|
Post by Oz-T on Sept 3, 2014 10:16:26 GMT
A Scottish Divorce? Alert readers may be aware that there’s something big happening in Scotland this month. And no, it’s not the opening of a new fast-food franchise called McHaggis. On 18 September the Scots are voting in a referendum to decide whether they remain a part of the United Kingdom, or become an independent country. Now, being a nosy type of person, I sought insightful information about this from key people in Scotland when I was there last year (i.e. I bumped into an outspoken drunk in a bar during my Trafalgar tour). So always wishing to impart useful (and non-useful) information, here’s my take on how this all works: Basically, this is a marital tiff between Scotland and England. Wales would also have had a lot to say, had they not discovered many centuries ago that having any opinion about the English wasn’t as important as keeping your mouth shut. Opening it to only sing was the best way to get on with the English and that seems to have stood the test of time. So Scotland has been a bit niggly for a little while (i.e. the last 300 years) because they’re not all that happy being married to England. I was going to add something funny here about a third party to this relationship (i.e. Wales) but there might be kids reading this. Now, there are two lines of thought that instantly arise here. Surely after 300 years these two have gotten to know each other pretty well, so why separate after all this time? Is the snoring really that bad? Is it really that awful that Mr England sometimes forgets to put the bins out on garbage night? Is it unreasonable for Mrs Scotland to ask for a new range of skirts after wearing tartan for so many centuries? Another line of thought is that when some marriages struggle to last seven years, 300 years seems an eternity. And let’s face it, that’s a heck of a lot of nagging. Mr England isn’t as sprightly as he was in 1700, and Mrs Scotland isn’t as bonnie a lass either. Maybe it’s time? This was often a tumultuous relationship with England and Scotland behaving like a normal, loving marriage and raging war on each other from time to time. Relationships had improved by 1603 when Queen Elizabeth I died without a male heir. The new monarch had to follow the bloodline and the logical choice was James (son of Mary Queen of Scots, her cousin who she’d had some input in shortening back in 1587). So Jim became King of England (as James I) at the same time as he was king of Scotland (as James VI). To complicate things he also became king of Ireland (as King Paddy the First, if I’d been around to offer smart alec ideas). So suddenly, in a post-Tudor example of multi-tasking, England and Scotland shared the same monarch. King Jim didn’t waste any time in trying to unite the two countries under his realm – which must’ve alarmed the average Englishmen who preferred to keep wearing trousers. Then along came the marriage guidance counsellors in 1707 making both England and Scotland sign the Acts of Union. This was a pretty good contract because it sorted out what was what. Some things went fairly easily, such as who would wear the pants in this marriage (thank goodness for kilts – there’s endless material here for jokes!). Just before the formal union, some enterprising people (flag makers if you ask me) said that there would have to be a new flag for the newly married countries. To avoid years of bitching, they used an existing design, incorporating the flags of St George (red & white) and St Andrew (blue & white) to produce what was known as the King’s Colours, similar to the current UK flag but without the diagonal red cross. This was the Great Britain flag until somebody pointed out a century later that they should have included St Patrick’s red diagonal cross. They added that in 1801 to keep the Irish in a state of blissful happiness until Guinness took over. If you ask me, they should have scrapped the whole thing and opted for stars and stripes. Imagine the money they could have made later by suing the Americans for copyright infringements. So all was going fine with the marriage, apart from one important thing they forgot to do: sign a pre-nup agreement. That would actually come in handy right now, because as they say in the classics, breaking up is hard to do. What seemed like a splendid idea when the king was a Scot seems to have become a less than splendid deal later. Gradually, Scottish influence declined within the UK government and Great Britain itself lost its role as the world’s dominant influence. When your partner is no longer a world superpower, the allure of partnership dims somewhat. Many Scots now think that they would be better off being an independent country again, although I suspect it’s part of a diabolical plot to keep all that whisky to themselves.. Ending the union is not a new concept – there have been several votes over the years but they never reached the required number of votes. So here they are yet again, voting in a referendum to decide whether Scotland stays or goes. This is a vote by Scots, not all the UK. And heading the push for independence is Alex Salmond, Scotland’s First Minister. This is the title of the head of the devolved government – sort of a second level of government below national level (back in the late 1990s these second level parliaments were created for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to have some degree of local autonomy). So what are the compelling reasons for Scotland to stay as or go? Surprise, surprise, the main reason to stay in the UK relates to money. We all know that’s a key gripe in any divorce don’t we? And there’s always that matter of alimony – or as I call it, the high cost of leaving. Departing the union suddenly creates a whole lot of questions. Do they create their own currency? Will they have their own navy and army? Who owns the North Sea oil rigs? Do they share the same monarch? Will they set up passport controls all along Hadrian’s Wall? Who owns copyright on the recipe for haggis (I bet the Chinese already bought that one)? Well some of these are easily answered, but not others,. The main argument for splitting is that nice warm feeling of independence. The opposing line of thought is that it’ll become a damn expensive thing to do, and Scotland might just end up paying billions in the process. Similar reservations were mused by our tour director in mid-2013. Until recently, the polls were indicating that the Scots would stick with the union and do what most married couples do: blame each other for anything that goes wrong, especially if it relates to any bad behaviour by the kids. But this week the polls have narrowed considerably to be about 3 percentage points away from independence, and that’s got a few people seriously sweating about a major upheaval that would change the UK forever. My prediction? Dunno, but I’d be carefully watching those flag-makers to see whether they’re smiling or not.
