally advisory.
In fact, a referendum is advisory only by default; Parliament can make a specific referendum binding through its enabling Act, as it did for the 2011 Alternative Vote referendum under the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011.
The 2016 EU referendum, by contrast, was advisory under the European Union Referendum Act 2015, which is why the Miller case turned on the need for a separate Act of Parliament to trigger Article 50.
Worth stating explicitly and early, since Edexcel’s June 2023 examiners’ report on the referendums essay named this as a common misunderstanding among candidates.
Activity 1: Reconstructing the timeline
Timing: 15 to 20 minutes
Purpose: Consolidate the chronology, results and turnout of the major UK referendums since 1997, and introduce turnout as an indicator of legitimacy
Skills: Chronological knowledge, use of statistics, oral justification
AO focus: AO1 dominant, with a short AO2 and AO3 step built in so recall does not stand alone
Instructions
- AO1: Give each pair or small group a shuffled set of cards, one per referendum, showing the referendum name and topic but with the date, result and turnout removed. Groups arrange the cards into chronological order and then recall or estimate the date, result and turnout for each, before self-marking against the answer table below.
- AO2: Groups sort the nine referendums into three categories of their own choosing, for example by type of question (constitutional settlement, electoral mechanism, local governance), and explain what pattern connects turnout to category.
- AO3: Plenary judgement: which single referendum, in the group’s view, had the greatest constitutional significance, and was that reflected in its turnout? Groups must justify their choice against at least one other candidate referendum, not simply assert it.
Referendum cards: answer key
| Date | Referendum | Result | Turnout |
| 11 Sept 1997 | Scottish Parliament and tax-varying powers | 74.3% Yes (Parliament); 63.5% Yes (tax powers) | 60.4% |
| 18 Sept 1997 | National Assembly for Wales | 50.3% Yes to 49.7% No | 50.1% |
| 7 May 1998 | Greater London Authority and elected Mayor | 72.0% Yes | 34.1% |
| 22 May 1998 | Good Friday (Belfast) Agreement | 71.1% Yes | 81.1% |
| 4 Nov 2004 | North East England elected regional assembly | 77.9% No | 47.7% |
| 3 March 2011 | Full law-making powers for the Welsh Assembly | 63.5% Yes | 35.4% |
| 5 May 2011 | UK-wide Alternative Vote referendum | 67.9% No to 32.1% Yes | 42.2% |
| 18 Sept 2014 | Scottish independence | 55.3% No to 44.7% Yes | 84.6% |
| 23 June 2016 | UK membership of the European Union | 51.9% Leave to 48.1% Remain | 72.2% |
Extension: ask students to plot turnout against the type of question being asked (constitutional settlement versus electoral mechanism versus local governance) and to suggest a rule of thumb linking turnout to the stakes of the vote.
Stronger groups can be pointed towards the 1979 Scottish devolution referendum (52% Yes but blocked by a 40%-of-the-electorate threshold) as a case where the rules of the vote, not the turnout, decided the outcome.
Activity 2: For and against, matched to case studies
Timing: 25 to 30 minutes
Purpose: Move students beyond generic arguments for and against referendums towards arguments anchored in named UK case studies, which examiners reward
Skills: Categorisation, application of evidence, ranking and justification
AO focus: AO1 recall of arguments and case studies, AO2 explanation of how each case study supports its argument, AO3 ranking with justification
Instructions
- AO1: Distribute the argument statements below as cut-up cards (omit the case study column for the cut-up version). Students sort the cards into two columns, “enhances democracy” and “undermines democracy”, then recall the matching UK case study from memory before checking the answer table.
- AO2: In pairs, students write one sentence per card explaining how the named case study actually demonstrates the argument, not just naming it. For example, why does 84.6% turnout in 2014 support the claim that referendums increase participation, rather than simply co-occurring with it?
- AO3: Pairs select the three strongest arguments on each side and rank them, giving a justified sentence for the top choice on each side that explicitly weighs it against at least one rival argument. This ranking step is the bridge to evaluative writing.
- Plenary: cold-call pairs to defend their top-ranked argument against a challenge from the class.
