The Scottish Independence referendum

[Verbal]

The nightmare scenario is that the Scottish Labour vote collapses at next years General Election and SNP is swept into power with a clear majority of the vote. Then the EU membership referendum promised by the Conservatives during the next Parliament leads to the UK withdrawing from the EU. This in turn leads to the SNP (based on their new mandate) announcing that this decision is unacceptable to the Scottish people and they declare independence unilaterally from the UK there and then.

 

I must stress that I don't see that happening thankfully, but just suppose it did what a proper sh1tstorm we would be in ...

 

Just as the Scottish independence vote was always going to be No, so the vote on leaving Europe will be No - and for much the same reasons. Faced with the hard economic realities, and corporate threats to head out of town, the pro-Europe margin of victory will be substantial.

 

So rest easy, on dry sheets.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Just as the Scottish independence vote was always going to be No, so the vote on leaving Europe will be No - and for much the same reasons. Faced with the hard economic realities, and corporate threats to head out of town, the pro-Europe margin of victory will be substantial.

 

So rest easy, on dry sheets.

 

I fear you are right. I remember Michael portillio saying the worst thing that could happen to the anti eu side was a referendum . One thing this Scottish vote has proved is that if the establishment think you're going to walk away, they'll bend over backwards. If Cameron grow a pair and set out his terms and conditions for recommending staying in, we may get a return to the EEC/ common market type arrangements I think most of the country want. At the moment he's planning on doing a Wilson and blagging us with meaningless reforms.

 

I don't think it's quite as clear cut as the Scottish vote. A number of papers may come out for leaving and some of the unions , unless uncontrolled immigration is renegotiated . It would have been easier to get out if the EUSSR had the sweatys gone . Playing the long game , a labour win , but relying on Scottish MP's to govern , more uncontrolled immigration and the people being denied a straight in/out could lead to more resentment of the eu. If labour wanted to kill the chances of leaving the eussr for a generation it should call a referendum as soon as it wins the next election.

Edited 23 September, 2014 by Lord Duckhunter

[saintbletch]

Just as the Scottish independence vote was always going to be No, so the vote on leaving Europe will be No - and for much the same reasons. Faced with the hard economic realities, and corporate threats to head out of town, the pro-Europe margin of victory will be substantial.

 

So rest easy, on dry sheets.

 

I'm not so sure, Verbal. I agree with your base analysis, but I think mobilising "stay" voters will be the challenge.

 

Watching the Scottish referendum I was intrigued from afar to see what impact "passion" would have, and whether it would overcome the fear of the obvious leap into the economic unknown. With a month or so to go I felt that the positivity and passion for the Yes vote might start to sway it their way. Instead, it became clear that there was passion on both side of the debate. As you suggest, the No "passion" might actually have started as fear, but there was also a sense that Better Together was standing up for and protecting something important and almost tangible; identity and nationhood.

 

The problem I have in guessing the result of a European referendum is that I don't see anywhere near the passion on the "stay" side of the argument as I do on the "leave". I also don't see a widely held feeling of being European; such that the threatened loss of this status would swell passion in those able to vote.

 

Looking at the fear, I got the sense that in Scotland many on the No side cared less about identity, but instead felt it was their duty to stop the ego of one man from making an economic basket case of their country. Independence for many was a decision that had a potentially apocalyptical outcome. That is fear on a biblical level.

 

This same level of fear isn't there with the European question to anywhere near the same degree. The impact of the answer to the European question is less polarised; it's less likely to have the same CTRL+ALT+DEL impact as the Scottish question. I feel that many will sense that we will be better one way or the other, but that either way we'll still be here, still exist and won't need the sort of economic CPR that a post-Yes Scotland might have done.

 

So without the emotional pull of the potential loss of identity, it will, as you say come down to playing on the fear of economic realities, and then I wonder if the "stay" vote will simply succomb to the apathy we see every 4 or 5 years.

 

*It goes without saying that the framing of the question will be critical, as will the restrictions that govern enfranchising.

[saintbletch]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11112199/It-would-be-bonkers-to-rewrite-the-constitution-overnight.html?fb

 

Good old Boris

 

He does have an excellent turn of phrase.

 

Poor Miliband was so invertebrate in his campaigning that he contrived to make Gordon Brown – probably the least successful prime minister of the past 100 years – look relatively charismatic.

I heard Boris' father Stanley interviewed on the radio yesterday, and he came across as an older and wiser version of Boris. I didn't realise that his father was an MEP or that he is seriously into conservation.

