The difference In the vote was 65+ voters who voted overwhelmingly No 73-27%. Excluded that group 55% voted for independence. They were the right limiting factor. I understand why they wanted to stay in the union economic, historical and social attachment to the union and fear of the unknown. But just looking at the demographics it's foolish to say this referendum should be once in a lifetime or once In a generation. If the SNP returns a majority to holyrood the people o Scotland should get another chance 10 years should be the limit for another referendum.
You are assuming that as people grow older, they won't change their opinion on independence. That's a false assumption. Additionally, there's a much more plausible argument that the "difference" would have been even wider had 16/17 year olds not got the vote, which in general elections they don't. Of that age group, 71% voted for independence. Of the 18-24 age group, only 48% did. That's a fascinating fall off. And what's so special about 10 years? Why not every year? Or every month?
The winds of change have started you cannot stop the inevitable march of history. Independence for Scotland will happen whether it happens 10 years from now or 50 the genie is out of the bottle and it will march on.
The YES campaigners, the 45's as they are now known, would like everyone to watch one of their promotional videos for the next referendum ... (NSFW)
without trying to hold up the french political scene as a shining ideal (that would be daft!) this is what's happening here: more autonomy (meaning real responsability for schools, roads, culture... not flags and weepy songs) is being devolved upon the regions (whether they like it or not - it can be a real burden). there is even a component of international relations involved; rhône-alpes, the region of which lyon is the capital, has developed ties with regions in italy and switzerland they share borders and interests with. note that though they sometimes roughly coincide with historic entities, at least in name, these regions are fairly recent creations, and some are being readjusted right now; it has nothing to with brittany for the bretons or some nebulous corsican national feeling. they are administrative and not political bodies. they are run not by parliaments but councils. the growing importance of the régions is coming at the expense not primarily of the national government but that of the départements, shire-sized districts often too small to weigh much on the national level and absolutely insignificant in the continental framework. the situation in the united kingdom is different as there are four historic kingdoms the separate identities of which were always preserved even when real authority was completely centralized in london, but these distinctions have become almost entirely superficial. nothing substantial separates a glaswegian from a mancunian or the farmers of ayrshire and somerset anymore, no more than anything separates a lillois from a lyonnais, and probably much less a milanese from a neapolitan. that all of these have and always will have an emotional attachment to their "homelands" is a good and natural thing. taking advantage of these pre-existing entities as part of a cohesive administrative structure is obvious and rational. "national" independence however is at best anachronistic folly and probably something worse. the case of this scottish referendum and the bad feeling it seems to be raising suggests these movements are not simply a step back, they are a step forward in an unsuitable and even dangerous direction.
WTF? they let 16-year-olds vote? that's insane! they should have let 8-year-olds vote then. at least they listen to their parents instead of doing every last thing nutty they can think of to show they're... independent.
Like I said, I dont see the necessary experience with federalism in the UK. Other countries have centuries or at least decades of lived federalism(aka political culture). The UK merely one decade of "devolution". Federalism needs a strict rulebook with clear competences for all players etc. in form of a constitution. England had to be plit up into 10-15 states to prevent a Prussia-like domination. The House of Lords had to be abolished to give them states a say in the Upper House. That's all a bit much. What sort of competences should the federal government have? What sort of competences should the states have? Just giving a little more competences to the states or regions isnt going to work out - see France and their difficulties. Federalism works in Germany - but may not in Britain.
Its not quite the same. Scotland has always maintained its own legal and education systems, but at a personal level I agree.
Labour have announced that Lords reform will form part of their manifesto. I doubt its going to continue in its current form for too much longer.
People in Scotland CAN vote, y'know... I mean, you do realise that, right? They vote in their constituencies the same as me and everyone else. I think part of the problem is people have watched too many third-rate films with 'Professor' Mel Gibson explaining his theory of history in and not finding out what's ACTUALLY the case. Most of the regions in England think they've lost out to London and the south-east and, tbh, they're probably right. That's why we need a considered response to the Scottish referendum. The alternative implies that all the individual US states should claim total 'independence' from each other and, frankly, you could say the same about every OTHER country. I need 'independence' from the people next door too... I can see why huge corporate interests like it because it means they'll be able to pick us off, one by one, but for the ordinary person there's no real advantage to it.
