Scottish independence referendum results thread (Sept 18, 2014)

[njwes]

I know. It was a joke.

Lol @ the responses. Unless it's at the expense of the groups they despise those on the left tend to have a major problem with humor

[njwes]

Praying that the BBC has some really good election maps I can play around with in the hours between declarations.

[njwes]

Praying that the BBC has some really good election maps I can play around with in the hours between declarations.

Another victim of map fetichism.

Guilty as charged

[njwes]

So why don't they do exit polls anyway?

I think I read that it was simply because nobody paid to do one

[njwes]

Ballots all over the heath!

"Caithness ballot boxes held up by 1.5 hours because of an accident on the A9 at Berriedale Braes blackspot."

[njwes]

Here are a couple results feeds with maps for anyone interested:

Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2014/sep/18/-sp-scottish-independence-referendum-results-in-full

BBC:

http://www.bbc.com/news/events/scotland-decides/results

[njwes]

Some tension in Glasgow, probably nothing out of the ordinary given the emotion surrounding this vote.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/scotland/referendum/article4211236.ece

[njwes]

Can someone explain why all these British politicians are now insisting variously that things need to change ASAP and fast reform is necessary and the Act of Union should be renegotiated and more powers should be devolved to England and Wales etc etc?? Especially given the fact that it looks like No will win handily.

[njwes]

Can someone explain why all these British politicians are now insisting variously that things need to change ASAP and fast reform is necessary and the Act of Union should be renegotiated and more powers should be devolved to England and Wales etc etc?? Especially given the fact that it looks like No will win handily.

haha.  Because they're politicians, of course.  What would you do if you were president Lincoln and the legislatures of SC and 12 other states just narrowly decided that they wanted to remain part of the US?  Unfortunately for the US--but perhaps fortunately for the 12 million or so negro servants in the US at the time--the legislatures of SC and those 12 other states did not narrowly decide that they wanted to remain, but if they did then you'd probably try to figure out what pissed them off in the first place.

If a part of your household is irked enough by you to make a scene in public about it, but not so enraged at you that it packs its collective bags and divorces you outright, you'd be smart to make amends, right?

Sure, I understand that. But if the No vote is rather decisive, as in +5% or so, I don't really see the need to make reforms as extensive as they're making it sound. Perhaps they're just dramatizing in their tweets and statements and press releases. But it just seems like the Conservatives and the No camp in general have betrayed a shocking lack of confidence or belief in the United Kingdom as it is. Their last-minute desperation offer of "devo-max" to Scotland was truly pathetic, and it's not so clear to me that it helped their cause much at all.

[njwes]

Sure, I understand that. But if the No vote is rather decisive, as in +5% or so, I don't really see the need to make reforms as extensive as they're making it sound. Perhaps they're just dramatizing in their tweets and statements and press releases. But it just seems like the Conservatives and the No camp in general have betrayed a shocking lack of confidence or belief in the United Kingdom as it is. Their last-minute desperation offer of "devo-max" to Scotland was truly pathetic, and it's not so clear to me that it helped their cause much at all.

Did you read my post?  The plans they want to make now are a necessity because of devolving more to Scotland, which they have to do because it's been promised.  If they renege on that promise, it'd be a disaster for the Tories, Labour, and Lib Dems, and we'd have another referendum very soon.

I did read your post and I understand they can't break that promise. I guess I'm just struck by the tone. They sound like politicians who've suffered a defeat rather than vice-versa. I wonder if the party leaders regret offering devolution so hastily due to the results of a single poll.

[njwes]

Sure, I understand that. But if the No vote is rather decisive, as in +5% or so, I don't really see the need to make reforms as extensive as they're making it sound. Perhaps they're just dramatizing in their tweets and statements and press releases. But it just seems like the Conservatives and the No camp in general have betrayed a shocking lack of confidence or belief in the United Kingdom as it is. Their last-minute desperation offer of "devo-max" to Scotland was truly pathetic, and it's not so clear to me that it helped their cause much at all.

That's a prescient, and more subtle, question than I at first apprehended.  My parents spent some time in Scotland and brought back lots of souvenirs when I was young, but I've never been there myself.  I don't have a good feel for how things work there.

I will say that on my last trip to Puerto Rico I arrived just after a referendum on that island's status.  They have those about once every seven years, by the way, and the results are always exactly the same.  About 55% vote for the status quo, to remain a Commonwealth of the United States, and about 40% vote for statehood, and about 5% vote for complete independence, a divorce from the United States, a la South Carolina 1861.  Not sure why, well, actually I have a pretty good idea about it but that's far beyond the scope of this thread, anyway the results are always thus.  Now, suppose they one day decided to vote 51+% in favor of something other than status quo, such as either statehood or independence.  Do you think that the US government would immediately (or ever) act upon its wishes?  I doubt it.  Still, I get the impression that the London government operates under a different set of rules.  I expect that it would be expected to unchain Scotland should it decide in a binding referendum to divorce itself form the UK.  For that reason, and for the reason that unlike PR, the Scots opinion does seem to be monotonically changing (in favor of nationalism), the UK recognizes that it would do well to satisfy some of its demands.

As for the theory that a diminished UK would necessarily result in a diminished US on the world stage, I'm not sure I buy into that, nor do I think that an severed Scotland necessarily amounts to a diminished British presence in the UN in the first place, so I'm not a kneejerk NO supporter (like most Americans).  On the other hand, I'm not a kneejerk YES supporter either.  I'm just along for the ride.  That said, I do enjoy throwing monkey wrenches in the clockworks at every opportunity, so I must admit that I'm just a tiny bit disappointed that it seems to be decided so decisively at this early hour.

