Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Colin Alexander, Senior Lecturer in Political Communications, Nottingham Trent University

The Nobel peace prize is rarely awarded to the most humble, modest or compassionate nominee. Instead, it all-too often ends up in the hands of high-profile figures who want it.

US president Donald Trump has said several times that he thinks he is deserving of it. And calls for him to win the award have only intensified since Israel and Hamas signed off on the first phase of Trump’s peace plan for Gaza.

The predicament is that, if the Nobel committee were to give the prize to Trump, they would be awarding it to a man whose administration has armed Israel’s continuing aggression in Gaza. This has led to devastating loss of life and, as confirmed by UN humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher, the area suffering famine.

Still, he has managed to engineer at least a ceasefire, which after two years of bitter conflict feels like a significant achievement.

But as a political communications analyst, I often worry that the Nobel peace prize committee has been too hasty to judge. I also worry that, while the institution might want to claim it is fully independent and works on the principle of group consensus, the reality is that its decision is often a political one.

Indeed, many previous recipients of the Nobel peace prize have, like Trump, not been the most peace-loving of people either.

High-profile controversies

In Nobel’s more than 120 years of awarding its prize, one of its most controversial decisions came in 1973. The award that year was given to Henry Kissinger, the then-US secretary of state. It is a decision that still divides opinion today.

Kissinger had been instrumental in the withdrawal of US troops from Vietnam in 1973. But he had also spent much of his political and academic career advocating for the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the development of a smaller “battlefield” range – Kissinger’s thesis that nuclear weapons could be used and were not just for deterrence.

He was a key decision-maker in the US’s “secret war” in Laos, which ran parallel to its operations in Vietnam, and in the US military’s invasion of Cambodia in 1970. More broadly, though, Kissinger’s political philosophy of realpolitik – politics based on practical objectives rather than ideals – appeared to have had little care for individual human life and saw global politics as a game between superpowers.

Kissinger was a man of great ego – the epitome of someone who wanted his own actions to be important and remembered.

Four decades later, the 2013 Nobel peace prize was awarded to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). When the announcement was made, it seemed a fitting acknowledgement for an organisation that had been trying to do good in the world.

It felt like an apt award at a time when western political leaders and news media had roundly condemned the use of chemical weapons in Syria’s civil war. A gas attack in the Ghouta suburb of Damascus in August 2013 was widely condemned on the international stage.

However, the credibility of the OPCW has come under scrutiny since then. In 2019, British journalist Peter Hitchens published several articles about how the OPCW had suppressed the findings of its own staff to support its conclusion that the regime of Bashar al-Assad had used chemical weapons in an attack on the Syrian city of Douma.

Hitchens and others who sought to bring this to public attention, most notably a small group of academics called the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media, were targeted by a smear campaign in which they were called “war crime deniers” and “apologists for Assad”.

But the Nobel committee’s most controversial decision has perhaps not been in who to award the prize to, but in who it did not award one to. From the 1920s until his assassination in 1948, Mohandas “Mahatma” Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violent civil disobedience against British colonial rule in India inspired many around the world. It led to his imprisonment on several occasions.

As I have detailed in my own work on the end of colonial rule in India, many British administrators privately acknowledged their deep admiration of Gandhi despite the extent to which his methods threatened their power. Gandhi is surely the individual most deserving of a peace prize who did not receive one.

Colin Alexander does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The Nobel peace prize has a record of being awarded to controversial nominees – https://theconversation.com/the-nobel-peace-prize-has-a-record-of-being-awarded-to-controversial-nominees-267152

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Keith Rochfort, Assistant Professor, School of Biotechnology, Life Sciences Institute, Dublin City University

As colder months set in, respiratory infections begin to climb: everything from the common cold and flu to COVID. It’s a time when healthy lungs matter more than ever. Yet the very tissue that lets oxygen pass from air to blood is remarkably delicate, and habits such as vaping can weaken it just when protection is most needed.

The lungs are often pictured as two simple balloons, but their work is far more intricate. They act as a finely tuned exchange system, moving oxygen from inhaled air into the bloodstream while releasing carbon dioxide produced by the body’s cells.

At the centre of this process lies the blood–air barrier: a paper-thin layer where tiny air sacs called alveoli meet a dense network of hair-thin pulmonary capillaries. This barrier must remain both strong and flexible for efficient breathing, yet it is constantly exposed to stress from air pollution, microscopic particles and infectious microbes.

Vaping can add another layer of strain, and growing evidence shows that this extra pressure can damage the surface that makes every breath possible.

---

Read more:
Want to quit vaping this year? Here’s what the evidence shows so far about effective strategies

---

The cloud from an e-cigarette carries solvents such as propylene glycol, flavouring chemicals, nicotine (in most products) and even trace metals from the device itself. When this cocktail reaches the lungs it doesn’t stay on the surface. It seeps deeper, irritating the endothelium – the thin layer of cells lining the blood vessels that mesh with the air sacs.

---

Read more:
What’s in vapes? Toxins, heavy metals, maybe radioactive polonium

---

Healthy endothelium keeps blood flowing smoothly, discourages unnecessary clotting and acts as a selective gatekeeper for the bloodstream – controlling which substances, such as nutrients, hormones and immune cells, can pass in or out of the blood vessels while blocking harmful or unnecessary ones.

Studies show vaping can disrupt these defences, causing endothelial dysfunction even in young, otherwise healthy people. Controlled human exposure experiments reveal rises in endothelial microparticles – tiny cell fragments released when vessel linings are under stress.

My own research group has linked these changes to surges in inflammatory signals and stress markers in the blood after exposure to vaping aerosols. Together these findings indicate that the endothelium is struggling to maintain its protective role.

Laboratory work shows that vaping aerosols (even without nicotine) can loosen the tight seal of pulmonary endothelial cells. When the barrier leaks, fluid and inflammatory molecules seep into the alveoli. The result: blood–gas exchange is disrupted and respiratory infections become harder to fight.

COVID is usually thought of as an infection of the airways, but the SARS-CoV-2 virus also injures blood vessels. Doctors now describe the condition as causing endotheliopathies – diseases of the blood-vessel lining. In severe cases, capillaries become inflamed, leaky and prone to clotting. That helps explain why some patients develop dangerously low oxygen levels even when their lungs are not full of fluid: the blood side of the barrier is failing.

