UKC

If there isn't much which happens in the way of devolution, what's to stop another referendum happening on a similar time scale to that between the two in Quebec (which was 15 years)?

I know somebody who very strongly thinks there little chance of another one for another generation in Scotland...

In reply to Timmd:

Nothing other than apathy and disillusionment.

SNP are going to make big gains in elections. Many Labour voters already disenchanted with Labour have finally cracked and moved. They will be pretty scared at losing Glasgow and North Lanarkshire to the Yes vote, both strong Labour heartlands. I know many card carrying members of Labour who have left the party, and many to SNP, and others to green or SSP. SNP already have quite a lot of ground up here and if they gain more they will become quite a force. Who knows what will happen!

In reply to Milesy:

Yep. There is also the shift in generations. In Fife you could have stuck a red rosette on a dead pig and everyone would have voted for it. I think it's gone from the entrenched what-your-dad-voted-for culture through apathy and into what we have now which is rengagement again and more young people are looking beyond the tainted brands of the old traditional guard.

I just hope this is reflected in increased voter turnout at the next election.

In reply to Milesy:


That's what I was under the impression of too.

In reply to Timmd:

Hi Tim,

...£10 says another indyref inside 5 years...

ANdy

In reply to Andrew Mallinson:
Does there have to be some kind of an OK from Westminster that a referendum can be held, does Scotland have to ask, or was it a case 'If you want independence you'll have to have a referendum'?

It doesn't quite seem democratic that Scotland should have to ask.

In reply to Timmd:



I think it has to be arranged yes... it's a pretty big issue that affects the U.K and has big implications for the confidence and security of the financial market. Every 20-25 years seems fine, if those in power in Scotland wishes for another vote by that time they will organise it with the U.K.

In reply to Timmd:

It's cost the UK millions..

4 billion was supposedly wiped off business with scottish links according to
http://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2014/sep/08/uk-house-price-growth-...

£ slumped to a 10 month low..

I think its looking like 20-30 years, probably more, but it depends on how much devolution, but also the EU.. and the UK's place in the EU..

If the UK votes to leave then automatically Scotland should be granted the right to ceed again and join the EU.. however I do think future votes should allow say the Shetland to stay, that voted overwhelming to stay in the Union..

If not you are just repeating the mistakes of London and allowing the population mass/power to dominate the wishes of fringe locations..

In reply to Timmd:

Yes was a irreversible vote on independance, based on no tangible promises, other than being an independent nation (in or out of the EU, with or without the pound, etc.). It would seem appropriate if the no majority verdict as was, if not irreversable, to stand for a politically long time period (say 25-30 years) in the interests of stabiliy of the UK as a whole.

Having said that, there's lessons to be learnt from the first Quebec referendum that if you don't give people change that goes a significant way to addressing their concerns you get will get a lot of pressure for another referendum sooner rather than later.

By the way, Quebec has devo max and then some in terms of its own powers within Canada. Despite a narrow no majority in the 1995 referendum (by less than 1%), the sepratist cause is off the agenda at the moment.

In reply to IainRUK:


it hasn´t really, though, has it?

The pound gained on friday and all the companies in the article popped back up in Friday.

In reply to IainRUK:


I am repeating myself but look at the map of the results, it's very much the centre of Scotland, Glasgow and Dundee that were in favour of independence, the rest voted no - the Orkneys, Shetland and Borders voted over 65% No. It's very much a centralised body of Yes voters, who, if they continue this moaning, will be trying to impose their views on the rest of the country - and they accuse the London Parliament of being "centralized"! Yes came out on top in only 4 out of 32 councils all in the centre, with Dundee not far from it:

http://www.bbc.com/news/events/scotland-decides/results

Maps:

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

Perhaps it would be more reasonable if they accepted "the verdict of the people of Scotland" now? All those who keep whipping it up are doing is proving they are not democrats at all but Nationalists of the old style who don't give a fig about democracy, despite all their insistence that they are not.

In reply to Bob Hughes:

Yes it has cost the UK millions, those millions being the cost of staging the vote.

In reply to Timmd:


Really? What about the much bigger population living in the same country which a yes vote would affect?

No part of the country has the right to a valid devolution vote. It has to be by agreement. In this case, it was accepted that there was sufficient case for it to be allowed. Provided the Gov't and other parties fulfil their promises, it's hard to see another vote being allowed for 20 years or so. Even Salmond said it might be a once in a lifetime thing.

I'm not sure why he and so many others are squealing about being tricked quite so soon as I'd be very surprised if the promises aren't delivered.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Exactly this. It seems some people are not willing to even consider giving the democratically chosen option a go, and are totally oblivious to the disruptions that would likely be caused by another referendum being held to soon. At least they're sore losers, not sore winners.

In reply to Skyfall:



Well, pretty obviously in order to lay the groundwork for demanding the maximum possible devolution or another referendum on the grounds that "Westminster" lied to them. I can't actually see that any promises have been reneged on but the truth never got in the way of a good Salmond soundbite.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Well obviously but it makes him look more of an annoying tw@t than ever and does little for his cause.

In reply to Skyfall:

Yes, but the Union is a club with voluntary membership and is far stronger as such. If there is a settled political will or electoral mandate for a vote then denying a referendum will not settle the issue.

In reply to elsewhere:

But the union needs stability and togetherness.. it won't work with socially divisive referendums every 5 years.. its a statistical certainty one will be a YES when its 45-55 type differences.. sum mathematicians believe the slight swings in the polls were merely statistical artefacts..

In reply to Timmd: It should be simple. Like any good deal or partnership it has to be based on mutual benefit , reward and trust. If it requires coercion and deceit it will fail. If the arrangement doesn't work for Scotland we should leave and have the ability to do so. Anything else is undemocratic. Anybody who really think the referendum brings this to an end doesn't understand their punctuation. Comma and not full stop.

In reply to alastairmac:
Of course its not the end.. a referendum should happen in another generation (if there is a will) or if the union is clearly failing whenever that is, but it should now be given time to work..

By the way.. democracies?

So we have a democracy in action. 55% of Scotland vote NO.. Salmond is the press saying Scotland can just announce independence… that's democracy??

The man has perfectly illustrated what a disgusting individual he is.

87% of the eligible electorate voted, 55% voted to remain in the Union..

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



There's some interesting stats in that link. It seems that there's a strong correlation (though not absolute) between the areas which voted yes and areas with highest unemployment and social problems, i.e. their lives are a bit crap and some combination of blaming England/Westminster, buying into the SNP's promise of free everything or just wanting change as they've nothing to lose (or at least they think so) motivated them to vote for independance.
I'm sure lots of people voted yes for other reasons but not in in enough numbers to gain a majority elsewhere.
Interestingly the areas that voted yes also had some of the lowest turnouts suggesting that even though their lives are crap they can't be arsed to do anything about it which suggests the real problem may be closer to home than Westminster.

In reply to pec:

Yeah, it was the poor turn outs in the yes areas which were probably key..

Regarding the red map, aren't they just drawn by council area? Most areas were NO.. hence most were red?

Pretty typical in election time, they do that in the US, TX is the size of TX not corrected for population size..

In reply to Timmd:
If it does work that's fine. And of course it should be given a chance to work. But in the interim the world doesn't stand still. I think a Yes alliance will come together to fight the 2015 and 2016 elections on the basis of a 2020 referendum. My own view is that this referendum has only underlined that the real question is not "if" but "when". In the meantime there are other fights. Poverty, inequality, privatisation, and the British nationalism that may drive all of the UK countries of of Europe. And I don't think you and I will ever agree on Alex Salmond. He is a politician with the flaws of all politicians. But he has more integrity in his little finger than Clegg, Cameron and Miliband put together.

In reply to pec:

I said something along this line when I first posted the link on another thread. The figures certainly bear (or bare?) studying, as much for by Nationalists, or secessionists, whatever name people want, as for those in favour of maintaining the union. There are other correlations too, age previous political voting - oddly SNP areas are weak on the Yes vote.

In reply to IainRUK:


Of course, the map was a graphical way of presenting the results!

The actual figure are interesting too - only 4 councils had a yes majority, 28 were for no... pretty conclusive but even so many seem unwilling to accept it, democracy has never been the strong point of Nationalists

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Yes, age was an interesting one, 73% of 16 and 17 year olds voted yes but only 51% of 16 to 24 year olds so for 19 to 24 the yes figure must have been below 50%. This does question the validity of giving the vote to under 18's, they know what they think but they don't know enough to make a decision which will have profound, unknown and irreversible consequences for them (and 64 million other Britains, most of whom had no say in the matter).

