Wealthier Scots voted "YES"

With respect to Rule 11
http://www.politicalforum.com/rules.php​

Let me express in surprised tone my astonishment at the district by district voting results in Scotland.
Astonished how.
Click on the image and see.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/77695000/gif/_77695435_scot_strength_624map.gif

Four of Thirty-Two districts vote "Yes"
and they were NOT Highlands districts nor the district of Highlands.
As best as I can make out they are wealthier, suburban districts.

As a child of Hollywood, it was my expectation that the Highlands would be more for independence.
I was surprised the "No" vote was not more limited to the British serving Lowlands Scots.
It seems the economics of the district was more of an influence than regional culture of yore.


Moi


r > g
That's money flowing
to London.

​

 

Emotion says Yes. Money says No.

Independence has glamor and romance behind it. As Moi said, it's Hollywood. Mel Gibson painted blue and screaming "freeeedom!" People who are well off can afford to indulge such emotions.

Union has money and practicality behind it. Scotland gets money and services as well as economic opportunity from its part in the UK. Poorer people know what UK government money means to them. Not just public assistance, but government jobs, scholarships, the chance to work for UK businesses. What about costs for infrastructure now shared by the UK? Who would provide Scotland with a military? Scots voted their self-interest, not their emotions. Scotland would get poorer overnight if it severed its UK ties. Separation would have diminished Scotland just as it would have diminished the UK.

What would happen if the US dissolved itself to form 50 separate countries? Every state, including those that pay the most Federal tax, would be economically broken if they could no longer participate freely in a huge national economy, enjoying the benefits of shared cost for infrastructure.

I'm surprised only 55.3% of Scots voted No.

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-20/1-4-americans-want-their-state-secede-us

Ithought this was interesting too.

"1 In 4 Americans Want Their State To Secede From The US

With all eyes firmly fixed on Europe's secessionist movements (most notably Scotland and Catalan), the growing tensions in America took a back seat for a moment. But, as Reuters reports, a recent poll found one-in-four Americans want their state to secede from The US with men more secessionist than women and the Southwest most aggrieved. By the evidence of the poll data as well as these anecdotal conversations, the sense of aggrievement is comprehensive, bipartisan, somewhat incoherent, but deeply felt.

Europe's secessionist movements have garnered all the attention recently...

 

Well, I know the High Lands [it happens I spend time there] and despite the presence of places connected to the history of King Bruce [I personally saw a little lake where King Bruce would have left his sword ... it's the Loch of the Loss Sword, near Tyndrum] and to the spirit of independence of that land [and a part their curious habit to use a Gaelic language where there are English guys around!] .... they know their future depends on England, anyway.

I guess that metropolitan areas like Glasgow and Dundee think to propose themselves as alternatives to London, Manchester and company.
The establishment of those urban areas think to be ready to lead Scotland ... mah ....

 

For some people true, heart said yes, for others very definitely not.

That is how it is seen from America I think but not what has been going on here.

Only to those with certain interests and they are the few. Even with them Scotland has a lot to offer but of course they are the one's with no heart and every fear will encourage them to intimidate.

We give more to London than we receive back. We have our own educational system our own judicial system, our own NHS and so on.

Nope absolutely wrong there. Handicapped and those without jobs have been the most hurt by cuts to pay the Bankers losses. In some parts of Glasgow the life expectancy is only I think 54. Independence would have given us a chance to change that having access to our own money and making our own choices.

Scotland offers free Higher Education for everyone. In England it is up to £9,000 a year plus living expenses.

You mean rUK. I cannot see that opportunity changing even if rUK left the EU.....but trust me we are more wanting people to have those opportunities here. Through lack of investment our young have been leaving for a very long time. We wanted to be able to build opportunities for our people here so they do not feel they must leave as they do now, then Grandparents can enjoy their grandchildren.

You appear to think Scotland is a dessert. We would make our own way of course. What with our ability for Green Energy, have 60% of Europe's oil, manufacturing, tourism, our food and drinks industry, medical research, computer software and much more and we would have saved money by giving up useless things like nukes.