 

He was asked if being a Tory was at odds with his green credentials. He talked about how there are two types of Tories; those who think that capitalism is king and those old land owner Tories that think that the home and our country are everything. He is in the latter camp.

 

He came across very well, and it seemed that Boris has been raised with some good values.

 

He was plugging the second edition of his autobiography "Stanley I resume" - a sequel to "Stanley I presume".

[moonraker]

Salmond seems to have lost the plot, whilst I cant stand his politics I always thought he was a 'clever' politician. A key policy for an independent Scotland is to join the EU, I hardley think declaring UDI is going to be well received in Brussels or in any other interantional organisation with whom an indpendent Scotland would need to deal with.

[Wes Tender]

I'm not so sure, Verbal. I agree with your base analysis, but I think mobilising "stay" voters will be the challenge.

 

Watching the Scottish referendum I was intrigued from afar to see what impact "passion" would have, and whether it would overcome the fear of the obvious leap into the economic unknown. With a month or so to go I felt that the positivity and passion for the Yes vote might start to sway it their way. Instead, it became clear that there was passion on both side of the debate. As you suggest, the No "passion" might actually have started as fear, but there was also a sense that Better Together was standing up for and protecting something important and almost tangible; identity and nationhood.

 

The problem I have in guessing the result of a European referendum is that I don't see anywhere near the passion on the "stay" side of the argument as I do on the "leave". I also don't see a widely held feeling of being European; such that the threatened loss of this status would swell passion in those able to vote.

 

Looking at the fear, I got the sense that in Scotland many on the No side cared less about identity, but instead felt it was their duty to stop the ego of one man from making an economic basket case of their country. Independence for many was a decision that had a potentially apocalyptical outcome. That is fear on a biblical level.

 

This same level of fear isn't there with the European question to anywhere near the same degree. The impact of the answer to the European question is less polarised; it's less likely to have the same CTRL+ALT+DEL impact as the Scottish question. I feel that many will sense that we will be better one way or the other, but that either way we'll still be here, still exist and won't need the sort of economic CPR that a post-Yes Scotland might have done.

 

So without the emotional pull of the potential loss of identity, it will, as you say come down to playing on the fear of economic realities, and then I wonder if the "stay" vote will simply succomb to the apathy we see every 4 or 5 years.

 

*It goes without saying that the framing of the question will be critical, as will the restrictions that govern enfranchising.

 

A good summary of the differences between the two situations. I would add another factor that differentiates them. Sovereignty. The Scots have actually increased their own powers of self-determination with the setting up of their own devolved Parliament, whereas British sovereignty has been seriously eroded by various treaties since the original Treaty of Rome formed the Common Market which we joined. The British Electorate has never had the opportunity to vote on those changes. Whereas some member states did actually have the common decency to allow their electorate to vote on those treaties, we were denied a say.

 

I don't believe that the British electorate are fooled by the scare stories put about by the pro-EU lobby that somehow the remaining EU members would stop wanting to sell us their Volkwagens, Citroens, Zanussi fridges and washing machines, etc, once we left. And naturally we would expect reciprocal agreements for them to take a proportionate sum of our exported products in return. Scotland had reason to stay in the Union as a nett beneficiary of state aid, whereas we British are nett contributors to the EU budget, an incentive to leave.

 

As you say, the way that the question is couched is paramount. I would be happy that we remained in Europe, but only as part of a trading partnership such as that we originally joined, but I can't see that as being an option. I suspect that whereas on balance currently a majority would vote to leave, I would imagine that a majority think as I do, that they would be happy to stay in Europe only as part of a trading partnership, nothing more. But the only way to get Europe to consider a two tier Europe would be to have several influential countries like ours reject the Federal Europe model.

 

Regarding the enfranchising of the electorate, had Scotland voted to leave the Union, we could surely have held our referendum solely as England, without the more leftie pro-EU lot in Scotland and Wales. Because we joined as the United Kingdom, I presume that it could not be an option for England to hold a referendum by itself, even if we had a devolved English Parliament by the time the referendum was held?

[alpine_saint]

Salmond seems to have lost the plot, whilst I cant stand his politics I always thought he was a 'clever' politician. A key policy for an independent Scotland is to join the EU, I hardley think declaring UDI is going to be well received in Brussels or in any other interantional organisation with whom an indpendent Scotland would need to deal with.

 

Give it a rest using the term UDI. This is a part of the UK we are talking about, not f**king Rhodesia.

