Are white settlers to blame for the failure of "indyref"?

[Fide]

I do resent a lot the over 55s and over 65s in particular for their selfishness and cowardice in terms of voting no.

A lot of them did it out of sheer spite so it's hard to respect that. They got what they wanted, but it was a pyrrhic victory and next time it will be different.

 

I wouldn't necessarily call it spite.  A lot of them didn't look beyond the effect it had on them.  And that's entirely their prerogative.  It was their vote to use as they saw fit.   That they were selfish with that vote is a matter for their conscience.

 

Converseley,  my in-laws, for example, voted Yes as they felt it was genuinely in the best interests of their grandchildren and their grandchildren's children.  They were very much in the minority of older people.

[StreetwiseHercules]

I wouldn't necessarily call it spite. A lot of them didn't look beyond the effect it had on them. And that's entirely their prerogative. It was their vote to use as they saw fit. That they were selfish with that vote is a matter for their conscience.

Converseley, my in-laws, for example, voted Yes as they felt it was genuinely in the best interests of their grandchildren and their grandchildren's children. They were very much in the minority of older people.

Yeah, I know what you are saying. People are entitled to vote as they wish for whatever reasons are personal to them.

We're always hearing though that we should respect the No Vote. Just being totally honest about what I think though, there are a lot of votes cast for no that I don't respect.

[renton]

I don't think it was spite or selfishness, not by itself anyway. No doubt there were myriad factors that influenced people's votes but experience and identity played a big role, I reckon.

 

The fixation on the rUK born Scot's vote that started this thread is unhelpful and yeah the OP's complaint as to the term 'white settler' is entirely valid. Still, it's an illustrative statistic:

 

Scots born/Scot resident: 53/47 yes

rUK born/Scot resident: 80/20 No

other EU born/Scot resident: 65/35 No.

 

We are told that economic factors were decisive in explaining the indy ref result, and maybe it was, in so much as it generated enough extra No votes in the biggest group to (Scots born/Scots resident) to stop Yes. Still, were economic factors the only issue, then those three groups should be broadly the same distribution of votes. They clearly aren't.

 

The other interesting break down is by age. Yes is ahead up to the 50 year old bracket and becomes more No friendly thereafter. The first interesting point is that the no vote percentage keeps increasing by age bracket, even after you basically max out the level of financial risk you can be exposed to (house ownership, pension etc), even more interesting is that Yes was ahead amongst the majority of the working age population, and that it was ahead even after people start owning homes (the median for home ownership is about 35), so clearly financial worries are not the sole dominant factor here either. At the margins finance does dominate: Lower income percentiles with nothing to lose were overwhelmingly Yes, those with high incomes and/or wealth and had more to potentially lose were more risk averse, yet in the middle it seems like there were other competing factors.

 

My theory is that you cannot understand the mood of the nation without examining it through the historical prism of two dates: 1945 and 1979. Proximity to that 'greates generation', the formation of the welfare state, total employment and real, organised Labour will generate a different set of experiences to those who came of age around 79 and later. The former will see a project to build a better Britain, something they see Scotland as an important and constructive part of. It's no surprise that they will have a far mroe positive outlook on Britain, and therefore a stronger association with Britain. The latter have the experience of the industrial clearances, the destruction of organised Labour, the feeling that Westminster either can't or won't provide the governance that most Scots would like to see. I don't think it's nationality in the narrow terms of 'my country, right or wrong' but in this case the division between British and scottish identiity is built on the formative experience of each group. One still sees the UK broadly as a force for good, the other sees Scotland as an opportunity to try something different. In terms of rUK born Scots, it's n surprise they'd have a strong attachment to the UK as a whole.

 

At the end of the day, most folk voted as thier conscience dicatated. Yes didn't do well enough in the places it was competittive to overcome No, but there is reason to suspect that will change over time. The longer the SNP and othe rpro Indy gorups are seen as a positive influence in Scotland, and the longer Westminster seems alienated from the lives of ordinary Scots the stronger the concept of Indy will get. It's a process that needs lived and can't be short circuited by alienating gorups of voters.

