Scottish independence referendum results thread (Sept 18, 2014)

[politicus]

This was far from a "neat" and well structured result. Lots of quirks and oddities. I wonder if we without an exit poll will ever really know in depth exactly what happened?

A politologist from University of Strathclyde said that level of unemployment was actually the best correlation of Yes votes, so poor, run down areas vote Yes and well to do No is the overall pattern. The second - unsurprisingly - being if one identified with being British. Also important was large "immigrant" population from the rest of Britain and abroad vs.native Scots. But generally the pattern seems to be more complex than in an average election or referendum.

Regarding SNP strategy they seemed to mostly have been successful with promising a better future to the disfortunate (what Al calls utopia, I would say genuine Social Democracy..), and not with their centre-right voters among the Tartan Tories in rural and small town Scotland, who voted with their vallets.



 

[Platypus]

I posted this to fb, but it works here too.

-----------

I'm feeling vaguely heartbroken, and I had nothing to gain or lose.

A dark part of me says that I did have something to gain - English pain - which is a drug I can't get enough of. But realistically, I was approaching this from a reasonably unaffected place.

But, stupidly, I allowed myself some hope. I really did hope that Scotland would be independent, not out of hatred for the Poms, or love for the Scots, but out of a desire to see something radical happen. Something that wasn't just 'economically sensible', or realist, or establishment sanctioned. Something that proved democracy was still alive, and that the average man or woman on the street had a voice, and that it mattered. A voice with the future in mind, a voice free of fear, a voice for equity, for community, and for freedom.

Not freedom for the Scots, but freedom for the people who want to be able to have their future in their own hands.

I know this was idealistic, and I know the Scotland is still part of one of the strongest democracies in the world - although Britain does have real issues with civil liberties, and there is, at least for now, a significant list of concerns with how democracy truly works in the UK - but the status quo is not particularly satisfactory.

Maybe independence in Scotland would change absolutely nothing for the world at large, and I was unreasonable, maybe presumptuous, maybe offensive, when I put more on this referendum than simply yes or no to a question about where Scotland's future would lie.

I wish the people of Scotland well, and can't argue with their decision, it was a decisive result. But I can still be disappointed with it, not because there won't be a new flag for the UK (and perhaps Australia), not because there won't be another country in the world, but because for once there was a chance for change to the current world order that didn't involve terror, that wasn't based on market capitalism, that wasn't about the delicate balance of global diplomacy, but was simply about one small country on the other side of the world choosing a new road without guns or bombs, fiscal bullying or lesser evil decision making.

[DL]

Regarding SNP strategy they seemed to mostly have been successful with promising a better future to the disfortunate (what Al calls utopia, I would say genuine Social Democracy..), and not with their centre-right voters among the Tartan Tories in rural and small town Scotland, who voted with their wallets.
 

Its interesting that in Quebec there was a similar phenomenon where Quebec nationalism (which up to 1960 was associated with rightwing Catholicism and the Union nationale etc...) became very associated with the political left - particularly since the PQ under Levesque was very social democratic (in other words nothing like what it is now). After losing two referenda and losing some elections, the PQ started to think they needed a strategy to win over small "c" conservative nationalists in rural Quebec and stop being seen as a party of hipsters from trendy areas of Montreal . The result was the PQ veering off to the xenophobic right and trying to win over rural Quebec by attacking Muslims etc...and also by recruiting ultra rightwing media tycoon Pierre Karl Peladeau to run for them (this would be equivalent to Alex Salmond convincing Rupert Murdoch to run for the SNP) - anyways it was a total fiasco as the PQ turned off its left of centre base and gained nothing in rural areas and got crushed in the election last March.

[angus]

English pain ... a drug I can't get enough of

haha.  Here's a succinct analysis from this morning's WaPo. 

Unionists sought to portray the nationalist agenda, modeled on Scandinavian countries that spread their wealth broadly, as a fantasy.  Many independent economists have agreed, questioning whether Scotland can build the sort of egalitarian society that its leaders envision, especially with declining oil revenues and uncertainty hovering over the newly independent nation’s currency.  The “no” side’s warnings of economic doom spurred a backlash among Scots, however, and prompted the pro-union camp to recalibrate its message. In the final days, unionists emphasized their love for Scotland — not their prophecies of failure. Polls suggested the shift may have helped halt growing momentum for independence.

