The Big Scottish Independence Debate

[Caley Mad In Berks]

I think it worked Charles -  I think they have all gone away.

 

By the way did you really believe that Oddquine was a real person rather than just a SNP construct from central office -  no real individual could be that longwinded and boring and have that amount of time to devote to such a cause. i don't think we will hear from the construct again.

Very uncharitable remarks about Oddquine in my opinion. I found her to be passionate, articulate and entertaining. I learned a lot about the debate, from both 'for' and 'against' perspectives from her informative posts.

[bauhaus]

I have to be honest I have not looked at this post for six months maybe, just got so peeed off with the lies coming from both sides.

 

Oddquine by the way is a real person, of the more senior generation to most of us, who has had a connection to ICT for a good number of years, so no SNP mole or whatever.

 

I have to say that the whole thing has left a bit of a bad taste this morning. At the beginning of this process we all really wanted the 3 options in the question if there was going to be a vote. Feeling is most would happily vote for Devo max. However it was the UK government that said no to the SNP and said it had to be a two option question only, I remember the who ha that went along with it, as I wanted the Devo max option, and was peeved at the UK gov for not allowing it. So we end up with a straight yes or no. 

 

2-3 years later, we have had to make our mind up on this No/Yes option, you steer yourself through all the bull, lies, deceit on the truth, underplaying on facts, and over exaggeration on facts. You end up set on what you would like/prefer/think what is best for yourself/your family/ Scotland.

 

The changing of the goalposts with a week to go does feel a bit like a cheat. For the last two years everyone has probably focused on no change/happy to continue as was or going for the whole 9 yards. The decision has been made, but it does feel like we have been robbed now. At first I would have been very happy for Devo max, but with the cold yes or no my decision was made. I am now left with greater fears, as I do not believe these offers will be followed through in full, the UK MPs are already making noises that they did not approve these further powers. I dread that we will be very much worse off when the UK gov cuts effect Scotland much more than any of us think.

 

I have many relations in England, and all are talking about the horrendous mess that England is in, apart from those who live in suburb London. One has even arranged to move back to Inverness because they see no positive future in the South West (council cutbacks, education, NHS, Racism, coming out of the EU etc), They move next weekend thinking they were going to come back to a better Scotland. 

 

I have more fears about the back of a fag packet devo max that might be offered in time when they think we have calmed down, than I have about the independence I initially did not really want. Our Danish relations this morning e-mailed to ask why Scotland did not want to progress. Seemingly we were already being accepted into the Scandanavian alliance, as it was on their TV News over the last few days.

 

Nelson Mandela once said, " you should always vote with your hopes and not your fears ".  Cant help think the nation has made a serious own goal, in injury time

[caley100]

Good post, as opposed to the utter shyte that C Bannerman came out with.      presume Charlie had Pickfords booked for this morning had the yes vote succeeded.

[+Fraz]

If the reason that people voted No was because they think a few more powers (presuming it even happens) is gonna be the saving grace for Scotland then our nation is more deluded than I feared.

[starchief]

Well, I'm glad of that.  The plans by Yes were completely unreasonable.  Low taxes, early retirement, out of the EU with little chance of getting back due to the ending of the currency union and refusal to take debt.  That would have led to a mass flight of money - including mine back to Canada.  No point Scotland getting back on it's feet when I'm 60 and losing my power.  There was a case for independence but Yes didn't make it.

 

Weird that, after all my years of proposing it, it looks like we will have a federal Britain.  Personally, I'd like it even more federal.  Why should Scots MPs vote on English matters?  Why should Edinburgh decide on Highland matters?  Why should Inverness decide on Wester Ross matters?  Power concentrated at the most local level.  Don't get me wrong, the UK won't get that.....yet!  But the South-East (the entity, not just Westminster) won't be the sole reason for being elected anymore.  Only London approved of that. Not England.

 

As for Britain being completely different.  As regards the EU, not that much http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/06/17/eu-referendum-record-lead/

As regards immigration, not very much

 

As regards priorities, little difference:

 

(from YouGov with a larger sample size than all, bar one, of their referendum polls)

 

What is different is an aversion to Tories after Thatcher.  Not before.  At one time, Scotland was a Tory heartland.  Still over 27% (more than 1 in 4 people) voted Tory/Ukip at the last election, so this witchhunt by the extreme left part of Yes was instantly going to alienate a quarter of voters.  How stupid is that? Get the government you vote for.  Appealing.  Anti-Tory.  A horrible witch-hunt.  Never voted for them by the way, but they have a right to be in Scotland as much as anyone.

