Tendentious tendencies
In so far as there’s any actual reasoning or hard data supporting the Scotsman’s front-page lead story today at all, it’s when the American pundit Nate Silver claims that “Historically, in any Yes or No vote in a referendum, it’s actually the No side that tends to grow over time, people tend not to default to changing the status quo.”
Shall we just check whether that does indeed “tend” to be true, readers?
The most recent referendum on national independence we can find is the one that took place in South Sudan in 2011, in which the Yes vote was a staggering 99%. If the No vote of 1% in that poll “grew over time”, goodness knows how low it started at.
But readers might reasonably note that South Sudan and Scotland aren’t very alike, so let’s take an example rather closer to home – the Quebec referendum of 1995.
Canada is a country with a very large percentage of its population claiming Scottish heritage, but the largely French-speaking province secured a second referendum 18 years ago, having previously lost one in 1980.
The 1995 vote was also lost, by a hair’s-breadth margin, closer than 51-49. That in itself was a significant pro-independence shift in opinion compared to the earlier referendum, which was lost by fractionally under 60-40. But it was also a dramatic movement compared to opinion polls at the start of the 1995 campaign, which put the No vote at 67% rather than the 50.6% it eventually secured.
(There are numerous other similarities between the 1995 Quebec vote and the state of play in Scotland. In Quebec, men voted Yes and women voted No. The poor voted Yes and the rich voted No. There was polling on whether people were Quebecois, Canadian, equally both, or more one than the other, all heavily tilted in favour of the Quebecois identity. And citizens of neighbouring countries didn’t much care.)
Any other countries similar to Scotland who’ve held referendums? We suppose we could include… Scotland. As we wrote on this very site almost a year ago to the day, in the 1997 devolution referendum polls consistently showed support for the two Yes options at around 61% and 46% respectively. On the day, Scots voted 74% and 64% in favour – remarkable swings to Yes of 7% and 9% for the two propositions.
If you’re in a hurry, we’ll cut to the chase here – the conclusion of all the available evidence is that Nate Silver’s core assertion is complete rubbish.
Yet the Scotsman has built a huge front-page story around an utter falsehood put forward by a single US pundit with no expertise on Scotland or its political environment whatsoever (or, indeed, that of the UK), rather than be forced to address an actual professionally-conducted poll of 1015 real live Scottish voters.
Tick tock, Scotsman journalists. Tick tock.
“Historically, in any Yes or No vote in a referendum, it’s actually the No side that tends to grow over time, people tend not to default to changing the status quo.”
Obviously, in Scotland’s case, 1979 and 1997 were exceptions to this normally rock solid rule.
It’s getting more bizarre by the day. How can these people live with themselves. Utter deceit. Tick tock indeed.
Nate Silver strikes me as having a somewhat similar failing to Prof. C; sees the numbers but not what they actually say.
The Scottish press have en masse ignored a landmark public funded poll. If that ain’t news I don’t know what is and I’ve been in the print game a fair old while now. The cat’s oot the bag and that 6% figure Rev, is beginning to look like an exaggeration of trust. Whatever follows the referendum next year in terms of media collapse is on their own heads. They’ve misrepresented, mislead, obfuscated and allowed others to downright lie in their columns. Do they think for a heartbeat that over half the electorate are going to forget this? We’ll all shake hands with the media and forgive and forget?
I for one, will never put my hand in my pocket for newsprint ever again. By default as a ‘nat’ elements of the collective press have accused us of xenophobia, tribalism, racism and bigotry or allowed others within their pages to make this claim without reply or investigation. Just why should I turn the other cheek and be the bigger person post referendum to help their asses out of the fire?
Most polls in the Montenegrin referendum had the Yes vote leading but crucially trailing the 55% threshold required to win independence.
In the last few days of the campaign there was a swing to the Yes vote. The eventual result was Yes: 55.5%, No: 44.5%.