---

Read more:
How COVID-19 damages lungs: The virus attacks mitochondria, continuing an ancient battle that began in the primordial soup

---

The virus exploits a key protein called ACE2, normally a “thermostat” that helps regulate blood pressure and vessel health. SARS-CoV-2 uses ACE2 as its doorway into cells; once the virus binds, the receptor’s protective role is disrupted and vessels become inflamed and unstable.

Vaping and COVID: a dangerous combination

My team is using computer models to investigate how vaping may affect COVID infections. Evidence already shows vaping can increase the number of ACE2 receptors in the airways and lung tissue. More ACE2 means more potential entry points for the virus – and more disruption exactly where the blood–air barrier needs to be strongest.

Both vaping and COVID drive inflammation. Vaping irritates and inflames the blood-vessel lining while COVID floods the lungs with pro-inflammatory molecules. Together they create a “perfect storm”: capillaries become leaky, fluid seeps into the air sacs and oxygen struggles to cross the blood–air barrier. COVID also raises the risk of blood clots in the lung’s vessels, while vaping has been linked to the same, compounding the danger.

---

Read more:
Is lung inflammation worse in e-cigarette users than smokers, as a new study suggests?

---

Vaping can also hinder recovery after a bout of COVID. Healing the fragile exchange surface requires every bit of support the lungs can get. Vaping adds extra stress to tissues the virus has already damaged, even if the vaper feels no immediate symptoms. The result can be prolonged breathlessness, persistent fatigue and a slower return to pre-illness activity levels.

The blood–air barrier is like a piece of delicate fabric: it holds together under normal wear but can tear when pushed too hard. Vaping weakens that weave before illness strikes, making an infection such as COVID harder to overcome. The science is still evolving, but the message is clear: vaping undermines vascular health. Quitting, even temporarily, gives the lungs and blood vessels the cleaner environment they need to heal and to keep every breath effortless.

Keith Rochfort receives funding from Research Ireland.

– ref. How vaping primes the lungs for COVID damage – https://theconversation.com/how-vaping-primes-the-lungs-for-covid-damage-266162

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Penelope Hannant, Assistant Professor in Educational Inclusion, University of Birmingham

Whether and when to use the label “dyslexia” has been a perennial debate in education.

Some experts and academics argue that there is too much focus on the diagnosis of dyslexia, rather than on providing support for all children who struggle to learn to read. Others argue that children with the most significant difficulties have to fight to get the recognition they need.

Public figures, including celebrity chef Jamie Oliver, have called for all children to receive early screening for dyslexia.

We work together as researchers in psychology and education, with expertise in how children learn to read, dyslexia, neurodiversity, and how children with special educational needs should be supported. While calls for universal dyslexia screening are well intentioned, we believe this approach could lead to more problems than solutions.

One concern is the lack of accuracy in many screening tools, which can result in unclear or misleading outcomes.

Literacy difficulties are complex. Dyslexia is just one of many possible reasons a child might struggle with reading and writing. Focusing too narrowly on dyslexia risks missing other important learning needs.

Screening also has other limitations. A dyslexia screener is a tool used to flag potential indicators of dyslexia, which may involve one or more approaches such as teacher observations, structured audits, questionnaires or digital assessments. It offers only a brief snapshot of a child’s abilities, rather than a full picture of how they learn.

Another crucial issue is what happens after screening. Without enough resources to follow up on screening results, teachers, parents and children may be left feeling frustrated and unsupported.

If there’s no clear plan for what happens next, it can raise expectations without delivering real help. This can leave families and educators disillusioned and children without the support they need to succeed.

We both strongly believe in the value of a dyslexia diagnosis in the right context. One of us (Julia Carroll) recently led a project to gain consensus about the most appropriate definition of dyslexia and the best approach to assessment.

On the basis of this research, we believe a multi-phase process should be used. For younger children, the focus should be on needs rather than diagnosis. Extra help should be available for any children starting to fall behind. Some of these children will progress well. Others will continue to struggle, and an assessment for dyslexia may be warranted.

This approach relies on a thorough understanding of a child’s needs, rather than prematurely categorising young children.

Holistic approaches

One of us (Penny Hannant) has developed a broad-based questionnaire to measure and aid development in early schooling. By gathering information about a child’s development, such as how they respond to sounds, move their body, react to sensory input and process what they see, we can build a clearer picture of what kind of support they might need.

This approach allows for teachers to intervene before educational gaps emerge, offering a more refined and responsive foundation for learning.

A full profiling of strengths and weaknesses is also crucial to diagnostic assessment. Recent research indicates that developmental disorders such as dyslexia tend to have multiple causes, and that there is a great deal of overlap between different disorders.

Research suggests that a significant proportion of children with dyslexia also meet criteria for developmental language disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, which can significantly influence how dyslexia develops.

This means that any diagnostic process must take into account the whole child rather than relying on narrow or isolated criteria. To ensure this, schools need in-house specialists who are equipped to conduct holistic assessments and guide tailored support. A well-informed diagnosis not only helps children do better at school, but means they can continue to get the right support as they transition into adulthood.

Penelope Hannant is on the board of trustees with PATOSS, the dyslexia charity.

Julia M. Carroll receives funding from the Education Endowment Foundation and from the Economic and Social Research Council. She is on the board of trustees with PATOSS, the dyslexia charity.

– ref. Without proper support, a diagnosis of dyslexia risks being just a label – https://theconversation.com/without-proper-support-a-diagnosis-of-dyslexia-risks-being-just-a-label-264153

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Steve Taylor, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Leeds Beckett University

From Disney’s Scrooge McDuck and Cruella de Vil to DC Comics’ Lex Luthor to and Mr Burns in the Simpsons, there are plenty of examples of wealthy people using their money and power in evil ways. But is there any truth to the stereotype that rich people are mean?

There are many rich people who act benevolently, including philanthropists who give a lot of their money away. However, research in psychology has found a clear link between wealth and unethical behaviour, including an increased tendency to cheat and steal.

One study found that wealthy upper class people were more likely to have a selfish focus on their interests. Conversely, another study found that people from lower social classes were more likely to feel compassion for other people’s suffering.

