The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

I want to talk about the campaign & why yes lost but firstly I though I would talk about Alec Salmond and his plaice (geddit?) in history.

You guys seem to be writing him off as a failure. I think that is a bit harsh & premature - hard to judge someone's place in history in the hours after they resign. And of course it will depend what happens next - if Scotland gains its independence in the next few years - he could easily be seen as the "father of independence"

So, its really too early ... but hey let's have a go.Let's look at his record.

He was instrumental in moving the SNP from being a parochial single issue party often portrayed as "tartan Tories" Indeed he was one of the '79 group that was expelled from the party. The end result was a modern (slightly) left of centre party able to stand toe to toe with the Westminster parties. He moved the party from a "independence or nothing" stance and persuaded them to move to a gradualist approach embracing devolution.

In the 2007 Holyrood Election - the SNP were the largest single party & formed a minority government. then in 2011 the unthinkable happened - the SNP won & won big with an overall majority in Holyrood. That wasn't meant to happen & Salmond shrewdly used it to get a referendum.

meanwhile in the day to day running of government, he showed himself to be competent - if a little safe. And meanwhile maintained approval ratings streets ahead of his Westminster counterparts

No was hot favourite to win the referendum and that seemed to be the story until a week or so out when all hell broke loose. In the end Alec lost but does this really count as failure - I don't think so.

None of the above is meant mean he is above criticism - for me he played things too safe - Neil has already assiduously documented his dealings with Murdoch but in the end (from where we stand now) its hard to portray his career as a failure.

[LJS]

so why did yes lose?

I'll give you my views briefly.

Currency - despite Neil's belief that I slavishly followed the CU line, you will actually find I questioned Alec's slavish devotion to it. It should have been a match winner for BT. But they blew it by raising the stakes to "vote yes & lose the pound" & in the end I don't think it hurt yes too bad.

Pensions did though, not because they were right (Neil - I know you think they were - this is just my opinion) but because this plays on the fears of older people - and they get their news predominantly form the TV radio & newspapers which were united in singing the Better together song. Most of us on here will jump on to our phone/tablet/pc as often as we pick up a newspaper or turn on the telly when we are curious about an issue - & that way we are likely to hear more than one side of the story.

As for the rest of the issues - EU - Nato - benefits - etc - I don't feel they were massive one way or the other.

The tone of the campaign clearly worked really well for yes so we didn't lose it there.

so where did we lose it?

Two groups were at the heart of the No campaigns success - the old & the well- off - I've talked about the old and the point about them is they vote. As for the well off someone did a wee graph which shows pretty clearly that the higher the disposable income in the area - the higher the No vote and of course there is less incentive to support change if you are doing ok as things are. It is also clear that these guys turned out and voted - the highest turnouts were all in relatively affluent areas.

Faced with this, it was absolutely crucial that the Yes campaign got their voters out in the poorer areas - especially Glasgow - But Glasgow had the lowest turnout of any area at 75% - now despite popular conceptions there are some pretty sw*nky parts of Glasgow and I can't imagine there is any reason why turnout in these areas would not be as high as in other affluent areas - probably 90% + this can only mean that in the more deprived areas the turnout must have below 70% - Similar story in Dundee. Its sheer guesswork but a rich/ poor turnout of maybe 90/70% seems likely across the country - of course not all well off people vote no & not all poor people vote no but there is a clear tendency that way. And that sort of split would explain most if not all of the margin of victory.

By the way the figures are all approximate & guesstimates at best - the general principle I think applies though. Yes needed to get similar turnout rates in poorer areas as in better off areas & they failed.

It is worth pointing out that if they got 65-70% turnout in some of Glasgow's schemes that is still a massive achievement & not far off doubling the normal turnout in elections.

Another thing to bear in mind for those like me who have celebrated the strengths of the Yes campaign is that we were up against what was possibly the most inept campaign in political history, so we maybe need to temper our pride with just a wee bit of realism.

That's my take on it - not particularly scientific & I am sure others will have entirely different views.

[kaosmark2]

Cheers for your comments LJS, all sensible:

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!

Yeah. I want to emphasise that I am not trying to diminish the work done at the grassroots of the yes campaign. I think there was substantial and important work done at it, moreso than in any other political movement in the last 20 years+. My point is that Salmond has been a figurehead for the campaign (at least from the media/general public perspective), and was targeted (rightly) at what he failed to address. I truly hope that the good work done in the grassroots movement towards Yes can be engineered towards UK-wide political reform at some point in the next 30ish years. I'm aware we're not going to get a referendum on either Scottish independence or electoral reform for a long time, but I hope that the energy gone into this one isn't wasted, and can be channelled towards long-term change. I've not thought that Yes for Scotland at this time is the sort of change that will lead to positive progress, but that doesn't mean I disagree with the idealistic hope that lots put behind it. I want hope, I want a desire for political change, and I do think that the Yes campaign in Scotland can be used as a massive positive for the idea of it in the future, even if their precise goal failed now and I believed that was what was better.

