The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

Were you trying to find out what happened to all those Sun front page headlines supporting YES

We both know that Murdoch only backs winners. He knew Salmond was a loser.

And perhaps you're now slightly more aware that you were voting in support of more of the same shite via Murdoch, and not for the promised great change.

Should all of us not be condemning what looks to be happening here within 24 hours of the polls closing. Brown would surely ( hopefully ) not have agreed to say what he did without some sort of assurance.

it saddens me for Scotland's disappointment, but Scotland is not deserving of any special treatment within the union.

Any changed settlement of the union should be equal to that union.

Quite where any blame might lie for any false promises to Scotland is not yet clear. It's not yet even clear if there have been false promises.

Overall I'd say Scotland is not being shafted - Cameron's downing street statement yesterday morning has assured that. But it might take more time than has been suggested.

Given that Salmond chose to delay the whole process himself by 2 and half years only for his own political connivance, it's a bit rich to condemn any slippage in timescale that might happen at Westminster caused by trying to get the right settlement (as opposed to a rushed settlement); it's not delay for delay's sake.

I think Scottish Labour are done anyway but this would be the final nail.

Nope. While they might be weakened the only way they'll be dead is if another party emerges to champion much the same ideas. Whether that happens is down to poeple like you, not the current politicians.

People vote for ideas, not parties.

[eFestivals]

Was just thinking about the chat on here about Scotland not being a Country. We went over it a few times and obviously I totally disagree but anyway, if you do believe it, does that mean that you also believe that 55% of Scotland voted yesterday not to become a Country

That's very much what happened. Scotland can no longer moan about the union, about being stitched up by its own elite, etc.

The people have spoken.

You expect Westminster to listen to that voice, and it seems that they are. Yes-ers need to listen to Scotland's voice no less.

[eFestivals]

I will simply note that when I have ever quoted the 44% to demonstrate his success - you, without exception, reminded me of the turnout which was 50%

Last night yes got 45% on a turnout of 85%

so as a % of population that's an increase from 22% to about 39% - not too bad.

Yep - tho I'd say it's pretty much the case that the views of the non-voters are somewhere around the same proportional place as those who do vote. It's because they feel their vote won't change the proportionality that causes them to not bother.

Too many - me included - put that idea to the side when we shouldn't have.

[eFestivals]

I`m away now to watch this and raise a glass to Alex Salmond. As he said today " For Scotland , the campaign continues and the dream shall never die "

And as I said long long ago, the new campaign for indy is announced on the day of the no vote.

Do you really think Scotland wants to go around it again, and soon? I don't. That might change depending how things pan out at Westminster for any changes, but I'd say from what i've read in the last 24 hours that right now the vast majority wouldn't want to see a repeat for an absolute minimum of ten years (and probably much more).

[eFestivals]

Trainspotting ?? That's what you wanted all along no wonder you voted Yes

as I posted yesterday morning.... Scotland is still colonised by w*nkers.

[eFestivals]

the vote is over. he's announced he's quitting but still you continue to bang on about this.

I came across the number of meetings; I posted that number, cos I was astounded by it.

Unlike Salmond's resignation press conference where he banned the media he didn't like (yes, he really did!), right here we allow free comment. I thought you'd be used to that idea here by now?

If it ever mattered (& no one else really seems to care) it certainly doesn't now. And although i tmay not always be Rupert, there is absolutely no doubt that there is much more evidence of dodgy links between NI & the Lab-or-a-Tory party

It would have mattered if Murdoch thought Salmond had a chance of winning.

And while I agree there's much more evidence of dodgy links from Westminster to Murdoch, most of those are now history which seems to have passed you by.

In the meantime, Salmond has been strengthening his links to Murdoch - and lying about them to the people of Scotland.

Those Salmond links are at least as relevant as any others from a Scotland perspective. If you hate the Westminster links, then brushing the same things under the carpet as a nothing is not the way to go.