 

Let's move on together with hope, not recriminations or celebrations.

[Charles Bannerman]

 

I think it worked Charles -  I think they have all gone away.

 

By the way did you really believe that Oddquine was a real person rather than just a SNP construct from central office -  no real individual could be that longwinded and boring and have that amount of time to devote to such a cause. i don't think we will hear from the construct again.

Very uncharitable remarks about Oddquine in my opinion. I found her to be passionate, articulate and entertaining. I learned a lot about the debate, from both 'for' and 'against' perspectives from her informative posts.

 

I have to say I found Oddquine pretty inoffensive, very knowledgable and highly articulate, albeit apparently completely obsessed by the notion of separation and not greatly enamoured of The English or anything associated with them. She came over to me as one of these very sincere old style Nats although I wouldn't be too surprised to hear that she had left the SNP some time ago.

The thing about the SNP is that it has changed a lot over the last 40 odd years and I have watched it do so. Before the early 70s the SNP was principally a small nucleus of cranks, Chippy Jimmies and harmless eccentrics (not that I'm necessarily suggesting that OQ is any of these) and to a fair extent this persists.

But when the oil came along the SNP began to take on a rather more sinister dimension through many of their resulting new recruits. I woke up to that on the steps of Inverness Town Hall at the declaration of the February 1974 General Election where the SNP candidate lost heavily to Russell Johnston. The SNP's response was the now familiar rentamob chanting and shouting and generally disrupting the declaration.

It has therefore not surprised me that this kind of behaviour has persisted and manifested itself big time during the referendum campaign.

I would guess that this is something from which OQ, being an apparently more civilised Nat of the old school, would recoil with distaste.

 

PS - although the outcome means that we haven't actually got rid of The Bloody Proclaimers, there is at least the benefit today that we no longer have to listen to SNP types making their pitch through incessant use of the word "fantastic" and that ridiculous, patronising little giggle that the sychophants all slavishly copy from Alex Salmond.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Charles Bannerman

[FoolPhysio]

Wow, Charles, you're not bitter about it at all are you?  It reads as posts from someone who lost the argument.

 

I agree with some of what you say but much of it as bad as the type of people you are describing.  It comes across as rather distasteful actually and I expected better from you.

 

A lot of people passionately believe in the independance message and today they will be very disappointed that the result was not in their favour.  Your initial post of not being triumphalist in victory was totally washed away in what I can only call vitriol.  Not helpful.

 

As supporters of the side that prevailed, we need to be opening the way to a constructive dialogue and welcoming all people, regardless of their origin or beliefs, to work together to make a successful and prosperous nation for all to benefit in.  We need to close the divisions that have been created during this process and heal wounds.  Together Everyone Achieves More!

Edited September 19, 2014 by FoolPhysio

[+DoofersDad]

Having grabbed 2 or 3 hours sleep after having stayed up through the night I awoke with very mixed feelings.  The first is simply relief.  The 2nd is a feeling of positivism about the level of engagement in the process and the high turnout.  I also have a sense of both relief and positivism that with a few minor exceptions the whole debate and voting day itself passed off peacefully despite the undoubted strength of feeling on both sides.

 

But my overwhelming feeling is one of being hugely let down by the politicians on both sides.  I also feel that despite the result being a relatively convincing rejection of independence, of all the political leaders it will be Alex Salmond who will be feeling happiest with the outcome this weekend.  I know that sounds odd, so (at the risk of sending both you and myself back to sleep) let me explain because he has completely outmanoeuvred his political opponents in his quest for independence.

 

In the 2011 election the SNP had a pledge to hold a referendum in their manifesto.  Being elected with an overall majority they had to have a referendum but Salmond was also aware that polls showed much less support for independence than for the SNP as a Government in a devolved parliament.  What he would also have been aware of is that voters want some significant level of further devolution short of independence. 

 

He would have realised that he was highly unlikely to win a yes/no referendum, so what does he do?  Firstly he proposes a referendum with a Devo Max option.  This serves to indicate to the voter that he is listening to the people even though there was more chance of hell freezing over than the UK accepting a 3 option referendum.  Had they done so, the SNP would, of course have campaigned strongly for the independence option with the strong possibility of winning the vote and gaining independence even though the majority of the voters had voted against it.  This would have been an affront to democracy.  Nevertheless, suggesting it gave the impression that he was listening to the people and offering them a choice to vote for something he didn't want.  How honourable!  It also meant that when this was rejected he could blame the UK Government for denying the voters the opportunity.

