A guest article from Stephen Duncan who has been burning the midnight oil to put this report together. A bit of background about Stephen.
- Originally from the West Highlands, now residing in Edinburgh having now lived here for the bulk of my time.
- Undergraduate BA degree in Economics from Heriot-Watt University and Postgraduate MSc degree in Applied Statistics from Sheffield Halam University.
- Worked as economics and statistical analyst for 35 years around the UK in both industry and finance fields.
- Now retired but very much active.
- Man of Independence mind.
YES: running to stand still
The publication of the first tranche of data from the new Census (2022) for Scotland on 14th September 2023 indicating that, whilst Scotland’s population grew by 141,000 since 2011 and was registered at a record 5,436,600 persons, deaths outnumbered births by 49,800 indicating that net population inflow was 191,000.
Given the continued net immigration to Scotland since 2011 it is worthwhile looking at the evolution of YES support since the Scottish Independence Referendum (2014) among the populations split by place of birth and what this implies for any future plebiscite on Scotland’s constitutional future.
Key Findings
- Pro-YES sentiment among those persons born in Scotland was around 52% in the 9 months after the Referendum and just under 50% in the first half of this year meaning that underlying level of support for Independence has remained roughly the same (albeit there have been significant oscillations in the interim period).
- YES support among those born in England has increased significantly since the aftermath of the Referendum from around 25% to 34% in the first half of this year thus implying that two out of every three persons in this cohort remain in favour of the British Union.
- For those born outside of Scotland and England support for YES has risen from around 33% to 55% on average over the period, making this cohort currently the most YES-friendly.
A summary comparing YES support recorded at the beginning of the period with that registered at the end of the period is provided in Table 1.
Table 1 Level and Change in YES Support by Place of Birth
| Period | # Polls | YES% | Change from Q4 2014-Q4 2015 | |||||||
| Absolute | Proportionate | |||||||||
| Scotland | England | other | Scotland | England | other | Scotland | England | other | ||
| Q4 2014-Q4 2015 | 5 | 51.8% | 25.4% | 33.0% | ||||||
| Q4 2022-Q2 2023 | 5 | 49.9% | 34.3% | 54.7% | -2.0% | 8.9% | 21.7% | -3.8% | 35.1% | 65.7% |
Implications
- With respect to Scottish born people Independence leaders need to be ready and able to capture any momentum generated during upswings in YES sentiment in order to permanently raise underlying levels of support to higher than 50% of this sub-population.
- Whilst Independence support among those born in England has increased steadily and significantly over the period around two-thirds of this cohort continue to be in favour of the British Union, making this segment of the population potential decision-makers in a close future campaign on Scotland’s constitutional arrangements.
- Those born neither in Scotland nor England are now the most YES friendly grouping with just over half in favour of Scottish Independence, with closer political and economic ties to Europe probably the most important factor in their conversion to YES.
Opinion
- Previous studies based on National Records of Scotland mid-year population estimates have shown that Scotland continues to be drained of its most pro-Independence segment of young people as the under 35 year-olds leave the country in search of work and seeking a living elsewhere.
- These are being replaced to a large extent by NO friendly newcomers from England, a cohort forming an ever increasing proportion of Scotland’s population, although this development is being mitigated by the uptick in YES support from those born outside of Scotland and England.
- With pro-Independence support overall stagnating at around the 50% mark it would seem that YES is running fast just to stand still.
Analysis
Published opinion surveys from Panelbase were used to monitor YES support by place of birth from the final quarter of 2014 to June of 2023. (Note that only 42 out of the 56 polls published by Panelbase over the period include a breakdown by place of birth and that there were no polls at all containing this split during 2019. For more discussion see Appendix).
The pattern of YES support for those born in Scotland is shown in Figure 1:
Figure 1: Evolution of YES Support – by Place of Birth (Scotland)
- In the immediate aftermath of the Referendum support increased possibly to a combination of the response to then Prime Minister David Cameron’s EVEL speech on 19th September 2014, ‘buyer’s regret’ at voting NO and deferred campaign momentum.
- YES support, although remaining at a historically high level, decreased between 2015 and 2018 with enthusiasm perhaps waning due to the lack of action by the SNP/Scottish Government following the ‘tsunami’ general election of 2015 and the lacklustre 2017 general election campaign.
- There was a YES surge at the beginning of 2020 probably triggered initially by the election of the unpopular Boris Johnson as Prime Minister of a British Conservative government at the end of 2019, followed by actual Brexit at the end of January 2020 and First Minister Nicola Sturgeon’s announcement of a Constitutional Convention on 31st January of the same year.
- The upswing in YES continued through the pandemic with support peaking at around 57% on average in the middle of 2020 – most likely a result of the perceptions of the Scottish Government’s better management of the crisis and the impact of the First Minister giving daily live televised media briefings on the latest situation – before falling back to around half of this sub-population by mid-2021.
- There were spikes in April/May 2021 and in the final couple of months of 2022, most likely in respective response to the SNP’s Scottish Election victory and a reaction to the UK Supreme Court decision (which ruled that the Scottish Parliament did not have the right to legislate for an Independence plebiscite).
- Pro-Independence support fell back once again following the sudden resignation of First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, the cancellation of the Special Conference planned for March 2023 to decide a response to the UK Supreme Court ruling, the various resignations of the SNP’s Chief Executive, Treasurer and Head of Communications plus the revelations around the ‘Operation Branchform’ police investigation into the SNP finances.
The trend in YES support for the cohort born in England is added in Figure 2:
Figure 2: Evolution of YES Support – by Place of Birth (Scotland and England)
- Support for YES remained fairly stable at around 25% of English born people until the back end of 2018.
- By the beginning of 2020, when Brexit had become a reality and it was confirmed that the decision would not be reversed, a step change in the level of YES support (to 30%) had occurred and this continued ramping up until the end 1st quarter of 2021 to an underlying level of just above 35%.
- Since then YES has remained at more or less the same level which represents a one-third proportionate increase since the first half of 2015.
YES support among those not born in either Scotland or England completes the picture in Figure 3:
Figure 3: Evolution of YES Support – by Place of Birth (Scotland, England and other)
- Support for YES started to climb after the 2015 British General Election when it became clear that there would be a referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the EU.