|
|
|
Post by anitadolgin on Sept 3, 2014 18:29:56 GMT
Love your outlook on Scottish Divorce. Did now know there was such an issue. You learn a lot from this board. Thanks. Saki
|
|
|
Post by mallory on Sept 4, 2014 12:03:39 GMT
Hi Oz-T!
I have been a reader of the Trafalgar forum for many years but never joined as a member. I have to congratulate you on making that forum so informative and entertaining and I can see that this is going to continue here.
I also had no idea about the Scotland independence thing but you explained it in your usual informative way with the humor that makes it really worth a read. Well done!!!
|
|
Patty
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by Patty on Sept 4, 2014 21:34:00 GMT
Hello, with my pending trip to both England and Scotland after this vote. It will be interesting to see if Mister and Missus will be hot or cold. I guess we need to wait to see if a divorce has been decided or not. ?
|
|
|
Post by auselle on Sept 6, 2014 1:12:38 GMT
I was over there last month and I got the feeling that the people thought they were not being given enough detail about what would happen if they vote "yes" eg. currency, EU, government etc. so the general feeling was that it would be a "no" vote.
|
|
|
Post by Oz-T on Sept 10, 2014 12:21:23 GMT
That's true for a month ago, Auselle, but the mood seems to have significantly shifted since. Latest polls this week now have the 'Yes' independence vote at 51% with 49% saying "No".
That is not only a big change, but also reason for many Brits to panic. What seemed as unlikely and unworthy of a contingency plan has suddenly morphed into a major worry for all of Britain. People are hurriedly reassessing what the future holds for the UK and there's plenty to worry about. Already, the UK pound has fallen against the USD by 3% in just one week and UK businesses are extremely worried.
What started out as straightforward nationalism is now threatening the UK economy and finances. This is a very big issue that may have outcomes never imagined.
|
|
|
Post by purvis on Sept 10, 2014 17:08:01 GMT
Don't worry about the British Pound the Brits now have Mark Carney (Formerly the head of the Bank of Canada) now heading the Bank of England. It just may be that England needs a Canadian to guide it through these times. Oh and by the way Mr. Carney comes from Alberta Canada my home province. Good luck Mark. Purvis
|
|
|
Post by Oz-T on Sept 10, 2014 21:59:44 GMT
You seem to have taught Mr Carney well, Purvis. He's a capable person with a good reputation.
However, a central banker only has a few levers with which to influence a currency. He can adjust interest rates, alter the money supply and provide stability. But if Scotland falls off the UK map, the shock to the system will be immense, and the problems will go well beyond managing the currency.
|
|
|
Post by Oz-T on Sept 11, 2014 2:18:33 GMT
Carney has also taken a stand on the future of the currency, stating that Scotland would struggle to keep the UK pound as its currency if independence happens. Salmond wants to keep the pound but that's wishful thinking, probably designed to calm the voters. The main political parties in Westminster have already declared that there won't be a common currency if Scotland goes its own way. As Carney said, "in that context a currency union is incompatible with sovereignty".