[saintbletch]

A good summary of the differences between the two situations. I would add another factor that differentiates them. Sovereignty. The Scots have actually increased their own powers of self-determination with the setting up of their own devolved Parliament, whereas British sovereignty has been seriously eroded by various treaties since the original Treaty of Rome formed the Common Market which we joined. The British Electorate has never had the opportunity to vote on those changes. Whereas some member states did actually have the common decency to allow their electorate to vote on those treaties, we were denied a say.

 

I don't believe that the British electorate are fooled by the scare stories put about by the pro-EU lobby that somehow the remaining EU members would stop wanting to sell us their Volkwagens, Citroens, Zanussi fridges and washing machines, etc, once we left. And naturally we would expect reciprocal agreements for them to take a proportionate sum of our exported products in return. Scotland had reason to stay in the Union as a nett beneficiary of state aid, whereas we British are nett contributors to the EU budget, an incentive to leave.

 

As you say, the way that the question is couched is paramount. I would be happy that we remained in Europe, but only as part of a trading partnership such as that we originally joined, but I can't see that as being an option. I suspect that whereas on balance currently a majority would vote to leave, I would imagine that a majority think as I do, that they would be happy to stay in Europe only as part of a trading partnership, nothing more. But the only way to get Europe to consider a two tier Europe would be to have several influential countries like ours reject the Federal Europe model.

 

Regarding the enfranchising of the electorate, had Scotland voted to leave the Union, we could surely have held our referendum solely as England, without the more leftie pro-EU lot in Scotland and Wales. Because we joined as the United Kingdom, I presume that it could not be an option for England to hold a referendum by itself, even if we had a devolved English Parliament by the time the referendum was held?

 

Yes, interesting point Wes Tender, and one I hadn't considered.

 

My sense is that if Cameron is still running the show, the scope of enfranchisement and the referendum question itself will both be skewed to his prefered option of staying on better terms, so I doubt that he would push for a devolved English vote.

 

And as you say, it sounds constitutionally (UK and Europe) wrong for that to be possible.

[moonraker]

Give it a rest using the term UDI. This is a part of the UK we are talking about, not f**king Rhodesia.

Never realised UDI was country specific, perhaps u could declare UDI and f**k Off!

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Just as the Scottish independence vote was always going to be No, so the vote on leaving Europe will be No - and for much the same reasons. Faced with the hard economic realities, and corporate threats to head out of town, the pro-Europe margin of victory will be substantial.

 

So rest easy, on dry sheets.

 

As somebody who voted UKIP in the European elections, I think you are correct. It would be 70-30 in favour of staying in. The rump of the anti EU vote would melt away and that would just leave the jingoism vote. I voted UKIP because it sends a message to Brussels that I see the role of Europe as an economic not a political one. Currently the EU model is flawed and its faults need to be addressed. I would embrace a slimmed down Europe which showcased free trade and loosened the ties that are currently suffocating national parliaments.

 

We would be very unwise to leave Europe though, not because we could not in theory continue to trade with them but because in practice they would shut us out as punishment. The overall bad feeling it would generate would be catastrophic.

[Lord Duckhunter]

As somebody who voted UKIP in the European elections, I think you are correct. It would be 70-30 in favour of staying in. The rump of the anti EU vote would melt away and that would just leave the jingoism vote. I voted UKIP because it sends a message to Brussels that I see the role of Europe as an economic not a political one. Currently the EU model is flawed and its faults need to be addressed. I would embrace a slimmed down Europe which showcased free trade and loosened the ties that are currently suffocating national parliaments.

 

We would be very unwise to leave Europe though, not because we could not in theory continue to trade with them but because in practice they would shut us out as punishment. The overall bad feeling it would generate would be catastrophic.

 

The Treaty of Rome set out a path to "ever closer union" . For the Europeans it has always been more than an economic community , but the British people have never bought into that and never will. We were lied to in the 70's and we're being set up again. The fundamental reforms most British people would want are directly against some of the treasured principles of the EUSSR , free movement of people for one. The EU will never be a economic bloc again, that ship has sailed.

 

 

As the establishment proved to the sweatys , they will promise anything , frighten anyone and lie to win a referendum . They will use a "stay in" vote in any EU referendum as the green light for ever deeper union and the British people will have another 40 years of treaty's and sovereignty handed to Brussels .

[TwoPints]

I don't believe that the British electorate are fooled by the scare stories put about by the pro-EU lobby that somehow the remaining EU members would stop wanting to sell us their Volkwagens, Citroens, Zanussi fridges and washing machines, etc, once we left. And naturally we would expect reciprocal agreements for them to take a proportionate sum of our exported products in return.

