Scottish independence referendum results thread (Sept 18, 2014)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Can someone make up a cool map once every council has released their data?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I wonder where the people who work on the aircraft carriers live; the Scottish GMB came out as a strong No on the basis that those jobs might head south if the vote went the other way. The remaining yards are Govan (but not for long) and Scotstoun; the former is in Pollock now, the latter is in Anniesland.

I don't know that much about Glasgow, and no doubt afleitch can correct me if I'm wrong, but the thing that strikes me there is how similar they are. I'd have thought there'd be pretty big social and economic differences between the constituencies,so I'm surprised there's only a 7 point spread.

You are correct to note that.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Do these figures include postal votes?

[Andrea]

The Glasgow figures include postal votes. The row numbers of the constituencies figures equal the Yes-No totals declared on election night.

[afleitch]

Some councils are releasing lower level results.

Here is the Yes vote by Scottish Parliamentary Constituency for Glasgow. Who holds the seat at Holyrood is in brackets

Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn - 57.1 (Labour)
Glasgow Provan - 56.97 (Labour)
Glasgow Pollok  - 53.87 (Labour - Johann Lamont)
Glasgow Southside - 52.99 (SNP - Nicola Sturgeon)
Glasgow Cathcart - 52.80 (SNP)
Glasgow Shettleston - 51.36 (SNP)
Glasgow Kelvin - 52.44 (SNP)
Glasgow Anniesland - 50.79 (SNP)

Interesting that Anniesland had the lowest percentage. Provan and Maryhill towards the top (and the only two removed from the overall result by more than 10pts) would tend to confirm the suspicion about ethnoreligious background, though Shettleston maybe not... but then what are the boundaries of Shettleston like again?

Glasgow Baillieston was abolished; the poorer half (Easterhouse et al) was moved into Provan and the richer half that used to be in Lanarkshire (Garrowhill, Mount Vernon) moved into Shettleston.

But yeah, Glasgow and Lanarkshire seem to show the pattern that we've talked about and indeed it could be suggested that the proportion of Labour voters saying Yes was higher than some of the surveys were suggesting. Which is why Scottish Labour seem to be bricking it post referendum.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

But yeah, Glasgow and Lanarkshire seem to show the pattern that we've talked about and indeed it could be suggested that the proportion of Labour voters saying Yes was higher than some of the surveys were suggesting.

There's a bit of a problem in that I don't think you could find a consensus on who is or who is not a 'Labour voter'. Possibly the % Yes was higher for 2011 voters than 2010 voters which is hilarious (i.e. that is absolutely what is suggested by geographical patterns, but there are several very good reasons to be wary of making too much of that).

_{(An important thing to note on implications though; as awkward as things will be for a bit for Scottish Labour (and given that its support has always been less uniform on these issues than most, it was always going to be; issues of nation not good news for social democratic party, film at eleven) things would be considerably worse than whatever the worst case scenario is if they'd not taken a firm line. Just ask the PSC...)}

[YL]

Falkirk council has results by counting area (based on Scottish Parliament consituencies) with the same disclaimer about postal votes as the Lanarkshires.

Falkirk East: No 54.5%, Yes 45.4%
Falkirk West: No 52.3%, Yes 47.6%
(both add to 99.9%, so I think they're based on totals including rejected ballots)

OTOH Fife council's website says "Please note that on instruction from the Chief Counting Officer we only have one Fife total available, we don't have a breakdown of results by ward or constituency."

Coatbridge   0.527752422   Labour

...

Airdrie et al.   0.482329843   SNP

Ding Ding Ding

... and given the thing about postal votes being spread around and that part of Airdrie was included with Coatbridge, the actual difference between the two towns was probably bigger than that.

[tpfkaw]

I don't know very much about Glasgow, but given what I've heard I'm rather surprised that "yes" won everywhere in the city; does that suggest that there's a significant number of Glaswegians who are Unionist, but not unionist? Or do the capital-U Unionists mainly live outside the city proper?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The Tories are completely dead in Glasgow city; at the last General Election they broke 10% in just one constituency (Glasgow South; which as Glasgow Cathcart was held from 1923 until 1979) and they didn't even manage that at the last Holyrood elections. On a city council of seventy nine members (elected by proportional representation as well) they have just a single seat.

[tpfkaw]

Sectarianism is what I'm referring to, not the Tory party.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well in a Scottish context a capital U Unionist has often been used to mean...

Anyway most of the constituencies contain diverse (or fairly diverse) areas and, as you'll note, most were close. Bridgeton is in the same constituency as Parkhead, for instance.

[njwes]

Well in a Scottish context a capital U Unionist has often been used to mean...

To mean..... what? We're not mind readers

[MaxQue]

Well in a Scottish context a capital U Unionist has often been used to mean...

To mean..... what? We're not mind readers

Conservative. The Conservative Party was called for a long time Unionist Party in Scotland. Officially, they are still called Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party.

[afleitch]

Well in a Scottish context a capital U Unionist has often been used to mean...

To mean..... what? We're not mind readers

Conservative. The Conservative Party was called for a long time Unionist Party in Scotland. Officially, they are still called Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party.

