Why did Scottish secessionists lose the 2014 referendum?

[Domen]

45% voted for independence in the referendum and 55% voted against it. The difference was small, but why did the secessionists lose?

It is actually very probable that the scale was tipped in favour of the Union by people of Non-Scottish ethnicity who live in Scotland.

According to 2011 census, ethnic Scottish people were less than 84% of the population of Scotland (4,445,678 out of 5,295,403):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ethnic_groups_in_Scotland

Scottish - 84,0%
Other British - 7,9% (vast majority of them English - most certainly over 7,5%)
Irish - 1,0%
Irish Traveller - 0,1%
Polish - 1,2%
Other White ethnic group - 1,9%
Pakistani - 0,9%
Indian - 0,6%
Bangladeshi - 0,1%
Chinese - 0,6%
Other Asian - 0,4%
Caribbean - 0,1%
African - 0,6%
Mixed or multiple ethnicity - 0,4%
Arab - 0,2%
Other - 0,1%

And statistics show that among people who actually identify as ethnic Scottish people, majority supported independence:

Data posted below is from 2013 (when overall support for independence was still lower than during the referendum):

There was a clear correlation between national identity and how people would vote:

"Scottish not British" ----------- ca. 55% Yes, ca. 15% Undecided, ca. 30% No
"More Scottish than British" ----- ca. 40% Yes, ca. 15% Undecided, ca. 45% No
"Equally Scottish and British" ---- ca. 15% Yes, ca. 10% Undecided, ca. 75% No

As illustrated by this graph:



The fact that people of Non-Scottish ethnicity (especially "Other British") voted against secession from the UK, is also illustrated by this data:



Reason why age group 18-24 voted contrary to overall pattern is because it includes many English, etc., people who study in Scotland.

One thing which contributed to "No" victory is the fact that there is no such thing like Scottish citizenship - and not only Scottish citizens were eligible to vote. Because there is no Scottish citizenship, everyone could vote even if they are residents in Scotland just temporarily (like e.g. foreign students).

The only native ethnic Scottish group who voted for the UK, are old people (who will probably not live to see long-term consequences of their vote anyway):





So it seems that groups which tipped the scale in favour of the Unionists were:

1) Non-Scottish ethnic & national minorities in Scotland, especially English people, who are over 7,5% of Scotland's population.
2) Old Scottish people who very likely won't even live long enough to see the long-term results of their decision.

In case of old people probably romantic sentiments such as memories of united British efforts during WW2 also influenced their views.

Another factor was:

3) Cameron's belated (but very seductive) promise of Devolution Max, which convinced many people to vote "No" in the last moment.

But wait - what is Cameron doing now? Certainly nothing even remotely related to keeping that promise!

 

[Manfred Belheim]

And so... what? Ban people who live in Scotland, but can't produce the family tartan as credentials, from voting? After several hundred years of free movement, marriage and intermingling, how do you define a "proper" Scot anyway? And should such "proper" Scots who don't live in Scotland have had a say? Should non-"proper" Scots who DO live in Scotland NOT have had a say?

The bottom line is everyone (over 16) who lives there had a vote on what to do with the place, and the majority voted to leave things as they are. Finding who to "blame" for the result is pointless.

 

[Domen]

how do you define a "proper" Scot anyway?

It is not my job to define them. People who define themselves as Scots, are Scots. As you can see, there is a clear correlation between Scottish identity and voting "Yes". Of course many people who identify as Scots voted "No", but a much smaller % than in case of people who identify as "British" or "English". Actually the data posted doesn't show how people who identify themselves as "English" or "mostly British" vote. We can assume that over 90-95% of them voted "No".

The bottom line is everyone (over 16) who lives there had a vote on what to do with the place, and the majority voted to leave things as they are.

But considering that younger generations are in favour of independence and only old people are against it, we can assume that the next referendum will bring Scotland independence. After the current old generation (60+) is no longer there, what will prevent Scotland from becoming independent?

If I were English and in favour of preserving the UK, I would have been very concerned about the detailed results of this referendum.

"Baby boomers" saved the UK. And those who fought side by side with England against Nazi Germany, as well as their children.

 

[Paul in Saudi]

As a tactic, the pro-Union people announced the Nationalist were going to win. This motivated people who would not otherwise have come to the polls to go vote.

A lower turnout would have favored the Nationalists, whose supporters were more motivated.

 

[Domen]

This motivated people who would not otherwise have come to the polls to go vote.

Voter turnout was in the end 84,6% - I remember that before the referendum they were predicting it to be 95% or something like this.

A lower turnout would have favored the Nationalists, whose supporters were more motivated.

I must disagree - their supporters were definitely not more motivated.

When you look how the support for secession was steadily growing, you can see that it took a lot of convincing of undecided people to get that 45%.