Researchers have also established that drivers of expensive cars are less likely to behave altruistically than other drivers. They are less likely to slow down to let pedestrians cross or to let other drivers join the road.

They are also more likely to drive aggressively and disobey traffic rules. One study found that the likelihood of the drivers slowing down to let pedestrians cross the road decreased by 3% for every US$1,000 (£738.50) that their car was worth.

But it’s not just that these people are bad drivers. A study by Finnish psychologists found that owners of luxury cars had a higher prevalence of negative personality traits such as being disagreeable, stubborn and lacking in empathy.

In simple terms, it seems that rich people are less likely to be altruistic.

What could explain this link? Perhaps wealth turns people bad, isolating them from others and making them more selfish. Or is it that people who are already ruthless and selfish are more likely to become extremely wealthy?

One way of clarifying this is to think in terms of what psychologists refer as dark triad personalities. These are people who have combined traits of psychopathy, narcissism and machiavellianism (acting immorally to get power). These traits – which all involve selfishness and low empathy – almost always overlap and can be difficult to distinguish from one another. They exist on a continuum in the population as a whole.

Research shows that dark triad personalities tend to possess higher levels of status and wealth. A study following participants for 15 years found that people with dark triad traits gravitated towards the top of the organisational hierarchy and were wealthier.

In line with those findings, according to some estimates, the base rate for clinical levels of psychopathy is three times higher among corporate boards than in the overall population. Research also indicates that young people with dark triad traits are more highly represented on business courses at university or college.

Why do mean people seek wealth?

In my view, the correlation between wealth and nastiness is quite easy to explain. In my book The Fall, I suggest that some people experience a state of intense psychological separation. Their psychological boundaries are so strong that they feel disconnected from other people and the world, which can come with a lack of empathy or emotional connection.

One effect of this state of disconnection is a sense of psychological lack. People feel incomplete, as if something is missing. In turn, this generates an impulse to accumulate wealth, status and power, as a way of compensating.

On the flip side, people who feel a sense of connection others and to the world don’t feel a sense of incompleteness and so don’t tend to have a strong desire for power or wealth.

At the same time, a lack of empathy can make it easier to attain success. It means you can be ruthless in your pursuit of wealth and status, manipulating and exploiting others. If other people suffer as the result of your actions – and lose their livelihood or reputation – it doesn’t concern you as much. Without empathy, you can’t sense the suffering you cause.

So psychological disconnection has two disastrous effects: it generates a strong desire for wealth and status, together with the ruthlessness that makes wealth and success easily attainable.

Wealth and wellbeing

Of course, I’m not claiming that all wealthy people are mean. Some people become wealthy by accident, or because they have brilliant ideas, or even because they want to use their wealth to benefit others. But given the factors described above, it is not surprising that there is a high incidence of meanness among the wealthy.

The studies cited above imply that the link seems to be proportional, in that the more wealthy a person is, the more likely they are to possess dark triad traits. And we know that most dark traits, such as psychopathy are linked to similar or lower levels of happiness to others. An exception is a certain type of narcissism, called grandiose narcissism, which is linked to higher happiness.

A great deal of research in psychology has shown only a weak correlation between wealth and wellbeing. A 2010 study by Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman and Angus Deaton found that happiness increased in line with income up to around US$75,000 (£54,9612) a year (equivalent to US$110,000 in 2025). However, this is where the correlation ended. According to the study, after US$110,000 a year, it doesn’t matter how rich you become; it won’t make you any happier.

Newer research, however, has found slightly different results. A recent study by Kahneman and colleagues indicated that happiness continues to increase with income for a proportion of rich people – but not for an unhappy minority. A 2022 study also found that the threshold at which happiness plateaus depends on the country – in societies with greater inequality, there was a higher threshold.

What’s more, another study by Kahneman and other colleagues found that, for people who were preoccupied with striving for financial success, life satisfaction actually decreased as income increased.

Overall though, evidence suggests that wealthy people are unlikely to attain the contentment they seek through money alone. Their wealth and status don’t take away their sense of incompleteness.

This might be another reason why extremely rich people tend to act unethically – as their sense of disconnection grows stronger. In contrast, research shows a strong link between altruism and wellbeing. So perhaps that is where we should focus our attention – not on becoming rich, but becoming kind.

Steve Taylor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Research suggests rich people tend to be more selfish – but why is that? – https://theconversation.com/research-suggests-rich-people-tend-to-be-more-selfish-but-why-is-that-265794

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dan Baumgardt, Senior Lecturer, School of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Bristol

The 2025 darts World Grand Prix is currently well underway. One of the favourites to win the title is Luke “The Nuke” Littler, who in January became the youngest World Champion in history at just 17-years-old.

Anyone who has beheld Littler’s stellar abilities on the darts circuit will have seen the exceptional talent he displays. But what does it actually take to become a professional darts player? Many may be wondering whether darts skills are simply innate in some people – or if Littler is just an exceptionally quick learner.

Elite technique requires a combination of both physical and mental athleticism. You need to have the skills to hit very small targets when stepping up to the oche, all while maintaining the mental strength needed to stay composed under pressure – knowing that even the smallest miss can have big consequences.

1. Coordination

There are lots of different ways in which coordination – one of the critical functions of our nervous system – lends itself to success in darts. Every single throw requires a smooth and accurate trajectory.

Coordination is controlled by the cerebellum, which is located at the back of the brain. This complex region, sometimes referred to as “the little brain,” helps regulate both fine muscle control and posture. It’s a key region when it comes to darts skills.

For instance, the cerebellum helps with hand-eye coordination. To hit a perfect 180, you’re aiming for that tiny treble 20 on the inner ring, three times over. It requires the player to set that target, judge the distance from the board and calculate an appropriate angle at which to throw. It’s also critical in the learning process of how to improve your aim over time.

Stance, posture and balance are paramount too, and also coordinated by the cerebellum. Even the slightest wobble can affect the trajectory of the dart on release.

2. Arm mechanics

A recipe for success also involves a honed and accurate throw.

The mechanics of a good throw include the transition between taking aim, the pullback move to gather energy, through to a smooth release and eliminating any jerks which might send the dart off course.

