Paper 1 UK Politics · Referendums (spec P1.3.2)

Referendums · Notes

Sub-topic lookup view of the walk-through.

About these notes. This is the sub-topic lookup version. For the narrative scrollytelling lesson with the referendum, case-for and case-against figures, use the Walk-through. For active recall, use the MCQ Quiz. The devolution settlements the referendums built live in the Devolution pack, and the wider direct-democracy frame lives in the Democracy pack. The cards below cover the constitutional position, the named referendums, the case for, the case against, the reform agenda and the exam method.

Likely exam angles. The 30-marker lands on one of three debates: referendums used for political purposes rather than democracy (2024 Q1b); more disadvantages than advantages (2023 Q2a); or whether referendums belong in a representative democracy at all. Each one is covered in the cards below.

1. The constitutional position - advisory in law, binding in politics

What a referendum is: a vote of the whole electorate on a single question - direct democracy inside a system built on representative democracy.
Advisory status: UK referendums are advisory under constitutional convention. Westminster could legally have ignored the 2016 result.
Miller (No 1) 2017: the Supreme Court ruled Article 50 had to be triggered by an Act of Parliament, not by executive prerogative - the legal proof that the referendum itself bound nobody.
The political reality: no government has dared ignore a referendum result - advisory in law, binding in practice.

The exam frame. Spec P1.3.2 asks two things: how referendums have been used since 1997 and their impact (P1.3.2.a), and the case for and against referendums in a representative democracy (P1.3.2.b). The named cases below serve both.

2. The named referendums - results and what each proves

Referendum	Result	What it proves
1997 Scotland	74% Yes	The strongest founding mandate of any settlement - Holyrood politically irreversible ever since.
1997 Wales	50.3% Yes on a 50% turnout	The weakest founding consent - the 2023 MS reads it as support from around a quarter of the electorate, and concludes thresholds should be set. Repaired by the 63% Yes of 2011 (primary law-making powers).
1998 Good Friday	Approved on both sides of the border; over 80% in Northern Ireland	The peace settlement - the change Westminster alone could not have legitimised (2023 MS).
2004 North East	Regional assembly rejected by 78%	The device as a check on government - it killed the English regional assembly plan.
2011 AV	No 67-33	A settled answer on electoral reform - and the 2024 MS's coalition-price case: the vote was the price paid to the Lib Dems, and a safe choice for the Conservatives.
2014 Scottish independence	No 55-45 on an 84.6% turnout	The highest UK referendum turnout ever, with 16-17 year olds voting - but the question did not stay settled.
2016 EU membership	Leave 51.9-48.1 on a 72.2% turnout	The largest direct-democracy vote in UK history - run with no threshold, a simple-majority rule and a binary question on a complex choice.

How to use them. Never narrate a referendum - attach it to an argument. Scotland 1997 and the GFA for legitimacy; AV 2011 for settlement and for party purposes; Wales 1997 for thresholds; 2014 for participation; 2016 for design flaws and engagement at once. The settlements themselves are in the devolution pack.

3. The case for referendums

Direct legitimacy. Major constitutional decisions made by the people rather than politicians (2024 MS) - Scotland's 74%, the GFA's over-80% approval. The 2023 MS concludes the devolved institutions could not now be removed without the people's consent.
Settling divided questions. When parties are gridlocked - the Conservative stalemate over EU membership - a referendum is sometimes the only option to bring clarity (2023 MS). AV 2011 is the cleanest settled case.
Participation. 84.6% turnout in 2014 and 72.2% in 2016 beat the general elections around them; the 2023 MS concludes referendums produce more legitimate results than elections.
Education and engagement. Referendums involve the public between elections and enhance political understanding (2024 MS) - renewing democratic legitimacy and addressing the participation crisis. Including 16-17 year olds in Scotland broadened democracy.

4. The case against referendums

Oversimplification. Binary ballots on complex choices: 2016 asked Leave or Remain, but leaving contained multiple options the ballot never asked about - which fed the 2016-19 deadlock.
Weak and unsettled mandates. Wales 1997 - a sub-1% margin on a 50% turnout - is the 2023 MS's proof that some results are not the true will of the majority; 2016 still divides opinion given the close vote, and the independence question returned within years of 2014. The MS conclusion: lasting legitimacy needs more than a simple plurality.
Party purposes (the 2024 question). Referendums manipulated to benefit the party in office: AV as the coalition price, 2016 held to thwart UKIP - Cameron never wanted it but called it to placate a section of his party (2023 MS). The MS conclusion: greater democracy is rarely the reason for calling them.
Campaign quality and majoritarian risk. The Vote Leave campaign was found to have broken electoral law; and a bare majority binds everyone, including minorities, with no check.
Damage to the union. The 2023 MS argues referendum-driven devolution fuelled the independence case and created uncertainty in Northern Ireland.

5. The reform agenda - proposed, never passed

Supermajority on constitutional questions - part of the Swiss model, where frequent referendums run under supermajority and cantonal-majority rules.
Minimum-turnout threshold - Italy requires 50% turnout for a binding referendum; the UK requires nothing.
Explicit advisory framing - making the constitutional status clear on the ballot.

The fact to land. The Elections Act 2022 introduced no threshold and no supermajority for future referendums - the Brexit lessons were not legislated. The reform debate is live precisely because nothing was reformed.

6. Exam method - how the 30-marker is scored

Marks: 30, split AO1 10 / AO2 10 / AO3 10. The topic appears at Q1 (source) or Q2 (essay).
Two views, weighed. Balance means both views are weighed - not that the answer fence-sits. A one-sided answer is capped at Level 2.
Themes, not a tour. Structure by argument - legitimacy, settlement, design, purposes - with the referendums as evidence inside each. A date-order tour of seven referendums is the structure examiners mark down.
Pair the points. Each paragraph pairs an argument with its opposing argument and ends with an interim judgement on your side.
Carry exact figures. 74%, 50.3%, 67-33, 55-45 on 84.6%, 51.9-48.1 on 72.2% - precision here is cheap AO1.
Watch the framing. The board has asked the same evidence three ways: used for other political purposes (2024 Q1b), more disadvantages than advantages (2023 Q2a), and the place of referendums in representative democracy. The cases do not change; the framing does.
Conclusions justify. Answer the question with reasons; do not list the paragraph themes again.

Questions to plan. 2024 Q1b: not supported democracy but used for other political purposes? 2023 Q2a: more disadvantages than advantages? The representative-democracy principle question. A worked 30-mark answer on advantages and disadvantages is at the end of the walk-through.

📜 Walk-throughThe narrative scrollytelling lesson with figures, mini-quizzes and the worked essay. 🧠 MCQ quiz15 questions across the named referendums, the debate and the reform agenda. 🗳️ Democracy packDirect versus representative democracy and participation. 🏴 Devolution walk-throughThe settlements the referendums built.