[eFestivals]

I agree that no one died but I`m honestly not so sure about that last bit. I hope your right though. There must be a reason that the people in Dundee and Glasgow voted YES and the people in Edinburgh and Dumfries voted to return to Westminster. We both know which areas will be affected most by the "austerity measures " coming down the line.

Some of saw the same but worse coming via a different route. The numbers say so.

[LJS]

I am conscious that I gave assurances for the safety of English visitors to Scotland. I was replying to an implication there might be trouble from Yes supporters.

I had not factored in the Loyalists. I'm sure you will have seen the trouble in George square Last night. If you happen to be in Glasgow today there are 2 Orange walks planned in Glasgow, one in the City centre & one on the South side.

In general these events pass off fairly peacefully but clearly there is potential for trouble today & I would certainly recommend avoidance.

Edited September 20, 2014 by LJS

[eFestivals]

on you go then, Barry. You get it going in England & we'll join in. Just let us know when you're ready

Doers Scotland has a sustainable grass roots movement or not? You seem to be saying 'not' here.

I've slowly come around to the idea that perhaps it does, in part from your own words. Now you're saying you're giving it all back to the politicians.

Circumstances dictate that Scotland holds the muscle here. It would be a shame if it wasn't used.

[LJS]

Someone has done a nice job making the loyalist bigots look more attractive

https://twitter.com/fourfoxache/status/513087682365652993/photo/1

[eFestivals]

I am conscious that I gave assurances for the safety of English visitors to Scotland. I was replying to an implication there might be trouble from Yes supporters.

I had not factored in the Loyalists. I'm sure you will have seen the trouble in George square Last night. If you happen to be in Glasgow today there are 2 Orange walks planned in Glasgow, one in the City centre & one on the South side.

In general these events pass off fairly peacefully but clearly there is potential for trouble today & I would certainly recommend avoidance.

The worries of my bruv was the unknowns. Who might have kicked off would have been dependent on the result. He just chose to wait and be sure, because nothing of his visit was time-dependent.

-----

From what i've read about last night, it appears to be more about football than politics - with Rangers fans taking the opportunity that they don't get at matches currently.

But also, there's been months of flag waving into people's faces with concrete statements of victory from many directions; a little of the same back following a no is hardly a massive surprise. Here's betting that much the same thing (tho without the punches) happened all around your country to some degree yesterday.

Would Yes have been magnanimous in victory? There's a lack of it in some places - like the FM's office, with the banning of 'hated' media, for example, and with the announcement of a refusal to accept the result as final - in defeat to some extent.

(Don't forget, any victory for Yes would have been absolutely final; it's not a wholly even circumstance for either result).

[eFestivals]

sorry - I maybe phrased that ambiguously - I am talking about the 30% of labour voters who voted yes - so - it is the voters that abandoned Labour

Did they abandon Labour, or did those labour voters want to abandon the tories?

Given that much of the Yes campaign had bigged up the tory aspect, it's hardly surprising that they won some over with that line.

I've read a lot of comments about how "the Labour Party is dead in Scotland", but whether that's really the case we've yet to see. They still represent a point of view, and 'Labour voters' still want to vote in support of that point of view.

How the situation really is will, I think, become clear in how Miliband chooses to take things forwards. But we're probably still a few weeks from Miliband being able to know what the real situation is.

[eFestivals]

The second part is easy - the tories won

so what you're saying is.... the vote in Scotland was nothing to do with Salmond but everything to do with tories.

Just as you ended up championing the currency option rejected by Salmond's own fiscal commission when you started off by championing their great wisdom, you've now done a complete u-turn on another aspect you started from.

Just as with Salmond himself, the victory was everything and the consequences of victory were nothing - the very reason that Yes lost.

Edited September 20, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

There seems to be a bit of blurring of the lines happening between the loyalists & the SDL which is particularly concerning as up to now the SDL seems to have consisted of a few nutters backed up by a couple of busloads of EDL.

I've seen plenty of comments like this - "busloads of EDL" - on other media. They've been swiftly followed by loads of comments that not a soul has heard a non-Scottish accent.