In reply to alastairmac:


Calling for the referendum result to be ignored and independence be declared?

That's what he's basically saying, he says its fine if that happens.. that man has no integrity, shouting at academics to pressure them into releasing statements supporting him or changing their views..

My turd is better than your turd.. is that where we are now?

In reply to alastairmac:


Salmond's failings shone like a beacon when faced with a real politician like Gordon Brown, be interesting if Brown stays in Scotland. The fact is all of Labour's big guns stayed in London and left Holyrood as a regional council, allowing the SNP an easy ride, that would change significantly if Gordon stays, looking possible as he has been looking for other work rather than remaining an MP.

The value of SNP shares may rise or fall in the next decade so the talk of when not if may prove a bit premature.

In reply to alastairmac:

unless the westminster parties completely backtrack then too soon I reckon - reasonable to give any changes 10-15 years to work through.



>My own view is that this referendum has only underlined that the real > question is not "if" but "when".

Not the lesson one would draw from Quebec/Canada - a lot depends on how intelligent and sensible the UK government is over the next couple of years.

In reply to IainRUK:
Politicians behave by their own set of rules. But I think Alex Salmond behaved with integrity. Right up to the point where he resigned for the good of his cause. The Westminster clique were consumed by party politics and not what was good for Scotland. Whatever your view on what was good for Scotland that I believe is a crucial difference. But what remains misunderstood by most of those outside of Scotland is that this was not an Alex Salmond or SNP campaign. It was a left of centre coalition of political groups, libertarian groups, female interest groups and ethnic groups. It was a democratic / radical alliance with a progressive agenda up against the forces that oppose change. And all of those groups have been energised by this debate. Something to be celebrated and not condemned I think.

In reply to winhill:
I genuinely like Gordon Brown and think he has a core of belief that marks him out from people like Cameron , Clegg and Miliband. But I think on this occasion he has been used as a stooge and fall guy.

In reply to alastairmac:


You have just made a totally new definition of the word "integrity"!

I've seen a few fanatics in my time but in saying this you really beat them all.

In reply to alastairmac:


Well, no one has ever doubted that the Scots do a fine line in dry irony.

In reply to alastairmac:
How is abusing someone acting with integrity?

Have you seen the emails or read about his phone calls to pressure academics to change views? That's integrity? Wow...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



Scottish democracy has moved on from FPTP. The only relevant figure is the 45% Yes, 55% No, and I expect that figure to be reversed in the not too distant future. As alastairmac says the Yes campaign was fought by a progressive alliance who are not going to lie down. They want massive social change, they see independence as the only vehicle to achieve that, and they're galvanising around consensus politics the like of which I never dreamed I'd see. Today Tommy Sheridan publicly urged Socialists *not* to stand against the SNP at the next westminster elections.

In reply to winhill:
Gordon Brown a real politician? You're havin a laff. Side-kick to Adolf Blair for a decade & similar status to Moyes @ United when he did take over. Blamed for all labour financial mistakes & hung drawn & quartered by the press as he went down. Where has all this respect suddenly re-emerged from? He's a professional fall-guy.
Christ his droopy jowl's are even bigger than Salmond's.

In reply to Ciro:


And, thankfully, the majority of Scots realised that a disparate collective of campaigners who were keen to use an independent Scotland as a vehicle for ALL their goals was never going to actually work.

More so when the costings were pulled out of thin air, it was all going to be funded by oil, and psid for in groats.

In reply to alastairmac:

The interesting question is what is Gordon Brown's strategy if the 'vow' is reneged on. It is the most likely outcome and someone as cunning as Brown with a lifetime's experience of politics must have foreseen the Tories using the devolution promise as cover for reforming Westminster to their own advantage and cutting the Barnett formula.

In reply to off-duty:

Keep watching this space.

In reply to Mike Lates:



I think that's harsh Mike..

Brown was his own man.. probably too much so..

Its worth reading Blairs or Mandelsons memoirs..

They hated him by the end..

I like Brown, a nice guy, but the opposite of career politicians like Salmond and Blair..

He wasn't blamed for the mistakes..

You've re-written history..

In reply to Ciro:

It may have but they still voted by council and it was interesting to look at it that way..

Especially if Shetland want to stay with the union, when (as you say) Scotland goes independent?

By the way do you think they should have the right to determine which state they assign to?

I won't say 'rule' as I don't think its a valid term in this day and age..

In reply to IainRUK:

To be honest, that's not something I've given a lot of thought to and I have no idea the legal implications of trying to split a country as opposed to dissolving a political union.

A petition was raised in the Scottish parliament last year asking for a separate referendum for the northern isles, including the question of whether to stay in the UK in the event of a Yes vote - it gained 1174 signatures (and not all of them from within Scotland), suggesting that despite their opposition to independence there was not much appetite to do anything other than follow the Scottish decision.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/GettingInvolved/Petitions/islandgroups

But were that to change, personally I think I'd be quite torn between the island group's obvious geographical claims to a separate identity, and the practical implications of regions declaring independence... could we have the north of England holding a referendum and joining Scotland? Swap the last conservative bastion of Stirling for Manchester?

In reply to Ciro:

There has been referendums for a regional england back in 2004, it was rejected.

I think if there was a political will to join Scotland it would be considered, especially after gaining devolution. Say Northumberland devolved, but they rejected it.

In reply to Ciro:


They already have lied down before the bosses, and turned their arses upwards by proposing a massive lowering of taxes to be payed by companies!
What will it be next, reducing statutory holidays, introducing more "flexibility" in contracts? More flexibly than zero hours and it's an elastic band.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



Excellent. Vote "Yes" for a Tory Scotland…..

In reply to Ciro:


It could swap places with the Borders who clearly voted to stay in the Union, now that would be interesting

In reply to Timmd:



Certainly. Hopefully a shorter time than that also although not too soon as people are worn out after the campaign. The genie is not going back into the bottle though.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



That's a typical response of the traditional adversorial model of politics in the UK - you either fight tooth and nail for your exact vision of the world you want, or you've lain down and asked to be shafted. It's a model which the younger generation in Scotland is now showing a great willingness to abandon in favour of consensus politics. People are saying "we need to find the common ground, and fight together against westminster imposed austerity" and they are coming together to do that.

I don't think the big three really figured that grassroots movement out (or maybe they did but can't see a way to work with it, because to do so would require an about face on so many fronts), but the politicians of the scottish parties have and they're getting on board. Alex Salmond is out there now telling people to join the Scottish Greens, or the Scottish Socialists, or whoever else they feel best represents their interests and the interests of Scotland. As I said earlier, even Tommy Sheridan is telling people not to stand against the SNP in the next Westminster Election. The same SNP that supports membership of NATO, lowering of corporation taxes, and many other policies that are so foreign to his brand of socialism. Coming together with people from across the scottish political spectrum to fight for a common cause is not lying down.

In reply to Saor Alba:


The longer the better as the rest of the world wants to see some stability. Promising a lack of stability increases the risk to the UK, so the sooner contingencies can be put in place the better.

Have you joined the boycott movement?

The newly formed campaign group, 'The 45', have released a list of brands, businesses and media organisations that they will be boycotting because they "scared Scotland" in the run up to the referendum.

On Facebook, the campaign group wrote that it is time to "send shivers" down the spines of the businesses that apparently scared more than two million people into voting No.

Following Scotland's rejection of independence, the 1.6 million people that voted Yes will apparently not be buying the products or using the services of the businesses listed below to send a clear message that they "were not fooled by their dirty tricks."

"Never again can we have companies we use everyday and contribute millions of pounds to tell us we're too small too poor and too stupid," the campaign has stated.

"This is our chance to get back at them for what they took from us."

In reply to Mike Lates:



It's interesting that he's still regarded for his physical traits or his social awkwardness rather than his intellectual capability. Much like after the TV debates in 2010 when all sorts of people queued up to agree with Nick, they got some of their just desserts.

If Cameron hadn't blackballed him , he would probably ended up at the IMF looking after his great passion, Development.

Salmond's an absolute pigmy in comparison.

In reply to winhill:

People are angry at the moment, but there are also voices within the movement warning against being reactionary and divisive. Whilst 45 was a great rallying point for the people who voted Yes on a sad morning, there's already talk of finding a better branding. Personally I think the One Scotland logo that SNP switched to after the referendum is ideal. The anger at the corporations will wane, although I suspect the anger at the media less so.

In reply to winhill:

Yeah I saw that. It's a bit scary it seems that a marginal part of yes is now going to radicalise. I don't think it does any favour to the broader, progressive, original yes movement. Sad times. Hopefully it will settle, a lot of people are really gutted right now and it's all a bit irrational.