I want to talk about the campaign & why yes lost but firstly I though I would talk about Alec Salmond and his plaice (geddit?) in history.

You guys seem to be writing him off as a failure. I think that is a bit harsh & premature - hard to judge someone's place in history in the hours after they resign. And of course it will depend what happens next - if Scotland gains its independence in the next few years - he could easily be seen as the "father of independence"

So, its really too early ... but hey let's have a go.Let's look at his record.

He was instrumental in moving the SNP from being a parochial single issue party often portrayed as "tartan Tories" Indeed he was one of the '79 group that was expelled from the party. The end result was a modern (slightly) left of centre party able to stand toe to toe with the Westminster parties. He moved the party from a "independence or nothing" stance and persuaded them to move to a gradualist approach embracing devolution.

In the 2007 Holyrood Election - the SNP were the largest single party & formed a minority government. then in 2011 the unthinkable happened - the SNP won & won big with an overall majority in Holyrood. That wasn't meant to happen & Salmond shrewdly used it to get a referendum.

meanwhile in the day to day running of government, he showed himself to be competent - if a little safe. And meanwhile maintained approval ratings streets ahead of his Westminster counterparts

No was hot favourite to win the referendum and that seemed to be the story until a week or so out when all hell broke loose. In the end Alec lost but does this really count as failure - I don't think so.

None of the above is meant mean he is above criticism - for me he played things too safe - Neil has already assiduously documented his dealings with Murdoch but in the end (from where we stand now) its hard to portray his career as a failure.

I don't think Salmond has failed in his career, I think he's had a large degree of success but hasn't achieved what he wanted to and what he set out to. In relation to his goals, he's a failure, but he has had an impact on political history, and whether that is positive or negative remains to be determined in the years to come. Right now, I think he's encouraged a degree of separitism, isolationist ideals, and right-wing attitudes. I may well be wrong and if his impact looks to be a lasting positive one I will credit him.

[lost]

I've been away in Denmark this week so missed all the fun. Its played out pretty much the way I thought it would with concerns over the currency specifically from pensioners coming out on top.

Its obviously not going to be easy for those who have quit work, deskilled and then being left with probably a fixed income for the rest of their lives not knowing what currency this will be paid in or what it will buy them, those with "skin in the game" will obviously fear change more and have less ability to bounce back from a possible downturn.

I also see this trend being played out in other areas of politics in the near future. I've read comments elsewhere about another attempt at a referendum when this generation has died off, but I believe this shows a misunderstanding of what happens to us as we get older. The generation being blamed by the yes side were possibly more radical in the 1960's with regards to things like social change and the Vietnam war than the current gen y/ millennials are with these issues. I think fundamentally all democratic countries with aging populations will see less radical change as the average age increases.

Edited September 21, 2014 by lost

[LJS]

As this thread draws to its end, there are a couple of things I'd like to say

Neil, (and anyone else) I think you would some of this guy's stuff interesting if you haven't come across him before

what drew him to me was his stuff linking deprivation to the way people voted in indyref - not rocket science, I guess we'd agree.

However he seems to produce graphics on a whole range of stuff.

https://twitter.com/undertheraedar

& as we prepare to move on to whatever the future holds, perhaps you will all think more kindly of our retiring first minister after this exchange with Dermot Murnaghan today on sky News

Dermot: ....And what about the wrath of Salmond? Is this it for you, Mr Salmond, in politics once you stand down or will you keep on it – obviously you will but could you keep an eye on it from somewhere like the House of Lords? What about accepting a peerage eventually?

ALEX SALMOND: The rocks would melt with the sun and [strachen] Lake behind me would disappear before I’ll ever set foot in the House of Lords. My policy, Dermot, is to abolish the House of Lords and no longer having an unelected chamber, having any governance ability over Scotland, I think that’s the wish of most of the Scottish people as well

It is better if you actually see it because Eck looks at Dermot as if he is crazy when he asks this question.

I believe there are no SNP Peers - Plaid Cymru have 2 I think - and its kind of hard to imagine no peerages have been offered to SNP folk. Maybe, just maybe this party which has been derided on here actually has people without enough principle & integrity to turn down peerages - & incidentally also having the integrity not to vote on English matters in Westminster which seems to be a hot topic just now.