Is it always easier to blame England for Scotland's problems?

[LJS]

Nope. While they might be weakened the only way they'll be dead is if another party emerges to champion much the same ideas. Whether that happens is down to poeple like you, not the current politicians.

People vote for ideas, not parties.

I think the situation for Scottish Labour is a bit more complex than that - It has long been said that in Some parts of Scotland you could pin a red rosette on a monkey and folk would vote for him. Vast swathes of people voted labour without question. The question is: will the roughly 30% of labour voters who voted yes loyally return to the fold? I don't think the answer is clear - it is possible that in the journey to voting yes some of them will have questioned why they vote labour for the first time. But you are right: there needs to be an alternative. the Lib dems are dead for a few more years - colluding with the Tories & tuition fees will ensure that. The SNP would seem the logical place but there is much historical bad blood between labour & the SNP and I think that would be an insurmountable obstacle for many: & of course we don't know what state the SNP will be in come the next election - I am sure there will be some in the party who were less than happy with some aspects of the campaign - they kept quiet to maintain unity - will they speak up now?

I am already hearing encouraging signs that my "grassroots" are discussing what to do next - It is very early to tell but it looks like there is an appetite for doing something. Whether that can really be a new centre left party uniting disaffected labour with groups like the radical Independence campaign & women for independence & maybe even the cultural grassroots like national collective, who knows - probably too much to hope for but there are noises - radical independence campaign's november conference has 1500 going according to its Facebook page ... just checked & that has risen to 2000 overnight https://www.facebook.com/events/598675336909236/?ref=22 - now I know they won't all go but it certainly shows a will to do something.

Meanwhile if you visit the Scottish greens twitter feed you will find a constant stream of people announcing they have joined up.

The short answer is I don't know - its too early to tell. I would love to see politics shaken up and who knows you might even feel ripples down south.

And as I said long long ago, the new campaign for indy is announced on the day of the no vote.

Do you really think Scotland wants to go around it again, and soon? I don't. That might change depending how things pan out at Westminster for any changes, but I'd say from what i've read in the last 24 hours that right now the vast majority wouldn't want to see a repeat for an absolute minimum of ten years (and probably much more).

Do you really think people who have campaigned for something with such passion, who truly believe its the right thing will just give up? Why should they?

Doers Scotland has a sustainable grass roots movement or not? You seem to be saying 'not' here.

I've slowly come around to the idea that perhaps it does, in part from your own words. Now you're saying you're giving it all back to the politicians.

Circumstances dictate that Scotland holds the muscle here. It would be a shame if it wasn't used.

Oh i answered that above

[LJS]

so what you're saying is.... the vote in Scotland was nothing to do with Salmond but everything to do with tories.

Just as you ended up championing the currency option rejected by Salmond's own fiscal commission when you started off by championing their great wisdom, you've now done a complete u-turn on another aspect you started from.

Just as with Salmond himself, the victory was everything and the consequences of victory were nothing - the very reason that Yes lost.

Your being silly if I say Celtic won I'm not saying that had nothing to do with rangers. Ragers might have had 3 men sent off & given away 2 penalties -it doesn't alter the fact that Celtic won. I've spoken elsewhere about why I think the winners were the tories rather than Labour.

& please Neil do me a favour, the campaign is over - I really have no interest at the mpment in going over currency, EU, NATO etc etc etc I'll be happy to discuss them at the next referendum

[kaosmark2]

Yup the no campaign won. The no campaign was mainly an unholy alliance between Labour in Scotland & the Tories in London. It's hard to see it as a great victory for Labour when 30% of their supporters voted yes. It is somewhat easier to see it as a win for the Tories.

The No campaign barely existed until the last few weeks. Until recently it was just people going "Hold on Alex, that's bollocks". The No campaign was not an organised drive coming from a single party or one party with a few other supporters. You've said many times that Yes goes beyond the SNP and Salmond. Please don't try and equate everyone who believed in No with Cameron.