 

I'm not sure anyone has said that the Europeans would refuse to sell their goods to us if we left the EU. The point I think is that the cost of importing EU goods would undoubtedly increase as the ability to sell goods freely in the UK would disappear. Anyone who thinks this would be cost neutral is a bit delusional I'm afraid. Are you also suggesting that we would only 'reciprocate' in selling goods to the EU if they sold their goods to us? Best make the exporters aware of this then as it sounds like the cost of importing goods is going up and the ability to export to Europe is going down, the costs of which would also inevitably increase by the way. I wonder who's going to end up paying for that and losing their jobs as a result?

[scotty]

Well, Salmond's pledge to respect the outcome hasn't lasted very long - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scottish-independence/scotland-could-declare-independence-without-referendum-says-alex-salmond-9747555.html

 

If there's anything worse than a sore loser, it's a Scottish sore loser.

[Whitey Grandad]

I'm not sure anyone has said that the Europeans would refuse to sell their goods to us if we left the EU. The point I think is that the cost of importing EU goods would undoubtedly increase as the ability to sell goods freely in the UK would disappear. Anyone who thinks this would be cost neutral is a bit delusional I'm afraid. Are you also suggesting that we would only 'reciprocate' in selling goods to the EU if they sold their goods to us? Best make the exporters aware of this then as it sounds like the cost of importing goods is going up and the ability to export to Europe is going down, the costs of which would also inevitably increase by the way. I wonder who's going to end up paying for that and losing their jobs as a result?

 

Quite right. It's not the large articles of trade that would suffer but all the smaller deals. I dread a vote for leaving, it would kill a hell of a lot of small companies and more importantly the jobs that go with them.

[5string]

Salmond hasn't taken long to become a bitter bad loser!! how he expects everything to fall into place after one working day shows he is simply stirring up trouble.

the "vow" probably made little difference to the overall result, but its the only scrap he can hang on to..............as far as being "tricked"...the majority of Scots saw through his trickery and last of fantasy!!

 

It's not that he was expecting everything to happen within hours of a result... he just wasn't expecting promises/vows to be broken within hours of the result, which is what has happened.

 

Some backtracking since then from Cameron, Milliband et al, in an attempt to remember the 'union'.

 

A lot of comments on here criticising Salmond, but SNP membership has almost trebled since the result, showing that strong feelings supporting independence still exist. Salmond repeatedly stated the referendum was not about any individual (including himself) or political party, nor was it about anti-English sentiments, it was about SELF-DETERMINATION. He HAS accepted the result of the referendum - doesn't mean he has to like it. He still supports independence and would still like to see it; a referendum was only one route available and he is now suggesting others which may work. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, I suggest he would be seen as a weakling if he just gave up on the idea.

 

On the subject of 'trickery', here are some interesting facts. There are many 'No' voters who have since declared regret at voting thus (and now saying if they knew then what they know now, they would have voted 'Yes'), saying they felt duped by the Westminster establishment's false promises and, quite frankly, inaccurate campaigning, for example:

- active Better Together campaigners were telling pensioners they would not receive their pensions in the event of independence - not true as pensions were already declared 'safe';

- the threat of price rises and 'head office' moves for major companies was used as a persuasive argument - those companies 'quoted' have recently said they were seriously misquoted (eg. Asda said prices "might go up or down", but only the first part was quoted by BT);

- The BBC were proved to be wholly biased during the campaign, even banning certain songs for fear they might encourage 'Yes' votes;

- Better Together have since admitted that scaremongering WAS a campaign tactic, despite frequently and regularly denying it during the lead-up.

 

Nobody said Scotland couldn't be an independent nation, economically, the question was whether it SHOULD be. That brings the heart into it, not just the head. The future is always uncertain, even in the grand old mighty UK, so nothing new in that idea. Seems to me a lot of people were scared into worrying too much about leaving the 'support' of the Westminster government, showing them to be (in my opinion) weak-minded individuals.

 

Regarding comments about vote-rigging: well, there has been evidence produced demonstrating this did happen, but the police have said they won't be investigating it. To be honest, I'm not convinced it was on a large enough scale to have made a difference to the overall result - a turn-around of over 200,000 would have been needed. Therefore, it's irrelevant and can be ignored by both sides.

 

Of course, many people voted 'No' because they want the UK to be a single united country, which is a fine and decent reason for doing so. Just like many people voted 'Yes' because they wanted Scotland to be an independent nation, simple as that.

