UKC

Trouble sleeping. Subconsciously worried about the vote. Now its over and it's NO (with a few regions voting YES including Glasgow).

What next? Glasgow (and Dumbarton and N Lanarkshire) declare breakaway statehood: mini - Scotland?

What's William Wallace shouting now?

In reply to Flinticus:
scotland wants stability… very simple...

and the bookies who were at 6:1 yes knew nothing….

In reply to Flinticus:

still quite a narrow win 45% yes 55% no. And an 84% turn out last time I looked at the tracker. Plenty of strong feelings for both sides it suggests.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

it's black or white, the answers no.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Glasgow let em down!

In reply to Flinticus:
Let's hope it's for the best !

In reply to ClimberEd:

Its not that black and white, it was still close! There is still a large proportion of the nation that are now dissapointed

In reply to Flinticus:

Sense prevailed.

Can we send that lunatic to the tower of London for the rest of his days now?

In reply to ClimberEd:


More of a dark grey v a lighter one.

A sensible result I think in these troubled times.

In reply to Flinticus:

I am glad it is a no vote but I do hope that more powers are devolved, and the Yes voters are not too disgruntled.

It's certainly not yes for things to stay the same. Those last desperate promises pulled a lot of voters back into the NO camp. Now all we have to do is wait for the politicians to deliver.

In reply to Flinticus:

Lol William Hague on the BBC:

William Hague "As scotland raises more income tax the Barnett formula will become less relevant"
Andrew Neil: "well why would they do that they would have higher taxes and same funding"
William Hague: "well that's what we set out to do"

From the look of it we are going to get shafted.

In reply to RomTheBear:

better the devil you know

In reply to RomTheBear:

>From the look of it we are going to get shafted

Now we've got our hands on Clair!!!

In reply to girlymonkey:


That was always going to be unavoidable

In reply to Flinticus:

Scotland was sitting at the pub table with his pals England, Wales and Northern Ireland when Labour got arsey so Scotland got the SNP to kick him in the nuts.

SNP said Scotland was the big man and together they could chib anyone in the room (although when it really kicked off preferred Labour)

SNP said Scotland should leave the table outside for a fag

Scotland told Common Sense, who was always at the bar, to f*ck off and thought about it

SNP promised to buy all the pints, although wasn't sure how it was going to buy them. Or what it was going to buy them with.

The shit was about to hit the fan and Scotland realised best to keep your mates around you.

Common sense came back in and together they rattled SNP's nuts before sitting back down at the table. It was England's round anyway.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:


Cameron? (Good idea)

In reply to RomTheBear:



There's only one person who's opinion I'd like to hear this morning.

Nigel Farage.

He's probably the person most likely to relieve England from being shafted by the Barnett formula and the lack of a parliament.

In reply to silhouette:




He did speak with Andrew Neil as well. He wants Barnett scrapped

In reply to Flinticus:

Slightly disappointed by the result, but this is where the fun starts.
Lets hope we get some proper constitutional change across the UK rather there than some muddle and tweaking.....

In reply to Flinticus:

65% turnout for the last general election versus 84% for this. I know which is more important yet this seems to have struck a nerve. Is it possible the lowered age has given rise to such a good turn out or is it something else?

In reply to paulcarey:

It'll be muddle for sure, but let's hope this makes people in the rest of the UK inspired by Scotland's example.

I'm hoping politics is reinvigorated.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

One other potentenial reason is that all votes would count. Its quite hard being arsed about voting in safe seats.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

But 45% is nowhere near enough (nor in my mind a simple 50%) to split the country.

In reply to Skyfall:

hold on, some vote for change..

The Royal and Ancient Golf Club has voted in favour of allowing women members for the first time in its 260-year history.

A spokesman said, 'For years we have denied women entrance, and frankly the place now needs a bloody good Hoovering'

In reply to blurty:

So am I, but I don't a muddle will achieve that. There is too much power concentrated in Westminster and that's what needs changing as part of the settlement for Scotland.


This will be the first and last time i go into print supporting Farage, but he is right about needing a federal UK.

In reply to Flinticus:

Phew.

In reply to paulcarey:

Whilst not defending our political leaders in London (they all seem to be a bit lackluster) I'd far sooner have them looking after things than regional government run by the regional activists (who would more than likely be the same local councillors you have now - ours are a complete shower) - Farage is talking federal UK because he knows thats were his oddball members can slide into positions of responsibility - it's all to do with gaining power - not about the best way for the country to be run.

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Vote in a general election and pretty much nothing changes. Is it any wonder fewer vote?

In reply to Max factor:

Isn't that more to do with the voting system?

In reply to girlymonkey:

And there would have been the other way as well.

FWIW, a "no" does not rule out the chance of anothe referendum in a few years' time. A "yes" was likely to be for good.

Neil

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

I think it's more to do with the sameness of the polictal parties. Are the tories that different to New Labour policies?

At least a referendum in the yes vote promised radical change in the way Scotland was governed.

In reply to Flinticus:
It is no. But with 45% voting for independence it is massive progress. This is just independence delayed.

In reply to Flinticus:

Time to move the seat of British government to Birmingham?

In reply to Flinticus:

Its No for now.

But only a 5% swing is needed for Yes in the future and in the absence of a big change the trends are in that direction. We are going to lose the Barnett formula which means serious austerity (or self-defeating income tax rises). The really old people who lived through the second world war and voted No are getting replaced by younger generations who are more open to Yes. New media will continue to reduce the mind share ofthe national newspapers and TV that are firmly No. The Eurozone won't be screwed for ever: in 5 or 10 years the currency argument won't be a show stopper. The 'Scottish banks will go south scare' will be irrelevant because RBS will most likely rebrand to get rid of the 'Scotland' tag and re-domicile its English operations anyway for commercial reasons.

Getting to independence more slowly, allowing more powers to be devolved and used and having less of a sudden jump may well be a good thing.

In reply to alastairmac:

45% of 84%, i.e. those who voted. That means approx. 70% of us in Scotland did NOT vote for independence, even after this protracted campaign.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Alternatively there was a perfect set of circumstances for separatists and they lost, clearly. Charismatic, populist leader, unpopular UK government, poor economic situation, gerrymandering the vote (which backfired), years to prepare, etc, etc.

How about rather than immediately going for the inward-looking, parochial, try again mentality you put some effort in to making the UK work and suceed?

In reply to MG:

Agreed

The main thing Westminster politicians are talking about now on TV is how to prevent Scottish MPs from voting on English matters and English devolution. They already forgot about us and are gearing up for next election, nothing else is going to matter now.

In reply to llechwedd:

Time to move the Scottish parliament to Glasgow!

While I voted Yes, I've nothing against England and the UK (my wife is English and my brother lives in London with his family (I lived there too and loved it). Voting Yes was a reply to the question of 'See that there? Think you can climb it?'

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
You're forgetting the depleting oil. If another referendum is allowed, I suspect there will be far more knowledge on this and if it as the experts predict...independence ref will probably not even get off the ground

This was your best chance...can't see it happening now

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

For it to be a yes vote, 10% of the no voters, 190,000 of them, would have to change their minds to Yes (assuming the voters that didn't vote this time wouldn't vote in future. That would put it 50:50.

Result is hardly decisive, but not as close as I had expected.

In reply to JohnnyW:

I don't know how you compute this but it's more 60%
Of course it also means approximately 52% did NOT vote to stay in the union if you like to put it this way

In reply to JohnnyW:


Some of that 16% of apparent non-voters is people who moved away from where they were registered or died. Some of the non-voters are really old people with dementia, people with mental health or drug problems and people so seriously ill they could never vote. Let's just stick with the actual result rather than try and reframe it.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Makes a change from Scottish matters and Scottish devolution which we have had to put up with for the last 6 months

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Haha fair point ! ;-P

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Yes, well said, let's stick with the actual result.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Deal, if the "not got the government we voted for" or "government voted for by the majority of Scots" cries from some are also dropped...

In reply to Flinticus:
From the political editor of the guardian

"On face of it, Cameron has said tax will be English issue so Scottish MPs excluded from budget and Scottish based MP cannot be chancellor."

So Scotland will not be able to vote on critical UK-wide budgets which in turn affect Scotland.

These further powers we are getting are LOOKING GREAT INDEED !

In reply to RomTheBear:
Come on Rom, settle down, we are still part of that big old cuddly family of nations remember, you can trust the tories.....

In reply to Flinticus:


Ha! Apathy central. All mouth and no trousers that lot! Worst showing of the evening - worst of the worst - not voting!

In reply to RomTheBear:


Of course it is. It's already been established that Scotland will get a new deal. Should the PM ignore the impact that has on and the reaction to it by the other 55 million people in the UK? Christ, you've dominated the headlines for six months. Democracy doesn't you mean you're the only people that get a say.

In reply to Postmanpat:

It's not that. I had very big suspicions about these new power proposals and the risks they contained. I had expressed them here.

For me a no vote should have been status quo because at least we knew what we would be getting into.

But from the comments we are getting from ministers, it seems that we are heading in a direction of a federal state where England will basically be the central government and a devolved state at the same time.

My guess is that Scotland coudl well end up with less actual powers. If the comments of Cameron this morning that Scottish MPs will not be able to vote on UK budgets materialise this could be a very significant loss of power for Scotland indeed, unless we get a very high degree of fiscal autonomy.

I wouldn't call 45% yes 55% no a win. It's a huge problem.

In Ukraine last year they had a similar results on referendum to choose who to unite with - Russia or EU. And now they are in a bloody civil war.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Which comments are you referring to?


Where did he say that?

