Image 01 Image 03

Scots reject independence

Scots reject independence

God save the Queen!

The Scots voted against independence yesterday. At the time the BBC called the referendum election, the No votes (those voting against the referendum for independence) had garnered 54% of the votes counted.

Alex Salmond, leader of the Scottish National Party and leader of the pro-independence movement, conceded the referendum loss late last night:

There was nothing else on the ballot, just the question of independence.

The voting age was lowered to 16, and record voter turnout was expected as Scots decided to keep their union with Great Britain intact.

97% of the Scottish electorate registered to vote for the referendum, an amazingly horrifying fact.

Had Scotland declared their independence, the UK would’ve been thrown into turmoil, Scotland would’ve had to cobble together some semblance of a government, military, social services and all that good bureaucratic stuff, and we’d likely see a disaster of a ‘new’ country.

Leading the charge for independence were progressives who sought to bring a greater sense of social justice to the highlands. At one point in the BBC election coverage, a member of the SNP  mentioned quite candidly that the push for independence was in direct response to the fact that Westminster had lurched what was in his mind, too far to the right.

Time and time again, members of the SNP expressed their desire to change Scotland, that the people wanted change, and that Westminster wasn’t listening; platitudes that sounded a little too familiar for comfort. At no point was a plan discussed, nor was there any discussion as to what type of change was needed to usher in a new era of greatness, only that Scotland must change!

Even more interesting were the round table discussions. It was like watching a modern day re-enactment of American revolutionary arguments, just with Scottish accents and minus the war part. That Westminster didn’t listen, that taxes on the Scots were higher than taxes on the English, that the Scots were beholden to a government who taxed them without their direct vote — were all topics of great debate. There was much discussion of federalism and the perpetual struggle between local governments and centralized government. Queen Elizabeth II however, was spared the indignation King George III received.

Salmond promised not to bring up the referendum again if it failed, so it’s a safe bet we won’t see another vote for independence any time soon. Evidently, the Brits are more honorable in their political agreements then our elected officials.

The referendum vote will change the political landscape of the UK, and likely redefine the UK as we’ve come to know it. Prior to the referendum, the leaders of the three political parties signed a pledge that would begin the devolution of power, or at least some of it, from Westminster to Holyrood in the event the Yes votes lost. The pledge gives Scotland much of what they were wanting without abject freedom. The BBC explains the pledge had three main components:

The first part of the agreement promises “extensive new powers” for the Scottish Parliament “delivered by the process and to the timetable agreed” by the three parties.

The second says the leaders agree that “the UK exists to ensure opportunity and security for all by sharing our resources equitably”.

The third “categorically states” that the final say on funding for the NHS will lie with the Scottish government “because of the continuation of the Barnett allocation for resources, and the powers of the Scottish Parliament to raise revenue”.

The Barnett formula is the method used to determine the distribution of public spending around the UK.

So while the UK remains united, the balance of power will likely shift. For now, Europe as we know it stays roughly the same. That is until Russia gets greedy again or the pro-independence movement in Catalonia is more successful than the SNP.


Follow Kemberlee Kaye on Twitter 

Featured image courtesy of Caleb Howe. Yes, it’s photoshopped.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



The idea that Scotland was going to achieve lower taxes through separation was always rather absurd.. given the parade of hard left politicians and parties ruling it for decades.

BannedbytheGuardian | September 19, 2014 at 6:33 am

It did not have anything to do with the Queen . The royals have no Scots heritage . Sometimes it is said her mother was Scot but that is not so – she only had a father with an unearned Scots title

The royals have no Irish no welsh either . Prince Harry & William are more English than the Queen through Lady Diana .going way back to the War of the Roses. In a few more generations they will have outbred the Germanic Georges & Victoria .( whose name was really Alexandrina after tsar Alexander 1) .

How they manage all that in such a small place is nothing short of outstanding . Let’s leave them to it .

    George I was a grandson of James VI of Scotland (James I of England). As usual with the European royal families, intermarriage made it hard to tell what “nationality” they were, although certainly George I was entirely German culturally.

      Bruce Hayden in reply to tarheelkate. | September 19, 2014 at 12:55 pm

      In strict descent, it appears that Elizabeth II is twelve generations from George VI/I, the last Scottish king. Ignoring collateral threads, that means that she would have 1/(2^12) of George VI/I’s DNA, except that we only have fewer than 2^6 chromosomes. She is female, as were three of her ancestors between her and George VI/I, and so there is no Y chromosome involved, and seems likely that her mitochondria are probably German, and not Scottish. Which means that she might possibly have some Scottish genetic heritage through collateral lines, but it is unlikely.

      Bruce Hayden in reply to tarheelkate. | September 19, 2014 at 12:59 pm

      Which means that I probably have more Scottish blood than QEII, with one Scottish great-grandparent (I am approximately 3/8 English, 3/8 Welsh, 1/8 Scottish, and 1/8 German – which I always thought was absurd, since that means splitting hairs about the 7/8 from one small island).

      BannedbytheGuardian in reply to tarheelkate. | September 19, 2014 at 8:47 pm

      Lol there were 50 closer to the throne but they were all Catholics.

      They must have sat around & said 0mg – anyone even a German is better than a catholic.

If Scotland became independent it would have been interesting to see if George Galloway wold return there. That would have been England’s gain.

54% By US electoral standards, that is a Landslide!

    JimMtnViewCaUSA in reply to Mannie. | September 19, 2014 at 3:52 pm

    Agree. And not only that, the turnout was huge. Sometimes in the US a 55% “yes” vote might be only 20% of the voters since so many stay home…

So I guess we can say that Scotland has rejected the “two state solution” and prefers to remain under “military occupation”.

MouseTheLuckyDog | September 19, 2014 at 12:01 pm

I hear that in celebration, Scottish merchants are selling “Union” deep fried curly wurlys, at only twice the price of a regular deep fried curly wurly..

There is a trend of children remaining with their parents. Not because it suits them, but to compensate for economic distortions (e.g. devaluation of capital and labor).

The left never thinks things through. With Scotland voting to stay in the union and the promise of more powers for Holyrood, the Parliment is going to have to seriously address the West Lothian question. That’s going to put quite the dent in Labour’s ability to control English issues.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Sanddog. | September 19, 2014 at 5:11 pm

    They are going into a general election right away ( may 2015) & this Scots Referendum was just after a bruising 2014 EU election .

    I would love to see an English March on Parliament from all the neglected regions . Bring out the pitchforks!

Yesterday I thought of a reason why the Scots should have another independence vote: “If at first you don’t secede, try, try again.” 🙂