In reply to IainRUK:

I admit to being harsh on the actual facts regarding Brown but am stating the stereotyped overview of how he was portrayed. It's this that will become his fate once more as the desperate last minute promises of devo-max get broken.
Salmond, too, has been victim of media portrayl not reflecting his qualities and this is clearly the opinion that you choose to hold. It's worth looking beneath the surface here too.
History depends hugely on whose accounts are believed and, despite the tsunami of pro-union media nearly half the populaton of Scotland chose not to believe the Westminster version.

In reply to Mike Lates:

Aye!

In reply to Mike Lates:
I think you mean more than half the population of Scotland chose not to believe Salmond...

In reply to Mike Lates:
what about the tsunami of pro-indy media? that live twitter feed was very interesting - massive 'Yes' dominance. As Saor Alba has said many times on here, there is a perceived disconnect between the mainstream media and the local meetings, 'independent' media etc - where did most Yes voters get there info from, and how balanced was that?


(editd for speeling)

In reply to Mike Lates:
There was plenty of information on both sides..

If not how did 45% vote the 'right' way.. it seems to be ignored that some people may have listened to the YES side and thought the Union remains the future..

Salmond never addressed the currency issue. I don't think thats simply being scared, its being realistic.

What if a bank goes bust with my life savings? Will we have a LoLR?
What if the RUK suddenly change interest rates which don't suit us?

He played the 'don't be scared' card but h never addressed two huge issues of EU membership and the currency.. one of them he could have got away with, two I think killed him.

2009 was recent enough that these things do happen, which was why he had this mess anyway, because of his sudden swing from the euro..

Other issues like how much oil is left were concerns but there were claims either way on that and we'll never know until we get into the future, that actually depends on technology and oil prices not just the shear amount which is there.. as oil gets scarcer, deeper more expensive to drill deposits become feasible.. so its hard to claim X barrels with any accuracy.

That's what killed British Coal, not just what was in our ground, but more readily available open cast pits in areas like the old eastern europe once the trades routes opened up.

There was plenty of pro-Scotland commentary on the Guardian and other english papers. People were too busy spitting feathers at anything pro-union they probably missed it.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

The trouble is that the papers were all hostile apart from one. Clearly this helped BT and OAPs dont really go on facebook. I can say from personal experience that the generation with the least open minds (to either side) was the older one. It's them that the Daily Mail has managed to reach.

We nearly did it though despite the entire British state, media, foreign leaders and so on all against it. That, gives me a lot of confidence as do subsequent events. That said, this is a defeat for the Yes campaign but it's not over by any means.

In reply to Saor Alba:

What about Murdoch? Whose side was he on, apart from his own?

In reply to Saor Alba:


In that respect they reflect a majority UK opinion, as you would expect.

In reply to Andrew Mallinson:



Dream on!

In reply to Saor Alba:

I think you will find OAPs are more savvy on Facebook etc than you appreciate. Does not look good when you do not know this.t you do not know that.

In reply to Saor Alba:

, Desperate stuff. IIt doesn't occur to you that older people have had many years to ponder the issues and reach a occlusion and are less vulnerable to populist rabble rousing?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

To be fair Bruce Orkney and Shetland are not so settled unionists as the No vote infers, they said during the referendum that they are looking to the likes of Isle of Man for how they run things. ( particularly if it was a Yes vote,) but that has been a discussion for some time.

When was up there before all the fur ore started over the referendum ( and could actually find a local to discuss such things) there was a view of their going away from being part of the UK AND Scotland.

In reply to Fraser:

I wouldn't say another referendum inside 5 years is just a dream. Labour aren't coming out of the last week with many friends on either side of the border so it looks like we'll have a UK wide referendum on UK membership of EU in 2017. With almost half of the population already wanting out of the UK, I don't think Scotland can afford to sit back and wait to see if we end up out of europe.

In reply to Saor Alba:


Lucky the Yes campaign didn't win then, as they would obviously have been too knackered to take on the major challenge of developing a newly-independent nation!!

In reply to Ciro:


I can't agree, Cameron hasn't come out of this referendum to well despite te clear victory of the No vote and I can't see the Lib Dems (if any remain!) going into a coalition again so, with the right wing vote split by UKIP I think Labour has a good chance of winning comfortably, if they can get their act together just a little bit. So no referendum on the EU, Britain stays in.

Don't you think you are letting your hate for Labour cloud you mind a little bit?

In reply to neilh:


I'm not going to research it too closely, but a quick google and a back of the fag packet calculation suggests usage of FB in the over 65s is around one fifth of the average:

http://www.fanalyzer.co.uk/demographics.html
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_270487.pdf

In reply to Ciro:

I was taking the 'indyref' comment to mean a Scottish Independence Referendum, nothing else.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



I don't think so. I'm not so keen on either of the ugly sisters

Scottish voters mean jack to the tories so they can concentrate on making sure the english voters feel they're fighting their corner on further. Tying further english devolution to the hastily promised scottish devolution was a smart move - it helps pick up the UKIP vote and I think it puts labour in a pretty tight corner - they will still want scottish MPs to have as much power in westminster as possible but the english voters won't like them manoeuvring for it.

In reply to Fraser:


Yeah, I get that. What I meant was the Scots won't want to leave the EU so there would either need to be another scottish vote before it, or provision for a scottish vote before any action was taken in the event of an Out vote, to avoid civil unrest.

In reply to Ciro:




genuinely amazed by that.. I'd have though FB access would be well over 50% in the under 40's..

In reply to Jim C:



But this actually needs discussing before.. it changes the whole oil fund/economical argument…

Shetland is the UK's cash cow, it was the only council in the black when I was there last time.. the richest council in the UK.

In reply to IainRUK:


Not sure I follow... almost 70% of traffic is from users 44 and under.

In reply to Ciro:

Ahh sorry I misunderstood.. yeah I see now.. doing 2 things at once..

I was thinking it said 25 % of 25 year olds used it..

Not how much of a %..

But that needs working out relatively.. so how does % use differ.. is it normalised for abundance in each age category? So what is relative use?

How many 60-7's use it in terms of the number of people in that category..

In reply to IainRUK:

Since it said it was gathering realtime data I took it as just the percentage of usage that came from users in each agegroup (I guess by number of clicks or events?).

With the over 65s having 3.1% of the traffic, and taking the OSN figure of 16.5% of the population, I estimated that the average person over 65s would be responsible for around 1/5 of the age-independent average activity.

In reply to Ciro:

I think you are drawing excessive conclusions from this, most older people will have developed ways of using internet which satisfy them - emails, blogs, forums etc so won't see the need for facebook and twitter which came along afterwards whereas younger people will have started using internet when the latter means already existed. This doesn't prove oldies are incapable, just they don't feel the need. That's my case anyway. I'm not keen in being followed all the time either.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

You seem to be trying to prove a tangential point. I have not, and would not question the capability of the elderly to use the internet to research and inform an opinion.

The point is that the elderly don't use social media very much, and social media was a place where the grassroots Yes campaign focussed a lot of energy and a place where an awful lot of informal political debating was going on (social media has many advantages over a regular forum format when it comes to having a debate) where people could hear both sides of the argument.

This meant the elderly were less exposed to the Yes message than younger demographics.

The No campaign was much more focussed around the mainstream media so lack of participation in social media didn't affect exposure as much.

It's not just me drawing that conclusion... the leaders of the SNP are talking about it too, and I assume they'll have a lot more data on what influenced people's decisions than we do.

In reply to Ciro:


Maybe looking for excuses for the result? They were so cocky and sure to "win", at least those who posted here were, and then they "lost" by a mile. Obviously it can't be them who are wrong, who have misjudged public opinion in Scotland totally, so they are looking for excuses. Anything rather than accept the verdict of the voting booths.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


They have gone a little mad actually. There are wild claims of vote rigging (oddly in Dundee which Yes won), and now I see Sillars and Salmond are muttering about a kind of UDI without a referendum

In reply to MG:

Wasn't it you who mentioned this on the Russian telly? Maybe they watch that too?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Umm no, I haven't been on Russian telly, as far as I know.

In reply to Ciro:

If that is the case, then the SNP made a mess of their campaign by not realising this.

You have an ageing population in Scotland, it does not take an idiot to work out that just communicating your message by social media is only going to reach a small % of the voting population.

Besides- its a feeble excuse. From what I saw/read the SNP were very active in distributing leaflets< TV debates< radio/ organising town meetings etc.Their campaign was pretty broad.

