Scotland votes ‘no’ on independence, the Queen watched the vote from Balmoral


Here are some photos of Queen Elizabeth walking along her Balmoral estate in Scotland last weekend. She’s actually still in Balmoral, because we are still in the midst of the Queen’s annual two-month vacation to her privately-owned Scottish estate. Apparently, the Queen watched yesterday’s Scottish independence vote very, very carefully from Balmoral. And what happened? Scottish voters decided to stay with the United Kingdom!

The vote was pretty solid – 55% voted to remain with the UK and 45% voted for independence. This was what the polling suggested a month ago, but pollsters had claimed that the polls were tightening up as the vote came closer. Prime Minister David Cameron seemed to truly think he was in danger of losing Scotland, that it would happen on his watch. He flew to Scotland and basically begged Scotland to stay. When the numbers were announced a few hours ago, Cameron tweeted this:

Cameron also posted a lengthy message on Facebook, which you can read here.

As for the Queen, she let it be known that she didn’t want Scotland to become independent, even though Scottish leaders openly said that they would want Queen Elizabeth to remain their queen. Last weekend, she made some remarks, something about she hoped the Scottish people would “think carefully” about the vote. The Daily Mail said that the Queen was following the vote so closely, she even canceled the annual Ghillies Ball for the Balmoral employees so that she could watch the results. If Scotland voted for independence, sources also say that the Queen would have made a public statement too. I’d still like to see the Queen make a statement, wouldn’t you?



Photos courtesy of Pacific Coast News.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

143 Responses to “Scotland votes ‘no’ on independence, the Queen watched the vote from Balmoral”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Chris says:

    Pft. Wimps.

    • We Are All Made of Stars says:

      I know dammit! I was rooting so hard for them to stick it to the man, and this is what they do. Oh well, they’ve ruined all my fun.

    • LAK says:

      I’m personally disappointed HM didn’t say anything publicly before the vote.

      Does this woman care about UK or not? Her ‘subjects’ need to know that.

      And don’t give me garf about ‘she’s supposed to be neutral’. She’s bloody HoS of UK. Voicing an opinion doesn’t make it a party political broadcast.

      What I loved about this referendum was the conversation about policies, demonstration of people power and the scare every complacent politician was given ->side eye to Cameron and Cleggy.

      • Chris2 says:

        Didn’t she say that she hoped voters woukd think verrrryyy carefully about it, t’other day? I took that as a ‘vote no’ suggestion.

      • LAK says:

        Chris2: pfft!! That could be read any way.

        I want soapbox ‘body of a woman, stomach of a King’ rhetoric.

        I enjoy royal family shiny stuff, but I rage at how bloody uninspiring, self interested they are when they have a platform to do something….

        I blame the late QM. She bludgeoned ‘don’t rock the boat’ into her daughter which has led to this lemon sherbet nonentity.

      • Chris2 says:

        Ah you’re a toughie, LAK!
        I’m still awed by HMQ’s visit to Ireland in ’12, while I was visiting too. Known as reserved, never partisan, never visibly moved etc etc….she effected miraculous things by displaying emotion, regret, honour for the Republican dead, as well as her back teeth in real laughter.
        So in that respect, her usual lack of engagement meant that, by contrast, these unusual reactions were received with great pleasure and taken as sincere signs of respect and affection. (She even spoke Irish!) That visit did enormous good for peaceful co-existence, after decades of handbagging and hectoring from Downing Street, not that I overlook the GFA. Twas the personal touch that did the trick.

        Even so… are dead right really. ( Did you ever see Mapp and Lucia in the 80s? Geraldine McEwan’s Tilbury speech as Eliz I in a village pageant was the bee’s pyjamas.)

      • marjiscott says:

        Well Said!

      • ArtHistorian says:

        QEI’s Tilbury speech is great. She was an exceeding good and well-educated public speaker. Her speeches to Parliament were very well-crafted (she often employed the “Mother of the Countrye” metaphor) and they were printed out and posted on local church doors throughour the realm. She was a sovereign who understood the power of theatre – of the spoken word and of public spectacle.

      • Lia says:

        I read recently that the Queen is expected to remain neutral in matters like this. She can’t come down on one side or the other publicly. She urged them to think carefully about their vote, but that’s all she could say until the voting was over. She is speaking out about it now, though.

    • hmmm says:

      I am totally disappointed. I doubt that promises will be kept. Hello, status quo. People no longer have fire in their bellies for change, fear independence. Well, 55% of voting Scots. Sigh. A ‘yes’ would have been epic. Now, it’s just another administrative challenge for lying politicians and they get to hang onto an asset.

      • Nur says:

        Thats exactly my take also. Esp living in a totally broken country politically,
        I know first hand how abusive that power can be. Without push coming to shove, ntg will change.

    • CharmmyKitty says:

      Not at all. They’ve made themselves heard and also made the best decision for the future and security of Scotland. It was a great success. They aren’t “wimps” for being effective and sensible.