And last of all for tonight, My daughter joined the Scottish Green Party today- I listened to a whole load of grumpy old gits on the radio last night complaining about 16&17 year olds getting the vote. They are so out of touch - my god, Why you wouldn't want to encourage young folk to show an interest in politics!!

One of the things I am proudest of is that I have produced & raised children who care, who post on facebook about injustice and not fucking cats & people falling over. I don't want to rake over old ground but perhaps that might give you all a clue why I lost it when I was accused of "shitting on my kids"

There were some horrendous scenes in George Square in Glasgow the other night which made me ashamed to be a Glaswegian Scot (even though I have nothing in common with the small minded bigots who caused the trouble) - I share a home city with them and I am sure I am as uncomfortable about that as you guys are when you see the NF or EDL in action.

Today in George Square my face book shows me hundreds of carrier bags full of groceries to go to Glasgow's food banks yards away from where the thugs were doing their Nazi salutes.

We may have been defeated but change still hovers in the air- must be close to 20,000 new members between the SNP, Greens & SSP since the result. We ain't going away!!

Edited September 21, 2014 by LJS

[Comfy Bean]

Thought I`d just leave this here as I have a feeling we may be needing it......

[Comfy Bean]

I honestly hadn`t noticed that 2 of the dates are Burns night and St Andrews night....cringe. A bit like the fact that we returned power to Dave after having it in our own hands for 1 day, I honestly don`t know whether to laugh or cry at the role this pledge played. Shame on the Record.

Saw the George Sq stuff LJS. Horrendous scenes. After we got the front page headlines about how a YES vote was pissing on the war graves etc. Why was there no coverage of the Union Jack waving Rule Brittania crew doing the Nazi salutes ? The whole thing seems to have been swept under the carpet.

KM2 - I`m not sure the SNP`s social policies can be described as right wing. I`ve listed them all before ( more than once ) but the free healthcare, education, childcare, care for the elderly and the scrapping of Trident and the bedroom tax don`t really fit with your description.

No concrete links to back this up so I`ll just say it is my opinion that it looks like the working age people of Scotland ( 16-65 ) thought that Scotland should be an Independent country.

[LJS]

I honestly hadn`t noticed that 2 of the dates are Burns night and St Andrews night....cringe. A bit like the fact that we returned power to Dave after having it in our own hands for 1 day, I honestly don`t know whether to laugh or cry at the role this pledge played. Shame on the Record.

Saw the George Sq stuff LJS. Horrendous scenes. After we got the front page headlines about how a YES vote was pissing on the war graves etc. Why was there no coverage of the Union Jack waving Rule Brittania crew doing the Nazi salutes ? The whole thing seems to have been swept under the carpet.

KM2 - I`m not sure the SNP`s social policies can be described as right wing. I`ve listed them all before ( more than once ) but the free healthcare, education, childcare, care for the elderly and the scrapping of Trident and the bedroom tax don`t really fit with your description.

No concrete links to back this up so I`ll just say it is my opinion that it looks like the working age people of Scotland ( 16-65 ) thought that Scotland should be an Independent country.

there are two ways you can look at it - either the old won it for NO, or the comfortably off won it. Personally, I find it easier to make excuses for the old. But you can take your pick. & of course I have already made the point that we could have won if only we could have got our vote out.

As for the coverage, it was really strange - on the night of the violence, the BBC was quite even handed ( like you should be even handed between peaceful folk & bigoted thugs - think that is taking balance too far) But by last night on reporting Scotland they were quite clear that the blame lay with the loyalist nutters ... & then, lo & behold, they had a piece about the amazing grassroots Yes campaign, astonishingly it had taken them until after the vote to find it!!!

Edited September 21, 2014 by LJS

[kaosmark2]

KM2 - I`m not sure the SNP`s social policies can be described as right wing. I`ve listed them all before ( more than once ) but the free healthcare, education, childcare, care for the elderly and the scrapping of Trident and the bedroom tax don`t really fit with your description.

Lower corp tax, fewer education places (which is how uni is free), NHS cuts. There's a bunch of policies which are right-wing, just as there are left-wing. I don't actually think the SNP are right-wing, but I don't think they're any further left than Labour, they just pick the policies that people notice and make them popular, as opposed to policies that will make a more long-term equal society.

[LJS]

Lower corp tax, fewer education places (which is how uni is free), NHS cuts. There's a bunch of policies which are right-wing, just as there are left-wing. I don't actually think the SNP are right-wing, but I don't think they're any further left than Labour, they just pick the policies that people notice and make them popular, as opposed to policies that will make a more long-term equal society.

I don't disagree with much of what you say, although the education places thing is a bit more complex than you suggest more full-time as against part time places may mean less places but the same number of hours taught.