Again this referendum calls into question Nate Silver’s claim, “Historically, in any Yes or No vote in a referendum, it’s actually the No side that tends to grow over time, people tend not to default to changing the status quo.”
If that were true we would not have a devolved parliament. This article is not just a tendentious reading of history its also a narrative fallacy. As humans we are drawn to narratives, we love story telling. Its easier to remember things, its therapeutic but it can draw you down a blind ally if you let it. This is what the Scotsman and indeed Better together are doing. They had to invent a forest so they can’t be blinded by the trees. They are telling themselves stories that the status quo is the preferred option in most referendums, that Independence is not progressive. They are taking an opinion of history rather than look at the real history of experience of these events. They got an american who; if his core assertion was correct, would be living in a colony of the UK, not the USA.
We can be just as guilty of this as well – we should avoid thinking that our “shit don’t stink”. But I think it fair to say that examining the narrative of Union, that I find it wanting. In fact I think it is being bled slowly to death by austerity. There is very little trust in Westminster to reverse this. So the idea of the status quo is frankly absurd as it is constantly shifting and changing, the very antithesis of status quo. Curious really that Independence is sort of gearing itself to protect the status quo in Scotland. But better together can’t do that, they’re not listening, or looking at what’s going on around them. They have their eyes fixed on the past oblivious to the fact that there Union is being unmade all around them.
“Taking a comment based on a thirty min interview that becomes front page news is not the precedent I want to set.” ~Nate Silver quoted by the official Twitter account of the Edinburgh Book Festival.
Punditry verses reality:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/11/how-pundits-are-explaining-their-totally-wrong-election-predictions/58796/
It’d be interesting if Nate Silver were to come out and say “hey – all I was doing was repeating the received wisdom on referenda – it’s not my area of expertise and I haven’t really looked into it any more than the average psephologist. I am quite pissed off at how this newspaper has spun that into a massive story when it isn’t. Hey Scotsman: y’all are dicks.”. I bet it wouldn’t make the front page of the Scotsman, that’s for sure.
Edit: Ah I see he’s said something diplomatically equivalent already.
The Scotsman will surely go the way of the union – extinction.
What Macart said.
Long time reader, first time poster! The results from the polls raised a number of points that I was looking for confirmation on, you know checking not some raving nationalist, and there are people out there thinking the same things as me!
just a thought, would there not be some mileage in getting different polling companies to do future WoS polls and narrow the field available to the MSM?
At least the good old Paisley Daily Express is doing not so badly… readership figures going the opposite way of the Hootsmon http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2013/news/circulation-drop-for-all-but-two-uk-regional-dailies/
and they have reported on previous polls. Worth giving them a shout?
Moridura site asks about this link he found, it is WoS I believe:
http://moridura.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/devo-zero-scotland-after-no-vote.html
I think James Morton makes a crucial point, and something which Nate Silver is probably unaware of: the way Westminster politics are going, it is a Yes vote which is going to be the vote for the status quo!
From what I have read about Nate Silver, and from the diplomatic quote above, I think he will see this for what it was: an attempt to use his name for propaganda purposes. If so, I doubt this will amuse him, and may actually lead him to take a real interest in the referendum campaign, which I think would be great – at the moment the Nos are playing fast and loose with polling results, and at least one of the major polling organisations is looking to me to be less than neutral/objective re #IndyRef.
To be fair to Nate Silver, I read he seems a bit miffed that his comments were taken out of context. The blame falls squarely on the Scotsman. Quelle surprise!
As always in a matter like this I would say to the Hootsmon and Nate, “Show us the data.” I don’t think they could.
As an aside I have finally (today) deleted the Scotsman from all favourites and shortcuts on all platforms at work and home (and phone) and will only be looking at the archive material posted here for which Johnston Press gets hee haw revenue and viewing figures.
“If you’re in a hurry, we’ll cut to the chase here – the conclusion of all the available evidence is that Nate Silver’s core assertion is complete rubbish.”