[Scary Bear]

You can't blame any of the electorate for the result.

I do think if only Scottish people were allowed to vote it would have been a different result but that wouldn't have been a fair way to do it.

It was up to the YES side to convince more than 50% of the people to vote for Independence and they came up short for whatever reason.

.

You could probably blame the No voters.

[Antlion]

I think we also overlook the "Scottish Renaissance" in culture and national identity that has replaced the arguably dominant Scottish cringe that existed through most of the twentieth century. For the most part of that century, being Scottish was slightly second-rate* - the place was a rustic, quirky bit of the civilised state of Great Britain. People who considered it a country with the potential for statehood were extremists, because it was just a backwater region that only achieved civility when England adopted it and London rule began. You can see this in a lot of twentieth-century representations of Scots - they are often staunch Presbyterian hicks who are far removed from cosmopolitan London, drunks or comic clowns. It's only relatively recent generations who have started to see Scotland as a country with the same potential and abilities as any other state, rather than a twee, backwards northern outpost of a mighty, London-led empire.

*One achieved higher status only when one was divested of a regional accent (whether Scottish or Northern English). The British state has always been huge on judging people by markers of their regionality and status. If you have a broad Scottish accent, you're lower on the totem pole than someone with an Eton accent. We still see this in the invective heaped on Mhairi Black by her fellow Scots, who still cringe at hearing a strong Paisley accent.

[Granny Danger]

I don't think it was spite or selfishness, not by itself anyway. No doubt there were myriad factors that influenced people's votes but experience and identity played a big role, I reckon.

 

The fixation on the rUK born Scot's vote that started this thread is unhelpful and yeah the OP's complaint as to the term 'white settler' is entirely valid. Still, it's an illustrative statistic:

 

Scots born/Scot resident: 53/47 yes

rUK born/Scot resident: 80/20 No

other EU born/Scot resident: 65/35 No.

 

We are told that economic factors were decisive in explaining the indy ref result, and maybe it was, in so much as it generated enough extra No votes in the biggest group to (Scots born/Scots resident) to stop Yes. Still, were economic factors the only issue, then those three groups should be broadly the same distribution of votes. They clearly aren't.

 

The other interesting break down is by age. Yes is ahead up to the 50 year old bracket and becomes more No friendly thereafter. The first interesting point is that the no vote percentage keeps increasing by age bracket, even after you basically max out the level of financial risk you can be exposed to (house ownership, pension etc), even more interesting is that Yes was ahead amongst the majority of the working age population, and that it was ahead even after people start owning homes (the median for home ownership is about 35), so clearly financial worries are not the sole dominant factor here either. At the margins finance does dominate: Lower income percentiles with nothing to lose were overwhelmingly Yes, those with high incomes and/or wealth and had more to potentially lose were more risk averse, yet in the middle it seems like there were other competing factors.

 

My theory is that you cannot understand the mood of the nation without examining it through the historical prism of two dates: 1945 and 1979. Proximity to that 'greates generation', the formation of the welfare state, total employment and real, organised Labour will generate a different set of experiences to those who came of age around 79 and later. The former will see a project to build a better Britain, something they see Scotland as an important and constructive part of. It's no surprise that they will have a far mroe positive outlook on Britain, and therefore a stronger association with Britain. The latter have the experience of the industrial clearances, the destruction of organised Labour, the feeling that Westminster either can't or won't provide the governance that most Scots would like to see. I don't think it's nationality in the narrow terms of 'my country, right or wrong' but in this case the division between British and scottish identiity is built on the formative experience of each group. One still sees the UK broadly as a force for good, the other sees Scotland as an opportunity to try something different. In terms of rUK born Scots, it's n surprise they'd have a strong attachment to the UK as a whole.