[eFestivals]

I think the situation for Scottish Labour is a bit more complex than that

I'm not pretending that it's not complex.

That's precisely why I'm thinking the simple idea that these people have deserted Labour forever is a bit too simple.

Meanwhile if you visit the Scottish greens twitter feed you will find a constant stream of people announcing they have joined up.

I'm glad to hear it. That for me a very positive step.

Tho I think they're the only Green Party in the world who are absolutely committed to burning all the oil.

The short answer is I don't know - its too early to tell. I would love to see politics shaken up and who knows you might even feel ripples down south.

I rejected the idea that yes-ers put forwards that yes or no would impact onto rUK - tho that's certainly what is happening.

But if Scotland jumps out of the driving seat - and Salmond's resignation hasn't helped with that - then the solution we'll get will be the solution that suits politicians and not the country.

Personally, I now think devolution was a huge mistake, because it solves nothing it merely distributes and localises the problems without allowing a way to fix them.

Thinking back, it was the sopp which allowed Blair to swerve his pre-election promise/suggestion of PR.

PR is the best answer for the whole UK, I think. Then we do get the govt we vote for, and with the powers to implement full solutions.

Do you really think people who have campaigned for something with such passion, who truly believe its the right thing will just give up? Why should they?

because they lost and their efforts have come to nothing?

That's normally how it goes on the losing side, and people tend to walk away disillusioned.

I saw on TV last night some people asked their views on the result. There was a youngish female no-er who said she was disappointed despite the result, and to an extent that's how I feel even very remote from it all.

So, perhaps, it'll be different this time. There's wider support for change than just within the losing side, so there's hope from that. But what there isn't is one organisation for them to rally behind, and the fragmentation could kill it.

You say above that plenty are signing up for the Greens, but they have very tiny support in Scotland to-date. Unless what's happened really leads to a change in political behaviour (beyond signing up to a party a day after a disappointing result) then I still have difficulties in seeing any "peoples push for change" having much effect when a bunch of liar-politicians (including the SNP) will firstly look to protect their own position.

-----

I saw some wag suggest that Salmond is offered a seat in the HoL when he properly steps down.

(the more amusing thing is, I bet he'll be really really tempted if he was. That's how it goes for politicos of all shades ).

[LJS]

The worries of my bruv was the unknowns. Who might have kicked off would have been dependent on the result. He just chose to wait and be sure, because nothing of his visit was time-dependent.

-----

From what i've read about last night, it appears to be more about football than politics - with Rangers fans taking the opportunity that they don't get at matches currently.

But also, there's been months of flag waving into people's faces with concrete statements of victory from many directions; a little of the same back following a no is hardly a massive surprise. Here's betting that much the same thing (tho without the punches) happened all around your country to some degree yesterday.

Would Yes have been magnanimous in victory? There's a lack of it in some places - like the FM's office, with the banning of 'hated' media, for example, and with the announcement of a refusal to accept the result as final - in defeat to some extent.

(Don't forget, any victory for Yes would have been absolutely final; it's not a wholly even circumstance for either result).

Who knows? my judgement and that of many on the ground was that the yes campaign has been overwhelmingly good natured - I know that is not your view based on chatrooms and the English media - we differ on that - I think their would have been jubilation - I think Glasgow in particular would have been one big party but I do not believe there would have been a vengeful side to that. But the truth is we don't know what would have happened. And I admit I had not factored in the Unionists who may well have tried to gatecrash the party.

I've seen plenty of comments like this - "busloads of EDL" - on other media. They've been swiftly followed by loads of comments that not a soul has heard a non-Scottish accent.

Is it always easier to blame England for Scotland's problems?

Apologies again if I have not been clear here - from what I have seen & heard the "culprits" in George Square last need were Scottish - I heard no English accents & have no reason to believe there was any EDL presence there. I was referring to previous organised SDL demos which have been attended by EDL members.

Just checked & the EDL are off to London today to protest about the Muslim grooming of English girls. God help us!