All your available evidence being two referendums, one of which was in a country afflicted by a horrific genocide? Right…
“All your available evidence being two referendums, one of which was in a country afflicted by a horrific genocide?”
I keenly await your counter-evidence, in the form of a long list of independence referendums in which opinion swung towards No over the course of the campaign. Start any time you like.
Another piece of Silver.
edbookfest 51m
In theory the internet ought to make people more accountable. Data is so much more widely available now. ~Nate Silver
Nate Silver is pretty peeved with the Scotsman. He believes his comments have been taken out of context.
The Lone Ranger of psephology, with Prof JC as Tonto? Hi Ho Silver! Let’s prove him wrong at the referendum, and expose the appalling ‘Sir’ Jonathan Mills as the Unionist toady he is by a strong ‘Yes presence on the streets of Edinburgh during the 2014 Edinburgh Festival. I guess that I’m not far from the truth if I assume that Mills has bent the knee to the Unionist Establishment to be rewarded with a bauble and and a title?
James Morton,
great post! Thanks.
I keenly await your counter-evidence, in the form of a long list of independence referendums in which opinion swung towards No over the course of the campaign. Start any time you like.
I’m on the edge of my seat here too.
Just to add a couple more data points which massively contradict what Nate Silver said re independence referenda;
Ukraine saw a shift from 63% in favour in September 1991, to 77% in October, to 88% in mid November, and the final vote on 1st December was 92.3% in favour.
Montenegro did go independent in 2006 with 55.5% of the vote, but that was only 14 years after rejecting independence by a 93% margin. Now there’s obviously mitigating circumstances around the first vote (ie Montenegrans didn’t want to participate in a civil war which would have been provoked by going independent!) but that’s not a long time between referenda with a diametrically opposite result.
He’s talking shite is the conclusion I’m afraid.
It doesn’t really matter to the No groups if they misinform, mislead and lie; if it produces a No majority what would be the downside for them if it then comes out?
What would people in Scotland do, suddenly vote Conservative? There is little real danger for the Tories that don’t already exist or they don’t know about.
The Conservatives are going to redraw the constituency boundaries at some stage, giving them 20 more seats, they are going to resolve the West Lothian Question, reducing the influence of Scottish MPs, the Barnett Formula is going to be reviewed in 2016, not our favour.
What could Scots do in response once the possibility of Independence is off the table?
Is Labour vying to be the dimmest political party in the world, a position presently held by the LibDems?
I’m not the one making the assertion! It may be true, it may not not be – the point is, your defence of two examples, one of which is Sudan, are as glib as the one you’re trying to defeat.
I really would hope both sides of the debate have better to come over the next 13 months, and we can soon stop the naval gazing and sideshow of it all.
Has an independence referendum ever been won when the entire MSM has been against independence ?
On the other hand,the NO camp cant muster 50% in opinion polls,despite having the entire MSM campaigning for them.
If we are to win this referendum,it will be done outwith the MSM.So lets not get too caught up in who said what to the Scotsman.
Only 18% are really committed to the Union.
Keep at it.13 months out,its all about sowing seeds in folks minds and building their confidence in themselves and their country.Do that,and their confidence in the MSM will ebb away.
@lcbrown
‘we can soon stop the naval gazing’
Do you mean when rUK stomps off in a huff with all their ships?
The 1979 and the 1997 Scottish devolution referendums make an interesting comparison.
In the run up to the 1979 referendum where a 40% threshold was imposed by Westminster the polls showed a swing from Yes to No, from 65/35 early February to 50/50 on the eve of the poll. . The result was Yes: 51.6%, No: 48.4%. The pollsters go it right.
In 1979 the YES vote was soft.
In the run up the 1997 referendum where a simple majority was required. Again the polls indicated a swing from Yes to No, from 65/35 to 60/40. However the actual result was Yes: 74.3%, No: 25.7%. The pollsters got it wrong.
In 1997 the NO vote was soft.