In reply to neilh:


Well one could argue they might get more of their information from telly and newspapers, and less from the internet.
Given that most channels and most newspapers were pro-unionists you could argue it's an explanation as to why the over 55 swung the result to the no.

Or maybe the more simple explanation is that they would have been dead before independence bring any benefits to them, or they were worried about their pensions/assets, or they are simply more conservative, have stronger British identity, or a combination of all that.

What I find interesting though is that the generation that would have been affected the most by independence over their whole lives voted Yes.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Do we 100% know that - it is after all a secret ballot.

In reply to neilh:


Well there were many polls conducted, so we know 99% within the margin of error. 55+ swung the result, all the rest voted yes apart from a gap in the 18-24 who voted no (apparently to due high number of English students in Scotland in that age bracket).

It's quite interesting as it means Yes vote was a fairly generational phenomenon.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Not really very interesting/unexpected

. I would expect the younger generation to vote for the more radical proposal.I would be disappointed if this did not happen--its quite normal.As that generation grows older, their ideals/aspirations/experience will change.

In reply to MG:

I think what he means is that Scotland could find itself in a situation where it becomes gradually independent, without the name.
I think it's probably the line the SNP will take now after this defeat. They'll probably push for more devolution as long as they can.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Nobodys asking the real question though.Salmond was the real driver behind the SNP- the SNP was on its knees during his 4 year break.Will the SNP survive as a major party - Nicola Sturgeon- is just not in the same class.

In reply to RomTheBear:



It would be interesting to know. Is there any information other than from that poll by Lord Ashcroft?

I heard on the radio, but was driving at the time so didn't really note it that No won all groups except 25 to 45 year old men where Yes won dramatically. I've no idea what the basis for that assertion was.

I'm not sure what we can find out. Lord Ashcroft's poll which had the 71% 29% split of 16/17 year olds only had a sample of 14. A similar sized sample from a 6th form class in Inverness has an 80% 20% split in favour of No.

I have a feeling that not everyone is entirely frank about which way they voted depending upon who is asking, (works both ways), so we may never know.

In reply to RomTheBear:


How many English University students are there in Scotland?
What difference would it have made overall if they ALL voted Yes?

In reply to rogerwebb:





The Ipsos poll conducted one day before referedum also has quite a big of info, as well as previous polls. Of course the longer you go back in time the more imperfect it is.

In reply to Lusk:


About 50,000


about 1% more for yes, more or less.

In reply to rogerwebb:



I saw graphic on twitter showing that, which seemed to be taken from a yougov poll. Makes sense - I think yougov poll pretty much their entire panel after on of these, which gives them a locked in comparative to weight future polls with.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Acting confident that the public will see through your opponents arguments and vote for you is fairly basic psychology. Do you really think that with around 30% support for independence at the start of the campaign the SNP thought they were going to win the referendum? A jump to 45% in two years is a huge swing in their favour. I've never heard of a political party accepting the verdict of the voting booths and giving up on campaigning for what they believe in, never mind a party who's just seen a massive swing in public opinion towards their position. What makes you think the SNP should do that... the fact that you don't agree with them?

In reply to neilh:




Possibly was a mistake, but then again concentrating more on other avenues may have caught more of the elderly vote and missed out on the huge swing in youth vote - leaving the same result and a less positive outlook for the future.

Besides, I think you're slightly misjudging the nature of the Yes campaign - the SNP may have had a fairly broad campaign but it was the many unaffiliated organisations under the Yes banner who took the battle to social media in a big way.

It might be a feeble excuse if you are looking for excuses, but if you're looking to understand where you went right and wrong to improve your performance in future, then I think it's probably a valid point to take on board.

In reply to neilh:


32,000 new members already since the referendum suggests to me that the SNP are going to do just fine.

In reply to Ciro:

Most parties after losing an election by a large margin when they had been chirping about a massive win calm down a bit afterwards and accept the result publicly. They do this as a lot of people don't like bad losers so it could lose them some sympathy. Anyway I thought this was supposed to be a vote which was not just about the SNP as a political party?

At least one thing is good, no one can at present speak of "Freedom for Scotland" as an objective, or call themselves "Free Scotland" as the people of Scotland have shown quite convincingly that they want to remain part of Britain and they have done this voluntarily;... they have said they are free because if they weren't they would have voted yes, and they didn't.

This referendum has shown to all who doubted it that the British union is a free one and not one imposed by force - it's a lesson in democracy for the world to see... and they have.

In reply to Ciro:


Do we have any proof of this, or info on the number who have left after the referendum failure? It's always amusing to hear parties in difficulty, and not just the SNP ("it's not just about the SNP" - remember your text a bit), one wonders how they manage to print enough party cards with all the people joining

Seriously though, the best thing to do when you have lost is to take a little holiday, let people forget it and come back later, preferably with new fish to fry. Otherwise it looks just like sour grapes.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


My parents tried to join many times of the last couple of days but the website kept timing out as it was struggling under the load. When the site fell over altogether they upped their capacity and launched a new 0800 membership hotline. So unless they organised a DDOS attack on themselves it looks as though they're telling the truth about the numbers.

I suspect there will indeed be a delay in getting cards out to new members over the next wee while. I don't imagine it's a problem that they find particularly upsetting.


I'm sure Westminster would like that, but it's not going to happen.

In reply to Ciro:

In this day and age political campaigning is very sophisticated - all the good parties know what to go for/what not to do. I doubt that the SNP could have done any more or they did anything wrong( it looked well run), just that the majority wanted to stay in the Union.And well in the end " you can take a horse to water but you cannot make them drink" springs to mind.

In reply to neilh:


I credible economic plan would have come in useful.

In reply to Ciro:


A microcosm of the result of independence. Imagine the teething problems inherent in starting up a whole new country!

In reply to GrahamD:


I don't imagine many organisations would cope with an unexpected doubling of their membership in 5 days, but yes of course there will be teething problems when we leave the union... anyone who says otherwise is living in fantasy land - the question is whether the pain of transition is worth the long term benefit and an increasing number of Scots believe it is.

In reply to neilh:

Indeed, I think turning 30% support into 45% support shows a pretty well run campaign. Many more horses started drinking so the battle was lost but the war is being won.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


I think if they had come with a credible new currency plan B they would have won it. They did have credible alternatives but they were presented as "second best" which doesn't help.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Agree. IMO a plan A of a Scottish central bank which would peg the Scottish pound to the English pound for the foreseeable future would have worked. You've got your own notes anyway!

In reply to Mike Stretford:

Yep, it's what I thought too.
There was a bit of a domino effect as well because the uncertainty caused by the lack of well constructed plan B caused the markets to be nervous and from that point it was a barrage of businesses warning about independence in the media.

No doubt the Yes campaign was incredible given where they were starting from but Salmond f*cked that one up.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

That just means you are not independent, as you have to follow what the English pound does. You have no control.Voters tend to see through these things.Its like pegging your currency to the value of gold, it does not work.

You need a totally independent currency.Otherwise the economic case for a split does not stand up.55% of the voters saw through that.

Its the fundamental weakness in the whole issue. Whether you like it or not you are so economically tied to the UK, its just not worth the split.

In reply to neilh:

Except it worked for the UK for 30 years, and for Ireland for 50 years. At least as a transitional mechanism it wouldn't have been the worst idea, until the economies diverge it makes sense.

In reply to neilh:



No you've got the wrong end of the stick somehow. It's your own central bank which gives you independence. Pegging to the old currency for a transitional period (or foreseeable future) is a tried and tested method in these scenarios. Having your own central bank gives flexibility goes some way to meeting the criteria for EU entry.

Fixed exchange rate and dollarisation are 2 separate things.

In reply to Ciro:


When they get over their hangover's after celebrating the result! Some of you really do live in cloud cuckoo land!

In reply to Ciro:


Again, with all due respect, where have you been for the last week? The no vote won by a huge margin, 10% - in Quebec the unionists worn by 1% and they country is still united and they have pretty well dropped the idea of a split for the time being. Not only this but the yes vote won well in a very small part of Scotland, the vast majority of councils voted no - 28 out of 32 councils... and you still speak of "an increasing number of Scots believe it is" (is worth going for independence)!

Does reality have no meaning for you?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

In 2012 support for independence was around 30%, today it stands at around 45%.

If that's not an increased number of individuals then either I've missed the headlines about the alarming rate of population loss, or you and me are in fact living in alternate realities.

I hope yours is a fun place.