In reply to RomTheBear:

I think it'll be interesting to see what Salmond does next, along with the Scottish electorate, to make Scotland the better place everyone is so eager to have. Scottish Variable Rate anyone? He could maybe put some effort and cash into getting rid of poverty or something else useful instead of pissing it away on an ego trip. If Westminster and Holyrood fail us this time, the next referendum, and there will be one, will be a resounding Yes. Although when that comes around maybe who ever is in charge could have the decency to have an actual plan with , you know, direction and facts, and stuff...It wasn't No's to win it was Yes's to lose and they lost because logic and reason won over delusion and fantasy. He offered no plan, just a wish list, Yes to everything. Turns out we're not so gullible after all, but don't believe for a minute a No vote means we're happy with Westminster.

In reply to Flinticus:
Look at the numbers. 70 % of 16-17 year olds voted for independence. The reverse was true in the over 55's. It was a triumph of fear over hope. For the vast majority of older voters with more invested in maintaining the status quo their vote was unequivocal. But that will change.

In reply to RomTheBear:
Scotland has just voted to stay in the UK. That means we need a setup that works for all in the UK, not just Scotland. Approaching it as zero sum game by pitching to maximise what Scotland can do at the expense of everyone else is not the way forward. What's needed is an arrangement where everyone benefits. Scotland will surely get more powers but England also needs a fair settlement and that will involve changes around the West Lothian Question and other areas. What you are hearing are calls for this from English MPs. Don't immediately assume this is an attempt to shaft Scotland because it isn't (except in a very few cases).

In reply to alastairmac:

Where are these numbers for age groups?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Comments from David Cameron this morning. He said that if issues such as tax and welfare were devolved to Scotland, then Scots MPs would have to be excluded from votes on these issues.

That means Scottish MPs probably won't be able to become chancellor, and are excluded from setting UK budget, which even with devolution, will most likely affect the whole of the UK (unless total fiscal autonomy is given which is unlikely)

This could also be a tricky situation for Labour, to pass a labour budget in this situation with a tiny majority could be difficult.


Morning statement

In reply to PeterM:


Apathy = with a 75% turn out and more people voting than any other region, you've redefined apathy

Glasgow has a lot more of the poor than, say, the current capital, Edinburgh, and (some of) them will be less inclined to vote, having nothing to preserve and not much to hope for. On a pure head count 364,126 people voted in Glasgow, more than Edinburgh (318,565), more than any other region in Scotland, and they voted Yes.

In reply to MG:


Not it's not from backbenchers, it's from Cameron. That's what worries me.
It's probably worrying Labour as well because they might find themselves in a situation where they have a majority government but not enough majority to pass UK budgets.
Of course West Lothian question must be addressed but not this way. There shouldn't be a situation where central budget decisions affecting the whole of the UK will be taken only by English MPs.

In reply to RomTheBear:

You think Scots MPs should vote on English tax and welfare?


Will there be a UK chancellor?



I can't see it in the speech. Which line?

In reply to Flinticus:

Maybe I missed a smiley off that comment or you have no sense of humour..it was an amazing turnout all round..just that glasgows was the lowest..but yes..still amazing that so many weegies could get up off the sofa...

In reply to Toccata:











Loving your work, Toccata. You should publish that--best summary of the indyref I've seen anywhere

In reply to RomTheBear:



"The question of English votes for English laws - the so-called West Lothian question -requires a decisive answer.

"So, just as Scotland will vote separately in the Scottish Parliament on their issues of tax, spending and welfare so too England, as well as Wales and Northern Ireland, should be able to vote on these issues and all this must take place in tandem with, and at the same pace as, the settlement for Scotland."

he does not say that scottish MP's should be excluded from UK matters, only english matters - no bar to a scottish UK chancellor there

In reply to PeterM:

We're a sensitive lot!

In reply to RomTheBear:




So the proposal as I've seen it expressed is that Scottish MPs wouldn't be allowed to vote on decisions that don't affect Scotland. Your "central budget decisions affecting the whole of the UK" do affect Scotland by definition, hence Scottish MPs would be able to vote.

If you've got evidence that something else is planned, please give a direct quote rather than a sort of vague assertion based on stuff that you personally think might happen.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Of course not !
But they should be able to vote on UK-wide budget, taxes and welfare.
This includes Pensions, healthcare, JSA, Child benefit...

In reply to Flinticus:

No, we're not

In reply to Duncan Bourne:


Come on now, that's not a narrow win by anyone's standards, except your own, it's a far more decisive one then most expected.

In reply to RomTheBear:



Where is it said they shouldn't be? Quote it please.

What I see from Cameron is a clear assertion that representatives from each constituent country should vote on matters unique to them, and all should vote on shared mattes.

In reply to RomTheBear:

And no one is suggesting otherwise! Stop the paranoia!!

In reply to RomTheBear:


Is this what we've got to look forward to, months of the disgruntled independents completely misrepresenting everything the govt says to create more divisiveness?

In reply to RomTheBear:


Not if you vote Labour at the next election, better still join the Labour party and do all you can to bring it back onto good policies.

In reply to Postmanpat:

You're right I rewatched it and it's not as clear as the poltical editor from the guardian has reported it.
In fact I would go as far to say that he misreported it unless I missed something else.

I hope it's not what will happen though, it's what some English Tory MP is suggesting.

Generally the West Lothian question will be a tough nut to crack.

In reply to alastairmac:

In orkney they voted something like 70% no. So where do they fit in?

In reply to neilh:


They can ask to join England ?

In reply to Flinticus:

Personally I'm glad we voted No. But this is time to put personal feelings aside and look forward to try and address the things that made nearly half the turnout vote to do something as radical as secede.Dissecting the vote is interesting but a distraction, not least because there wasn't a proper exit poll. Thankyou to Yes for making everyone give a shit, and making me vote for the first time.

In reply to RomTheBear:


It really shouldn't be, everyone has accepted it for a very long time.

It's only a problem because Salmond and the Nats have made it so.

In reply to winhill:


No I think it's complicated, it means that in the case of government with small majorities, there could be some issues where a different majority will be voting.

In reply to neilh:


Norway?

In reply to Postmanpat:



You are right it seems, see my comment above.
However there is still the existing problem of matters devolved to Scotland and not the rest of the UK, but that are influenced by spending decision in the rest of the UK.

That is already a problem and could become more so if devolution of English/Welsh/NI matters doesn't catch up with devolution of Scottish matters.

In reply to Flinticus: Welcome to North Britain. Scotland will now get well and truly shafted. I still can't believe we had our chance and we let the three unionist parties frighten us into turning it down. We will regret it.

In reply to alastairmac:

Well the thing is that now you have potentially 1.6 million people in Scotland with a vested interest of seeing the new power arrangements fail or deem them as not good enough and ask for a new referendum

In reply to alastairmac:
Give up the victimhood, it's not helping Scotland.

In reply to alastairmac:



It doesn't have to be that way.

A different battle starts today, for a reconfiguring of the Union, and in that battle, Alastair, you and I are on the same side.

In reply to RomTheBear:



It's certainly an issue - although I suppose we're already in a similar situation when a left-wing local authority has to implement spending cuts imposed by a right-wing government. Devolution just adds another layer between the two.

The answer is presumably to make sure the set of powers that is devolved is as coherent as possible rather than just a random grab-bag. But it'll be a few months before we see what that set of powers actually is.

In reply to Tim Chappell:
I am sure you are right. Onwards and upwards. Cheers

In reply to alastairmac:


I don't think they did, not for me, my family, friends and colleagues. It was the fact Salmond had no plan or direction. Yes he had plenty of hopes and dreams, but no foundation.

In reply to nw:
Thanks for your constructive criticism. Now why don't you get back to watching Jeremy Kyle.

In reply to alastairmac:


Your 'grievance politics' just isn't working.
You also need a new demagogue, he wasn't that convincing.
Ditch Sillars too, dark mutterings about 'Days of Reckoning' made your lot sound like the Statists, many people had suspected. Margo would never have come out with bullshit like that.

In reply to alastairmac:


Absolutely. Let's do this. Let's start by getting the bedroom tax repealed

In reply to alastairmac:


Or he got the young and naive on his side vs the mature and practical. Spin it anyway you like.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

You never give up, do you? Why not be a democrat, admit your defeat, a massive defeat, and work together to try and help the problems be resolved within the framework of one united country as the people of Scotland have just voted for? What is more important, improving the life of people in Scotland and also elsewhere or just putting the flag waving before everything?

In reply to alastairmac:

Fcuk off you idiot. Is that the best you've got? A random jibe about Jeremy Kyle, and carping about constructive criticism when your response to last night was:
'Scotland will now get well and truly shafted. I still can't believe we had our chance and we let the three unionist parties frighten us into turning it down. We will regret it.'
For the record my first thoughts were:
'this is time to put personal feelings aside and look forward to try and address the things that made nearly half the turnout vote to do something as radical as secede... Thankyou to Yes for making everyone give a shit, and making me vote for the first time.'

One looks rather more constructive than the other I think.

For my own part, I didn't vote No out of fear. I voted No for two main reasons--

1. History. Scotland and England have been in a political union longer than the US has existed. There has been a union of the crowns almost for longer than America has been settled by Europeans. I have a huge belief in and affection for The United Kingdom, and a huge respect for what the UK has achieved, and no sense at all that historically speaking there's anything *natural* about Scotland and England being separate. If anything, the opposite is true.

2. Facts. Lack of them, on the Yes side. Independence was a very very shoogly proposition. We just had no idea what we were voting for. The risks were much more obvious than the benefits. When you're climbing you don't commit to dodgy rock with no protection; you go the way where the rock is reliable and you can see the placements. I picked a route out of caution and prudence, yes, but not out of fear at all, any more than it's necessarily fear if you refuse to climb something that looks dodgy.

In reply to FreshSlate:

Nobody knows anyway, there is no info. FWIW at about 4am the BBC were saying 16/17 year olds the group second most likely to vote No, after the older folk.