Us again. We would of course have taken our share of Uk equipment and the intention was to have more patrol of the North Sea we would have been better protected than now.

Some voted on self interest without a doubt. Most who voted for no voted on fear and misinformation. Now we are about to suffer the loss of billions of pounds in austerity. We will have more children living in poverty, our education system will suffer and so too will our health system. We have been fools.

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/09/19/welcome-to-north-britain/

or

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-country-that-wasnt/

Possibly during the transition because of the activities of global capitalism. However the experts expected us to come through that and become a thriving little country probably more economically viable that rUK and possibly very much so.

We're stuck to England believe me. We intended Independence not separation and funnily enough this little country does not want to be an imperial power. However we are generally a country which is well liked throughout the world and I see no reason why that would have changed.

Some of us educated ourselves sufficiently that we were not so terrified as others - or as my daughter said, you do have to go on hope not fear.

Did you watch Trainspotting? A wee article by Irvine Welsh gives a good idea of what it was about.

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...tish-independence-glorious-failure?CMP=twt_gu

First round over

 

It was bribery and the big bad media conspiring all over again.... The question was asked and answered. The Tartan Tories came close but no cigar.

 

You got your way it is true...and now you come out of hiding with abuse. These your friends?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/glasgows-george-square-turns-ugly-4290576

 

bobov
YOU do not get it.


The districts that voted for separation were "wealthier".
Maybe better educated, more Liberal and/or planning to profit via an independent Scotland.


Moi

r > g
London's "r"

No ​

 

They planned to substitute London ...

In this perspective the vote [a clear NO] of Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire is significant: that's the door to North Sea oil fields and it's a very Scottish area [I know it, I've been also there]. Clearly the majority of the voters of that regions has said "better to keep London than to go under Glasgow".

 

Will there be a second round? I know there was an intense amount of British propaganda when the independence voters were ahead in the polls. Scotland like Catalonia has everything to gain, and nothing to lose by independence, but if Scotland did not have the oil, and they were a burden rather than being an asset, Britain might have let you people go more readily.

Well at least they're not killing you to grab the wealth, the way the junta in Ukraine is doing in the Donbas. When the people of the Donbas got sick and tired of subsiding others and had a referendum to free themselves from the junta, Kiev responded by killing them off, that way they could repopulate the area with their own people from the Western areas. Can't you see Washington and the corporations eyeing hungrily the minerals and the rich black earth?

 

So the balance between rich vs poor can influence the balance of Yes/No percentage? With more wealthier people in Scotland the outcome could have been 55.3% Yes?
What happens when the number of rich people is going up over the next years? The number of Yes minds will go up.
Is the economy of Scotland improving? If so, can bring it closer to a 50-50% Yes/No situation. Will be an increased political fight.
In other words, capitalism and consuming over the last four decades have changed the political landscape, electorial and fight.
But why did the news/media or politics let people know that wealthier people voted Yes? Probably to cause awakening.

 

I defer to your knowledge. But then what's the reason for the 55.3% No vote? You didn't say, other than fear and intimidation. Was it nothing more than that? Was there no legitimate concern?

 

Moi, it's a good thing I love you because what you said is exactly what I said. Yet you write that I don't get it. Please re-read my post and smack yourself upside the head for being such a dope.

 

The belief is that Westminster would not be keen to offer. .

Indeed there was....and that is already showing signs of falling apart.