And to confuse matters further the Unionist part referred to the policy on Ireland.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

And was also a reference to the Liberal Unionist party which merged into the Tories at the dawn of the twentieth century. But which was based in... er... Birmingham.

[Vega]

Not sure this is the right place for this, but can. I see Gordon Brown making a comeback as First Minister and running Scotland as a personal fiefdom of sorts. If he takes the lead in negotations for expanded devolution, presenting himself as the champion of Scottish interests, he could generally establish himself, at long last, as an elder statesman who returned to his native Scotland to steer it towards greater autonomy, a strengthened union with the rest of the country, etc, etc.

This person seems to be thinking much of the same thing.

Gordon Brown has been a MP in name only for past 4 years, what makes you think he'll suddenly get vigor and somehow manage to become First Minister of Scotland?

[njwes]

Well in a Scottish context a capital U Unionist has often been used to mean...

To mean..... what? We're not mind readers

Conservative. The Conservative Party was called for a long time Unionist Party in Scotland. Officially, they are still called Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party.

Gotcha, thanks!

[You kip if you want to...]

Not sure this is the right place for this, but can. I see Gordon Brown making a comeback as First Minister and running Scotland as a personal fiefdom of sorts. If he takes the lead in negotations for expanded devolution, presenting himself as the champion of Scottish interests, he could generally establish himself, at long last, as an elder statesman who returned to his native Scotland to steer it towards greater autonomy, a strengthened union with the rest of the country, etc, etc.

This person seems to be thinking much of the same thing.

Gordon Brown has been a MP in name only for past 4 years, what makes you think he'll suddenly get vigor and somehow manage to become First Minister of Scotland?

That may make an easy newspaper headline, but it's unfair.

[afleitch]

Not sure this is the right place for this, but can. I see Gordon Brown making a comeback as First Minister and running Scotland as a personal fiefdom of sorts. If he takes the lead in negotations for expanded devolution, presenting himself as the champion of Scottish interests, he could generally establish himself, at long last, as an elder statesman who returned to his native Scotland to steer it towards greater autonomy, a strengthened union with the rest of the country, etc, etc.

This person seems to be thinking much of the same thing.

Gordon Brown has been a MP in name only for past 4 years, what makes you think he'll suddenly get vigor and somehow manage to become First Minister of Scotland?

That may make an easy newspaper headline, but it's unfair.

Not if you live in Fife it isn't. He's been MIA.

[TTS1996]

Not sure this is the right place for this, but can. I see Gordon Brown making a comeback as First Minister and running Scotland as a personal fiefdom of sorts. If he takes the lead in negotations for expanded devolution, presenting himself as the champion of Scottish interests, he could generally establish himself, at long last, as an elder statesman who returned to his native Scotland to steer it towards greater autonomy, a strengthened union with the rest of the country, etc, etc.

This person seems to be thinking much of the same thing.

Gordon Brown has been a MP in name only for past 4 years, what makes you think he'll suddenly get vigor and somehow manage to become First Minister of Scotland?

That may make an easy newspaper headline, but it's unfair.

No it's not. His appearances in the Commons post-2010 can be counted on fingers. No PM (except Blair, who resigned as an MP immediately on standing down as PM) compares. If Brown is meant to be a great elder statesman and 2014’s Saviour of the Union, you’d expect him to be proactive at the Mother Parliament in Her Majesty’s City of Westminster. He is not; he has been an MP in name only.

[Vega]

Not sure this is the right place for this, but can. I see Gordon Brown making a comeback as First Minister and running Scotland as a personal fiefdom of sorts. If he takes the lead in negotations for expanded devolution, presenting himself as the champion of Scottish interests, he could generally establish himself, at long last, as an elder statesman who returned to his native Scotland to steer it towards greater autonomy, a strengthened union with the rest of the country, etc, etc.

This person seems to be thinking much of the same thing.

Gordon Brown has been a MP in name only for past 4 years, what makes you think he'll suddenly get vigor and somehow manage to become First Minister of Scotland?

That may make an easy newspaper headline, but it's unfair.

Brown's humanitarian work is nice and dandy, but when you were duly elected to a job, you can't miss almost every single task (like voting on bills) that it entails.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Former Prime Ministers who decide to stay in the Commons are in a bit of an impossible position, which is why most decide not to stay in the Commons. Stay on the front bench and they risk undermining the new leader. Move to the backbenches and intervene regularly in debates and risk either the same, or turning into something of a freak show. Move to the backbenches and just sit there and risk being accused of sulking in public. Move to the backbenches and only turn up rarely and risk being accused of inactivity. Etc.

On the more general issue about the role of an MP, Tony Wright once made the following observation:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mogrovejo]

I would have to warn against treating survey subsamples as gospel truth, particularly when said samples are rather small.

The sample size for the 16-17 age group in the Ashcroft poll is 14.

Yeah, its useless regarding the smallest sub samples. The huge difference between the 16-18 being the most pro-independence and the 18-25 group being the third most pro-union (=strongest under 55) is striking and likely due to a fluke. Then you have 25-34 being  the second strongest Yes group. So a thorough study with an adequate sample of the attitudes of Scots aged 15-35 would be really interesting.