In reply to Ciro:

Sheer quality....the SNP didn't expect to win?? They pushed it for years and years and finally get the referendum and the chance for Salmond to go down in history and they go in expecting to lose? So the SNP haven't "lost" as they didn't expect to win?!!? They lost it, having grossly misjudged it for years. There is no point trying to dress up defeat as some sort of victory.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


When was the last time you were in Scotland?

If you had been walking around the streets of Edinburgh last week you would have a different view of reality.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Which way did Edinburgh vote?

PS. When were you last in Westminster? Or Sussex? As it happens I was in Scotland not so long ago, for a week's climbing, but not in Edinburgh.

In reply to Ciro:


You don't get a referendum every 5 minutes. This one was launched when the SNP and their supporters were convinced they could win, that the majority of those living in Scotland were in favour of independence. They were proved wrong, they misjudged the opinions of voters in Scotland, even in areas where the SNP was the leading party last election, it's as simple as that. It's not the end of the world, life will go on but Scotland has decided to remain part of Great Britain.

They may have increased their vote, how do you know this BTW, was there a similar referendum in 2012? If it was just a poll there was a poll a few days before the vote giving yes winning, it's real country wide votes that count, and now you've had one, as just as some of you requested and the result has been not as you expected. It's happened to me loads of times, but I've got over it, just as you will.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Well said Bruce. This idea of a further referendum downstream is pathetic. They lost and can't keep asking til they get the answer they want.

In reply to Mike Stretford:
The other way of looking at it is that you have your own currency at the moment - you print your own notes etc etc. So you are already pegged anyway.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


No, you don't - the next one is probably somewhere between 5 to 15 years away.


For now.


Maybe some expected a yes vote from the start, I certainly didn't and no serious political commentary was suggesting that the Yes campaign didn't have a hell of a lot of work to do. I did allow myself to dream a little as the polls began to close, but in reality I always thought we'd need to be polling around 55% in the lead up to the vote to account for the fear factor at the ballot box.


I'm over it. The referendum is done and dusted. For now we have to concentrate on making sure the promises made by the leaders of the big three westminster parties don't just come to nothing. Further devolution will be another step down the road. The campaign to convince ourselves we can run our own country isn't over - it's been going since before I was born, why would it end now?

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:


I'm afraid they can and they will!

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:


The SNP have been playing a pretty long game. In 1979 support just for devolution was a very narrow majority, and not enough of the electorate turned out to make it happen. Last week westminster had to come up with a hasty promise of further devolution to prevent the people of Scotland from voting for independence in an astonishingly high turnout. Of course they would have *liked* to have won, but the last two years have no doubt furthered their cause.


Why not, is asking the people what they want not what democracy is all about?

In reply to Ciro:


I don't know why you even need to have a campaign on this, Scottish people have been running the whole country ie. the UK for ages, as MPs, Ministers and PM. That is a false problem, the real one is whether it would be advantageous and whether it is seen as such by those concerned. No need to have a complex about capability.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I don't think anyone doubts that Scotland produces people capable of running a country, but a lot of people do seem to be concerned as to whether we can stand on our own two feet.

Personally, I think you're right and there's no need to worry about it. But that worry does exist - otherwise why would a Scottish public, which voted in a center-left government in the Scottish parliament, have voted last week to stay in a union that's increasingly dominated by right wing politics?

In reply to Ciro:

I think that's a valid concern. Though that said, I think the Republic of Ireland is a reasonable example of the kind of country an independent Scotland would be. Provided it's careful and prudent financially and doesn't get taken by any "tiger economy" type boom, it should do OK for itself.

Neil

In reply to Ciro:

Probably because they see neither the calibre of local politicians or perceived differences in short-term politics as deciding factors in whether to break up a country.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Which is part of the problem. The centralisation of power in London means ambitious people born in Scotland are forced to go and live in London if they want to get ahead. Once they have bought a house in London their personal interest is tied to the economy and housing market of London, not that of Scotland and their skills benefit the economy of London, not the economy of Scotland.

If, for example, the Energy department that regulates the oil industry was in Aberdeen rather than in London the civil servants and politicians running Energy policy would have their own personal wealth aligned with the oil industry and economy of Aberdeen. If George Osborne decided to introduce a tax that severely affected the oil industry Energy department civil servants would be naturally inclined to resist. Right now they'd be more worried about taxes on banks that could mess up the London economy and their house price or cuts to transport projects in London.

Oil companies that wanted to influence government policy would need to locate senior executives in Aberdeen, and as a result services like banks and law firms that wanted to deal with those executives would also need to locate their senior people in Aberdeen. It would be much easier for ambitious Scots to make a career without heading South.

In reply to MG:

Short term?

I was born in 1975, so although there has been a government in westminster that could be considered representative of Scottish political will in my lifetime, it ended shortly before my fourth birthday. Since then we've had a succession of Conservative and "New" Labour right wing governments.

Even if there was a centre-left political party on the rise in westminster, 35 years would already have to be considered a reasonably long term difference in political views, but with no prospect of one on the horizon and UKIP on the rise, it looks to be heading towards a permanent difference of opinion.

In reply to Ciro:

Do you think? I think there is a fairly high chance of Labour returning to power at the next general election.

Neil

In reply to Ciro:



Scotland voted for each of the Labour governments. There will probably be another shortly. Only a minority voted for the current SNP government, probably about the same proportion of the population as for most of the Tory governments in 1980s. The claims about not being represented are largely nonsense, except perhaps for the late nineties.

In reply to Neil Williams:

They may well do (personally I have my doubts) but they moved far enough to the right when they re-branded themselves to win power in the 90s that it makes little difference to my point. Labour still have a substantial following in Scotland but it's mainly for historical reasons now ("I've always voted labour, my dad voted labour, etc."), and jumping into bed with the Tories to campaign for a no vote has probably ended that for a lot of people.

In reply to Ciro:

I think it's genuinely sad that petty party politics makes any difference whatsoever on peoples' views on whether to vote Yes or No to independence. It's way too important for that.

Neil

In reply to MG:


As I said the labour vote has largely been for historical reasons - if it happens again next May I will eat my hat.

In reply to Ciro:



This is quite an odd view. In 1997, Scotland elected 56 Labour MPs, in 2001 you elected 55, both times a Labour government resulted, yet somehow this government wasn't representative of the Scots' political will?

In reply to Neil Williams:



I don't think it really did - the SNP heartlands voted No and the Labour heartlands voted Yes. But those who were labour voters and saw their representatives band together with the tories to try to stop them from voting yes feel very let down, and the No vote does show that the SNP won a majority in the Scottish elections on their centre-left policies rather than on their pro-independence stance, underlining the point that labour does not represent the views of the Scottish people.

In reply to chris j:


For many people (myself included) it was much more about keeping the tories out than voting labour in, and a lack of a real alternative.

In reply to Ciro:


Why? Their party is irrelevant to the fact that they were the No campaign. Anyone who saw it as a party political issue really wants their head examining.


The SNP looks similar to what the Lib Dems were before the Coalition effectively destroyed them. If there were an English equivalent, they'd have a high chance of getting my vote. I imagine the Greens are as close as you can get, but I don't like some of their environmental policies, in particular I am strongly in favour of nuclear power together with blanket electrification of the railway system and the installation of trams, trolleybuses etc in the big cities as a means of reducing the environmental and political issues caused by excessive oil consumption.

Neil

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

By that argument it s probably a good thing that power is centralised in London. Just imagine what supporters of green energy would say if the Energy department was based in Aberdeen and aligned with the oil industry!

I personally doubt that Scotland is a big enough country for these masters of the universe to wield power.Lets be honest here people of that calibre would still head toward London which is a global not parochial centre.

In reply to Ciro:


So you're saying the SNP don't represent the views of the Scottish people? You're probably right.

In reply to neilh:


If you were an oil industry guy in the US would you locate in Washington DC or Houston. If you were a car industry guy in Germany, Munich or Berlin. If you were an electronics executive in the US, San Jose or Washington DC.

Many successful countries have the centre of power of major industries away from the capital city.

In reply to Neil Williams:


As far as I'm aware, the only political party encouraging their supporters to do whatever they thought was right for Scotland was the Scottish Greens.


Indeed, which underlines my point about the differing political will of the two nations - I think Lib Dems would have got a lot more support in Scotland over the last couple of decades if they were seen as having a credible chance at power (although to be fair perhaps it's the same in England too), but the rise of the SNP while the Lib Dems were self-destructing to get hold of some power means the political landscape in the two countries is destined to be very different for the foreseeable future.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


If they wanted the ear of Government, they'd be in Washington. Oil industry lobbying in Washington is a huge business.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh

Lobbying is done in the centre not locally.Oil industry will have both London and Brussels covered.Same with any other major industry.