Moral:  you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.  Or, perhaps more appropriately, you catch more midges with haggis than with neeps.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I posted this to fb, but it works here too.

-----------

I'm feeling vaguely heartbroken, and I had nothing to gain or lose.

A dark part of me says that I did have something to gain - English pain - which is a drug I can't get enough of. But realistically, I was approaching this from a reasonably unaffected place.

But, stupidly, I allowed myself some hope. I really did hope that Scotland would be independent, not out of hatred for the Poms, or love for the Scots, but out of a desire to see something radical happen. Something that wasn't just 'economically sensible', or realist, or establishment sanctioned. Something that proved democracy was still alive, and that the average man or woman on the street had a voice, and that it mattered. A voice with the future in mind, a voice free of fear, a voice for equity, for community, and for freedom.

Not freedom for the Scots, but freedom for the people who want to be able to have their future in their own hands.

I know this was idealistic, and I know the Scotland is still part of one of the strongest democracies in the world - although Britain does have real issues with civil liberties, and there is, at least for now, a significant list of concerns with how democracy truly works in the UK - but the status quo is not particularly satisfactory.

Maybe independence in Scotland would change absolutely nothing for the world at large, and I was unreasonable, maybe presumptuous, maybe offensive, when I put more on this referendum than simply yes or no to a question about where Scotland's future would lie.

I wish the people of Scotland well, and can't argue with their decision, it was a decisive result. But I can still be disappointed with it, not because there won't be a new flag for the UK (and perhaps Australia), not because there won't be another country in the world, but because for once there was a chance for change to the current world order that didn't involve terror, that wasn't based on market capitalism, that wasn't about the delicate balance of global diplomacy, but was simply about one small country on the other side of the world choosing a new road without guns or bombs, fiscal bullying or lesser evil decision making.

Yeah, I have similar feelings - although not nearly as passionate as yours. I think it's a hell of a wasted opportunity, but I already knew that was going to end up like that, and there are so many things that suck in the world that I need to spare my energies.

Also, there's the silver lining that we might still have a chance to send Cameron packing, which would be sweet.

[Phony Moderate]

Salmond is resigning.

[Cassius]

Salmond is resigning.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ2ywczFcME

However, that suggests that Salmond might have actually believed that 'Yes' would win.

Anyway, people should not feel sad that this had failed (unless, of course, they're diehard Scottish nationalists). After all, now we can avoid what would have been an extremely messy constitutional settlement; one marked by calls from many English voters to be as brutal to the Scots as humanly possible. It would, most likely, have been a highly bitter and intense affair, one for which comparatively little planning had actually been done. Not to mention that I'm of the mind that the mythical 'progressive light on the hill' that an independent Scotland was made out to be would have dissappeared like the morning dew amidst angry debates about constitutional affairs, as well as due to what I can only imagine to be lingering bad blood between unionists and nationalists (given the way the campaign panned out).

[pendragon]

Salmond is resigning.

However, that suggests that Salmond might have actually believed that 'Yes' would win.

He's resigning so the SNP can run on the platform of another referendum without Salmond's "once in a generation" comments hanging over their heads (as much).

I'd say it says more that Salmond is a true believer in the cause than that he was thinking "yes" would win. Then again, who knows, perhaps being surrounded by "yes-men" gives one a warped view of things, no?

[Silent Hunter]

Salmond is resigning.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ2ywczFcME

However, that suggests that Salmond might have actually believed that 'Yes' would win.

I suspect that many of the 'Yes' supporters really did, despite the actual lack of polling evidence; the only Yes majorities were in two polls tossing undecideds out of the equation. It reminded me of Mitt Romney backers in 2012.

[angus]

A more interesting analysis, also from WaPo.  An excerpt:

Now, with the voting done and the crowds dispersed, the Lion and the Unicorn sit down in the dining room of the humble home they have officially shared for three hundred years, not including the reign of King James, a courtship period during which they were still feeling each other out.

A hush falls.

“Is there anything I can get you?” England asks. “Foot rub? More autonomy?”

Scotland ignores it.

“That kilt looks lovely,” England says. “Really lovely. Love kilts.” England’s fork clatters against its plate. “This haggis is great,” England adds. “I didn’t bring it up a lot during the referendum campaign but I was going to really miss it.”

“Thanks,” Scotland says, unenthusiastically.