    • Jocelyn says:

      I admit I wanted them to vote for independence. Maybe someday.

  2. Lilacflowers says:

    I was riveted to the coverage last night and those voter participation levels were astounding. Well done, Scotland. Oh, Cameron, I thought the point of the whole thing was that the English voices were being heard and you were not listening to those of others. The lesson seems lost on you.

    • Sixer says:

      It certainly was a clusterf*ck on the part of all of those at Westminster! And in fact, post-vote polling indicates dissatisfaction with Westminster was the main reason for a YES vote:

      We’re all fed up with Westminster, not just the Scots!

      Lilac – Cameron’s Tories are under pressure from UKIP, an ENGLISH right-of-centre party who have banged on about the West Lothian question for ages. That’s why Cameron is trying to suggest devo max will only come at the price of Scottish Westminster MPs not voting on English issues. He has to or he’ll scupper his chances in 2015. Now all the UK parties are scrabbling around to find a version of devo max that won’t lose them their own party’s votes at next year’s general election. Plus ca change…

      I’m sad for the YES people and glad for the NO people. Predictably, I’m not bothered what ER thinks. I’m proud of Scotland though – showing all of us that if people think their vote will actually count for something, they use it and use it with passion.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        So, he is basically catering to the British version of the US tea party? I try to avoid suggesting how other countries should govern themselves because we Americans have a tendency to butt in where we should not but his administration does not seem to be serving his whole nation nor does he seem interesting in improving that situation.

        I was greatly impressed with those voter participation levels. I have never seen anything like that here. So many Americans do not bother to register to vote and so many of those who do don’t vote. High turnouts tend to run around 70% of registered voters but the registration numbers are abysmal. It infuriates me. I also really loved that the 16 and 17 year olds were given the vote for this because it is an issue that would affect them greatly and it sounds like they really took the responsibility seriously.

      • Sixer says:

        In short, yes. There are huge cultural differences of course and UKIP is an entirely separate party, not a wing of the GOP like the Tea Party. And while UKIP is right of centre, unlike the Scottish nationalists, who are left of centre, it does share a “protest vote” constituent in its support.

        So now, having promised more devolution to Scotland because at one point it looked as though they might vote for independence, Cameron is a bit stuck. If he gives it, UKIP (and a lot of Tory MPs as well) will start shouting about Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs being able to vote on English issues because England doesn’t have a devolved parliament and all its business is conducted at Westminster. With a GE next year and poor polling, Cameron can’t risk alienating his own MPs or sending any more of his voters over to UKIP.

        Labour has its own problems about further devolution in that its Scottish support has been decimated (gone to the nationalists) and it needs to get it back if it wants to win in 2015.

        See what I mean? None of it is actually ABOUT Scotland or England: just themselves. And that they only ever think of themselves is the main reason Scotland almost left. It’s nuts!

        On a happy note: yes. YAY , YAY and YAY again for the participation and the kids!!

      • Lilacflowers says:

        Thanks, Sixer, that all makes more sense to me now. Meaning I understand what is going on, not that Cameron’s positions are sensible.

      • Sunny says:

        Great summary Sixer!

      • FLORC says:

        Thanks Sixer!

    • Ally.M says:

      Only voices in the south of England are heard, the rest of Great Britain are invisible to the Tory party.

      • Sixer says:

        I’m in the South West, in a mostly Tory area, and we are still roundly ignored by Westminster. I think anywhere outside of London and the South East/Home Counties is uninteresting to all of Westminster, including the Labour Party.

      • Amelia says:

        I was just on the phone to my family who still live in the South West, and they’re fuming about how little attention or help they actually get. By all accounts, parts of Devon and Cornwall’s NHS are really suffering and simply aren’t being acknowledged. It’s not as bad as Mid Staff, but still shameful.
        I’m currently in London and the difference I notice between here and when I go back home is astronomical. Obviously London has a far higher population to cater to, but it shouldn’t mean smaller constituencies are ignored as a result.
        Still. There’s always pasties.

      • Sixer says:

        Amelia – I’ve pretty much done the opposite journey. Londoner for most of my life, then downsized (I have hippy tendencies!) to the South West.

      • Chris2 says:

        That’s exactly why I chose my south-west university in the mid 70s….hippy central!

      • Amelia says:

        I miss my old lifestyle.
        Sea air, chilled out people, tractors on the road . . .
        Who wants to swap?

    • TrixC says:

      That was a bizarre tweet from Cameron. What did he mean? One of the main reasons 45% of Scots want to leave the union is that the Government only seems interested in listening to English voices, particularly from the southeast.

  3. RedWeatherTiger says:

    On an ***absolutely*** superficial note, she looks fantastic in that deep teal green. Love the hat, too!

    • LIVEALOT says:


    • Darlene says:

      I was just coming here to say how gorgeous she looked in that color!!

      • Elizabeth R says:

        Me too. The referendum process has had me riveted to the coverage, but I am
        OBSESSED with that color on her. Seriously love, love LOVE that whole outfit, especially the hat & brooch. (And now I’m obsessed with finding something in that color for myself. SHE’S the true style icon.)