Arguments for referendums
| Argument | UK case study |
| Referendums enhance democracy by giving the electorate a direct say on questions that cut across party lines | 2016 EU referendum split both the Conservative and Labour parties internally |
| A referendum provides legitimacy for major, potentially irreversible constitutional change | 1998 Good Friday Agreement referendum entrenched the Northern Ireland peace settlement |
| Referendum campaigns increase political participation and education | 2014 Scottish independence referendum: 84.6% turnout, the highest of any UK vote since near-universal suffrage; 16 and 17 year olds enfranchised |
| A referendum can check government power by requiring popular consent for change rather than allowing Westminster to impose it | 1997 devolution referendums gave Scotland and Wales a direct mandate for their own settlements |
Arguments against referendums
| Argument | UK case study |
| Voters may lack the information or expertise to judge complex issues reduced to a single yes or no question | 2016: what “Leave” would mean in practice was not defined on the ballot |
| Low or unrepresentative turnout can undermine the legitimacy of the result | 2011 AV referendum: turnout of only 42.2% |
| The rules of the vote, set by the government of the day, can determine the outcome as much as the votes cast | 1979: Scotland voted 52% Yes but a 40%-of-the-electorate threshold blocked devolution |
| The franchise can vary between referendums, raising questions of fairness | 16 and 17 year olds and resident EU nationals could vote in 2014 but not in 2016 |
| Referendums can entrench division rather than resolve it | 2016: the 52 to 48 split is widely seen as having deepened Leave and Remain divisions for years afterwards |
| Campaigns can be shaped by media coverage and campaign spending as much as by the merits of the argument | Vote Leave and Britain Stronger in Europe were both criticised for misleading campaign claims, including the disputed NHS bus figure |
| Referendums can undermine representative democracy by bypassing the deliberative role of MPs | David Cameron was accused of calling the 2016 referendum partly for reasons of party management, to contain pressure from UKIP |
Activity 3: Stimulus-based question practice
Timing: 45 to 55 minutes for both parts, or 25 to 30 minutes for either part alone
Purpose: Practise the two boards’ different stimulus-question formats side by side, so students see explicitly where each type of question sits on the paper and how the two boards reward outside knowledge differently
Skills: Extract and source analysis, synoptic linking, balanced evaluation, exam awareness
This activity has two parts. Part A is modelled on the AQA extract question.
Part B uses a genuine Edexcel past-paper source question on referendums. Run both if you teach a mixed group revising exam technique in general, or select the part that matches your board.
Part A: AQA-style extract question
Where this sits on the paper
AQA Politics (7152), Paper 1: Government and Politics of the UK (7152/1). Section B, Question 4, the Extract Question, worth 25 marks. This question is compulsory, unlike Section A (three compulsory 9-mark short-answer questions) or Section C (one 25-mark essay chosen from a pair). The paper carries a maximum of 77 marks and runs for 2 hours; AQA’s own examiners suggest roughly 40 minutes per section. AQA’s real Section B extract questions present two short opposing extracts, typically opinion pieces attributed to a named commentator with a one-line biography, and ask students to analyse, evaluate and compare the arguments across both.
Examiners’ insight (AQA, June 2023 report on this question): the strongest answers evaluated the provenance of each extract, who was speaking and what that might mean for their argument, and used the extracts as a springboard to develop points with their own knowledge. The weakest answers were descriptive, “merely copying parts of the extract without much further development.” This activity’s AO2 step is built to head that off.
Specimen extracts (written for this resource, styled on the AQA format)
Extract A There is no better example of direct democracy working as intended than the referendums held in Britain since 1997. Voters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have each been given a direct say over how they are governed, and the results, however narrow, have carried a legitimacy that no Act of Parliament alone could match. The 2014 Scottish independence referendum drew an 84.6% turnout, higher than any general election in living memory, proof that voters rise to the occasion when the stakes are genuinely constitutional. Referendums do not weaken representative democracy; they supplement it, giving MPs a clear mandate for change that might otherwise be contested for a generation. Specimen extract written for this resource, styled as an opinion piece by a former Downing Street policy adviser.
