Oddquine

Unfortunately you probasbly won't find yourself agreeing with this though. It has emerged today that the Smith Commission, as "vowed", has agreed on recommendations for more devolution. These, presumably to the dismay of Mr A. Grumpynat of Dingwall and a few other fellow travellers, are apparently due to be published - three days ahead of timescale - on Thursday. I would imaginme that the next steps thereafter will be:- * The Nats, even though they may stop short of stomping out of the Smith Commission in the huff, throw the rattle out of the pram and try to create more disharmony and resentment by claiming that the proposals don't go far enough. (This is a very safe bet even though we don't actually know yet what the proposals are.) and.... * Mr A. Grumpynat of Dingwall goes totally apoplectic, tears down the fairy lights he has put round his "Day #77 and still no extra powers. Fact." sign in his window and jumps out of said window in protest. And what have they agreed to devolve? Linkie, please. As near as dammit to Home Rule/DevoMax/Federalism.....as per the VOW? I betcha it isn't anything remotely like that.

Don't think anyone is saying that.....but it is the case that the majority of Scots would have voted for devo-max, if it had been on offer....and on offer at pretty much any level more than the waste of space Scotland Act 2012, which has still to come on stream. The reason it wasn't on offer was because Westminster didn't want to offer it, knowing we'd vote for it...and they didn't want us having more devolution than they had already allowed us. Intransigent No voters, who use terms like "ripping us out of the union" and "separatists" were and are the minority, and those who wanted constitutional change at some meaningful level were and are the majority. If the Union was so darn great and was working for us, as well as for Westminster, why would we ever have wanted any devolution in the first instance? If the union was so desirable, why would we have wanted constitutional change at all? I am inclined to agree about politicians, but do feel that fairy tales are different from the downright deliberate lies and scaremongering employed by Westminster and Bitter Together. Fairy tales give hope, not fear...and hope is something sadly lacking in the UK under Westminster hegenomy today with the increasingly right-wing quasi-American agenda being instituted. The YES side offered the possibility that we Scots could be the change we wanted to see.....the NO side offered threats that, after 300+ years of this much vaunted union, we would be treated much worse by Westminster than they treated the ROI, when they fought for their independence....or any other colony which has acquired independence from the Empire over the years. When that tactic was perceived not to be working as well as they would like...they then offered, at the very last minute, what was little more than a "written on the back of a fag-packet" bribe to the third of the voters who would have liked devo-max on the ballot paper in the first place The pity is that so many people really believed that this time, for once, Westminster meant what they were promising...and believed they had the power to promise anything at all. You'd have thought we'd have learned the lessons of the past, but it seems we have not.

Not sure they were all duped, though some certainly were.....the ones who are on FB, regretting it now and getting involved in whatever is going to be happening in the forthcoming elections etc were duped......but those who would, in the fulness of time, like independence.....just not right now...... would have voted NO anyway........they're the ones who would have voted for devo max if it had been on offer as an option. I think, given the predominance of the devo-max option among voters in polls ahead of the referendum, the YES side did pretty well to persuade, by word of mouth, so many that they didn't really need a belt and braces. Sure voters are naive..the political parties rely on that naivety (and apathy) in every election. They rely on the voters believing that what they say for public consumption at elections is what they actually mean and what they intend to deliver..because they know that once they are in power, they are there for five years and can't be removed, unless they are daft enough to allow a vote of no confidence and lose it. That is why Westminster fights against anything which will reduce their Tory/NuLabour "buggins turn" electoral system.like the (admittedly flawed) AVC option, any level of devolution which removes their entitlement to full control over the devolved Parliaments.and why they voted against we punters getting to remove incompetent, paedophile, jailbird, troughing fraudsters of MPs.because they are not fit for any purpose but making Westminster a stinking midden. Hopefully, the Scots, at least, have woken up to the lack of democracy in the UK...and won't lose their newly found political engagement. It is looking promising at the moment, but where we go from here, and how fast, will depend on what ends up coming out of Westminster after the Smith Commission recommendations are made into a bill and have travelled through a system which is unsympathetic to Scottish aspirations. Interesting times ahead, I suspect. (and hope.....as I've rather enjoyed the past couple of years. )

Possibly the same way as London having power instead of Edinburgh = bad while Brussels having power instead of Edinburgh apparently = good. But logically, Charles, if a Union Treaty with the EU forces the UK to obey laws and suffer economic and other strictures for which it didn't vote, and the UK has them imposed because they are outnumbered by representatives of other counties who think differently, to the extent that they wish to remove themselves from that Union, or at the very least drastically change the rules....why have you and others not recognised that exactly the same situation pertains for the majority of the population of Scotland regarding the Treaty of Union with England? Unions are good if they are perceived to work for the majority, bad if they aren't. As far as the right wing UK parties are concerned, which is all of them, even the "left wing" NuLabour Party, if it will get them votes, the EU doesn't work for them, not because it is not economically beneficial, but because it doesn't allow them to stamp even harder on the foreheads of the poor and disadvantaged with complete impunity. Scotland, on the other hand, is broadly in favour of it, not just because of the economics of it, but also because it is a very last resort for challenging Westminster policies in a Court which is not populated by Law Lords beholden to the Westminster ethos, who interpret woolly law and are more limited in their powers of judicial review. In the end, though, it is down to whether the UK want to lose the employment companies have brought in because we are in the EU, and the employment in UK exporting companies which are dependent on being in the EU, of or lose that employment, in order to be able to ignore the EU Human Rights Acts, which are based on those of the UN. It seems to me that it isn't the majority of Scots, despite the rhetoric produced during the referendum debate/furore, who are the isolationists and nationalists here, but the "British" as epitomised by the Unionists in Westminster. Kindly explain to me the good/bad difference between Scotland being towed along on the coat-tails of UK policy for which we didn't vote, and the UK being towed along on the coat tails of EU policies for which it didn't vote..why is Scotland out of the UK perceived as so bad for Scotland, and the UK out of Europe perceived as so good for the UK? Won't the UK face the same drastic problems, if they remove themselves (and all of the devolved nations) from the EU as they claimed Scotland would face on an Independence vote, regarding keeping heads above bankruptcy water? Given the UK's National Debt is horrendous and rising, while Scotland's "National Debt" is substantially less(and much of it is because we are in the Union, which proves that some of us are "better together"..just not us), although we have to pay an inequitable (going by what we receive of it) amount to service the results of UK profligacy, the annual service charges for which came in as the fourth biggest cost to the taxpayer in 2011, after social security, health and education, but which is now said to be the third highest cost. (and that is despite the Coalition claim that the UK budget would be in balance by 2015. ) do you think that the UK has a competent representative Government which actually gives a toss about anything but enriching themselves? So I'd appreciate an explanation of the difference you perceive between the position of the UK within the EU, and Scotland within the Treaty of Union.

