Such a vote IMO should require a 62-67% threshold to pass. That is too big a move IMO to just have a slim majority cause such major change.
What is important is the question was clear and voters were given a real choice.
If they had to voted to leave, no one in the rest of the UK would have stood in their way.
Scots exercised their democratic right to decide their future and they can be proud.
BO made major changes in our country with a mere 52% mandate.
At last! An intelligent comment about "democracy"!
Look - for choosing which of two dopes gets to be a congressman, or the dog catcher, having their fellow dopes vote and letting the winner have the prize is at least half-reasonable.
Having 4.5% of the residents of a 300 year old state choose to dissolve it, over the objections of the other 95.5%, in an election when children and foreigners get to vote, is just plain ridiculous.
The various Quebec independence referenda are the same. The last time, "oui" lost by several thousand votes out of millions cast. Suppose next time "oui" wins by several thousand votes? Does that mean that millions of Canadians need to surrender their nationality unwillingly?
Fundamental changes require massive majorities, or they should. Changing the US Constitution requires 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate, and 3/4 of the States. To change the (unwritten) constitution of the UK by a simple majority of a tiny minority, when Nigerians and Pakistanis get to vote along with actual Scots?
It is just so blindingly idiotic, I still can't believe such an "election" was allowed to take place.
The Founders abhorred "democracy", and for good reason.