- Following the Brexit vote of June 2016 support for Independence jumped still further, registering around 45% on average by the beginning of 2017.
- Peak support to date of just under 60% occurred in quarter 4 of 2022 around the time of the UK Supreme Court decision that the Scottish Parliament could not legislate for a future Independence referendum.
- YES sits currently at a level of around 55%, which is much higher than that of those born in England and greater than Scottish born folk.
- It may be inferred that the European dimension is of real importance amongst this group in terms of their support for Scottish Independence.
Conclusions
The following inferences are drawn:
Place of Birth: Scotland
- Pro-Independence sentiment seems to respond favourably to events viewed as being positive for Independence, such as election victories for the SNP at Westminster and Holyrood elections, as well as those perceived as being detrimental to the country’s interests such as David Cameron’s EVEL speech, Brexit and the UK Supreme Court Ruling.
- This may imply that Independence leaders need to harness the momentum during these upswings in order to raise support to a higher underlying level (than 50%) and maintain it.
Place of Birth: England
- It may be that the steadily rising YES support is due to a combination of more enlightened view of Scottish Independence by those residing in Scotland since before 2014, the possibilities for reintegration into Europe in some form in the event of Scottish Independence and inflow of so called ‘New Scots’ since 2014 ‘evacuating’ England in order to escape what they might consider the worst of the ruling British Conservative government’s ‘austerity’ economic programme.
- It remains the case that almost two-thirds of English born people support the Union, thus making this cohort the potential decision maker in a close future referendum campaign.
Place of Birth: other
- The sharp rise in YES support is most likely to have been triggered by the EU Referendum vote of June 2016.
- The prospect of a return to some kind of European integration or closer economic and political relationship with the continent post-Independence may reasonably be assumed to be driving YES support among these born outside of Scotland and England.
Appendix
This section deals with some more technical aspects of the foregoing analysis.
1. Choice of Pollster
Panelbase polling data was used for this exercise since they are the only survey firm that regularly measures YES/NO sentiment by place of birth. The choice of pollster was, therefore, self-selecting.
2. Polling Accuracy
On the eve of the Scottish Referendum, all the main polling firms who had regularly surveyed opinion on the YES/NO question posted their results. These are contained in Table 2:
Table 2: Final Opinion Polls for YES prior to the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum
| Survey Field Dates | Survey Firm | Sample Size | Poll | Referendum | ||
| Estimate | Error Margin | Estimate Range | Result | |||
| 15–17 Sep 2014 | Panelbase | 1004 | 47.4% | 3.1% | 44.3% – 50.5% | 44.7% |
| 16–17 Sep 2014 | Survation | 1160 | 47.3% | 2.9% | 44.4% – 50.2% | |
| 15–17 Sep 2014 | YouGov | 3237 | 47.9% | 1.7% | 46.2% – 49.6% | |
| 16–17 Sep 2014 | Ipsos | 991 | 47.4% | 3.1% | 44.3% – 50.5% | |
As Panelbase’s final YES% estimate was within the poll’s (+/- 3%) margin of error of the actual Referendum outcome its estimate was a statistically accurate result and was on a par with the other main polling firms’ performance. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that Panelbase polls are a decent measure of YES sentiment at any point in time.
In addition individual Panelbase’ polls are weighted to reflect the composition of the population at large in terms of place of birth so this should have the beneficial effect of minimising sample bias in this respect.
3. Survey Data
Panelbase conducted 56 polls on the constitutional question of Scottish Independence between 17thSeptember 2014 and 15th June 2023. Of these 42 contained a breakdown by place of birth and it is these that were used to perform the analysis. It should be noted that although there were 8 opinion polls carried out on Scottish Independence between 7th November 2018 and 6th December 2019 none of these provided splits by place of birth.
This means that YES support at the time of the highly polarised campaigns on whether to hold a second (confirmatory) referendum on EU membership and the chaotic House of Commons debating sessions leading up to the controversial, and ultimately unlawful, prorogation of the Westminster parliament during 2019 cannot be measured.
4. Methodology
The techniques involved is making the assessment are now described.
a) Use of Moving Averages
Individual polls can be subject to volatility for various reasons (including random variation, sample bias and short-term electorate reaction to one-off events). In order to identify any underlying trend within the survey data moving averages were employed in order to smooth out spikes and dips in the time-series.
Two moving averages were compared, one which employed all data points ‘to date’ and another which used the results of the latest 5 opinion polls on a rolling basis. Using the cohort whose place of birth is England these are compared together with the individual poll results in Figure 4:
Figure 4: Individual Polling, Moving Average to date, Moving Average 5 polls rolling midpoint
The volatility of individual polls is evident from the chart. By computing an average of all polls at any point in time the sharp saw-tooth movements are removed to reveal the underlying increase in YES support over time for this cohort.
However, whilst the ‘to date’ moving average measure identifies the rising trend in the YES% it does tend to underestimate the current position at any point in time. The reason for this is that each extra data observation has an increasingly diminished impact in the moving calculation overall and as such this indicator tends to lag the level of actual support.
In order to offset this lagged impact on the level a moving average of 5 opinion polls rolling was constructed with the result posted against the field date of the middle survey included in the calculation of each data point.
The chart shows that, for the latest data, the level of YES support is 34.3% for the ‘rolling’ variant and 30.4% for the ‘to date’ version of the moving average. Given that the level of YES% has patently changed substantially over the period – with a few relatively recent individual polls posting support in excess of 40% – the midpoint rolling moving average looks like it smooths out volatility without losing the step and ramp changes and is, thus, a better measure of the underlying level at any point in time.
Hence, the 5 poll rolling midpoint moving average was chosen as the measure for the analysis.
b) Weighting by Sample Size
The great majority of polls comprised sample sizes of around 1000 persons. This implies a margin of error in the region +/- 3% for individual survey results. If the sample in all polls were the same, or of a similar, size then a simple average of the YES% of individual polls could be used to be reflective of the general level of pro-Independence support for any given period.
However, there were one or two that had larger samples that, therefore, had a correspondingly greater level of precision. In the interests of accuracy, and in order to ensure that the latter were given due prominence in the averaging process, the individual polling YES% were weighted by the volume of YES supporters in the sample.
The full raw and smoothed opinion poll time-series used in the analysis is given in Table 3.