    • Stella says:

      Agreed… Scrumptious color on her. But she is always well turned out.

    • Beatrice says:

      Yes! She is so beautiful in strong colors. Always well-dressed.

    • Lilacflowers says:

      She looks splendid in that outfit.

    • ArtHistorian says:

      I love teal and the colour really suits Queen Elizabeth. I love that she wears a lot of colour, though it sometimes can be a little heavy on the colour block effect. My queen, Margrethe II, also loves colour and she can be quite adventurous in her fashion choices, especially when it comes to formal wear.
      She looks great in white:

      One of her more unique gala dresses:

      The same gown re-worked into something less formal:

      • Flora Kitty says:

        Queen Margrethe has some GORGEOUS jewelry. “We don’t count the carats, we count that centuries.”

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Yes, at lot of the Danish royal jewelry has a fascinating history. Though she does have some big honking diamonds and pearls!
        The Perle Poire Parure:
        Diamond necklace from the Crown Jewels:

        The Swedish RF also has some jewels with very interesting histories. Like the gorgeous Cameo Tiara that onced belonged to Empress Josephine of France, Napoleon’s first wife, and the Braganza Tiara that originally belonged to Empress Amelie of Brazil.

      • Chris2 says:

        Ever since ‘meeting’ you I’ve been noticing fascinating articles about jewellery in Vogue and other mags. It’s fab to have a new interest, thank you!
        (One recent article’s about a Danish jeweller, though for the moment I can’t find it. Will report back once I find it). 🙂

      • Kori says:

        The Swedes (and the Danes through Princess Ingrid of Sweden who became Queen of Denmark) have some of my favorite pieces. Some of the most attractive came through a member of the BRF–Princess Margaret ‘Daisy’ of Connaught, the namesake (down to the nickname)—of her granddaughter Queen Margarethe. A number of pieces went to Ingrid as the only daughter and are still seen on Margarethe and in the Greek Royal Family (through Danish-born Queen Anne-Marie).

        And the European royals turn it out. In an earlier discussion on Kate and tiaras, I pointed out that she’s attended very few tiara worthy events, basically a dinner and her wedding–EII is really the only one regularly seen in tiaras. The European royal families still go full-tiara at their weddings and get-togethers. The BRF hasn’t had a full-blown ‘tiaras for all’ wedding since about 1913 (the wedding of Margaret’s brother Arthur).

        Of the BRF, the Gloucesters have the best collection after the Queen. It’s a shame that much of it will probably be sold in coming decades as the Gloucester dukedom ceases to be royal, the heirs become more private citizens and with death taxes.

      • Petrichor says:

        That yellow/gold floral gala dress is stunning. I love the colour and the print.

      • notasugarhere says:

        AH, the three sisters have shown up at the anniversary party in Greece dripping in family pearls and diamonds. Takes a lot of practice to wear things like that as if they weren’t priceless.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        You’re welcome! I’m really into jewellery design (wrote my BA diss on art noveau goldsmith Lalique), and there’s some really exciting things going on in jewellery design at the moment. There’s an interesting article on the chinese jewellery Wallace Chan on The Economist’s website – he makes these wonderful pieces with innovative techniques. Denmark’s Prince Consort Henrik is a collector of his.

        Right now the Biennale des Antiquaires is taking place in Paris, where all the major, mostly French, jewellery firms present their new collections. Chaumet’s collection is called Lumiere d’eau and is inspired by the play of light on water. Van Cleef & Arpel’s collection is called Peau d’ane, inspired by the fairy tale Donkey Skin (it was made into a gorgeous French movie in the 1970 with Catherine Deneuve in grand, pouffy fairy tale dresses).

        Stephen Webster, Lydia Courteille, Anna Hu and Wendy Yue also make some very unique and interesting pieces. Webster is rock n’ roll bling, Hu and Yue work with their Asian heritage and Lydia Courteille is a bit of a wacky and playful surrealist. The Turkish Sevan Bicakci makes these gorgeous rings with little animals or cities carved into huge gemstones.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Ingrid brough some wonderful pieces with her – my favorite is the Khedive Tiara by Cartier, which is now owned by ex-Queen Anne-Marie and has been worn by all of Ingrid’s female descendants at their weddings.

        I greatly admire the late Queen Ingrid. She was an elegant and sophisticated woman who exerted a subtle but important influence on the rather stiff Danish RF when she married CP Frederik (later Frederik IX). She also had a natural flair for PR and was definitely instrumental in making the RF more open to the public (but not too open). I know people who have met her and they all say that she was an exceedingly kind and lovely woman. She took the newly minted Queen Silvia of Sweden under her wing and mentored her personally in court protocol and other matters. I still remember her funeral cortege when she died in 2000. The streets in Copenhagen were packed and completely quiet. The music was beautiful and sombre, and the entire RF walked behind the carriage in full mourning, black veils and all.