What is interesting is that currently polls show that for the 2014 independence referendum the NO vote is soft. With polls actually narrowing and with a year to go, it would need a braver man than Nate Silver to predict the outcome of this referendum.
Sadly I did not keep the front page of the early edition of the “Scottish” Daily Express which hit the streets of Glasgow the morning after Jim Sillars won Govan announcing a narrow defeat for Sillars
What this highlights more than anything else is the absolute desperation The Hootsman has in supporting the NO campaign. The only objective by this rag is to introduce a new name of someone vaguely important (ie he’s American so he must be) and glean a usable quote or two from him. This is then spun into a front page story, or indeed even just a story. It’s same as getting Glenn Campbell tramping across Europe trying to put a negative spin on what some foreign dignitary has to say on Scottish Independence.
Nate Silver, like any pollster, can only work on the information given to him. Then he comes to a conclusion. In terms of Scottish politics, history and trends then quite frankly he will be cluelessand makes a general comment, talking from an American point of view which is very different to a Scottish one. No, what was important to the Hootsman was getting a name with a reputation and a quote that can be spun.
I would even go as far to say that Nate Silver’s job in the US is even made easy for him. Americans are a very conservative people, traditionally isolationist even, progress and change is seen with suspicion. So his comment: “Historically, in any Yes or No vote in a referendum, it’s actually the No side that tends to grow over time, people tend not to default to changing the status quo,” rings very true when talking about American politics but a bit pointless when referring to Scottish politics as historically that is not the case. In other words this Hootsman article is utter shite.
Only the sort of polling with in depth questioning such what WoS has achieved recently is the best way of knowing what people are thinking. The Hootsman knows this but their job is to deflect from and ignore answers to those uncomfortable questions that need to be asked. I can’t wait for the next set of of questions 🙂
“In the run up the 1997 referendum where a simple majority was required. Again the polls indicated a swing from Yes to No, from 65/35 to 60/40. However the actual result was Yes: 74.3%, No: 25.7%. The pollsters got it wrong.”
We’ve actually run an article on that subject, ages ago, and I’m buggered if I can find it.
I’ve not been able to trace the actual figures, but I remember news reports in the run-up to the Estonian independence referendum expressing concern that Yes would be absolutely hammered because of their decision to let all Estonian residents vote, including the Russian “plantation”, and not confine it to ethnic and linguistic Estonians. I’m sure I remember people saying they were absolutely stuffed, after that decision was announced.
I’m not sure what the Yes majority was, but it was pretty substantial. Turned out almost all of the Russians who had been sent to live in Estonia to swamp the local culture wanted to be Estonian!
We’ve actually run an article on that subject, ages ago, and I’m buggered if I can find it.
You know, some sort of index would be good on this site, rather than just a search facility. There are now so many posts that even if you know the month you’re loking for (and often don’t), it’s an awful lot to trawl through.
Believe it it or not Rev, I was just doing a google search and that article came up. 🙂
http://wingsoverscotland.com/a-brief-note-on-opinion-polls/
This may be the article you are looking for:
http://wingsoverscotland.com/a-brief-note-on-opinion-polls/
it contains this paragraph:
The second poll was conducted the day before the referendum. The actual vote, just 24 hours later, was 74-26 for the Parliament and 64-36 for tax-raising powers – overnight swings of 5% and 7% respectively in favour of the two propositions.
James: brilliant, thanks.
Given the antics of the Scottish media, I am wondering what has been offered to those in control of them, a Lordship perhaps? Some estate in the highlands to take you chummies hunting? An OBE, CBE, MBE? Maybe even the keys to Scotland. True journalists love rocking the establishment boat, ours seem on keeping it afloat. Begs the reason.
You could argue that the biggest factor in the change in voting in 1979 was the realisation that it was going to be difficult for the YES to reach the 40% threshold, even with an early lead in the polls. Hopes over Home Rule were eventually squashed by Westminster electoral jiggery-pokery prior to the referendum, by the usual promises of jam tomorrow and by sham journalism of the day. The YES vote collapsed but we were never the same nation after that. That whole episode left a deep and permanent scar on the Scottish psyche.