In reply to Ciro:



Indeed, there has been a big political shift in Scotland since the end of the 80s.
The conservatives are virtually dead in Scotland, whilst in England, they are the strongest political force.
I know some people say it's a "natural variation" but IMO there is a massive gap.

In reply to RomTheBear:




17% of the vote in the 2010 election http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_breakdown_of_the_United_Kingdom_gene... you can call that virtually dead if you like but it makes you look a bit silly.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Forming the Coalition has caused a far greater decline, though. I'd be amazed if they made 10% this time.

Neil

In reply to Ciro:


Unfortunately, until there's a "Why?" part of a ballot paper, a party has to assume that people are voting for it because they agree with their policies.

In reply to Neil Williams:



Maybe it has, but you're only guessing.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

So, frankly, are you if you propose that the vote at the last election will accurately reflect the vote at the next one.

Neil

In reply to Sir Chasm:


They have one Scottish MP, and 15 MSPs. They may not be virtually dead, but they have no significant position in Scottish politics in the places that matter, in Westminster or Holyrood.

In reply to Ciro:


Hmm. So, the funny thing is, the polls based on fieldwork before that promise was given gave the same result as the one on the morning of polling day. And it seems that all the polls had a 2-3% systematic error towards independence anyway.

So this story sounds good, but flies in the face of the evidence.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Are you serious? Political parties aren't going out asking people how they voted and why? That would seem to leave a rather uninformed platform for their next campaign.

In reply to tony:


What they need is proportional representation.

In reply to climbwhenready:

So why did they make the "vow"?

I find it hard to believe that after refusing to allow an option for further devolution to be included on the ballot, with a week to go they thought "You know what, the Scots probably deserve a little bit more power after all. I know they're going to vote to stay in the union, but let's give them a little present. Yes, I know it's going to upset the English voters a bit, but you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, and those guys, you know, they're just worth it".

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Compare to 40% in England.... Yes they are virtually dead in Scotland, they'll probably have less proportion of vote in Scotland than UKIP will do in England. They have been relegated to the margins.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


So?

(You do know how MSPs are elected?)

In reply to Ciro:

Of course parties try to gauge the public's mood on a number of topics, and that's how they build their manifestos and 'promises', but I think it's extremely naive to make a protest or tactical vote and expect the party you voted for to know it as such.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Maybe if you stop lying to yourself you might get somewhere - Tories got something like 16% in the last GE, compared with the incredibly massive 19% that the SNP got.

In reply to Ciro:

Of course they intended it to increase support for staying in the union. The facts are that it didn't. If you want to do a post-hoc analysis, base it on the facts.

In reply to neilh:



Lobbying is done where the decision makers are located. Far too many of the decision makers in the UK are in London. That doesn't happen to the same extent in federal countries like the US or Germany where the system is set up to limit the power of central government.

Proximity to decision makers gives London an edge every time big decisions are made whether it is the Olympics, Crossrail or deciding whether to raise more tax by going for Banks, oil companies or mansions.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

They do might not know my votes were tactical but they do know it's going on.

But either way, that's hardly the point. The point is a lot of Scots have been tactically voting for labour over the last few general elections, and so the number of Labour representatives returned from Scotland has not been a reliable indicator of the political will of the Scottish people.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Well indeed ! Scottish Tories in Westminster are not even stronger than SNP in Westminster ! That should tell you something.


The fact is that there are less than half the proportion of tory voters in Scotlabd than there is in England. This is not an usubstantial difference, it's absolutely massive.

In reply to Ciro:

How do you know that? How else do voters express their political will except through the way they vote at elections? What are the true indicators of the political will of the Scottish people?

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


Tory MPs 1, SNP MPs 6.

In reply to tony:



Yes dear, it was a "joke".

In reply to RomTheBear: You're wonderfully dismissive of 17% of voters, how awfully inclusive of you.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


I thought jokes were meant to be funny?

Anyway, Tory MPs in Scotland - just the one of them. Not really very important.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

You can slag people off all you want, the truth is that they aren't a major political force in Scotland, nowhere near what they are in England.

It doesn't take a genius to see that, they have been between 0 and 1 MPs for the past few elections, and have half the proportion of voters than they have in England.

I'm not even sure what's the point in denying it, what's the objective here ? It's simply a matter of fact.

In reply to RomTheBear: What am I denying rom? You're the one claiming that getting 17% of the vote makes the tories "virtually dead".

In reply to RomTheBear:
I think people know they don't have many MPs or MSPs, so in that sense they are not a political force. However, their proportion of the overall vote is not been significantly less than the SNP or LibDems - the discrepancy of seats is due to the political systems. This suggests that Scotland is not so very different from England in political outlook, despite what people like to claim. Just the centre right vote is split three ways, unlike in England. In fact the lack of seats probably depresses their vote as many will vote tactically rather than "wasting" a vote.

In reply to MG:

17% tory votes in Scotland, 40% in England, it's massive ! As you admit yourself Tories in Scotland are not much stronger than SNP or LibDems in general elections. It's a very different picture from England where they are the major political force.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

You are kidding me. Have you never heard of the Washington belt.Have you ever heard/read of the complaints made about Lobbying in the US.Good grief< I cannot take that comment seriously.

In reply to Ciro:



I'm really sorry but tony's got it nailed - if parties can't expect election results to be representative of the will of the people, when exactly can they? A free and anonymous vote IS the expression of the electorate's political will. Crazy argument.

In reply to neilh:


Of course there is a lot of lobbying for Federal government business in Washington. The point stands, you might find lobbying offices in the beltway but, in general you don't find the head office or the most senior management. Apple senior management work in Cupertino, Google management in Mountain View, big oil in Houston. If a silicon valley company needs to raise money it will find banks and VCs in San Francisco, maybe New York if it is really large but it won't go to Washington DC. If it gets involved in a patent lawsuit it will most likely get heard in Federal Court in San Francisco.

If Washington DC started to try and use its leverage with the Federal government to get the head office of internet companies away from California there would be hell to pay. You are right about the complaints - but that is a sign of the relative lack of tolerance of centralisation and federal government power. In the UK it would be treated as normal for everything to be decided in London.

In reply to RomTheBear:


And it doesn't take a genius to see they had more seats before... where do you think the SNP voters came from? Look at the geographical correlations, areas of high SNP votes voted no... why do you think this is? You say people voted Labour as a tactical vote but has it never occurred to you that some may have voted SNP as a tactical vote to weaken Labour - hence the "Tartan Tory" jibe that upsets nationalists so much.

If you start playing this sort of game without any accurate data showing how individuals changed their voting allegiance you don't get very far. But coming back to reality the independence vote lost, Scotland wants to stay in the UK. The next big political event is the general election, if you are really interested in politics get stuck into that.

Here's a prognostic, the SNP will whither once people realise that their scheme has failed and Scots will return to the old political battles. Many SNP will return to the Tories, the Lib dems will drop because of the fiasco of their alliance with the Tories... Where does that leave people to go to? If you really are on the Left the place for you is within the Labour party, militating to bring it over to the left a bit more and beating the Toties thoroughly in the country that is still called the UK. Best for the UK and best for Scotland.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

You know the US is rather big?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

All you say is very true but I've never said otherwise.
I am simply saying that for the past 20 years, Tories have been relegated to the margins in Scotland, and it's there for all to see.

In reply to tony:


Well on a personal level I come from a staunch "Old Labour" background and I watched the disillusionment grow round about me which probably forms the starting point for my opinion.

However, for a more objective analysis it's useful to take a look at how the SNP became the party they are today and took control of Scottish politics.

I grew up in the pretty binary red/blue scottish political scene of the 80s - the SNP were still seen as the "Tartan Tories" in those days (amongst us lefties at any rate), although in reality they had originally been a movement from a broad political spectrum.

After the 79 devolution referendum there had been a lot of infighting between those who wanted to make that shift to a more mainstream political party (a certain Mr A. Salmond was prominent in that regard) and those who wanted to remain a single issue party. Those on the center-left championed that position as one that would win them the votes of the people regardless of whether they had nationalist leaning, and therefore if the party was willing to play a long game they should be able to build a power base and challenge the system from within - and that view won out.

Initial progress was slow, which could lead you to believe that their judgement of the political will of the people was wrong, however they still had the entrenched labour party to deal with. Luckily for them (and for our little analysis) labour decided to lurch to the right in order to gain power in westminster right at the same time they created a Scottish parliament - without English votes to worry about the SNP were free to pursue the Scottish electorate, and did so by maintaining that same centre-left political stance.

