Yes or No and no bullsh*t

[P. G. Tipps]

I liked the claim that the Yes campaign was marked by its positivity and the No campaign by its negativity.

Ineluctable logic!

[mercia]

amazing turnout - why doesn't that happen at general elections ?

[teamsaint]

The sight of the big guns , (industry, banks, etc) being wheeled out to frighten people into voting to save the status quo was very dispiriting.

The interesting parts of the debate were certainly elsewhere.

Not a good day for the English, and our chances of some real democracy, (or better government) in my opinion.

[teamsaint]

amazing turnout - why doesn't that happen at general elections ?

oh, because for a huge part of the population, the effect of your vote is zero.

plus you would be voting , in most areas, for one of three shades of blue.

[MrGongGong]

oh, because for a huge part of the population, the effect of your vote is zero.

plus you would be voting , in most areas, for one of three shades of blue.

Exactly
it would be good to be able to actually vote for something where there is a real choice for once!

Even though there was so much (£, EU, etc etc) NOT worked out, this is a bit disappointing, not because I personally wanted a particular result, but more because it seems that people have voted for the whole "sensible" and "logical" thing rather than the idea of a different society. Don't get me wrong, Salmond and Co are as much pigs in the trough as everyone else involved in politics BUT there did seem to be a feeling amongst some people (45%?) that they could take control away from the Westminster government.

All the passion seemed to come from those who wanted change IMV

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/westminster-vows-never-to-allow-vote-on-anything-that-matters-ever-again-2014091990824

[teamsaint]

Exactly
it would be good to be able to actually vote for something where there is a real choice for once!

Even though there was so much (£, EU, etc etc) NOT worked out, this is a bit disappointing, not because I personally wanted a particular result, but more because it seems that people have voted for the whole "sensible" and "logical" thing rather than the idea of a different society. Don't get me wrong, Salmond and Co are as much pigs in the trough as everyone else involved in politics BUT there did seem to be a feeling amongst some people (45%?) that they could take control away from the Westminster government.

All the passion seemed to come from those who wanted change IMV

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politi...-2014091990824

I agree. except that you need supersized " " marks ...and its not just westminster government that needs control taking away.....it is their paymasters.....

[MrGongGong]

I agree. except that you need supersized " " marks ...and its not just westminster government that needs control taking away.....it is their paymasters.....

You aren't suggesting that the real "winner "
is called Donald ?

(and that's not a Canard)

[Beef Oven!]

The sight of the big guns , (industry, banks, etc) being wheeled out to frighten people into voting to save the status quo was very dispiriting.

It wasn't just banks, that's an imbalanced view. Some of us said we'd stop buying marmalade and Dundee cakes etc. That must've had an effect. I personally would have refused to buy whisky that was produced more than 500 miles north of the border.

[french frank]

All the passion seemed to come from those who wanted change IMV

Isn't that usually the case?

Anyway, if there's a referendum and the 'UK' votes to leave the EU, any of the home nations (including Scotland) which voted against should be given a referendum on whether they want to stay in the 'UK' or have individual independence, a Better Together 'Kingdom of the Celts' (could eventually include Brittany, Cornwall and even the IoM). Or Wales could join Cornwall and Brittany. NI could choose England, Scotland or ... the RoI ...

I don't see the interventions of the big guns as 'bullying'. Economically there would have been unknowns, uncertainties and risks. The point was whether the passion for being Scottish rather than British was stronger. But surveys have shown a growing sense of 'Britishness' or 'Scottish & British' in recent years, rather than Scottish alone. Wanting to keep the pound, the Common Travel Area, the Queen, in other words, wanting to be in the UK was stronger than 'It's Scotland's oil - hands off'.

[ahinton]

This has given me an idea.

How about a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU?

Maybe you should suggest it to Mr Salmond - although you might risk getting short shrift if you did, as there appears to be even less appetite in Scotland for breaking way from EU as there is elsewhere in UK; indeed, one commentator this morning even dredged up this difference as a possible future excuse for the Scots to try to have another pop at independence!

A Scot whom I know who didn't vote yesterday (because he lives in South Africa) told me that, had he been able to do so, his inclination towards Scottish independence would have persuaded him to vote "No" in order that the principal outcome, instead of merely being the secession of Scotland from the union, could have been the commencement of the dissolution of the union as a whole, because ensuring that Scotland's being handed something close to Devo-Max would inevitably lead to the other three member states clamouring for - and ultimately getting - the same or something similar, with the end result that the four nations would come largely to function independently of one another (albeit all as EU member states).

He accepts that the logic of this would not extend to a situation in which most people voted "No", because such an outcome would obviously have diluted anything that was subsequently offered to Scotland in terms of increased autonomy, but it's an interesting point nonetheless, I think.

Whilst much has lately been made of Scotland's contempt for and disillusion with Westmonster politics - and rightly so (especially since the last UK General Election when Scotland has had almost no representation in government) - far less has been made of the desire on the part of some of the electorate in Scotland to do something that could ultimately undermine the union as a whole and that being given an opportunity to vote in an "independence" referendum could be a way to begin to achieve this, provided that its outcome didn't turn out to be a landslide for either side (which indeed it hasn't).

[ahinton]

It wasn't just banks, that's an imbalanced view. Some of us said we'd stop buying marmalade and Dundee cakes etc. That must've had an effect.