        Her family also had their share of tragedies. She lost her mother CP Margaret (daughter of the Earl of Connaught) at age 10, when she died from an ear infection that developed into septicimia while 6 months pregnant – she was very close to her mother and it affected her deeply. Her brother, the Swedish crown prince and his wife died in a plane crash in Copenhagen in 1947, leaving behind their 9 month-old son Carl Gustaf an orphan. He became crown prince at the age of 4 and king in 1973.

    • lucy2 says:

      I noticed the color too, beautiful!

  4. frisbeejada says:

    Apparently she is going to make a statement about the result later on today, should be interesting. Personally delighted Scotland decided to stay with the rest of us, even more delighted that they had a vote, had a say and that it appears to have been done openly and honourably and most democratically, very proud to be British at this point…

    • Lilacflowers says:

      frisbeejada, it was so interesting to watch the results last night. So many people exercising their voice was inspiring.

      • frisbeejada says:

        I think people in the UK totally understand the principles of democracy, unfortunately, it’s lost on most politicians!

      • Chris2 says:

        In my dotage I find I’m nursing a sentimental wish to see both ‘British’ Isles united in some form of federal setup, now that such giant steps have been taken in both parts of Ireland with regard to rapprochement with the old enemy. (No idea how it would work nor how the BRF might fit in….I’m working on that!)
        So I’m relieved Scotland’s still part of the union, for that reason. Gahd though, the defeated ‘yes’ voters must feel bad today, there was such hope there. (Oh well, it gives Ian Rankin another theme for another superannuated Rebus novel) 😉

    • Kattttt says:

      I’m glad Scotland got a say too. I hope this makes Cameron wake up and stop treating all of the UK above Kent like a flipping wasteland.

      • frisbeejada says:

        Yes me too, as someone who lives well north of Kent/ Watford gap I understand exactly what you are saying. We need to get away from the Londoncentric attitude that abounds at Westminster but with this vote there’s a chance of that now happening – I hope

      • hannah says:

        Everything west of Reading also doesn’t exist

    • Zapp Brannigan says:

      Chris2 says:
      “In my dotage I find I’m nursing a sentimental wish to see both ‘British’ Isles united in some form of federal setup, now that such giant steps have been taken in both parts of Ireland with regard to rapprochement with the old enemy.”

      Keep nursing that sentiment because I can’t see my fellow Irish ever going for that. Why fight so hard for freedom only to hand it back less than 100 years later. So much of the conflict is still in living memory for our older generation, my father in laws family home was burnt to the ground and his father and grandfather brought to Wales and imprisoned for three years because they were farmers and somehow a “threat to the crown” from their fields in Galway.

      • Chris2 says:

        Oh, be sure I am very well aware of all this. My own father was repeatedly bundled away by Special Branch in the 70s here in England, and my mother’s family have tales of horrors perpetrated by the Tans on their farm in Clare…..outright atrocities.
        I am being mostly playful and entirely sentimental/dreamy re a federal future…..but it certainly doesn’t require any loss of statehood. Don’t read any disrespect to an independent Ireland in my frivolous witterings!
        (Still….there are some interesting remarks being made at the moment, re 1916, aren’t there? The civil war never ended, even if hostities with England did.) 🙁

      • Zapp Brannigan says:

        Apologies Chris2 if I came off unhinged (I am normally mostly hinged ) no disrespect read or intended on my part either. As for 1916 it never really goes away which is a shame. A lot of damage was done to Ireland by the Irish after independence. I am mostly thinking of the old “burn everything British but its coal” school of thought and its shameful how often that mindset is still encountered. Éamon de Valera did a lot of damage to Ireland, he turned a blind eye to a lot of Catholic Church activities that are still just being discovery today, including illegal adoption of many children who now as adults will never get the truth. As for the Tans we have family stories here too that are just horrifying.

      • Chris2 says:

        Au contraire, I hope *I* didn’t come across as snippy meself. We’re grand!

        This exchange has reminded me of a recent family get together, viewing holiday photos from the 60s. We were in Dublin in 65….dateable due to the Pillar still standing in O’Connell Street. My brother, not that clued in re our Irish side, piped up “oh look, Daniel
        O’Donnell’s Column”. Gulp.

      • Zapp Brannigan says:

        Ha brilliant!

        Wee Daniel O’Donnell is the real patron saint of Ireland! So in the spirit of Daniel I am off for a cup of tea, have a good weekend.

      • Annaliese says:

        I don’t think Eire will ever consent to be a part of the UK.

  5. Lilacflowers says:

    My aunt volunteers as tribute to console Sean Connery.

  6. GeeMoney says:

    As a person who literally 2 weeks ago found out that they have Scottish lineage (and it was a big WTF since I’m black)… I’m glad that they stayed a part of the U.K. I’m not sure how Scotland would have financially supported itself if they had left. Tourism alone wouldn’t have been able to keep their economy afloat (especially since their oil reserves are heavily decreasing).

    • Jaana says:

      I’m black with Scottish roots too. I don’t bring it up in public though, it would seem awkward to some people I guess.