 

So, back to the YES/NO option that was actually in the SNP manifesto.  He knew they wouldn't win on the arguments for independence alone but they needed as high a vote as possible.  The decision was therefore taken to target those voters who don't normally support the SNP but who are hardest hit by the post recession austerity programme.  The SNP targeted them by promising that measures will be put in place in an independent Scotland to "protect them from Tory cuts".  Not only were these promises unfordable but there could, of course, be no guarantee of an SNP Government in an independent Scotland.  More importantly, promises of what one party would do in an independent Scotland have no place in the argument of whether we should be independent or not.

 

Meanwhile, the labour party in particular where left stranded.  They couldn't offer the people what they would promise in an independent Scotland because they were arguing against Independence.  In the eyes of the disadvantaged, Labour have become part of the problem rather than part of the solution.  Not only have these unaffordable bribes boosted the yes vote, they have stolen votes from labour for future elections.  That is crucial because if we are ever to have independence, the SNP need to remain in power in the Scottish Parliament.

 

The strategy worked.  It is clear from the results that the few areas which voted YES were among the poorest and most deprived in the country - Labour heartland.  Conversely, areas regarded SNP strongholds voted against independence and often convincingly so.  What that tells me is that the YES vote was hugely boosted by people who simply saw a YES vote as a short term answer to their current predicament rather than because they believed independence is good for Scotland's future. 

 

These voters coming on board caused the Better together campaign to panic.  Knowing there is support for more devolution, the response was this back of a fag packet vow nonsense.  I'm not sure it changed too many minds and if it is has, it may have changed them toward Independence.  The last minute move away from independence was probably more to do with nervousness associated with change and thinking through the issues.  Had Better Together spent more effort dismantling the YES case and highlighting what we have achieved together and how the union benefits us, then I am sure the result would have been just as clear cut.  What is clear is that this "vow" has handed the initiative firmly back to the SNP.

 

What the SNP are saying now is that the referendum demonstrates a great desire for change.  Rubbish!  There may well be an appetite for change but that is not reflected in the result.  As I say, the "YES" vote overstates the real demand for independence.  The "NO" vote simply says that a significant majority of the population don't want independence. 

 

But Cameron has been backed into a corner of his own making.   When Salmond made his mischievous proposal for a 3 question referendum, Cameron should have offered to have a constitutional convention to examine the options.  He could have called Salmond's bluff and suggested that having this instead of a referendum would speed up the process, or he could have had the promise of a convention in the event of a no vote.  This would have been a very powerful argument for those who want devo max but are wary of full independence.  It would have made this late in the day vow nonsense totally unnecessary because the pledge to look at these issues would already have been made.  Importantly, it wouldn't have been a commitment to change - it would have been a commitment to explore options and perhaps to put any carefully developed proposals to the people in a further referendum.  It would have been a commitment to do what the people think is in the best interests of Scotland.

 

What we have now is that Cameron is going to pressured to deliver something in very short time which has yet to get the approval of his own party, let alone approval of both houses of Parliament.  Salmond will belligerently insist the timescales are met and if they are not met he will cry foul and claim the Scottish people were cheated out of independence (never mind that he nearly cheated us into it!) If it is delivered, it will be very rushed and may not work. 

 

If Salmond genuinely had Scotland's best interests at heart, he would not be  pushing Cameron on this.  Instead he would be demanding we take our time and consider the options carefully.  Indeed, given the the level of powers likely to be devolved may be at least as significant as those when devolution first came into being, he should be arguing the proposals be put to the Scottish people in a referendum.  After all, it was Salmond himself who proposed Devo max should be an option on the voting paper in the first place (or was that just a ruse to get independence imposed on the majority opposed to it by splitting the no vote!)

 

Salmond does not want to make devo max work.  If this back of a fag packet version of devo max does not deliver then there will be only one way to go - independence.  As the SNP's unfordable promises and their confused position on currency etc demonstrated during the referendum campaign, they are not interested in what is best for Scotland; for them, it is independence come what may.

 

The Yes campaign should never have got anywhere near winning this referendum.  But thanks to Salmond's political savvy and Cameron and the Better Together's almost unbelievable naivety and ineptness they came pretty close and have kept the upper hand in the on-going political debate. 

