Salmond and Darling

Seems like a lot of bending over backwards coming up for the 1 1/2 Million No's. That's not a huge number in comparison to the UK as a whole...

Consider each of the "yes" votes for Scottish independence as a no-confidence vote for the UK as it is currently constituted, especially from the perspective of urban/industrial Scotland. It will be interesting to watch what transpires over the next six to eighteen months, for sure....

I guess I see your point but if you looked at the urban centres and how they vote throughout the UK you'd not see much confidence in the current administration. That is how it is, especially outside London.

Expressing that is the point of a general election, and indeed local elections. We have the former next year of course.

The issue for me is becoming focussed on the 'East Lothian Question' . As Scotland appears to be being offered administrative devolution-lite the question of Scottish MP's influencing English/Welsh etc decisions is going to become quite divisive I think.

Bruce

The "East Lothian Question", that's a new one on me. 

Dave

I think you've identified an ongoing issue with any multi-tiered parliamentary system, that of scope. And it is surely the case on this side of the pond that rural and urban voters surely diverge on most everything.

I meant 'Yes's'!!!!

Sh*t. Good job I didn't have a vote.

oops

The past few weeks have been quite unexpectedly exciting e.g. the polls suggesting the outcome could be close and the passions that have been stirred. I'm pleased that Scotland's voters elected to stay part of the UK.

That said I think those weeks have also demonstrated that David C and others have badly mis-judged the implications of agreeing to this referendum.  This could well turn out to be something of a pandora's box.  And the clumsy last-minute 'commitments' to give Scotland more powers seems to have ignited the 'English question', as well as stirring understandable appetites in NI and Wales.

The main parties look to be in a bit of policy muddle on all this and it will be very interesting to see how it plays out in the run up to the general election.  Don't think I've seen leading politicians of the major parties looking so ill-prepared as they seem to be here.  

I see Salmond has this evening announced he's going to stand down as Scottish First Minister and leader of the the SNP.  Must say I found his behaviour in the run up to the referendum to be particularly poor.  All politicians are prone to be selective with 'facts', bending a few in the process, but I felt he went way beyond what was acceptable so I'll be glad to see him go.

Please give some examples.

He may - or may not - have been entirely sincere and free from cynicism, but Salmond was a fantasist. Just look at his evasions on the rather crucial question of the currency. Or his blind faith in oil - both its inexhaustible supply and the non-volatility of its price on the international markets - and its ability to (excuse the pun) fuel future Scottish prosperity.

Kevin,

Then I guess 1.5M+ Scots were ignorant fantasists who moved forward towards independence like some lemmings following a pied piper.

Of course, it could be that they were intelligent beings who had weighed up the pro's and con's and decided that independence was viable and that they wanted to move forward in control of their own destiny.

But no, on balance, they were blindly following some stupid dream I suppose.....

Jim

His assertions that the NHS would suffer further funding cuts by Westminster when it was then revealed that the SNP had imposed heavy cuts itself

His assertion that Scotland would remain a member of the EU despite the statements coming out of Brussels 

His assertions about the economic and financial prospects for an independent Scottish economy which were baseless and contradicted by the politically neutral analysis of HM Treasury

Does that means the 1.5m who voted 'yes' were fantasists? No. I would never suggest that. I suspect many were motivated by the entirely understandable and defensible motivation of seeking a completely independent Scotland. In other words, voting with their heart rather than head.  But on such an important question as this where emotions run high it is even more important for politicians to be careful to give voters facts, not fantasy.  Salmond came across to me as motivated by power and status, and he was quite prepared to see his Scotland's citizens suffer financially for generations to achieve it.      

I never said that Jim - and I think you know it.

The whole referendum was an ill-considered bodge. Before the question was put to the public, both the "Yes" camp and the pro-unionists should have sat down and thrashed out what an independent Scotland would look like, particularly on crucial questions such as currency, EU membership, border controls, defence, the BBC, education policy, foreign relations, etc so that voters could go to the polls informed.

Unless I missed something, the SNP and the "Yes" camp failed to provide even the sketchiest details of what an independent Scotland would look like (apart from being a Tory-free, Trident-free, neoliberal-free paradise - and who wouldn't vote for that?), how it would work, how it would relate to the rest of the world or how any of it would be paid for.

I have a Scots friend, a hack who lives in Dundee, who was going to vote "Yes" until the day of the poll, when he changed his mind and voted for the Union instead. Why? Because he has kids and a mortgage to worry about, and although he remains committed to the idea of an independent Scotland, he remains undecided about how things would work in practice. "I can't afford to dream," he told me in an email the day after polling. "If it were just me I had to worry about, I would live the dream. But I have responsibilities and I cannot afford to take a leap into the unknown, much as I want to."

