
Scotland rejects independence - riffraff
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/scotland-independence-no-vote-victory-alex-salmond
======
arethuza
I wrote this earlier but the discussion I posted it to originally is dead:

As a Scot who voted "Yes" I must admit I am disappointed with this result -
but also not in the least surprised, this is pretty consistent with the polls.

However, thinking about it a bit more (even if it is 6am) - I'm actually
pretty pleased with both the turnout and that 45% of people voted "Yes" \- a
few years ago that would have seemed crazy.

In some ways this reminds me of the devolution referendum of 1979 - while the
result then was also a "No" it raised the topic as a realistic alternative so
when there was another devolution referendum a generation later it passed
easily so now we do have an independent Scottish Government which has a fair
amount of power within Scotland (although no powers over things like foreign
affairs and defence).

I suspect that, just as in '79, the UK is in for a lot of political upheaval
over the next decade and I suspect that now that independence has been
introduced as something to be seriously considered that in a generation or so
it might also look more sensible than it did at first.

My immediate concern is that I hope that everyone can put the differences
introduced by the campaign behind them.

~~~
hackerboos
I read in The Economist that the No vote was bolstered by Scottish pensioners
who fear for their retirement funds.

It's inevitable that the referendum will occur again (probably under a Tory
majority government) and with those said pensioners not around; you'll get the
result you wanted.

~~~
BSousa
Won't you just have other pensioners then?

I read something along those lines somewhere else as well saying in 10/20
years all the old folks will be gone and they yes will win, but hasn't history
shown us that idealistic young just turn to realistic oldies with time?

~~~
jiggy2011
By then there will be new people of pension age, but they won't have actual
pensions.

------
throwaway283719
I think it's interesting to talk about the failure of polls to predict the
magnitude of the result. Here are the results of the final polls from six
major polling organizations, taken 1-3 days before the vote

    
    
      Organization    Yes     No      Number*
      ---------------------------------------
      Opinium         0.479   0.521   1087
      ICM             0.477   0.523   1010
      Panelbase       0.474   0.526    954
      Survation       0.473   0.527    910
      YouGov          0.474   0.526   3043
      Ipsos Mori      0.474   0.526    951
      ---------------------------------------
      TOTAL           0.475   0.525   7955
    
      * excluding undecided voters
    

On one hand they were accurate in that they forecast a "no" result with high
probability - the proportion of "no" voters is more than four standard errors
away from 50%; the standard error being

    
    
      s.e. = sqrt(0.475 * 0.525 / 7955) = 0.006
    

On the other hand, the final proportion of "no" voters was 55.3%, which is
more than four standard errors away from the forecast value of 52.5%.

So the polls were significantly underestimating the proportion of "no" voters
out there. A similar effect was seen in the Quebec independence referendum,
where the polls actually predicted a slight advantage for "yes" but the final
result was a decisive victory for "no".

~~~
adaml_623
I'm not sure because I don't know where you've sourced your data but where are
the figures for undecided voters? That was always a large number and explains
why your s.e. is too small.

~~~
throwaway283719
That's a good point, and I've now corrected for that, but it makes very little
difference to the top line result (that the polls underestimated the support
for "no" by a large margin).

The proportion of undecided voters in these polls was about 7.1%.

Source is [http://whatscotlandthinks.org/opinion-
polls](http://whatscotlandthinks.org/opinion-polls)

------
doc_holliday
Politically it is very interesting and a result that in a lot of ways can
bring about real change too (however, I do have obvious scepticism).

The tide is now with change as for the Union to continue change must happen. A
lot of the high yes vote was not because people 100% believed Scotland should
be independent but more they wanted change to the system (and I do believe a
Scottish Parliment offered a better system), it did come with a lot of risk
and a possible lose / lose for the people of the UK as a whole.

It opens up the question of representation for people of the regions of
England, Northern Ireland and Wales. I think a lot of momentum has been
gathered for something a kin to federal government in the UK and is something
I would very much welcome.

In essence that is in a lot of ways what that Nationalists wanted... to keep
the currency union and have essentially the same terms of attachment to the
EU.

I voted no on the day after a long time believing in a yes, the tide of
politcal change swayed me that we may ultimately be better in a UK that had
the momentum with change to our representation. The no campaign however ran an
abysmal campaign and it pained me to end up siding with them, and that was in
more in spite of what they had to say.

Being part of the UK benefits Scotland's internal trade immensely and to think
terms would have remained the same with the rUK who would have become a
foreign nation at that point was naive. I think a Union with the UK has much
the same arguments as staying in the EU with respect to trade, contracts and
funding. It is just English nationalism and Scottish nationalism have picked
differing sides.