Of course, he's right. Just ask the smaller Eurozone countries what they think about sharing the euro and they'll concede that everything's controlled by Germany - and that's exactly what would happen to Scotland. Do they seriously expect to be independent when they're shackled to the English economy and the currency is managed by the Bank of England? Scotland represents 8% of the UK population and 9% of gross domestic product. Separated, it'll be a minnow forced to swim in England's current. If economic times get really nasty, Scotland could end up a bit like Greece - not having its own currency to devalue, and therefore copping the full force of recession. Currency devaluation happens to be one of those handy shock absorbers that help prevent businesses fail and people to retain their jobs in economic downturns. Perhaps Scotland is prepared to learn these lessons after it locks in that sort of future?
|
|
|
Post by purvis on Sept 11, 2014 3:38:50 GMT
Scotland must become independent at whatever cost. My late husband was a Scot and I am of Irish decent. The British Empire no longer exists which is as it should be. Each country must navigate it's own course regardless how difficult that may be. Britain is no longer the powerful nation it was in the past as since the end of the second world war it has fallen far from it's former status in nations. The Scottish people have a right to not be beholden to the Brits who over centuries have heavy-handed held them down as they have the Irish. One has only to look at "The Troubles" in Ireland to see what British interference in another country's affair can do. If the Scots vote no to independence it will only become the beginning of a long struggle as it has been in Canada with the Quebec. Purvis
|
|
|
Post by Oz-T on Sept 11, 2014 4:10:27 GMT
No disagreement with their desire to be independent, Purvis. I'd just question what that cost will be, and whether the Scots have been fully informed about what lies ahead. I would be seriously troubled by Salmond making assertions that he'd stick to the pound when in fact that's nonsense. He's seeking political independence on one hand, but planning to surrender financial independence on the other. I can't see how those conflicting messages can ever be reconciled. The cost is important because there's no point finally becoming free of the English if the alternative is to become hostage to bankers and suffering years of economic stagnation. Swapping one 'tyrant' for another will only end in tears.
Whilst I'm sure that Salmond genuinely intends to do what he thinks is in the interests of Scotland, I can't help suspecting that this is largely a quest to gain political power. I just hope that the Scots have been adequately advised about all the likely repercussions before they vote in the referendum. There are incredibly high stakes here, and it's only fair that the voters fully understand everything. The people I spoke to didn't seem to show this last year when I was there, so hopefully it's better now.
There are several senior politicians trying to argue that a halfway compromise would be to legislate greater autonomy for Scotland, rather than have the Scots leave the union. However, that probably won''t be enough after the flame of independence has burned so brightly.
|
|
|
Post by keitel on Sept 11, 2014 8:48:52 GMT
I was just thinking. If Scotland does split would that necessitate a change to the British flag?
|
|
|
Post by Oz-T on Sept 11, 2014 9:46:03 GMT
Maybe, maybe not. It's been talked about considerably, but the decision would rest with the UK government. Presumably it'd remove the blue and be left with the following: Pretty cool eh? Well, no actually; it looks insipid to me. If I was betting on it, the UK would leave the union jack untouched. There's no legal impediment to this as the St Andrew cross isn't a copyright emblem. And above all, it saves money to leave the flag alone.
|
|
|
Post by purvis on Sept 11, 2014 16:46:41 GMT
I see that several leading British politicians have quickly gone to Scotland when it has become apparent that the YES vote may take the day. I find it very interesting that the Brits didn't understand the desire of the Scots to want independence but simply assumed that the vote would fail and that the situation would remain as it has always been for centuries. If Scotland does vote for independence it appears that the North Sea Oil will be in Scottish waters therefore owned by Scotland. That should in itself help the Scottish economy. I also hope the Scots understand the entire ramifications of a YES vote and this is not just a ploy to win power by some unethical politicians . I guess we will know in a very short number of days which way the Scots have voted. Purvis
|
|
|
Post by Oz-T on Sept 12, 2014 0:44:31 GMT
Yes, those politicians have indeed ventured north to plead for the 'No' vote as they see problems for the UK if a split happens - even though the greater difficulties will be faced by Scotland. However, the Scots don't take too kindly to Westminster parliamentarians so maybe the effect will be the opposite to that intended.
And while the North Sea Oil would technically belong to Scotland, the rigs and transport infrastructure are probably owned by corporations. Hence, Scotland would only be able to charge royalties for the oil extracted. But here's the dilemma: the North Sea oil is running out. Oil revenue is around half what it was in 2000 and rapidly declining. In fact, it's the most massive decline in production of any oil-exporting country. It's turned the UK into a net importer of crude oil. Oil will not be a saviour to Scotland - it's a rapidly depleting resource and that's why the Scottish Nationalists are desperate to trigger this referendum now. In a few years time they won't be able to push for independence on the basis that Scotland has a decent revenue stream from oil. That scares me that Scottish politicians aren't telling this to their constituents.
