Referendum on Scottish Independence

[CELTICEMPIRE]

I think everyone can guess my opinion on this.

I hope freedom wins. I am worried that England will send in troops and crush Scotland if they vote yes though.

 

[Borachio]

And this would be the troops who are in large part Scottish, would it?

 

[Pangur Bán]

I'd say if they get a no vote, then the SNP will take the undoubtedly large minority yes vote as encouragement to push for another vote as soon as possible. Could be 10 years. Could be as little as 3.

But yes or no, things are definitely changing.

You need the SNP to win another Scottish election though, with a majority and with a different leader. They've been delaying many of their most unpopular cuts, the ones needed because of Osborne's austerity, in order to keep this toxicity away from the referendum. Many of the new 'powers' proposed for the Scottish parliament in the event of a No are designed to promote infighting in Scotland. Could be decades before it happened again. And next time Westminster might not agree to recognize the process. Scots could go ahead with it, but could be undermined by various tactics (i.e. No supporters told not to vote, international recognition blocked, etc).

 

[Antilogic]

And this would be the troops who are in large part Scottish, would it?

Is a disproportionate fraction of the UK military Scottish?

 

[Flying Pig]

Actually, yes, but the idea of the rump UK invading Scotland is ridiculous even without that.

 

[Earthman]

My guess is 54% "Yes" and 46% "No".

I found a map showing regional support for independence in Scotland. It says that most of Highlanders vote "Yes".

Then I was curious about population density in each of these regions, including Highlands, and I found this:

http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files2/the-census/Webster_final.pdf

"Scottish Population Statistics", Edinburgh 1952, authors divided Scotland into 3 regions:

Highland = 5/7 of area (21330 sq. miles)
Central Belt = 1/7 of area (4269 sq. miles)
Lowland = 1/7 of area (4196 sq. miles)

Central = Ayr, Dunbarton, Lanark, Renfrew, Clackmannan, Stirling, the Lothians, Fife, the City of Dundee
Highland = everything north of Central Belt
Lowland = everything south of Central Belt

Population in thousands in 1755:

Total - 1265
Highland - 652 (51%)
Central - 464 (37%)
Lowland - 149 (11%)

Population in thousands in 1861:

Total - 3062
Highland - 1020 (33%)
Central - 1769 (58%)
Lowland - 273 (9%)

Population in thousands in 1871:

Total - 3360
Highland - 1041 (31%)
Central - 2047 (61%)
Lowland - 272 (8%)

Population in thousands in 1931:

Total - 4843
Highland - 980 (20%)
Central - 3612 (75%)
Lowland - 251 (5%)

Population in thousands in 1951:

Total - 5096
Highland - 1000 (20%)
Central - 3840 (75%)
Lowland - 256 (5%)

Share of Highlanders decreased during 200 years from over 1/2 to just 1/5 - what is the reason for this?

Also since the Union of 1707, during 300 years population of England has been growing much faster than that of Scotland.

I googled data which says that in the 17th and the 18th centuries Scotland had over 20% and perhaps up to even 25% of the population size of England. Today Scotland has only 10% of the population size of England, so in this respect the union has been clearly disadvantageous for Scotland.

Any explanations why population of Scotland decreased from >20-25% of England's to just 10% of England's during 300 years?

 

[Flying Pig]

The Highlands are a miserable place - people moving from remote farming areas into cities is nothing new. England's population grew because it was so much richer, and more recently it's been a much greater target for immigration. I'm not sure where you're getting that the Union has been disadvantageous, unless you're confusing correlation with causation.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

I think the UK is worried about the loss of power internationally if it loses Scotland (I heard they might lose their permanent security council seat). It definitely sounds like something Tony Blair would do.

 

[Earthman]

I thought that was maybe due to a higher emigration rate from Scotland than from England, or due to some famine like in Ireland. In Ireland emigration was so large that there are several times more people of Irish descent abroad than in Ireland today. Poor / rich did not correlate so much with population growth in the 1700s-1800s. There were some rich regions in Europe in which population was growing very slowly (like 19th century France) and a lot of really poor regions in which demographic booms started precisely at that time (for example Russia). Probably there are other explanations than England being richer.

The Highlands are a miserable place - people moving from remote farming areas into cities is nothing new.

But why didn't they build cities in the Highlands?

 

[Flying Pig]

Do you think the Scots would have stayed put (in a world without border controls) or not starved had there been no Act of Union? It's neither of those, but I'm curious to see what you think.

 

[Pangur Bán]

The Highlands are a miserable place - people moving from remote farming areas into cities is nothing new. England's population grew because it was so much richer, and more recently it's been a much greater target for immigration. I'm not sure where you're getting that the Union has been disadvantageous, unless you're confusing correlation with causation.

What you're saying is partially right, but the destruction of the Highland population was primarily driven by the British market state, whereby landowners were both empowered (red coats) and incentivized (markets) to raise rents & drive out 'tenants' so that they could farm sheep, in turn used to supply the English industrial system, to supply the elite benefiting from expanding market empire. The landless poor created by this were drafted into the British army to fight their wars, and settled in dangerous colonial areas to defend their frontiers.

As you say, such processes affected many parts of England too (to a much lesser extent), as well as Ireland. But for the Highlands Union was truly cataclysmic (whether it was inevitable or not is a different argument).

 

[Borachio]

Is a disproportionate fraction of the UK military Scottish?

Yes, indeed. There's always been a disproportionate flood of Scots moving southwards in search of work, anyway. Scottish involvement in the armed forces are a part of this, and there are a disproportionate number of Scottish regiments anyway.

Also, claymores and clans. And all that.

 

[Cheetah]

Actually, yes, but the idea of the rump UK invading Scotland is ridiculous even without that.

So let the Scots invade England and get this over with!

 

[Flying Pig]

What you're saying is partially right, but the destruction of the Highland population was primarily driven by the British market state, whereby landowners were both empowered (red coats) and incentivized (markets) to raise rents & drive out 'tenants' so that they could farm sheep, in turn used to supply the English industrial system, to supply the elite benefiting from expanding market empire. The landless poor created by this were drafted into the British army to fight their wars, and settled in dangerous colonial areas to defend their frontiers.

As you say, such processes affected many parts of England too (to a much lesser extent), as well as Ireland.

I find it hard to believe that the same wouldn't have happened with an independent Scotland - all that would have changed, to my mind, would have been the colour of the coats in question. You also make all of this 'drafting' and 'settling' sound a lot more centralised and forced than it actually was.

 

[gangleri2001]

I'm going with

52% No
48% Yes

 

[Pangur Bán]

I find it hard to believe that the same wouldn't have happened with an independent Scotland - all that would have changed, to my mind, would have been the colour of the coats in question. You also make all of this 'drafting' and 'settling' sound a lot more centralised and forced than it actually was.

Independent Scottish state didn't have the power to institute such a system or access to those markets. People don't realize that modern state power came to much of Scotland with London rule not with the earlier state based in Edinburgh.

Scotland would have been a relatively poor rural society like Norway had the British state not came in, perhaps a little more violent like Albania with some sporadic outside interference. It would probably have been a little less creative (without access to the patronage & wealth coming from English markets), but not overly so since its church system instituted a system of near-universal literacy prior to the Union.

 

[Benefactor]

I'm going with 56% No, 44% Yes. We'll see tomorrow.

 

[Phrossack]

I'd say 52% Yes, 48% No.

 

[Borachio]

So let the Scots invade England and get this over with!

This has happened several times in the past. They generally get as far as Derby (about) and then seem to run out of steam, somehow.

 

[luiz]

Are there exit polls in the UK? If so, what are they saying?