Better together?

September 19, 2014 • 5:21 am

Here’s the headline of today’s New York Times, and if you click on the screenshot you’ll go to the article:

Screen Shot 2014-09-19 at 6.53.08 AM

Judging by the number of responses to yesterday’s post, there was a huge emotional (and rational!) investment in the outcome of this vote, and I was surprised. The pictures below, though, show how deeply people felt about this vote.

imgres

The outcome wasn’t as close as I thought, though. From the NYT:

With results tallied from all 32 voting districts, the “no” campaign won 55.3 percent of the vote while the pro-independence side won 44.7 percent. The margin was greater than forecast by virtually all pre-election polls.

. . . Mary Pitcaithly, the chief counting officer for the referendum, said final figures showed the pro-independence camp securing 1,617,989 votes while their opponents took 2,001,926.

The campaign had injected a rare fervor and passion into Scottish politics, debated in bars and coffee shops, kitchens and offices, and producing a turnout that exceeded 90 percent in some districts. Across Scotland, 84.6 percent of eligible voters cast ballots in the referendum.

Here are the results given (in the Guardian) by council: red is no (continuing union), blue is yes (independence). Who’s the blue?

Screen Shot 2014-09-19 at 7.12.01 AM

Reader Grania sent me a better map, saying “from the Economist: a more helpful map in understanding the yes and no distribution. Those areas that bordered England were more likely to vote no, as were the cities.”

Screen Shot 2014-09-19 at 7.43.25 AM

I suspect that those favoring the continuing union weren’t keen to say that to pollsters; perhaps it didn’t seem “Scottish.”

What will happen now? I’m not politically astute enough to know. Britain can keep its nuclear subs in Scotland, though I don’t really know why they’re there, and there will be bad feelings all around. But I love Scotland and its resilient people, and I know they’ll come to terms with this.

The happy and the sad:

“Yes” campaign supporters in Glasgow Square last night. (From NYT: Photo Lynne Cameron, Press Association via AP):

Screen Shot 2014-09-19 at 6.54.55 AM

Supporters of independence, in their plaid, mourn in Edinburgh (photo: NYT; Lesley Martin, Agence France-Presse, Getty images):

Screen Shot 2014-09-19 at 6.58.41 AM

From The Scotsman story: Better Together supporters celebrate in a Glasgow pub (Photo: Agency):

1614213350

More celebrations in Glasgow:

e2b34bdced18434e8753cda8c38747ca-b16fcbc750d249b89efe8a26c2440e6d-15

This will no doubt come round again, but not for a long time. I presume that the referendum is something that can be repeated, but with the huge emotional investment—and the fairly decisive outcome—that won’t  happen soon.

Readers’ wildlife photos

September 19, 2014 • 4:49 am

Reader Diana MacPherson has been busy photographing her chimpunks, and she’s sent a post in which she has characteristically anthropomorphized these adorable rodents. The title of the email she sent was “chimpmunks making human gestures,” and her interpretations are indented.

It was a good day for chipmunk (Tamias striatus) pictures. These are all pictures of whom I call “The Interloper”. I think this one is a juvenile by his/her energy level. Often, this chipmunk chases the chipmunk with the chunk missing from her ear.
“I cannot see or say evil. I can’t reach my ears at the same time, so I can still hear it.”
270A7646
“Is that you, Ceiling Cat?”
270A8246
“Oh hi—you wouldn’t have some seeds, would you?”
270A7911
Nom nom nom nom!
270A7866
“Hey, who’s that near my chippy hole?”
270A7817
“Hey! You! Yeah you! Move it along!”
270A7816
“Who am I?! Who am I?! I’m the chipmunk who eats here, that’s who!”
270A7826
This is the chipmunk The Interloper chases. She has the chunk out of her ear and this is just a really funny pose.
Chipmunk Licking Seeds

 

Hili dialogue: Friday

September 19, 2014 • 3:05 am

Friday again? Really? Meanwhile, in Dobrzyn, Hili is testy at Cyrus when Justyna comes for a visit:

Cyrus: You see what a beautiful cat I have?
Hili: Some compliments hide an unfounded claim of ownership.

