Will you vote for independence?

[Sue]

Is this what you're after?
https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/13526

There's a link from that page to a pdf which has things split by Westminster constituency.

Eta sorry, that's by Holyrood constituency.

 

[butchersapron]

Still MSP seats in the mini-results though ...

 

[butchersapron]

Looking at those MSP seats, it does look highly likely the clean sweep there would also be the case for westminister seats - just wanted to know how close/far and where.

 

[JTG]

If there was a referendum to separate London from provincial England lots of people would vote yes.

Me for one. Boris voting cunts

 

[danny la rouge]

Looking at those MSP seats, it does look clear that it would highly likely also be the case for westminister seats - just wanted to know how close/far and where.

Yes, it does. There's 9 Holyrood constituencies and 7 Westminster, so it's not a simple matter of transferring the wards.

 

[frogwoman]

Well yeah exactly and I don't buy the whole idea that London is more progressive than the rest of the UK especially since the pricing is making it impossible for many people to live there. I'd be quite happy for London to secede

 

[The39thStep]

What anarchists? And would anyone actually notice/care?

How do you read this? From this distance it looks like top politicians trying to extend personal fiefdoms and/or beancounters attempting to square austerity circles. Is that anything like accurate?

Given the financial restraints in the public sector and the experience ( from the city deals and similar negotiations) of having to deal with the silos of government departments and the treasury combined authorities like Manchester are saying gives us the total conurbation budget and we could do better.

In that way it is about attempting to square austerity circles but there is also an envious eye to London and it's extra powers over transport etc. Manchester certainly believes that it could do more with its economy etc if it could do it their way rather than via Westminster . The feeling that Westminster doesn't care that is shared by both the public sector politicians and I suspect large swathes of the public. Localism/ regionalism is seen rightly or wrongly as being more democratic .

 

[frogwoman]

Another breakdown of voting intentions

http://t.co/Ze1ZvQ5jIS

 

[weepiper]

A chart of the Glasgow breakdown here

 

[weepiper]

Edinburgh council has now released figures too, not a single constituency had a Yes majority

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.c...ndence-all-edinburgh-areas-voted-no-1-3549834

 

[ddraig]

fuckingell!

 

[weepiper]

I might move to Glasgow

 

[The Boy]

Surprised at North & Leith. Didn't expect any constituency to have voted yes, mind.

Interesting that I'm the most ardently No constituency too.

 

[weepiper]

Interesting that I'm the most ardently No constituency too.

Cramond, Dalmeny, Murrayfield, Ravelston etc, lot of well-off areas with people with mortgages etc, and only a few poorer areas comparatively. Not that surprising really. Same as mine, only Kaimes, Moredun, Gilmerton that would have been likely to vote Yes in significant enough numbers.

 

[Frankie Jack]

Embrae has cleaned up a lot of the once neglected areas. Many of those still at the poorest end really don't bother anymore.

 

[The Boy]

Cramond, Dalmeny, Murrayfield, Ravelston etc, lot of well-off areas with people with mortgages etc, and only a few poorer areas comparatively. Not that surprising really. Same as mine, only Kaimes, Moredun, Gilmerton that would have been likely to vote Yes in significant enough numbers.

I think I'm just letting the raw numbers throw me tbh. I was expecting Ed. West numbers to be closer to those of North/Leith, but was expecting those to be higher for yes than they were iyswim. I expected South to be a wider split though, so swings and roundabouts.

 

[weepiper]

 

[DairyQueen]

Incidentally, I'm seeing a lot of over-excited Yes supporters saying that Labour will be routed in Scotland at the Westminster General Election. Their main piece of evidence seems to be that they hope they are.

I don't really understand how they think it'll happen. I know tens of thousands of activists are joining the SNP and other pro Yes parties, but that's activists. It doesn't mean the electorate will follow suit. Just because a Labour supporter voted Yes doesn't mean they'll not vote Labour at the Westminster GE. It doesn't work like that. Voters who vote SNP at Holyrood elections often switch back to Labour for Westminster elections, for example.

I know that there were Yes majorities in the constituencies of all the Glasgow MPs, but you can't just assume those votes will go to SNP. You can't even assume they'll vote. The referendum turnout was vastly elevated. 75% in Glasgow. Why assume that'll stay high and not drop back to the 49%, 50% we saw in Glasgow constituencies in 2010?

With an influx of activists, the SNP and others might be able to raise that a little, but to oust all the Glasgow Labour MPs? I doubt it.

It really depends, if the SNP see anything like that Survation poll on Friday, they could be looking at anything up to 10-15 seats at Westminster. That could be close to the Lib Dems after their looming wipeout. But, the press start talking UK, people forget Scottish politics, so maybe SNP vote share falls a bit (maybe not with a much bigger, more dedicated group of activists). Time will tell. The poll did not show Labour's vote collapsing, but it does not look like they are getting any of the increases seen down in England (that's before the brutal campaign starts).