~~~
jiggy2011
I don't know how a federal system could work when England is about 80% of the
population. The USA already has issues with California and Texas being so
significant in terms of population, but England would dwarf both of them in
terms of proportion.

The only way it could work would be to abolish England entirely and break it
up into regions.

~~~
doc_holliday
I think English regions should be split up too, and their is great desire for
that. England is made up of many quite distinct regions, the problem is much
of the power is concentrated in London and subsequently a lot of investment
and money is poured into London and immediate surroundings. The fact that
England has such a disparity in investment between it's first city (London)
and second city (Birmingham) is a problem. It also isn't helping concentration
of populations and jobs which remained close to London.

The issues Scotland has are felt throughout the UK, and Scotland therefore has
a lot in common as far as wanting powers as do regions of England out with the
immediate surroundings of London. This in essence is why this result could be
better for the regions of England.

~~~
doc_holliday
This is a lot of why I voted no. Scotland isn't unique in it's struggle in the
UK against London concentrated power, it just in happens to have a get out
clause from historical geography and politics. This does not mean we should
leave behind those we have much in common with in the regions of England.

~~~
learnstats2
Please keep on that struggle.

David Cameron's goal from this referendum was to win and close down any
suggestion of real reform. There's significant danger that just a few weeks of
chatter about it remain.

------
blackRust
What is amazing about the Yes campaign is the odds they were up against: all
but one newspaper were against independence, the one for is a weekly paper. We
have seen a strong and undeniable media bias.

Even though the majority is for No, ~1.6m voted for radical change. This was
not a "nationalist" movement. It was a movement of ideas (the breadth of the
campaign has been astounding). A majority of the ~2m that voted No did not
vote for the status quo: they just thought the risks too great.

~~~
UVB-76
> We have seen a strong and undeniable media bias

On the contrary, the media insisted for weeks the referendum was "too close to
call", citing endless polls that generally favored the 'no' vote, but were
close to 50-50. Obviously people vote more conservatively when it matters.

Meanwhile, the bookmakers, who actually had skin in the game, knew a 'yes'
vote was unlikely, and reflected that in their odds.

~~~
jcbrand
Saying the referendum is "too close to call" is not the same as being even-
handed (i.e. not having a bias).

They were biased because they consistently took a negative stance towards the
potential ramifications (not chance of outcome) of independence.

~~~
UVB-76
The media thrive on fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

The possibility of Scotland voting for independence had that in spades; nobody
really knew what it would entail.

Thus the media persisted in presenting it as a realistic, likely prospect,
even when it was quite apparent (as per bookmakers odds) that a 'yes' vote was
very unlikely.

------
ZeroGravitas
An English parliament based in say Manchester could be interesting, I wonder
if they'll go for modern representative democracy or try to just expand the
power of the current dysfunctional first past the post system?

"But Michael Gove, the chief whip, made clear that greater protections would
have to be offered to protect the interest of English, Welsh and Northern
Irish MPs”

Notice he says its the MPs interests that need protecyes!, not who they
represent.

~~~
Toenex
Given this is a Hacker forum lets go one step further and ask "Does a modern
society need a centralised seat of government at all?"