In reply to RomTheBear:


I noticed that too, the little sentence of Cameron's and it is truly pathetic, as is the man, but he is not all "Westminster politicians", he is typical of the worst ones so get rid of him, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Have a look at this video to see that there are Scots in Parliament and they do discuss Scotland (not my title BTW):

youtube.com/watch?v=1FcOTY0HFPM&

In reply to RomTheBear:


It's only complicated because the Nats want devolved powers and the Brits inevitably push back and say metoo.

In reply to nw:

Righto! Didn't realise that. I'm not actually trying to spin it myself, just saying it is very easy to do so.

In reply to alastairmac:



You do realise don't you that last night's result means that more of 'us' disagree with you than agree? If you mean 'I' or 'me' say so, but please don't include me in your fanciful claims that I think the same as you do. You're speaking for a minority - fact.

Scotland voted. There was a result. A clear majority won. You don't like it. Get over it and move on.

In reply to Fraser:

Well said.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I completely agree with you there are lots of Westminster politicians that I respect. Unfortunately they are not the ones in power

In reply to PeterM:


I amazed you can't see the problem with this.

If the Nats want some pipe dreams fulfilled based on Salmond's dodgy figures, and the abatement of they're sense of grievance and victimhood rests on those dreams being satisfied, with the threat (violent according to some) that if they're desires aren't fulfilled they'll start shitting everywhere, then the stability that the referendum could have brought is in tatters.

RBS may well have committed to Scotland but if the overall sense is of revolution if Salmond's ramblings aren't enforced means that there is no stability at all.

Investors in RBS and the rest of Scotland shouldn't be investing at all they should be enacting the same exit strategies as a Yes vote would have triggered.

The entire UK can't be held to ransom by 1.6M suicidal and psychologically disturbed Scots who will self harm at any random time in the future. It's the worst possible reason for change.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Why? Whose worried about it except for bunch of pseuds on internet forums? I bet most people don't even know what it means. What about tackling real problems like unemployment, poverty, access to university for all not just those with money etc etc etc... real problems felt by real people, not pseudo problems for disturbed intellectuals.

If Glasgow voted yes it may well have been because of the frustration of seeing their lives unchanged for decades as much as anything else.

In reply to nw:

You clearly haven't quite got the democracy thing...... It means people having their own views.... and sometimes they are different...... and we should be able to express them without you having a wee fit. Calm down son.

In reply to PeterM:


Agreed

In reply to winhill:


I can. I think I'm with you on this - see one of my posts above. The SNP white paper was a disaster it was smoke and mirrors and thankfully logic and reason won the day. I just feel that rightly or wrongly if the govts don't come through for us with real change and in a timely fashion, that it would mean, should the referendum be run again, the Yes campaign would win. All they'd really need to do was hold up westminster treachery as an example 'of what happened last time' regardless of policies or, in this referendum, lack of them.

In reply to Max factor:



Remind me which party gave Scotland and Wales devolution, which ultimately led to the vote?

In reply to alastairmac:

Oh the irony.
Clearly you are the one struggling with democracy, son.cant take a loss for a loss, it's all ' we've been shafted'.can you show me where I said you didn't have a right to an opinion? Doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Hahaha, and I thought it was Americans that didn't understand irony

In reply to nw:
Get you!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


All this depends on having a well balanced and functional democracy, don't you think ?

In reply to :

Well Mr Jim Sillars, YOU had better learn to "bend the knee"

In reply to alastairmac:

Yeah good point boy.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Jim Sillars' "day of reckoning" comments were both sinister and silly. But here's the point--Alex Salmond moved at once to repudiate them. Good for Eck.

In reply to nw:

So, Gordon Brown next first minister of Scotland? What do we think? Storming speech

In reply to Tim Chappell:
Yeah, this is the best I've seen him (Salmond). Showing more balance and reason now the hurly burly's done.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

he could hardly endorse them could he? If you are going to lay plaudits at Salmonds door, there are many better reasons than that IMO.

As for Sillars, hopefully we will never hear from him again

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I need to watch it...

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Rousing stuff, but surely he'll never again have the credibility for a major post. But I think he can look forward to basking in 'elder statesmanship.'

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
2008 : Gordon Brown saves the world
2014: Gordon Brown saves the Union.

Gordon Brown for PM!

Er…..shome mistake surely…..

In reply to Postmanpat:
Will we have him cryogenically frozen and just brought out for important decisions?

2104: Gordon Brown saves the Union.



I was never a fan of him as Labour leader, but think he would be an improvement for the role of First Minister

In reply to Postmanpat:




I'd vote for him over Cameron or Milliband, even though I've been very critical of him in the past. As well you know Cameron would have made the same economic mistake as Brown (probably worse), had he been in office.

In reply to Postmanpat:



ftfy

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:





Fixed that

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I wouldn't count on it, in 1995 the Quebec referrendum went 49.4% voting "Yes" and 50.6% voting "No". There's a lot that can happen in 25 years and due in part to some bizarre policies by Parti Québécois, they recently got a shock tubbing by the Liberals and independence is completely off the agenda, probably for another 25 years.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Gordon's alive?

(Flash, ar-arr)

Saviour of the Universe

He'll save every one of us

etc etc

In reply to alastairmac:


Absolute bullshit..

Salmond knew the young would vote yes, hence including them..

People's political view changes as you age..

But many like the union, no fear..

It hopefully won't be voted on again for 30-40 years..

In reply to IainRUK:

From the BBC website

"In the cold dawn, fingers of blame were being pointed: at the British establishment, big business, and the media, in particular the BBC.

"I feel the press and the BBC have let us down because they didn't tell us the truth," said Sheena Jardine, 46 a violinist, echoing a familiar refrain from "Yes" campaigners."

Maybe if Salmond had actually told the truth it might have been different.

My hint to those involved in any future referendum is to get a leader who will talk facts and who doesn't dismiss everything against his viewpoint as scaremongering.

YES might have won if they had a campaign based on reality not one based on positivity and hype. But then again the result might have been an even larger NO result. YES might have missed their opportunity because of the stupidity of the campaign. We might not ever know.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

I don't think thats narrow.. pretty convincing, how many councils voted yes? 4 of 32 councils..

55% of voters.. and a huge turnout..

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Salmond is a bit of an embarassment in my mind - a one trick pony r.e. Independence ( at all costs) I thoroughly distrust him and this campaign showed that is not an entirely unfounded view to take. As for G Brown being a better first minister, no doubt. Hell I'd vote for Mrs Brown before I'd ever vote for Salmond or SNP.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:



Looking at the poll it seems the main reason Yes lost was the lack of definite answers on currency, the economy, EU and so on.
Which is perfectly understandable.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:





I've been OK with most of the debate, but TBH I've found the Yes campaign's attacks on the BBC deeply worrying.

Number one, they don't actually produce any real evidence of bias; they just say the BBC's biased and expect us to swallow it.

Number two, democratic debate depends on the availability of hard information; to threaten and bully journalists is deeply dangerous.

Number three, the Yes campaign was at times dangerously close to wishful thinking, so it's hardly surprising that they often found the facts the BBC was unearthing a bit uncomfortable at times.

And number four: yes, actually the BBC was biased--in the Yes campaign's favour. I found the BBC's coverage at times ridiculously ooh-isn't-this-exciting-what-the-Jocks-are-doing, irritatingly touristy, as if it was all a faraway sideshow that was full of fun and japes... when as far as I was concerned it was profoundly and world-changingly important.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Interesting you say the accusation of BBC bias were worrying and then you are accusing them of bias

If the BBC gets as many complaints from every side, it's probably that there are in the right place. According to the famous Nick Robinson himself

In reply to Tim Chappell:


Yes, almost everyone I know has found the possibility of a Yes vote stressful and worrying over the last couple of weeks and definitely no joking matter. Today I see and feel no jubilation; just relief.

In reply to RomTheBear:


I took him to be saying the bullying was worrying, not the accusation as such. Pretty much every losing side of elections accuses the BBC of bias - which suggests to me they are in fact as even handed as possible with election coverage. I have never before heard of journalists booed and crowds outside the BBC buildings.

In reply to Flinticus:

Reasonably interesting thing from the Graun, in a look-on-the-bright-side sort of way:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/19/5-reasons-cheerful-vot...

Point 2 - that we've now seen that you can actually have an vote with high turnout preceded by an informed, widespread discussion of the issues IF the voters think there's some chance of their vote making a difference - is important, I think. This, together with the fact that at least 40% of the population of Scotland are willing to risk economic uncertainty and political instability in order to have as little to do with Westminster as possible, seems like a message that Westminster shouldn't be allowed to forget in all the wrangling about devolution and the West Lothian question.

In reply to IainRUK:
In 20 years the idea of independence has travelled from being a marginal idea to a firmly mainstream issue. 45% is a big number. And while I am sure we all respect what is a clear democratic result the demand for independence won't go away. Securing something from the promises of more powers for Scotland is just another step. Like many of the others that made up that 45% we'll continue working for independence. Times change and views change. Give it ten years.

In reply to alastairmac:

Maybe, I never disagreed with that, its this insulting attitude that those who vote no do so out of fear…

Keep that up and you just alienate 55% of the electorate and don't learn from the mistakes of this campaign..

In reply to MG:

There are protests outside of the BBC building in London for different kind of alleged bias every year.
People like Nick Robinson have a long history of being criticised and booed, it's not new and probably unavoidable.

IMO it's not bad for journalists like Nick Robinson who are quite aggressive in their questioning, to be on the receiving end from time to time. He's a big boy, he's been there before.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

There was only such a high turn out because votes mattered, every one..

Had they not areas like Shetland, Orkney etc would have been far lower..

In reply to IainRUK

Given that, it strikes me as rather low, actually. 70%+ turnout in general elections was common until 20 years ago, here where every vote mattered and the decision was final, only 15% more. Do 640,000 people really not care??

In reply to MG:

I think this was part of the issues with polls.. there was 5-10% don't knows.. Lynx assumed they'd vote one way or the other.. I think many just didn't vote.. which is fair enough.