Mark Carney from the Bank of England has said that independence will mean Scotland having to build tens of billions of pounds in war-chest savings to prevent the markets from savaging it. To save that sort of money, Scotland would face years of austerity. This isn't a partisan Englishman speaking; Carney is a reputable Canadian economist and central banker.
There have been some concerns about the accuracy of the latest polls and maybe the latest ones are what's needed to stir the "No" supporters into voting.
|
|
|
Post by purvis on Sept 12, 2014 2:30:26 GMT
I think that if Scotland votes to separate from the UK it will certainly have many problems to solve but if it votes to remain in the union then the separatist movement will only simmer for many years as it has here in Canada. When Mark Carney left as Governor of the Bank of Canada and his partner Jim Flarety passed away Canada lost the 2 men who guides the economics of this country for many years only to be replaced by much lesser men. If anyone can lead the British economy efficiently then it is Mark Carney. Canada's loss Britain's gain.
|
|
|
Post by Oz-T on Sept 12, 2014 3:05:46 GMT
That's all very true, Purvis. The really difficult thing is how to grant some form of acceptable independence without going so far as to split the union. The devolution concept intended to achieve this outcome but it clearly wasn't enough - the rise of the Scottish Nationalist party is evidence of that. In trying to keep Scotland in the union, the prime minister has been offering inducements, such as allowing Scotland to control taxation. This would seriously disadvantage English businesses in the north who might struggle to compete with Scottish counterparts just over the border. This is now triggering debates about whether there should be fewer Scottish MPs in the parliament and there's a long-standing concern about how much is paid in subsidies to Scotland already. Some Conservative MPs think that Scotland should be allowed to go their own way so those subsidies would cease. Yes, that's quite understandable if Scotland breaks away, but that'd also cause a painful crunch on Scotland's businesses and general population. Nobody wants to see Scotland ravaged by the economic storms it's currently protected from. If the referendum fails, I do agree that the issue will continue to simmer. And for the record, I have Scottish, Irish and English ancestry. Which sort of makes me prone to have plenty of arguments with myself...
|
|
|
Post by Oz-T on Sept 17, 2014 23:55:54 GMT
UPDATE: In a few hours the polling booths will open and Scotland will vote. Some people believe it's a decision to: a) Stay in the UK, gain some further autonomy, retain stability, but not quite become a fully independent country; or b) Finally become independent, and able to control its own destiny - but in the process cause massive economic problems that will hurt the UK, and Scotland even worse. Opinion polls are showing this to be a very close call, probably dependent on the undecided voters eventually committing themselves one way or the other. Unfortunately, every opinion poll is a small sample size, making it difficult to assess. Some sources are reporting: - Banks have revealed that they have sent millions of pounds worth of banknotes to Scottish branches in case there's a Yes vote and panic breaks out, causing people to rush to ATMs and banks to withdraw their funds.
- Many businesses have made rough plans to relocate their operations back into England if a Yes vote wins. Pension giant Standard Life is one of those companies. Unemployment will be the result.
- Business investment in Scotland has already stalled due to the uncertainty of the vote. This will undoubtedly hurt the Scottish economy into the future.
- Even a close No vote won't end the uncertainty if there's likely to be another referendum at a later time. That'll kill investment in Scotland.
- The UK pound has suffered falls and will probably dive if the Yes vote wins. Conversely, it should bounce back in the event of a No vote. Clearly, markets think this whole independence thing is an awfully destructive idea.
In a day and a half we should know Scotland's fate.
|
|
|
Post by Oz-T on Sept 18, 2014 3:15:18 GMT
Pending the outcome of the referendum, the UK will change anyway. A close No vote leaves the UK intact, but with momentum for Scotland to secede some time in the future. That equals uncertainty, which will be painful. A Yes vote goes quite further, because that equals extensive and sudden change that if uncontrolled, could be catastrophic.
Divorce is often the easy bit; the real trouble begins when you need to split up the family assets. That's traditionally when the parties turn feral. For example, there are thousands of government offices in Scotland, belonging to the UK. Who gets to own them? What happens to the government employees work there? What about pensions - why should the UK be paying pensions to Scots? Or should they still be entitled to UK pensions because they paid UK taxes all their lives? And then there's the huge question: How do you split the UK debt so Scotland gets its share of it?