There was a small dip in the 2003 election, but since then they've gone from strength to strength, resulting in a majority government in the 2011 elections (and 65 seats to labours 37), despite the fact that proportional representation was supposed to make this much harder to achieve.

I think the Scottish parliamentary results are a much better indicator of the political will of the Scottish people that the Westminster elections, since there's no Conservative threat to influence the vote.

In fact you could argue, given the recent No vote and SNPs clear position on independence, that the results of the Holyrood elections would be skewed slightly *against* the public support for their political positioning.

Also, as a result of the last two years of campaigning it appears that not only has support for the SNP grown further (I accept that the proof of this pudding will be in the 2015 and 2016 elections but the rate of new members joining at the moment is astonishing) but support for the radical left appears to also be on the up, with Scottish Greens and Scottish Socialists also reporting a rise in numbers.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Here are a few simple facts that disprove your claim.

1) The phrase "tactical voting" exists - it's not something I just made up.

2) I have in the past voted for a party I did not feel best represented my political will. Numerous other people I know have done the same.

3) Scotland returns more labour party candidates to westminster than it does to Holyrood. How can both these results be a true expression of the electorate's political will?

In reply to Ciro:


Because the electorate think different parties best represent their wishes in different parliaments. Rather obvious, surely?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I'd love to think that was the case, and if I thought it would do any good I'd have been anti-independence, but if you bring it back to the left, Labour will have no chance at Westminster - England is too much in thrall of rampant capitalism and the city of London, with a strong sprinkling of isolationist right-wing nationalism, and so the largest voting block in the UK simply aren't interested in a left leaning government.

In reply to MG:

Indeed. Before their recent misfortune, the Lib Dems did rather well as a party of local Government. Which is sort-of understandable, as people have more time for "tax and spend" where they see the benefits directly in their local public services.

Neil

In reply to Ciro:



Correct. The vote is tactical for you, i.e. you've chosen to compromise your beliefs to achieve a perceived 'least worst' solution. It's not for the party you've voted for to mitigate your compromise.


As have I, but I am aware that my vote would be taken by the party I voted for as an endorsement of their stated policies. As above.


What if people were voting tactically in the Holyrood elections? How would you know?

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Equally, what if people were voting "yes" to independence tactically, because their favoured option, devo-max, may[1] not have been on the agenda?

[1] I think there is a good chance it now will.

Neil

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Well there you go then - the number of candidates returned for each party can no longer be considered an accurate reflection of the political will of the people.


I don't see how what the parties infer from their electoral results has any influence on our attempt to determine the political will of the people?


We can't know for certain, we can only ever look for patterns and analyse them (otherwise politics would be a pretty easy game). There will always be people voting for a candidate they prefer locally rather than the party they prefer nationally for example. Although interestingly this gives us another reason why the Scottish parliamentary elections with their PR system should give us a more accurate gauge of political opinion than the westminster FPTP system.

As I see it (outside of the above), the two main factors that would influence a tactical vote in parliamentary elections for scots at the moment would be the chances of Tory rule, and the chances of independence.

As (I think) we've established the Tories are a fairly minority interest in Scotland, therefore there will be people who wish to make sure they do not get voted in.

Also, we've established that currently the majority of Scots are against independence.

I would expect both of these facts to result in more tactical voting that went against the SNP than for it, meaning the political will of the people would be more for the SNP than the results suggested in both sets of parliamentary elections.

If I've missed some important factors in my analysis please bring them up - I don't claim to be an expert on Scottish politics, these are just the observations of a layman

In reply to MG:


For me, it's not obvious at all - the positions of the SNP and Labour are too far apart. On an individual local council level perhaps yes, but the Scottish parliament is a lot more than your local council.

Not something I've looked at, but at local council level how common is it for a region to be mostly councils of one party, but the vast majority of votes at a general election to be another?

In reply to Ciro:


Same goes.

My point is that, elections, by definition, are the expression of the political will of the electorate. The fact that we have chosen to complicate that process and vote tactically is neither here nor there, as there is no meaningful way to quantify the tactical votes and less still to find out what each tactical voter's aims are. I voted Green in the local and European elections but will probably vote either LibDem or Labour (dependent on candidate and party policies) at the general elections - neither are tactical, but merely a reflection of the different implications of each election.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Well in the sense that they reflect the political will of the people within the reality of the system in which they are operating, you are of course correct.

My argument would be that to establish whether or not Scottish and English political will is diverging, and therefore whether or not the political union is helping or hindering the people of both countries reaching their political goals, we must go further and try to establish which set of policies people would vote for outside of that current system.

Who would people vote for if they thought there each party had a fairly even chance of winning?

In my estimation, you would get two very different answers from the two countries, therefore the political union is holding us both back.

Even that bastion of scottish nationalism the Spectator is talking about labours best chance of avoiding a tanking in Scotland next May being to play the watch out for the big bad tory card rather than campaigning on what they can do for the country:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/09/beware-scottish-labour-is-...

In reply to Ciro:

Well 55% of your countrymen - unless they were voting tactically of course - don't think the political union is holding you back. The fact that people vote differently in all the different regions of the UK (the North of England didn't vote Conservative at the last election either) is only natural and shouldn't be proof positive that we need to hive those regions off.

Labour should be concentrating on offering an alternative and getting a seriously disengaged public into the polling booths up and down the UK next year.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Indeed, the big difference here is that Scotland is not simply a region but a country, part of a union. As such the more political differences there are the more devolution is needed, if these differences become too great then independence is unavoidable.

It is clear that at this point 55% think the differences are not worth separation, especially if there is new, extensive devolution.

But for example is the UK was to head out of the EU, or if UKIP was to become more and more important in England, the difference in policy between Scotland and rUK might well become too great to be sustainable.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I am aware that Scotland is a country, but as I was referring to other regions of the UK that are not I used the catch-all term 'region'.

Thankfully, so far, we are still part of the EU and UKIP, also at the time of going to press, have exactly zero MPs.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Indeed, and that's why those in the SNP who've been espousing the long term strategy for so long will see the events of the last few years as a vindication of that tactic. The public has now demonstrated a real appetite for their style of governance and there's been a large shift in support towards indepedence. All that's left to do is convince another 5% or so of the population - 1 in every 20 people - that the union is the only thing holding us back.


They can't do that without risking the votes of those in England who *are* engaged, and who they woo'd when they metamorphosed into New Labour (or the British Imperial Labour Party as one jolly japester I know likes to call them), and I don't see them taking that risk.

They don't have a big driver to engage the public like we had with the independence debate (those to the right of them have already grabbed that particular ticket) so unless some other opportunity comes along they're snookered. It does remain to be seen what comes out in the wash from the English question, and perhaps there will be an opportunity there after all, but right now it doesn't look good from where I'm standing.

In reply to RomTheBear:



Someone can do the maths for that surely, my first reaction would be that the numbers of English students aren't that significant (leaving aside the question of how many voted).

In reply to Ciro:

I think if the independence campaign couldn't secure a Yes after four years of this particular Westminster government, with the oil revenues rolling in and the huge momentum gained from a well run campaign against a pretty shambolic Better Together campaign, then I'm not sure you won't see the support for independence start to ebb a little.

I'm not even sure a lot of the people who did vote were particularly engaged and wouldn't react positively to some actual choice being offered to the public. Part of the reason the turnout in the referendum was so high was that it's easy to see a potential difference between a Yes and a No. Sometimes it feels with the main parties that you're voting on a difference of a couple of pence in tax and the colour of the rosette.

I think the removal of Scottish MPs votes on English matters could be a timely, but admittedly very painful kick up the arse for left-of-centre politics south of the border.

In reply to MG:


I could have made exactly the same points using examples from Germany with the financial industry in Frankfurt and the car industry in Munich. No way would the federal states allow Berlin to suck in the headquarters of their key industries.

The key factor is a federal system where the federal states limit the power of central government, the financial centre is geographically separate from the centre of government and there is no overwhelming benefit to locating company headquarters in the capital city rather than the size of the country.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
Good post.

The SNP had it on a plate - Commonwealth Games year to make the nation feel good, they somehow enfranchised 16 year olds to get more votes, 700 year anniversary of Bannockburn, year the Ryder Cup is in Scotland - and they lost it convincingly with only 4 of 32 local authorities councils returning yes results.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


OK, OK, as a nation we really f*cked up there... no need to rub it in by painting such a clear picture



It remains to be seen if voter engagement remains high, but it was definitely there and the SNP doubling its size in a few days is a pretty good sign.