I am not sure I agree with what you say above. It is true people felt Westminster probably would get fed up with funding NI if there was an Independent Scotland and it is also true that Scotland would not have been able to move towards Independence if it were not thought she had the ability to manage on her own...but in Scotland and from the little I have read in Catalonia as well, the main interest was not money but politics. Scotland wanted the ability to determine the directions she took. The Independence movement came largely from grass roots movements which sprang up. Politics became alive again here. The possibility of real democracy did to. We wanted to move in a different direction to Westminster and that has been true for about the past 30 years on a political level and is irrespective of the SNP. People who had never voted in their lives came out to vote and polls taken afterwards showed the majority who voted Yes, voted on hope and those who voted No, voted on fear. It is true that terrifying people they would lose everything had strong impact (there were even suggestions we would be seen like North Korea by the rest of the world and live at third world level!!) but if we look at a poll the Guardian did on who voted what, we find the one group which Massively voted No, the group which won the No vote was the over 65's. That is about 800,000 people so a much stronger influence than the 100,000 16-18 year olds who were the other group strongly voting one way - 73% of the over 65's voted No while 71% of the 16-18's voted Yes. (these fit in with what previous polls had suggested so are probably correct.)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/20/scottish-independence-lord-ashcroft-poll

The most important thing is that Scotland has become politically aware. Groups which have sprung up are not going to die down and intend on reaching out to people regardless of the way they voted to keep awareness going through what looks like it is going to be a very tumultuous time - re what is happening in London, impending austerity etc. An informed people have the best ability to judge situations and come to the best conclusions.

Scotland has possibilities but it would be wrong to think she had it all made, as she indeed might have had this happened in the 80's. - a time instead when she was suffering 'managed decline' and her people were feeling the need to emigrate.

Westminster actually had a hand in the creation of the Referendum. Cameron kept goading Salmond till he set the date for the Referendum, possibly not his first choice of timing given the economic situation in the world and instability in the EU. Westminster believed that it would be a quick and decisive victory and Independence would never be spoken of again. In reality it has shown Westminster that Scotland may go it alone and London is unlikely to be happy to offer another referendum soon - which does not mean there will not be one sooner than many think.

This had nothing to do with wanting to deprive the rest of the UK of anything or feeling we were subsidising the UK - Scotland would have had to work to make herself successful - but it did have a lot to do with how Westminster had progressed politically. Had there been a UK voice for the changes we wanted we would more than likely have gone with that. Unfortunately England is moving to the right. There is no possibility at the moment of moving on this in a UK wide way. This is recognised by progressive voices in England with whom we would have continued working. An article by Billy Bragg

The Green Party which was for Independence resulted in Independence being supported by the Green Party in England and indeed all over Europe.

It is though true that for Westminster there was more to be lost - her position in the world was seen as being in doubt. It is also true that Global Capitalism and other issues terrified the people. One example being the Deutsch Bank, in total opposition to what it had said earlier, was claiming that we would see a 1920's depression which certainly terrified my daughter - why should a foreign bank say that, she wondered. Well maybe they owed someone something or possibly Germany is more concerned about England leaving the EU than she lets on. Germany certainly said after she was delighted the result was No as she felt Scotland would help keep the UK in the EU. An Independent Scotland would most likely have set a match for change.

(I do not agree with you on East Ukraine. You know that from other posts but that is off topic.)

 

It has just crossed my mind that we will all need to be very careful about this new Constitution which is apparently going to come into being, to make sure not just Scotland but Wales and NI as well as all the different districts of England, do not sell their soul.

 

Change is always scary. As you will note in post 14 over 65's were the people who won the election. They were scared and told emphatically by Bitter Together they would lose their pensions. I don't think there is a genuine reason to believe this.

The Transitional period would doubtless have been somewhat chaotic particularly as rUK promised we could not keep the pound by having a currency union and world markets like certainty.

It depends on how you imagine rUK would negotiate. My own feeling is that given it would be in their best interests also to have good will that this would be relatively honourable.

It would be scary for a while but I think if people had held their nerve with all the fear mongering, it would have worked out much better than the situation we now see ourselves in and then, unlike now, people would have had the opportunity to choose the kind of society they lived in.

 

It was mostly the young ( more than 70% of 16 and 17 year olds), poor and unemployed that voted yes.