 

Sorry, Charles.  The nats have not gone away.  They may have lost this battle but they are one step nearer winning the war and that is why Salmond will be sleeping more soundly in his bed tonight than Cameron.

 

 

[Kingsmills]

I've had a lively, fascinating and informative debate with the prominent Yessers on thes topic, who have given me plenty of food for thought and convinced me that independence wouldn't necessarily be too bad if all the major uncertainties and unanwered questions(eg currency union, oil price and quantities, EU membership) all went in Scotland's favour.

 

I'm not some Union Jack waving tw@t, I'm a Saltire waving tw@t and I honestly think that this outcome of increased powers for our parliament whilst retaining the benefits of the UK is the best thing for Scotland.

 

That is not what I wanted but it is clearly what the majority of the people want. Time to put behind the differences of the campaign and for all of us to pull together to deliver just that. For what it's worth, whilst in favour of independence and, without doubt a tw@t, I am not one to wave any flag of any hue. We are all human and the fewer barriers between all the people of the world the better,

[Kingsmills]

Having grabbed 2 or 3 hours sleep after having stayed up through the night I awoke with very mixed feelings.  The first is simply relief.  The 2nd is a feeling of positivism about the level of engagement in the process and the high turnout.  I also have a sense of both relief and positivism that with a few minor exceptions the whole debate and voting day itself passed off peacefully despite the undoubted strength of feeling on both sides.

 

But my overwhelming feeling is one of being hugely let down by the politicians on both sides.  I also feel that despite the result being a relatively convincing rejection of independence, of all the political leaders it will be Alex Salmond who will be feeling happiest with the outcome this weekend.  I know that sounds odd, so (at the risk of sending both you and myself back to sleep) let me explain because he has completely outmanoeuvred his political opponents in his quest for independence.

 

In the 2011 election the SNP had a pledge to hold a referendum in their manifesto.  Being elected with an overall majority they had to have a referendum but Salmond was also aware that polls showed much less support for independence than for the SNP as a Government in a devolved parliament.  What he would also have been aware of is that voters want some significant level of further devolution short of independence. 

 

He would have realised that he was highly unlikely to win a yes/no referendum, so what does he do?  Firstly he proposes a referendum with a Devo Max option.  This serves to indicate to the voter that he is listening to the people even though there was more chance of hell freezing over than the UK accepting a 3 option referendum.  Had they done so, the SNP would, of course have campaigned strongly for the independence option with the strong possibility of winning the vote and gaining independence even though the majority of the voters had voted against it.  This would have been an affront to democracy.  Nevertheless, suggesting it gave the impression that he was listening to the people and offering them a choice to vote for something he didn't want.  How honourable!  It also meant that when this was rejected he could blame the UK Government for denying the voters the opportunity.

 

So, back to the YES/NO option that was actually in the SNP manifesto.  He knew they wouldn't win on the arguments for independence alone but they needed as high a vote as possible.  The decision was therefore taken to target those voters who don't normally support the SNP but who are hardest hit by the post recession austerity programme.  The SNP targeted them by promising that measures will be put in place in an independent Scotland to "protect them from Tory cuts".  Not only were these promises unfordable but there could, of course, be no guarantee of an SNP Government in an independent Scotland.  More importantly, promises of what one party would do in an independent Scotland have no place in the argument of whether we should be independent or not.

 

Meanwhile, the labour party in particular where left stranded.  They couldn't offer the people what they would promise in an independent Scotland because they were arguing against Independence.  In the eyes of the disadvantaged, Labour have become part of the problem rather than part of the solution.  Not only have these unaffordable bribes boosted the yes vote, they have stolen votes from labour for future elections.  That is crucial because if we are ever to have independence, the SNP need to remain in power in the Scottish Parliament.

 

The strategy worked.  It is clear from the results that the few areas which voted YES were among the poorest and most deprived in the country - Labour heartland.  Conversely, areas regarded SNP strongholds voted against independence and often convincingly so.  What that tells me is that the YES vote was hugely boosted by people who simply saw a YES vote as a short term answer to their current predicament rather than because they believed independence is good for Scotland's future. 

 

These voters coming on board caused the Better together campaign to panic.  Knowing there is support for more devolution, the response was this back of a fag packet vow nonsense.  I'm not sure it changed too many minds and if it is has, it may have changed them toward Independence.  The last minute move away from independence was probably more to do with nervousness associated with change and thinking through the issues.  Had Better Together spent more effort dismantling the YES case and highlighting what we have achieved together and how the union benefits us, then I am sure the result would have been just as clear cut.  What is clear is that this "vow" has handed the initiative firmly back to the SNP.