The chief muscle groups that allow for this are found in the
hand, wrist and forearm. They contain multiple smaller muscles which flex and extend the wrist and fingers. These are capable of working together to enable a wide variety of precise movements in gripping, aiming and releasing the dart.

It’s generally quite difficult to target these small muscles by working out in the gym, so this is where training through repetition is key to nailing the right throw.

The throw is also governed by rhythm: the target setting, the speed of the pullback stroke and the timing of the release.

Every professional dart player has their own throw technique. For instance, Phil Taylor demonstrated a fast, yet measured throw, while Luke Littler favours a relaxed, instinctive rhythm. But the individual rhythm all goes back to those intricate nerve pathways and the small muscles which coordinate it.

3. A ‘quiet eye’

Obviously vision is also fundamental to darts – but it’s not as simple as just regarding the board.

This is where the concept of a “quiet eye” comes in – where the eyes lock in upon the target just before a throw is made. A quiet eye ensures the gaze remains fixed upon the target, ensuring the throw is accurate.

A quiet eye is a technique important in many sports other than darts – including clay shooting, snooker and archery. A quiet eye lends important visual information to the motor system, which allows for maximum synchronisation between the brain and body.

Several studies have explored the effect the quiet eye phenomenon has on target sports and what underpins it. First, there’s evidence that shows expert players typically have a longer quiet eye phase than amateurs. Although this usually only amounts to half a second longer or so, this is still significant in coordinating between the brain and body, allowing the player to execute that perfect shot.

Second, the measured gaze of professional players appear to be more stable and unwavering – with no eye flicking or deviation from the target.

Through target fixation, critically timing their movements and repeating their shots, players can train their quiet eye.

4. The brain and body connection

The connection between brain and body appears to be key – and is exemplified by players who lost their ability in darts.

There’s actually a condition referred to as “dartitis,” which is defined by an inability to throw. Dartitis is often associated with stress, fatigue or burnout.

It can even affect top players – most notably multiple World Champion Eric Bristow, who had to retrain in order to play normally again after developing dartitis. This can involve going back to basics and rebuilding the throw – sometimes even switching to the other hand.

But if, like me, you’re completely devoid of any talent in darts, there are a few things you can do to give yourself a better chance of hitting a bullseye (instead of the wall or ceiling).

A few starting points for training involve establishing a good stance, grip and throw. Equipping yourself with the right kit is also essential. Then you can move onto blocking out all that external noise – mostly jeers from your mates at your feeble efforts.

Practice makes perfect. Both mental and physical training are needed to be a champion darts player.

Dan Baumgardt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Darts: the surprising amount of athletic skill it takes to hit a bullseye – https://theconversation.com/darts-the-surprising-amount-of-athletic-skill-it-takes-to-hit-a-bullseye-266730

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Damien Short, Director of the Human Rights Consortium and Reader in Human Rights, School of Advanced Study, University of London

Three environmental defenders – people who take action against the exploitation of natural resources – are murdered or disappeared somewhere in the world every week. The latest report by Global Witness, an NGO that investigates environmental and human rights abuses, has recorded more than 2,250 such cases since 2012.

The vast majority of the 146 land and environmental defenders killed in 2024, according to the report, were murdered in Latin America. Many were opposing large-scale mining, logging or agribusiness projects.

Colombia recorded the highest number of deaths, with 48 defenders killed across the country. But Guatemala proved the most dangerous country per capita, with 20 killings that year. Indigenous people and small-scale farmers in Latin America are particularly exposed. Their lives and livelihoods place them in direct conflict with extractive and criminal interests.

Afro-descendant communities there face the same elevated risk. Many, including Brazil’s Quilombola communities, hold collective ancestral territories and have safeguarded forests and rivers for generations. This custodianship makes them targets.

Women accounted for approximately 10% of victims in 2024, with cases concentrated in Mexico. And multiple attacks killed entire families, including children, suggesting systematic intimidation rather than isolated violence.

---

Wars and climate change are inextricably linked. Climate change can increase the likelihood of violent conflict by intensifying resource scarcity and displacement, while conflict itself accelerates environmental damage. This article is part of a series, War on climate, which explores the relationship between climate issues and global conflicts.

---

In a conflict-affected context, or a situation where information is tightly controlled, killings and disappearances are hard to document. Families and witnesses also often stay silent for fear of reprisals. Impunity compounds the problem.

The Global Witness report notes that in Colombia, where environmental defenders have been at risk for decades, only 5% of killings since 2002 have resulted in convictions. Without justice, deterrence is absent, and cycles of violence continue.

Violence against environmental defenders also persists because it works. Removing a community leader, for example, can disrupt resistance for months or years. For corporations, defending against a lawsuit that arises due to violence against environmental defenders costs less than losing a mining concession. And for governments dependent on resource revenues, silencing critics preserves foreign investment.

According to the Global Witness report, nearly one-third of the murders in 2024 were linked to criminal networks. State security forces were directly implicated in others. This dual threat of criminal violence and official complicity is enabled in part by a shrinking ability for people to participate freely in public life.

Civicus, an alliance of civil society organisations that works to strengthen citizen action and civil rights globally, rates more than half of the countries where defenders were killed as “repressed” or “closed”. This means the authorities actively restrict freedoms of association, assembly and expression.

Violence is predictable in such environments. Defenders face not only physical attacks but also criminalisation, harassment and strategic lawsuits designed to exhaust resources and silence dissent. Ecuador demonstrates how quickly this repression can escalate.

In September 2025, the government charged people protesting fuel subsidy cuts and mining expansion with terrorism and froze the bank accounts of dozens of environmental activists without warning. Efraín Fueres, an Indigenous land defender, was shot and killed by security forces during the protests.

The Ecuadorian government is also moving to rewrite the country’s constitution, the world’s only charter recognising nature’s intrinsic rights, ostensibly to combat drug trafficking. But defenders say the real aim is to eliminate legal barriers to extractive industries.

Regional protection

Regional protection mechanisms do exist. But they remain incomplete. The Escazú agreement, a binding treaty signed in 2018 covering Latin America and the Caribbean, requires that states guarantee public access to environmental information, ensure meaningful participation in decisions and actively protect defenders.