I think the Snp have been very politically astute & introduced some very popular policies. The argument is not whether all these free things are good...of course they are. The argument is whether making them universally available is the best use of public money. The alternative is of course means testing. There are arguments on both sides. And I would argue for means testing some things & not others.

Anyway, I could discuss that at length but my point is, my experience in the referendum have made me decide to get involved in politics and it won't be the Snp. I can't really see past the greens at the moment but they're a bit sandally for me. We'll see. Looks like over 12,000 people have joined yes parties since Thursday. Amazing

Edited September 21, 2014 by LJS

[kaosmark2]

I think the Snp have been very politically astute & introduced some very popular policies. The argument is not whether all these free things are good...of course they are. The argument is whether making them universally available is the best use of public money. The alternative is of course means testing. There are arguments on both sides. And I would argue for means testing some things & not others.

Anyway, I could discuss that at length but my point is, my experience in the referendum have made me decide to get involved in politics and it won't be the Snp. I can't really see past the greens at the moment but they're a bit sandally for me. We'll see. Looks like over 12,000 people have joined yes parties since Thursday. Amazing

Absolutely. I think a number of them aren't, and as you say, means testing on some and not others. The big point for me though is that their left-wing policies aren't long-term benefits to equalising society, but the sort that are good at making them popular. I also think if they had a greater influence and greater responsibility they would mess it up. It's similar to how the Lib Dems were able to claim to support popular policies they never thought they'd have to implement then threw them out the window upon getting into power.

I think I agree with the Greens on more policies than I do any other political party, but I don't actually like a lot of their energy and environmental policies. I think they're all poorly considered and several are contradictory. Although at least they've finally ditched the NIMBY-esque dislike of windmills.

[eFestivals]

Conspiracy theory alert

The laughable thing about this is that even if it were "vote rigging", who's to say which side its being rigged for?

For all we know, it could be a guy creating extra yes votes.

But any yes-er is convinced it HAS TO BE votes against them. Fish, and chips, and a whole supper.

[eFestivals]

I though I would talk about Alec Salmond ... Let's look at his record.

Not voting against the "Bedroom Tax"? Did you include that part?

What about when he's obstructed greater devolution for Scotland? Did you include that part?

And when he's to the right of the tories, did you include that part?

Or might you have been selective in your choices?

If we work things your way, even the likes of Cameron can be presented as a saint.

Edited September 22, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Thought I`d just leave this here as I have a feeling we may be needing it......

I'm guessing that you, like most other yes-ers - including Salmond by the look of things - haven't actually read "the vow" to be able to correctly call out what's happened since Friday as a scam.

In case it's passed you by, you were promised a timetable in which the parties would put together their ideas in firm form to be part of their election manefestos - and nowt more.

Nothing that's happened since Friday has suggested that's not happening.

Meanwhile, it's exceedingly clear that no won against the question asked, and nothing more. The majority of your country did not want it to be independent. Get used to it in a way that's seemingly beyond most yes-ers from what i'm reading.

Alex saying 'no' voters have been scammed? He's obviously a man who doesn't want to give up the limelight - to the extent that he now thinks he's also the leader of the campaign against him.

Edited September 22, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

The laughable thing about this is that even if it were "vote rigging", who's to say which side its being rigged for?

For all we know, it could be a guy creating extra yes votes.

But any yes-er is convinced it HAS TO BE votes against them. Fish, and chips, and a whole supper.

For your information the majority of yessers are convinced the ballot was not rigged. Some cynical twat has put these videos on YouTube & it's hardly surprising those folk with no previous experience fall for it. Yes Edinburgh has put out a clear statement saying the ballot wasn't rigged. I have spent time too explaining that to people & that banging on about it is a waste of their energy

[LJS]

Not voting against the "Bedroom Tax"? Did you include that part?

What about when he's obstructed greater devolution for Scotland? Did you include that part?

And when he's to the right of the tories, did you include that part?

Or might you have been selective in your choices?

If we work things your way, even the likes of Cameron can be presented as a saint.

Alex Sslmond is not an mp. He could not vote on the bedroom tax.

Neil, to state he is to the right of the Tories is clearly an opinion & not I would suggest a majority one.

& as for devolution again you can spin that one both ways.

I gave my honest assessment of the man. It was clearly my opinion.

Funnily enough, I didn't expect you to agree.

[eFestivals]

Alex Sslmond is not an mp. He could not vote on the bedroom tax.

My apologies, i thought he still was.

So its only the MPs of the party he leads who didn't act against the bedroom tax. Might they have done so on party orders?

Neil, to state he is to the right of the Tories is clearly an opinion & not I would suggest a majority one.