“And the sound of bagpipes,” England says. “You look lovely today. Did I mention that? Your heaths especially. And bogs.”

“Calm down,” Scotland says.

“I know you’ve been threatening to leave for years,” England says. “But I didn’t think you’d really — I mean, other territories have come and gone, but I thought we were still strong. What we have is special, I thought.”

“Oh, a special relationship?” Scotland asks. “Like you have with the United States?”

“You know it’s not like that,” England says. “They haven’t been with us for almost 250 years. Listen, you’ve given us so much. Peter Capaldi, there’s a man. The poet Burns. Golf. Mel Gibson.”

“Are you just going to list things?” Scotland says. “I could do without you just listing things like that.”

“I just don’t want you to feel that I don’t notice and appreciate all that you do,” England says, moving the haggis around on its plate. “Because I do. James Macavoy, now there’s a fellow. John Loudon McAdam, the man with the nuts and the roads. And Macbeth. The Scottish play.”

“You’re just saying things with Mac in them,” Scotland says. “You could be guessing.”

“I’m not guessing!” England says. “I appreciate you. Think what I’d be without you. Where would we keep the royals during some seasons of the year?”

“Really?” Scotland says. “Balmoral? Really, that’s the first thing that occurred to you?”

“No,” England says. “Of course not. Other things occurred to me. I was trying for a note of levity.”

“Oh,” Scotland says. “Levity.”

“It would have been really awkward if you’d left,” England says, after a silence. “I mean, Ireland has its own island, so that made a certain sort of sense, but for you to go — it would have sent the wrong message. We would still be occupying the same space, and it really isn’t a huge island when you come right down to it, I say, what?”

“That’s true,” Scotland says.

“I mean, we’d still shop at the same places, and we share a border — I mean, you have to consider the border, it’s not going anywhere. At any rate, I intend not to take you for granted any longer. Things will be different. I want you to know that.”

“Do you mean that?” Scotland asks. “Do you really?”

“Oh yes,” England says. “You know I do. We’re the Lion and Unicorn, just like the poem. The lion and the unicorn were fighting for the crown–”

“I know the poem,” Scotland says. Scotland pours itself a large glass of Scotch and sips it, staring out the window. “I think I made the right decision. It just wasn’t a good time to leave, financially.”

“Quite right,” England says

[DL]

The parallels to Quebec continue - Salmond resigns the day after the NO side wins the referendum just like the way Jacques Parizeau quit as Premier of Quebec the day after the loss in 1995

[Phony Moderate]

So Sturgeon is a shoo-in, right?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I assume all the jokes about a PM called Salmond whose second-in-command is called Sturgeon have already been made long before I became aware of this fact, but regarldess...

ROFLMAO!!!

[politicus]

I assume all the jokes about a PM called Salmond whose second-in-command is called Sturgeon have already been made long before I became aware of this fact, but regarldess...

ROFLMAO!!!

What is life like in the Sea N Pee? Is it a dogfish eat dogfish world? Is everyone united for a common porpoise? Or do they all split off in their own special groupers? Well, one tragic story indicates it's not so perfect down there.

"There was once a brilliant Sturgeon on the staff of the Scottish community health fishility. She was in fact one of it's flounders. Wiser than Salmond, a fin fellow who would never shrimp from his responsibilities, she was successful and happy and always whistled a happy tuna.
One day one of her patients, a mere whipper snapper, started trouting around telling everyone the Sturgeon's treatments had made him more eel than he had been and conked her with a malpractice suit.
Well, the Sturgeon was in a real pickeral. The board chased her off the staff and demanded her oyster. But fortunately the case smelt to high heaven so the judge denied the plaintiff's clam.
The board tried to hire the Sturgeon back but by then she had hit the bottlenose pretty hard. But what's really shad about the story is that the Sturgeon ended up on squid-row..."

[afleitch]

Sturgeon is the only politician in Scotland that has higher approvals than Alex Salmond. She will get the job.

[politicus]

This sums it up pretty well:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/06/snp-nicola-sturgeon-alex-salmond-scottish-independence-referendum

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I thought throughout the campaign that Yes would have been better off having Sturgeon as the principle public face; Salmond's style is fine for elections, but too overbearing for a referendum.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

and not with their centre-right voters among the Tartan Tories in rural and small town Scotland, who voted with their vallets.