Now, you'd like to think that the two parties to any divorce would settle things amicably and logically. True, but does that happen very often? From what I've seen of divorced couples, the separation itself is the major emotional turning point. Thereafter, things become a "this is mine and that is yours" approach, causing each party to stake their claim and usually being so far apart in expectations that it's an awful mess. I really can imagine the English, Welsh and Northern Irish to pretty much say "Ok Scotland, you're the ones who asked for this separation, so off you go and fend for yourself. If that causes you massive poverty, then so be it.". That's not a great start for splitting assets and debt and it's likely to mostly hurt the junior partner or the one who wanted out. Scotland happens to be both.
Now think of the politics. Next year there will be a UK election. If the Labour Party wins, it'll most likely be due to having a majority of Scottish seats. So when Scotland formally breaks away, presumably parliament loses those seats. Does that mean that a new government suddenly loses power because it's lost dozens of seats? Probably. And how would a UK government negotiate the terms of the split of assets? My gut feel is that they would prefer to put forward some options and put those to a referendum to the UK (non-Scot) voters. If so, you can bet that the average voter will be fairly harsh on Scotland, along the lines of what I said in the previous paragraph.
One of my big concerns about all this is that these important issues are not being put to the Scots in the referendum. The Yes campaign is based primarily on emotion (freedom and independence) with very little detail on how assets and debt are split, and what sort of country will be left after the split. If the Scots become horrified at what they have done, it will be too late.
|
|
|
Post by purvis on Sept 18, 2014 6:03:38 GMT
I agree with your comments on the outcome of a YES vote in the Scottish elections which take place tomorrow Sept. 18th but when the word independence is talked about the heart and not the head often rules. No matter which side wins things will never be the same between Scotland and England. I guess we will have to wait until tomorrow nite here in Canada to find out what will be Scotland's future. Having been raised by an Irish father who to say the least very much disliked England for all the ills England delivered onto the Irish I personally would vote for independence even if it did mean hard times ahead. Nothing worthwhile in life comes without a struggle. If the No side comes out ahead I worry what price Scotland will pay in the near future for even thinking of independence. Purvis
|
|
|
Post by Oz-T on Sept 18, 2014 7:19:26 GMT
That's exactly right, Purvis. I'm 100% for independence, but 100% against the price of it which will almost certainly be an economic catastrophe for the Scots. Alex Salmond is a smart, canny Scottish politician and I'm sure he means well. But he sounds awfully dismissive of any arguments about the negative consequences that necessarily follow breaking away from the UK. He could easily transform from a Scottish hero to a Scottish pariah.
|
|
|
Post by scottie on Sept 18, 2014 13:55:23 GMT
I was born in Scotland, came to Canada 40 years ago. The majority of my family still live in Scotland and, because of this, I have been following the campaign for some time. Having weighed up the pros and cons, I sincerely hope it is a "No" vote. The media have been focusing on the Yes voters and the No's are going about their business quietly. To see young men dressed like Mel Gibson shouting "Freedom" is making a mockery of the seriousness of this referendum.
No matter the outcome, Scotland will never be the same. This has split families with fierce arguments on who is right and who is wrong. I just pray that common sense prevails and the voters think with their heads and not their hearts. Because of the 5hr time difference, I should find out the result before bedtime.
|
|
|
Post by californian on Sept 18, 2014 16:13:11 GMT
Hoping for the best, Scottie, I know how it is to live in a country where families are divided, no matter the outcome, it will take some time for everyone come to terms with the results, I heard that the final votes will not be counted until Friday morning, lots of nerves if it's close. Hope is a rotund NO.
|
|
|
Post by scottie on Sept 18, 2014 16:46:07 GMT
Hi Californian, my sister emailed me a few hours ago after she had cast her vote. Emotions are getting out of control and, as she said, educated people are fighting verbally and physically in the streets. From what I can understand, the final result will be announced in Edinburgh around 7.00 a.m Friday. However, the results will be coming in during the evening from the various polling stations so we might have an answer before bedtime tonight. The latest poll from the Guardian newspaper has the No's ahead of the Yes' by 6% - I am keeping my fingers crossed they are right !