 

What the SNP are saying now is that the referendum demonstrates a great desire for change.  Rubbish!  There may well be an appetite for change but that is not reflected in the result.  As I say, the "YES" vote overstates the real demand for independence.  The "NO" vote simply says that a significant majority of the population don't want independence. 

 

But Cameron has been backed into a corner of his own making.   When Salmond made his mischievous proposal for a 3 question referendum, Cameron should have offered to have a constitutional convention to examine the options.  He could have called Salmond's bluff and suggested that having this instead of a referendum would speed up the process, or he could have had the promise of a convention in the event of a no vote.  This would have been a very powerful argument for those who want devo max but are wary of full independence.  It would have made this late in the day vow nonsense totally unnecessary because the pledge to look at these issues would already have been made.  Importantly, it wouldn't have been a commitment to change - it would have been a commitment to explore options and perhaps to put any carefully developed proposals to the people in a further referendum.  It would have been a commitment to do what the people think is in the best interests of Scotland.

 

What we have now is that Cameron is going to pressured to deliver something in very short time which has yet to get the approval of his own party, let alone approval of both houses of Parliament.  Salmond will belligerently insist the timescales are met and if they are not met he will cry foul and claim the Scottish people were cheated out of independence (never mind that he nearly cheated us into it!) If it is delivered, it will be very rushed and may not work. 

 

If Salmond genuinely had Scotland's best interests at heart, he would not be  pushing Cameron on this.  Instead he would be demanding we take our time and consider the options carefully.  Indeed, given the the level of powers likely to be devolved may be at least as significant as those when devolution first came into being, he should be arguing the proposals be put to the Scottish people in a referendum.  After all, it was Salmond himself who proposed Devo max should be an option on the voting paper in the first place (or was that just a ruse to get independence imposed on the majority opposed to it by splitting the no vote!)

 

Salmond does not want to make devo max work.  If this back of a fag packet version of devo max does not deliver then there will be only one way to go - independence.  As the SNP's unfordable promises and their confused position on currency etc demonstrated during the referendum campaign, they are not interested in what is best for Scotland; for them, it is independence come what may.

 

The Yes campaign should never have got anywhere near winning this referendum.  But thanks to Salmond's political savvy and Cameron and the Better Together's almost unbelievable naivety and ineptness they came pretty close and have kept the upper hand in the on-going political debate. 

 

Sorry, Charles.  The nats have not gone away.  They may have lost this battle but they are one step nearer winning the war and that is why Salmond will be sleeping more soundly in his bed tonight than Cameron.

 

Having grabbed 2 or 3 hours sleep after having stayed up through the night I awoke with very mixed feelings.  The first is simply relief.  The 2nd is a feeling of positivism about the level of engagement in the process and the high turnout.  I also have a sense of both relief and positivism that with a few minor exceptions the whole debate and voting day itself passed off peacefully despite the undoubted strength of feeling on both sides.

 

But my overwhelming feeling is one of being hugely let down by the politicians on both sides.  I also feel that despite the result being a relatively convincing rejection of independence, of all the political leaders it will be Alex Salmond who will be feeling happiest with the outcome this weekend.  I know that sounds odd, so (at the risk of sending both you and myself back to sleep) let me explain because he has completely outmanoeuvred his political opponents in his quest for independence.

 

In the 2011 election the SNP had a pledge to hold a referendum in their manifesto.  Being elected with an overall majority they had to have a referendum but Salmond was also aware that polls showed much less support for independence than for the SNP as a Government in a devolved parliament.  What he would also have been aware of is that voters want some significant level of further devolution short of independence. 

 

He would have realised that he was highly unlikely to win a yes/no referendum, so what does he do?  Firstly he proposes a referendum with a Devo Max option.  This serves to indicate to the voter that he is listening to the people even though there was more chance of hell freezing over than the UK accepting a 3 option referendum.  Had they done so, the SNP would, of course have campaigned strongly for the independence option with the strong possibility of winning the vote and gaining independence even though the majority of the voters had voted against it.  This would have been an affront to democracy.  Nevertheless, suggesting it gave the impression that he was listening to the people and offering them a choice to vote for something he didn't want.  How honourable!  It also meant that when this was rejected he could blame the UK Government for denying the voters the opportunity.