 

At the end of the day, most folk voted as thier conscience dicatated. Yes didn't do well enough in the places it was competittive to overcome No, but there is reason to suspect that will change over time. The longer the SNP and othe rpro Indy gorups are seen as a positive influence in Scotland, and the longer Westminster seems alienated from the lives of ordinary Scots the stronger the concept of Indy will get. It's a process that needs lived and can't be short circuited by alienating gorups of voters.

Good post.

I take succour from the fact that in terms of age groups the NO vote was only entrenched in the 65+ age group. The NO majority in the age groups below that is sufficiently small that it can be offset by YES votes in the <50 camp.

As was said after the defeat, if people stick to there positions, and assuming young people support Independence as they reach voting age, a YES victory is just a matter of time.

[John Lambies Doos]

Good post.

I take succour from the fact that in terms of age groups the NO vote was only entrenched in the 65+ age group. The NO majority in the age groups below that is sufficiently small that it can be offset by YES votes in the <50 camp.

As was said after the defeat, if people stick to there positions, and assuming young people support Independence as they reach voting age, a YES victory is just a matter of time.

But will we be allowed another opportunity?

[Granny Danger]

But will we be allowed another opportunity?

That's a good question and one I've raised before.

Even if we wait 20 years and even if, by then, there's an obvious desire amongst the people of Scotland for another Referendum, what happens in the UK government says 'no'?

[Bishop Briggs]

That's a good question and one I've raised before.

Even if we wait 20 years and even if, by then, there's an obvious desire amongst the people of Scotland for another Referendum, what happens in the UK government says 'no'?

 

No referendum. If Holyrood proceeds with its own referendum, it would have no legal force. Westminster could just ignore it. It would be similar to the 2014 independence vote in Catalonia - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-eu-29994633. 

[renton]

No referendum. If Holyrood proceeds with its own referendum, it would have no legal force. Westminster could just ignore it. It would be similar to the 2014 independence vote in Catalonia - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-eu-29994633. 

 

A consultative referendum would have no legal force, but it would create intolerable pressure on Westminster to address the issue. Spain and Catalonia is not the UK and Scotland, there are different polticial, cultural and historical stimulus at work. By opening the door on this once, they've already created precedence that makes any further referendum, legal or not, harder to ignore. The UK also prides itself on an international reputation of adherence to and promotion of democratic values, they also have that whole 'try and not look imperial' thing going on. Obviously dependent on the conditions at the tie of our notioonal referendum, but it doesn't seem to me that as clear cut as 'we won't let you, nuh-uh, not listening, don't care about the result'

[dogmc]

That's a good question and one I've raised before.

Even if we wait 20 years and even if, by then, there's an obvious desire amongst the people of Scotland for another Referendum, what happens in the UK government says 'no'?

It would be impossible for the UK govt to simply say no. Granted last time they only agreed because they thought yes would be stuck on 30% but even the most ardent unionists in Westminster will realise how massively the ground has shifted. It's only a matter of when independence is achieved not if. The 79 referendum was not the last word on devolution and 2014 isn't the last word on independence. It's easy to forget how huge a change there has been here in a very short space of time. In fact I can't think of another electorate where so many voters have changed so radically in only a few years.

[Ross.]

I voted for all available options because they were all available to be selected.

[Bishop Briggs]

It would be impossible for the UK govt to simply say no. Granted last time they only agreed because they thought yes would be stuck on 30% but even the most ardent unionists in Westminster will realise how massively the ground has shifted. It's only a matter of when independence is achieved not if. The 79 referendum was not the last word on devolution and 2014 isn't the last word on independence. It's easy to forget how huge a change there has been here in a very short space of time. In fact I can't think of another electorate where so many voters have changed so radically in only a few years.

 

Surely the terms would be important. The current budget deficit would need to be cut substantially or eliminated. An independent Scotland would have have to deliver a credible alternative to a currency union with the Bank of England. Those were crucial issues in 2014 and the credibility gap was a key factor in the No victory.