In reply to IainRUK:


are you suggesting 'fear' [in terms of e.g. anxiety about the unknown, scared of job losses (or at least the threat of such), worries about pensions, scared of too much change too soon, the currency ooo the currency etc] was not a factor at all?

In reply to mac fae stirling:

It was fear only in that I feared AS and the SNP didn't know what they were doing and I found it quite insulting that the wee toad expected us to fall for it. Angry that he made fools almost half the country offering hope and optimism that was nothing more than scotch mist.

In reply to RomTheBear:


No, I don't think this sort of "langue de bois" (can't think of the English translation - waffle maybe?) is what people are worried about, they are worried about their real lives and problems and the lack of perceived concern about these by traditional political parties is what pushes them to phoney answers like secession, Nationalism, populism, extremists of all sorts.

It's the same all over Europe, I'm sure you followed the rise of the FN in France even if you don't live there any more. The same lack of attention to people's real problems leads to the same political response by people.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Waffle? I think Rom was more succinct than your rambling.

In reply to mac fae stirling:

That's not being scared.. its being sensible..

How about the threats to vote yes.. or 'we'll get the banks after independence'…

All the intimidation of the last week back fired.. the filming of people.. it was a fairly resounding no.. enough to put this to bed for a generation hopefully.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

What did he say that would interest someone on the dole and who's been given notice to quit by his landlord? Or any of the other examples of people in difficulty that I'm sure you can think of, do you think that if he was their MP and they came to see him and explained their distress they would be impressed by being told:

"All this depends on having a well balanced and functional democracy, don't you think ?"

Can't you even grasp that people are voting for extreme, and illusory, answer because they are fed up with being fobbed off with this sort of nonsense?

In reply to mac fae stirling:


The 'fear' slogan was a classic mistake. Sounded great to 'Yes' supporter but actually insulting to the people they needed to convince.

In reply to Flinticus:

At least this means we can still travel south to climb in Stanage

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Obviously, 'functional democracy' implies a democracy were the representatives do actually represent.... which is just what you are complaining about. You're being funny.

In reply to alastairmac:


But people tend to become less radical and more conservative with age.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

And what has the "West Lothian question" got to do with that and don't you think people take democracy for granted? What they want is solutions for their problems and people to listen to them, something that you two are showing you just don't understand... waffle, only waffle.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Kind of helps if the people who take decisions are the people elected

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Well the problem it's that the indyref and the rise of FN are completely incomparable.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: You're still being funny.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

It's 10% off a fifty fifty split which is narrower than a 20% or a 30% difference so I would say quite narrow, not 50% but not far off either

In reply to IainRUK:

Still leaves 1,617,989 people who voted Yes. Not a majority but nevertheless a sizeable portion of the population.

In reply to Lusk:

I am not at all surprised that Glasgow voted "Yes"

In reply to alastairmac:



Where are you getting this from?

In reply to nw:


I believe it's the Lord Ashcroft post-vote poll

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-09-19/salmond-pm-refused-to-back-browns-timetable-on-scotland/

"Alex Salmond said he was congratulated by David Cameron on a "hard fought campaign" but the Prime Minister refused to back Gordon Brown's timetable for a vote on a Scotland Bill by 27 March next year."

Ok looks like we are off to a good start, apparently Gordon's timetable is already more or less out of the window (

In reply to RomTheBear:


Not at all, both were Nationalist movements and in both cases, according the press and diverse pundits we see in the media a good part of the support comes from disillusioned voters of left wing parties (nominally!) who after years of patiently voting for these parties decided to try a different tack. You yourself (I think) commented on the results in deprived areas where the yes did well and you are also aware that the Front National has done very well in the N of France in areas which were staunch left voters for many decades.

People who have not been listened to, whose problems are taken into account by no one (in there perception or reality) have abandoned their traditional parties and voted for a Nationalist "solution" (in their perception). It says something that you don't admit the parallels, and if many are like you we aren't "out of the inn" as zey say in France.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Trump is on BBC24 now, claiming Salmond lost the vote because of wind turbines

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Well there may be some comparable electorate, which isn't surprising since the electorate is finite.

But they are on a completely different political spectrum.
FN is an anti-EU movement based on Ethnic nationalism, whereas the yes campaign is based on a pro-EU and inclusive civic nationalism


PS: I like the way you translate French idioms

In reply to Duncan Bourne:


In Quebec it was a fraction of a percent and yet it was accepted and a few years later the independence movement is totally in the doldrums. If you look at US of French Presidential elections it nearly always much closer than that these days. A 10 point difference is clear, not a total landslide but given the conditions - toffy-nosed Tory government, poor no campaign etc - it's the best we could have hoped for IMO.

Last night I went to bed seriously considering there could be yes victory. It just shows a very vociferous campaign had us all fooled - except the bookies.

In reply to George Ormerod:


If the UK government actually keep the 'vow' and maintain the budget while increasing the power of the Scottish Parliament the independence question could go away for a generation or even indefinitely. But it is becoming clear that's not going to happen.

In reply to RomTheBear:


So just a poll, not the election result. Polls weren't too on line for this vote, were they?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I think you may have misconstrued my meaning. I wasn't arguing that it should have been a Yes vote, I was just noting that a sizeable portion of the population thought it worth voting Yes, even though a greater proportion voted No. It is interesting that for so long now many Scots have been banging on about independance so I can understand how galling it must have been for them not to get it at the last hurdle


Very true

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Well it's not perfect but ithere was no exit poll cause the BBC couldnae be arsed paying for one. So that the best we have.
And actually the pollsters didn't do too badly. The result was well into their margin of error.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

In fairness, they were by the end and this is the only info we have, far as I can tell.

In reply to nw:
Look at the Ashcroft polling results from today. So the squabbling and backsliding has started already. If the pledge on new powers that bought the election unravels as seems likely should the referendum result be regarded as null and void?

In reply to IainRUK:

. enough to put this to bed for a generation hopefully.

i think that is unlikely.

In reply to alastairmac:

No, legally, because it wasn't on the ballot paper. Yes, morally, obviously. But I wouldn't take the fact that Westminster politicians are doing what they do and trying to get one over on each other means that they are stupid enough to try and renege on furthe devo. Actually I think it is reasonable to suggest that it should be done as part of a UK wide shake up, which obviously takes time.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Yes, some were shown crying on French telly, I just hope they can get enough perspective on it all not to let it make them bitter. It wasn't the last hurdle though it was just the start of what could have been a fairly long negotiation, it wouldn't have been overnight. I wonder what would have happened if the negotiations had forced something of a compromise, was a second referendum planned to accept the final deal?

In reply to nw:
Let's wait and see. I do genuinely hope I am wrong. And the Ashcroft results do make interesting reading.

In reply to alastairmac:
Aye it's early days and still raw. Hopefully it works out.

In reply to nw:

It looks like some Tories are going to try and prevent Scottish Labour MPs having full voting rights in Parliament, using these events as an excuse. I don't see how they could though and anyway if Labour wins the next General Election they could always scrap them... One of beauties of not having a written constitution.

It might be just "scaremongering" though (the word of the day), punish Scottish Labour for the sins of 45% of Scottish voters. It seems urgent for Labour to get its act together and for those in Scotland who claimed they supported independence because they wanted a more left wing government to swing in and support the only remaining possibility - Labour.

It will be revealing to see if they do or not

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

You're off message Bruce. It was a fraud and must be rerun. Haven't you had instructions yet?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/19/russia-calls-foul-scottish-...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


TBH given that Brown's timetable, the only thing that was actually concrete in their pledge, is already more or less out of the window 20h after the vote, a lot of people are going to be bitter.

In reply to Flinticus:

Absolutely gutted despite knowing it was imminent, and not sure what is next. I'll need to sit back and see how democracy pans out as no choice in the matter now. Some posts lacking humility which is sad, when the 'potential' positives that are about to happen are wholly due to Yes voters and a panicking Westminster.

I hope someone seizes the moment to set out a new ethos or agenda that captures the desperate need for change. Milliband, don't make me laugh but perhaps the chance for some phoenix to rise from the Labour flames as the Tories move further to the right. Lib Dems are buried but perhaps this is their chance?

I agree Scottish MPs shouldn't be voting on English matters, what's the big deal?

Europe, a clear divide is happening now that could properly enforce independence and the English right could be the laughing stock. Maybe I should encourage Farage to help create independence by the back door?

Trident, anybody else in England want it on their door step? And as for UK foreign policy?

Feel daft for having hope.

In reply to yer maw:

I don't mind moving trident south, don't suppose you know anyone who can make the Crouch a bit deeper?

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/River+Crouch/@51.6258058,0.7261087,11z/...

In reply to RomTheBear:

Maybe it's been mentioned elsewhere but these maps are very revealing:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29255449

I won't give a long analysis but several things are absolutely obvious:

1) The vast majority of Scotland, in terms of landmass, is in favour of remaining part of Britain... curiously even areas which vote SNP - The pro independence majorities are restricted to tiny but heavily populated areas, Glasgow, Dundee..

2) These areas are also those with the highest employment - clearly, as I suspected, a lot voted yes as a protest vote, just like the FN in France.

3) The highest turnouts aren't necessarily in the areas with the highest yes vote.

4) Whatever some people posting here may believe the independence vote is essentially concentrated in the Lowlands with high unemployment, it is absolutely not a nationwide movement majoritairely. This surprised me too.

Other conclusions concerning age and the relation between political affiliation and opinion concerning independence and much more could be drawn from these maps, but above all just a glance shows that the Highlands are not for breaking away it's a small area hit hardest by the economic crisis... something that it shouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility to deal with.

In reply to yer maw:


But what's the big deal if they do, more heads, more ideas - they are all elected in the same country after all. I think it's only a handfull of small minded people that can see a problem with everybody being in on the debate.