 

So, back to the YES/NO option that was actually in the SNP manifesto.  He knew they wouldn't win on the arguments for independence alone but they needed as high a vote as possible.  The decision was therefore taken to target those voters who don't normally support the SNP but who are hardest hit by the post recession austerity programme.  The SNP targeted them by promising that measures will be put in place in an independent Scotland to "protect them from Tory cuts".  Not only were these promises unfordable but there could, of course, be no guarantee of an SNP Government in an independent Scotland.  More importantly, promises of what one party would do in an independent Scotland have no place in the argument of whether we should be independent or not.

 

Meanwhile, the labour party in particular where left stranded.  They couldn't offer the people what they would promise in an independent Scotland because they were arguing against Independence.  In the eyes of the disadvantaged, Labour have become part of the problem rather than part of the solution.  Not only have these unaffordable bribes boosted the yes vote, they have stolen votes from labour for future elections.  That is crucial because if we are ever to have independence, the SNP need to remain in power in the Scottish Parliament.

 

The strategy worked.  It is clear from the results that the few areas which voted YES were among the poorest and most deprived in the country - Labour heartland.  Conversely, areas regarded SNP strongholds voted against independence and often convincingly so.  What that tells me is that the YES vote was hugely boosted by people who simply saw a YES vote as a short term answer to their current predicament rather than because they believed independence is good for Scotland's future. 

 

These voters coming on board caused the Better together campaign to panic.  Knowing there is support for more devolution, the response was this back of a fag packet vow nonsense.  I'm not sure it changed too many minds and if it is has, it may have changed them toward Independence.  The last minute move away from independence was probably more to do with nervousness associated with change and thinking through the issues.  Had Better Together spent more effort dismantling the YES case and highlighting what we have achieved together and how the union benefits us, then I am sure the result would have been just as clear cut.  What is clear is that this "vow" has handed the initiative firmly back to the SNP.

 

What the SNP are saying now is that the referendum demonstrates a great desire for change.  Rubbish!  There may well be an appetite for change but that is not reflected in the result.  As I say, the "YES" vote overstates the real demand for independence.  The "NO" vote simply says that a significant majority of the population don't want independence. 

 

But Cameron has been backed into a corner of his own making.   When Salmond made his mischievous proposal for a 3 question referendum, Cameron should have offered to have a constitutional convention to examine the options.  He could have called Salmond's bluff and suggested that having this instead of a referendum would speed up the process, or he could have had the promise of a convention in the event of a no vote.  This would have been a very powerful argument for those who want devo max but are wary of full independence.  It would have made this late in the day vow nonsense totally unnecessary because the pledge to look at these issues would already have been made.  Importantly, it wouldn't have been a commitment to change - it would have been a commitment to explore options and perhaps to put any carefully developed proposals to the people in a further referendum.  It would have been a commitment to do what the people think is in the best interests of Scotland.

 

What we have now is that Cameron is going to pressured to deliver something in very short time which has yet to get the approval of his own party, let alone approval of both houses of Parliament.  Salmond will belligerently insist the timescales are met and if they are not met he will cry foul and claim the Scottish people were cheated out of independence (never mind that he nearly cheated us into it!) If it is delivered, it will be very rushed and may not work. 

 

If Salmond genuinely had Scotland's best interests at heart, he would not be  pushing Cameron on this.  Instead he would be demanding we take our time and consider the options carefully.  Indeed, given the the level of powers likely to be devolved may be at least as significant as those when devolution first came into being, he should be arguing the proposals be put to the Scottish people in a referendum.  After all, it was Salmond himself who proposed Devo max should be an option on the voting paper in the first place (or was that just a ruse to get independence imposed on the majority opposed to it by splitting the no vote!)

 

Salmond does not want to make devo max work.  If this back of a fag packet version of devo max does not deliver then there will be only one way to go - independence.  As the SNP's unfordable promises and their confused position on currency etc demonstrated during the referendum campaign, they are not interested in what is best for Scotland; for them, it is independence come what may.

 

The Yes campaign should never have got anywhere near winning this referendum.  But thanks to Salmond's political savvy and Cameron and the Better Together's almost unbelievable naivety and ineptness they came pretty close and have kept the upper hand in the on-going political debate. 

 

Sorry, Charles.  The nats have not gone away.  They may have lost this battle but they are one step nearer winning the war and that is why Salmond will be sleeping more soundly in his bed tonight than Cameron.