 

If I had to choose between a world governed by teenagers or one governed by the elderly, I would choose the elderly without hesitation. Teens feel they have no investment in society as it is, but of course they're among the most vulnerable and could hardly survive without the infrastructure of civilization provided by their seniors. This mistaken belief of youth, that the world can be reinvented overnight and at will, with little risk or cost, lies behind the many tragic "revolutions" that have slaughtered millions and leveled societies. Think of the teen Red Guards of China's "People's Revolution," waving the Little Red Book as they killed people. Now seniors can be over-cautious. They're slow to risk what they've attained over many years of struggle, especially since they're no longer able to recover from any major loss. So they may drag their feet when someone says "Let's turn everything upside down. It may fail and destroy society, but what the heck, let's give it a go!" If you're 70 and no longer able to work, thats how things look.

Reading your post, I hear you say there may have been big problems, but you feel it would have all worked out somehow. I hope you can understand why your parents or grandparents may have been reluctant to chance it.

 

This has nothing to do with the issue so why are you saying it?

Irrelevant to post

This whole post is nothing but flamebait. You clearly are a person who has no intellectual arguments and a woefully wrong perception of imagined superiority. Two of my grandparents were dead when I was born. One of the others died in 1955, the other 1959. Now what does the death of my grandparents or your desire to be ruled by the over 65's and your opinion of teenagers have to do with the question of Scotland's sovereignty?

 

You explained the vote in Scotland by saying older people, swayed by unreasonable fears, voted No, while younger people voted Yes. You did not explain your belief that none of the troubles expected by the oldsters would materialize. I took this as the groundless confidence of youth. Now you say that age was irrelevant, despite having posted to that effect. Please make up your mind.

 

See? Wealthy Scots tended to vote No.

 

The idea that Scots get their understanding of Scottish independence from a Mel Gibson flicks about as silly as the idea that the Japanese get their understanding of Ronan from Keanu Reeves and Tom Cruise.

Independence has romance behind it because it allows more and more representative bodies to have a sovereign choice over policy that impacts them. The smaller the electorate, the more impact each individual can have, and the closer policy is to home.

The UK's firearm policy is a good example: I don't think it makes sense in central London either, but it makes a whole lot more sense than in rural Scotland. Independence allows the people who actually experience the policy to make the policy.

[hr][/hr]

Of course, collectivized, central government has its advantages as well - standards and policy can be set uniform throughout a large area. An often used example is railroad policy in Australia pre-Federation. They had different track widths, so it was difficult to run trains between states.

Unity is strength.

 

You mean Keanu Reeves isn't the Japanese cultural icon I thought he was? I'm dejected.

"The smaller the electorate, the more impact each individual can have, and the closer policy is to home." Very true. That was the supposition the US Founders made when they assigned most power to the states rather than the central government. In practice, things have gone the other way around the world. Most major countries were formed by consolidating smaller predecessors. A close look at national histories around the globe will confirm that. Centralized power is less democratic, but it's less costly (remembering that government costs societies), and it offers the legal consistency needed for economic efficiency. Historians understand that economic motives lay behind the waves of political consolidation. It's hard to do business when the rules change from place to place, and there may be local tariffs or sanctions to contend with.

So I'm sympathetic to local authority. That's where most people's hearts are. But bigger governments are more effective. Our trouble today is that governments - always from the best of stated motives - have grown far too effective in many places, and are starting to encroach on essential freedoms. But making governments smaller may not achieve the necessary liberation. We know that small governments can be a tyrannical as large - North Korea and Cambodia spring to mind.

 

Lets face it Alexa we bottled it. We are now a laughing stock and rightly so. We will now continue to be Westminsters b*tch for many decades. Their allies put the frightners on and of course it worked. The English will now continue to have their cheap retirement properties (their numbers already enough to have swung the vote here anyway) and nice places for holidays whilst the mortality rates in many areas drop below those of sub Saharan Africa in many places. We need investment and that isnt going to happen within the current setup. We only have ourselves to blame for getting more of the same. I'm from Kilmarnock so I know whereof I speak

As someone rightly quipped the other day. Scotland the ..... what ?

 

Thats likely because those wealthy 'Scots' tended to be English retiree's from the Home counties I suspect