If there is a revival of the left in England then I would indeed expect to see a shift away from support for independence... despite a media campaign to portray the Yes voters as crazed nationalists, most of the people I spoke to were just looking for a change they don't think Westminster will ever provide. Personally, if I thought there was an even chance of the sorts of social change we're looking for whether we were in or out of the union I would have no interest whatsoever in ending it... I don't care if we could be economically better off with our own oil or whether we could attract big business - I just want to see us look after the disadvantaged in our society better, and stop fighting wars for resources in the middle east, and I believe a great many people up here feel the same.

In reply to nw:

Yes it is, it's about 13% of the age group, not that it really matters or that it is a problem but it explain the 18-24 gap in the yes vote rather well.

In reply to Ciro:

With regard to SNP membership doubling, from what I hear around here, a lot of the people joining are long standing 'Yes' activists from other groups (SSP, Labour, etc) with an eye to getting the SNP in again on a referendum ticket (complete with murmurs about taking it over from the inside!). Not so much newly energised, previously apathetic members of the public.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Sources? Genuinely interested. It doesn't seem like (more than) 1 in 10 young people you meet are English students. Obviously that could be explained by them being concentrated in a few places.

In reply to Timmd:

One thing that’s surprised me since the referendum is the number of people I’ve spoken to (particularly in Orkney, funnily enough) who have said that they would have been in favour of an independent Scotland but voted no because there were “just too many unanswered questions”. If the people I’ve spoken to are representative of no voters in general (and I’ve no reason to think they are – I’m just speculating) then it would seem that support for the general principal of independence may be greater than the result would suggest.

The no voters I spoke to generally agreed that and independent Scotland could be very successful in the long term but that the short term disruption associated with a poorly planned transition (with no guarantees on currency or EU membership etc) would lead to a potentially severe economic decline at a time when we are still barely starting to feel the recovery from the last recession.

Perhaps the energy and momentum that have been built up by the yes campaign over the last few months should be channelled into developing a sound plan to get us from here to there in an orderly and predictable manner with minimal risk. If they (or should I say we?) can come up with a convincing plan over the next few years, perhaps we could find ourselves in a position where there is sufficient appetite for another referendum in the not too distant future.

In reply to tommyb:


Pretty much sums up my feelings.

In reply to tommyb:


Exactly that.

In reply to nw:

There's certainly quite a few people changing parties for whatever reason, but I think there are now more people in the SNP than the total number of members of any political party in scotland before the referendum. There's definitely a higher percentage of scottish people in the SNP than the percentage of people in the UK who are members of any party so the public has definitely been energised by the process... it's been invigorating to hear so many people involved in politics - let's hope it lasts.

Analysis of the numbers here:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/adam-ramsay/quick-note-on-party-me...

In reply to Ciro:
Have you YES voters bothered considering this figure, coming up in a minute.

If you were that passionate about going independent, how come only 37.78% of the electrorate actually bothered to voted YES.

Barely more than than a third!

Possibly once in alifetime event.

In reply to Lusk:



And only 46% voted to stay, less than half, it's a fairly useless way to represent votes.

In reply to Ciro:


I'm surprised this hasn't been questioned more. They made the vow because they got scared, a stupid move that will only backfire as people continually bring it up in the future to attack Westminster. It's not like they can ever live up to it, given that there was no specific promise. They should have left it as a clear decision - stay in the UK or leave and from here we'll decide our future together, not if you stay we'll give you a bribe.

In reply to Lusk:





Of course we've considered it.

Here's an interesting statistic you might not have considered... that 37.8% is substantially more than the 32.9% of the population that voted for devolution in 1979 - and it took just 18 years from then for devolution to happen.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

You do realise that germany was 2 countries until not so long ago and that there was no way that West Berlin was ever going to be the centre of power for West Germany.

Unique set of circumstances lead to a unique situation. Next.

In reply to thomasadixon:

Was "devo-max" not a genuinely popular option, though?

IMO it should have been a two-question referendum. Question one, full independence or not. Question two, status quo or devo-max with a realistic timescale and set of proposals already in place.

Neil

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


You do realise that West Germany never had the centralisation problem either: its capital was Bonn, a fairly small town. The post WWII German constitution as a federal republic is designed to limit the power of central government over the regions, perhaps one reason for this is that limiting the power of the centre limits the scope for militarisation. Just like in the US regional cities in Germany can be at least as large and prosperous as the capital.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:



Like in the US?

In reply to Ciro:

Thanks for that. It's certainly the first time I've ever looked at a page like that and thought 'Hmm, interesting'!

In reply to Neil Williams:

In order to preserve the status quo, nobody in Westminster wanted the Scots to have a clear set of proposals to vote on.

The SNP wanted devo max on the ballot because they knew Scotland wasn't ready to vote for independence, but also that nobody in their right mind would vote no to a bit more power without any real risk - if it was included it was practically the guaranteed result.

The Tories vetoed it for all those same reasons, then Westminster panicked when it started to look like everybody, even the SNP, might have underestimated the strength of desire for change.

I do wonder if the whole currency issue that caused so many problems for SNP may have, in part at least, been down to the fact that in the early days they were designing a campaign around the goal of obtaining further devolution rather than full independence, and so preparing a case for multiple scenarios was largely an exercise in public re-assurance, and once things went to all or bust they were caught a little on their heels.

In reply to nw:


The exception that proves the rule Although maybe the US would be even more militaristic if it developed a highly centralised capital.

One of the reasons the US states allow a massive federal defence budget is the level of horse trading where powerful state representatives get bought off by spending in their own state.

In reply to Ciro: It was an exquisitely clear question, do you want independence. Come on, you've had a week to get over it, dry your eyes and move on.

Interesting stuff on John Curtice's blog relating to this thread:

http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2014/09/voted-yes-voted/

In reply to IainRUK:


Hi Ian, prices - shares and houses - fluctuate all the time. It's not necesarily an actual loss of anything. For example if they fall because of the uncertainty and then go back up afterwards.

It probably does result in some deadweight loss just due to things getting delayed a bit. People choosing to invest elsewhere.. etc. But even some of that will get made up in the end.

Point is that fluctuations in prices due to uncertainty aren't the thing you should be looking at.

In reply to Donnie:

What about the money to hold the vote in the first place. Do we get that back?

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Well, we're down to just the one thread now and it's only been a week!
This time next week it'll moaning about the price of Irn-Bru.

In reply to IainRUK:


Well it is the cash cow ,at the moment, but Shetland aside there is likely to be huge reserves in the West that can/ will be exploited in the future.

With or without Shetland., there is a lot of oil out there.

( and no surprise there has just been announced some good news on improved recovery of existing oil reserves , so very soon AFTER the No vote)

Then again, you would have to have been exaordinaraly gullable to fall for the oil is running out fairy tales, and based your vote on that one.
As the No campaigner friend of mind said to me when I spoke to him outside the polls on referendum night:-

" These stories about the oil running out is a load of crap"

(We agreed on that one

Edit :- on voting patterns:-

"The four highest No votes were in the two Northern Isles councils of Orkney (67.2%) and Shetland (63.7), together with the two councils adjacent to the border with England, Scottish Borders (66.6) and Dumfries & Galloway (65.7%).

These are all areas in the bottom half of the league table of local authorities in respect of their levels of unemployment and percentage living in deprived neighbourhoods.
All bar Shetland also have a relatively large population of older people

What most distinguishes them, however, is that they are all amongst the top seven in terms of the proportion born in the rest of the UK and in the top six for the proportion who describe themselves as British."

Looks like the more affluent (elderly Southern born people) that move retire to Scotland, the less likely there will ever be an Independant Scotland.

In reply to Ciro:




Interesting. Perhaps the high numbers joining the SNP ( possibly even some no voters who wanted more powers)

The logic is that both Yes or No voters that now want Westminter parties to deliver more powers for Scotland would want a strong negotiator in the talks.

A SNP with a fast rising membership tells the other parties that the call for independence is not dead, and that a few more powers around the fringes is unlikely to put a lid on it.

I have no idea how many No voters have joined the SNP for that reason( I only know of the one myself,) they may be alone, but I doubt that .

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Dunno? Who paid for it? Scotland?

In reply to Donnie:

The point being that it cost a lot of money.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Er... but if Scotland paid for it...?

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


It cost about 10 millions and everything was paid by the Scottish government.

In reply to RomTheBear:

So a democratic exercise which brings about levels of public engagement not seen for decades costs about a £2 a head?

That's a bargain, we should have one every couple of years...