Table 3: Panelbase Opinion Polls for YES by Place of Birth
| Survey Field Dates | Sample Size | Individual Poll | Moving Average (5 polls) | ||||
| Scotland | England | other | Scotland | England | other | ||
| 15–17 Sep 2014 | 1004 | 51.8% | 23.5% | 24.6% | |||
| 30 Oct–5 Nov 2014 | 982 | 54.4% | 23.5% | 41.5% | |||
| 26 Jun–3 Jul 2015 | 1002 | 51.1% | 25.6% | 25.6% | 51.8% | 25.4% | 33.0% |
| 4–10 Sep 2015 | 1005 | 50.0% | 29.3% | 29.6% | 51.6% | 26.3% | 35.1% |
| 6–13 Nov 2015 | 1074 | 51.8% | 25.3% | 44.6% | 50.5% | 26.2% | 36.5% |
| 23–28 Apr 2016 | 1074 | 50.5% | 27.8% | 35.5% | 49.9% | 26.2% | 42.1% |
| 9–15 Sep 2016 | 1024 | 49.1% | 22.7% | 50.0% | 49.5% | 25.0% | 46.7% |
| 20–26 Jan 2017 | 1020 | 47.7% | 25.6% | 49.2% | 48.1% | 25.4% | 47.8% |
| 7–13 Feb 2017 | 1028 | 48.0% | 23.1% | 53.7% | 47.2% | 25.6% | 51.7% |
| 13–17 Mar 2017 | 1008 | 45.3% | 27.3% | 50.0% | 46.2% | 25.9% | 52.0% |
| 18–21 Apr 2017 | 1029 | 46.2% | 28.9% | 55.1% | 45.6% | 25.5% | 52.7% |
| 31 Aug–7 Sep 2017 | 1021 | 44.0% | 24.4% | 51.5% | 45.0% | 25.8% | 53.5% |
| 23–28 Mar 2018 | 1037 | 44.5% | 23.8% | 53.2% | 45.0% | 25.4% | 53.4% |
| 8–13 Jun 2018 | 1021 | 44.8% | 24.4% | 58.3% | 46.7% | 26.6% | 50.5% |
| 28 Sep–4 Oct 2018 | 1024 | 45.7% | 25.6% | 49.2% | 48.3% | 28.5% | 48.5% |
| 28–31 Jan 2020 | 1016 | 54.6% | 34.6% | 40.3% | 50.0% | 29.4% | 46.5% |
| 24–26 Mar 2020 | 1023 | 51.8% | 34.7% | 42.2% | 52.1% | 30.5% | 42.5% |
| 1–5 May 2020 | 1086 | 53.0% | 28.2% | 43.5% | 54.3% | 31.3% | 43.0% |
| 1–5 Jun 2020 | 1022 | 55.6% | 30.1% | 36.8% | 54.6% | 30.8% | 45.7% |
| 15–19 Jun 2020 | 1070 | 56.5% | 29.1% | 51.6% | 55.8% | 29.2% | 46.8% |
| 30 Jun–3 Jul 2020 | 1026 | 56.1% | 32.1% | 54.2% | 57.1% | 30.6% | 47.4% |
| 12–18 Aug 2020 | 1011 | 58.3% | 26.6% | 47.6% | 56.7% | 31.4% | 51.1% |
| 5–11 Nov 2020 | 1020 | 58.9% | 35.0% | 46.2% | 55.6% | 32.6% | 52.5% |
| 19–22 Jan 2021 | 1206 | 54.2% | 33.7% | 55.3% | 55.0% | 32.3% | 51.6% |
| 3–5 Mar 2021 | 1013 | 50.5% | 35.5% | 60.0% | 53.8% | 33.7% | 53.5% |
| 30 Mar–1 Apr 2021 | 1009 | 53.2% | 30.8% | 49.2% | 52.3% | 33.7% | 54.7% |
| 9–12 Apr 2021 | 1002 | 52.4% | 33.8% | 57.6% | 51.9% | 35.6% | 54.9% |
| 21–26 Apr 2021 | 1075 | 50.7% | 34.9% | 52.3% | 51.7% | 34.9% | 52.9% |
| 28–30 Apr 2021 | 1096 | 52.6% | 42.5% | 56.1% | 50.8% | 34.1% | 55.2% |
| 16–24 Jun 2021 | 1287 | 50.1% | 32.3% | 50.0% | 50.3% | 33.0% | 53.4% |
| 6–10 Sep 2021 | 2003 | 49.6% | 30.2% | 58.7% | 50.4% | 32.4% | 52.5% |
| 20–26 Oct 2021 | 1001 | 49.3% | 27.2% | 46.6% | 50.1% | 30.2% | 51.7% |
| 9–12 Nov 2021 | 1781 | 50.7% | 31.9% | 48.2% | 50.3% | 30.9% | 53.2% |
| 26–29 Apr 2022 | 1009 | 51.1% | 28.2% | 51.7% | 50.5% | 31.4% | 53.2% |
| 29 Jun–1 Jul 2022 | 1010 | 51.0% | 37.2% | 58.3% | 50.6% | 33.9% | 54.7% |
| 17–19 Aug 2022 | 1133 | 50.2% | 32.6% | 61.8% | 50.4% | 34.6% | 56.9% |
| 5–7 Oct 2022 | 1017 | 50.1% | 42.1% | 55.0% | 50.7% | 35.4% | 59.1% |
| 7–10 Oct 2022 | 1018 | 49.4% | 34.2% | 57.1% | 50.4% | 34.4% | 58.2% |
| 12–16 Dec 2022 | 1004 | 53.2% | 31.6% | 62.5% | 50.1% | 36.3% | 56.4% |
| 7–10 Mar 2023 | 1013 | 49.3% | 32.1% | 54.0% | 49.9% | 34.3% | 54.7% |
| 28–30 Mar 2023 | 1089 | 48.9% | 41.5% | 52.8% | |||
| 12-15 Jun 2023 | 1007 | 48.8% | 32.1% | 46.7% | |||
Sources
Panelbase: https://drg.global/our-work/political-polls/
Ipsos UK: https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/news-and-events/news
Survation: https://www.survation.com/
YouGov: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/overview
Yours For Scotland: Population Migration … a ticking time bomb for Scotland
Scotland’s Census 2022: Rounded population estimates
MY COMMENTS
I am indebted to Stephen for the considerable time and effort he has put in to compile this information. This information is of crucial importance when considering future franchises for constitutional issues in Scotland.