Thanks for this long reply. Personally I don't care what the effects of the referendum result would be on the US-UK relationship; I don't think a Yes would have done much of anything to diminish it, and certainly I don't think it would diminish the US presence on the world stage--though tbh I wish something would

The PR comparison is interesting. I agree that if PR voted for a change in the status quo the federal government could easily ignore the vote and it wouldn't be a huge issue, especially if it was just 51% or so. Scotland's situation is different of course because (1) while there's an imbalance in power between Scotland and rUK, it's not as extreme as PR and the US and (2) unlike PR which was never well integrated into the political system (no voting powers in Congress, many Americans don't even realize it's a US possession, etc) Scotland is, and their wishes would therefore be far harder to ignore. I agree that London probably needs to respect the result of the referendum, and give Scotland independence even if it's only a 50%+1 result, but it seems to me that that's in part because the Westminster elite have put themselves in that position, legitimizing a 50%+1 result. And to some extent I think they've also delegitimized the very idea of a strong United Kingdom. Certainly they've shown themselves unwilling to defend the idea of a strong Britain.

Seeing the Western Isles result, again, I wonder if the leaders now think they shot themselves in the foot with their promises in the last couple week. Among other things, it means that Alex Salmond can claim a victory of some sort, which is embarrassing. Their promise of more devolution may turn out to be extremely short-sighted. I think it might unleash centrifugal forces that they don't foresee, increasing nationalism in all the constituent nations of the UK, and lead (relatively) rapidly to a shattered Union.

[njwes]

Actually, the U.S. would probably honor PR's vote if they voted for statehood (in a manner that did so straightforwardly, as opposed to the 2012 referendum); I doubt PR will ever vote for independence.

Well I think they would honor it if the question was clear and the consensus was fairly decisive. I'm less sure what would happen in a vote that was, say, 48-47-5 in favor of statehood. At the very least I think the timeline for admission as a state would be quite drawn out. Undoubtably many politicians would feel reticent about bringing in a state that would be by far the poorest in the Union.

[njwes]

Ugh

"Former SNP MSP Andrew Wilson has just declared that he thinks the SNP should get involved in talks about more devolution for Scotland, should indeed Scotland vote "No" in the referendum.

This is the first sign that the SNP may well try to use their vote in this referendum to push the demand for more devolution yet further, rather than stand aside as they did on the occasion of the Scottish constitutional convention."

[njwes]

This is the sort of Tory panic that I don't really understand atm

"There have been two quite remarkable and contributions to the BBC's programmes from Conservative spokespeople this evening.

First of all Ruth Davidson, who once described the 2012 Scotland Act as a "line in the sand that should not be crossed" has indicated that Scotland requires considerable further devolution.

Meanwhile Lord Forsyth, once one of the principal opponents of the Scottish Parliament, has now declared that he thinks Holyrood should be given even more devolution than it has been promised by any of the Unionist parties so far.

It looks as though one consequence of this campaign is to have brought the Scottish Conservatives very firmly into the devolution camp."

Sorry I'll stop mucking up the thread now

[njwes]

Agree. On the one hand, what's wrong with further devolution? On the other hand, some people think that Cameron made a mistake in not considering that option in the referendum. He was so certain in a huge victory for the so-called 'unionism' that he thought he could bury the 'Scottish problem' for some decades.

Why the "so-called" and why the scare quotes? British unionism certainly qualifies as legitimate unionism in my book, and the connotation and denotation of "unionism" seem about the same.

[njwes]

Did Glasgow have the lowest turnout of any place?

Yes, so far.

Lots of hilarious excuses and rationalization going on among the Yes side. They seem to have difficulty believing that Scottish people could actually vote this way of their own volition.

[njwes]

Well, a depressing night, but not without signs of hope. Scotland's day will come.

Given that it was a fair vote with massive turnout, what exactly is your problem with Scotland staying in the UK if that's the wish of most of its people?

[njwes]

Lol sure there'll be a lot more of this coming:

"Derek Morison tweets: #indyref I spent 4 hours handing out YES leaflets at 2 Glasgow polling stations... and I find it extremely difficult to believe those figures"

Courtesy ofThe Guardian

[njwes]

I wonder what percent of the voters were actively swayed by promises of devo-max.

And would his have been, in a way, a stronger victory for the No side if the result had been something like 51-49 but with no promise of devo-max?

[njwes]

I wonder what percent of the voters were actively swayed by promises of devo-max.

And would his have been, in a way, a stronger victory for the No side if the result had been something like 51-49 but with no promise of devo-max?

Promising Devo Max is one thing, but will it be delivered?

Maybe not full devo-max (however you define it) but they're going to have to deliver something substantial. They made the promise, wisely or no. And already the SNP and Yes vote talking heads are regurgitating talking points left and right about how this result is "a mandate for change", "a call for no more politics as usual", "a No vote doesn't mean no change" etc etc etc. They lost rather decisively, and yet to hear them talk, they sorta won.

[njwes]

Firstly, why do you think it has that name? Second, they had a problem with getting some of the boxes to the counting centre: there was a crash on the road they were being brought on, delaying things by a couple of hours.

The Guardian website lists it as "Highland," in fairness.

[njwes]

Firstly, why do you think it has that name? Second, they had a problem with getting some of the boxes to the counting centre: there was a crash on the road they were being brought on, delaying things by a couple of hours.

The Guardian website lists it as "Highland," in fairness.

I think the point is that it's hardly surprising that it's difficult and takes a long time to transport ballots around an area called highlands, due to, you know, the hills.

oooooooh haha whoopsie, embarrassing -_____-

[njwes]

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

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

[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!

[njwes]

Interesting article: apparently the parties supporting the Yes vote have seen a huge surge in membership over the past 10 days.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29311147

This too:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29399858