It's clearly an opinion that matches the facts, at least in some areas.

Whether it's a majority view or not isn't of much relevance. There's a lot of denial in Scottish politics, that's become abundantly clear over the last few months.

(and perhaps in English politics too, but right here we're talking Scotland).

& as for devolution again you can spin that one both ways.

Not really. Salmond doesn't act in support of the views of the Scottish people, he acts in support of his views.

I gave my honest assessment of the man. It was clearly my opinion.

Funnily enough, I didn't expect you to agree.

It's one thing to go for polarised views in the middle of a campaign, it's another to keep up the pretence after the campaign.

Here's betting you won't admit to him cutting NHS funding in Scotland, despite the fact he has. And while I know that you love to link that back to the block grant, there's an awful lot more to things than just that - such as Scotland's 10%(ish) deficit which has tyo be dealt with (even within an indy Scotland).

I'm wetting myself at all of the yes-ers who are now calling the proposed devolution plans a con because Scotland will lose income via it - which they probably will. That would be the result of Scotland better-paying its own way rather than riding off the back of the union, exactly as would happen via indy.

If Scotland believes there should be a new settlement for the union - and it seems they do - then it doesn't follow that any new settlement will grant Scotland even greater privileges than it already gets. There was no part of any vow about that.

[LJS]

My apologies, i thought he still was.

So its only the MPs of the party he leads who didn't act against the bedroom tax. Might they have done so on party orders?

It's clearly an opinion that matches the facts, at least in some areas.

Whether it's a majority view or not isn't of much relevance. There's a lot of denial in Scottish politics, that's become abundantly clear over the last few months.

(and perhaps in English politics too, but right here we're talking Scotland).

Not really. Salmond doesn't act in support of the views of the Scottish people, he acts in support of his views.

It's one thing to go for polarised views in the middle of a campaign, it's another to keep up the pretence after the campaign.

Here's betting you won't admit to him cutting NHS funding in Scotland, despite the fact he has. And while I know that you love to link that back to the block grant, there's an awful lot more to things than just that - such as Scotland's 10%(ish) deficit which has tyo be dealt with (even within an indy Scotland).

I'm wetting myself at all of the yes-ers who are now calling the proposed devolution plans a con because Scotland will lose income via it - which they probably will. That would be the result of Scotland better-paying its own way rather than riding off the back of the union, exactly as would happen via indy.

If Scotland believes there should be a new settlement for the union - and it seems they do - then it doesn't follow that any new settlement will grant Scotland even greater privileges than it already gets. There was no part of any vow about that.

Neil, I have no interest in going over the campaign issues or discussing Alex Sslmond at length. The successes & failures of the Scottish government May have a place in another thread now, but I don't imagine it would be a very busy one.

As to what will become of the vow, I certainly have my own apprehensions that it may be a backdoor way to reduce Scottish funding although they did pledge to retain the Barnett formula. But that can always be fudged depending how tax powers are implemented. I am not of the opinion that WM will inevitably abandon the vow but there certainly are signs that the cross party consensus is creaking. If they appear to have broken it comes the next general election, there could be major electoral consequences for all 3 parties...but in reality only the Labour party has anything to lose. So, the Labour party's vote in Scotland depends on what Cameron delivers...interesting.

[eFestivals]

Neil, I have no interest in going over the campaign issues or discussing Alex Sslmond at length.

And I didn't ask you to.

I did suggest that you won't admit to Salmond cutting NHS funding in Scotland.

And you've just lived that one.

As to what will become of the vow, I certainly have my own apprehensions that it may be a backdoor way to reduce Scottish funding although they did pledge to retain the Barnett formula.

the Barnett Formula is money based around population levels, and it's only a minor part for the extra money Scotland gets - so both of those things can be true.

I'm personally against a cut in Scotland's money because I recognise that it has 'natural' extra costs due to geography and demographics, and the union should be aiming to try and even things up across all regions. This is why I have never indulged in the "scroungers" narrative that exists in some places.

But me having that view doesn't stop me recognising that Scotland demanding more self-sufficiency via devolution is going to work against Scotland getting that extra money, because other areas of the union will also demand the same things - which ends up with each region keeping the money from that region; Scotland - indy or union'ised' - can only lose by this idea.

But that can always be fudged depending how tax powers are implemented.

because money will still be required to be paid to 'the union', there is no tax collection regime that won't be hugely criticised as wrong. Which ever way you do it, Scotland will complain that it's hurt by one or more aspects.

They'll even be, I'm sure, a very rational argument for how and why the regime is bad for Scotland, and yet the measure that's made against would be the perfect world that doesn't exist. Scottish exceptionalism does not exist.