      • ncboudicca says:

        Neither of you have said if you happen to be Americans, but as an American, I would find it surprising to meet someone whose family roots go back 100-150 yrs and who isn’t at least part Irish or part Scottish in our country, no matter the skin color!

      • Jaana says:

        @ncboudicca I am Caribbean actually, and yes the Scottish roots are strong. My grandfather’s father was directly from Scotland.

    • GeeMoney says:

      Yes… I am American.

      I also have German lineage as well. My mom and my dad are both light skinned (so am I), and most of my great uncles, aunts and great grandparents are mixed with white and black (they are very light skinned… technically what black people would call “high yellow”).

      And yeah… if you are black and tell ANYONE that you have white ancestry, they usually look at you funny (even if you happen to be biracial, they look at you funny). I guess since black people in the past were not allowed to claim any of their white ancestry and white people didn’t acknowledge it as well (especially in America), saying anything like that will always get you a funny look from most.

      • LAK says:

        Geemoney: that’s a purely American, meaning USA, perspective. Lots of countries around the world acknowledge mixed race heritage.

        In the UK, we have ‘mixed race’ as an option on your consensus as well as any public jobs/forms relating to race. Further, you also given option to detail your mixed heritage should you choose to do so.

        In the many african countries I lived in, there were always words that acknowledged mixed race heritage that is factual rather than negative.

        Race relations between the various heritages tend to be culturally prejudicial as opposed to colour so it’s not a toxic conversation in the way that American race conversation/relations were/have been.

      • Janet says:

        I’m black — at least I consider myself black — and I sent in one of those DNA kits to It turns out I am 41% black, 58% white (mostly English/Irish and other Western European) and 1% Central Asian.

        I’m curious as hell to know where the Central Asian came from.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        When Iceland did a genetic survey of their entire population they discovered that the celtic DNA heritage was lager than the Norse one and that there were Native American genetic markers as well in small segments of the population, which most likely points to the possibility that the Vikings that visited Vinland (New Foundland) brought home native spouses. Quite interesting.

    • Nedsdag says:

      I’m black with Scottish and Asian roots as well by way of Jamaica where many Scots and Chinese merchants settled.

  7. Rococo says:

    I feel like Scotland wasted an opportunity for good here, but also very nice to see such a good turn out: democracy has done it’s thang. Cameron however seems to have missed the point.

    • t.fanty says:

      Re:Cameron. Shocking.

      I don’t really see how this can be classed as a victory when 46% of the population voted yes. That’s a voice that needs to be heard.

      • Mom2two says:

        Yes, I think it should serve as a wake up call to Cameron. I hope the folks who voted yes hold his toes to the fire.

      • Chris says:

        I guess the 54% haven’t seen Braveheart. FREEDOM! Or they have but feel let down by Mel Gibson.

      • Sixer says:

        Fanty, yes. Huge victory for Salmond – the independence vote went up from 22% to 45% over the 18 month referendum campaign. Massive failure for Westminster. It’s going to be a mess from now on. They STILL won’t care about Scotland: going forward now, every reaction to the referendum by all the parties will be calibrated not on what’s good for Scotland – or, indeed, England – but on how to work it out and still win the GE next year.

    • Anne tommy says:

      Agree rococo. I am very disappointed that Scots did not seize the opportunity to make a fresh start and make their own decisions but as a US politician said, ” the people have spoken – the bast@ards”

  8. grabbyhands says:

    I found the whole process riveting-you don’t always get to be witness to such historic decisions-even if it was from here in the US. The Scots should be extremely proud right now, as this whole thing was handled with a lot of respect and civility and a minimum of name calling and negativity. I heard over and over again that no matter the final vote, people on both sides were committed to making sure that they continued to work for the betterment of the country as a whole and not just their side. So impressive. That decisions in this country were handled with a tenth of that grace…..

    Sadly, it looks from that Tweet that the point of the whole thing has been lost on Cameron, so I hope it was just poorly worded, particularly considering that he and his cronies were over there begging for Scotland not to leave only about a week ago.

  9. murphy says:

    She didn’t cancel the ball, she just moved the date.
    Also lets not forget people–The Queen is half Scottish herself.

  10. Cora says:

    I have a couple of questions for our sisters in the UK. Voter eligibility for the referendum was lowered to 16 years old. How did you feel about this? I thought it was too young, myself.

    I read some interesting stats on the voter turnout. The “No” vote had a 90% turnout (among those registered) and the “Yes” was much lower at 75% turnout. Were you surprised by this? I was. I never expected more YES voters to stay home, than the NO’s. I bet they’re regretting that decision today.

    • Sixer says:

      I thought it was fabulous. I was iffy at first but watching the Scottish kids engage and take it so seriously and as such a responsibility is one of the best things that came out of the campaign for me.

    • Cirien says:

      The silent No’s were probably the reason the poll showed it being so tight. They didn’t tell the papers which way they were going despite having made up their mind.