Eighteen of the region’s 33 states have ratified the agreement. In April 2024, parties also adopted an action plan that includes free legal aid for defenders, legal training and monitoring through to 2030.

Whether Escazú can reduce killings depends on implementation. Brazil and Guatemala, both high-risk countries where defenders face lethal threats, have not ratified the treaty. Without participation from the deadliest jurisdictions, regional frameworks offer limited protection.

Protection mechanisms frequently fail, not because they are poorly designed but because they operate within systems that structurally favour extractive industries. Police assigned to protect defenders may be drawn from the same units that secure mining sites or suppress protests.

Prosecutors tasked with investigating attacks often depend on governments whose economic prospects rely on the very projects defenders oppose. Judges hearing cases against corporations, for example, may face political pressure when ruling against major investors. Around half of judges in Latin America are political appointees.

Mining and logging companies also fund local employment, infrastructure and sometimes entire regional economies. This creates dependencies that make meaningful accountability nearly impossible. Even well-intentioned protection schemes cannot compensate for the fact that defending land often means obstructing projects that generate revenue for underfunded state institutions.

There is also a critical legal gap at the international level. When severe environmental destruction occurs during peacetime, existing law struggles to hold individuals accountable.

The International Court of Justice addresses state responsibility but cannot prosecute individuals. And while the International Criminal Court prosecutes genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression, environmental harm outside armed conflict falls beyond its reach.

A growing coalition led by Vanuatu, Fiji and Samoa is urging recognition of ecocide as a fifth international crime under the Rome Statute. The proposed definition, developed by an independent expert panel in 2021, would criminalise “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge of a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment”.

This would create personal criminal liability for individuals in positions of authority whose decisions lead to mass environmental harm. The theory is that when individual decision-makers face prosecution risk, projects relying on violence and intimidation become personally dangerous to authorise.

Ecocide law would not replace existing regulation or regional treaties but would serve as a backstop when harm reaches catastrophic scale. For defenders, the promise is accountability that reaches beyond hired security to the individuals who profit from or politically enable destruction.

People will always stand up for the places that sustain them. If environmental defenders can operate without fear, everyone benefits. Protecting environmental defenders is not idealism, it is the most pragmatic investment a civilisation can make.

Damien Short is a member of the Green party in the UK.

– ref. Environmental defenders are being killed for protecting our future – the law needs to catch up – https://theconversation.com/environmental-defenders-are-being-killed-for-protecting-our-future-the-law-needs-to-catch-up-266396

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jacques Hartmann, Professor of International Law and Human Rights, University of Dundee

Withdrawing the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), once a fringe idea, has become a defining issue for political parties. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, who previously opposed leaving, has now said the Conservatives will take the UK out of the convention if they win an election.

Nigel Farage’s Reform UK has arguably made an ECHR exit central to its political identity. Even the Labour government has said it could reform the convention, or change how UK courts interpret the law.

The case for leaving is often framed as one of “sovereignty”, particularly in relation to immigration laws and deportation powers.

Politicians argue that the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights, which enforces the ECHR, overrides “the will of the British people” and that democratic legitimacy demands withdrawal.

But evidence shows that “the people” don’t actually want to leave.

We examined more than a dozen opinion polls conducted by polling agencies, such as YouGov, since 2013. The first, that year, found 48% in favour of withdrawal and 35% in favour of remaining in the ECHR. A year later, the public was evenly split (41% leave, 38% stay), and by 2016, following the Brexit referendum, 42% said Britain should stay in the ECHR while 35% wanted to leave. Since then, the balance has shifted steadily towards remain.

By 2023, half of respondents said the UK should remain a member, while only around a quarter favoured leaving the ECHR. A poll from June 2025 produced similar results: 51% in favour of staying, 27% for leaving and 22% unsure.

The most recent YouGov data, published October 8, found that 46% of the public are opposed to leaving the ECHR, and 29% say the UK should withdraw.

Even when polls tie the ECHR to issues such as deportations to Rwanda, support for withdrawal among the general public has not exceeded 38% since 2014.

Conversely, when respondents were given more nuanced options, support for withdrawal fell. In a 2024 survey, outright support for leaving was just 16% when respondents were offered alternatives such as “always abide by the ECHR even if that frustrates Parliament” or “remain committed to the ECHR but give Parliament the final word”. With such options, 66% supported some form of continued engagement with the ECHR.

What is also clear from the polling is that Conservative and Reform voters are much more in favour of leaving the ECHR than Labour and Liberal Democrats voters. In the June YouGov poll on this issue, 54% of Conservative voters and 72% of Reform voters were in favour of leaving the ECHR while 75% of Labour and Liberal Democrats voters were against leaving.

The general results from polling are reinforced by parliamentary petitions. Since 2023, at least seven petitions have called for withdrawal from the ECHR or a referendum on membership. None has come close to the 100,000 signatures required for debate.

The most recent, which remains open until January 2026, had fewer than 19,000 signatures at the time of writing. By contrast, a petition against digital ID cards quickly amassed 2.8 million signatures.

The evidence is clear: withdrawal commands neither majority support nor political urgency.

The paradox of popular democracy

For its critics, the ECHR embodies foreign interference. Strasbourg judges are cast as overriding Westminster’s authority and undermining sovereignty. That framing is powerful in political campaigns, particularly when attached to emotive issues like asylum or terrorism.

But if democracy means following “the will of the people”, the evidence does not support the claim. At most, over the past decade, only a quarter of the electorate has supported leaving the ECHR.

And even if public opinion did shift, there is a deeper question: should such constitutional decisions rest on fluctuating majorities at all?

The ECHR was created after the second world war precisely to prevent democracy from collapsing into unchecked majority rule. Britain played a leading role in drafting it, ensuring that popular sovereignty would be balanced by entrenched rights.

---

Read more:
Treaties like the ECHR protect everyone in the UK, not just migrants

---

That is why human rights protections are deliberately counter-majoritarian, safeguarding individuals and minorities from the excesses of majority impulses.

Yet today’s political rhetoric often inverts that logic. By invoking the language of popular sovereignty to justify withdrawing from the ECHR – despite evidence that the public does not support it – politicians risk undermining the very stability those rights were designed to protect. This is an especially serious concern for the UK, which lacks the constitutional safeguards found in many other democracies.