The next General Election will be interesting in one sense, it looks like all three parties are basically pigs at an increasingly bare trough desperately trying to not alienate their core vote to UKIP while trying to convince this silent majority with immigration/EU rhetoric, mild Scots bashing and austerity warnings.

gosub - I think the problem now is England. Scotland can be ignored for a few years, England can't. Cameron's fine about that. If Cameron is seen as doing favours to the Scots, he opens the door to maybe a few UKIP MPs. Labour are relying on old fashioned anyone but the Tories stuff. Works in Scotland (will it now?) and the North, not middle England.

 

[DairyQueen]

http://iainmacwhirter.wordpress.com...w-into-devo-max-the-road-from-the-referendum/
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ferendum-devolution-general-election-scotland

 

[teuchter]

http://nationalcollective.com/2014/09/22/peter-arnott-this-is-going-to-be-good/

the creation of an at least partially protective alternative centre of gravity, cultural, economic and political, here in Scotland that can never rival the pull of London, but can at least negotiate with it. This has never been an option for the Anglo-Saxons, who confuse themselves with their Norman overlords, imagining they are the same people.

Anglo-Saxons? Is this confusion an ethnic trait? What's he on about?

 

[butchersapron]

http://nationalcollective.com/2014/09/22/peter-arnott-this-is-going-to-be-good/



Anglo-Saxons? Is this confusion an ethnic trait? What's he on about?

It's racist filth. Why are you directing people to it?

 

[DairyQueen]

http://nationalcollective.com/2014/09/22/peter-arnott-this-is-going-to-be-good/

Anglo-Saxons? Is this confusion an ethnic trait? What's he on about?

Yeah, you'd expect better than that from the National Collective.

 

[teuchter]

And no-one seems to have questioned it in the comments.

 

[butchersapron]

Disgraceful.

 

[free spirit]

http://nationalcollective.com/2014/09/22/peter-arnott-this-is-going-to-be-good/



Anglo-Saxons? Is this confusion an ethnic trait? What's he on about?

I think he's mostly referring to the idea that much of the English aristocracy is still descended from those who came across with the Norman conquest in 1066, which there is some truth to as the aristocracy has largely intermarried throughout the time since 1066, and the heridatory rules tended to keep their lands and titles intact and in the family.

ie it's shorthand to point out that we've essentially been ruled by the same ruling elite for a millenium.

eta and now more than at any time in the last 50 years, that ruling elite is back in charge in England, with one of their own as prime minister.

 

[DairyQueen]

I think that is the point he was making, that the plebs think of themselves as the rulers.

 

[butchersapron]

Oh god, you're going to vote lib-dem and then justify this a-historical shite, but it's in a racist fact free story form.You utter fucking mug. Just vote lib-dem again. You wordy worthy prick.

 

[butchersapron]

http://nationalcollective.com/2014/09/22/peter-arnott-this-is-going-to-be-good/



Anglo-Saxons? Is this confusion an ethnic trait? What's he on about?

Lots of people saying non-racist stuff.

 

[butchersapron]

I think he's mostly referring to the idea that much of the English aristocracy is still descended from those who came across with the Norman conquest in 1066, which there is some truth to as the aristocracy has largely intermarried throughout the time since 1066, and the heridatory rules tended to keep their lands and titles intact and in the family.

ie it's shorthand to point out that we've essentially been ruled by the same ruling elite for a millenium.

eta and now more than at any time in the last 50 years, that ruling elite is back in charge in England, with one of their own as prime minister.

It doesn't mean that and we haven't been. Only the crudest of polemicists could say we have. The idea that we are ruled by the monarchy is ropey at best - their better days behind them, about 400 years.

Who owns your house/work/bus - it ain't the royals you out-dated clown. Who runs the UK-the royals!

You are a fucking gullible idiot. Again.

 

[free spirit]

I think that is the point he was making, that the plebs think of themselves as the rulers.

I think he was making the point that the majority of the English none aristocrats mostly don't even appear to recognise that there even is a ruling elite that they have virtually no chance of them or their descendants ever becoming part of, and that is doggedly hanging on to power and reinforcing that economic and political power base, that the only real hope for the Scots to break from that ruling elite is to break from England.

something like that anyway.

Devolution in Scotland was always a compensatory and defensive measure against the dominant concomitant of this “national” decline – that is the dramatically enhanced recent concentration of all cultural, economic and political power into the city state of London.

ie he's not viewing it as a patriotic nationalist movement (as butch is portraying it), but as a necessary defensive measure against the political and economic damage being wrought on them by an English establishment that they don't have the ability to remove from power themselves.

Then saying that the tories are now playing a political game that is likely to further enrage scotland, and saying that it's now essentially the 3 parties in London that are deciding on Scotland's fate without reference to the Scottish people.

or something like that. Emotions are obviously running a bit raw.