Sometimes it's a bummer being admin. We don't have access to an 'ignore' button... but the ignore button only works if you have will power........and I don't, as is evidenced by the times I reply to Charles when I am bored. To be fair, I was thinking as I was reading the post, part of which you quoted, that I might even give it a like, as for once, Charles seemed to be dissing everyone indiscriminately for a change.........until I came to the last paragraph.....then I changed my mind.

What's the difference between forcing businesses to increase the minimum wage and forcing them to pay a living wage? A lot of companies don't comply with minimum wage law now, anyway..and the one thing about having minimum wage rates (or maximum MPs Allowances) is that businesses will mostly pay only what they must(or less if they can get off with it) and MPs will blithely spend up to the max without looking for cheaper alternatives. After all, it's not as if the Government would be increasing the minimum wage by £1.15 an hour to living wage levels in one fell swoop...it would be a gradual increase, albeit one at a higher annual percentage than this years 3% to get there faster, but gradual nonetheless and more easily absorbed. If you think about it, more money in the individual's pocket would be less money out of the taxpayers' pockets to subsidise low paying companies via tax credits, which cost about £21 billion annually....more money floating about in the economy to spend on goods and services from those companies paying the wages, as it does take disposable income to buy "stuff" (and an extra 5million people currently on around minimum wage having more disposable income can be seen as an opportunity cost for the companies selling the "stuff" )....more tax take from earnings to the Treasury.....and if folk were getting a decentish wage, then they might work harder at their jobs and productivity would rise....because it would be worth an employee finding a work ethic if companies found a reciprocal fair day's pay for a fair day's work ethic as encouragement.

That is exactly it! They are there for the benefit of their parties and not for the benefit of the electorate, and that even applies to the "Independents". Now something on which we can agree, Charles. I don't know about Inverness, but in Moray, the most amusing part of the transition from the district/regional councils of the mid-seventies to the unitary ones in the 1990s which replaced them, for those of us watching, was the sudden interest in being "Independent" Moray council members by nearly all of those previously proclaimed Tories representing us in Grampian Region. In Moray, Independent = Tory. We have only one councillor who was elected under the Tory banner...and one Independent who was, afaik, of the Labour persuasion (though I don't know if Nu or Old).and the rest are assumed to be Tories. All "Independent" means is that they paid for their own campaign and no political party did. It doesn't mean they do independent thinking.because nobody really does......not even me.....and not you! We are all influenced by something/someone. I always think that political parties and religion are both cults, and the adherents/members of political parties are even more willfully blinkered than those who are religious, because religions rarely, if ever change their basic principles..and never their manifesto promises.....but political parties appear to do both as often as I change my knickers....and their blinkered members/voters seem to just not really notice, and assume that deep-down...they are still the party they joined/voted for in the first place. People who join/vote today for the Tory/NuLabour/LibDem Parties are not joining/voting for the same kind of party as those of us who were joining/voting for them in the 1960s or even the 1970s....just for parties with the same name, but not the same principles. Doing some blue sky. out of the box thinking here.......but The problem is, imo, the political party system, which, also imo, has no place in local government, particularly the whipping element. I do, however think that we should be aware of the political bias of local council candidates.....so ideally, I'd like to see changes in the local Government election set-up, which currently does not allow independent candidates to declare their political bent, even if they would be inclined to do so....(and I'm sorry, but I don't believe that anyone without a political bone in their body would want to become a local councillor above the community council level..I really don't)...so I'd like to see the local council/government setting strict limits on election expenses and paying them, but candidates standing as Independent NuLabour/Tory/SNP/LibDem or whatever and all council positions from the leader down being voted for by the whole council, and not chosen by the biggest group....because there wouldn't be a biggest group if they were all independents. So no obligation or allowances made, as now, to ensure that "the party" has direct input into the deliberations of "their" councillors and maybe less confrontation and more sensible consensus. The blurb delineating the duties/ obligations etc of local councillors actually say they have an obligation to their party, if elected under a party banner...which makes every local council just a little Westminster and, to an extent, Holyrood, under the crap electoral systems both of them use. And surely, by now, we have realised that confrontational politics doesn't work. (If it could be afforded, I'd like to see the Governments funding election campaigns to Westminster as well, with very strict spending limits......as that would remove the need for donations from vested interests with less likelihood that those vested interests would benefit from policies produced..and it would save us a lot of boring TV and media hype into the bargain. )

And how much local control would councils have over the rate of that tax and hence over what levels of services they can provide? When is this change scheduled to take place by the way? If it hadn't been for the recession, the year on year cuts in public spending, the limit on how much a Scottish Government was allowed to vary income tax, and the clawback which would have resulted from varying the tax at all, we'd have had it in the 2007-2011 term. And as it is collected by HMRC and not by individual councils, it has to be centrally set. It will take place when we get devo-Max and control of all our revenues and the spending of them....or independence and control of all our revenues and the spending of them.. I'm not holding my breath over the first option, though. It won't be introduced as long as we receive pocket money which can be reduced at the whim of Westminster and would be readjusted downwards if we raise income tax levels. After all, if simply raising income tax levels to fund decisions which would help reduce the inequality of income within Scotland would have made the Scottish taxpayer no worse off regarding over all income to spend....don't you think it would have happened at some stage after 1999?