But note that although Ayrshire, Falkirk, Midlothian and so on are pretty 'small town' they aren't prosperous.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's a shame that we don't have lower level results, because I'm now fairly sure that ethnoreligious background was a factor.

[ChrisDR68]

Pleased with the result. I predicted 57-43 and in the end it was 55-45 so not far off

I remember when Swinney took over as leader of the SNP from Salmond 10 years ago their fortunes declined sharply. It's possible that a similar decline will happen under Sturgeon.

Love him or hate him Alex Salmond was a very good leader for the SNP.

Historically this may turn out to be the party's peak.

[afleitch]

It's a shame that we don't have lower level results, because I'm now fairly sure that ethnoreligious background was a factor.

Evidently. Excluding Dundee it seems that support for independence was actually at it's highest in the areas that were Labour's last stand in 2011. Which in turn also correlated to 'thethingyouretalkingabout.'

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Which means we also know more or less exactly who the twenty to thirty percent of Labour supporters (as highlighted by basically every poll) who voted Yes are. It makes a degree of logical sense; less attachment to the British state and - in a more functional sense - to the rest of the UK.

_{(Btw, have you ever considered a variant of 'this thing of ours' a generic jokey semi-euphemism for it?)}

[politicus]

It's a shame that we don't have lower level results, because I'm now fairly sure that ethnoreligious background was a factor.

Evidently. Excluding Dundee it seems that support for independence was actually at it's highest in the areas that were Labour's last stand in 2011. Which in turn also correlated to 'thethingyouretalkingabout.'

So SNP projecting socially and culturally inclusive nationalism backfired and anti-Catholic bigotry resurfaced? But why now? SNP's has had broadly the same concept since Salmond got control of the party. Was it just because it got serious now?

[IceSpear]

Good to see the UK staying strong and united. Hopefully the Tories hold up their end of the bargain.

I was originally neutral on this issue, but one of my friends who currently lives in Scotland swayed me to the No side with very good reasoned arguments. He was elated with the results, though a bit disappointed that his home of North Lenarkshire voted Yes.

[afleitch]

Which means we also know more or less exactly who the twenty to thirty percent of Labour supporters (as highlighted by basically every poll) who voted Yes are. It makes a degree of logical sense; less attachment to the British state and - in a more functional sense - to the rest of the UK.

_{(Btw, have you ever considered a variant of 'this thing of ours' a generic jokey semi-euphemism for it?)}

It's a shame that we don't have lower level results, because I'm now fairly sure that ethnoreligious background was a factor.

Evidently. Excluding Dundee it seems that support for independence was actually at it's highest in the areas that were Labour's last stand in 2011. Which in turn also correlated to 'thethingyouretalkingabout.'

So SNP projecting socially and culturally inclusive nationalism backfired and anti-Catholic bigotry resurfaced? But why now? SNP's has had broadly the same concept since Salmond got control of the party. Was it just because it got serious now?

The areas that voted strongly in favour of independence were more than likely areas with high Catholic populations. What's important to note that these areas in 2011 also (and this was most clearly seen within Glasgow itself at that time) remained Labour 'boltholes' in an otherwise sea of yellow that year. For that reason, with a bit of intuition, it seemed to me that in west central Scotland those who voted Labour in 2011 may have been more inclined to vote Yes in 2014. What is also striking, excluding E.Duns and E.Ren, the borders, and the islands which have their own special way of thinking is that the parts of the country where the SNP was strong didn't back Yes, or indeed backed No much more heavily.

These areas of the country are richer, have faster growing populations, low Catholic populations and high areas of 'No Religion' in the census amongst the young and high levels of Presbyterianism amongst the old. One would have expected the opposite result across the country. It would be helpful, though it is impossible to see, what the results by council would have been with the over 65's stripped back.

What is all the more curious is that Catholics in 1979 were less inclined to back the Assembly on the basis that there was a not too illegitimate fear that Scotland would become another Ulster. At that time there was a feeling that unionism (not that Catholics ever backed political Unionism in the Scottish sense) was a stalwart against state Presbyterianism.

I don't think there was anything remotely anti-Catholic about the vote. Given that it is likely that Yes led amongst almost all age groups until those in their 60's if anything the map doesn't tell us as much as it ought to. There's a bit of a 'grey mist' that makes meaningful interpretation difficult.