And that's the thing - faced with uncertainty, a large proportion of people with responsibilities like families will opt for what they see is the safest option.

Had Salmond and Co provided the public with a more coherent vision, Scotland might well be preparing for life as an independent nation right now.

+1 to everything Kevin said.

Also..................

I understand that Nicola Sturgen refuses to confirm that the SNP will not seek another referendum in the near future. What on earth is going on ?

I had presumed that this was the FINAL referendum, or at least for another 300 years !

Are we to suffer a referendum every 3 years UNTIL the Scots vote "Yes" in a 50.001% v 49.999% poll?

Then what ? do we have a referendum every 3 years until they realise they really wanted to vote "No" and re-join the Union ?

And why should 1.5m people who mainly seem to live in Glasgow be allowed to effectively bugger up the rest of Scotland (who basically voted "No" as I predicted they would about 3 years ago on this forum) and also bugger up the rest of the UK as well. Its outrageous !

If Glasgow wants independence - fine. But leave the rest of Scotland where it wants to be - ie part of the Union.

Don,

Three years ago a victory for the No side would have been a safe prediction. The polls were showing them miles ahead and it required no particular political acumen then to guess the outcome. However less than three weeks ago 1.6 million Scottish voters voted for independence. That's forty five percent of the Scottish electorate, a result totally unpredictable even a year ago. Anybody who thinks things can carry on as they were now that the “itch has been scratched” is seriously mistaken.

Independence will happen, and it will be based not on fantasy but on sound economic judgement. Hopefully Alex and I will be around to see it.

Would a "Yes" vote on 18th Sept have led to a permanently independent Scotland ?

I don't think Mr Salmond & Co's financial plans for the future of an independent Scotland could in any way be regarded as "Sound economic judgement"

I think Kevin's observations above were most erudite and I think most of the Yes votes came from the heart and not the head. Personally I feel they would have woken up eventually with a massive hangover of uncertainty if the vote had resulted in a win. 

To my mind, whether a person votes because of sound econimic judgment or heart-felt sentiment, is irrelevant. People vote for a wide range of reasons. (Of course, if the politicians or others leading the debate are untruthful in any way, then people might wish to have a re-vote to rectify such deceit)

The thing is , that the people of Scotland did vote to remain in the Union. I consider that decision should be just as binding for future generations as a Yes vote for independance would have been.

Hence my question to Tom and others, would a "Yes" vote on 18th Sept have paved the way for permanent independence for Scotland ?

Well Don given the number of times we were told there would be "no going back" I'd say a Yes vote would have been irrevocable. If we were independent it surely wouldn't have been our decision to vote to join England+.

And why on earth would a vote for independence not have been based on sound economic judgement? Some of you people need to start reading the government's own figures which show that far from being subsidy junkies, we actually contribute more in taxes than we receive in public spending and that's not including oil revenues. And talking of oil, the reserves that three weeks ago were only going to last another twenty years suddenly look like they've got at least another 120 years to go. What a surprise. And the man who was a predictor of doom and gloom, Sir Ian Wood, now finds his company awarded some very lucrative long term oil related contracts. Yet another surprise.

So Tom, you can see my point. The good people of Scotland voted to stay in the Union. Respect their wish in the same way as you would have expected them to respect your wish for independence.

The rest of your post indicates you might have mis-understood some comment of mine. My view is that its irrelevant why people voted one way or another (unless their decision was based on the promises o deceitful politicians) Some people base their decisions on the heart whilst others are based on the mind.

Like the chap who said he voted "No" because he was worried he might no longer be able to watch Match of the Day .

For the moment I'll leave the hypothetical wrangling over oil, the national debt, and other trivialities to others.

Sorry Don I don't get your point at all. You didn't address anything I said. In fact you ignored it all.

My point is :- The people of Scotland voted to remain in the Union. I consider that decision should be just as binding for future generations as a Yes vote for independance would have been. and a "Yes" vote on 18th Sept have paved the way for permanent independence for Scotland.

I didn't ignore everything you said, I simply put them to one side for the moment. What I wrote was "For the moment I'll leave the hypothetical wrangling over oil, the national debt, and other trivialities to others."

Which of your issues would you like to deal with first and, more importantly, why should this issue justify re-running the referendum following a "No" vote but not a "Yes" vote ?