I am, as always
YOURS FOR SCOTLAND
BEAT THE CENSORS
Regretfully a number of pro Indy sites operate on the basis of censoring and blocking messages from other pro Indy sites that do not slavishly follow one particular Party. To overcome this attack on curtailing freedom of speech many of my readers share my articles to negate this censorship. My thanks for doing so.
FREE SUBSCRIPTIONS
Free subscriptions are available on the Home and Blog pages of this site. This allows,for an email of each article to your Inbox and that is now how several thousands get my articles each day. This avoids problems that some have experienced gaining access from Twitter and Facebook. You will be very welcome to choose whatever route works best for you.
SALVO
The work and important development of Salvo has been a beacon of hope and as it develops Salvo is creating campaigning hubs throughout Scotland. Salvo will join with Liberation.Scot and as the campaigning arm of Liberation we are looking at very effective campaigns. This requires money so all donations to this site, once the running costs are covered, will go to support the work of Salvo/ Liberation. I think you will see it well used and effective. Donations are currently limited to £3
LIBERATION.SCOT
We are seeking to build Liberation.Scot to at least 100,000 signatures just as quickly as we can. This is part of our plan to win recognition as an official Liberation Movement via the United Nations. We intend to internationalise our battle to win Independence and through the setting up of our Scottish National Congress will prepare and develop our arguments to win progress in the International Courts. Please help by signing up at Liberation.Scot. It is from those who sign up to Liberation.Scot that the membership of the SNC will be created by ballot.
YOURS FOR SCOTLAND 
A very interesting analysis with careful and measured conclusions. I can find no fault. As I have submitted here before, I don’t hold this opinion regarding Prof. Ailsa Henderson’s work.
What about hypotheticals?
Well, support for Independence amongst indigenous Scots at c. 57% is attainable by precedent (see mid 2020). This would represent a comfortable 14% margin of victory.
With this in mind, what about intervention by the UN and their established voting protocols favouring an autochthonous franchise?
I don’t hold out much hope on this front for two reasons:
* Precedent was set in 2014 when Local Government franchise was used.
* The UN is now firmly in thrall to US hegemony (although rebellion is in the air).
If my hunches are correct, what does this leave?
As Stephen points out, a significant portion of our most Yes friendly demographic leaves Scotland to pursue work.
Rumours persist that Michael Gove and Andrew Neil are keen to opening the franchise up to indigenous Scots resident outwith Scotland. This would mirror (in part) established UN protocols.
Here, Gove and Neil are projecting confirmation bias. Everyone they know within their establishment bubble would vote No, therefore this must hold for the rest of the Scots diaspora.
Gove and Neil fall into their own trap, who are we to disabuse them.
LikeLiked by 3 people
With respect to the Scottish Referendum Study by Ailsa Henderson and James Mitchell of Edinburgh University I do agree there did seem to be something problematic with their findings regarding the actual plebiscite voting patterns on 18th September 2014. They showed 53% YES for Scottish-born, 28% YES for rUK-born and 43% for outside UK. The splits simply don’t stack up with the overall result (45% YES).
However, the Panelbase polling does seem to have been in line with this for Scottish born (52%) and English born (24%) but much lower for those from outside of the UK (25%) on the eve of the referendum. Of course Panelbase like all the others overestimated the YES result in total so Scottish born YES voters may well have been in a minority for that demographic. We don’t know and there is no corroboration available from other pollsters. I suppose that is historic now in any case.
However, what matters now and going forward is that the voting differentials continue to appear to be significant among the 3 population segments.
LikeLiked by 5 people
You have interesting comments on the franchise, with respect to Scots now living outside of Scotland. There is definitely need for discussion on this and, for sure, consideration should be given to those who may well have lived the substantial part of their life (to date) within the geographical bounds of the country. However, I suppose this would have to be time-bound as I think it was for the New Caledonia referendums of 2018, 2020 and 2021.
Whatever the likes of Neil and Gove think, they should be ignored. They are long term absentees and should, like the British, not be permitted to interfere with any future referendum in Scotland on the constitutional question.
That one should be Made in Scotland – a real and true Gold Standard.
LikeLiked by 11 people
“Rumours persist that Michael Gove and Andrew Neil are keen to opening the franchise up to indigenous Scots resident outwith Scotland. This would mirror (in part) established UN protocols.”
I bet they only mean those resident in England, Wales and potentially Northern Ireland rather than all indigenous Scots! What rationale could they give for including EWNI but excluding Ireland, Europe, etc etc?
LikeLiked by 2 people
You can guarantee that they will be trying to gerrymander it.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Seems a very erudite article, but when I had to look up autochthonous – realised this it beyond my pay grade ! Cheers
LikeLiked by 2 people
The impact of around 70% of people born outside Scotland in England voting no does seem to be an issue.
The Plantation of Ulster with immigrants from lowland Scotland and from around London and the south had a major impact on the voting patterns in Ireland and the bit that was to become Northern Ireland.
Anyway, a most interesting statistical analysis. But just one small thought. Could the base data be corrupted. Our political process is corrupted, so why not our much delayed census.
LikeLiked by 7 people
With regard to the Census data there is no way of knowing. Perhaps a letter to Angus Robertson MP might help?
The release schedule does seem to be long drawn out with the migration statistics not due for release until 2025 (https://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/about/2022-census/census-outputs-schedule/) so we can’t see the actual splits for Scottish born, rUK (with splits for England, Wales and Northern Ireland) and ex-UK (broken down by RoI, EU, non-EU).
That detail may not even be published, so who knows. Plus that is almost half way through the period until the next Census.
I have heard from the National Records of Scotland directly that they do plan to publish their own ‘Mid Year Population Estimates’ for 2022 sometime “in the the winter” so we’ll see what that shows as, when and if it becomes available.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Not much good asking Angus Robertson anything.
I wouldn’t even ask him the time of day.
