Yes, statistics being thus. If you see a map of the usa: Say 2004
You'd call that over whelming and a whooping, would you not. The vote? 50.7% to 48.3%
So be fair, I'm not from your side of the big pond so can you answer my question. Was it close & is getting closer?
The point I was making was that you can twist statistics to say anything you want. The map I showed would make it look like a massive victory for the no vote, but large parts of the yellow area are relatively uninhabited whereas the tiny proportion in blue is densely populated.
Lies, damned lies and statistics.
Our Australian friend, who might be quite irritated to be reminded that a majority of people in his country want to maintain Queen Elizabeth II as the head of state, uses the figures for his own agenda.
A majority is a majority is a majority. That's how democracy works and whether it was one vote or a million is not the issue. The issue is that a majority of people living in Scotland rejected the proposition.
The rather nebulous arguments that they were frightened into it by the dastardly machinations of Westminster, the BBC and fairies at the bottom of the garden is rather insulting to Scots in my opinion.
In my experience, Scots don't frighten easily.
In addition to this, they can be truculent, obstreperous and stubborn to the point of being bloody minded. If you try to bully them into something, they'll do the opposite of what you want them to just because they can.
Our Aussie friend gives the impression that he doesn't like the British. I'm rather guessing he would have been delighted to see the Union fall apart. Perhaps he feels that a Yes vote for Scotland might have been advantageous to some sort of Australian Republican agenda. I'm only guessing there, but I've got a funny feeling I'm not a million miles away from the mark.
At the end of the day, the referendum was held in a fair and open manner. Both sides had the opportunity to put their argument and an unequivocal question was put to the electorate. We even extended the vote to a group of people who wouldn't usually be allowed to vote in British elections.... a group which it was expected would be against the No vote. Now that in itself is a gesture which can't be ignored.
It was a fair contest and the result he would have favoured didn't transpire. Sour grapes..? Very likely.
The issue is now decided for at least this generation. A 'generation' for referendum purposes is usually considered to be twenty five years so I doubt there will be a re-run for at least a couple of decades. What the political situation will be then (when the much-vaunted oil resources will be two decades more depleted) is anybody's guess.
Former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson once said that a week is a long time in politics. He was right. A lot can happen in a week. The changes that may come in two decades make any prediction about how a future referendum will go futile.
The only thing we can say with certainty is that for now, it's over.