 

[hypochondriac]

The YES vote lost and Scotland will be part of the UK probably for my lifetime which is good enough for me. I suggest anyone still crying about it gets over it sharpish.

[Whitey Grandad]

It's not that he was expecting everything to happen within hours of a result... he just wasn't expecting promises/vows to be broken within hours of the result, which is what has happened.

 

Some backtracking since then from Cameron, Milliband et al, in an attempt to remember the 'union'.

 

A lot of comments on here criticising Salmond, but SNP membership has almost trebled since the result, showing that strong feelings supporting independence still exist. Salmond repeatedly stated the referendum was not about any individual (including himself) or political party, nor was it about anti-English sentiments, it was about SELF-DETERMINATION. He HAS accepted the result of the referendum - doesn't mean he has to like it. He still supports independence and would still like to see it; a referendum was only one route available and he is now suggesting others which may work. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, I suggest he would be seen as a weakling if he just gave up on the idea.

 

On the subject of 'trickery', here are some interesting facts. There are many 'No' voters who have since declared regret at voting thus (and now saying if they knew then what they know now, they would have voted 'Yes'), saying they felt duped by the Westminster establishment's false promises and, quite frankly, inaccurate campaigning, for example:

- active Better Together campaigners were telling pensioners they would not receive their pensions in the event of independence - not true as pensions were already declared 'safe';

- the threat of price rises and 'head office' moves for major companies was used as a persuasive argument - those companies 'quoted' have recently said they were seriously misquoted (eg. Asda said prices "might go up or down", but only the first part was quoted by BT);

- The BBC were proved to be wholly biased during the campaign, even banning certain songs for fear they might encourage 'Yes' votes;

- Better Together have since admitted that scaremongering WAS a campaign tactic, despite frequently and regularly denying it during the lead-up.

 

Nobody said Scotland couldn't be an independent nation, economically, the question was whether it SHOULD be. That brings the heart into it, not just the head. The future is always uncertain, even in the grand old mighty UK, so nothing new in that idea. Seems to me a lot of people were scared into worrying too much about leaving the 'support' of the Westminster government, showing them to be (in my opinion) weak-minded individuals.

 

Regarding comments about vote-rigging: well, there has been evidence produced demonstrating this did happen, but the police have said they won't be investigating it. To be honest, I'm not convinced it was on a large enough scale to have made a difference to the overall result - a turn-around of over 200,000 would have been needed. Therefore, it's irrelevant and can be ignored by both sides.

 

Of course, many people voted 'No' because they want the UK to be a single united country, which is a fine and decent reason for doing so. Just like many people voted 'Yes' because they wanted Scotland to be an independent nation, simple as that.

 

 

A vow or promise can't be kept within hours so it can't be broken within the same timescale. All sorts of people are reading all sorts of things into the vote but it was a very basic binary vote yes/no and nothing further can be deduced from it.

[5string]

A vow or promise can't be kept within hours so it can't be broken within the same timescale. All sorts of people are reading all sorts of things into the vote but it was a very basic binary vote yes/no and nothing further can be deduced from it.

 

It's really not as simple as that. The choice was yes or no, but the ideas behind those choices were far-reaching and complex. I thought my post indicated that - didn't you read it before replying?

 

Promises CAN be broken within a short time: a simple implied "we changed our minds" or "we didn't mean it" from a leader is enough, isn't it? That's what the message seemed to be.

 

As for the 'crying' quote from hypochondriac, no, that isn't happening - it's not the Scottish way. People up here tend to just get on with things, I've found since I moved up a few years ago. There is acceptance of the result, although lots of people didn't like the outcome (about 45% or more of those who voted: 1.6 million is a big voice) - that's permitted, I believe. Just like party politics where Labour supporters always bemoan the fact that a Tory Gov't gets in, and vice versa. No accusations of 'crying' there. Voicing concerns over what may come next is a reasonable response from those who lost - surely on a football web forum that's a common occurrence? No different in politics.

 

The feeling up here is that the call for independence will not go away. Whether people support that or not is their choice.

[Whitey Grandad]

It's really not as simple as that. The choice was yes or no, but the ideas behind those choices were far-reaching and complex. I thought my post indicated that - didn't you read it before replying?

 

Promises CAN be broken within a short time: a simple implied "we changed our minds" or "we didn't mean it" from a leader is enough, isn't it? That's what the message seemed to be.