LikeLiked by 5 people
HE would set up a committee of handpicked people to give you his answer, it would take forever and when he finally answered it would be out of date and useless.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Entirely possible that the census was corrupted and that may well be connected to the delay. It was also corrupted by the wording of the sex/gender question, which wrongly conflated the two, and which i refused to anserr on that basis. Having rung for advice on this question as to whether the sex assigned at birth, ie on the birth certificate, was required. iIwas told that basicalkly icould put whatever i felt like. As that is nonsense and completely undermines the basic puropse of a census, which is to break down the population by age and sex for the purpose of deciding policy as well as establishing the number of people resident, their education levels and place of birth. In order for my name to be counted,(I hoped) I asked for a paper form and completed it apart from the sex question.
I despair of whatever the Scottish government was trying to achieve by this ill designed excercise!
LikeLiked by 1 person
An excellent summary and confirmation of what many of us believed would be the outcome of this census.
It is also why so many of us have been stressing the importance of the franchise for any future constitutional referendum and that it should follow the same practice as others to limit the franchise for constitutional matters.
However, it also confirms what we can see with our own eyes regarding the influx of people from England (mainly to the rural areas of Scotland). We are rapidly losing young people to be replaced by older / retired people that places a double-stress factor on our public services. As we lose many who may be nurses, doctors, teachers etc who provide services, they are being replaced by those who use more of those public services than younger people.
As incomers buy up rural housing, the inflated cost of that housing becomes less and less accessible to public sector workers.
If this is left to continue unabated, the obvious eventual conclusion is that we will become a minority in our own country. However, in the meantime the “No Vote” as mentioned is also being artificially inflated and this more than anything dictates that we restrict the franchise for constitutional referendums.
LikeLiked by 8 people
It is already forecast that we’ll be a minority by 2030, my own view is it will happen quite a bit before then, I give it two years maximum.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pleased to see the English born yes vote rising albeit slowly, I don’t understand how anyone living in Scotland can’t see how Scotland would be a so much better country if it wasn’t being dragged down by the westminster nobs.
LikeLiked by 9 people
Only native born Scots dhould get to vote on OUR constitutional choice about Freedom and Independence. Nobody who does not have a direct bloodline should be consulted on MY countries future. If they want to come and live here and contribute to society they are more than welcome but this is not a retirement haven.
LikeLiked by 6 people
What do you mean by ‘direct bloodline’?
My mother was Scotsborn, I was born in England. You ignored my previous reply, that I’ve lived 63 of my 70 years in Scotland. As many Scotborn die within that age frame, don’t you rely on an ‘incomer ‘ like me who would always vote YES?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Toni I support a residency qualification of around ten years in line with many other countries.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I apologise Toni. If your mother was a Scot you would obviously Qualify for a vote via your bloodline.
I do not support any residency qualification. Residing here does not make you Scottish.
Think about it, if you went to any other country you would always be a SCOT as would all foreigners residing here cling to their own Nationality. UNLESS they become Scottish citizens which as you know is not possible in the UK.
LikeLike
Quite a detailed analysis, but, as ever, there are other factors at play, including:
Census (in)accuracy – the census response rate was such that data is based on estimates, mostly made by statisticians from outside Scotland working for NRS. Other evidence – e.g. over-heated housing market, increasing pressure on public services, etc – suggests the population could be significantly higher than stated, i.e. closer to 6m even;
Extraction – place of birth may only be one part of an individual’s story. ‘Extraction’ is also important here as our identity is largely influenced by who are families are and where they come from, and especially their culture and language which determines our identity, e.g. British or Scottish, and that is the way the constitutional vote splits to a large extent. By taking ‘extraction’ into account the rest-UK ‘identifying’ population in Scotland will be much higher than stated, and could perhaps be even twice as high;
Ethnicity – the paper’s findings reflect the fact that there is to a large extent an ethnic divide in the Yes/No vote split; this is not unexpected as we know from postcolonial theory that an independence movement is always based on the solidarity of the oppressed ethnic group. Postcolonial theory also tells us that the quest for independence and hence national liberation is primarily a matter for the colonized;
Settler colonisation – it is worth remembering that the main motivations for people moving to a colony, again based on postcolonial theory/evidence, are that they seek ‘an easier life’, and ‘to make a profit’ (from access to lower property prices, higher pay etc), plus certain professional and managerial jobs tend to ‘be reserved’ for those from the ‘mother country’, with such posts advertised primarily in the metropolitan capital. This also results in a ‘cultural division of labour’ within colonial societies with associated negative impacts and ‘costs’ for an oppressed people.
LikeLiked by 9 people
On “extraction” I guess you would inter alia be referring to those born in Scotland but perhaps with at least one parent or grandparent coming from elsewhere. In these instances my view would be that being born within the geographical boundaries of Scotland, whilst having an impact on the emotional attachment that someone might feel to one of their ‘places of heritage’ and probably on voting intention especially if the link was to England, they would qualify for having a say.
On “ethnicity” the pro-YES sentiment really has been transformed among those hailing from outside of the UK. Anecdotally the Irish living in Scotland were the largest pro-YES ‘ethnic’ group in Scotland at the time of the Referendum, perhaps for historical reasons vis-a-vis England as Britain. I imagine that will not have changed. That means that those born outside this archipelago have ‘converted’ to YES in massive numbers which I would reckon is the European segment reacting to Brexit. (We don’t have the split so can’t tell for sure).
LikeLiked by 1 person
A Hungarian friend was amazed that, just because she had an address here, she had been invited to vote on whether Scotland should become an independent state; she also said that there is no chance a Scot or a Brit living in Hungary would be permitted to vote on any constitutional matter in Hungary. She and other EU citizens were of course excluded from the Brexit vote by the UK Government. Clearly, the ‘local government’ franchise applying to Holyrood for national elections and referendums via the Scotland Act is highly irregular internationally and is not reciprocated anywhere else.
In regard to ‘the Irish’ living in Scotland, there are as we know two main identities there, and those from Northern Ireland holding to a British identity might be expected to vote to block Scottish independence. In the RoI Scots/Brits living there similarly do not qualify for a vote in national referendums or also now in EU elections.
All of this really comes within what the UN terms ‘external interference’ which it suggests should be avoided in the self-determination process of ‘a people’ (i.e. the Scots). Those running our country clearly take every opportunity to interfere and make things very difficult for us to exit the British colonial corset and this includes selective management of the franchise to inflate the anti-independence ‘No’ vote.
LikeLiked by 7 people
I think that there are templates that could be adapted for Scotland e.g. the recent New Caledonia referendums between 2018 and 2021 which stipulated that in order to vote in the plebiscites one of 8 additional criteria had to be met.
