E.R. Campbell said:
Actually, if we take Kirkhill's word for it, the current Highlanders voted "No," as did the "Border Scots," and only the urban ex-Highlanders, in that narrow strip South the real highlands, voted "Yes."
I stand by my assessment. Although every part of Scotland was split with nationalists everywhere the closer you got to Glasgow the more likely it was that that the population were Yes supporters.
Part of the Yes problem though, was summarized by this comment from a Labour supporter in Clackmannanshire: "The nationalists are nothing but Tories in kilts."
That may take a bit of parsing.
Labour in Scotland is full of the spirit of Burns's "A man's a man for a' that......And all the world oer... shall brithers be for a' that." They are internationalists at heart although they are also Scots. They don't see a contradiction there.
Labour agrees on one thing. They don't like Tories. Tories are not necessarily English. They detest Scottish Tories equally. Tories have variously been Jacobites, Episcopalians, Landowners responsible for the clearances, Mine owners and Shipyard owners. Not to mention town councillors. That is to say, anyone with power to constrain them (and charge malting taxes).
The nationalists have generally been middle to upper class Scots, starting with the Jacobites.
The Tories and Labour agreed on one thing. The only people that didn't wear breeks were Tcheuchters. Highlanders were brought down from the north to suppress the honest, God-fearing, witch-burning Covenanters and the lowlanders have never let them forget it.
Even today "respectable" lowlanders buy a Walter Scott kilt to dress up for their wedding and other ceremonials. Beyond that kilts are seldom worn.
Alex Salmond's strategy was to take over the centre-right nationalists and co-opt them into a left-leaning organization. This is the strategy of the Party Quebecois and the IRA.
The strategy works as long as you don't ask them what comes the morning after. All can agree that change can be good. The problem always remains - what kind of change?
Obama, Salmond and Trudeau skip the messy details (and split their countries down the middle?). Half the Scots were canny enough to want to know what was on offer before agreeing to change for the sake of change.
One thing I was pleasantly surprised to see - and that was the lack of confrontations. Well done to the Scots.
And one last point - I wouldn't want to be David Cameron (or Ed Milliband).
The calls are now out for a grand constitutional convention to deal with the governance of the English, Welsh and Ulstermen as well as the Scots. But that would break up Westminster and turn it into Ottawa. Labour would lose its strength which is dependent on Scots and Welsh voters. Westminster could end up as a Tory fiefdom for ever. One up for David. But he has to negotiate that at the same time as winning a general election and manage a referundum on the EU while trying to co-opt the UKIP vote.
The next three years could be as momentous for the Brits as the 1685-1689 period - if not as bloody.
).