 

The winner is democracy but you are right Salmond will be happier with the result than Cameron who has been compelled to offer much more than he ever wanted or intended to. The SNP, of which I am not a member, will be content that they have achieved a significant step on the road to independence by increment. That said, assuming these substantial and meaningful powers pledged are delivered within a reasonable time frame, they, in my opinion, have a moral obligation to let the matter rest on the clearly stated will of the people for another fifteen to twenty years.

[Scotty]

The Taiwanese view ..... complete with dodgy accents

[Ayeseetee]

Westminster have alot to live up to for the next 10 - 15 years and if it goes tit's up then people will remember we don't have to put up with it!

 

 

1979 - 1997 - 2014 - ????

no        yes      no       ???

 

 

Start the countdown for the first of many **** up's,  the bombing of iraq and maybe syria!

Edited September 19, 2014 by Ayeseetee

[starchief]

Start the countdown for the first of many **** up's,  the bombing of iraq and maybe syria!

Most people approve of fighting the Islamic State.  This is true for both the UK and Scotland.  For the RAF taking part, by far most approve than disapprove.

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/09/17/full-results-iraq-syria-and/

 

This is not the false war of Blair and Bush, led in the UK by Scots-born Blair and Brown, supported by most Scottish MPs (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2862397.stm), endorsed by Holyrood (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2665027.stm).  This was against the express will of most voters, be they Scottish or rUK.

 

You may be happy to leave minorities and moderate to be killed as it's "not your problem" but you're out of step with the majority again.

[SMEE]

Westminster have alot to live up to for the next 10 - 15 years and if it goes tit's up then people will remember we don't have to put up with it!

 

 

1979 - 1997 - 2014 - ????

no        yes      no       ???

 

 

Start the countdown for the first of many **** up's,  the bombing of iraq and maybe syria!

In 1979.....the MAJORITY voted FOR Independence, but it failed to hit the percentage figure as dictated by westminster

[+DoofersDad]

 

Westminster have alot to live up to for the next 10 - 15 years and if it goes tit's up then people will remember we don't have to put up with it!

 

 

1979 - 1997 - 2014 - ????

no        yes      no       ???

 

 

Start the countdown for the first of many **** up's,  the bombing of iraq and maybe syria!

In 1979.....the MAJORITY voted FOR Independence, but it failed to hit the percentage figure as dictated by westminster

 

I think you will find that was a vote for limited devolution and not independence

[+DoofersDad]

Surprised nobody has commented on Salmond's resignation. I see no particular reason for him to resign and would have thought that having backed Cameron into a corner, he would want to see the delivery of the promised powers through. Surely the last thing the SNP need whilst these discussions are going on is internal strife over his successor. He'll be a hard act to follow!

[Oddquine]

Ahem....the vows of further anything aren't worth the back of the fag packet on which they were written...as Ed Milliband, by 3pm today,  was scuttling backwards to distance himself from them. And so it starts as so many of us knew it would. The only thing any of them can agree on is that the UK is sunk without Scotland's oil underpinning their borrowing.

 

I'm betting that the "time table" will lengthen in the same way as the time table for accomplishing a balanced budget in the UK has as we don't meet expectations and are still borrowing.  And the promises of the political parties, even if genuinely meant, and I have always doubted they were, does rather depend on getting the  final proposals, when they are cobbled together, through both Houses of Parliament, whole and unchanged, when we all know what the chance of that is .......somewhere between ha!ha!ha! and nil.

 

And this, you will be delighted to know is my last post on this forum. I stayed too long after the connection alluded to by bauhaus was broken, because I rather enjoyed being here, but I think the time has come to depart, before my plethora of irritating "I told you so" posts start to come.

 

After all, when the inevitable happens and the austerity cuts, still to arrive, are made, the block grant is reduced through that and creeping privatisation (if it is not stopped altogether), and further reduced to pay for the cost of tax collection and for paying Westminster the interest on our own allowed borrowing, we will get services cut, or tax increased above the UK levels.

 

To the Yessers on here.keep on going on.....our time will come........and to the Noers...in advance of what is going to happen when the Scotland Act 2012 is introduced......"I told you so! 

 

 

 

 

 

[starchief]

 

I hope both sides accept the majority will (but I have a terrible feeling Yes won't if they lose).  Any Yes voters prepared to say they will accept the decision and move on with acceptance of the result no matter which side wins?

