This article explores the strategic functions of independence referendums. These referendums are normally framed as popular decisions on statehood over a certain territory. However, I argue that the popular will does not always have the decisory function that plebiscitarian theories suggest. In fact, actual decision referendums are rare; often independence referendums are instead used strategically as a leverage and signalling tactic. The article is structured as follows. First, I propose two key criteria to classify independence referendums regarding actors and timing. Through the application of these criteria, I build a typology proposing four main uses of referendums: leverage, signalling, decision and ratification. Second, I focus on the specific case of leverage referendums. I argue that analyzing the outcomes of leverage referendums can provide some clues about why secessionists still call for these referendums even though they almost never result in internationally recognized statehood. Finally, I conclude by discussing the implications of my findings.

In this address, I examine the lexical, geographic, temporal and philosophical origins of two key concepts in modern political thought: colonies and statistics. Beginning with the Latin word colonia, I argue that the modern ideology of settler colonialism is anchored in the claim of “improvement” of both people and land via agrarian labour in John Locke's labour theory of property in seventeenth-century America, through which he sought to provide an ideological justification for both the assimilation and dispossession of Indigenous peoples. This same ideology of colonialism was turned inward a century later by Sir John Sinclair to justify domestic colonies on “waste” land in Scotland—specifically Caithness (the county within which my own grandparents were tenant farmers). Domestic colonialism understood as “improvement” of people (the “idle” poor and mentally ill and disabled) through engagement in agrarian labour on waste land inside explicitly named colonies within the borders of one's own country was first championed not only by Sinclair but also his famous correspondent, Jeremy Bentham, in England. Sinclair simultaneously coined the word statistics and was the first to use it in the English language. He defined it as the scientific gathering of mass survey data to shape state policies. Bentham embraced statistics as well. In both cases, statistics were developed and deployed to support their domestic colony schemes by creating a benchmark and roadmap for the improvement of people and land as well as a tool to measure the colony's capacity to achieve both over time. I conclude that settler colonialism along with the intertwined origins of domestic colonies and statistics have important implications for the study of political science in Canada, the history of colonialism as distinct from imperialism in modern political thought and the role played by intersecting colonialisms in the Canadian polity.

High-profile controversies have created an impression that expressive freedom is imperilled on university campuses in North America. Analyses of this alleged campus crisis typically focus either on the negative psychosocial characteristics of those who oppose potentially harmful expression or on the cynical ways that expressive freedom can be invoked to normalize harmful expression. Conversely, I argue that theories of harm are key to understanding the contemporary discourse and politics of expressive freedom on campus. To shift the frame of analysis, I critically analyze three interrelated theoretical concepts that feature elastic conceptualizations of harm and are consequential for expressive limits in an academic environment: epistemic injustice, argumentational injustice and epistemic exploitation. I argue that all three concepts require a distinction between testimony and argumentation in order to better balance protection from harm, on the one hand, and expressive freedom and open inquiry, on the other.