So for what was supposed to be a "close race"...

[MohRokTah]

The Scottish Independence vote turned out to have No win in a landslide of 55.3% to 44.7%.

This tells me pollsters and pundits the world over have no fucking clue what's going to happen. This should have been a foregone conclusion.

[aikoaiko]

1. That's really not a landslide, but the polling was off.

[CJCRANE]

3. You assume that every voter had a firm opinion. This had never been done before in Scotland.

There were a lot of unknowns and the "No" campaign made a lot of last minute promises.

[MohRokTah]

13. Anything with more than a 10% difference is a landslide. eom

[aikoaiko]

16. maybe to some people.

[CJCRANE]

2. Not necessarily.

It's possible a lot of peope changed their minds at the last minute.

There were also a bunch of undecideds who may have swung a particular way at the last minute.

There were a lot of swings and turns in the campaign especially in the last week.

But the "No" vote was always ahead in most of the polls.

[JI7]

4. I think some who supported independence didn't

Come out to vote.

They got scared of economic troubles which might result. But they also didn't want to vote against independence because in their heart it's what they want.

[MohRokTah]

14. This was the largest Scottish turnout for an election since 1951. eom

[socialist_n_TN]

5. Well, it WAS a pretty radical proposition.....

I could see a situation where a goodly number of people flirted with the idea and then decided that it was a little TOO radical for comfort.

From just a cursory reading of the situation, it seemed a lot of the impetus towards separation was because of the neo-liberal agenda of both the Tories AND Labour in London. When there seems to be no other way out, radical solutions get considered. One thing to take away from this is that the radical solution WAS seriously considered, even if it was rejected. This time.

Personally I think the Scots need to consider the more permanent solution, a socialist Great Britain as a whole.

[MH1]

6. Well ... I think people started to think about the unknown consequences, and

reverted to the conservative* option, which was the "no" vote. Why jump into something new that you don't understand, when you're okay with the status quo? People start thinking of "what ifs" and "what would happen with x", realize they don't know, and decide they don't want to make the change.

* by conservative, I mean the non-political meaning, as in "resistant to change; choosing what seems to be the safer course rather than an option with more potential upside". Not being Scottish I have no idea what the political alignments were.

[CK_John]

7. Your missing the great secret, 10-12% change their minds in the polling booth.

So the polls are only good up until the day before the election.

I would advocate doing away with them but they provide jobs and provide hours and hours of entrainment for keyboard pundits.

[HereSince1628]

8. Considering it's a question allowing only 2 sides...that's actually a 5% difference.

I would think any society that has a 85% turnout and you end up with a decision hanging on a 5% swing would recognize it has a serious concern needing to be addressed.

We are trained to see these things in terms of winning and losing, but that's not the only way to perceive it.

Look at it as public opinion. 45% of Scots don't want some aspect of the historic union. That level of objection can't be swept under the rug, it's got to be addressed. And when the UK addresses it, Northern Ireland, Wales, as well as Scotland will be looking for broad application of the fixes. The UK is pretty much going to have to change the way it treats its constituent members or admit it doesn't give a damn about such a large proportion of dissatisfaction. The later is a low fire perfect for simmering unrest.

[randome]

9. What will be just as interesting on DU...

...is the disappointment of some who thought independence at any cost was a referendum on the rest of the world. This was a Scottish/U.K. matter, nothing more.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]

[hfojvt]

10. 55-45 is pretty close

I'd feel more comfortable at 60-40 or 65-35.

65-35 would be a landslide. 55-45 is not.

[Demit]

11. LOL! You sound angry that people can't foretell the future.

[MohRokTah]

15. No, I'm angry at pundits who play up a "close race" that isn't.

Really, it just ginned up the story to get eye on screens and clicks on pages.

[MineralMan]

12. Well, not a landslide, but decisive.

Personally, I think what it demonstrates is that people faced with a major decision that involves significant change, tend to vote to stay on the current path. That's one of the reasons that elections in the US, too, are often close. From the perspective of most DUers, change is a desirable thing. That isn't the opinion of the majority of people who vote, though, in most races and most places.

So, in Scotland, roughly 45% of the people who voted did vote for change. That wasn't enough for the change to occur, which is what happens in democratic elections. The majority voted to stick with the current arrangement. That's not surprising, really.

There really is no 99%, when it comes to things like elections. In most societies, people are about evenly divided on issues that mean significant changes. Sometimes they vote for the change, but more often they do not.

Those are the political realities. They aren't always satisfactory for those who want major changes. By insisting that only those significant changes will do, we often end up getting no change at all. That's the risk. When people will be voting on for change, incremental changes are easier to achieve most of the time.