Things are very different now as the WoS poll indicates. Scots don’t trust the NO campaign, don’t trust Westminster promises and certainly don’t trust the Scottish media. That lack of public trust is probably why the NO vote is soft. You need to have something positive and substantial to hold on to if you are going into the ballot box. You need good reasons to vote NO, and at the moment there are none.
Fears, smears and sham Hootsmon journalism simply won’t do. Won’t do at all.
“You know, some sort of index would be good on this site, rather than just a search facility. “
Wouldn’t have a clue how to go about that, or what it would provide that a search wouldn’t find. Search normally never lets me down, I think it was just the formatting of the numbers that confused it – I was searching for “64%” and “74%”, but I hadn’t put the % signs in in last year’s piece.
A lot of people still have to make their minds up, there is a year to go and Labour look increasingly in trouble in England. There is a lot to play for. We don’t need to convince many No voters to change we just need to win over the Don’t Knows. I would like to convince the No vote too but I think about 35% of the population are entrenched in both the Yes and No camps. There is 30% that are there for the convincing and we know that 30% lean towards Devo Max.
I am sure Mr Silver knows his stuff but the I am not sure he knows Scottish politics.
I think, given the limitations of the software, it’s probably something that would have to be created by hand. A page giving title of article, date of publication, and perhaps a sentence saying what the meat of the article was actually about. With a link of course.
I don’t suppose you have the time, now, though it would have been relatively painless to begin something like that in 2011.
Silver is probably gloomily aware that he has given a hostage to fortune. If he tries to back-peddle in order to protect his reputation – tough, the slut who stole his wallet last night doesn’t want to see him today.
I don’t know why I was stopped from editing because I don’t see another post, but I was going to comment that Stu probably finds Search adequate because he is more familiar with the articles than the rest of us. I quite often struggle, especially because the quirky titles, which I generally love, don’t always make it clear what an article is actually about.
ETA: Ah, there’s an intervening post now. Weird software!
Graph taken from Scottish Affairs paper at the time:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8CTHz_DTDtlVmtLRExSMzhFd2M/edit?usp=sharing
Anyone using “status quo” in this debate either does not know what they are talking about or is trying to mislead. There is no status quo on offer. Even if we discount the jam tomorrow devo promises of the parties behind BT, in the event of a No vote there is the new Scottish Income Tax and another 3 and a half years of austerity coming down the line. Worse still because of the back end loading of the cuts it will be the remaining 50% in those years. This is not a referendum on a prospective change versus an acceptable present but a chance to decide on democracy in one country as opposed to dependency.
If you catch anyone using “status quo” in the debate, challenge them.
@Icbrown – to be honest, Stu need only flag up ONE example to disprove the blanket assertion that all referenda see a swing to the No side. But by the looks of things, there’s ample evidence.
As to Nate Silver’s disappointment with the Scotsman quoting one line from a 30-minute interview: welcome to the British media, Nate! Perhaps now you see why our politicians have had to become masters of saying nothing, to avoid giving the press ammunition to feed their partisan objectives.
The status of the union between Montenegro and Serbia was decided by the referendum on Montenegrin independence on 21 May 2006. A total of 419,240 votes were cast, representing 86.5% of the total electorate. 230,661 votes (55.5%) were for independence and 185,002 votes (44.5%) were against.[19] The 45,659 difference narrowly surpassed the 55% threshold needed to validate the referendum under the rules set by the European Union.
According to the electoral commission, the 55% threshold was passed by only 2,300 votes. Serbia, the member-states of the European Union, and the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council all recognised Montenegro’s independence.
“Wouldn’t have a clue how to go about that, or what it would provide that a search wouldn’t find.”
Would WordPress Categories help?
If you search Google you’ll find lots of info on how best to use them.