This resulted in knocking 17.5% off those eligible to vote that would otherwise have had that right through being registered on the ‘general list’ (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_New_Caledonian_independence_referendum).
LikeLiked by 5 people
Yes, many observers here are aware of the UN-sanctioned New Caledonia ‘secondary criteria’ which seeks to protect the indigenous people there. The key question remains as to why Holyrood has ignored this!
LikeLiked by 7 people
A lot of valuable work with some very cogent points being made.
Also:
Scottish birth rate is below replacement level. Immigration to Scotland from anywhere on the planet is potentially unlimited as our politicos, who are in favour of this, become more and more detached from the people and from reality.
An important factor in the “Yes” argument is that we will rejoin the EU. Clearly irrational. Instead of our riches going to the UK, they will go to the EU.
I am of the opinion that those wishing to rejoin the EU believe that the EU was our benefactor. The country was covered in signs telling us that this and that, swimming pool, football pitch, theatre and so on was built from contributions from the EU. However not so prominent was the information that the money used was our money. The UK was a net contributor to the EU. We gave them £10 and received back £1. That allowed them to make our laws, endless regulations and so on.
While looking at the segmentation of votes by grouping is interesting, I am of the view that the demographics suggest that we natives will be out-numbered in the nearish future. It would be wrong to imagine that Westminster will not deliver a strong message to immigrants that being in the UK (British) will be better for them than to be Scottish outside the UK. Time is certainly running out. It may already be too late.
LikeLiked by 8 people
As we found out on Tuesday, when a delegation of Sottish people tried to deliver the Stirling Directive to the Scottish Parliament asking them to press the Scottish Claim of Right as a route to independence, we were ignored and nobody deigned to receive it!
This a government dominated by the SNP and Green parties, both of which claim to support Scottish Independence and the Claim of Right.
We are not on a democracy, eother as in the UK inder Westminster, nor in Scotland under Holyrood. our voice is ignored in both. what can we do before our country is abolished?
LikeLiked by 3 people
The difference between births and deaths in Scotland i.e. the ‘natural population change’ was positive from the Baby Booming 1960s and the decade following but has slowed before flipping into negative territory at the turn of the Millennium and remaining there ever since.
Period Births(k) Deaths(k) D:B Ratio
1961-1970 985.1 630.7 0.640
1971-1980 714.9 640.1 0.895
1981-1990 661.2 633.2 0.958
1990-2000 609.3 605.7 0.994
2001-2010 552.7 560.9 1.015
2011-2020 546.2 567.0 1.038
total 4069.4 3637.6 0.894
Although the most recent former First Minister said that “time was on her side” (https://archive.ph/D6SII) it is definitely not on Scotland’s.
(The source for these data are Data Figures 1 & 3 on the National Records of Scotland website found on this link: https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrscotland.gov.uk%2Ffiles%2F%2Fstatistics%2Fpopulation-estimates%2Fmid-20%2Fmid-year-pop-est-20-figures.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK).
LikeLiked by 2 people
My conclusions are for every English settler who would vote for independence their are two which wont. Change the voting franchise to a constitutional voting franchise as per Decolonialisation process recognised international by the UN and after a successful Yes vote all settlers can be offered Scottish citizenship. Wheres the problem in that.
You can now understand why the Unionists lackeys that run the SNP are flooding Scotland with migrants and settlers. We will soon be a minority in our own country. This is how they plan to keep us shackled to their coercive Union. Is it not suspicious how the SNP still hide the results of migration in to Scotland by not publishing the Scottish census. The Humza Sturgeon Brtnat cabal is our Bane we ignore there treachery at our peril.
LikeLiked by 10 people
Thanks to Stephen for his analyses. They make for interesting reading. If only work of this significance had been available prior to the laissez-faire franchise agreement of 2014.
So much important work on fiscal and constitutional matters is taking place outwith the political ranks. And, perhaps more worrying, is the obstinacy in its acceptance by those elected. I am of the opinion that professional jealousy was among the character defects exhibited by our previous First Minister. It is my sincere hope that the canker is not spreading.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Excellent research, Stephen Duncan. Although the Edinburgh University figures did not stack up finally, they were broadly correct. Your research shows that the rUK figure has not changed significantly, albeit it has risen. It is definitely in the ‘born outside Scotland and UK’ category that most progress has been made. I learned, in 2014, of ‘migrant workers’, some having lived here for years, being told that they would be repatriated to their own countries if they voted YES. Those people have since learned the truth. All in all, the referendum was a dirty piece of work by Better Together, far dirtier in hindsight.
Expatriates are a problem, and we should remember the interviews carried out in Corby, Northamptonshire (in 2014, prior to the referendum) where hundreds of thousands of Scots live, having abandoned Scotland to find work way back in the 50s, 60s and 70s. Three-quarters would have voted NO even though they had no intention of ever returning, and their children were English. They held a very sentimental view of the country of their birth, but, politically, they were Unionist in much the same way that most rUK settlers up here are, and I think there are parallels in the way that born-English view Scotland. Andrew Neil and Michael Gove are men who have made it on the UK stage, so they are going to be Unionist to the core, in any case.
I must say that I do find it hard to explain the resistance by English settlers into Scotland. Scots have settled other countries for many years and, although many still hold a sentimental view of Scotland and their forebears, they owe allegiance to their ‘new’ country – as they should. Why the English should be different is hard to explain unless you accept that they see the UK as England and vice versa, even if unconsciously, and Scotland as part of a Greater England that just happens to be the UK.
In other words, the majority of them tend to hold an overarching view of Scotland as not a country, but as a region of the UK which is actually England, for all intents and purposes, which places them firmly in the ‘colonialist’ camp. So, ultimately, the problem is one of perception that appears to be shared with expatriate Scots in England, meaning that the UK and England are interchangeable for many, and that this view pertains in England regardless of origins. I have found Caribbean-origin and Asian-origin people to have similar views – which means it will be very hard to overcome.
LikeLiked by 8 people
“Why the English should be different is hard to explain”
Perhaps the Scottish ‘nature’ is to respect and integrate within other cultures, whereas the English nature and longstanding Imperial tradition is to impose their supposedly ‘superior’ culture and language on other peoples?