    • aang says:

      Since the youngest voters have the most at stake in the long run I think it was only fair to lower the age to 16.

    • frisbeejada says:

      Agree with Sixer and aang above, thought it was brilliant that they got the vote and as Sixer pointed out, they took it very seriously which just goes to show, never underestimate teenagers

    • Mom2two says:

      Also, isn’t it true that Scots living outside of Scotland were not eligible to vote?

    • Prim & Proper says:

      I thought lowering the age of voting was wrong. A cynical move by Mr. Salmond, as I am sure he thought the young are always more liberal with thoughts of Freedom ringing in their ears.
      As one older voter remarked when she was young she would have burned for freedom, but
      she’s a lot wiser now. It is interesting that the Labour Party has started talking about lowering the voting age for for the GE – another cynical move. Why should someone who gets a free education and doesn’t pay taxation get a vote? We can all moan about the last few pathetic governments in Westminster, but to be fair, the Scots would never have got this Referendum without Parliament having the confidence in our democracy to say go ahead, make your choice.
      I wonder if there are some American States who would like that choice…..

    • hannah says:

      I think it was wrong to lower the age . Nothing against politically engaged teenagers but they are just too young . They are still in school , they don’t have to worry about stuff like their jobs , taxes , the economy …

    • American expat is the Highlands here, who is positively THRILLED with the outcome of the election. The people have spoken. I get what some of my Yes voting friends and colleagues were trying to achieve, but as an outsider (and one that very vividly remembers the folly of the Bush administration and how belief does not, in fact, trump fact in matters of truth and economy), I was in awe of how many people were inspired to vote Yes on just the promise of a golden tomorrow without a solid strategy or fiduciary plan.

      The 16 yo votin age would be inspirational if it weren’t such a clear manipulation to get the numbers up. Are they letting 1) year olds enlist now too? No? Huh.

      • Janey says:

        16 year olds should have the vote – not having to worry about jobs and taxation and the economy? really?! Of course they do – they’re at or close to school leaving age – every one of those things is entirely relevant to them. Lowering the voting age is the right thing for the wrong reasons. It tends to be the older generations who vote – the independence vote seems to have been swayed by 60 plus and fear over benefits/pensions – so policy is geared towards the older voter, young people get cut out and apathetic, so don’t vote, so policy is geared towards the older voter, leading to more apathy. It’s a vicious circle, and something has to be done to stop it – giving 16 years old the vote, with their eyes on creating a future, rather than protecting their pension, might be it. I completely understand why people voted no and respect their decision (apart from the orangemen/unionists in George Square who I despise with every fibre of my being and always have and always will, but that’s a rant for another day) I voted yes, not because I believe Scotland would become the land of milk and honey and all that nonsense, but because our political system must change and a yes vote was a move to do that. I cast my vote with the full and certain knowledge that no would win the day – Scotland is conservative, with a little c, I think – but I wanted the vote to be close – politicians need to be reminded that we give them their mandate and they are there because of the people. I just hope Scotland turns out in the same numbers for the GE next year.

      • Sixer says:

        I agree about the voting age, Janey. To whit, the only section of UK society protected from this adminstration’s austerity cuts were the old. Why? Because more old people vote (and more of them vote Conservative). This has meant proportionately more sacrifice by everyone else.

  11. Luciana says:

    Now they have a bigger elephant in the room: Almost half of the scottish population said YES, mainly young people. The older ones have preferred to keep the statu quo for many reasons such as the pensions. Completely understandable.

    It’s going to be a couple of interested decades for Scotland. I firmly believe the fight for their independence has just begun.

    • Louisa says:

      I agree. This is just the beginning. Personally I’m relieved with the result as there are just too many uncertainties and unanswered questions at this time. (And my mum was terrified about how she would get her pension if the yes vote won)
      However, you are right, in the next few decades things will definitely change and hopefully for the better.

    • Arya Martell says:

      Not that you can really compare but I live in Canada and for several years in the late 80s and most of the 90s when I was a child, Quebec was voting on secession it seemed every couple of years. The votes were close for awhile. I recall one vote in 1992 coming close but squeaked out at 50.5% (or some other ridiculously close number) to stay in the confederation. This is likely going to be the UK’s new normal as the SNP now has time to come up with and focus on making an independence plan to entice voters next time. The young voters preferred staying in Canada and failed to see the fuss their parents were making. Scotland is the opposite, the young voters want independence and when the older generations die out, the vote will look a lot different. But the only way the UK can stay in tact is if England agrees to a liberal devolution and lets Scotland take control of their affairs and tax money.

      • genevieve says:

        Quebec only had 2 referenda – 1980 and 1995. There was also a nation-wide referendum on the Charlottetown Accord in 1992, but that was about constitutional change, not Quebec leaving.

  12. COSquared says:

    Cam must be doing a victory dance…

  13. Nicole says:

    Wow. The PM instantly started talking about England as soon as the votes were in. If that’s the kind of consideration they’re getting, maybe they should have voted the other way.

    • frisbeejada says:

      oops posted in the wrong spot.