Morag, you’re not watching. I wrote ‘back-peddle’ when I meant ‘back-pedal’. I’ll consider my wrist slapped anyway.
“I wrote ‘back-peddle’ when I meant ‘back-pedal’”
Do you think she’ll buy that, Vronsky? 🙂
I did see it, but I was being kind.
It seems to me there have been very very few No votes in independence referenda, so Nate’s baseline for calculation is pretty small. And two of these were in Quebec, where we know the Yes vote went up towards the end. So what is he on about?
I note that the quote doesn’t specify independence referenda. Presumably he’s talking about anything and everything, like the AV one and so on – he’s probably basing the opinion mostly on American state referenda. Not really very comparable at all.
Based on other independence referenda, and indeed on the 1979 and 1997 Scottish referenda, I’d say Yes is in with more than a shout here.
All your available evidence being two referendums, one of which was in a country afflicted by a horrific genocide?
Hey there lcbrown, I thought I’d take the opportunity to present a few UK referenda:
Northern Ireland Sovereignty Referendum 1973 – UK (analogous to No, though the question wasn’t phrased that way)
UK European Communities membership 1975 – Yes
Scottish Devolution Referendum 1979 – Yes
Welsh devolution referendum 1979 – Yes
Scottish Devolution Referendum 1997 – Double Yes
Welsh Devolution Referendum 1997 – No
Greater London Authority Referendum 1998 -Yes
Northern Ireland Belfast Agreement Referendum 1998 – Yes
North East England Devolution Referendum 2004 – No
Welsh Devolution Referendum 2011 – Yes
United Kingdom Alternative Vote Referendum 2011 – No
So out of 11 referenda, four went with no. So “Historically, in any Yes or No vote in a referendum, it’s actually the No side that tends to grow over time, people tend not to default to changing the status quo” is demonstrably not quite right.
If we’re treating the idea of “should this be an independent country” as a yes, since that’s pretty much upsetting the status quo, and thus making a no vote a vote to remain in whatever non-independent state they were in, here’s a list of independence referendums which led to that country’s independence:
Liberia 1846
Sweden 1905
Iceland 1944
Cambodia 1945
Faroe Islands 1946
Guinea 1958
Samoa 1961
Mata 1964
Rhodesia 194
Bahrain 1971
Aruba 1986
Djibouti 1977
Micronesia 1983
Slovenia 1990
Armenia 1991
Azerbaijan 1991
Croatia 1991
Estonia 1991
Georgia 1991
Latvia 1991
Lithuania 1991
Macedonia 1991
Nagarno-Karabakh 1991
Ukraine 1991
Transnistria 1991
Turkmenistan 1991
Bosnia and Herzegovina 1992
South Ossetia 1992
Eritrea 1993
Moldova 1994 (this was one of the few cases where the referendum was on whether it should retain independence, which they voted to confirm)
East Timor 1999
Kurdistan 2005
Montinegro 2006
South Ossetia (voted to retain independence)
Transnistria (voted to retain independence)
Tamil Eelam 2009
South Sudan 2011
And here are the unsuccessful ones, which range from the people voting no (particularly in the case of Puerto Rico) to the country’s independence being unrecognized:
Western Australia 1933 (rejected despite an overwhelming majority voting yes, the British government decided to essentially ignore it since the rest of Australia didn’t support it)
Puerto Rico 1967
West Papua 1969 (rightly rejected because it was an affront to democracy for a thousand soldiers to vote against the wishes of 2 million people)
Northern Ireland 1973 (quelle surprise)
Quebec 1980
New Caledonia 1987
Kosovo 1991 (despite a 99% yes vote, it was unrecognised by the UN: Kosovo finally gained its independence only after the horrendous Kosovo War)
Montenegro 1992 (that clearly changed in 2006)
Puerto Rico 1993
Quebec 1995
Nevis 1998 (62% voted yes, but a two-thirds majority was needed to pass)
Puerto Rico 1998
Basque 2008 (Cancelled and actively prevented by the Spanish government)
Puerto Rico 2012
Out of 51 referenda, 37 led to independence, 14 (several multiple referenda in the same country) didn’t. Of the three which were about retaining independence or joining another country, all voted to retain independence. 3 of the 14 unsuccessful referenda voted in favour, but were rejected by the international community or government.