Additionally, one of the major groups that were YES voters came from the 16-18yr old age range IIRC. Potatos/potatoes... tomatos/tomatoes *Incidentally, as I never voted because I now live in Newcastle and have done for quite a few years, I am not sure what way I would have gone if I had the option. I swayed from Yes to No quite a few times in the build up to the vote*
I suspect age DOES play a part but not in the way some are talking about it. I mentioned elsewhere that Sillar's 'controversial', (AKA nucking futcase), talk of giving the oil companies, banks and financial institutions 'a good kicking', (well, there'd be a 'day of reckoning' was the phrase but that was what people though he meant), put off MORE than a few. Most people in their late 40's and 50's will have some savings or some assets they can sell, (a house, normally), so any talk of destabilising the people that give out mortgages to prospective buyers and/or their pensions, won't go down very well. Younger people can move to another part of the UK or abroad if it all goes tits up but if you're an ex-miner, sheet metal worker or dustman, moving to London or Paris and becoming a commodities trader, pole-dancer or Java-app designer's probably NOT an option. This 'brave new world' shit's harder to sell to some of us, strange as it might seem to some people.
Let me know when New York imposes a separate and extraordinarily unequal tax structure on Montana. If 16-year-olds can legally get shitfaced drunk at 3 in the afternoon before they head to their job on the docks then they should be able to vote. QED.
I can totally understand that. As I mentioned my thoughts on it (the vote) swayed from Yes to No and vice versa more than a few times and I'm still unsure as to how I would have voted. Of course, I would hope that I would have researched the implications of either option far more than I did to give me an better overall view of things. One of my friends in Aberdeen had one simple question. What sort of impact would it have on his mortgage (with an English company) if the vote was Yes and, to my knowledge, he felt he was never given a thorough answer from anyone so was left feeling quite helpless when it came to casting his decision. That may be a narrow minded (or short-termism) way of looking at what was being referred to as a life changing once in a lifetime decision. Still, I wouldn't fault anyone for putting their immediate needs ahead of everything else. We're only human after all.
I suspect another age-related difference is that older people have actually experienced a time when many of the policies being pushed by the SNP were the reality in the UK. Having said that, only 48% of 16 to 24 year olds voted for independence...
Do you feel the same way about Quebec? It's now almost 20 years since their independence vote lost by a tiny margin...
I pointed this out earlier. The falloff in the "yes" percentage between that age group and the 18-24 group is fascinating. I should have written 18-24 for the 48% figure.
Not sure what you're referring to there... Anyway, the various states that voted for shrub 'imposed' a ridiculous and illegal war on the ones that didn't in Iraq and did many other things they wouldn't agree with... is THAT any better? That's pretty much the basis of democracy in ANY country, isn't it.
This article references a Lord Ashcroft poll. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29255449 And this a yougov poll. Their numbers seem to match: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...er-majority-of-young-people-voted-no.25407723
In all honesty I'm not sure ANY amount of research would have given you a clearer answer, as much as anything because the no campaign was pretending the sky would fall and the no campaign was pretending there was ZERO chance of any problems. The no campaign's job was easier, they just had to raise the question... but the no campaign should have been able to do a MUCH better job than they did. As for the veiled, (and not so veiled), threats... they would have been laughable if not for the seriousness of the subject.
Did you notice this bit? A post-referendum poll of 2,000 conducted by Lord Ashcroft said that 71 per cent of 16-17-year-olds and 48 per cent of 18 to 24-year-olds voted Yes giving ammunition to Yes supporters that the young were being deprived of an independent Scotland by their older peers. However, only 14 people in that age group responded to the survey. Wow... VERY scientific