I am not of the opinion that WM will inevitably abandon the vow but there certainly are signs that the cross party consensus is creaking.

I don't see that. There was never a vow of one agreed plan from three different parties. It was always very clear that they had different ideas.

I think yes-ers are forgetting that they didn't win; are forgetting what the actual indy question was; and are forgetting that the 'no' victory had little to do with any vow.

Because no was always in the lead, long before any further devolution was proposed by any party, and the 'vow' was simply a timetable for plans which had been announced by the parties months before voting day (it was only the timetable that was new just before the vote).

If they appear to have broken it comes the next general election, there could be major electoral consequences for all 3 parties...but in reality only the Labour party has anything to lose. So, the Labour party's vote in Scotland depends on what Cameron delivers...interesting.

That's the result of the fucked-up settlement we have now, caused by the devolution that's already happened - and amusingly, a settlement that Scotland doesn't appear to want to see done fair and evenly for the whole UK. But that's Westminster's fault too, yeah?

I've just read (again) elsewhere that "Labour are finished in Scotland", on the basis that Lamont and two other Scottish Labour biggies (I forget the names) had their constituencies vote yes ... to which someone immediately replied* that Salmond's own constituency voted 'no'.

(* I presume that's true, I've not checked)

There's no narrative that the SNP are finished, despite Salmond not getting support in his own constituency, despite them having failed to win the indyref, and despite most yes-ers claiming that they're not supporting the SNP.

Does anyone ever stop and think that they might be working up their thoughts from a bubble?

[LJS]

And I didn't ask you to.

I did suggest that you won't admit to Salmond cutting NHS funding in Scotland.

And you've just lived that one.

My belief is NHS spending has increased in Scotland but at a lower rate than in England - that may be different if you include the alleged £400m shortfall but then I have dealt with that before. As you well know, I have never been a slavish follower of the SNP, hence I generally avoided getting into detailed debates around their policies etc. - they were not why I was voting yes - You will have noted that yesterday I did question some of their priorities and I would happily concede that NHS spending should have had a higher priority.

the Barnett Formula is money based around population levels, and it's only a minor part for the extra money Scotland gets - so both of those things can be true.

My understanding is that the vast majority of the Scottish Government's funding comes via a block grant from Westminster the size of which is determined using the Barnett formula - how is that a "small part?" You will no doubt correct my error.

I'm personally against a cut in Scotland's money because I recognise that it has 'natural' extra costs due to geography and demographics, and the union should be aiming to try and even things up across all regions. This is why I have never indulged in the "scroungers" narrative that exists in some places.

But me having that view doesn't stop me recognising that Scotland demanding more self-sufficiency via devolution is going to work against Scotland getting that extra money, because other areas of the union will also demand the same things - which ends up with each region keeping the money from that region; Scotland - indy or union'ised' - can only lose by this idea.

Scotland are demanding it because we were promised it. As I said Cameron has sensed this as an opportunity to address the West Lothian question which of course Labour are reluctant to address. That potentially removes the consensus and threatens the delivery. Far too early to be certain about any of this.

because money will still be required to be paid to 'the union', there is no tax collection regime that won't be hugely criticised as wrong. Which ever way you do it, Scotland will complain that it's hurt by one or more aspects.

They'll even be, I'm sure, a very rational argument for how and why the regime is bad for Scotland, and yet the measure that's made against would be the perfect world that doesn't exist. Scottish exceptionalism does not exist.

I don't see that. There was never a vow of one agreed plan from three different parties. It was always very clear that they had different ideas.

I think yes-ers are forgetting that they didn't win; are forgetting what the actual indy question was; and are forgetting that the 'no' victory had little to do with any vow.

Because no was always in the lead, long before any further devolution was proposed by any party, and the 'vow' was simply a timetable for plans which had been announced by the parties months before voting day (it was only the timetable that was new just before the vote).

That is not how it was sold & it is not how it will be perceived if significant powers are not delivered to the timetable promised. (my opinion)

That's the result of the fucked-up settlement we have now, caused by the devolution that's already happened - and amusingly, a settlement that Scotland doesn't appear to want to see done fair and evenly for the whole UK. But that's Westminster's fault too, yeah?

I don't think there is any objection to whatever form of devolution or whatever they come up with for the rest of the UK. The only voices wishing to keep Scottish MP's voting on English issues are Labour voices. As I think I said before it does get a little complicated with different levels of devolution in Scotland, Wales, N.I. & London but I'm sure something could be worked out. What you do if you effectively end up with different parties in control of the UK & England, I'm not sure - could get messy - of course we have already established that doesn't happen often but...

