Being a disinterested observer, the results for England would both be uncertain and indirect, besides the almost certain loss of future Labour governments which is entirely a matter of preference. Otherwise I couldn't see very much different about our lives or policies, we'd just carry on as we are and hardly anyone would notice anything had changed, which of course directly it hadn't besides losing a number of Labour MPs.

But the real experiment now seems to exist totally in the minds of the experts and the accounts, as the exit polls and few results in show pretty much a wipeout if they will be extended, and unfortunately for the 40-50% people who were yes voters they will never actually know how the only known factors would affect them. Losing the subsidies for free university places, prescriptions and hospital car parks for a start. The oil is owned by private companies in the main and at it's last knockings so wouldn't help them much or for very much longer. The expected exodus of businesses would certainly be partial as given the choice most would want to be based in both a prosperous and non-socialist country. The SNP are way to the left of any other major party, so as a result Scotland would have been a fairly far left country, with an exodus of many high earners and companies who would almost inevitably have been faced with far higher taxes, both ideologically and economically as Scotland would need to raise taxes fairly drastically to fill the gap from Westminster.

They were also threatened with expulsion from the EU (an advantage if anything although many would not see it), and no known currency as neither England nor the EU would allow them to share theirs. Simply wanting to be free of an attached country who have technically done nothing worse than vote in a different way from them half the time for a few hundred years, and effectively guarantee socialism for a country with a population of 5 million and very little in the way of natural resources and like England lost most of its manufacturing base, is a decision most people outside could see fairly clearly, and now apparently so do those 5 million who would have been directly affected by it. In a way it is a win for common sense as I can clearly see all the potential disadvantages and none of the benefits. I can't see them getting even close to 50% now, and the interviews on the radio are already conceding defeat in spirit if not in certainty.

Did the Queen and Royal Family get to cast votes in the matter? They are Scotland's head of state, no?

Early returns certainly show a No vote going through. However, the Yes movement was certainly more vocal in terms of watching this event overseas. I'm in South Korea as of last week and most of the expats here have been watching with interest. Of course, we even had a Scotland category at last week's pub trivia and I knew so much more about it than I would have before. As it is a rather up-to-date topic, I wonder how many trivia folks were also having to reach into their brains for their knowledge of the U.K. Thank god for this thread!

You're kidding.

Looks very much like a NO vote for independence. I wonder if we will see Alex Salmond fall on his sword.

No, the Royal Family are not allowed to vote in any form of election or referendum. They have to be unbiased and above politics at all times.

Possibly not immediately, he can at least boast that by having the referendum he has got greater powers for the Scottish Parliament making them more independent of Westminster than they were before it happened.

Hopefully that will be the end of it for the remainder of my lifetime, but I think there will be noises for a while to come. I just hope there will be no trouble.

The Yes campaign attracted a high level of support in the poorer parts of Scotland, such as Glasgow and the western areas of Central Scotland (and also Dundee). This was something the media and the opinion polls hardly mentioned, at least here in England. There were two or three oblique hints, along the lines of 'The real problem is that Labour is having difficult mobilizing the big batallions', but that didn't make it clear whether that meant that they were expected to abstain or vote Yes. There were some other, even more oblique hints.

Dave Cameron and the other leaders of the main parties at Westminster have all made promises about extending devolution to Scotland to include some tax-raising powers, possibly Income Tax above the personal allowance. Wales and Northern Ireland will no doubt want extended devolved powers and England may want to end the right of MPs representing other parts of the UK to vote on matters that only concern England. It could well be the case that the last eight months or so of the present Parliament are dominated by restructuring the UK.

Here's an article on some of the complexities of subsidies and tax-raising powers for the devolved governments of the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29278544

My brain hurts.

He has stepped down! - saying: for Scotland the campaign continues and "The dream will never die".

I suppose that is the only pragmatic thing to do for the sake of letting Scotland enter negotiations for devo-max from a point of strength -- very difficult to argue for things if you have just lost a referendum -- but I am sorry to see it. I think he did his country proud, and that he made this referendum come around at all is amazing. 45% in favour of independence must be the strongest support it has ever had - got to applaud him for that.

Looking at this from a Canadian perspective, I don't really know if or how much the referendums here have changed anything really for Quebec. I do know that the possibility of separation shook me up personally and made me more glad that Quebec is part of my country, and more aware of their grievances.

I hope that something similar is part of the result for the UK, and also hope that some real change comes as well. It's good for an old institution to get a shake up now and then.

You're right agony. I think this has shaken the UK to the very foundations, and if promises made are kept then a better and fairer country for everyone could be the outcome.

Friday evening and there is trouble in Glasgow with a large police presence. Thousands of people have gathered, it could get nasty.