[Shades75]

Surely the terms would be important. The current budget deficit would need to be cut substantially or eliminated. An independent Scotland would have have to deliver a credible alternative to a currency union with the Bank of England. Those were crucial issues in 2014 and the credibility gap was a key factor in the No victory.

Currency union, budget deficit.....next up, threat to pensions and no access to the EU.

It's like a never ending loop.

[Antlion]

Surely the terms would be important. The current budget deficit would need to be cut substantially or eliminated. An independent Scotland would have have to deliver a credible alternative to a currency union with the Bank of England. Those were crucial issues in 2014 and the credibility gap was a key factor in the No victory.

I hope you hold the UK to the same standards - if you don't expect people to vote for Scotland to leave a political union until its budget deficit is cut or eliminated, then you can't expect people to vote for the UK to leave a political union until its budget deficit is cut or eliminated. That'll be Brexit fucked then.

[Fide]

Bishop Briggs, in his near-hysterical need to keep the UK together, is coming across like a UKOK pamphlet, the little lamb.

[Bishop Briggs]

I hope you hold the UK to the same standards - if you don't expect people to vote for Scotland to leave a political union until its budget deficit is cut or eliminated, then you can't expect people to vote for the UK to leave a political union until its budget deficit is cut or eliminated. That'll be Brexit fucked then.

 

The UK's budget deficit is unsustainable due to Osbrown's incompetence. However, its deficit as a proportion of GDP would be manageable outside the EU. I believe that Britain's and Scotland's economies would grow faster outside the EU.

 

Bishop Briggs, in his near-hysterical need to keep the UK together, is coming across like a UKOK pamphlet, the little lamb.

 

 

Still spouting the same tired old lies. It's amazing how desperate the SNP lackeys are to toe the party line. They get hysterical when anyone challenges its policy to surrender an independent Scotland's sovereignty the EU's deeper political union. 

 

We have a chance to leave the corrupt and undemocratic EU now. Let's take it and deal with independence issue later.

 

ETA - it's ironic how nationalists are blaming EU migrants voting No for the loss of the referendum. If Britain stays in, there will be even EU migrants if and when Indyref2 takes place. 

[Antlion]

The UK's budget deficit is unsustainable due to Osbrown's incompetence. However, its deficit as a proportion of GDP would be manageable outside the EU. I believe that Britain's and Scotland's economies would grow faster outside the EU.

Still spouting the same tired old lies. It's amazing how desperate the SNP lackeys are to toe the party line. They get hysterical when anyone challenges its policy to surrender an independent Scotland's sovereignty the EU's deeper political union.

We have a chance to leave the corrupt and undemocratic EU now. Let's take it and deal with independence issue later.

Given that there hasn't been an independent Scotland for over three centuries and there isn't one on the horizon, this is unsupportable. The upcoming vote is on strengthening Westminster (which represents deeper political union than the EU) or not. No thanks.

[Bishop Briggs]

Given that there hasn't been an independent Scotland for over three centuries and there isn't one on the horizon, this is unsupportable. The upcoming vote is on strengthening Westminster or not. No thanks.

 

The upcoming vote is also on strengthening Holyrood which has to implement EU laws and regulations on devolved matters. Your priority is to give more power to the Eurocrats at the expense of MSPs. No thanks. You are not a supporter of Scottish independence, just subservience to the diktats EU establishment and their big business cronies.

[Antlion]

The upcoming vote is also on strengthening Holyrood which has to implement EU laws and regulations on devolved matters. Your priority is to give more power to the Eurocrats at the expense of MSPs. No thanks. You are not a supporter of Scottish independence, just subservience to the diktats EU establishment and their big business cronies.

You've been asked before to prove this and neglected to do so (just like UKIP, whose arguments you favour). By which mechanisms will Holyrood be able to disregard EU laws if the UK leaves, given we don't know what kind of trading relationship the UK will have with the EU, and given you want the British government (which has one solitary Scottish MP) to negotiate it? You're not a supporter of Scottish independence, just subservience to the British establishment and its big business cronies.