P1010677

In Polish:
Cyrus: Widzisz jaką mam piękną kotkę?
Hili: Niektóre komplementy ukrywają nieuzasadnione poczucie własności.

 

Bonus hawks

September 18, 2014 • 5:17 pm

I have a bunch of photos from reader Stephen Barnard of Idaho, but he has sent a largesse of red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis). So here’s a special post with those photos, one of which provides a lesson about evolution.

His note:

The second photo shows the nictitating membrane.

RT9A5037

RT9A5047

I can’t resist pointing out that humans carry the vestigial remnant of a nictitating membrane from our ancestors in the form of the plica semilunaris in the corner of the eye (full nictitating membranes are absent in nearly all mammals except monotremes and marsupials).  Go look at your plica semilunaris in the mirror now! Spread your eye as in the diagram and look in the corner by the nose. That’s the remnant of the nictitating membrane that your reptilian ancestors had. (Some of you who are less evolved* will have a more pronounced remnant.)

Gray892

Here’s a photo of what to look for:

plica-semilunaris

The hawk with the membrane retracted:

RT9A5048

Red-tailed hawk

*only kidding, but I like to joke about that with the students

 

Fox trifecta

September 18, 2014 • 1:53 pm

I’m going to end Fox Week (only four days) on a high note. Reader Scott sent not one but three fox videos, along with some words:

I went on a fox hunt on yahoo and found some nice videos that I would like to share for three reasons: the fox’s speed, sound, and … apparent d*g preference.  The comments from the poster are surprising.

Looking further, I found the third link which I think indentifies the call in the first video as a “vixen scream” — a possible mating call.  That might put the first two videos in perspective!

1) What the Fox ACTUALLY Says (The Scream of a Fox):
(shorter clip)
2) same fox and dog playing
(full clip of interaction)
3) Fox calls :
vixen scream at 33 seconds in.



My prediction on Scotland

September 18, 2014 • 12:45 pm

I don’t really know much about this, though I lived in Edinburgh for five months. But I’m predicting, based on purely subjective criteria, that the Scots will vote to remain with Britain. I say this simply because it’s the tradition and because the economic and logistic uncertainties are so large.

I have no dog in this race: I love Scotland and if they want independence, that’s their call.  If that happens, I’ll celebrate it. After all, it’s a democratic vote.

Your guess?

UPDATE: A bulletin from CNN:

Polls close in the vote to determine whether Scotland will become independent or remain part of the United Kingdom.

Those in line to vote when polls closed were allowed to cast ballots. Results are expected to be announced over the next few hours.

A bookish coincidence

September 18, 2014 • 11:36 am

Sadly, as I am preening the Albatross I have almost no time to write about science: such posts are much, much harder than posts on politics and atheism. Fortunately, the Albatross is almost at her nesting ground.

Coincidentally, Matthew finished his book the same day as I did, and, yesterday, as I was going through my bibliography (mindless grunt work), I got this note from Matthew:

Going through bibliography, nearly fixed it all. Amused to discover I had left out Watson and Crick (1953a,b)

Not two minutes before that, I discovered that I had cited Darwin but had left Darwin (1859) out of the bibliography. Coincidence? Or God?
At any rate, I’d like to tout Matthew’s book, even though it won’t be out till June 20, published by Profile Books. I’ve read bits of it and it’s very good. Those with an interest in biology—or science in general—will like it.
Here’s the draft cover (notice the cleverly colored letters):

Cobb cover

It looks at how the idea of genetic information came to be, covering 20 years of post-war science and technology. Most of it is on the struggle to unravel the genetic code, but it also deals with stuff like introns and exons, artificial genetic codes, and the perennial New Paradigm of Evolution: epigenetics (fortunately, Matthew’s assessment of that is clear-eyed).
As for The Albatross, I am informed by my publishers that I will be killed if I divulge any information about it. All I can say is that you have a rough idea of the topic, and I promise that it is a real, genuine book, not a warmed-over collection of website posts. Oh, and you have to buy it. Srsly.