Despite small sub samples the data in the Ashcroft poll does support the general picture from previous polls.

A. Scots get more unionist the older they get from around 25 and upwards
B. 65+ are a lot more unionist than any other age group
C. Young people 18-25 are a little less supportive of independence than those aged 25-55.

Its also clear that a majority of Scots under 55-60 (impossible to draw the exact line) voted Yes.

So the interesting thing is if young Scots will keep being more pro-union than those born 1960-1990,  and if new generations will be less nationalist, so you get a Quebec style development where nationalism is "contained" in certain generations. I just find that very unlikely in the Scottish case - I think devo max will increase Scotlands feeling of being a separate nation and give appetite for more.

If new generations on the contrary follow the general pattern of the 25-55 old and get progressively more nationalist for each future generation then its obviously over for the unionist cause when the boomer generation dies off.

The declining North Sea oil and gas production will probably make the generational pattern immaterial. With max devo and the SPN holding the policy making reigns, I project that in a couple of decades Scotland will be fairly more dependent on transfers from the rest of UK. And if the Yes weren't really able to make a coherent economic case for independence now, it'll be much tougher with oil revenue being a fraction of what it is.

[politicus]

I would have to warn against treating survey subsamples as gospel truth, particularly when said samples are rather small.

The sample size for the 16-17 age group in the Ashcroft poll is 14.

Yeah, its useless regarding the smallest sub samples. The huge difference between the 16-18 being the most pro-independence and the 18-25 group being the third most pro-union (=strongest under 55) is striking and likely due to a fluke. Then you have 25-34 being  the second strongest Yes group. So a thorough study with an adequate sample of the attitudes of Scots aged 15-35 would be really interesting.

Despite small sub samples the data in the Ashcroft poll does support the general picture from previous polls.

A. Scots get more unionist the older they get from around 25 and upwards
B. 65+ are a lot more unionist than any other age group
C. Young people 18-25 are a little less supportive of independence than those aged 25-55.

Its also clear that a majority of Scots under 55-60 (impossible to draw the exact line) voted Yes.

So the interesting thing is if young Scots will keep being more pro-union than those born 1960-1990,  and if new generations will be less nationalist, so you get a Quebec style development where nationalism is "contained" in certain generations. I just find that very unlikely in the Scottish case - I think devo max will increase Scotlands feeling of being a separate nation and give appetite for more.

If new generations on the contrary follow the general pattern of the 25-55 old and get progressively more nationalist for each future generation then its obviously over for the unionist cause when the boomer generation dies off.

The declining North Sea oil and gas production will probably make the generational pattern immaterial. With max devo and the SPN holding the policy making reigns, I project that in a couple of decades Scotland will be fairly more dependent on transfers from the rest of UK. And if the Yes weren't really able to make a coherent economic case for independence now, it'll be much tougher with oil revenue being a fraction of what it is.

SNP (the other one made me think of ESPN )

This focus on oil as the only thing Scotland can build an economy on is misguided.

[Mogrovejo]

I would have to warn against treating survey subsamples as gospel truth, particularly when said samples are rather small.

The sample size for the 16-17 age group in the Ashcroft poll is 14.

Yeah, its useless regarding the smallest sub samples. The huge difference between the 16-18 being the most pro-independence and the 18-25 group being the third most pro-union (=strongest under 55) is striking and likely due to a fluke. Then you have 25-34 being  the second strongest Yes group. So a thorough study with an adequate sample of the attitudes of Scots aged 15-35 would be really interesting.

Despite small sub samples the data in the Ashcroft poll does support the general picture from previous polls.

A. Scots get more unionist the older they get from around 25 and upwards
B. 65+ are a lot more unionist than any other age group
C. Young people 18-25 are a little less supportive of independence than those aged 25-55.

Its also clear that a majority of Scots under 55-60 (impossible to draw the exact line) voted Yes.

So the interesting thing is if young Scots will keep being more pro-union than those born 1960-1990,  and if new generations will be less nationalist, so you get a Quebec style development where nationalism is "contained" in certain generations. I just find that very unlikely in the Scottish case - I think devo max will increase Scotlands feeling of being a separate nation and give appetite for more.

If new generations on the contrary follow the general pattern of the 25-55 old and get progressively more nationalist for each future generation then its obviously over for the unionist cause when the boomer generation dies off.

The declining North Sea oil and gas production will probably make the generational pattern immaterial. With max devo and the SPN holding the policy making reigns, I project that in a couple of decades Scotland will be fairly more dependent on transfers from the rest of UK. And if the Yes weren't really able to make a coherent economic case for independence now, it'll be much tougher with oil revenue being a fraction of what it is.

SNP (the other one made me think of ESPN )

This focus on oil as the only thing Scotland can build an economy on is misguided.

Sure, but that wasn't my point: what they can do won't matter much compared with what they'll have. And alongside the problems they had this year (the potential exodus of the financial industry, the uncertainty about a currency) they'll have the additional problem of not having the oil revenue to paint a rosier picture of their economic picture. I'm factoring a couple of decades of SNP policies too. Selling uncertainty without oil will be even tougher than it was wit it.