You know as well as I do that if there had been the three options on the ballot paper, independence would have got the biggest share. As I have said numerous times before, if someone's favourite option is devo-max then the one thing they would not have done in the referendum we have just had is to vote "YES". It is therefore reasonable to assume that all those who voted "YES" wanted independence. And if you want independence you are not going to vote for a unionist option just because devo-max gets stuck on the ballot paper. The vote for independence would have been broadly as it was with the YES/NO choice. The only way the vote for independence would not have got the biggest share is if the unionist vote was split 90/10 or more one way or another and if you think 90% of those who voted "NO" want devo-max you are seriously deluding yourself. In addition, had devo-max been an option, the unionist parties would have been split between the two options and you can imagine the mischief the SNP would have made about that! The arguments about the level of devolution which is desirable would have resulted in a lack of focused opposition to the case for independence and my guess is that the YES vote would actually have been a little higher. In any case, you still refuse to answer the simple question of whether in the event of a 3 option referendum, granting Scotland independence when only 35 - 40% of the electorate voted for it would have been acceptable democracy. As to how to put pressure on Cameron, I've already told you in my post - and in one before! Had the Scottish Government got a mandate from the Scottish electorate on the specific issue of negotiating a separation settlement to put to the people, Cameron would have had absolutely no option but to cooperate fully. Failure to do so would clearly be to ignore the stated wish of a majority within a democratic process and nothing would fan the flames of nationalism more. Had it been in the "YES" campaign's interest for the electorate to know what it was voting on then it would have been a devastating tactic - but of course it was not in their interest so they didn't do it. Excuse me, DD.but you are just saying the same thing in different ways in every post now.....and simply not accepting that, as far as those who want independence, like me, are concerned, we would have been content with devo-max in the short/medium term...but continued to try for independence, to remove nuclear weapons and war-mongering, if nothing else....and would have been chuffed to bits with independence.. There is a difference between being chuffed to bits and content, of course.....but either is preferable to being sick to the stomach because we are still completely thralled to austerity and continuing cuts, the trashing of people on benefits, the kowtowing to the rich, the fire sale of anything in the country which isn't nailed down to benefit themselves and their friends...and the relentless growth in UK debt which has been used to increase wealth/income inequality, and not reduce it. Which part do you not get of the fact Devo-max had, when it was removed from the Edinburgh agreement, a substantial lead over either of the other options.....and a three-way split would not have dented that lead. Those of us who were actively involved in the campaign were well aware that people voted for independence because there was no devo-max option..just as we were aware that people were going to vote NO because there was no devo-max option. So, because we might have made mischief after a three-way referendum, if it didn't go the way 25% of us really, really wanted, we are now in a position in which Westminster has handed 45% of us a pot to stir. Way to go, Westminster! Which part of the referendum was in the 2011 manifesto do you not quite get, DD? That was the mandate for the referendum...and winning the referendum would have been the mandate for the Scottish Government to negotiate with Westminster. Are you really naive enough to think that Westminster would have negotiated ahead of a referendum on spec......just in case....when they wouldn't negotiate when the campaign was on......and are you really naive enough to believe that they wouldn't have ignored all international law etc while doing so.....because it was all just theory? And are you really naive enough to assume that they would be fair to Scotland when there was no obligation on them to be fair to Scotland in such a hypothetical situation? And can I sell you an imaginary bridge over the sea to Orkney, brand new and unpainted, for you to choose your own colour scheme?

I think it is more likely that it wasn't included because, after the vote, the SNP Handbook Of Groundless Assertions would have declared that enough Devo Max voters in a two option referendum would actually have voted for independence to give Yes a majority. In other words, given that many separatists are unable to accept defeat in a Yes/No situation that would have been far more the case after a three option poll. The two option poll also has the benefit of (despite the nationalist denial machine) producing an unambiguous result - which turned out to be a clear majority against separation. And if Devo Max had been on the ballot paper and been the option attracting most votes, you would also have seen that roaster in Dingwall I spoke about yesterday and his fellow conspiracy theorists going absolutely pure dead mental if Devo Max hadn't been delivered within 35 days or whatever. You do like talking crap, don''t you, Charles? Pro-indy people have much more commonsense than you give us credit for.....we would have happily accepted and gone along with devo-max..albeit in the conviction that, eventually, it would lead to independence, and we'd still work towards that......because independence would be the only way available to stop our soldiers (and other countries' civilians)dying to make profits for UK and US big businesses.....and the only way to remove the UK/US nuclear weaponry from Scottish soil. (But in the meantime, Westminster has very kindly allowed the publishing of a petition for its removal.....as if that will do any good!) Rather feel that moving the pretty much O/T posts on this thread, into a thread of their own would be one separatist action that might be useful... ..given a lot of the posts on here have less to do with what the SNP has done for the Highlands.and more to do with what the SNP has done to the shake the complacency of Westminster politicians generally, NuLabour politicians particularly...and annoy the NO voters who think that NO in the circumstances of this referendum means NO forever........like the article in LabourList which says, among other things....It should therefore be announced as soon as possible as a headline commitment in next May’s General Election manifesto that no Labour government will agree to a new Scottish independence referendum: not in the next Parliament, not ever.”.