Extract B Referendums are too often a tool of party management dressed up as an exercise in democracy. The decision to hold a vote, the wording of the question and the timing are all controlled by the government of the day, and the 1979 Scottish devolution referendum shows how a hidden threshold can overturn a majority result entirely. Worse, the 2016 EU referendum reduced a decades-long, technical relationship to a single yes or no question, decided by a margin of under two percentage points on a turnout of 72.2%. A result that close settles nothing; it simply relocates the argument from Parliament to the street, where it has remained ever since. Specimen extract written for this resource, styled as an opinion piece by a constitutional law academic.
Exam question
Analyse, evaluate and compare the arguments in the extracts above regarding the use of referendums in the UK. (25 marks)
AO focus: AO1 identification of stated facts in each extract, AO2 analysis of what divides the two extracts, how each claim connects to wider course content, and what the provenance of each extract suggests about its argument, AO3 a weighed judgement on which extract makes the stronger case
Instructions
- AO1: Students read both extracts and underline every explicit factual claim in each (for example, the 84.6% turnout figure in Extract A, or the 1979 threshold in Extract B).
- AO2: Students draw a line connecting any point in Extract A to a point in Extract B that directly contradicts or qualifies it, then add two points of outside knowledge, from Activities 1 and 2, that would strengthen an answer (for example, the Miller case, or the West Lothian Question). AQA specifically rewards this synoptic step: answers without any connection to another part of the specification are capped below the top mark bands. Students also note who is speaking in each extract and how their position might shape the argument, a policy adviser has reason to defend a tool of government, an academic reason to scrutinise it, mirroring the provenance evaluation AQA examiners reward.
- AO3: Students write a concluding sentence stating which extract they find more persuasive overall and why, modelling the “compare” element of the command word rather than treating the two extracts separately.
Part B: Edexcel-style source question
Where this sits on the paper
Edexcel Politics (9PL0), Paper 1: UK Politics and Core Political Ideas (9PL0/01). Section A covers UK Politics and opens with a choice between Question 1(a) and Question 1(b), each worth 30 marks and each built around a printed source in the accompanying Source Booklet. Section A totals 60 marks (Question 1 plus a further Question 2, also a 30-mark choice), and Section B, a 24-mark essay on Core Political Ideas, brings the paper to 84 marks in total. Unlike the AQA extract question, Edexcel’s instruction explicitly restricts students to the source: “analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source.” Outside knowledge is not credited on this question, which is the opposite convention from AQA and worth drilling into students directly.
Examiners’ insight (Edexcel, June 2023 report): this question type has been improving. Examiners noted “a significant improvement on approach since last year” and that “few candidates made the mistake of introducing copious own knowledge which they then analysed and evaluated.” The persistent weakness across both source questions was AO3: many candidates state a view in the introduction but then lose it, or offer an interim judgement that “just repeats what has already been written” rather than adding to the argument. This activity’s AO3 step asks specifically for a judgement that adds something new.
Genuine past-paper source and question
The material below is reproduced from a real Edexcel paper, Pearson Edexcel GCE Politics, Paper 1 (9PL0/01), 21 May 2024, Source 1(b) and Question 1(b), used here for teaching practice.
Source 1(b) The following two paragraphs give two sides of a contested debate considering whether referendums since 1997 have promoted democracy or instead have really served other political purposes.
The case for referendums promoting democracy Referendums since 1997 have had a positive impact on political life and widened democracy. They have given a definitive answer on contested topics shaping the direction that the UK takes, be that devolution, membership of the EU or the rejection of alternative voting systems. Referendums add legitimacy to major constitutional changes. In Scotland 16- and 17-year-olds voted making choices about their future in referendums, thus widening participation. They have re-invigorated political life and opened up honest debate with their high turnouts and renewed activity in current events. They are a source of political education that engage the public and are a true injection of direct democracy.
The claims against the use of referendums Referendums have been held for the benefit of the governing political parties, often settling their internal disputes, never for public benefit. New Labour liked to be popular and a series of ‘yes’ votes added to the idea of popularity. New Labour wanted to ensure its dominance in Scotland where it drew a large number of seats. New Labour later tired of referendums. The Conservatives agreed to a referendum on voting reform, not much of a choice as the vote was not about proportional representation. In reality, the referendum was a price to pay for the support of the Liberal Democrats to enter the coalition. Then the EU referendum. This was not a democratic move for the people of the UK. The referendum was an outright attempt by the Conservative Party to stop UKIP in its tracks. In the end it was a battle fought over false claims. Such a close result as the one on the EU has limited legitimacy. A leading Brexiter, Steve Baker, accepts that major referendums should require 60% approval to be effective and valid.
