I must have cared deeply about the Scottish referendum, because I dreamed about it twice last night, each time thinking the result had been No, and each time waking to the disquieting realisation that a Yes vote was still possible.
But here we are in Glad Confident Morning and the Scots really have voted No.
Some observations at random.
1. The Nationalists will never have a better chance of winning. They only needed 51% of votes, and they were led by a man who could sell snow to the Eskimos. If there's another referendum - and there surely will be, the Scottish psyche being as it is - the UK prime minister would be perfectly justified in demanding a two-thirds majority for a change so fundamental. The next time Alex Salmond will be an old man, if the West of Scotland diet doesn't get him first. If Salmond had led the No campaign, Yes would have suffered a humiliating defeat rather than a decisive one.
2. Geographical distribution of the votes shows that Yes voters were disproportionately young working class, and No voters disproportionately middle-aged or elderly middle-class. The Yes voters, more likely to be badly educated, inexperienced and badly informed, voted for a case that was emotional, nationalistic and utterly threadbare intellectually. The Noes voted for one which made pragmatic common sense. I heard a man say, "This was a cry for help from Scotland's disadvantaged". More accurate to call it a cry for more generous - and unfunded - welfarism.
3. The pollsters overestimated the Yes vote and underestimated the No vote. This ties in with the many stories of intimidation by the Yes campaign. The Noes were nervous at speaking out, even to pollsters.
4. Simpson's law applied. This principle, first posited in the beige heat of the AV referendum, proposes that whichever side has the most artistic Luvvies is not only wrong but will lose. So here, when most Scottish Luvvies supported independence.
5. This is a disastrous day for Labour in England. In the wake of promises by Westminster party leaders that Scotland must have more powers, the notion that England must also have more powers has gained what seems like irresistible traction (though this may of course fade). If, as is long overdue, Scottish Westminster MPs are barred somehow from voting on English matters, that should put an end to Labour government in England for a long time.
6. I've already heard several English Labour politicians temporising hilariously on the prospects of a solution to the West Lothian question. Translated, their obfuscation means, "Please let our Scots colleagues keep on voting. If you don't we'll never be in a majority and enjoy ministerial office again". Self-determination is apparently only the Celtic nations, not for the English.
7. There are enormous problems inherent in working out new constitutional and tax arrangements. It's going to be hard to combine a UK-wide distribution from central funds with the idea of locally variable tax rates. How will English politicians explain to their electorate that their taxes should be used to prop up the (over-generous) Barnett Formula to Scotland when the Scots are sucking in investment by undercutting English taxes? But if all four countries start raising all their own tax and stop getting a central Westminster grant, those differing tax rates will lead to flows of businesses and populations as it becomes apparent that not all four countries are equally prosperous. Is that really what we want? Ultimately there will have to be some sort of carry over from the richer countries (ie England) to the others.
8. Timing is everything. Cameron promised the Scots it would be done quickly, and he'll have to keep to that at the same time as keeping the English onside. There'll be a general election next year, and you'd imagine he'd be able to present a plan to the English electorate which would get a ringing endorsement. In the constitutional deliberations which will follow in the next few months I expect Labour to peel off pretty quickly, realising that English votes on English matters will assuredly mean electoral doom. Cameron had better get it right, but it isn't impossible. (I wrote this post a few hours after the No declaration; in fact Ed Miliband by tea-time the same day was already babbling about a Constitutional Commission and English regional assemblies; translation - in which direction is the long grass?)
Still and all, although I'm not a flag-waving jingoist I think that willingness to change just enough to prevent upheaval reflects a good deal of credit on Britain. I'm glad Britain still exists this morning and tonight I'll be cracking open a bottle of Aldi champage to celebrate.
Neither may be Great, but they're still probably better than some of the alternatives.