But we wouldn't have become an independent country in the three horse race, DD.or remained with the status quo.......we'd have gone with the Devo-max option, because it would have had the highest vote share....even I know that...and that is precisely why Westminster removed it.....because they were convinced that, without that in the mix, the status quo would prevail, given the levels the polling showed it was at in 2012 and given their belief that the majority of the undecided would boost that winning margin by settling for the devil they knew.....and the Westminster thumb could happily stay on the Scottish neck without any change at all. Before the Edinburgh Agreement removed the Devo-max option, polling had YES and NO pretty much eexie peexie at around 25%, with Devo-max at 41% and the rest undecided....so not enough undecideds to make the result either independence or the status quo. Without the Devo-Max option included, NO, before the Edinburgh Agreement, had a 28% lead and there weren't enough undecideds to pull YES ahead even if they all went for YES. Care to explain just how Alex Salmond, or any Scottish Government FM, could put pressure on the Prime Minister of a sovereign UK Parliament to do anything he doesn't want to do? Might come in useful for future reference. Was pleased to see the intended reduction in blood alcohol limits..but I think it should have been reduced to zero....though I can't see that it is going to stop drink drivers anyway. What might do more good would be to stop treating vehicular manslaughter as if it was a "road traffic accident", when it is no accident that people drive dangerously and/or with drink/drugs taken......it is a deliberate act on their part..and the people they kill are just as dead if they had taken a knife to them on the street.

Having three options on the ballot paper with the option getting the most votes being implemented would have been a dreadful betrayal of the democratic process. It might have resulted in independence with less that 40% of those voting wanting independence and the rest voting for one of the two unionist options. It was never a serious option - it was just the SNP playing politics and showing contempt for the people. As you point out, some form of Devo-Max seemed to be the preferred option of the electorate so why did the SNP not acknowledge that and seek to negotiate further devolved powers to put to the Scottish people? By insisting that the referendum be about independence rather than an extension of devolved powers it is, in fact, the SNP that have shown contempt for the Scottish people. This contempt was made worse by the fact that we were not given the opportunity to vote on any negotiated separation terms. You may argue (as you have in the past) that the Westminster Government was not prepared to negotiate ahead of the referendum but then there is no good reason why they should negotiate on something that they have evidence the Scottish people don't want. Now, if the Scottish Government had asked the electorate whether we, the electorate, would mandate the Scottish Government to negotiate terms of independence to put to the people in a referendum, then I might have voted "Yes", and if the Scottish Government received the mandate to negotiate, it would have been very difficult for the Westminster Government to refuse. We could then have had a referendum in which we actually knew what we are voting for! And their contempt for the electorate continues. This desperate push to hold the Unionist parties "to account" over their absurd vow is utterly pathetic. Most would agree that some increased level of devolution is appropriate - so what's the rush? Let's have some mature discussion, take our time and get it right. The push to rush things is further political posturing and point scoring and is not in the interests of the Scottish people. No, it wouldn't.unless you are a Westminster politician....or brain dead (which comes to much the same thing) See....the status quo is a vote for no change (which is a downright fallacy as nothing remains unchanging forever (but my mind ), and in Government things change from year to year or even from month to month or day to day.....but people do seem to believe downright fallacies)...and that is what Westminster thinks that 2 million plus of us voted for.....same old, same old......and that is pretty much what we will get (imo). I'll agree with you that Devo-max would ever have been considered a "Unionist" option if that is what is offered after the Smith commission discussions (as Cameron has not ruled it out completely) but I am not holding my breath. On the other hand, devo-max and Independence would both be a vote for change..and in a three way option, a majority voting for change would prevail, so the status quo would lose by default....and a majority would have voted for change....we all know that....so the option for change which got the most votes would have been the one to be implemented. Given that the base pro-indy vote in polls before the referendum campaign stood around 25%, and the pro-Union vote stood at around 35%....and we know that in polls which gave the additional devo-max option, both base votes reduced....then in a three way split..we'd have gone in the majority for devo-max.....I might even have done so myself on the belt and braces premise, that if devo-max (as in all but monetary policy, foreign affairs and defence being delivered to Scotland's control) was crap......independence would likely be as crap. It appears you haven't been paying attention, DD. The SG, in their white paper in 2009, before the bill which wasn't presented in Holyrood in the end, because they knew that Wendy Alexander and company would vote it down (that was before she did her strident "bring it on" fudge, btw) put the Devo-Max option on the table. It was Cameron/Moore who removed it during the Edinburgh agreement discussions...not the SNP.because at that stage, Westminster were convinced that a straight yes/no option would give them a large majority. Devo-max was never on the Westminster horizon. DD, which part of "an informed decision" do you fail to grasp? The only reason for not pre-negotiating anything was to ensure that the Scottish voter could not make an informed decision, because that would perhaps have moved them to YES. Westminster was quick enough to draw a red line on currency, which was not a pre-negotiation, but complete refusal of negotiation, (on much the same lines as Netanyahu does when "negotiating " with the Palestinians, as in Israel excludes any consideration of stopping building settlements on Palestinian land.but whines to the US (and the UK) when the Palestinians object ) regardless of the fact that Scotland did, and still does have billions sitting in the Treasury backing Scottish Bank notes (in what is akin to a currency board)..and is also entitled to a share of the little Gold Reserves that numpty Gordie Broon left unsold. (Please note, he wasn't a numpty for not selling it all.he was a numpty for selling what he did sell cheaply to rescue an American Banking Conglomerate) Into the bargain, Westminster could have ascertained the EU and NATO situations regarding an independent Scotland as definitively as was possible, so we could have made an informed decision....after all, they were the only ones who could ask for clarification......but instead they did picky and choosy among individuals within or once within those institutions and came up with individuals who agreed with their take on Scotland's prospects (and misrepresented the opinions of those who went off message, like Lucinda Creighton), while equally qualified and competent people, who contradicted their opinions (which was all they were...opinions) got no media attention at all.....unsurprisingly. DD...which part of "the "vOW" had bugger all to do with us" have you not quite got your head around? And, if you were to be completely honest........ if you were looking at the situation from where we sit, rather than from where you do, having just been handed a Westminster brain-fart on a plate, would you be keeping your mouth shut and accepting any offer made......or holding Westminster to their panic-stricken promises? Honestly?