Exam question
Using the source, evaluate the view that referendums since 1997 have not supported democracy but have been used for other political purposes. (30 marks)
In your response you must: compare and contrast the different opinions in the source; examine and debate these views in a balanced way; analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source.
AO focus: AO1 accurate identification of every claim within the source, AO2 comparison of how the two paragraphs use similar evidence (for example, the EU and AV referendums) to opposite ends, AO3 a balanced, source-only judgement
Instructions
- AO1: Students list every named example in the source, without adding anything from memory: devolution, the EU referendum, the AV referendum, 16 and 17 year olds voting in Scotland, the coalition with the Liberal Democrats, UKIP, and Steve Baker’s 60% approval claim.
- AO2: For each example listed, students note which paragraph uses it and to what end, then identify one example that appears, implicitly or explicitly, in both paragraphs read against each other (the EU referendum is used in one as evidence of legitimacy through high turnout and in the other as evidence of manipulation and a close, unconvincing result).
- AO3: Students write a source-only concluding judgement: which paragraph’s use of evidence is more convincing, and why, without importing any outside knowledge. This is the skill examiners specifically reward on this question type and the one most students default away from under time pressure.
Teacher note: because this question rewards balance and penalises the addition of outside knowledge, it is a useful contrast to run immediately after Part A, where the opposite is true. Asking students to articulate the difference out loud, in their own words, is often more useful than a written comparison.
Activity 4: The UK compared, referendums beyond Westminster
Timing: 25 to 30 minutes
Purpose: Broaden the UK case studies into a comparative, synoptic argument about how direct democracy is used elsewhere
Skills: Comparison, evaluation, structured discussion
AO focus: AO1 recall of each system, AO2 comparison against the UK (parallels, connections, similarities and differences, the exact language of the AO2 descriptor), AO3 evaluation of whether the UK should change
Instructions
- AO1: In small groups, students complete the comparison grid below using the summary notes provided (or their own research if time allows), recalling accurately how each country triggers and uses referendums.
- AO2: Groups then write one sentence per country stating a specific similarity and a specific difference with the UK system, using the grid as evidence, before comparing answers as a class.
- AO3: Groups discuss and note down a one-paragraph answer to the question: to what extent should the United Kingdom move towards a more Swiss-style model of referendums? The paragraph must reach a stated judgement, not simply list points on both sides.
- Plenary vote: students indicate, by show of hands, whether they agree or disagree with the proposition, then two or three students on each side are asked to justify their position using a named example from the grid.
Comparison grid
| Country | How referendums are triggered | Binding or advisory | Frequency | Case study |
| United Kingdom | Called by the government of the day, top-down | Advisory by default, but can be made binding by its enabling Act (as with the 2011 AV referendum); the 2016 EU referendum was advisory yet treated as politically decisive | Rare, roughly eight referendums of national or UK-wide significance since 1997 | 2016 EU referendum |
| Switzerland | Mandatory for constitutional change; optional referendum via 50,000 signatures within 100 days; popular initiative via 100,000 signatures within 18 months | Binding | Frequent, up to four national voting days a year on around fifteen issues | The “No to ten-million Switzerland” population-cap initiative, put by the Swiss People’s Party, was rejected 55% to 45% on 14 June 2026, a matter of weeks before this resource was written |
| Ireland | Constitutionally required for any amendment to the constitution | Binding | Occasional, but more frequent than the UK on constitutional matters | Same-sex marriage referendum 2015, 62% to 38% on a 60.5% turnout; abortion repeal referendum 2018, 66.4% to 33.6%; the Family and Care referendums of March 2024 show the other side of this, both were rejected by roughly 74% to 26%, on a 44.3% turnout, despite backing from the government and most major parties, the heaviest referendum defeat in the history of the Irish state |
| United States | No federal referendum; around half of states allow citizen initiatives or referendums | Binding at state level, subject to judicial review | Varies by state; California has used the initiative process since 1911 | California Proposition 8, 2008, banned same-sex marriage by initiative before being overturned by the courts, illustrating the risk initiatives pose to minority rights |
Extension for stronger groups: ask whether the California Proposition 8 example undermines the argument, used in Activity 2, that referendums enhance democracy. The Irish Family and Care result works the same way for the “referendums provide legitimacy” argument: a government-backed proposal can still be emphatically rejected, which complicates any claim that frequent referendums simply produce more legitimate outcomes. Both are useful pivot points for a synoptic paragraph in the exam-question activity that follows.