I think you're dreaming hear, the vast majority of European government (maybe all) breathed a sigh of relief at the announcement of the no vote, stock exchanges shot up - nobody want countries breaking up. Every French neighbour I've spoken too has said they thought it was better this way, that splitting up was daft - they don't want it to set an example for France.


I think you can still have hope, but not just for Scotland, all of Britain and beyond. Have a couple of whiskeys, it should sort things out.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



Well if you read the poll you'll see that the main reason for voting no was economic risks.
It seems fairly obvious that for those who don't have anything to loose it's much easier to vote yes. That translate in the age groups as well. the 25-34, the rental generation, was also heavily yes.

I am sure that you won't be convinced that it was not a protest vote, but the reality is that it was an intense debate, most people knew exactly the importance of the vote, the consequences, and were perfectly aware that this was not about Alex Salmond or the effing Tories.
If you had been in Scotland for the last month I am sure you would think differently about the nature of the vote.
I can't deny that getting rid of the tories is always a nice bonus for many people though.

In reply to Flinticus:

The Yes demographic is no surprise but the Highland No was. If a protest vote was against how politics is run in the UK then perhaps it is a protest vote but then that's the whole point of elections isn't it.

Being in on the debate is one thing but voting directly on something that strictly speaking doesn't affect your constituency is another, such was the way in the referendum vote. Anything else would be hypocritical.

My girlfriend is at a medical event in Shanghai as one of only a handful of Brits, but it was 'the' talking point at dinners, with viewpoints contrasting with yours probably as less European. The Spanish had a vested interest in a No vote but agree that the others didn't want the turmoil. The Yanks just want us as a puppet for their 'speshul' relationship.

Tonight though I am off the booze as want a clear head, but back on it tomorrow. Quite probably a dram as some Jura, and a recently opened Glen Turret which is rank but a present. Gonna cry masel tae sleep oan ma huge tartan pillow tonight.

In reply to yer maw:


This seemed to surprise a few folk at work too, but seemed logical to me. As an Inverness resident, I see the Scottish government's favouring of the Edinburgh trams, M74 extension, Forth crossing etc. to be a mirror of Westminster and their tendency to spend more money closer to home. Doesn't bother me as much as some (easier to make money go further with a higher population density), but it gives the impression we'd just be swapping one bunch of self-interested politicians for another.

In reply to malky_c:


But look at the map, the highest proportion of yes votes comes in a minute band going from Glasgow across toward Dundee, not far from Edinburgh. I suppose this corresponds to high population so it would mean that the yes vote is predominately and urban phenomenon, and especially in areas of high unemployment.

I agree that there's nothing wrong with a protest vote but that's fine in a normal election but when it comes to breaking up a country that seems irresponsible - just as it is concerning a vote for UKIP or an extreme right party. It's playing with fire. It seems to be that the yes vote tried to cash in on this protest vote quite deliberately, with some success but when you see that the enormous mass of the country, in terms of land area, who disagreed it doesn't seem responsible.

It's using tactics that other Nationalist groups have in the past and shows that Nationalism has it's own internal laws - when you are fighting for "the Nation", a cause which goes beyond the individual, all methods are permitted as the Nation is above all. The same criticism can be made about religious extremists or traditional Communists (Orwell does in his essay) as the interest of working class comes above all then any methods are permitted, it's a historical necessity, just as for Nationalists the rise of The Nation is. Happily democracy has worked and the majority of those living in Scotland have quietly, with no fuss and flags, rejected such dangerous notions.

I don't expect you to agree, just going on a bit.

In reply to malky_c:


The current Scottish Government does not favour the Edinburgh trams: they refused to provide any additional funding for them. The SNP government is generally regarded as being a lot more generous towards Glasgow than it is to Edinburgh. Which is why I found it amusing when one analysis of Salmond's departure was that, with Sturgeon looking a shoo-in to take his place, this would represent "a shift in the geographical centre of the SNP". The concentration of Yes wins in the greater Glasgow area merely makes that suggestion look even more foolish, especially since the source was apparently an SNP insider.


The current Forth Road Bridge cannot sustain the current traffic levels - there was a genuine risk that it could become dangerously unserviceable if nothing was done. A replacement had to be commissioned, not so that Edinburghers could visit Inverness but so that industries north of the Forth could continue to have as short a road journey as possible for their goods flowing south, to England and beyond via places like Immingham and Felixstowe.

In reply to Flinticus:


Glasgow had the lowest turnout of any of the council areas, the only one under 80% - see the map here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29255449 (oh, sorry, that's the BBC and we know they're biased, don't we? Biased not just against Glasgow now, but specifically against Glasgow apparently.)

The only reason more people actually voted there was because it has the largest population. Glasgow's population is 25% bigger than Edinburgh and yet only 14% more people there voted in total.

No matter how you try to massage or spin the figures, the level of participation in the Dear Green Place was disappointing compared to the rest of the country.

In reply to malky_c:


Exactly.. centralisation happens in all countries..

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I was in the Netherlands on Thursday & Friday at a meeting with people from some dozen EU countries. Not a very representative sample (only about 15 people, all biologists for a start) but all seemed disappointed that Scotland wasn't going to be independent. Not sure about my French neighbour's reaction as I didn't get back till late last night & haven't seen any of them yet.

In reply to Doug:

It obviously depends on who you know and what your opinions are. I spoke to a doctor and a dentist and my neighbour who is a building site foreman. I will be meeting someone tomorrow who will probably react how you say, but as she is quite anti-English this is not surprising. She has just retired but before worked in the civil service. Generally I find civil servants are anti-English as they are convinced that England (they don't usually use the word Britain, even less UK) is a liberal capitalist horror, with people in top hats crushing unprotected workers with few or no rights.

They may also mirror our own thoughts though?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Yeah they are not entirely wrong though. But they are wrong to think that it's not the same here though

In reply to Flinticus:

‘NO’ TIMETABLE

19 SEPTEMBER: the day after a No vote, the timetable for further powers will be published as a motion before the UK parliament. All UK parties will support the motion.

Ok we are the 20th so that's already the first promise broken. I want to be optimist but it's hard...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:




Too true Bruce.

Did you see the comments made by Pierre Gattaz ( MEDEF president) that the French social model has seen it's day and recommends reducing the number of Public Holidays and the minimum wage ( just for starters ! )? Really sweet coming from one of the biggest fortunes in France ! Not forgetting that daddy was also the 'patron des patrons' a generation ago !

In reply to RomTheBear:




Did they? It seems like Brown has done that with it going before parliament next week, that actual statement was inferred wasn't it?

I don't think they said the actual motion would be before parliament on that exact day..

In reply to IainRUK:

It's amazing that it only takes two days for the conspiracy theorists to get going...

In reply to alastairmac:


Looks like that is the case. The young mostly voted Yes, the old No.
(If all the young had locked up their grandparents on the night, it would have been a yes

Seriously, in a generation, there is more likely to be a yes when the older population that were mostly against it, die off.

In reply to alastairmac:


I did. I also looked at the sample size.
Which was 14.

In reply to Jim C:




You are ignoring the very well known fact that politics change as you age.. people travel more.. often get more liberal, some get more conservative…

But what you cannot do is just extrapolate out…

In reply to Jim C:

You could look at it another way; demographics are for an overall ageing population in the future, people change (as Iain says) with age, generally getting more small 'c' conservative.

In reply to dissonance:

Yeah, I heard this on the radio yesterday, what a crazy sample size!

In reply to girlymonkey:


The overall sample size is ok but just rather badly biased to older end.
I suspect it might be a phone based sample (havent bothered checking though) since its a problem for all poll companies now. The traditional use of landlines to identify the geographical area means you will increasingly miss out on a large segment of the population.

Its amusing though that people have jumped on it though.

In reply to dissonance:

Yeah, I just meant the sample size of the 16 and 17 year olds. I guess they will need to change how they do these polls eventually, as landlines will continue to be less common. I've not had one for years, and quite a few friends don't either.

In reply to IainRUK:

No, exact quote.


Ho yes they did, I quoted the exact better together statement
.
First promise already broken.

TBH they may pass the motion on Monday so it's only 1 working day out, not a drama, still, a bad start...

In reply to IainRUK:


But those examples do not show centralisation by the SNP government. They are large projects that were well underway before the SNP got in. As was pointed out the bridge decision was basically apolitical: in 2005 the engineers said it was carrying 2x is rated capacity and the cables were slowly weakening. That bridge is critical infrastructure for the entire East side of Scotland north of the Forth.

Similarly by the time the SNP took control of Edinburgh City Council the trams had already had so much money spent and construction done it would have been crazy to cancel them.

In reply to RomTheBear:


It does look particularly petty and paranoid of the SNP to claim that this shows that the UK can't be trusted.

Grievance with a capital G from here on in.

In reply to winhill:


Did anyone expect anything better?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Well the SNP have been in for quite a while.. there have been attempts at de-centralising Scotland since 2000 when I lived there..

They moved lots of HQ's out to places like Inverness.. I remember because they all needed to recruit as the staff just refused to move and found other jobs in Edinburgh...

In reply to RomTheBear:
I think its poor.. the people of Scotland spoke.. over 55% said no to independence.. the party's now need time to let that happen.

Calling for another referendum is poor. Have 3-4-5 referendums eventually you'll get a yes, how soon would the NO side be allowed another referendum to re-join?

Salmond was quite clear, this was a once a generation opportunity.. it was rejected.

Before the talk was all about respecting the vote and building a united future.. now the YES lost its just snipe away..

You can say the pledges made the difference, but the simple facts are no one knows. The don't knows looked like they didn't vote.. 97% registered, much less turned out, and crucially in the strong yes areas.. The polls were almost bang on all the way. Yes at times campaigning was poor, but that was both sides, the threats, the phone calls, the bluster about the UK having to share the £, the certainty on europe.. even if Salmond had just said 'look, we hope to do this, but we can't guarantee it'.. I think he'd have more support. It was the blind insistence that the cards would fall as he foresaw that killed him.