 

I have voted Yes and of course I will accept the result if, as I anticipate, the No side win......How dare you suggest those of us desiring and campaigning for independence are undemocratic.

 

 

Oops, maybe I need to apologise due to Yessers being willing to move on...

Westminster have alot to live up to...remember we don't have to put up with it!

 

1979 - 1997 - 2014 - ????

no        yes      no       ???

 

...before my plethora of irritating "I told you so" posts start to come.

 

To the Yessers on here.keep on going on.....our time will come........and to the Noers...in advance of what is going to happen when the Scotland Act 2012 is introduced......"I told you so! 

Doesn't sound like acceptance and togetherness to me.

[IBM]

Good post, as opposed to the utter shyte that C Bannerman came out with.      presume Charlie had Pickfords booked for this morning had the yes vote succeeded.

I agree 100% with you on that caley 100!  I am disappointed at the result but accept and move on, but will wait and see how long we wait before the broken promises.   

[IBM]

Just a word of thank's in particular to Qddquine and Doofers Dad  for their contributions and the many others who kept it going over the last 18 months.  Let's not forget Laurence who started the whole bloody thing, at least he will be happy today

[Kingsmills]

 

Good post, as opposed to the utter shyte that C Bannerman came out with.      presume Charlie had Pickfords booked for this morning had the yes vote succeeded.

I agree 100% with you on that caley 100!  I am disappointed at the result but accept and move on, but will wait and see how long we wait before the broken promises.   

 

 

You didn't have long to wait...

[culduthel]

Ahem....the vows of further anything aren't worth the back of the fag packet on which they were written...as Ed Milliband, by 3pm today,  was scuttling backwards to distance himself from them. And so it starts as so many of us knew it would. The only thing any of them can agree on is that the UK is sunk without Scotland's oil underpinning their borrowing.

 

I'm betting that the "time table" will lengthen in the same way as the time table for accomplishing a balanced budget in the UK has as we don't meet expectations and are still borrowing.  And the promises of the political parties, even if genuinely meant, and I have always doubted they were, does rather depend on getting the  final proposals, when they are cobbled together, through both Houses of Parliament, whole and unchanged, when we all know what the chance of that is .......somewhere between ha!ha!ha! and nil.

 

And this, you will be delighted to know is my last post on this forum. I stayed too long after the connection alluded to by bauhaus was broken, because I rather enjoyed being here, but I think the time has come to depart, before my plethora of irritating "I told you so" posts start to come.

 

After all, when the inevitable happens and the austerity cuts, still to arrive, are made, the block grant is reduced through that and creeping privatisation (if it is not stopped altogether), and further reduced to pay for the cost of tax collection and for paying Westminster the interest on our own allowed borrowing, we will get services cut, or tax increased above the UK levels.

 

To the Yessers on here.keep on going on.....our time will come........and to the Noers...in advance of what is going to happen when the Scotland Act 2012 is introduced......"I told you so! 

 

Central office pulls the plug!

[culduthel]

The Referendum -  the gift that keeps on giving!  Now Scottish football supporters have promised to stop singing the dirge The Flower Of Scotland at upcoming Scottish matches. 

We can only pray that it is ditched as our unofficial anthem from all occasions  very soon.  What a gift that will be.

[Kingsmills]

The Referendum -  the gift that keeps on giving!  Now Scottish football supporters have promised to stop singing the dirge The Flower Of Scotland at upcoming Scottish matches. 

We can only pray that it is ditched as our unofficial anthem from all occasions  very soon.  What a gift that will be.

 

God Save The Queen ?

[Scarlet Pimple]

I have to suspect,.Oddquine, that the unnecessarily negative, rude and somewhat abusive criticisms leveled against you by one member on here  (above), who should have known better,  have also undermined your desire to stay on here.

In fact I not only regret that but would like to suggest that you do stay because it's clear that many other people appreciated your efforts. 

You were the only poster that I can recall who has started  a significant thread on what has turned out to be a very important subject of debate. So you did us all a great service. Your approach to other folks' opinions was significant and praiseworthy. Whilst others  concentrate on putting down those who have different views than theirs, and belittling them, you tolerate  other points of view and  welcome responses instead.

And, by exploring all the different avenues of thought on the whole spectrum of the debate, you instructed us overseas members on the finer points and helped me greatly in familiarizing myself with the issues at stake and   in detail and depth

So I certainly hope you will remain a poster  and thank you for your persistence and efforts.

 S.P .