Some of who? Not me, for sure - and I'd not have done that even had I not been a Scot.

I personally would have refused to buy whisky that was produced more than 500 miles north of the border.

!!! It's a good thing, though, that the French don't refuse to do that (not that I believe that many French buy any that's been produced less than 500 miles north of their northern border - sales of Penderyn haven't yet been that successful in France!).

[Beef Oven!]

Maybe you should suggest it to Mr Salmond - although you might risk getting short shrift if you did, as there appears to be even less appetite in Scotland for breaking way from EU as there is elsewhere in UK; indeed, one commentator this morning even dredged up this difference as a possible future excuse for the Scots to try to have another pop at independence!

A Scot whom I know who didn't vote yesterday (because he lives in South Africa) told me that, had he been able to do so, his inclination towards Scottish independence would have persuaded him to vote "No" in order that the principal outcome, instead of merely being the secession of Scotland from the union, could have been the commencement of the dissolution of the union as a whole, because ensuring that Scotland's being handed something close to Devo-Max would inevitably lead to the other three member states clamouring for - and ultimately getting - the same or something similar, with the end result that the four nations would come largely to function independently of one another (albeit all as EU member states).

He accepts that the logic of this would not extend to a situation in which most people voted "No", because such an outcome would obviously have diluted anything that was subsequently offered to Scotland in terms of increased autonomy, but it's an interesting point nonetheless, I think.

Whilst much has lately been made of Scotland's contempt for and disillusion with Westmonster politics - and rightly so (especially since the last UK General Election when Scotland has had almost no representation in government) - far less has been made of the desire on the part of some of the electorate in Scotland to do something that could ultimately undermine the union as a whole and that being given an opportunity to vote in an "independence" referendum could be a way to begin to achieve this, provided that its outcome didn't turn out to be a landslide for either side (which indeed it hasn't).

Meanwhile, back in the United Kingdom, the question is 'should we have a referendum on leaving the EU?'.

[ahinton]

Isn't that usually the case?

Anyway, if there's a referendum and the 'UK' votes to leave the EU, any of the home nations (including Scotland) which voted against should be given a referendum on whether they want to stay in the 'UK' or have individual independence, a Better Together 'Kingdom of the Celts' (could eventually include Brittany, Cornwall and even the IoM). Or Wales could join Cornwall and Brittany. NI could choose England, Scotland or ... the RoI ...

Some of that's already given rise to speculation. Scotland would, of course, be the principal nation that might go so far as to demand this, given that, as I mentioned above, there's even less appetite for secession from EU in Scotland than anywhere else in UK.

IOM is already outside EU, by the way, so I'm not sure that it would be too keen to join up with other fragments of UK that favoured remaining within EU! As to Brittany, the French would have to have a say in letting it have a referendum to gain independence from France and I've no idea how successful that might be. Also, your notion of a "Better Together 'Kingdom of the Celts'" would be very difficult to run as a single independent entity, for reaspons not only of geography but also of language; the differences between Breton, Welsh, Cornish and Manx are greater than the similarities, the last of these being closer to Scottish and Irish Gælic than to any of the first three.

I don't see the interventions of the big guns as 'bullying'. Economically there would have been unknowns, uncertainties and risks. The point was whether the passion for being Scottish rather than British was stronger. But surveys have shown a growing sense of 'Britishness' or 'Scottish & British' in recent years, rather than Scottish alone. Wanting to keep the pound, the Common Travel Area, the Queen, in other words, wanting to be in the UK was stronger than 'It's Scotland's oil - hands off'.

I think that there's some truth in that and, given Scotland's apparently rather more willing participation in EU as part of a member state than is evident in the other three UK member states, it's a case not only of more Scots seeing themselves as "British" or "Scottish & British" but an increasing perception that they're "Scottish & European".

[P. G. Tipps]

As Alistair Darling correctly said today Scottish Nationalism has been around all his political life and indeed since the very creation of the Union, 300 years ago! 'It's Oor Ile' is a relatively recent slogan which began in the 1970s when it became such a bonanza for the UK Exchequer and when Scotland's industry was being decimated. It allowed the Scot Nats to credibly claim that it was not a case of England subsidising Scotland but the other way around (and that's to ignore whisky receipts another main UK cash-cow). It was this period that was the main turning-point for nationalism in Scotland. Also the SNP developed from a party of hairy-faced, kilted Jacobite romantics (and that was just the lassies!) to the modern well-drilled social democratic party it is today.

Now having lived in England for most of my life I'd say the English are just as 'nationalist' as the Scots. Ask him or her their nationality and many (if not most) will automatically reply 'English' instead of 'British'. So why the apparent disapproval of some south of the border of the self-label 'Scottish' rather than "British"?

I've never quite understood the logic of that position!

[ahinton]

Meanwhile, back in the United Kingdom, the question is 'should we have a referendum on leaving the EU?'.

But is it a question? It has already been agreed to hold one. The only factor that might affect that (now that Scotland has voted narrowly against "independence") might be the need for due consideration that, as a post-referendum Devo-Maxed Scotland will have less appetite to vote in favour of UK secession from EU, it would stand a better chance of helping to ensure that the UK electorate as a whole would vote against UK leaving EU than would have been the case had it opted instead for "independence" yesterday, thereby giving itself no say in the matter.