I'm still trying hard to express the two word, two syllable sentence Y-O-U L-O-ST (so go away, stop bothering us and let us get on with our lives) in even simpler terms. I've even been through the whole process from the SNP getting a Holyrood majority, deciding to have the referendum according to their rules and then attracting 20% fewer votes than NO - and still they don't seem to get it. I can now see the SNP continuing their cynical contempt for the Scottish people by creating as many difficulties as possible over further devolved powers - simply as a means of continuing their attempts to fan the flames of grievance and dissatisfaction. I actually think that the SNP would be perfectly happy for further devolution to be derailed or delayed simply to give them an apparent excuse to greet and girn as they seem to have been doing since Edward Lonngshanks was a boy. As for the AV referendum... it was 68-32 against for goodness sake. It wasn't even close! The more this post- referendum nationalist bellyaching keeps going, the more the nationalist tone reminds me of Germany after the First World War! And, of course, every time anyone loses, they stop trying to win next chance they have, Charles? That, of course, will be why the Labour Party disbanded after the 2010 election! That will, of course, be why the LibDems have decided that it is pointless continuing, in their pre-manifesto, to include another promise to try for PR! That, of course, will be why the Tories in Scotland gave up standing for GE seats in Scotland, once they lost their last MP here in 1997. And that will be of course, why we will never get another bite at the EU in/out cherry at any time ever again! Funnily enough, my perception is that the cynical contempt for the Scottish people throughout all this has come from Westminster (and proudScotsbut like yourself.). What else was it but cynical contempt for Scottish opinion from Cameron, when the option of Devo-Max, which had by far the biggest backing in polls before the Edinburgh Agreement, was not allowed to be included...that would be because he was convinced that, over the centuries,we had been adequately trained into unthinking forelock tugging in the face of our betters, and would vote for blind acceptance of the status quo....but to ensure it, he put the party with most to lose, and which hated the SNP to the level of rank paranoia, in charge of the NO campaign....hence the use of the same tactics as were used by NuLabour in the 2011 Scottish election..Project Fear, Smear, Personalise, Denigrate and Lie. If you believe polls, we nearly did it, despite starting from a pretty low base, and, all without anything more than social media, people on the ground (and the Sunday Herald, late in the game). If it hadn't been for the last minute "VOW" (which blew the Edinburgh Agreement into smithereens), we may well have succeeded, if the 25% who voted NO on the strength of it, was correct. If we had been competing on a level playing field and NO had won fair and square by having the best arguments.....then maybe we'd go away for a while, but as it is...why wouldn't you expect us to be arguing for what we were promised in the "VOW". That isn't cynical contempt for the Scottish people by creating as many difficulties as possible over further devolved powers.......that is expecting Westminster not to show their cynical contempt for the Scottish people by not giving us what was promised at the last minutes.....which was, as near as dammit, "Home Rule", Federalism or Devo-Max...or do you really expect us to sit back, having lost, and simply accept the crumbs they offered us earlier which was devo-nothing-worth-having from each of them. Dream on, Charles!

Nah.it's a bit of irritated generalisation.......and I know I shouldn't do it, but sometimes the temptation gets too much. However, posting on here over the #indyref run-up, I think, much of the time, I have been a bit less vituperative to the Naysayers than one or two of them have generally been to the pro-Yes crowd. And believe me, the remarks in the threads on this forum have been a lot milder than those of the naysayers who used to swan into the YES Shop specially to berate us in no uncertain terms (even complaining that it wasn't fair that there was a Yes shop, when there wasn't a Better Together one!) It wasn't and isn't just the pro-YES people who have bad attitudes! Seems a bit ironic that, despite the fact that NO "won", we are still living in the land of pre-18/9/2014 deja vu with the Hootsmon continuing to pump out the same old, same old as we were inundated with over the campaign......despite the eternal bleating from all and sundry that Yes was refusing to give up, climb back into their hole and pull the rock over their heads...and they have even found a spanking new think tank to quote..one which is pro-"NuLabour in Scotland", of course.....so appear to be continuing to prepare for 2015 with trashing the aspirations of 45% of the population..as they have been doing all along to scare us enough to ensure a NuLabour landslide.again....and the sad thing is that there are people who will believe them, just as they did the IFS and OBR pronouncements/reports before the vote.

Interesting dig at the UK, when the Scots bought it just as much! Anyway, there wasn't really any meaningful debate or engagement or scaremongering over the AV referendum as far as I can recall. I think most people just like the simplicity of whoever gets the most votes wins, a bit like in football the team that gets the most goals wins, regardless of possession, territory, corners etc. But isn't Scotland in the UK now.and wasn't it then? So why should I differentiate between where they were born or where they live? Numpties are numpties are numpties.and the UK has more than its fair world share (imo). If you don't mind me saying so, Yngwie, given the refusal of many who voted NO in the #indyref to see any scaremongering or unacceptable behaviour, bar by "Alex Salmond" alone, in that campaign over the two years, I think the definition of scaremongering is a moveable feast, depending on the direction the person shoving it is facing. After all, dishonest Project Fear type methods are how Governments keep control, and/or move opinion towards their preferred option....as we are all aware, surely.......else why is everything the Government wants to implement described as a WAR on something, if not to make us all feart of what will happen if we don't go along with what they want? It seems that we are now getting Project Fear being used by a brand new (Union/Scottish Labour "independent") think tank to scare us off the idea of Devo-Max as promised in the "VOW", with the aid of the Hootsmon, which changed overnight, from the Tuesday headlines of Barnett Formula warning over declining oil revenues to the post midnight today update to Nicola Sturgeon's Devo-Max "would lose Scots £5bn" (and note, we are back in personalisation mode much as happened with Salmond). It handily ignores the fact that the Devo-Max proposal was Westminster's panic-stricken intervention via Gordie Broon and the Daily Rectum, which they allowed, not to say approved, as they could see the Gravy train from North Britain region perhaps being derailed at Carter Bar... and it had nothing to do with Nicola, bar she is running with the baton she has been so kindly handed..with 45% of us waiting patiently to see what transpires (but without holding our collective breath)