LikeLiked by 9 people
No question mark required, Alf!
LikeLiked by 4 people
I was trying top be diplomatic, Alf.
LikeLike
I live in a quiet Perthshire village.
I’m gently leading the push back against the influence of the incomers who benevolently have taken over many of the local institutions.
To be perfectly honest they dont react very well when you demonstrate that far from being superior they are often myopic and petty. They particularly seem to hate it when you point out that Scots law is different to English law. They also seem chasened when you point out if the law isn’t in their favour but are at pains to apply the law when it suits and disregard otherwise.
And woe betide if any developer proposes plans to redevelop anything.
Suddenly, most incomers are devout worshippers of Scottish history with a deep longing to preserve Scottish, usually Pictish, identity and culture. As long as its subjugated to English over lordship.
The biggest issue however is the Scots who empower them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very detailed work. Sadly it removes any doubt regarding our current status. Sturgeon bought the Union the time they needed to built their settlement. The real reason she wanted to hide the Census detail.
It confirms what I see walking through my Argyll village…..Union Flags, Posters of King Charles in the window and complaints about locals not joining the bell ringing classes.
We are a Colony retirement home. Designed to drain our budget as the bank six figure funds by selling their home Down Souf.
What was that line in Braveheart about “breeding them out”
LikeLiked by 9 people
‘What was that line in Braveheart about “breeding them out”
Thats what the republicans have done in NI, slow process though.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Unfortunately the reverse is happening in Scotland as our population declines and settlers from over the border increase.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for your hard work Stephen. I would be interested, if the released data allows, in an analysis of born in England and age, and also born in England, age and Yes/No? My suspicions are that much immigration from England is of retirees with a strong Anglo-British identity and this is reflected in the approx 67:33 Yes/No breakdown in that cohort.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The data by place of birth has not yet been released and I’m not sure if it will be this time around. Some ‘migration’ data will be released but not before 2025 (see previous response to Willie @ 11.41 above and the release timetable on this link: https://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/about/2022-census/census-outputs-schedule/) so that analysis is not yet possible.
I did some work last year which Iain kindly published and that is referenced as a source in the current report but it only breaks down population outflows from Scotland by age band whilst inflows from rUK and elsewhere are assessed at the total level only (see “Population Migration … a ticking time bomb for Scotland” on this link: https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2022/10/20/population-migration-a-ticking-time-bomb-for-scotland/).
However, this information for rUK (not England, but I’d imagine this is the vast bulk) inflows by age band were published by the National Records of Scotland as part of their “Mid Year Population Estimates” for 2021 (see Table 5 on this link: https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nrscotland.gov.uk%2Ffiles%2F%2Fstatistics%2Fpopulation-estimates%2Fmid-21%2Fmid-year-pop-est-21-data.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK).
This shows that 8.6% of inflows from rUK were aged 65 years+ whereas the comparable figure for outside of UK was a mere 2.6%.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They didn’t call the Northern Ireland conflict a Dirty War for no reason. It was a Dirty War and the Brits fought deep and devious. Nothing was off bounds from media manipulation, to rigged voting, to political incarceration, to agents provocateur, to a corrupt and biased police force, to extra judicial murder.
The unionist statelet of Northern Ireland was moreover the product a plantation policy, a policy loved over the centuries by the Brits. And together with the destruction of Scottish culture, the Scottish language, Scottish history and much more, plantation is back in play again.
But the extent is I believe masked. The base statistical data manipulated, corrupted to hide the colonial ethnic engineering very much underway. So yes, we may analyse intelligently the statistical data, but I very much suspect that we are being deprived of the data that confirms the extent to which our franchise is being manipulated.
Scotland is England’s new India. It is a colony rich in resources. And that England has ” catch’d Scotchland ” to quote an old phrase, they will do anything to hold it fast.
And to the extent needed England has the guns, the military and all the apparatus of state to do so, and are in fact, doing so.
Scotland the colony is no democracy as we are finding out.
LikeLiked by 5 people
‘England has the guns, the military and all the apparatus of state to do so, and are in fact, doing so.’
Churchill sent the military in to Liverpool in 1911 to break the strikes, warships on the Mersey!
I wouldn’t rule out anything from the ‘right honerouble gentlemen’ Of southern England.
LikeLiked by 5 people
In many areas, eg subsistence farming and infrastructure, Scotland got more money from the EU than it ever did from London. We are now seeing the results of that loss since Brexit.
LikeLiked by 3 people
True.
In fact, it is now reinterpreted by our colonial governors as the fault of the SNP: “We’ve had years of SNP rule and look at the result”, they crow, a way of telling the natives they have starved of economic funds that we are useless to develop Scotland in any way, our skills lie only in messing about with regressive, negative laws.
LikeLiked by 3 people
If you accept that Scotland is a sovereign country withs its own culture, history and territory then why was the voting franchise used here unique in the world in that it allowed everyone living here a vote. This did not happen with the Brexit referendum, only U.K. citizens could vote. This was sold to us a civic nationalism.
It is normal in every country to allow foreigners to vote in local elections but not in country general elections or referendums. When asked at an event in New York why Scotland did not follow these norms our then First Minister stated that the Civil Service said it would be too difficult to administer. Then you think who pays and recruits senior civil servants.
In our referendum people here from foreign lands who were not part of our culture were given a vote. English, Welsh and NI residents along with other countries should not have been allowed a vote. They all have non Scottish cultural traditions so are less likely to vote for independence.
Had Scotland followed international norms in the 2014 referendum we would be an independent country now.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Given the continuing sovereignty of Scotland, you should also accept that Scotland’s sovereignty is vested specifically in its people, rather than a monarch or a parliament, and to be frank, that means specifically in its autochthonous people. That would be the UN’s position on such matters.
Thus any formal plebiscite of the Scots will include those autochthones, and thus that sovereignty may be engaged, and for any constitutional matter such as a vote on Scotland’s independence that sovereignty certainly must be engaged, and therefore it must be properly acknowledged by the franchise. This is because the autochthones’ sovereign decision cannot be overturned by any grouping of non-sovereign voters, even if that grouping was the majority. This suggests there’s no real point in non-sovereigns voting in the first place. That would also be the UN’s position on such matters.