    • hannah says:

      well it’s only logical since he promised Scotland more autonomy . Right now Scottish MPs are able to vote on legislations that only concern England while English MPs can’t vote on Scottish issues as Scotland has its own parliament .

      • Janey says:

        Scottish MPs don’t particularly affect the vote in Parli – something like 12 in 5000 or some such. Cameron has his eyes on neutering Labour – without their Scottish MPs they’d have trouble maintaining an effective majority.

  14. lucy2 says:

    I went to Scotland last year – what a gorgeous country, I can’t wait to go back someday. There was a lot of talk about the vote back then, interesting to watch it play out now here from the US.
    I have to give the people a ton of credit for how well this was handled, and their high voter turn out. Can you imagine what a ruckus it would be if a US state tried to go independent, and all the horrible things that would be said back and forth? Ugh.

  15. Arya Martell says:

    Glasgow is one of my favourite cities. I was hoping for a yes just because David Cameron is a pompus ass but I was not looking forward to the clusterf**k it would have caused. This isn’t the end on this issue. Scotland is just giving England a chance to do right by them but I think Scotland will be an independent country in our lifetime. England will screw up again and there will be another vote within the next decade.

    • Mrs. Darcy says:

      Alex Salmond is a different kind of pompous a**, and I agree with his social policies more, but he was disingenous, misleading, purposefully divided the population and created a very antagonistic YES campaign. Glasgow let their side down, they had one of the lowest turnouts percentage wise compared to most places. I think had Gordon Brown not fought so valiantly at the end the vote would have been much closer though.

  16. siri says:

    We can only thank the Scots for reminding us what democracy actually means. It will have a huge impact, no matter what. Personally, I support the independence idea, but obviously, fear has won. And already with his first remarks afterward, Cameron indicated he has a learning disability. Economically, Scottland can very well be on its own, only it would have been a long process with quite a few sacrifices. But probably worth it in the end. If the referendum about the UK regarding membership in the EU will result in a NO, some of the No-voters yesterday will probably regret this.

    • Betti says:

      Erm, no fear did not win – it was common sense as the SNP failed to deliver a clear plan of how independence would work and how the could fund an economy. On what planet does anyone think that basing an economy on tax income alone is a good idea!

      I am Scottish and I do support independence BUT only if its at the right time and we have a plan to support ourselves.

      • Mrs. Darcy says:

        I’m tired of this line too. There were far too many gaping holes/question marks -not being able to guarantee the currency or entry into the EU, those are serious, practical questions that Salmond failed to address, thinking the tidal wave of nationalism would simply carry him through to the finish line. I admire both sides for their opinions and do not feel that the No votes were all out of loyalty to England or Cameron in any way as is being incorrectly surmised. Wanting to remain part of a stable United Kingdom, however flawed it may be, does not mean people are any less patriotic or proud and I think the divisiveness that Salmond encouraged is something he needs to make an effort to help mend. He split the country in two in the course of two years with false promises of a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for everyone when anyone who works in the oil industry knows he’s full of it. As much as I loathe Cameron, I really do not think the alternative would have benefited everyone.

  17. maybeiamcrazy says:

    If I was a Scottish person who voted for no and then saw DC’s tweet, I would be like “fuck, wrong decision”. That is such a weird statement. Isn’t that why all this referandum happened anyway? However, I am happy that Scotland got a chance to choose but % 45 is not a percentage to be disregarded.

    • ncboudicca says:

      I agree, his tweet was an odd choice. No, “odd” isn’t the right word – “ill-considered” is better.

  18. wow says:

    Just as expected.

  19. Talie says:

    45% is still a pretty major number of people who wanted to bust out of the union and have Scotland stand on its own. And more interesting, a majority of young people drove that. Which means that it’s only a matter of time and that is a lot of youth who are so jaded.

    • Mitch Buchanan Rocks! says:

      Interesting 45% is a signifigant figure – wonder if the Royal Palace ever does Robocalls. Canada ‘voted’ in Stephen Harper with 30% I believe.

  20. Dany says:

    45/55 that is hard. Both sides won and lost. The independence supporters doubled in the last few months. Mostly the young people (the future) want independence. So there will be another referendum in the future.
    I totally understand why most older people voted no. They have to think about their pensions and the NHS. The risk was too high. No one knows how such a rushed independence would change the quality of life.

    I wonder if the result would look different if only born scots could vote.
    Only people who currently reside in Scottland were allowed to vote. Means foreigners from the Commonwealth and EU who work, study and live in Scotland voted, but famous scots like Sean Connery and co. had no right to vote.

  21. Mitch Buchanan Rocks! says:

    If Diana Gabaldons novel Outlander were ever to be made into a movie – Prince Harry would be The perfect choice for the character of Jamie Fraser coupled with Kate Winslet in the role of Claire. Christian Camargo would be a superb Frank Randall; Viggo Mortensen as Dougal MacKenzie; Gwyneth Paltrow as Geillis Duncan; James McAvoy as Ian Murray – Julie Benz as Jenny; Jack Black as Rupert MacKenzie; Jessa Dougar as Laoghaire Mackenzie; Kevin Spacey as Ned McGowan. I am unemployed.