I can't see where that exact quote was Rom? The BT website has been updated with a Thanks.. all I've seen is the Daily Record pledge and then a highlight but I can't see where they specially said the motion would be in parliament that quickly.. I'm amazed they said that as to be so precise was dangerous..

I don't think things can happen fast as the UK needs to be fair and for devo-max/further devolution to be fairly extended we do need to give england, wales and NI allowances otherwise we just destroy the union through bad blood.

Also all this bleating about mainstream media.. it was a late mainstream media poll (owned by Murdoch) which was one of the few polls to show the YES had a lead.. It'd be interesting if Murdoch wasn't given Cameron a slap for the recent press investigations..

But of course everything YES is reliable.. everything NO is biased...

In reply to RomTheBear:


You're not exactly doing your bit to heal wounds and bring people together in a spirit of harmony and willingness to get down and make things work, are you?!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Lol, who is at fault here ?
The DAY after the vote the first thing we get is the first promise broken and Cameron exploiting the situation to get a constitutional arrangement that would favour his party in a disproportionate way.

Most of the No voters I know are completely gutted.

In reply to IainRUK:
Promises were made to win this referendum and promises are already being broken. The result may have been different without these promises being made on a strictly explicit timetable. That is not democracy is it? In any other walk of life it would be called cheating at best and illegal at worst.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Please do find where this promise of something in Parliament on Friday was made. I can't I suspect it was made up or misinterpreted. Either way it's stupid to expect (or want) action so quickly. Any sensible proposal will take time to develop. (The SNP had decades and still had half arsed proposals).

Rather than the sore loser act, why not try and contribute something positive?

In reply to IainRUK:

No, now they need to stick to their solemn vow, by the letter. Not sticking to this pledge could have serious consequences.


Lol, I don't want another referendum. Frankly nobody in Scotland wants to go through that again for a while, it was quite traumatic.

I think it could happen though if we are forced to leave the EU.

The question is not whether we accept this result, it's accepted, apart from 1% of idiots who think it's all a conspiracy.
The problem now is how they are going to deliver this pledge on time.

In reply to MG:

Lol, do you ever watch a programme called "the news" ?

"the day after a No vote, the timetable for further powers will be published as a motion before the UK parliament. All UK parties will support the motion."

Here is screen grab of their "timetable"
http://wingsoverscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/vow2a.jpg


Well that's what we have been promised, they had to think about it before. We've given up self determination for that. Now they need to find a way and DELIVER.

They are already late for the first small step. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on that one, but it has to move forward.


Lol, unbelievable, so simply asking them to keep their solemn vow is a "sore looser act" ?
Scotland may have given up a historic opportunity to become independent because of these vows. If they are not kept there would be dramatic consequences.

I was happy to see Alistair Darling making the point that it is absolutely essential that these promises are kept.
At least the man has some honesty.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Can you publish a motion before parliament when Parliament isn't sitting?

In reply to RomTheBear:

They have - from Gordon Brown's timetable - A "formal" process would kick off the day after the September 18 vote

From the vow - The Scottish Parliament is permanent and extensive new powers for the Parliament will be delivered by the process and to the timetable agreed and announced by our three parties, starting on the 19th of September.

As far as I can see that process was started on the 19th of Septemeber. Or is Lord Kelvin not involved?

Or is it more nuanced than that and I'm missing something?

Turning into "we never get the goverment we vote for", which even on referendum night Lesley Riddoch was peddling when all about her were talking about moving forward.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I know, that why it's difficult to believe in their promise when the dates they proposed don't even fit with the parliamentary calendar !! How unbelievably stinking is that !

It is so obvious that this is a back of the envelope pledge written in a hurry, sometimes I think we just don't deserve to be independent ever given how fuc*ing gullible and weak we are, it seems this nation doesn't even have self-respect.

Well done Miliband for standing up to Cameron's cynical attempt to manipulate the constitution in his favour though.

In reply to coachio:

Unfortunately, the post match atmosphere is reflective of a Scottish football defeat, rather than a Scottish rugby defeat.
And what's worse is that it is being viewed as a defeat, rather than a victory.

Let's not forget that all through the campaign, even before these extra powers were first mooted in May, the polls indicated a majority of voters in favour of No. So we are actually getting to remain in the union, with extra bonuses.

In reply to RomTheBear:


You mean make if fair?

In reply to Postmanpat:

If by fair you mean having permanent Tory rule on English matters which have in fact knock-on effects on the whole of the UK and large parts of England that are traditionally Labour.

There was an interesting proposal to have English vote on English matters but with a weighting of the votes of different MPs to mirror the proportion of the whole parliament to ensure that there is some balance.

In reply to RomTheBear:


So the basic principles of representative democracy should be suspended in order to stop A tory majority government in England. It's not about whether it's Labour or Tory rule although clearly Milliband sees it as so. It's a basic principle of democracy that the laws of a country are made by people representing the voters that country not the voters of a third party.

If England chooses to devolve certain powers down to it's constituent parts so be it but either way it there is absolutely no justification for Scots voting on English matters.

Following you mad logic you presumably think that English MPs should be allowed to stand in the Scottish Parliament to ensure the Tory voters of scotland are properly represented?


Just another version of proportional representation.

And you accuse Cameron of cynical manipulation. Unfxckingbelievable!

In reply to Postmanpat:


Indeed, I agree with that, but in that case they should set up a separate English parliament with an English executive.

And then when they do that we'll realise after a couple of decade that we don't need this ridiculous union and we can start working together as 4 independent nations. Ok I know I'm going far but fundamentally it's what I think is best.


Tory voters are properly represented in Scotland, thanks to proportional representation in scottish parliament . We just happen to have very few tory voters.



Indeed. And frankly that would be the best thing since slice bread.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Ultimately they might might, although it would probably be formed by the English MPs st Westminster. But in the meantime there is no just reason to allowa Scottish MPs to vote on English matters.



But in due time there will be.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Well I agree, but as you know the main argument for retaining the Union is that ress

In reply to Postmanpat:

Well I agree, but "English matters" have knock in effect on the rest of the UK, so in effect they are UK matters.
It the English decide to spend less on health in England for example that reduces funding for the other countries, that is, as long as there isn't fiscal autonomy for Scotland and the other countries.


We'll see about that

In reply to RomTheBear:


As you have said this twice, what are the dramatic consequences?

In reply to RomTheBear:


In general that is a feeble argument. The answer is to minimise this by abandoning the ludicrous Barnett stop gap measure.

We'll be moving toward just that.

In reply to JoshOvki:

I wouldn't be surprised if we see riots and other types of violent acts, if people see that democracy doesn't work, which would be absolute disaster. We are playing with fire here.

In reply to coachio:

This is the 'vow': http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron-ed-miliband-nick-4...

The bit that I see Cameron backing away from is in guarantee 3 "The guarantee that with the continued Barnett allocation....". Westminster can be a day late on the schedule for all I care but if they promise to maintain the formula which determines the Scottish Government budget and that doesn't happen the SNP are totally within their rights to put a second referendum in their manifesto.


Promises
Guarantee One

❱❱ New powers for the Scottish Parliament.

❱❱ Holyrood will be strengthened with extensive new powers, on a timetable beginning on September 19, with legislation in 2015.

❱❱ The Scottish Parliament will be a permanent and irreversible part of the British constitution.

Guarantee Two

❱❱ The guarantee of fairness to Scotland.

❱❱ The guarantee that the modern purpose of the Union is to ensure opportunity and security by pooling and sharing our resources equitably for our defence, prosperity and the social and economic welfare of every citizen, including through UK pensions and UK funding of healthcare.

Guarantee Three

❱❱ The power to spend more on the NHS if that is Scottish people’s will.

❱❱ The guarantee that with the continued Barnett allocation, based on need and with the power to raise its own funds, the final decisions on spending on public services in Scotland, including on the NHS, will be made by the Scottish Parliament.

❱❱ The Scottish Parliament will have the last word on how much is spent on health. It will have the power to keep the NHS in public hands and the capacity to protect it.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Well I agree too but doesn't seem to be the plan.


In fact we do not know yet, but that would be good for everybody.

Incidentally I just read this in the Scotsman:

"A total of 80 per cent of people questioned supported Scotland having control over welfare, with 62 per cent saying it should be in charge of pensions. Almost three quarters (71 per cent) of people back the devolution of income tax while 62 per cent want to see Scotland get control of corporation tax and 61 per cent say Holyrood should be in charge of VAT."

Sounds pretty much like an independent country with a currency union. Weird, I heard that one before.

In reply to RomTheBear:


So that is going to be the Scottish nationalists next method of getting what they want? Talk about throwing toys out of the pram. Democracy has worked, it might not have worked in your favour but it has for the majority of Scottish people who voted.

In reply to JoshOvki:


No, it won't be.

In reply



Exactly. England and the pound will be rogered by high spending Scotland.

In reply to JoshOvki:


You're mixing everything...democracy has worked. However if the pledge is broken it would be a failure of democracy.

In reply to RomTheBear:



I think I said this before any pro-YES person.. I am 100% on board with this.. it would be 100% unjust to force Scotland to leave the EU if they voted to stay… but likewise, turn it around, if the Shetland Isles vote for the union and the rest of Scotland votes to leave I think they should be allowed to stay… they were a gift in a marriage.. a separate entity..

They see themselves as Scottish but are pro the union. Why not those people get what they want?

In reply to Postmanpat:


The problem is the SNP use the UK as a scape goat..

Get in debt, or unable to fund services.. we didn't give them enough fiscal freedom.. fund services they want in a perfect world and later cut and its the UKs fault.. like the NHS and University education...

In reply to RomTheBear:

so you are referring to a campaign poster, not what Cameron etc actually wrote?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I agree that if Cameron backs away from guarantee 3 then there probabaly should be calls for another referendum.