The difficulty then is in deciding how to identify the Scots autochthones within the current Scottish electorate in order to be able to formulate the correct franchise requirements to meet the obligationof respect for that sovereignty.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Xaracen. You should try using language the majority of people understand without reference to a dictionary!!!
Are you an academic di*k at work?
LikeLike
No-one should worry about having to look up an unknown or not well-understood word in a dictionary; I do that fairly often, even now, at 71. I even do this with words I thought I knew but which were used in a way that didn’t quite feel right to me.
And, no, I’m not an academic di*k at work, I’m retired! 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is not accepted by our own government as was demonstated disgracefully on tuesday 19th, when no-one in the Holyrood Parliamernt would accept the Stirling Directive brought by a cross section of scottish people.
If our government, allegedly supporting our right to self determination does not accept a directive from the people, who can we turn to?
LikeLiked by 1 person
This must have taken a lot of time and effort to put all that together. Well done SD.
Reading through the comments I agree with some of those of Andrew Paterson in regard to the EU.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’ve read the article a couple of times now, and the comments once. Am I missing something ? Only by applying the historic and current % levels of support with the actual numbers or % of the population represented by each of the 3 cohorts can we work out the overall effects of these changes in YES support overall. Is this shown anywhere as a result of these changes, or are we relying on the current opinion pools ?
LikeLike
I will leave Stephen to reply.
LikeLike
The article is meant to give an indication as to why YES support is stagnating in the opinion polls.
Essentially indigenous Scots pro-Independence sentiment is flat-lining with English born still breaking two out of 3 in favour of the Union being offset by others who are now the most YES friendly of the 3 demographics (provided by Panelbase).
It would be interesting to see the volumes of population traffic by place of birth but, as indicated on the article and in comments, that is not available yet from the Census (and it is not clear from the schedule when or if it will be).This is a reply from Stephen who was experiencing technical problems and asked me to post on his behalf
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thanks for the response Iain & Stephen, & the article makes the trends in each cohort quite clear. But from what you have said it will still be difficult/impossible to work out whether these trends are really important because the census does not yet reveal the size of each of the cohorts. For example we know that the “not Scot, not RUK” born are significantly in favour of independence. But does their cohort represent 10% of voters, or 50% ? (I know – I’ve exaggerated the latter figure, but I have no idea whether 10% is about right, or also an exaggeration) If the census has collected this data, then why would the cohort sizes not be available ?
LikeLiked by 2 people
A good question. Perhaps Angus Robertson might reply. There again, almost certainly not.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@bushgeoff
You are quite correct that it is the relative sizes of the cohorts that are needed to quantify more precisely the impacts on any future referendum given indicative voting patterns on the question.
I did this last year on Iain’s blogs using National Records of Scotland “Mid-Year Population Estimates” which provided splits for migrants from rUK and oUK as well as outflows (by age group). This is quoted as a source (Population Migration … a ticking time bomb for Scotland) in this report and the link is provided.
Ideally we would use the Census full count to perform the impact assessment (rather than Mid Year estimates) but, as mentioned in the report and comments, we can’t as this is not available. It is unclear whether this will be provided in future Census data releases although there is something vague about ‘migration’ scheduled for 2025 publication!
LikeLiked by 4 people
@bushgeoff
One final point from the previous analysis referred to – “Population Migration … a ticking time bomb for Scotland” – is that the Mid-Year Population Estimates of the NRS for 2014-21 showed that people moving in from rUK was 334,298 compared to 264,100 from furth of the UK.
So you have (the larger) 56% cohort moving in who are 65% NO versus (the smaller) 44% cohort who are 45% NO. A double whammy.
LikeLiked by 3 people
A very interesting post. Proving nothing but where I live most of my new English neighbours seem to be in favour of independence. This could be down to the the fact that I am unlikely to be friends with those that would vote No as they tend to come with a lot of baggage and an attitude problem. How the other nationals that have moved here would vote I have no idea I suspect a lot would be in the no camp as a lot of them own estates and land reform gives them the vapours.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Sorry about that, finger pressed wrong key. The problem for us is that the UK is one state and all citizens have equal rights to vote within the the state. As Alf says, Hungary would not allow a Scot to vote in their constitutional matters, but Hungary is classed, like the UK, as a state. That is why the EU referendum removed the vote from those furth of the UK. It is very inequitable, especially when your think that we are outnumbered 10 to one by English voters, so they always come out on top. I do not think there is any way round the CoR and Treaty to prove that we are a sovereign nation and entitled to set our own rules. The thing is, Westminster and Whitehall know they are behaving in an ultra vires fashion towards us, but, because we do nothing, it’s business as usual.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Yes Lorncal, the 10:1 ratio is important. Census data indicates that over the past 20-25 years population inflows from rest-UK into Scotland have exceeded 1 million people. Historic census data also shows that people from rest-UK, mainly England, have constituted by far the main inbound migration group into Scotland since census records began over a century ago.
So the ‘identity’ of Scotland’s population has fundamentally altered, and this is an ongoing process over a rather lengthy period. This to a large extent explains the irregular anti-independence vote (50%+) relative to other peoples who became independent after positive votes usually well above 80%.
We might imagine if 1 million or more Germans moved into neighbouring Denmark within two decades – also leading to a 20%+ change in the identity of the population there. We know that this would not be possible, not least because of the tight regulations in Denmark on people from other countries buying property.
Inbound migration is clearly one of the main reasons for the significant ‘No’ vote in Scotland. The other reason is that many Scots suffer from a ‘colonial mindset’, which is a form of ‘internalized racism’ and which we know as the ‘Scottish cultural cringe’. In essence, therefore, the ‘No’ vote is largely due to the consequences of colonialism.
The national parties, and the people, have yet to understand this – which is why their understanding of the urgent need for independence ‘remains rudimentary’ (Fanon). They do not yet know what independence means or why it is necessary.
Click to access THEORETICAL+CASE+FOR+SCOTTISH+INDEPENDENCE.pdf
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thank you Mr Duncan for this article which explains clearly, or as clearly as can be, that we are losing our young folk and in most cases replacing them with English folk retirees or not, who are sick of the rat race South of the border and head to Scotland to use our marginally quicker services, which leads to longer waiting times for appointments for Scots, to top this off two-thirds of them want to keep the union.
Should they be given a constitutional vote especially with the stakes being so high? I say no.
LikeLiked by 5 people