Activity 5: Exam-question planning clinic
Timing: 40 to 50 minutes
Purpose: Apply the knowledge and evaluative habits built in Activities 1 to 4 to a full-length essay plan for both AQA and Edexcel question styles
Skills: Essay planning, thematic argument construction, balanced evaluation, awareness of assessment objectives
Part A: AQA-style question (Section C essay, 25 marks)
Analyse and evaluate the extent to which referendums enhance democracy in the United Kingdom.
Command word guidance: “analyse” requires students to explain how and why referendums might enhance or undermine democracy, using named evidence; “evaluate” requires a weighed judgement, not a simple list of points on both sides. AQA rewards a synoptic link to another part of the specification, such as devolution, the judiciary (via the Miller and IndyRef2 cases), or party politics, and answers without such a link are capped below the top mark bands.
AQA question papers do not label paragraphs by AO, but the mark scheme rewards knowledge (AO1), analysis (AO2) and evaluation (AO3) within each point made. The grid below shows which AO each part of a paragraph is doing, so students can check they are not writing AO1 description dressed up as an argument.
Planning grid
| Section | Content to include | AO focus |
| Introduction | Define referendum and direct democracy; set out the line of argument to be taken (the thesis) | AO1 definitions, early AO3 signal of the thesis |
| Paragraph 1: participation and legitimacy | Point: referendums increase participation and legitimise major change. Evidence: 2014 Scottish independence, 84.6% turnout; 1998 Good Friday Agreement. Evaluation: weigh against low-turnout counter-examples such as the 2011 AV referendum, 42.2% turnout | AO1 the facts and figures; AO2 explaining why high turnout confers legitimacy; AO3 the weighing sentence against the AV counter-example |
| Paragraph 2: information and manipulation | Point: referendums can reduce complex issues to a single choice and be shaped by campaign spending. Evidence: 2016 EU referendum, disputed Vote Leave NHS claim. Evaluation: weigh against the counter-argument that general elections also involve simplified choices and campaign spending | AO1 the Vote Leave case; AO2 the comparison with general elections; AO3 a judgement on whether this makes referendums distinctively worse |
| Paragraph 3: sovereignty and the rules of the vote | Point: the government of the day sets the question, timing and threshold, which can determine the outcome. Evidence: 1979 Scottish devolution referendum and its 40%-of-the-electorate threshold. Evaluation: consider the Miller case (2017), which confirmed the 2016 referendum was legally advisory, against the political reality that the result was treated as binding; note that not every referendum is advisory by default, the 2011 AV referendum was made binding by its own enabling Act | AO1 the 1979 threshold rule and the Miller case; AO2 the connection between legal status and political practice; AO3 a judgement on which matters more |
| Synoptic paragraph | Link to devolution (asymmetric settlement after the 2004 North East rejection) or to party politics (Conservative divisions and three Prime Ministers between 2016 and 2019) | AO2, this paragraph exists specifically to demonstrate connections across the specification |
| Conclusion | A justified judgement on the extent to which referendums enhance democracy, rather than a restatement of both sides | AO3, the highest-value sentence in the essay |
Part B: Edexcel-style question (Paper 1, 30 marks)
Evaluate the extent to which referendums have had a positive impact on UK political life since 1997.
Specification wording (9PL0, Component 1, content area 3.2): “How referendums have been used in the UK and their impact on UK political life since 1997. The case for and against referendums in a representative democracy.” Edexcel essays are marked against three assessment objectives: accurate knowledge and understanding (AO1), analysis of the relationship between aspects of the topic (AO2), and evaluation leading to a substantiated judgement (AO3). A strong answer should use multiple named referendums as evidence rather than a single case study.