Edited September 20, 2014 by LJS

[eFestivals]

& please Neil do me a favour, the campaign is over - I really have no interest at the mpment in going over currency, EU, NATO etc etc etc I'll be happy to discuss them at the next referendum

Please accept I'm not trying to rub anything in your face. I'm commenting on happenings.

There's no reason for me to get into the specifics of CU/EU/NATO or anything else now, and I haven't done.

But these things do have a relevance for where we are now, and reference back to what has led us here will undoubtedly have to happen on occasion to make help sense of ideas for the future.

(as an aside, i'll try much harder with any wording I might use in reference to kids, cos that's where you've lost it previously, I guess because you've chosen to take personally what have been meant in much wider context. Apologies for any personal offence caused, it was NOT meant in that manner at all).

[LJS]

I saw some wag suggest that Salmond is offered a seat in the HoL when he properly steps down.

(the more amusing thing is, I bet he'll be really really tempted if he was. That's how it goes for politicos of all shades ).

It would be really difficult for you to find anything I give less of a shit about than this, - maybe QPR v. Stoke

[LJS]

However, as Neil has said, everything was in the advantage for Yes, particularly the wording of the question (a benefit AV didn't get). I think referenda to change the status quo will continue though, and hopefully one (and hopefully it'll be the right one) will be successful.

I don't buy the "everything was in favour of yes" thing. We were up against the combined resources of the UK State, the Conservative Party & the Labour Party. Much of Big Business & the City & their pals were on board too. The entire UK daily press was on the NO side. Only the Sunday Herald came out for Indy. The BBC was a joke and reported virtually nothing of the grassroots yes campaign. Against that, picking the date (we didn't pick the question although it could certainly have been worse!) is a pretty small advantage - & we did have the resources of the SNP the Scottish government & the Greens (Wow!)

and in the end despite all the moans about lottery winners - the No campaign got more money.

The No campaign barely existed until the last few weeks. Until recently it was just people going "Hold on Alex, that's bollocks". The No campaign was not an organised drive coming from a single party or one party with a few other supporters. You've said many times that Yes goes beyond the SNP and Salmond. Please don't try and equate everyone who believed in No with Cameron.

NO, it did exist. It was a shambles, but it did exist

I'm glad to hear it. That for me a very positive step.

Tho I think they're the only Green Party in the world who are absolutely committed to burning all the oil.

because they lost and their efforts have come to nothing?

That's normally how it goes on the losing side, and people tend to walk away disillusioned.

I saw on TV last night some people asked their views on the result. There was a youngish female no-er who said she was disappointed despite the result, and to an extent that's how I feel even very remote from it all.

So, perhaps, it'll be different this time. There's wider support for change than just within the losing side, so there's hope from that. But what there isn't is one organisation for them to rally behind, and the fragmentation could kill it.

You say above that plenty are signing up for the Greens, but they have very tiny support in Scotland to-date. Unless what's happened really leads to a change in political behaviour (beyond signing up to a party a day after a disappointing result) then I still have difficulties in seeing any "peoples push for change" having much effect when a bunch of liar-politicians (including the SNP) will firstly look to protect their own position.

The Scottish greens would like to move away from dependence on oil - they didn't bang on about that in the campaign which is understandable as the media would just have screamed "yes camp split by huge divisions"

Should campaigners for PR have given up after the AV referendum

Few major reforms have been achieved at the first time of asking. I don't expect a referendum in the near future but that does not mean that I will continue to want it & that will continue to influence how I vote. I am also toying with the idea of getting up off my arse & getting a bit more active in politics - the only one of the existing parties I would join is the greens but I may hang about & see what happens. I certainly wouldn't now join a party that didn't support independence & I don't think I would be happy in the SNP.

Please accept I'm not trying to rub anything in your face. I'm commenting on happenings.

There's no reason for me to get into the specifics of CU/EU/NATO or anything else now, and I haven't done.

But these things do have a relevance for where we are now, and reference back to what has led us here will undoubtedly have to happen on occasion to make help sense of ideas for the future.