 

As for the 'crying' quote from hypochondriac, no, that isn't happening - it's not the Scottish way. People up here tend to just get on with things, I've found since I moved up a few years ago. There is acceptance of the result, although lots of people didn't like the outcome (about 45% or more of those who voted: 1.6 million is a big voice) - that's permitted, I believe. Just like party politics where Labour supporters always bemoan the fact that a Tory Gov't gets in, and vice versa. No accusations of 'crying' there. Voicing concerns over what may come next is a reasonable response from those who lost - surely on a football web forum that's a common occurrence? No different in politics.

 

The feeling up here is that the call for independence will not go away. Whether people support that or not is their choice.

 

Of course I read it before replying, but as I said different people will read different things into the vote. Salmond got the referendum that he wanted and got to ask the question that he wanted and got a rebuttal that he didn't want. He even got the prospect of a simple 50% majority which is ridiculous for a major constitutional change of this nature.

[5string]

Of course I read it before replying, but as I said different people will read different things into the vote. Salmond got the referendum that he wanted and got to ask the question that he wanted and got a rebuttal that he didn't want. He even got the prospect of a simple 50% majority which is ridiculous for a major constitutional change of this nature.

 

Thank you

[Frank's cousin]

It's not that he was expecting everything to happen within hours of a result... he just wasn't expecting promises/vows to be broken within hours of the result, which is what has happened.

 

Some backtracking since then from Cameron, Milliband et al, in an attempt to remember the 'union'.

 

A lot of comments on here criticising Salmond, but SNP membership has almost trebled since the result, showing that strong feelings supporting independence still exist. Salmond repeatedly stated the referendum was not about any individual (including himself) or political party, nor was it about anti-English sentiments, it was about SELF-DETERMINATION. He HAS accepted the result of the referendum - doesn't mean he has to like it. He still supports independence and would still like to see it; a referendum was only one route available and he is now suggesting others which may work. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, I suggest he would be seen as a weakling if he just gave up on the idea.

 

On the subject of 'trickery', here are some interesting facts. There are many 'No' voters who have since declared regret at voting thus (and now saying if they knew then what they know now, they would have voted 'Yes'), saying they felt duped by the Westminster establishment's false promises and, quite frankly, inaccurate campaigning, for example:

- active Better Together campaigners were telling pensioners they would not receive their pensions in the event of independence - not true as pensions were already declared 'safe';

- the threat of price rises and 'head office' moves for major companies was used as a persuasive argument - those companies 'quoted' have recently said they were seriously misquoted (eg. Asda said prices "might go up or down", but only the first part was quoted by BT);

- The BBC were proved to be wholly biased during the campaign, even banning certain songs for fear they might encourage 'Yes' votes;

- Better Together have since admitted that scaremongering WAS a campaign tactic, despite frequently and regularly denying it during the lead-up.

 

Nobody said Scotland couldn't be an independent nation, economically, the question was whether it SHOULD be. That brings the heart into it, not just the head. The future is always uncertain, even in the grand old mighty UK, so nothing new in that idea. Seems to me a lot of people were scared into worrying too much about leaving the 'support' of the Westminster government, showing them to be (in my opinion) weak-minded individuals.

 

Regarding comments about vote-rigging: well, there has been evidence produced demonstrating this did happen, but the police have said they won't be investigating it. To be honest, I'm not convinced it was on a large enough scale to have made a difference to the overall result - a turn-around of over 200,000 would have been needed. Therefore, it's irrelevant and can be ignored by both sides.

 

Of course, many people voted 'No' because they want the UK to be a single united country, which is a fine and decent reason for doing so. Just like many people voted 'Yes' because they wanted Scotland to be an independent nation, simple as that.

 

This is part of the problem... Many on the Yes side of the debate have suggested those voting No did so because of 'fear' and are somehow weak- minded individuals' - yes you go on to acknowledge not all, but you have to differentiate between 'fear' (maybe a few taken in by propaganda) and those who felt, IMHO quite justified in deciding that there was simply too much unclear to take what would have been an irreversible step. Salmonds mistake was the expectation that everyone would take the future resolution of many important issues in good faith...issues that would need negotiating and thus the outcome was far from cLear. For many, voting for something that you can't change later ( as with normal electoral cycles) meant a greater examination of the policy .... And there were simply too many large holes. That is not fear, that is an expectation that when making a decision of this magnitude, you can make an 'informed choice' based in information..... Sadly there was simply not enough.