A large share of respondents to the polls examined were “unsure” about withdrawal – ranging from 15 to 25% across the surveys. It’s therefore possible that true support for remaining in the ECHR may be higher than headline polls imply.

The latest YouGov survey asked respondents how much they know about the ECHR, and found just 5% of respondents claimed to know “a great deal” about the convention, while 49% said they do not know very much, and 15% said they know nothing at all.

Research shows that attitudes towards human rights grow more positive as knowledge of human rights increases. A Scottish Human Rights Commission study in 2018 found that indifference often masks confusion rather than hostility.

The Independent Review of the Human Rights Act in 2021 reached a similar conclusion, stressing that greater public understanding of human rights institutions strengthens support.

This is why it is important for people and politicians to understand that conventions like the ECHR are not just about migrants and asylum seekers. They protect the rights of everyone in matters that affect us all – from privacy at home and fair treatment in court, to freedom of speech, protection from discrimination and dignity in care.

The growing political momentum for withdrawal from the ECHR is not matched by popular demand. Instead, politicians are proposing to amend Britain’s constitutional order in the name of “the people” while ignoring what a majority of people actually want, undoing constitutional safeguards and democratic institutions in the process.

The lesson of postwar Europe is clear: constitutional safeguards against majority rule are not an obstacle to democracy, but one of its foundations. To abandon them would not only place the UK alongside Russia and Belarus – the only European states outside the ECHR – but also risk repeating the very errors the convention was created to prevent.

Jacques Hartmann has received external research funding from a range of government and charitable sources, including the European Commission (Horizon 2020), NordForsk, the British Academy, and private foundations such as Dreyer’s Trust and the Max Sørensen Foundation. None of these funders had any role in the conception, research, or writing of this article, which was undertaken independently and without specific project funding.

Dr Edzia Carvalho has received funding from the British Academy, the Scottish Government, the Carnegie Foundation, and FIDH. None of these funders had any role in the conception, research, or writing of this article, which was undertaken independently and without specific project funding.

Dr Samuel White has previously received funding from the Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland and the Royal Society of Edinburgh. He represents the Law Society of Scotland on the Scottish Government’s Human Rights Incorporation and Implementation Oversight Board; this article is written in a personal capacity.

– ref. Do British people want to leave the ECHR? What a decade of polls reveals – https://theconversation.com/do-british-people-want-to-leave-the-echr-what-a-decade-of-polls-reveals-266682

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Asaf Siniver, Professor of International Security, University of Birmingham

When Donald Trump called Benjamin Netanyahu on October 4 to tell him that Hamas had agreed to at least some of his 20-point ceasefire plan, the Israeli prime minister’s equivocal response was he saw “nothing to celebrate, and that it doesn’t mean anything”. According to reports, the US president fired back: “I don’t know why you’re always so fucking negative. This is a win. Take it.”

Trump’s visceral response is less important than the fact that it became public only hours after this private conversation. By comparison, although Joe Biden’s frequent excoriations of Netanyahu were well documented, they were never made public immediately after he uttered them.

Trump’s scolding of the Israeli leader, on the other hand, was intentionally leaked to publicly paint Netanyahu as the intransigent party should negotiations over ending the war collapse. Unencumbered by nuance or subtlety, Trump’s “dead cat diplomacy” in recent weeks has proven to be his single most effective leverage in bringing Israel and Hamas to this agreement.

---

Read more:
Israel and Hamas agree ceasefire deal – what we know so far: expert Q&A

---

The practice of dead cat diplomacy was first articulated by former US secretary of state (1989-1992) James Baker, during his incessant diplomatic efforts to coax the Syrian, Israeli and Palestinian teams to attend the historic 1991 Madrid peace conference. Despite making eight trips to the region in as many months and drawing on seemingly every resource and skill in his diplomatic toolbox, Baker was repeatedly frustrated by each party’s objections to attending the conference.

Running out of options, Baker concluded that under such circumstances, the only leverage left at his disposal was to publicly lay the blame for killing the negotiations (the metaphorical dead cat) at the doorstep of an intransigent negotiator.

Soon, dead cats began appearing at the metaphorical doorsteps of the key negotiators. Palestinian negotiator Hanan Ashrawi recalled that Baker’s favourite expression to egg the Arab delegations on was “Don’t let the dead cat die on your doorstep!” After he told the Palestinians, “I am sick and tired of this. With you people, the souk [market] never closes. I’ve had it. Have a nice life”, they dropped their demands immediately.

Threatening to drop the dead cat at the doorstep of Syrian foreign minister Farouk al-Sharaa was equally effective. Baker shouted at Ashrawi over the phone, “You just tell Mr Sharaa that the whole thing is off. I’m going home. I’m taking the plane this evening and he can go back to Syria. As far as I’m concerned, it’s finished!”, after which he hung up abruptly. Ashrawi delivered Baker’s threat to the Arab group.

In her 1995 memoir, This Side of Peace, Ashrawi recalled that “everyone was convinced that Baker was serious, and we urged the Syrians to accept an Arab compromise”.

Despite the US-Israel special relationship, Baker did not hesitate to lay equal blame for the stalled negotiations on the intransigent Israeli prime minister, Yitzhak Shamir, telling him: “I’m working my ass off, and I’m getting no cooperation from you. I’m finished … I’ve got to say I’m basically disinclined to come here again.” On the way to the airport, Baker told his aide Dennis Ross: “I’m going to leave this dead cat on his doorstep”.

The cumulative effect of Baker’s dead cat diplomacy was that no party wanted to appear publicly as opposing peace. As his aide Aaron David Miller recalled: “No one wanted to be in that position.”

As I wrote elsewhere, dead cat diplomacy is likely to be effective when three conditions are met. It must be perceived by the intransigent parties as a last-chance threat, it must be perceived as a credible move by the third party and there must be internal factors which limit the intransigent party’s capacity to ignore the threat.

Trump plays the blame game

Notwithstanding the considerable differences in diplomatic nous between Baker and Trump, it is clear that at least in his negotiating an end to the two-year war between Israel and Hamas, Trump’s laying of dead cats at the Israeli and Hamas doorsteps has been perceived by both parties as last-chance and credible threats, while capitalising on their increasingly untenable domestic standings.