It's democratic because it's the voting system the UK (including Scottish) population voted resoundingly to keep! Any other voting system used is undemocratic because it has been implemented to suit the purposes of whoever put it in place and not because the population ever voted for it. They voted to keep it because of much the same reasons the vote in the referendum was NO. In the AV referendum campaign, we had the hate face of YES as Nick Clegg who had already become unpopular over the student fee fiasco, instead of Salmond; As in the YES Scotland campaign, the YES AV crowd were reluctant to target and bad mouth an old Etonian PM.or any other individuals, and spent most of their time responding to the NO sides agenda rather than making a constructive case for AV..one of which should have been one person with one vote which actually counts (and the possibility of a less elitist Government); As in the referendum campaign, NO to AV got down to dirty tricks....they made up swingeing costs for the voting machines AV would require and then produced posters claiming the cost of the machines would mean that wee babies in maternity units would die because the choice was between maternity units and AV...and another poster with a sick baby insinuated that the cost of AV would mean that there wouldn't be a Cardiac Unit to save the baby...... .and the terminally thick UK numpties bought it; Again, as in the Indy referendum, the turkeys in the NuLabour and Tory Westminster Gravy train came out, guns blazing, lies spitting and cash flying to protect what they had, which was lucrative employment plus the ability to swap places every few years in a two party system they had trained the UK sheeple, over the years, to accept as the natural order of things. And the Electoral Commission, as they did in the indy campaign, produced an "explanatory" leaflet which came down heavily on the side of the status quo and made the alternative appear more troubling and complex than it actually was. So the vote was lost, not because the electoral system in the UK is fit for any purpose, bar keeping Tory and NuLabour professional politicians in what passes for work, but because NuLabour and Tory MPs know that the best way to keep the UK electorate as a whole in line, is to scare them into voting for the status quo, by making any other option too uncertain, complicated and personally expensive re taxes etc that they will vote for the status quo, however crap that is. That is why the referendum on the EEC did not come before we signed the Treaty of Ascension in 1972, but after we had been in it a couple of years and it had become less scary to stay in than to come out (helped by the fact that we were never told about the long term intentions, (of which Heath was aware) to transmogrify a trade agreement into an de facto union with a "union" Parliament. And it is also why Westminster was so complacent until the last few weeks that they would have a decisive victory in the indy referendum.....as we have all been so well trained over the years to accept what is, rather than risk attempting what could be.

Don't think the problem is politicians per se...but the political party and election system, starting with the undemocratic FPTP Westminster system (and I'm not overly keen on the FPTP element in the Scottish set-up either). I agree that the majority go into local politics because they want to make their communities/home areas better places, according to their definition of "better".....but they used to do it, and still do mostly at community council level, as a personal service to the community, and not just as the first step on an earning curve/career ladder. Once on the ladder, though, and into the representing of a political party, as opposed to the aspirations of the local voting population, it all changes, because the demands of the party subsumes the good of the people..and from unitary councils on, we pay politicians to do what the party tells them to do, and not what we want them to do. The political party system, has evolved over the years to acquire an almost cult-like status...as evidenced by the Scottish propensity to vote for a polished turd sporting a red rosette, regardless of the ability of the individual turd (and as we used to do with those sporting blue rosettes prior to 1965 or so...so it is not a new phenomenon). Like organised religion, the political parties have long been divided into those who control, and those who are controlled, with little room for individuals to buck the laid-down system and still have a voice (and be able to continue on to climb the earning/career ladder). I don't really understand the "little financial reward" part....because, given the "reward" is meant at local level, at least, to be a "part-time" remuneration, it seems to me that £16,000+ as a basic "salary" is much more than adequate (particularly when you consider that a pensioner on the basic pension gets less than half of that, and a jobseeker half of that again to live off.) If you accept that monetarism, to the exclusion of fairness, as introduced by Thatcher and embraced since by every UK political party, including NuLabour, is the way to go, then you are explicitly accepting that the labourer is worthy of what any rank eejit will pay for his hire. Football clubs, particularly some in Scotland, and more in England are eejits par excellence, (as they do it mostly on overdraft, not from income).....but so are financial institutions, the BBC, some big charities and businesses....and the one thing they all have in common is that the money to pay their "competitive" silly money salaries come, in one way or another, from the pockets of those who actually work hard at more menial jobs for the money they then hand over, voluntarily, to be distributed to those who produce little of real use. Unfortunately, into the bargain, the political party system is producing, in our time, a professional political class, who do not have an independent thought in their heads, and know the value of nothing but the price of everything, particularly when it comes to the money in their own pockets. Fewer and fewer people are entering Parliament after living and working within the system Parliament has instituted for us to suffer, in order to change it for the better for all, as they once did...now they are more inclined to attend university at 18, straight from school to read political science, spend their holidays as interns in Parliamentary offices and proceed after graduation to stand as candidates..and then get positions in the Government/Shadow Cabinet hierarchy...lucrative positions they will only continue to hold as long as they do what the party tells them...and the wishes of their constituents are of no importance. We have become a UK of sheeple controlled by a growing body of ravening wolves in sheeple clothing within a UK political system which no longer provides even as much real choice as the Whig/Tory options of the past, so while the franchise has now become universal, there is now as little point in becoming engaged in the process of elections than there was for those in the 1850s who had no vote at all.