It does not really indicate motivation, but the power of Salmond's arguments.

Back in 2013 support for independence was only around 32% (average from 27 polls), much lower than 45% in the 2014 referendum:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014#2013

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

I wonder how Welsh people in Scotland voted?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

But considering that younger generations are in favour of independence and only old people are against it, we can assume that the next referendum will bring Scotland independence. After the current old generation (60+) is no longer there, what will prevent Scotland from becoming independent?

Well a) we can't assume that, because we don't know if they will keep that opinion as they age, or if the very act of aging and gaining more life experience (and perhaps more importantly, gaining a home, job and family that they wish to keep secure) would make them become naturally more conservative and less willing to change for the sake of it. And of course we still can't predict what government or governments will be in power in the future, what the political situation is, and how the overall cases for and against independence will change in that time.

and b) Even if you're right in your assumption, so what? Are you saying the older people shouldn't have had a say at all because they're going to be dead sooner? The fact is the referendum was held now, not in some hypothetical future, and the result is what it is.

Forgive me if I'm reading the wrong tone in your post, but it just seems to me like the position you support didn't win and so you need to look for reasons and excuses for why it didn't win, rather than just accepting that the majority of people just didn't agree with you. Such is democracy.

 

[Domen]

One note - we shouldn't call those in favour of Scotland's independence "nationalists", but secessionists. This is because nationalists were obviously on both sides - secession was supported by Scottish nationalists while union was supported by British nationalists. However, I suppose that both among those who voted "Yes" and among those who voted "No" majority were non-nationalists, who had to be convinced by arguments of another nature.

Leaders of "No" campaign were of course British nationalists and leaders of "Yes" campaign were Scottish nationalists.

But majority of their respective electorates escape such labels.

and b) Even if you're right in your assumption, so what? Are you saying the older people shouldn't have had a say at all because they're going to be dead sooner? The fact is the referendum was held now, not in some hypothetical future, and the result is what it is.

I'm just saying that because "No" was most strongly supported by old generations, there is a strong argument for another referendum in 10-15 years from now. Old people should have a say, but they shouldn't have a say "forever". That's why there is a strong basis for another referendum in 10-15 years.

Let them leave in the UK if they voted so, but why should future generations also live in the UK because their ancestors wanted.

Well a) we can't assume that, because we don't know if they will keep that opinion as they age

Age group 45-54 also voted for independence. Only "baby boomers" born immediately after WW2 and even older people voted against it.

and so you need to look for reasons and excuses for why it didn't win

Well, the referendum did not affect me personally because I live in Poland not in the UK. I'm just curious about various aspects of it.

But I know few Polish people who live in Scotland and - as far as I know - voted against independence. Which supports my assumptions.

Polish people are generally against harming the UK because they like it so much (despite the "Western betrayal" in World War 2).

 

[Darkflight]

Why do people make the thread title a question when they are not asking a question?

 

[Domen]

Why do people make the thread title a question when they are not asking a question?

But you are free to provide your own answer! I only suggested one of possible answers.

BTW - I can see that you are from Norway. Norway seceded from the union with Sweden back in 1905:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_union_between_Norway_and_Sweden

What do you think about that secession? Was that a good decission? Should Scotland also leave the UK, in your opinion?

================================

United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_between_Sweden_and_Norway

You had a very cool flag! Union Jack of Sweden and Norway:

 

[Darkflight]

My opinions on secessions or potential secessions are irrelevant. These situations are far to complex for me to make anything other then a blind guess.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I'm just saying that because "No" was most strongly supported by old generations, there is a strong argument for another referendum in 10-15 years from now. Old people should have a say, but they shouldn't have a say "forever". That's why there is a strong basis for another referendum in 10-15 years.

Let them leave in the UK if they voted so, but why should future generations also live in the UK because their ancestors wanted.

Well that's just the nature of any vote. It represents the opinions and feelings at that point in time and no other. This isn't something that's unique to the Scottish referendum. But you can't really go having a referendum as big as this every 5 years or so like it's a general election. The decision has to stand for some decent amount of time or there's no point going through with the referendum in the first place. And what if there was another referendum in 10 years time and this time the Yes vote won? Would you still advocate more referenda every decade or so just to check if they wanted back in again? You can't just have the losing side in a referendum continually calling for the vote to be repeated until they get the result they want.

 

[Domen]

Well that's just the nature of any vote. It represents the opinions and feelings at that point in time and no other

Just to clarify - I'm not questioning the results of this referendum. I'm just saying that you can't claim that "Scottish people have decided once and for all". Especially considering who won - mostly old people; and who lost - mostly young people. I assume that majority of English people would like the next referendum to take place no earlier than year 2514, but that's not what's going to happen because that would be unfair to all young people who voted "Yes".