No matter what the result is, I am concerned of what happens in the streets of Scotland tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by Oz-T on Sept 18, 2014 22:03:22 GMT
The polling booths closed an hour ago so Scotland has now locked in its future. I agree with Scottie - this has become too emotional and it's gone in directions that are incredibly divisive. But isn't that exactly what the Scottish National Party effectively stands for? Political independence that is sought in the absence of tyranny and a clear majority support is bound to divide people, as it's doing now.
Sadly, I suspect that Scotland will be lesser after all this, even if the No vote just sneaks in.
|
|
|
Post by Oz-T on Sept 19, 2014 0:59:39 GMT
RESULTS 1 (1:50am Scotland time): The first referendum results have been declared for the electorate of Clackmannanshire (which is in the Stirling, Fife, Perth area) and are as follows:
Yes: 46% No: 54%
This is spot on with what the last YouGov opinion poll forecast. It's only one electorate with plenty to go (32 in all) before enough districts come in to provide an accurate sample. The referendum will be decided by a simple majority of total votes, rather than the number of winning electorates.
RESULTS 2 (2:00am Scotland time): Orkney Islands result:
Yes: 33% No: 67% - Pretty convincing here.
RESULTS 3 (2:45am Scotland time): Shetland Islands result:
Yes: 36% No: 64%
RESULTS 4 (3:00am): Comhairle result:
Yes: 47% No: 53%
That leaves the combined vote from four electorates at: Yes 42%; No 58% (Note: these are the four smallest electorates, so still plenty to go here. Glasgow and Edinburgh are huge electorates that will matter much more).
RESULTS 5 (4:00am): Result from 7 councils:
Yes: 49% No: 51%
The vote has narrowed after a couple of close results and the first council (Dundee) to show a resounding Yes vote (57%)
|
|
|
Post by scottie on Sept 19, 2014 3:01:44 GMT
Things are heating up! Dundee have voted Yes with the other big cities still to come. So far, the Yes are at 49.1 % and the No at 50.9% Votes: Yes 172,426 No 178,811 Think I am in for a verrrrry long night.
|
|
|
Post by Oz-T on Sept 19, 2014 3:25:53 GMT
Yes, it's sounding a little scary for the union, Scottie. If an urban area like Dundee can swing that far to Yes, would Glasgow and Edinburgh do the same? With 9.7% of the electorate counted, just these two city areas will add a further 20%.
I heard from a Scot friend yesterday who was really worried about the vote. He lives here in Australia but is anxious about the welfare of his family and friends back in Scotland if the Yes vote succeeds. 'Economic chaos' was his bleak assessment of the future for Scotland if it disbands the union. He was particularly troubled by the fact that another Global Financial Crisis won't have the huge Bank of England and the large British taxpayer base around to bail out the Bank of Scotland like they did last time. Scary stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Oz-T on Sept 19, 2014 3:31:10 GMT
RESULTS 6 (4:30am): Result from 12 councils:
Yes: 47% No: 53%
There's been a reversal due to the latest councils being firmly No. However, none of the nine most populous electorates (representing 56% of Scotland) have delivered results yet.
RESULTS 7 (4:45am): Result from 17 councils:
Yes: 44% No: 56%
With 32% of the votes in, the No case has widened the gap. Only two of the ten largest electorates have completed their count and both voted No to independence.
RESULTS 8 (5:00am): Result from 24 councils:
Yes: 46% No: 54%
With the largest council (Glasgow) now in and voting yes, the margin has narrowed. However, with 8 electorates due, they would have to vote 63% Yes to tie the national vote - but the Yes vote has never reached this high a figure in any electorate so far.
|
|
|
Post by Oz-T on Sept 19, 2014 4:49:24 GMT
RESULTS 9 (5:45am): Result from 26 councils (32 in total):
Yes: 46% No: 54%
With Edinburgh still not in, the No vote is almost certainly too far behind to catch up. With 6 electorates due, they would have to vote 68% Yes to tie the national vote - extremely unlikely.
It's looking like the Scots have voted to remain in the UK.
RESULTS 10 (6:00am): Result from 29 councils (32 in total):
Yes: 44.6% No: 55.4%
With Edinburgh now in and voting 61% No, the referendum result is not in doubt: Scotland has decided to remain in the union. Only three councils left to lodge their results and the outcome is already clear. Brits will be waking up, turning on their radios and televisions and learning the result of Scotland's vote.
|
|