Thinking about Scotland tonight as the counting begins. I hadn't realized that they don't put out election results until they are all in and the count is final. Media is not to analyze anything while the polls are open. Wow. That certainly would make for a different election and less media influence. I wonder what Bush vs. Gore would have been like...
And it's so close. Now that the polls have closed, BBC is up and running.
And so I have discovered something astonishing. I had been saying earlier today that it seemed close enough that a recount was certain. But look at this:
So could they do a recount? The short answer is no.
The Chief Counting Officer Mary Pitcaithly has made it clear that all votes are counted locally, that concerns about the count must be resolved locally, but "the closeness of the vote will not in itself be a sufficient reason" for a recount at any of the 32 count centres around Scotland.
She adds: "There is only one result - the aggregate of all 32 local totals."'Respect the result'
And any recounts done locally, unless it was the last count centre to declare, would be done without the knowledge of how people had voted elsewhere - and so without knowing how close, or not, it might be on the national stage.
|bbc.com is running live updates now that the polls have closed.|
I can understand why Scotland might want to do such a thing, given that no one likes to feel controlled or helpless to determine his or her own fate. But practically? Just thinking about the logistics and the actual, monetary cost of a split, never mind a host of other issues and over 300 years of successful union, I just can't see a yes vote as logical, as appealing as it might sound.
Fortunately, this is up to residents of Scotland, not Massachusetts.
Let us pray that the right choice is made and that hard feelings created in this process are healed sooner rather than later.
Someday I'll have to find a way to get back to Scotland myself. I'm sure it will still be a topic of much discussion whatever the results may be.