 

The whole no campaign was poor - because there was probably a feeling that. No would win comfortably, and thus no need to get too excited about it... Hence the panic towards the end. But it's also fair to acknowledge that it's pretty difficult to get folk excited about the status quo.... What would have Ben more democratic is if both sides had a greed that this referendum would not happen until an gated settlement on the future states had been negotiated - whether Yes or no including future powers of devolved Scottish Parliament - then it removes any ambiguity, and an informed choice can be made with a little more heart involved.

[hutch]

It's not that he was expecting everything to happen within hours of a result... he just wasn't expecting promises/vows to be broken within hours of the result, which is what has happened.

 

Some backtracking since then from Cameron, Milliband et al, in an attempt to remember the 'union'.

 

A lot of comments on here criticising Salmond, but SNP membership has almost trebled since the result, showing that strong feelings supporting independence still exist. Salmond repeatedly stated the referendum was not about any individual (including himself) or political party, nor was it about anti-English sentiments, it was about SELF-DETERMINATION. He HAS accepted the result of the referendum - doesn't mean he has to like it. He still supports independence and would still like to see it; a referendum was only one route available and he is now suggesting others which may work. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, I suggest he would be seen as a weakling if he just gave up on the idea.

 

On the subject of 'trickery', here are some interesting facts. There are many 'No' voters who have since declared regret at voting thus (and now saying if they knew then what they know now, they would have voted 'Yes'), saying they felt duped by the Westminster establishment's false promises and, quite frankly, inaccurate campaigning, for example:

- active Better Together campaigners were telling pensioners they would not receive their pensions in the event of independence - not true as pensions were already declared 'safe';

- the threat of price rises and 'head office' moves for major companies was used as a persuasive argument - those companies 'quoted' have recently said they were seriously misquoted (eg. Asda said prices "might go up or down", but only the first part was quoted by BT);

- The BBC were proved to be wholly biased during the campaign, even banning certain songs for fear they might encourage 'Yes' votes;

- Better Together have since admitted that scaremongering WAS a campaign tactic, despite frequently and regularly denying it during the lead-up.

 

Nobody said Scotland couldn't be an independent nation, economically, the question was whether it SHOULD be. That brings the heart into it, not just the head. The future is always uncertain, even in the grand old mighty UK, so nothing new in that idea. Seems to me a lot of people were scared into worrying too much about leaving the 'support' of the Westminster government, showing them to be (in my opinion) weak-minded individuals.

 

Regarding comments about vote-rigging: well, there has been evidence produced demonstrating this did happen, but the police have said they won't be investigating it. To be honest, I'm not convinced it was on a large enough scale to have made a difference to the overall result - a turn-around of over 200,000 would have been needed. Therefore, it's irrelevant and can be ignored by both sides.

 

Of course, many people voted 'No' because they want the UK to be a single united country, which is a fine and decent reason for doing so. Just like many people voted 'Yes' because they wanted Scotland to be an independent nation, simple as that.

 

You're too late, mate. You lost.

[5string]

This is part of the problem... Many on the Yes side of the debate have suggested those voting No did so because of 'fear' and are somehow weak- minded individuals' - yes you go on to acknowledge not all, but you have to differentiate between 'fear' (maybe a few taken in by propaganda) and those who felt, IMHO quite justified in deciding that there was simply too much unclear to take what would have been an irreversible step. Salmonds mistake was the expectation that everyone would take the future resolution of many important issues in good faith...issues that would need negotiating and thus the outcome was far from cLear. For many, voting for something that you can't change later ( as with normal electoral cycles) meant a greater examination of the policy .... And there were simply too many large holes. That is not fear, that is an expectation that when making a decision of this magnitude, you can make an 'informed choice' based in information..... Sadly there was simply not enough.

 

The whole no campaign was poor - because there was probably a feeling that. No would win comfortably, and thus no need to get too excited about it... Hence the panic towards the end. But it's also fair to acknowledge that it's pretty difficult to get folk excited about the status quo.... What would have Ben more democratic is if both sides had a greed that this referendum would not happen until an gated settlement on the future states had been negotiated - whether Yes or no including future powers of devolved Scottish Parliament - then it removes any ambiguity, and an informed choice can be made with a little more heart involved.

 

Indeed, you make some excellent points here. The Yes camp was always coming from behind [in the polls], so the No camp may have been a little blasé about the outcome until the last few days, when it got close.

 

It's generally agreed the Yes camp plotted a better campaign, but as you say, it's hard to promote the status quo as an exciting prospect.