Trump’s calling Netanyahu “always fucking negative” is but the latest dead cat laid on the Israeli leader’s doorstep. It was preceded a few days earlier by a humiliating and (public) strong-arming of Netanyahu to apologise to the Qatari prime minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani, for Israel’s failed assassination attempt of Hamas negotiators in Doha on September 9.

As one Israeli pollster noted: “For the first time Netanyahu cannot disregard the wishes of an American president, because of the way Trump operates. Trump is unpredictable and will not fall in line with the Israeli position.”

This was perfectly illustrated by the image of Netanyahu reading out his apology from a script while Trump was resting the telephone on his lap in the Oval Office, which was a blunt – and public – rebuke of the Israeli leader: you are solely responsible for this chaos, and you’d better apologise, or else.

A few days later, Trump posted on his Truth Social account an image of the protests in Tel Aviv to end the war and against Netanyahu, showing a large banner that read: “It’s now or never.”

Such public amplifying of the voices of Netanyahu’s critics at home has left no illusions as to who Trump was blaming for the stalemate. “He was fine with it”, Trump briefed following his conversation with Netanyahu on Saturday. “He’s got to be fine with it. He has no choice. With me, you got to be fine.”

Trump has been equally expedient in laying dead cats at Hamas’s doorstep. First, by ironing out his peace plan with Israel while excluding Hamas from the process, and then by turning to his TruthSocial platform to single out Hamas as the remaining obstacle to ending the war, following his joint press conference with Netanyahu in the Oval Office.

Intentionally or otherwise, this Trumpian bludgeoning contained all the hallmarks of dead cat diplomacy. It emphasises that this is a last-chance opportunity and that the threat is credible, the US president having already shown his support for Israeli military action in Gaza. It also capitalises on Hamas’s increasingly isolated position, noting that it is the only party to not accept the plan and that the release of hostages held by Hamas was the difference between peace and hell in the Middle East.

Trump’s deployment of dead cat diplomacy may lack the finesse and strategic patience of Baker’s approach, but its raw, theatrical force has nonetheless reshaped the negotiating landscape. By publicly blaming Netanyahu and Hamas, isolating them diplomatically, and making clear that one of them will be remembered as the obstacle to peace, Trump has created precisely the kind of last-chance, credibility-laden pressure that dead cat diplomacy relies on to succeed.

Whether this results in a lasting peace remains uncertain. But what is clear is that Trump’s willingness to weaponise public humiliation and blame has, at least for now, jolted two entrenched adversaries closer to compromise than years of cautious mediation ever did. Dead cat diplomacy may yet earn Trump his coveted Nobel peace prize.

Asaf Siniver does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. How Donald Trump’s ‘dead cat diplomacy’ may have changed the course of the Gaza war – https://theconversation.com/how-donald-trumps-dead-cat-diplomacy-may-have-changed-the-course-of-the-gaza-war-266701

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Claire Oakley, Researcher and Lecturer in Psychology, University of Essex

Teachers use their voices in the classroom to build enthusiasm, convey knowledge and defuse tensions.

A warm, encouraging voice boosts pupils’ motivation, reduces anxiety and improves connections with teachers and classroom dynamics. Controlling or harsh tones can unknowingly create stress for pupils, erode trust and lead to disengagement.

But teachers are also stressed, and stress can affect the way we speak. Being stressed affects the control we have over our speech. We tend to speak at a higher pitch with more variation, which can induce vocal strain.

Further, listeners can perceive the speaker’s stress from their speech. That perceived stress has the potential to influence the emotions of the listener, too, which in a school can negatively shape a classroom’s atmosphere.

Few teachers are trained in how to use their voice effectively. Neither are teachers trained in how to protect their voice to ensure career longevity and prevent voice-related illness. Providing voice awareness training for teachers could help reduce the impact of stress and overuse on teachers’ voices and transform communication within the classroom.

Supportive classrooms

It has long been known that children learn more and participate better in supportive and engaging classroom atmospheres. The way teachers speak can affect their pupils’ wellbeing, engagement and self-esteem.

Teachers can create these environments by using a tone or style of voice that demonstrates their interest in their pupils. Vocal delivery affects cooperation, and emerging evidence suggests that it has an influence on how pupils learn.

Pupils are less likely to engage in thinking about concepts and problem solving after hearing a harsh-sounding voice. Instead, they rely more on simple repetition, which is less effective for long-term learning. Together, these studies suggest that teachers can create supportive, optimal learning environments through a nuanced use of voice in the classroom.

After hearing harsh, controlling-sounding voices, pupils have reported heightened negative emotions and feeling disconnected from teachers. Listeners take less than a quarter of a second to detect harsh voices, suggesting specialised brain mechanisms for processing threat-inducing voices.

Listening to supportive-sounding voices, which are often soft, warm and slower-paced, enhances wellbeing, increasing feelings of self-esteem and competence.

Research has found that showing an interest in others through voice cues changes the way listeners disclose information. This means that teachers using a supportive tone of voice could help pupils talk to them about important or difficult issues, such as bullying.

Vocal training

One of us (Silke Paulmann) has carried out research to evaluate the vocal awareness training offered by a teacher training organisation. After training, the teachers spoke in a less monotone voice, increasing their pitch and volume range, and at a slower pace. They used softer ways of speaking, demonstrating that vocal awareness training can alter teachers’ speech patterns.

Teachers are also at risk of voice problems. In a 2018 study, 30% of teachers surveyed reported voice problems, such as hoarseness, a sign of vocal strain or fatigue, or voice loss. In general, teachers are more likely to develop voice disorders compared with the general population.

However, unlike actors or singers, who also rely extensively on their voices, teachers do not typically receive vocal training. Voice training helps prevent long-term voice damage or strain. Proactively addressing teacher voice health could reduce missed work days due to voice-related issues and help improve teacher wellbeing, as they often occur together.

The vocal training we evaluated included techniques to help the trainee teachers master vocal delivery, as well as tips and tricks around voice health. The training emphasised how harsh and sharp-sounding voices can negatively affect students’ wellbeing.

It focused on how classroom communications benefit from soft, warm-sounding tones, creating a supportive and motivating classroom environment. Comparisons of the teachers’ voices before and after training indicated that their vocal quality improved.