~~~
hackerboos
Exactly - powers should be devolved to councils. Not an English parliament.

~~~
CatsoCatsoCatso
If I trusted my council I would back this idea, but they have proved
themselves to be about nothing but greed. The general feeling I get from
speaking to people is that councils are not well liked at all and have a
reputation for being rude, money-focused and arrogant.

~~~
zimpenfish
Yeah, if they gave Greenwich Council any more power, I'd be moving out of the
borough quick-damn-smart. They're bad enough with the limited powers they
have.

------
allegory
I'm glad, for one obscure reason. The few people I know in Scotland became
terribly hostile over the last week. I mean really anti-English. I'm talking
non-patriotic professional people I've known for 20 years.

It made me wonder what purpose further dividing of the world serves other than
to introduce nationalism and protect primitive identities promoted by the
politicians and media.

We're all humans. Do we need another line between groups of us?

~~~
arethuza
"Do we need another line between groups of us?"

Actually, one of the reasons I voted "Yes" is because I'm in favour of the EU
- I'd far rather have been part of an independent Scotland that _wanted_ to be
part of the EU (even if there might have been a bit of a fuss about getting
back in) rather than a part of the UK that seems destined to leave.

~~~
allegory
Agree with you there, but I'm taking a different approach. If the UK leaves
the EU, I'll move into the EU. I doubt the UK will leave the EU though as most
of it is manipulation and posturing.

~~~
malka
US still needs their lapdog in the EU.

------
gabemart

      > For the no campaign there was relief: a spate of
      > authoritative polls in the final days of the campaign had
      > said the vote was on a knife edge, bringing Yes Scotland
      > within touching distance of victory after a dramatic surge
      > in support.
    

Did anyone actually believe the odds were close? I've been following the odds
at the major betting exchanges for the last few weeks. I am not aware of any
large exchange or bookmaker offering decimal odds lower than 3.00 at any point
during that period. For the last few days it's typically been between 3.50 and
4.50. If anyone actually believed that the outcome of the referendum was "on a
knife edge", they should have placed some very large bets on a "Yes" outcome.

~~~
sytelus
What are these "major betting exchanges"? People often refer them but I've no
clue where they go to find them. Google/Bing is turning up funny links as
well.

~~~
gabemart
Betfair is probably the best known in the UK.

------
argumentum
This referendum has convinced me that we should enfranchise 16 & 17 year olds
for US elections. My main hangup before was that these people might be
pressured by their parents into voting a certain way. It turns out not only do
they have political minds of their own, their energy and intelligence was
clearly a boost to the spirit of democracy so evident in this election.

As adults, we often romanticize our childhoods, because well .. they are by
and large romantic. The experience of discovering the world and yourself is
the centerpiece of youth, and it's important that we have that perspective
reflected in our democracies.

~~~
tobylane
>It turns out not only do they have political minds of their own, their energy
and intelligence was clearly a boost to the spirit of democracy so evident in
this election.

Does it? I would always assume that, but I'd shy away from claiming it without
proof.

------
trhway
almost magic how far some western countries have advanced - in most of the
world the "separatist" is pretty much equivalent of "terrorist" and a valid
reason to send tanks in while in UK they just let the vote happen (even though
it would be a high treason just a couple hundred years ago there too).

~~~
arethuza
The UK is unusual though - it is a "Union" with Scotland maintaining a lot of
separate institutions that predate the union in 1707: notably the legal and
education systems which are often completely different from those in the rUK.
For the last while we've even had our own government here in Edinburgh.

So we were already a sort of a "country within a country" anyway.

~~~
hessenwolf
Is rUK pronounced ruck or are-you-kay?

~~~
user24
I think it was a typo. I've never heard of the term before.

edit: Oh, it seems it's a Scottish term for Rest-of-UK. TIL.

------
jokoon
it's true that it would have changed a lot of things.

------
dang
Although most stories about politics are off-topic for HN, this one seems like
the exception that proves the "most". Let's hold off flagging it unless the
thread goes haywire.

