Implications of Scottish Independence

[Strawberry]

That's why it's presented as a "what if" scenario, not as a prediction.

But as per my previous post, upon what do you base your prediction that there will be a very high turnout? I am not suggesting you're wrong, but I'm interested to know how you come to hold your opinion. And what kind of turnout level do you predict? North of 90%?

Look at other countries which have been faced with similar decisions, even Quebec got a 93% turnout and they're not even a country. Most of the time there isn't even anything as civilised as a referendum, people get so heated they go to war over it.

Is Scotland a uniquely apathetic nation? I would predict around a 90% turnout similar to Quebec.

 

[Giz]

even Quebec got a 93% turnout and they're not even a country.

Ouch. The Scot Pot gives it's opinion of the Quebec kettle.

 

[Damien Evans]

Ouch. The Scot Pot gives it's opinion of the Quebec kettle.

No. Not even remotely comparable.

 

[Strawberry]

Ouch. The Scot Pot gives it's opinion of the Quebec kettle.

Quebec is not a country and I'm not a Scot.

 

[Craig B]

Oh and by the way, why do you think that the population of Scotland, as a whole, are significantly more exercised by the independence referendum than a given company's shareholders might be by a change in that company's constitution?

Eh? Sorry, run that past me again.

 

[LondonJohn]

Quebec is not a country and I'm not a Scot.

Quebec has exactly the same status in international law as does Scotland (i.e. a semi-autonomous region/province of a sovereign nation state). Scotland is only a "country" in the colloquial and informal sense of the word.

Besides which, you might be surprised to have a chat with many Parti Quebecois members/supporters, who bandy around words like "Quebec nation" with gay abandon......

 

[LondonJohn]

Eh? Sorry, run that past me again.

It was a response to this post of Strawberry's:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10065874#post10065874

 

[Craig B]

It was a response to this post of Strawberry's:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10065874#post10065874

You find it hard to believe this?

People get alot more exercised about membership of the UK vs. leaving the UK than they do about changing a company's constitution.

 

[Ian Osborne]

JK Rowling backs the no campaign.

 

[funk de fino]

But they need not be uniform in their reasons:- Some of that group will be too uninterested to get off the sofa and some will be people who honestly can't decide which way to vote.

But someone who could not make up his mind which way to vote has not "lost". He has, as you said above, decided to accept the decision of the majority - as everyone else does.
You yourself said that "yes" voters "will crawl over broken glass" to vote, so barring a few people stuck in lifts or delayed at Heathrow, we can be pretty sure that yes voters are unlikely to stay away. Non voters are either people who honestly cannot decide, or people who don't care about the issue enough to get off the sofa.

The issue is whether inability, or unwillingness to choose should be seen as a default vote for the status quo. I see it as fairly reasonable*, and not suggestive of desperation at all, but certainly this should have been (and may have been) made explicit when the referendum was arranged.

*They should not be counted as "no" of course , but they should be taken account of. If 40% of Scots failed to bother to vote it would be hard to justify any claim of a passionate longing for independence.

The North Sea Oil & Gas people have spoken. 64% in favour on Independence in the "poll" I mentioned.

Much higher than I expected even.

 

[Information Analyst]

So is Scotland, of course.

In some contexts, yes. In others it might be just one (as with Wales & NI), while England gets divided into several.

 

[Rolfe]

Really, not. I mean really. Have you seen the size of the country? And the diversity? That's bordering on the insulting.

Rolfe.

 

[Information Analyst]

Really, not. I mean really. Have you seen the size of the country? And the diversity? That's bordering on the insulting.

Not really, because such splits are usually more to do with population numbers and/or (to a lesser degree) different legal structures. London is invariably a region on its own, not because of its tiny geographical size, but because of the population. The bit of the Department of Health I work for splits England into four high-level regions, one being London, but the other three are further split into 14 sub-regions overall. This sort of thing happens for administrative neatness, not as some sort of calculated insult to any particular geographical area. I mean, why else does Scotland now have a single unified police force?

 

[funk de fino]

Not really, because such splits are usually more to do with population numbers and/or (to a lesser degree) different legal structures. London is invariably a region on its own, not because of its tiny geographical size, but because of the population. The bit of the Department of Health I work for splits England into four high-level regions, one being London, but the other three are further split into 14 sub-regions overall. This sort of thing happens for administrative neatness, not as some sort of calculated insult to any particular geographical area. I mean, why else does Scotland now have a single unified police force?

Scotland had official regions.

 

[Information Analyst]

Scotland had official regions.

But the point is that "region" is a highly flexible term, covering geographies of wildly different size, depending on the context.

 

[Francesca R]

It's stupid and incorrect (in my opinion) to suggest that non-voters are equally as likely to be either a) apathetic but in favour of No, b) apathetic but in favour of Yes, c) genuinely undecided, d) genuinely uninterested.

You missed out (e) which is the theory of rational ignorance. And under that idea, a non-voter does not consider it worth her while to educate herself about pros and cons, because her vote will make approximately zero difference to the outcome, so she assumes that the smartest marginal voter will make the correct decision and she does not need to bother. Which is in accord with a default assumption that non votes defer the decision to those who do.

This is a real effect that happens all the time in elections and can easily apply to referenda.

 

[Francesca R]

why do you think that the population of Scotland, as a whole, are significantly more exercised by the independence referendum than a given company's shareholders might be by a change in that company's constitution?

Shareholder turnout percentages are given on page 15. That is for all AGMs and typically the numbers are boosted by (i) institutional investors who are generally more active in governance than the general public and (ii) broker voting by proxy which happens particularly in the US on non-material issues even if the shareholder doesn't return ballots.

Don't think you will find statistics for votes to change articles or charter.

A powerful reason why shareholder voting turnout is lower than public elections/referenda is that they have the alternative option of selling (which obviously has a much higher switching cost in the case of getting out of Scotland or whatever)

It is reasonable to suppose that the Scottish referendum turnout will be at least 80% in my view ETA: (The bookies have markets in that too, and the betting is about 75%)

 

[Giz]

No. Not even remotely comparable.

You're right. Quebec had passed under the control of London far more recently than Scotland and has a far higher proportion of non English speakers. So Quebec would only be expected to have a higher turnout (Scotland won't get to 93% will it?).

 

[Craig B]

You're right. Quebec had passed under the control of London far more recently than Scotland and has a far higher proportion of non English speakers. So Quebec would only be expected to have a higher turnout (Scotland won't get to 93% will it?).

Fifty two years more recently, 1759 against 1707. At the time of Quebec's conquest the commander of the British forces expressed the view

that Scottish soldiers should be sent into battle because "they are hardy, intrepid, accustomed to a rough country, and no great mischief if they fall."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Great_Mischief . Whether Scotland or Quebec, however, may be expected to have a higher referendum turnout, I don't know.

 

[Soapy Sam]

What do those on either side (or none) think of the revamped BT "No thanks" slogan?