Edexcel frequently divides marks for extended-response questions into equal or near-equal thirds across AO1, AO2 and AO3. The grid below tags each theme accordingly, so a plan can be checked for balance before writing begins.
Examiners’ insight (Edexcel, June 2023 report, on this exact essay topic): almost every candidate understood the issues, but many weaker answers “took three referendums in turn, usually Brexit, IndyRef and AV, and discussed them in detail,” which “tended to result in descriptive answers rather than analytical ones.” Candidates also drifted into discussing the consequences of devolution or Brexit generally rather than the consequences of referendums specifically, which examiners noted “wasn’t really relevant to the question.” Stronger answers organised material by theme, participation, resolution of disputes, sovereignty, and were explicitly warned against leaning too heavily towards one side: “many answers were not well balanced, mostly leaning heavily towards disadvantages.” The planning grid below is built thematically for this reason; encourage students to resist the pull towards a referendum-by-referendum structure.
Planning grid
| Section | Content to include | AO focus |
| Introduction | Briefly define the timeframe (referendums since 1997) and set out the thesis, for example that the impact has been positive on legitimacy but corrosive to party unity and territorial cohesion | AO1 definitions and scope; AO3 the early thesis statement |
| Theme 1: constitutional and devolution impact | Evidence: 1997 to 1998 devolution referendums transformed a unitary state into one with substantial devolved government; the 2004 North East rejection produced an asymmetric settlement, the West Lothian Question, and English Votes for English Laws (2015 to 2021) | AO1 the sequence of referendums and outcomes; AO2 the causal link from the 2004 rejection to the West Lothian Question |
| Theme 2: party political impact | Evidence: Conservative and Labour splits during the 2016 campaign; three Prime Ministers, Cameron, May and Johnson, between 2016 and 2019; the 2019 general election fought substantially on how to implement the 2016 result; the rise of UKIP and the Brexit Party | AO1 the named events; AO2 tracing the chain from referendum result to party instability |
| Theme 3: the Union | Evidence: divergence between Scotland (62% Remain) and the UK as a whole in 2016 strengthened the case for a second Scottish independence referendum, closed off for now by the November 2022 Supreme Court ruling on the Scotland Act 1998 | AO1 the 2022 ruling; AO2 the connection between the 2016 divergence and renewed independence pressure |
| Counter-argument | The 2014 Scottish independence referendum, despite a No result, is often cited as evidence that referendums can settle a question decisively and with high legitimacy, given its 84.6% turnout | AO2 and AO3 together, since a counter-argument only earns credit once it is weighed against the main line of argument, not merely stated |
| Conclusion | A substantiated judgement on balance, explicitly weighing legitimacy gains against divisiveness and party instability, avoiding a simple restatement of both sides | AO3 in full, this is where the substantiated judgement Edexcel’s mark scheme asks for is made explicit |
Running the clinic
- Split the class in two: one half plans the AQA question, the other the Edexcel question, using the grids above as scaffolding rather than a script.
- Pairs swap plans with a pair working on the same question and peer-assess against the AO checklist below, rather than a general impression of quality.
- For homework or as a follow-up lesson, students write the introduction and one full paragraph in timed conditions, roughly 10 minutes for the AQA question and 12 minutes for the Edexcel question, reflecting the proportion of total exam time available.
- Differentiation: weaker students can be given the planning grid pre-filled with evidence and asked only to supply the AO2 and AO3 sentences; stronger students can be asked to plan a rebuttal paragraph anticipating the examiner reading their answer alongside a Scottish independence or Swiss comparison.
Peer-assessment checklist, by assessment objective
| AO | Checklist question | Yes or no, with evidence |
| AO1 | Is every point backed by an accurately recalled date, result, turnout figure or named case study, rather than a vague reference? | |
| AO2 | Does each paragraph explain how or why the evidence supports the point, and does at least one paragraph make an explicit synoptic or comparative link? | |
| AO3 | Does the conclusion reach a stated, justified judgement on the question asked, rather than restating both sides without a decision? |