Data from the second half of the 3rd June forum on Scottish Indepedence.

1. Phew! Now it’s Break Time!
• When we come back we’ll delve into the most
important questions in more detail.
• Be back in 15 minutes.

2. Form of the Session
• Short Presentations on the most
relevant, least informed topics.
• Feedback from Participants
• Question 1:
– Presentation/Discussion
– Feedback.
• Question 2: etc…

3. To what extent will the likely result of the
2015 UK general election influence your vote?
Notatall
Onlyslightly
M
oderately
ConsiderablyItw
illm
atter...
43%
18%
11%
18%
11%
1. Not at all
2. Only slightly
3. Moderately
4. Considerably
5. It will matter greatly

4. Do you consider yourself to be:
EntirelyScott...
M
ore
Scottish
...
Equally
Scotti...
M
ore
British
t...EntirelyBriti...
Other
11%
26%
2%
9%
4%
48%
1. Entirely Scottish
2. More Scottish than
British
3. Equally Scottish and
British
4. More British than
Scottish
5. Entirely British
6. Other

5. Do you believe an independent Scotland should
have a written constitution?
Yes
No
74%
29%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
1. Yes
2. No

6. Are you concerned that an independent Scotland
will not be able to pay her way?
Yes
No
83%
18%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
1. Yes
2. No

7. NOW How Certain Are You of Your Vote?
I’m
QuiteCert...
I’m
PrettySur...
I’m
Leaning
To...
IAm
StillThi...
41%
6%
24%
29%
1. I’m Quite Certain
2. I’m Pretty Sure I Know
How I’ll Vote
3. I’m Leaning Toward A
Particular Decision
4. I Am Still Thinking
About It.

8. Of the Questions We’ve Posed Today, How Many of Them
Do You Believe Will be Answered by September 18, 2014?
M
ostofAllof...
The
M
ajority
AboutHalf
M
aybeOneQuar...
Alm
ostNone
of...
2%
13%
22%
33%
29%
1. Most of All of Them
2. The Majority
3. About Half
4. Maybe One Quarter
5. Almost None of
Them

9. Do You Expect that You Will Have Enough
Information to Make a Confident Decision?
Yes
No
NotSure
60%
15%
25%
1. Yes
2. No
3. Not Sure

10. How satisfied are you with this process?
42%
10%
31%
0%
6%
0%
6%
0%
6% 1. Very unsatisfied
2.
3. Moderately unsatisfied
4.
5. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
6.
7. Moderately satisfied
8.
9. Very satisfied

11. The Structured Public Involvement team
High Performance Participation for Better Governance
The Structured Public Involvement team

12. Who are we? And why listen?
More than a decade of high performance process design.
More than thirty successful public involvement projects.
Professional awards e.g. Herrington Award (2008)
Variety of partners (e.g. Federal and State agencies, Metro
Planning Organizations, citizens gropus, private consultants).
More than ten thousand stakeholders involved.
Fifty peer-review publications.
Committee memberships on National Academies panels.
Service on professional organizations, journal, grant proposal
review from environmental management to civil engineering.
Largest Arnstein Ladder data set published internationally.
Largest Q-metric data set for public processes.
SPI. Just Google it!

13. Some SPI Projects
Scottish Independence Forum. Perth, Scotland (June 2013)
Partners: University of the Third Age; University of Dundee; Five Million Questions.
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant: Collaborative Visioning for Future State
Use (2009-11)
Partners: US Department of Energy; Paducah; Ballard County; numerous
organizations inc. Chamber of Commerce; West End Neighborhood Association.
Large context-sensitive bridge design: Western Kentucky Bridges Project
(2007-08)
Partners: FHWA; Kentucky Transportation Cabinet; Michael Baker Associates.

14. Some SPI Projects
Louisville Southern Indiana Ohio River Bridges Project (2005-07)
Partners: Ky Cabinet; Ohio DoT; City of Louisville; Jeffersonville, IN; TARC; Michael
Baker Associates; Parsons Brinkerhoff; numerous local groups.
Participatory Electric Power Transmission Line Routing (2004-06)
Partners: National Science Foundation; University of Arizona; University of Kentucky;
several electric utility companies.
Integrated Transportation/Land Use Planning, Jeffersonville, IN (2006-08)
Partners: Federal Highway Administration; City of Jeffersonville, IN.
Community-Based Transit-Oriented Development, Louisville, KY (2001-03)
Partners: Federal Transit Administration; Federal Highway Administration; Transit
Authority of River City, Louisville, KY.

16. Process Metrics: Q, I, C and E
Criterion Indicator Data
Inclusion Number of organizations,
citizens and groups
Count attendees,
participant groups
Process quality Satisfaction Open quality evaluation
Clarity/utility of
decision support
Expert evaluation Testimonials, narratives,
comparisons to state of
the art methods
Efficiency Cost and time $ spent on public
involvement, time taken
and demanded

17. 0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Q
I
C
E
Focus group methods
Town hall
Deliberative democracy
SPI
Online participation
Phone survey
Comparison of process methods across QICE

18. Metrics: Q
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Rural Highw ay improvement (KY, 2000)
Transit Oriented Development (KY, 2002)
Noisew all Design (KY, 2004)
Noisew all Design (AZ, 2006)
Bridge AAT (KY, 2005)
Bridge Meeting 1 (KY, 2005)
Bridge Meeting 2 (KY, 2005)
Bridge Meeting 3 (KY, 2005)
Bridge Meeting 4 (KY, 2005)
Bridge Meeting 5 (KY, 2005)
Land Use Planning (KY, 2005)
Bypass study (KY, 2008)
Bridge Meeting (KY, 2007)
Bridge Meeting (KY, 2007)
Mean satisfaction with SPI Processes

19. Wrap Up and Summary:
• www.perthu3a.org.uk
• www.communitydecisions.com
“Structured Public Involvement”
• You can Google the term for
information, project data, articles, and more