However, I don't think anything has been broken yet with regards to the timetable and the vow. Here's a quote from "the news" on the 9th of Sept.

The Scottish leaders of the pro-Union parties endorsed the timetable which was set out by Mr Brown in a speech at the Loanhead Miners Welfare and Social Club in Midlothian on Monday evening, the main points of which are:

Work to begin on the new legislation on 19 September, the day after the referendum
A "command paper" to be published by the present UK government setting out all the proposals by end of October
A white paper to be drawn up by the end of November after a period of consultation setting out the proposed powers
A draft for a new Scotland Act to be published in January

Sow when everyone is arguing the vow has already been broken on the back of BT poster I don't agree. I think the process was started on the 19th when Lord Kelvin was appointed to oversee the options paper.

In reply to Flinticus:

How will the Barnett formula be relevant if Scotland starts raising her own taxes?

In reply to RomTheBear:




I was puzzled by the this loony post till I noticed the time it was posted

Have a hard night, did you?

In reply to blurty:


As I understand it the size of the transfer to Scotland is dependent on the size of spending budgeted for the UK as a whole. So Scotland could raise its taxes but this might be offset by a shrinkage in the Barnett transfer dictated by what is decided by Westminster.

In reply to RomTheBear:


You're a traditional Labour voter then?

In reply to RomTheBear:


But you would think that, you're French.

In reply to MG:


If you read the pledge they refer to the timetable announced during the campaign.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Who minds about this except fanatical Tories who see a way of staying in power and BNP or UKIP nutters?

British Parliamentary democracy goes beyond simple representative democracy where each Representative does no more that transmit the views of his or her (mostly his at present) electors, they are Members of Parliament and provide their collective knowledge for each matter. There is nothing wrong with a Scottish MP who has particular knowledge availing it to his English "Honourable Members" than there is a Suffolk MP availing his to a Cornish problem. That's one of the strong points of the British, and other, Parliamentary systems. The whole is stronger than the mere addition of each individual element.

The present opportunistic Tory tactic is quite disgusting.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Have you actually read about what the Barnett formula is? Judging by their comments most people flinging it about in the debate, especially Scots, haven't. If you have could you resume in simple words why you think it is such a problem?

In reply to RomTheBear:


No they don't. They say the process would start on 19th, which it did. Nothing about motions in parliament.

Stop trying to cause trouble, accept your side lost, and get on with trying to improve things rather than carping and whinging. Also stop expecting that "no" means devo-supermax. It doesn't. It means more powers (which is what was promised), the details of which need to be worked out and which need to be approved by and be for the benefit of the whole of the UK.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

You need to live in England and read more.

Now it's been highlighted it will become a massive issue amongst amongst swathes of "middle England", the English equivalent those who voted "yes" inScotland. The decline in voting, the decline of the major parties and the swing to the SNP, UKIP and (until they got power) the Libdems, all reflect a resentment amongst ordinary people, some ex Tory, some ex Labour, that Westminster no longer represents their needs or aspirations.

This issue, in England, will be fuel to the fire. Milliband is nuts. He is adhering to something that is transparently unfair on the basis purely of party interest. He will discover that in order to protect his Scottish power basis he will sacrifice his much more important English power base.
Meanwhile Balls is trying to promote himself as a competitor in the austerity stakes.


Yes, but once we accept the principle of devolution, especially "devomax" this no longer holds true outside the boundaries of each constituent part.


ITts a combination of low politics and basic fairness. Unusual,l but fortunate for Dave.
Poor old Ed is trapped on the side of low politics and basic unfairness.

Of course it will all just confirm peoples' distrust of politicians.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

What you say may have been true prior to 1997 but it hasn't been since the devolved parliaments came in. Since the referendum campaign began the West Lothian Question has become more and more of an issue and now it seems can't be ignored. England doesn't want Scotland telling it what to do when the reverse isn't true.

This is one of the unintended consequences of devolution and probably an intended consequence of the Yes campaign. There doesn't seem to be an easy answer but I think Cameron is on stronger ground than Milliband. Labour seem to object to restricting Scottish MPs' voting powers purely on grounds of short-term political advantage; Cameron supports it on political grounds but he does have the principle to back up his line.

In reply to MG:

"new powers for the Parliament will be delivered by the process and to the timetable agreed and announced by our three parties, starting on 19th September."


The "Process and the timetable agreed announced by our three parties" is the one presented on the BT together campaign. Or are they making it up as they go along ?


Lol but that's unbelievable, Yes and No voters simply want the promise to be kept, and then we get accused of carping and whinging.

In reply to RomTheBear:

The idea that the promises made by the 3 leaders were crucial in determining the outcome of the vote is I think seriously open to question - just before the vote people were saying that parachuting the 3 party leaders was likely to be counter productive! How many Scottish voters actually know what was promised, or can swear hand on heart that those promises changed their minds?

Having said that, promises were made about more devolution, but this has implications for everyone. The idea that fundamental, important reforms should be rushed through without due process to appease some wailing spoilt brat who perceives that he's lost a game needs serious stamping on. Grow up.

These things are important: my family for example is literally £thousands better off each year than we would be living in England as a result of WAG policies; there will be Scottish families even better off. This needs sorting out, but can't be rushed.

In reply to MG:



I think Miliband is right. The vow made to the Scottish people is the priority and it has to be fastracked according to the timetable. The three parties have repeated their commitment to it. Hopefully they will deliver despite the "Blip" of the first step being on a day when parliament isn't sitting...

However the three parties did not commit to anything on England so we shouldn't expect them to agree hastily on that at the same pace.

Of course the West Lothian question needs to be addressed, but it can't go at the same pace as Scottish devolution, like Cameron suggested, for two reasons:

-> The pace of Scottish devolution cannot be slowed down or diluted down to allow for English devolution and sorting out of the WLQ, which could take years. It has to be delivered by the timetable agreed, with a Scotland Bill on Burns' Night.

-> English devolution and WLQ will need some sort of consensus and cross party support. We can't just let Cameron tweak the constitution without consultation. There has to be a process, separate from the Scottish devolution, where this constitutional question can be sorted out in a democratic manner.

In reply to RomTheBear:


I'm sorry but that was as believable as Salmond's 'currency union' claim. Our politicians did not have the authority to promise that. After THAT poll came out they shat themselves at the thought of losing the Union Jack, their precious seat on the security council, the shame of being the last PM of the UK ect, and panicked.

Would have been simpler if yes had won, and they really would have got the kick up the arse they needed.

In reply to Postmanpat:
The sneaky bit of Cameron's plan is not having a separate parliament for England (as with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) with Westminster only acting as the Federal government. Using Westminster with non-English MPs excluded as the English parliament (and if he can get away with it Westminster ministers as the ministers for corresponding functions in the English government) creates an asymmetry between England and the other regions which he can exploit for party-political gain.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:



Lol this I find unbelievable. Yes and No voters alike are simply asking for the "solemn vow" promise to be kept. Not less, not more. And now we are being told to "grow up" and that we shouldn't expect the promise to be kept. Unbelievable.

I'm glad the three parties don't think like you and have repeated their commitment.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Exactly that.

In reply to RomTheBear:

You're being told to grow up and realise that needed, fundamental reform can't be rushed. Do you seriously think anyone other than Alex Salmond has a magic wand that can make real issues disappear?

In reply to Mike Stretford:


Well Yes voters for the most part knew that. It's the no voters who are going to be really pissed of if it's not delivered...
They did not promise that much to be honest, the pledge is fairly vague. Hopefully it's not much to ask.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Go and tell "grow up" to those voters who gave up independence for this promise. You know even "grown ups" can be cheated. I just don't want that to happen. They need to deliver on timetable agreed. And the only way to do that is to leave the WLQ and English devolution as a separate process.

In reply to RomTheBear:



This is one of your sillier contentions. You don't speak for the 55% no vote, you don't know what made them vote no (it won't be the same for all of them, you silly boy) and you can't pretend to know what they want now.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Says who? You're combining random political posters with a letter from the leaders of three parties.

I think "grow up" is an entirely reasonable request here. Any effective proposal will take time to develop and rushing it is a recipe for future problems.

In reply to MG:


Lol, "the Process and the timetable agreed announced by our three parties", if it's not what was announced during the campaign, then what is it ?


It will take time only if they tie the process to English devolution and WLQ. Hopefully they will renounce that idea and keep that a separate process.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


This. The assumption by the sore losers on the "Yes" side that everyone had the some motivations as them is at best fanciful and at worst pathetic.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Lol, there was two offers on the table, one independence, the other a pledge for more devolution. 55% of the Scottish people voted for the latter, some may have had different motivations, we'll never know, but that's what they voted for. Abandoning that pledge would be cheating them.

In reply to RomTheBear:


I don't know - you tell me, if it bothers you so much. But, unless you can substantiate it, stop claiming it was to be motions in parliament when parliament wasn't sitting!


Hopefully they won't. This affects the whole of the UK, which Scotland has just chosen to remain part of (you really need to get you head round this), so the process should consider the whole of the UK, not just Scotland.

In reply to MG:


Well I've given you the official timetable that was given by the three parties.

The fact that this timetable didn't even take into account parliamentary calendar is funny indeed. But given the extraordinary situation I would have thought they would have recalled parliament.

In reply to MG:



On the flipside, though, it sets a generally bad precedent if the leaders of the three main political parties of the UK can go around solemnly "pledging" things when it's convenient and then turning round a week later to say "actually, we lied and we aren't going to do that."

In reply to Ramblin dave:


But they didn't - see above! They have so far done everything they said they would. This "lying " claim is in fact an SNP, umm lie!.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


Exactly, I'm afraid that if they don't deliver on their vow then nobody will ever trust them again and people will walk away from democracy and turn to hatred and resentment. I don't want that for my country.