Anyone using “status quo” in this debate either does not know what they are talking about or is trying to mislead. There is no status quo on offer. Even if we discount the jam tomorrow devo promises of the parties behind BT, in the event of a No vote there is the new Scottish Income Tax and another 3 and a half years of austerity coming down the line. Worse still because of the back end loading of the cuts it will be the remaining 50% in those years. This is not a referendum on a prospective change versus an acceptable present but a chance to decide on democracy in one country as opposed to dependency.
If you catch anyone using “status quo” in the debate, challenge them.
Agreed, agreed, agreed. There is no status quo, there can be no status quo. Everything has already changed immeasurably, and things are going to change again. It makes zero sense to say “things are fine the way they are” – even if they were (and they aren’t, there is no way on earth or heaven you could convince me things are currently “fine” when there are FOOD BANKS being opened in a supposedly first-world country), things aren’t going to be like this for much longer if we stay in the UK. This isn’t prediction, this isn’t supposition, this is openly announced government policy.
Staying in the UK is the bigger gamble here.
Point of information: Wales votes Yes in 1997, although it went to the wire. There wouldn’t be a Welsh Assembly now if it hadn’t.
Professor Matt Qvortrup, former advisor to Tony Blair and former darling of the BBC (which described him as the world’s leading expert on referendums but has since fallen from such grace by dint, I suspect, of his balanced commentary on the Scottish Independence Referendum) I believe said that there has only been three NOs for clear cut independence referenda, two of which were Quebec.
In a more researcher active past I read up on some cases. From what I recall, in South Ossetia, the UN rejected their referendum because it wasn’t just for independence but to join the Russian Federation, there was also concerns about external influence from Russia. They would have been better advised to vote for independence only and at some later date, vote to join with Russia. Regarding Kosovo, Serbia still rejects their independence and although a majority of nation states recognise it those are still insufficient in number to pass the UN membership quorate. However, the UN referred the case to the ICJ which found that Kosovo had done nothing illegal under international law by declaring UDI.
O/T. You know what? I was wrong in my understanding of what “tendentious” meant, right until today. I don’t think I ever used the word myself, but I was misunderstanding it when I read it.
Every day’s a school day on Wings over Scotland.
Silver’s record in the UK is, of course, miserable:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/apr/27/nate-silver-labour-swing
You mustn’t forget your wee cousins in all this.
We voted YES for a National Assembly on 18 September (!) 1997, albeit by the smallest of margins (0.3%) but that reflected a swing of over 30% from NO to YES since the 1979 Referendum – a bigger swing in fact than that which was registered in Scotland.
Again, when we were given another Referendum on full law-making powers for that National Assembly in 2011, the result was 63.49% voted ‘YES’, and 36.51% voted ‘NO’ with *all* local authority areas (bar Sir Fynwy/Monmouthshire) voting YES. Indeed, there was barely 200 votes between YES and NO even there.
Take heart, Scotland. There’s only one ballot which counts – that of 18 September 2014!
Exactly 17 years to the day when we voted for our first ever international and officially recognised governing body. 🙂
I think that I just might be the only person in Scotland to have bought Nate Silver’s book and started to read it. Let me quote from the introduction of the book.
‘A long term study by Philip E. Tetlock of the University of Pennsylvania found that when political scientists claimed that a political outcome had absolutely no chance of occurring, it nevertheless happened about 15 percent of the time.’ (Page 11 The Signal and the Noise)
I think Nate Silver probably had a good laugh when reading the headlines saying ‘Nate Silver says No Chance for Indy Ref YES’