Latest reports are that the Police have broken it up with only 3 arrests and mounted police and other officers are staying on the streets to make sure fragmented groups don't reform into one big one.

It seems to have been sorted now. One bunch of idiots meeting another bunch of idiots gives police horses chance to laugh at humans.

Meanwhile, the hot news tip for next week is that Andy Murray (who really could do with a good PR manager) has ruined his mother's chances of winning Strictly Come Dancing. As if she had a chance in the first place.

This was on my Facebook page today from George Takei - I haven't laughed so much in ages!

Overheard: "Well, if Scotland had voted for independence from the U.K., what would have kept Canada from breaking away from the U.S.?"

Sigh. As for the roadkill thing, I was being facetious. Perhaps the people from the other side of the pond who commented might have found it funnier if I had started singing Monty Python's "I'm a Lumberjack and I don't care" instead lol. My error completely. More often than not, I'm not as funny as I think I am, so good thing I gave up that part-time job as a stand-up.

Fact is, Canada is a very huge country and not every province is the same. Ours is typically considered "redneck", in an otherwise "conservative" (this word means different things, politically at least, in different countries lol so I don't want to debate it here) general population elsewhere. Rural people here have no qualms about stringing up a moose that landed on their acreage after someone hit with a vehicle. I did however thoroughly enjoy all the US postings about things related to "redneckidness". You guys/gals were a hoot!

Back to the topic at hand:

I appreciated the comments from the Irish folks. While you don't have the SAME history (even within your own original country) as Scotland, some things are not entirely dissimilar either, so interesting perspectives. Thank you.

Bloomsby: Thank you for your tireless research and posting of links/ideas to help educate dummies like me on this matter.

Agony: Yup on Quebec and what it meant to us when they threatened to leave us (legally). I think I mentioned that earlier, but I didn't explain it nearly as well as you did.

Christina: as above, I can (sort of) understand how unsettling this must have been with the vote.

MG: All I can say is that with the possible (perhaps dubious) exception of Captain Kirk, that Star Trek actors probably never studied Canadian history lol

There have been a lot of very good things about this referendum. The turnout, when you consider we do not have compulsory voting and around 70% is considered a high turn out for a General Election to see Scottish voters engaged to the extent that 85% voted is one. The other is the fact that 16 and 17 year olds were allowed to vote. Our normal voting age is 18. Many said they were too young, would not take it seriously, but they proved the critics wrong. They were engaged, made careful and considered choices on their vote, really lived up to the responsibility. It was after all more about their future than anything else really. It has also opened up a whole debate on national politics, and is the current emphasis on London and the South East really right for our Country as a whole. Possibly not what the three main parties wanted to be debating in the run up to next year's General Election, but it is now in the forefront of the voters minds and they are going to have to come up with answers and proposals. The election is May next year, I think the next few months are going to be very interesting.

Finally, thanks to everyone who contributed on this one. Interesting to see the perspective from other parts of the world, and thanks to the Moderators for allowing what was verging on a political discussion to take place.

You raised the point of the voting age being lowered to sixteen for this, in Jersey they lowered the voting age to sixteen some years ago and I for one think that it was a mistake for normal elections though think perhaps for the Referendum it might have been fine since it is their future.

In Jersey we ended up with one 'MP' being voted in who was 22 years old, had never had a job since leaving university, and had absolutely no life experience. We have a general election next month and I see there is another 22 year old standing, as well as this (now) 23 year old. With the best will in the world, young people such as these two ought not be in government, especially when we are talking of less than 50 people being in government so they are more powerful than they would be in a large parliament.

Isn't there some kind of minimum age requirement for those contesting the elections, Sue? For our local elections, the minimum age for candidates is 25. Not much better than 22-23 but with 40-year-olds being considered 'young' in our country (politically), there's not much chance of a 25-year-old getting elected any time soon.

Yes, it is 18!



A Deputy is like a Member of Parliament with a mandate for a given area, a Senator has an island-wide mandate and a Connétable is rather like a mayor. All have a seat in the parliament at the moment although there is to be a referendum at the General Election next month asking if the Connétables ought to be removed from the parliament, known locally as The States.

I agree on General Elections Sue, I think 16 is too young to have the overall vote, but I think it was the right thing to do for this referendum.

Zorba, what Sue quotes also applies to the whole of the United Kingdom. You have to be 18 to stand for Parliament. Our current youngest MP is 29 and represents one of the Scottish constituencies.

I'd like it to be older - say 30. If only because that reduces the number of MPs who've done nothing else with their lives but be involved in politics. There's a great deal to be said for having MPs with some experience of life, of having to work 9-5 (or shifts), of being accountable to a boss, of having to balance income v rent v baked beans, etc. Going straight from university into Parliament gives them no understanding of how their constituents live.