 

I think both sides were guilty of not being specific about future plans, which then gave ammunition to each other, causing even more uncertainty among the 'undecideds'.

[5string]

You're too late, mate. You lost.

 

... for now!

[Viking Warrior]

I have to say there are some very very bitter yes people up here and I'm referring to some prominent folk not politicians

Including the NHS Orkney chairman . You need to get over yourselves . The outcome was a no vote

[pap]

Expect to do this all again in a generation, maybe less.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/22/snp-poised-become-largest-political-parties

 

SNP membership up 70% within days of referendum result.

[Batman]

Expect to do this all again in a generation, maybe less.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/22/snp-poised-become-largest-political-parties

 

SNP membership up 70% within days of referendum result.

 

well, maybe they might increase their 3% vote margin over the conservatives up there

[Batman]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/01/mod-awards-contracts-uk-naval-bases-royal-navy-fleet

[trousers]

Scottish Nationalists going into persecution complex over-drive on social media about this at the moment....

 

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/298516-alex-salmond-effigy-to-be-burned-at-lewes-bonfire-celebrations/

 

 

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about really, the Cameron effigy in 2010 was much more realistic....

 

[OldNick]

I bet a lot of Scots are glad they didn't pull away from England now that the oil price has plummeted. Their finances would have been shot

[trousers]

I bet a lot of Scots are glad they didn't pull away from England now that the oil price has plummeted. Their finances would have been shot

Try telling that to the head-in-sand 'Yes' brigade. According to them it now transpires that the oil revenues are "only a bonus" and their economy "isn't reliant on it"...

[OldNick]

Try telling that to the head-in-sand 'Yes' brigade. According to them it now transpires that the oil revenues are "only a bonus" and their economy "isn't reliant on it"...

Why do they keep going on about it then? They have missed a bullet. Fortunately most of the Scots were not fooled by The yes vote

[Lord Duckhunter]

We've had months and months of jocks running down the English NHS and what happens to the first sweaty with Ebola?

 

They're carted of to an English hospital.

[Batman]

We've had months and months of jocks running down the English NHS and what happens to the first sweaty with Ebola?

 

They're carted of to an English hospital.

and I am sure it is the fault of the English or (their favourite) Westminster that scotland could not deal with this north of the border.

[scotty]

Why do they keep going on about it then? They have missed a bullet. Fortunately most of the Scots were not fooled by The yes vote

 

Fortunately for who?

[pap]

We've had months and months of jocks running down the English NHS and what happens to the first sweaty with Ebola?

 

They're carted of to an English hospital.

 

Lord D in regional racism shocker.

[Wade Garrett]

Hope the SNP aren't kingmakers after the next election.

[buctootim]

The Royal Free has the UK's only high level isolation unit. What do you expect them to do with ebola cases? stick them on a Glasgow orthopaedics ward saying "dont worry, we'll give you a face mask?"

Edited 30 December, 2014 by buctootim

[Whitey Grandad]

They should do want used to be done in the old days. Make them wait offshore for 40 days with a yellow flag flying over them.

[Lord Duckhunter]

"Regional Racism" that's a good one Pap, hope Skates arent included. Somehow I doubt they are , " selective regional racism" it is then.

 

Perhaps the jocks, sorry , our Scottish friends ,could start paying prescription charges and use the money for specialist Ebola unit. Until thats up and running Salmond and co could stfu about the English health service.

[pap]

"Regional Racism" that's a good one Pap, hope Skates arent included. Somehow I doubt they are , " selective regional racism" it is then.

 

I don't hate the skates, or anyone for that matter. Far too much effort, so you can bung your selective regional racism suppository back up your arse.

 

Same underlying principles are at play. You're treating the Scots as if they're some sponging hive mind, like some pre-warp scrounging Borg collective.

 

 

Perhaps the jocks, sorry , our Scottish friends ,could start paying prescription charges and use the money for specialist Ebola unit. Until thats up and running Salmond and co could stfu about the English health service.

 

Or perhaps we English claw some of the social benefits back that our Scottish friends hold sacred.

 

Unrelated, but how do your UKIP chums feel about your history of employing Eastern Europeans?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Well , for one I'm not sure who these UKIP " chums" are. And , two, I would be breaking the law , not to mention receiving my p45 , if I gave the jobs to candidates based on their nationalality . HR provide me with candidates and I have to articulate the reasons for any rejections. Unfortunately , there was discrimination involved in the process , as French, German and Eastern Europeans were treated differently than Africans and Pakistanis , but we just follow the establishments rules.