(as an aside, i'll try much harder with any wording I might use in reference to kids, cos that's where you've lost it previously, I guess because you've chosen to take personally what have been meant in much wider context. Apologies for any personal offence caused, it was NOT meant in that manner at all).

Thanks that is appreciated.

[zero000]

Conspiracy theory alert

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRWWilODlsc

[kaosmark2]

I don't buy the "everything was in favour of yes" thing. We were up against the combined resources of the UK State, the Conservative Party & the Labour Party. Much of Big Business & the City & their pals were on board too. The entire UK daily press was on the NO side. Only the Sunday Herald came out for Indy. The BBC was a joke and reported virtually nothing of the grassroots yes campaign. Against that, picking the date (we didn't pick the question although it could certainly have been worse!) is a pretty small advantage - & we did have the resources of the SNP the Scottish government & the Greens (Wow!)

and in the end despite all the moans about lottery winners - the No campaign got more money.

NO, it did exist. It was a shambles, but it did exist

The wording of the question was a lot better than it was for AV. The political situation strengthened the Yes campaign. The influence/resources behind No meant little because it wasn't used to spam lies or have a strong, prominent campaign like the No to AV.

I didn't say it didn't exist, I said it barely existed and wasn't an ongoing organised drive by any political party. A few token efforts then a bit of attention paid in the last few weeks at trying to make sure the somewhat apathetic got out to vote No.

Regardless, my bigger point was that Salmond drove and led the Yes campaign. There are lots in the Yes camp who didn't agree with him, or who did things completely independently of him, which you have emphasised numerous times in this thread. Cameron had FAR less influence on No than Salmond did on Yes, yet despite having consistently reiterated that Yes isn't all about Salmond and the SNP (and no it wasn't ALL about them), you're equating a No victory with a victory for Cameron, and suggesting that the rest of us support him and the tories, which is horrendously false. I'm calling you out on inconsistency with your treatment of each "side". I understand you're upset, I understand you're frustrated, but I despise Cameron and what he's done to OUR country (he's as much your leader as he is mine), and I don't like the implied association you're putting on me.

[LJS]

The wording of the question was a lot better than it was for AV. The political situation strengthened the Yes campaign. The influence/resources behind No meant little because it wasn't used to spam lies or have a strong, prominent campaign like the No to AV.

I didn't say it didn't exist, I said it barely existed and wasn't an ongoing organised drive by any political party. A few token efforts then a bit of attention paid in the last few weeks at trying to make sure the somewhat apathetic got out to vote No.

Regardless, my bigger point was that Salmond drove and led the Yes campaign. There are lots in the Yes camp who didn't agree with him, or who did things completely independently of him, which you have emphasised numerous times in this thread. Cameron had FAR less influence on No than Salmond did on Yes, yet despite having consistently reiterated that Yes isn't all about Salmond and the SNP (and no it wasn't ALL about them), you're equating a No victory with a victory for Cameron, and suggesting that the rest of us support him and the tories, which is horrendously false. I'm calling you out on inconsistency with your treatment of each "side". I understand you're upset, I understand you're frustrated, but I despise Cameron and what he's done to OUR country (he's as much your leader as he is mine), and I don't like the implied association you're putting on me.

I don't think we're that far apart on Cameron. I know you guys hate him as much as I do. I wasn't really giving him credit for the victory. More that he is the one to benefit from it.

I would take issue with you about salmond/Snp. He was rarely mentioned in any conversations I had with folk. Unless that were solid no voters. Of the Yes voters I know I would say only a third could be classed as Snp supporters. He fronted the campaign in the media but absolutely not on the ground.

I know you guys have been really sceptical about all this grassroots stuff & I would be too. Having observed politics for 40 years, I genuinely have seen nothing like it. The miner's strike, the anti poll tax campaign & the anti Iraq war campaign are the nearest but they pale into insignificance...

Don't get me wrong. There is still apathy but nothing like the usual. You guys would have loved it!

Edited September 20, 2014 by LJS