Spot on 157. We are where we are because in the 2011 election, which to the vast majority was overwhelmingly about schools, hospitals, law and order etc, this single issue pressure group also slid the word "referendum" into its manifesto. Because Labour in particular but also the other mainstream parties were in such disarray, this bunch of single issue obsessives got an overall majority. The very next day this "referendum", which much of the electorate wasn't even aware of or rated as a relevant election issue, became the only thing that mattered and has been boring the @rse off most of us ever since. The reality is that, of the 44.7%, even the majority of them couldn't actually give much of a toss about separation. I think most of them voted Yes because it was one of just two options or the people telling them to do so were offering them more subsidy from the public purse..... or simply because they had seen that wonderful example of historical accuracy which is Braveheart! And now the SNP have firmly been told NO they are still in denial about that and, whilst they continue to attempt to undermine the process of increased devolution in pursuit of their unique brand of grievance politics, our public services continue to suffer from neglect. If the snp hadn't brought the referendum, I'm pretty sure you'd be on here banging on about a manifesto pledge being deserted. Absolutely not! If they had just got on with what they were elected to do - deliver devolved services - we would all have been spared the most divisive, long winded and tedious episode in Scottish history and I would have been delighted. And you blame the SNP because too many Scottish voters are incapable of reading much more than words of more than two simple syllables written in big writing at the top of an MSM article.........like "UNION GOOD, SNP BAD"? I blame those who have been paid to teach them useful abilities like reading.....and clearly have failed to do so......otherwise they could have read manifestos.......or even the bullet points of them....don't you agree?

Agreed. So, in the best traditions of Cicero, I will simply make the rather paralyptic response that I will not respond to Oddquine by pointing out that I was earlier referring specifically to the self inflicted disarray of Labour in Scotland and to the electoral no-go areas which the Lib Dems and Tories in Scotland have made of themselves. Now, since this has allowed the SNP to fill the resulting political vacuum we can therefore return to the Life Of Brian, and hence to the original question. And I was pointing out the disarray in England of Labour, LibDems and Tories....which is well on the way to allowing UKIP to fill their political vacuum. You don't get a political vacuum without the political vacuity which has been, and is being, so amply demonstrated by Westminster Unionist Parties, of all shades of the right, to far right, political spectrum, on both sides of the border.

Of my stance against Nationalism and the SNP I am unrepentant. The cause of the state of affairs in which we find ourselves is the complete disarray of Labour and the Lib Dems in Scotland and the unpopularity of the Tories. And its effect - having our hospitals, schools, law courts etc run and now some of our taxes determined by a single issue pressure group whose every action is dictated by the single objective of separation - needs to be exposed at every opportunity. The SNP, or course, took that every opportunity to undermine and demonise the "Tory bogeymen" during the entire referendum campaign, even to the extent of spreading scare stories about privatisation of NHS Scotland - which of course has been under SNP control for the last seven years. It seems the SNP are quite happy to dish it out, but in reverse... well as Corporal Jones would say: "They don't like it up 'em sah... the do not like it up 'em!" Now, now, (and going off thread topic),Charles, the complete disarray of NuLabour and the LibDems, and the unpopularity of the Tories, going by the polls in England yesterday, is not down to the SNP in Scotland, methinks. It is down to the disarray of NuLabour,the LibDems and the Tories in the UK. In Scotland, NuLabour, the Lib Dems and Tories problems are not, and never have been down to the SNP per se, but down to the fact that, when it comes to protecting Scotland and the Scottish people from Westminster's policies they are a efficacious as a chocolate fireguard protecting us from a bonfire. The SNP filled a hole which was perceived in Scotland as needing to be filled, and have grown over the years, particularly since the 1960s/1970s because Westminster has been enlarging that hole with regular monotony. Where we are now is down to Westminster policies and the democratic deficit within the Union as it is currently set up. If there had not already been an SNP for decades, we'd have been compelled to invent it by now to have a voice Westminster would hear. The SNP has been in existence in its current form since the 1930's, and certainly it was a pressure group, as all new political parties tend to be. In their case, one with a core vote (if not necessarily a membership) of people like me, who would/will vote for independence, as we think that would to the benefit of Scotland and the Scots, even if we were to be personally worse off in the short/medium term.......just as there are people who would, like Jimmy Hood, NuLabour MP, who would vote to maintain the Union as it is now, even if it could be proven that Scotland and the Scots would be better off out of the Union. Bear in mind that there have been around 40 attempts to get Home Rule for Scotland, since 1707, both via Parliamentary bills and popular petitions, including the Scottish Covenant in the 1950s and the Claim of Right in the 1980s, which, incidentally,had nothing to do with the SNP. The SNP is just the present driver of an independence bus which picks up and drops off passengers all the time, but is starting to fill up with people intending to continue right on to the bus terminal. As a pressure group, it has done well. Without it, we would not have had devolution at all, even at the paltry level we currently enjoy.....and if we get (which I suspect we won't) anything approaching Devo-Max/Federalism, that too would be as a result of the pressure engendered by the referendum, won when we democratically voted for the SNP in a majority in 2011 with that intention in their manifesto. If the "VOW" is fudged, then we won't be going away any time soon, and many more of the independence bus passengers won't be getting off at the next stop. Regarding scare stories.we missed the fracking one, though to be fair I did, I think, mention it beforehand, re Ian Wood (though maybe not on here) and we did say that UKIP was a danger to the two party UK system.and more nationalist than any Scottish party, and we did agree with UK Labour's (after the event statement) that the NHS in Scotland was in danger of being privatised due to the way the NHS in England was going...but it is all so much worse than we thought it was going to be, having listened to the highlights of all UK party conferences. An example.....http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/12-things-help-to-work.html. and the icing on the union cake...... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2787372/The-state-pension-fund-run-cash-year-Amount-handed-future-generations-derisory-thanks-flaw-Government-s-accounts.html Scarlet., and to get back to the thread, though I thought I'd replied to you last night,...it will be done bit by bit as it always has been with roads in the whole UK....what they have to do to fix perceived problems first......and then join up the bits later. Wonder if the reason the whole Inverness to Nairn road is being looked at in the one tranche is because it is also the main road which feeds the airport. Hope it doesn't take as long as getting an almost decent road from Inverness to Wick did though.