I've just read (again) elsewhere that "Labour are finished in Scotland", on the basis that Lamont and two other Scottish Labour biggies (I forget the names) had their constituencies vote yes ... to which someone immediately replied* that Salmond's own constituency voted 'no'.

(* I presume that's true, I've not checked)

There's no narrative that the SNP are finished, despite Salmond not getting support in his own constituency, despite them having failed to win the indyref, and despite most yes-ers claiming that they're not supporting the SNP.

Does anyone ever stop and think that they might be working up their thoughts from a bubble?

It's possible, but there is nothing to suggest a drop in support for the SNP. I think the area that includes Alex's constituency would be the accurate description - in fairness the SNP had a clean sweep in the constituency vote in that area. It is however a pretty affluent area which as previously stated seems to be a factor in the voting. The SNP are closing in on 20,000 new members since Friday which is interesting, to say the least, and no sign of the flow decreasing. Of course some of these will be like guys who join the Gym in January...

As for Scottish Labour, they have been gradually losing some of their core support (me!) It is too early to tell but, I don't think anyone other than Gordon Brown & maybe Douglas Alexander came out of the referendum with any credit. Only Gordon Brown managed to avoid being linked with the Tories - not generally a good campaign position in Scotland. Their fate also hangs to some extent on how the VOW plays out. I think holding on to what they have at the next GE will be a remarkable achievement for them.

Of course the SNP could indulge in a bout of in-fighting which would change everything.

[eFestivals]

> My belief is NHS spending has increased in Scotland but at a lower rate than in England

and that's because Salmond has been cutting the NHS he says is safe in his hands. It could have had more money, but Alex has instead used it for freebies for the middle classes.

Not that that worked for him, did it? All the 'tartan tory' heartlands including Salmond's own constituency voted 'no', I've read.

Meanwhile, the numbers signing up for the SNP have rocketed, after a campaign that's not about the SNP.

And now the SNP are in a dilemma, cos the new membership and those tartan tory heartlands are not compatible. It'll be interesting to see how that pans out.

(I'm loving that 5% of tory voters voted yes, while more than twice as many SNP voters voted no).

I see that the bad loser claims are now going mainstream, and that sales of bacofoil are soaring in Scotland. That'll help the forthcoming SNP victory too I reckon (or perhaps not). An open and transparent govt that bans disliked media.

Still, to cheer you up, here's a little ditty for the new found facebook friends. Have you joined up yourself?

(It's not strictly relevant, tho there's still a message in there anyway for the deeper thinkers ).

Edited September 23, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

> My belief is NHS spending has increased in Scotland but at a lower rate than in England

and that's because Salmond has been cutting the NHS he says is safe in his hands. It could have had more money, but Alex has instead used it for freebies for the middle classes.

Not that that worked for him, did it? All the 'tartan tory' heartlands including Salmond's own constituency voted 'no', I've read.

Meanwhile, the numbers signing up for the SNP have rocketed, after a campaign that's not about the SNP.

And now the SNP are in a dilemma, cos the new membership and those tartan tory heartlands are not compatible. It'll be interesting to see how that pans out.

(I'm loving that 5% of tory voters voted yes, while more than twice as many SNP voters voted no).

I see that the bad loser claims are now going mainstream, and that sales of bacofoil are soaring in Scotland. That'll help the forthcoming SNP victory too I reckon (or perhaps not). An open and transparent govt that bans disliked media.

Still, to cheer you up, here's a little ditty for the new found facebook friends. Have you joined up yourself?

(It's not strictly relevant, tho there's still a message in there anyway for the deeper thinkers ).

http://youtu.be/oprT56gsBEk

No, I haven't joined up and have argued strongly that it is totally the wrong thing to do. But I do understand that people who have put their heart & soul into the campaign will need a little time to work out how best to channel that energy in the future. My argument is that while there is no reason for anyone to abandon belief in independence, we should equally be working for a better future in the countries we currently live in: and many of the 55 will share that vision.

On the subject of increasing party memberships, although smaller in numbers, the greens & Scottish socialist party are seeing similar (or higher) % increases to the snp

[eFestivals]

My understanding is that the vast majority of the Scottish Government's funding comes via a block grant from Westminster the size of which is determined using the Barnett formula - how is that a "small part?" You will no doubt correct my error.

Why would I need to correct your error? Why would you even have an error?

Are you suggesting that you haven't even know the basics of what you for/against?

And that instead you've been blindly following misinformation?

Scotland are demanding it because we were promised it. As I said Cameron has sensed this as an opportunity to address the West Lothian question which of course Labour are reluctant to address. That potentially removes the consensus and threatens the delivery. Far too early to be certain about any of this.