Incorporating even short voice awareness training into teacher education and professional development could better equip educators to create supportive, engaging learning environments, protect their vocal health and support their wellbeing. Currently, though, the availability of voice awareness training for teachers is sparse.

Vocal awareness training can improve teachers’ vocal delivery, enhancing classroom communication and engagement. As education systems focus on both teacher and student wellbeing, incorporating such training into teacher development programmes is a crucial step forward.

In future work, Claire Oakley will collaborate with Mario Education (https://marioeducation.com/) as part of an evaluation project.

Silke Paulmann receives funding from the University of Essex Impact Fund and work on motivational prosody has previously been funded by the Leverhulme Trust. She collaborates with Mario Education (https://marioeducation.com) and 5Voices (https://the5voices.com) on projects related to teacher voice use.

– ref. How voice training can help teachers improve wellbeing in the classroom – https://theconversation.com/how-voice-training-can-help-teachers-improve-wellbeing-in-the-classroom-249771

Source: The Conversation – UK – By John Curtice, Professor of Politics, University of Strathclyde and Senior Research Fellow, National Centre for Social Research

When the Labour government established the Scottish parliament in 1999, it hoped the new institution would demonstrate that Scotland’s distinctive needs and aspirations could be addressed within the framework of the UK. Consequently, the theory went, support for independence would melt away.

However, the project was not without its risks. As a symbol of Scotland’s distinctiveness, the parliament might foster people’s sense of Scottish identity rather than the British identity that helps bind the four parts of the UK together.

And by creating a space in which policy issues are discussed separately from Westminster – and sometimes different solutions implemented – the balance of public opinion north of the border might diverge from that in the rest of the UK, making it more difficult to keep the union together.

Ever since the parliament first met on July 1 1999, the Scottish Social Attitudes (SSA) survey has been charting the evolution of public opinion north of the border. Together with the British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey, it also provides a means of comparing the trend of public opinion on the two sides of the border.

A report published on October 9 by the Scottish Centre for Social Research and based on the 25 years of data collected by SSA shows that public opinion and identities in Scotland have not diverged from those elsewhere in the UK. Nevertheless, support for independence is higher now than 25 years ago. This is because some of the features of the country’s attitudinal landscape that were already distinctive to Scotland have come to be more closely aligned with whether people are for or against independence.

Consider national identity, for example. Acknowledgement of a British identity has always tended to play second fiddle to feeling Scottish. In 1999, two-thirds of SSA respondents said they were either “Scottish, not British” or “more Scottish than British”. Just 22% indicated they were “equally Scottish and British”, while only 7% stated they were either “British, not Scottish” or “more British than Scottish”.

The figures are little different in the latest survey conducted last autumn. Nearly three in five (59%) said they were wholly or predominantly Scottish, 22% (again) stated they were equally Scottish and British, while only one in ten (10%) claimed to be wholly or predominantly British.

It is often claimed that public opinion in Scotland is more leftwing than in England. The social attitudes data confirm this – though the gap is small and has not widened.

Both the Scottish and British surveys have regularly asked a suite of questions designed to ascertain people’s attitudes towards inequality and what the government should do about it. This produces a scale from 0 to 100, in which the higher the score, the more tolerant of inequality – and therefore more rightwing – somebody appears to be.

In 2000, the average score in Scotland was, at 34, just four points less than the equivalent figure for England (38). In our latest survey, the scores are 33 and 35 respectively.

Similar analysis of attitudes towards tax and spend shows that, while in any particular year, people in Scotland have usually been a little more likely to back more government spending and the taxes needed to fund it, the gap has not widened. Rather, attitudes have moved in parallel. When people in England have shifted away from tax and spend (or vice-versa), typically much the same shift has occurred north of the border.

Why the rise in support for independence?

Yet despite the absence of divergence in identity and policy preferences, support for Scottish independence is markedly higher now than when the Scottish Parliament was created. In 1999, just 27% said Scotland should become independent. As many as 59% backed having a devolved parliament, while just one in ten (10%) thought Scotland should not have any kind of parliament of its own.

Now, support for independence stands at 47%, while 41% back the devolved parliament and 9% do not want any kind of separate institution. Despite the 2014 vote against independence, the period before and after that ballot witnessed a sharp increase in support that has subsequently largely been sustained.

How has it been possible for independence to be more popular now even though the attitudes and identities of people in Scotland are no more distinctive now than in 1999? The answer lies in how some of the ways in which Scots’ attitudes and identities were already distinctive have become more closely aligned with their constitutional preferences.

People’s views on how Scotland should be governed have always reflected to some degree whether they feel Scottish or British. In 1999, only 6% of those who felt wholly or predominantly British said Scotland should become independent. In contrast, 44% of those who said they were “Scottish, not British” wanted Scotland to leave the UK.

Now, however, the link between people’s sense of national identity and their constitutional preference is much stronger. Support for independence among those who feel wholly or predominantly British is, at 14%, only eight points higher now than 25 years ago. In contrast, among those who say they are “Scottish, not British”, 74% now support independence, an increase of 30 points.

In 2000, those on the left on our scale (38%) were 15 points more likely than those on the right (23%) to say they supported independence. Now the gap is 34 points; 64% of those on the left are in favour, but only 30% of those on the right.

Public opinion and national identity in Scotland have not significantly diverged from the rest of the UK during the devolution years. Nevertheless, within Scotland, the constitutional debate has become more polarised.

No longer is it simply about how much sovereignty the country should have. Rather, it has become more strongly embedded in differences of identity and disagreements about the proper direction of public policy. That polarisation seems unlikely to make it any easier to find a lasting settlement to Scotland’s continuing constitutional debate any time soon.

John Curtice is currently in receipt of funding from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and has previously received funding from a range of government and charitable sources. The Scottish Social Attitudes survey is funded each year on a modular basis. This has included funding from both the Scottish and the UK governments, while the survey is currently in receipt of funding from the ESRC.

– ref. Twenty-five years of data shows how link between identity and views on Scottish independence has grown stronger – https://theconversation.com/twenty-five-years-of-data-shows-how-link-between-identity-and-views-on-scottish-independence-has-grown-stronger-266963