    • ArtHistorian says:

      It has actually been made into a brand-new TV-series by Starz.

    • Vivee says:

      Outlander has been made into a TV series and is airing right now!

      Edit: ArtHistorian beat me 🙂

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Is it any good? I love priod dramas but I’m not very keen on time-travel stories. Still, if it has good actors and good production values I might just give it a try.

      • Olenna says:

        Great show, to be honest, and I’m not much on time travel period pieces. This latest episode was so steamy, though, that I felt like a Peeping Tom!

  22. ickythump says:

    grabbyhands quote – “The Scots should be extremely proud right now, as this whole thing was handled with a lot of respect and civility and a minimum of name calling and negativity. I heard over and over again that no matter the final vote, people on both sides were committed to making sure that they continued to work for the betterment of the country as a whole and not just their side. So impressive. That decisions in this country were handled with a tenth of that grace…..” you cant have been on facebook then – it was the most vitriolic campaign I can ever remember – thanks Alex Salmond – you’ve managed to do what no-one outside the country ever did and divide it almost down the middle. I have family members now who arent talking to one another… Cheers Eck hope you’re proud of yourself.

    • Anne tommy says:

      My daughter was a yes and her fiancé was a no, she is gutted but the marriage is still on. Families have got to respect differences . I think that given the high stakes, the campaign was generally peaceful. Some eejits both sides of course, the nastiness towards andy murray being a yes was horrible. Eck as you call him was never the issue, he’s Going now and is likely be succeeded by a young woman so here’s to the future. Btw, I have lived on and off in Scotland for 35 years, still have an English accent, and don’t recall any anti English remarks made to me. Pretty good going. And I’m not even that nice…

  23. klredwolf says:

    No opinion on the vote ( though I found it interesting), but it was my understanding that the ball was postponed so the staff would have the chance to vote.

  24. Jane says:

    There is video on You Tube showing a woman counting votes who seemingly can’t tell the difference between a yes and no vote and rearranging the two piles, removing ballots from a tiny yes vote pile and putting them into the no vote pile. That same video shows a pile of yes votes in the with the stack of no votes and the pile labeled as no votes. It does look like bad, like some rigging went on, which the video narrator is convinced about.

    • Cirien says:

      Dundee answered the question about the pile of “YES” ballots on the “No” table. They simply hadn’t been sorted yet. I haven’t seen other bit of the vid but it might not be sinister

  25. Anastasia Beaverhausen says:

    For those of you more verse on the issue, what does this mean for Scotland? How are relations gonna change between Scots and English? I mean 45% for independence is still pretty significant.
    Also do you think Scotland would have honestly been able to sustain itself independently?

    • Anne tommy says:

      Answer to latter is yes,but I can’t quarrel anastasia with someone with the sense to appreciate the excellent alternative name of Karen in will and grace, up there with phoebe from friends Regina Falange…

  26. shay says:

    i was hoping for an independent scotland.

    oh and 45-55 isn’t exactly a landslide, i don’t see why people keep saying it is.

    • RobN says:

      Because in the modern political age, a ten point win is huge. People feel like the Obama win over Romney was a landslide, and that was 51-47. Winning any national election by ten is a decisive victory.

  27. shay says:

    maybe i’m just cynical, but despite what was promised, i doubt anything will change. i mean just look at cameron’s tweet.

    like russell brand tweet, “Fear is more powerful than faith. Until that changes none of us are free.”

      • Cirien says:

        This is hugely disrespectful line of thinking to the 55% of people who voted NO, a percentage that included 16-17 year olds. Everyone who voted YES, is counted as someone who wanted real change and should be applauded, and everyone who voted NO (As Brand’s tweet implies) is a fearful coward. These people had their reasons to vote NO, and if you followed Ashcroft’s polling they were always going to vote NO. The one thing it has done is made everyone look at the way Westminster is run, and surely that’s a good thing?

        The YES campaign had little to no answers to the questions about the economy that were being asked, and bearing in mind that the reason Scotland got into the union in the first was due the nation bankrupting itself, why on earth would they vote for a campaign that couldn’t tell the voters what currency they would if the smaller U.K parliament decided to be difficult and block the prospect of a currency union?

  28. Janet says:

    So I guess Catalonia is next…

    • Cirien says:

      Catalonia can try to get independence but even if there’s a 100% turn for YES, Spain still won’t grant them it

  29. Singers Choice says:

    45% is quite a huge number though coming from Voters who wanted Independence because of UK needs of a reform. The question is now that Scotland will remain a part of UK, moving forward how can they reform the country’s Parliament? What are the plans to improve taxes, spending & welfare, etc…

    This is interesting.. I am keeping a close on this because My job is moving to me England soon..

  30. Leslie (@MissilePanda) says:

    Gutted by this decision, only holds Scotland back.