In reply to RomTheBear:
OH FFS you've put a up a political poster that says this, not an "official" timetable. The poster even says it is produced by Blair McDougal. If your gripe is he lied or exaggerated, say that.

In reply to RomTheBear:


There was one question, in case you've already forgotten it was "Should Scotland be an independent country?". Not "do you want devolution?". Most people didn't vote for independence, put your toys back in your pram, tuck your lip back in and get over it.

In reply to MG:


Technically they haven't, there is no doubt about that. Most will recognise it's just a blip and even SNP said we don't care if things are off by a few days, but they need to be delivered eventually.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Lol, the "no" ceased to be the status-quo option when there has been a solemn pledge by the three leader to deliver on more devolution on a timetable.

Which is very unfortunate for those who actually wanted the status-quo. What should they have done ? Abstain ?

In reply to MG:

Ok so where is the "real" timetable ? I actually would like to know which one it is.


The whole point here is that the pledge has to be delivered more or less within the timeframe that was agreed. My guess is that most Scots will be ok if things are off by a few days or even months. But if it's dragged over 20 years like after 1979 we'll probably end up with another referendum...

In reply to RomTheBear:



Ah, you see the voters I know had read the question and could tell from the words that it was about independence.

PS. Top tip, starting every other sentence with lol makes you look like a moron.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Well, this is the problem with making major announcements during purdah, rather than in advance.

Since we had a No vote, if these promises are honoured, there isn't a huge amount to argue about. We lost democratically, and have to get over it; I fully support giving this a reasonable chance to happen.

But if they aren't honoured, the validity of the vote is under serious doubt - we won't know how much the vow, would then have be shown to be desperate last minute lies, had influenced it.

There are good reasons why we have purdah, and this 'vow', coming at the time it did, seriously messed with them.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

So are you arguing that "the vow" had no influence on the result of the vote ?

It's not really about the result of the referendum now. That is settled for a generation and the result is a clear no, no doubt about that.

Now it's about the three parties keeping a solemn promise they made to their voters. Don't you think it matters ? Or should we say to the Scots to simply "grow up" and forget about it ? If you do that I suspect another referendum is around the corner.

In reply to RomTheBear:

See my post above - the shenanigans by the main leaders (with the possible exception of GB) in the run up to the vote might easily have been counter productive, there might have been an even bigger 'No' vote if they'd been a bit more circumspect. There was thread about this here just before the vote took place.

All they had to do was ensure someone kept challenging Alex Salmond over his wishful thinking over currency, EU membership, defence, oil revenues, pensions, share of national debt, border controls, business confidence etc etc etc and the yes campaign was dead in the water.

In reply to RomTheBear:



Actually to very few of their own voters, to be fair.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Well we can discuss for hours the influence the pledge had on the vote. Nobody will ever know for sure.

The point is that we had a solemn pledge from the three main parties leader of Westminster. If they don't do what they said they would, many will turn away from Westminster politics for ever.


But I'm hopeful, the three parties have renewed their commitment to the pledge and there is a good chance that they will deliver (or maybe I'm being too naive ?), we just need to hold their feet to the fire.

In reply to RomTheBear:

'The point is that we had a solemn pledge from the three main parties leader of Westminster. ' Can you state what this is? Verbatim?

Not trying to duck the issue - I agree with a degree of devolution, though as noted above it has already resulted in increased inequality and unfairness, so any further moves need careful thought - so I'd like to be reminded of what cast iron, timetabled commitments were given that so swayed the final result.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


The main point was a "Burns Night declaration” on new powers on tax and spending for the Scottish parliament by January. This has been repeated on the air, by Gordon Brown and the other leaders, and through the better together campaign.

This is Cameron's speech on the 19th:

"And I can announce today that Lord Smith of Kelvin – who so successfully led Glasgow’s Commonwealth Games – has agreed to oversee the process to take forward the devolution commitments with powers over tax, spending and welfare all agreed by November and draft legislation published by January"


Of course there isn't technically a legally binding commitment. But not delivering on that would be a serious breach of trust.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I don't think there's as much room for legalese-style wriggling as you seem to imagine!

To be fair, judging from the current rhetoric from Cameron and Miliband, they probably don't either.

I'm just not sure it's really up to them.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


These are the promises quoted in the Daily Record in the article about the 'vow':

Promises
Guarantee One

New powers for the Scottish Parliament.

Holyrood will be strengthened with extensive new powers, on a timetable beginning on September 19, with legislation in 2015.

The Scottish Parliament will be a permanent and irreversible part of the British constitution.

Guarantee Two

The guarantee of fairness to Scotland.

The guarantee that the modern purpose of the Union is to ensure opportunity and security by pooling and sharing our resources equitably for our defence, prosperity and the social and economic welfare of every citizen, including through UK pensions and UK funding of healthcare.

Guarantee Three

The power to spend more on the NHS if that is Scottish people’s will.

The guarantee that with the continued Barnett allocation, based on need and with the power to raise its own funds, the final decisions on spending on public services in Scotland, including on the NHS, will be made by the Scottish Parliament.

The Scottish Parliament will have the last word on how much is spent on health. It will have the power to keep the NHS in public hands and the capacity to protect it.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I suspect quite a few contradictory things were said by various people. The letter in the Record seems the only agreed statement, which is rather vague. However, further devolution was clearly offered, I think before the "purdah" period, and this is needed and will come. More than that will depend on what happens with the various committees etc. looking at how all this should affect England and elsewhere. There is only so far you can go with devolution to Scotland without needing to adjust constitutional arrangements more broadly. I just hope we end up with something stable and without obvious anomalies like the West Lothian Question that invariably cause problems down the road. I also hope that we don't end up with another layer of government in England. There is no desire for this that I can see and it would be highly costly.

In reply to MG:


Well I agree. One thing is sure there should be a draft on Burn's night and legislation in 2015.

I agree constitutional arrangement needs to be made for England and the WLQ, but this has to be a separate, probably longer, process.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Lol yes sorry, was slightly inebriated on that one

In reply to skog:


They don't need legal wriggling Sgog , ( but just to prove that there is room try this from the Lawyers themselves, coach and horses, sounds about right)
http://www.legalknowledgescotland.com/?p=1685

The legal communitie's opinion summarised :-
"More powers, possibly, substantial powers, not a chance"


Anyway the Tories don't rely on that, they just come out and state that they have changed the pledge, (they will keep the Barnett, but did NOT say anything about not changing it):-

William Hague was on the radio saying that of course they would keep their promise to retain the Barnett formula – but it would become “less relevant over time”. He also said that the further devolution will not happen before the general election, and would be a matter for the new parliament after it.

In reply to Jim C:


This was obvious in advance; I even started a thread about it!


This was not part of 'the vow', but, personally, I'm actually OK with it.

Devolved power is under the control of the UK, not Scotland; the next government could just reverse changes anyway.

I'd rather know that they really mean it, and push for independence if they don't.

In reply to Postmanpat:


True, that's a fair comment but over the last three months I've spent more time in Britain, in the SE, than in France so I've a little insight. My sister in law is a Labour candidate, and my cousin and Aunt and Uncle have (AFAIK) been staunch Labour voters all their fairly long lives whereas my two neighbours would probably be Tories (at least!) but all are nice people and given the situation I have spoken quite a lot to them about politics. All were for maintaining the Union, one is Scottish as I've mentioned, but none have gone into the sort of details you, and others on ukc have. One friend, usually a Heathite tory may have made a few ukipish remarks but I can't see him actually voting for them.

Where you are right is that there is a general dissatisfaction with political parties but I think this is inevitable as their programs get closer and closer... it's hard to feel inspired these days. It's very similar in France. This is probably why the Scottish secessionists did as well as they did, it broke out of the boredom and sameness of life and gave people something to feel strongly about.

I just hope that this nationalist drug doesn't have the same effect in England with the UKIP. It's time people started to realise just how dangerous this sort of thing is - just as the Scots did on the way to vote last Friday.

In reply to skog:

Ok if yes had won, 6 months down the line and they realise there will be no CU would you have supported another referendum?

In reply to IainRUK:

If it had been a key pledge made in the last days of the campaign, rather than in advance, then yes I would (grudgingly, admittedly).

In reply to MG:

We past that point some time ago. 5 million people in one part of the UK get more funding per head and their own proportionally elected national parliment. Tinkering with the Commons won't sort that discrepancy out.


If you want to sort this out without more politicians then root and branch reform is needed.

In reply to RomTheBear:


But what you, and others, don't seem to twig is that Britain has a Parliamentary Democracy. These leaders can say what they like but it won't happen, it can't happen, until the Houses of Parliament have debated and ratified it. This isn't France where the Chambre des Deputés is just a rubber stamp (to simplify a tiny bit), in Britain the executive doesn't have absolute power, it's power emanates from the people through Parliament.

Things can't be rushed because things must be done democratically. I suggest you take a week in the hills, you are clearly a little too worked up about all this.

In reply to skog:

What pledge do you think was made in the last days that hadn't been made earlier, other than an emphasis on the timing? All the parties had agreed to further devolution previously, but with different plans.

In reply to skog:


why does it make a difference?

Salmond consistently assured voters the UK would cave in..

there's actually very little difference in what is going to happen now and what would have happened if we had CU..

In reply to MG:

There was a very clear intention for Cameron, Miliband and Clegg - and Brown - to be seen as having agreed that funding would be maintained, and further real, significant powers would be delivered. And they did this when there wasn't time for it to be discussed properly.

Did you speak to anyone in Scotland after it? There's really no room for doubt, no matter how easy it is to pick apart looking at newspapers now.

I've always been clear that I thought this was a deception, or misplaced optimism - and this sort of squirming is exactly what I thought would happen. Again, to be fair, Miliband and Cameron do appear to be trying to face up to it, and they should be given a reasonable chance.

In reply to IainRUK:



Time available to discuss/criticise/mock it.


How can you know?!