How do we encourage people to tune in to the debate?

It’s been a strange week in Scotland. The great fanfare surrounding the publication of the Scottish Government’s white paper on independence, and the variety of reactions to the document, have been overshadowed by the huge sadness felt across the country following the helicopter crash in Glasgow on Friday evening which has claimed lives and caused terrible injuries. An event like this can bring a new sense of perspective. Many have spoken of the courage of bystanders and those in the building who disregarded their own safety to help others escape – a reminder of the essential humanity which binds us together. As the debate over our country’s future again takes centre-stage, I hope we will all reflect on the events in Glasgow. Much as we need debate and even conflict to create positive social change, we also need to live with one another and ensure that whatever version of Scotland we end up with, it is a country which values everyone who chooses to live and work here. Ensuring mutual respect The referendum is an important moment in time and it is to be expected that people on both sides of the debate will be passionate. However, the conduct within the debate matters too as it reflects how we express our humanity and respect for others. This is crucial from the point of view of encouraging people and communities to get engaged in the discussion, and it is also important ground for the third sector. If we have a role in this debate, and I believe we do, then ensuring these values of mutual respect and inclusion are upheld has to be front and centre. It’s not an easy task. The realities of our current democratic practice leave many out in the cold. Ripping up the rule book The third sector can engage with the debate as it’s currently framed, by responding to specific policy proposals and lobbying through existing channels. Or it can focus more on how we can create a country, independent or not, where people build their own inclusion through appropriation of information, creative use of technology and increased collaboration, challenging some of our current ideas about democracy. I suspect the sector will follow both paths. Jane Jones, in her recent Stephen Maxwell lecture, highlighted the role of adversity in inspiring people and communities to be creative and bold – to rip up the rule book. Perhaps the context of the referendum debate does not in itself create the freedom to rewrite the rules, but I sense there is growing interest in conversations which don’t begin and end with what we’ve currently got. A debate with more freedom and imagination could encourage us all to take time out from the pressures of day-to-day life and tune in rather than switching off.