Don't think it is the road to Nairn per se,.....think it is the Aberdeen/Inverness connection...which is needing upgraded, particularly as a lot of people from the towards Inverness end now commute daily to Aberdeen,...but Nairn does sorely need a bypass and there would be little point in bypassing Nairn and later having to go back again and dual the road from Inverness to a bypass when upgrading the rest of the A96. The A9 North of Inverness needs a lot of work done as well...but in the end it is down to traffic load, and, with the best will in the world, traffic flow, the further North you go, is a lot less, so I suspect that it will take a fair while before there is a dual carriageway to Thurso or Wick. . Sorry I snapped at you, Scarlet.....but I have been rather hacked off with a lot of the posts on the now closed independence thread......and yours reminded me of the eternal periodic "what has the SNP ever done for the Highlands" mantra on it.....and we all know that, by the Highlands, those saying that it is hard done by. actually meant Inverness is hard done by. . At the end of the day, every area outside a main town believes that the main town gets everything, and those who live in the main town think they are entitled to everything because everyone can go there to access the new whatever it is (I was nearly 10 years in Elgin and they used to whine any time Forres or Buckie got anything.) . Lived my first fifty years in Forres......and we whined eternally about the amount of money which was spent in Elgin....and the whole time I lived in Caithness, the Highland Council was spending all the money in Inverness, according to the locals there. We all know, that whatever is spent on any area it would never be enough for many in that area.or money being wasted on the wrong thing because "we" need X more than "they" need Y.

Not that I'm being parochial or anything.......but there is more to the North of Scotland/Highlands than Inverness City.....which already has a bypass. Inverness doesn't have to benefit directly from everything that gets spent up North, you know.

The wheels of politicians grind exceedingly slow (and only when they absolutely have to move. ). Hasn't the M74/A74M just been completed from the start of dualling the A74 Gretna to Glasgow route in the 1930s, (though only 4.5 miles had been accomplished by the start of WWII.) By the 1960s, it was to be a motorway, instead of just being upgraded. The Scottish Office said in 1987 it was going to be completed from Glasgow to Carlisle and by the mid 1990s, had only extended north as far as Tollcross and was completed down as far as the border, where it joined the M6 when that was extended north in 2008. In 1994, there was talk about it being extended from Tollcross to the Kingston Bridge, but, although it had planning permission in 1995, construction didn't get the green light until 2001,after devolution, but it was then redesigned/realigned a bit, so it didn't enter the statutory planning process until 2003, when it was anticipated that it would be open by 2008. Then it went to public consultation, then there was a public enquiry and then the objectors went to court (adding millions to the cost), so it didn't even go out to tender until late 2006 and contracts were signed in 2008. The construction took less time than the talking about the construction.....now there's a surprise!. By May 1965, there were 6.1 miles of motorway in Scotland open on the M8 and M9 (and 9.95 miles under construction on M74 and M8 with a further 26.7 miles on all four motorway lines going through the planning/tendering process.and a further 63 miles still a twinkle in somebody's eye). By the same month, NI had 9.2 unjoined up miles of one motorway and England had 388 or so miles of 9 motorways open......but the tendency with Governments is to do knee jerk, rather than pre-planning, so pretty much all roadworks of any kind are as a result of perceived problems..which are usually congestion ones around big cities and everything gets done in wee bits which, if you are lucky, join up at some stage. It took 75 years to get the M74/A74(M) the 93 miles or so from the border to the Kingston Bridge. The A9 has been getting wee bits done .and there is a plan, honest..ask Transport Scotland. Looks like 12 stages over the 112 miles between Perth and Inverness, with three of them currently under development, whatever that means, and intentions, when the plan was formed, are to have those parts done by 2025, though if it takes as long as the M74, which averaged a construction rate of 1.24 miles a year......more likely to be a 90 year from now job!

This whole thing has tipped you over the edge. It rather has, hasn't it, dd. Given Lawrence says Charles has stature, I'm assuming you Inverness people know him......but posting wise on this thread, he comes over, with his almost irrational hatred of Salmond and the SNP, like Johann Lamont in drag. It has always seemed to me that the biggest tax-dodgers and scroungers in the UK are the big businesses, who get the biggest proportion of the benefits the UK pays out so they can cut their wage bills, and, in addition, have doors to elsewhere left open so they can remove their profits through them and avoid paying tax (which will, if the Tories get in in 2015 be reduced for them anyway, both as individuals and companies with the cut in corporation tax and the increase in allowances...while under 21's and the working poor etc will pay for bombing Iraq....not those who can afford it.) But I am sure Charles will be able to disabuse me of this irrational notion that we are not Better Together. .

Out of curiosity, how many people on here voted NO on the strength of the "VOW"......and, if any of you did, how many of you actually expect to have anything useful to Scotland come out of it, after it wends its way through the consultation process and then the Westminster voting system? Given Gordie Broon's pronouncement, which has been said to be "nothing less than a modern form of Scottish Home Rule”....what is the least you think Westminster will try to get off with, if anything actually comes out of it at all? Home Rule, Devo-max and Federalism have widely understood definitions, and the "VOW" has been described at various times as any one of, or closely approximating all or one, of those....so do any of you think we are likely to get that much bang for our buck? Or do you think we will, as we have with all changes to devolution settlements to date, only get powers to increase/decrease income tax to compensate for the cuts via Barnett, as a result of continuing austerity, plus following year cuts to Barnett due to being forced to use the ability to vary income tax, plus the cost of collecting the income tax, whether we vary it or not, plus, if we use the borrowing powers already on the way, the cuts due to having to pay Westminster interest on that borrowing...... and all under restrictions imposed from Westminster........with the intentions of damaging the SNP's standing and reducing the likelihood (they hope) of eventual independence.....because the Scottish Government obviously can't manage without cutting services or increasing taxes........and still help fund Westminster excesses. Mind you, that deliberate ploy may work out as well for Westminster as the one which was meant to stop any majority Governments in Scottish elections