Yep, tho not for plenty of people, including bad-loser Salmond - who seems to have suddenly become leader of the no campaign by the sounds of it, what with his concern for them.

Tho that's not been a concern when he's demonised them as all old gits, suggested UDI, and denied free reporting of major moments in Scottish politics.

Strange that.

That is not how it was sold & it is not how it will be perceived if significant powers are not delivered to the timetable promised. (my opinion)

Hmmm, if you'd put down that flag you were so frantically waving for a few moments and actually listened, you'd never have posted those words. Not unless you were deliberately lying, anyway.

I don't think there is any objection to whatever form of devolution or whatever they come up with for the rest of the UK. The only voices wishing to keep Scottish MP's voting on English issues are Labour voices. As I think I said before it does get a little complicated with different levels of devolution in Scotland, Wales, N.I. & London but I'm sure something could be worked out. What you do if you effectively end up with different parties in control of the UK & England, I'm not sure - could get messy - of course we have already established that doesn't happen often but...

It's precisely because it's already fucked up due to Scottish demands that further demands can't be allowed to fuck it up further.

If a split settlement is the right thing for Scotland, then Scotland deserves a working split settlement, doesn't it?

Powers cannot be devolved without that having an equal effect elsewhere. That part has to be considered along with everything else.

Remember, Scotland voted for the union, it didn't vote for devo max or anything else. That means that the position of the union outside Scotland is no less relevant than the position of the union inside Scotland.

Personally (as i posted here) I'd have preferred that they'd not been that last minute begging campaign, because it's merely further confused the already confused.

It's possible, but there is nothing to suggest a drop in support for the SNP.

there's lots to suggest a major split is coming. It'll be interesting to see which demographic the SNP leadership feels is most important to keep.

I think holding on to what they have at the next GE will be a remarkable achievement for them.

so Scotland will vote to let the tories in?

Or is Alex Jimmy K gonna declare UDI if the SNP win half the seats?

You started off posting here about "the sophisticated Scottish electorate". The only basis for that claim is the manner they've used their votes in different arenas in different ways.

That might change some, but I doubt it'll change hugely. Tho if it does change hugely, the result will be a very dis-united Scotland under which no one benefits.

Of course the SNP could indulge in a bout of in-fighting which would change everything.

the writing for that is on the wall.

There's the realists, and then there's the fantasists.

There's the tartan tories, and then there's the nuSNPers*.

(* as 'socialist' as Blair, where individuality is king and welfare destroying solutions are hailed like any good tory).

That's one hell of a group to try to hold together.

It took Quebec two indyrefs to destroy itself, but yes-ers haven't looked at the lessons from history. It's looking like Scotland might go one better.

[eFestivals]

My argument is that while there is no reason for anyone to abandon belief in independence, we should equally be working for a better future in the countries we currently live in: and many of the 55 will share that vision.

Yep. Unfortunately, many of the 45% 37% don't, as is becoming very clear. They'd prefer to destroy Scotland for their dream.

For those who do not wish to abandon their belief in indy, the solution is to work towards indy - and that's MUCH more than asking people where to put their cross.

If yes-ers want the negatives to go away next time, they can make them go away by having the solutions already in place - as I've suggested here, and you've ridiculed.

I've not seen a single yes-er elsewhere suggest some proper nation building is the successful path to indy. Instead, factionalism is the clear direction of travel in all minds, it seems.

Scotland is at a crossroads. But it looks like yes-ers want to go none of left or right or straight across, and instead they'd rather destroy the road system.

On the subject of increasing party memberships, although smaller in numbers, the greens & Scottish socialist party are seeing similar (or higher) % increases to the snp

combined they got less than 1% of the vote in the last SG elections, didn't they?

[LJS]

Yep. Unfortunately, many of the 45% 37% don't, as is becoming very clear. They'd prefer to destroy Scotland for their dream.

For those who do not wish to abandon their belief in indy, the solution is to work towards indy - and that's MUCH more than asking people where to put their cross.

If yes-ers want the negatives to go away next time, they can make them go away by having the solutions already in place - as I've suggested here, and you've ridiculed.

I've not seen a single yes-er elsewhere suggest some proper nation building is the successful path to indy. Instead, factionalism is the clear direction of travel in all minds, it seems.

Scotland is at a crossroads. But it looks like yes-ers want to go none of left or right or straight across, and instead they'd rather destroy the road system.

combined they got less than 1% of the vote in the last SG elections, didn't they?

Well, once the dust settles, I would certainly expect there will be an attempt to learn lessons from the campaign & what the best way forward is.

Don't have the figures to hand but greens were certainly well over 1%.