And what if there was another referendum in 10 years time and this time the Yes vote won? Would you still advocate more referenda every decade or so just to check if they wanted back in again?

If the results indicated that young people change their attitude and increasingly want to become part of the UK, then - sure, why not.

You can't just have the losing side in a referendum continually calling for the vote to be repeated until they get the result they want.

Democracy is supposed to adequately represent the opinions of people alive at a given moment - not of people who lived decades ago. And if you get a result like this, which indicates that in 10-20 years majority will likely have a different opinion than now, then it is natural to have another referendum.

But you can't really go having a referendum as big as this every 5 years or so like it's a general election.

I never mentioned 5 years. I suggested 10-15-20 years. BTW - take a look at Quebec. They already had two referenda. And they plan third one.

 

[EnglishEdward]

It is importance to understand that

"Independence"

was not a genuine option in the Referendum.


The view of the "Yes" campaign was that even if Scotland had voted "Yes",
Scotland would have remained part of:


(a) European Union (EU)

which is a defence alliance and for which EU laws would override Scots laws


(b) Currency Union with England

instead of having their own currency that would have enabled them to avoid
the problems Greece and Ireland experienced by not having their own currency
and so being unable to finance banks and deficits by quantitative easing


(c) North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)

which is a defence alliance which means going along with what the USA
does if not actually doing what the US tell them


(d) World Trade Organisation and its successors

which means doing what the USA, China and the big corporates want


(e) United Nations

which prohibits returning refugees and enslaving English found North of the border


(f) European Convention on Human Rights and its successors

which means granting votes to prisoners and prohibits capital punishment for
serial killers.


(g) Intellectual Property Right Agreements

which means paying Microsoft, Hollywood and others whatever they want
for software licences.


(h) a World subject to global warming and risk of diseases such Ebola


The fact that as many as 45% voted for a split with England rather reflects them being given an opportunity to demonstrate their understandable annoyance at London English arrogance.

A "Yes" vote would in my view have made remarkably little difference to the reality which would certainly not have been independence.


Nevertheless I, as an English man, would have very much welcomed a "Yes" vote;
but I felt constrained to say little as any honest input would not have helped that.

 

[bhsup]

"It is actually very probable that the scale was tipped in favour of the Union by people of Non-Scottish ethnicity who live in Scotland."

So scale was tipped by Scots. That's what you're saying. I would certainly hope it hadn't been tipped by Chileans.

 

[Domen]

"It is actually very probable that the scale was tipped in favour of the Union by people of Non-Scottish ethnicity who live in Scotland."

So scale was tipped by Scots. That's what you're saying. I would certainly hope it hadn't been tipped by Chileans.

What kind of Scots are those if they don't even have Scottish citizenship (there is no such thing). They are UKingdomians.

UKingdomians, also known colloquially as "U-Kies" or simply "Wookies".

Spoiler :

 

[Alba]

I'm English born Scot with Irish ancestry and I voted yes. If you live in Scotland then you're a Scot, and only if you want to be. Our foreign relations minister is a Scot of Pakistani origin. This vote wasn't all about identities; it was merely a vote for change. I reckon only a small number of people voted for solely nationalistic reasons. Most people voted for what political system they believe in.

Why did Scotland lose? Because most people backed the Union. It's just that simple. A large number of people were duped into voting no due to Westminster's barrage of biased news stories, lies and smear. We were also promised devolution max if we voted no.

We lost. But we shall not give in. The independence movement will go on. I want a new referendum anytime between 2016 and 2024.

How the media shafted the people of Scotland. Link.

 

[metatron]

We shall also add it to the list:
If white womenfolk had more than zero awareness of their privilege porposition 19 would have succeeded.
If white womenfolk had more than zero awareness of their privilege Merkel's chancellorship and her approach to the Euro crisis would be over.
If white womenfolk had more than zero awareness of their privilege Democrats would have to run actual Democrats instead of ineffective sexist phonies in the best case and Martha fracking Coakley in the worst.
[...]
If white womenfolk had more than zero awareness of their privilege Scotland would be independent now.

United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway:

Yeah, but some Norwegians had this dumb, young, very male idea fueled by rabid nationalism.
Which was really... as i said... dumb and lead to horrible results. You know, beause small nations are weak and fail.
Sweden should really free Norway from its selfimposed, plightful, impoverished errant ways.
Because: Better together.

Btw: Are there any Dutch and Swiss people around?
Yes?
Well, guys...
I have some very good news for you...

 

[Domen]

Most people voted for what political system they believe in.

Which is... ?

 

[Lillefix]

You had a very cool flag! Union Jack of Sweden and Norway:

Actually, it's slightly infamous. We call it the herring salad.