Should Scotland be an independent country?

anything you say at the moment sounds like sour grapes.

Oh, the old 'the referendum didn't go your way so I can dismiss anything you say as sour grapes' dollar, it's a strong dollar.

You should join the Better Together team, they talk a lot about electoral reform whilst just going around acting like dicks, you'd fit right in.

If Yes had won, it would have been a bold statement of independence, but the swing to No seems to be characterised by many as a timid succumbing to bribery, which I think's a bit patronising. Those who voted No made just as independent and personal a decision, many were passionate about it.

That's not aimed at anyone in particular, but at articles I've read.

Again, look at the stats-it's only the over 65's that blackballed it, and without the offer of Devo Max-which looks like it's being reneged on-it would have been more conclusive.

I don't think anyone has said No voters didn't make an independent decision, but you can't separate out the promises and lies that were used to get people to vote that way; I know several people who were canvassing for yes and went to door after door to be told by an incredulous pensioner that they'd already voted No by post because they thought their pension would be stopped, so it's not baseless deflections or accusations.

Can you see any positive change coming from the referendum despite the No vote?

The positive at the moment is that there's a huge amount of people who've tasted hope and are working together to try and bring about change, be that waiting until Devo Max inevitably fails to materialise and forcing another referendum in the next couple of parliaments or other. Membership of the Green Party and SNP is shooting up day by day and Labour is rupturing voters so I don't think the political order in Scotland will ever be the same again; Salmond saying that the rocks would melt for the sun before he joined the house of lords is also a pretty accurate summation of the man-despite tester's ad hominems-and sets the tone for any of the SNP who will follow.

but you can't separate out the promises and lies that were used to get people to vote that way

Not that I particularly disagree with you, but there were a lot of promises made by the Yes side that were far from fleshed out either?

when the opposition point blank refuses to engage with the issues beyond saying 'no' or predicting armageddon it's hard to have much of a debate in good faith, isn't it?

And where Yes was going on expectations it was made clear that a definite answer couldn't be given but that they explained their thinking as to how they reached a balance of probability. For a lot of people the difference in approach was enough to sway them.

except it wasn't ;)

Membership of the Green Party and SNP is shooting up day by day and Labour is rupturing voters so I don't think the political order in Scotland will ever be the same again;

Interesting article by Paul Mason relating to this: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/21/what-now-scotland-young-yes-generation

It'd be good if the Green party could capitalise on this, or perhaps a Scottish equivalent of Podemos could emerge.

I don't think anyone has said No voters didn't make an independent decision, but you can't separate out the promises and lies that were used to get people to vote that way

I don't think anyone has said Yes voters didn't make an independent decision, but you can't separate out the promises and lies that were used to get people to vote that way

i.e., what @branwen said. In a choice between uncertain outcomes, it's the duty of Yes to say what the best possible outcome could be, however incredible their claims, as it is the duty of No to point out the worst case scenario. What the No side had going for them in terms of credibility was that they were also the elected representatives of 90% of the UK population and would therefore be making the final decision about the terms of the secession.

Oh, the old 'the referendum didn't go your way so I can dismiss anything you say as sour grapes' dollar, it's a strong dollar.

It's certainly getting stronger with your every post.

Some additional thoughts

1. Yes campaigners should focus on why they failed to persuade a clear majority. Blaming the defeat on a biased media and No campaign 'lies' obscures the fact that the SNP failed to give credible answers on currency and the EU.
   
2. If the focus of many Yes campaigners was to defeat Neo-Liberal policies, focusing energy on 'destroying' Labour is a waste of time. I'm sure the Conservatives will enjoy it though.
   
3. One policy held up as an example of an imposition on Scotland by Westminster is the bedroom tax. It effects approximately 88,000 households in Scotland at a cost of £50MN, a fractional proportion of the Scottish block grant of circa £30BN. Given the SNP have the ability to manage welfare policy, why haven't they reversed it? In addition, why have they never used any of the tax powers available to them, for example, the ability to vary income tax rates by 3 percent? The only significant divergence in spending between the SNP and Westminster comes on public services, not on welfare.
   
4. Another point of rhetoric is food banks. First, it's worth noting that there are more food banks in London than there are in the whole of Scotland. Scotland doesn't have a unique claim on inequality. Second, the Trussell Trust, an organisation headquartered in Salisbury, has done more than any other organisation to tackle short term hunger across the UK. Are there any comparable organisations founded in Scotland?
   
   

Well done to the SNP for rolling all these emotive issues up with the false premise that they could be tackled by independence. I can see why that was persuasive to many who were having an awakening of political conscience. The probable tragedy is that their energies will now be dissipated by divisiveness and recrimination, rather than tackling the real issues in hand.

T-V for first minister (rep)

the fact that the SNP failed to give credible answers on currency and the EU.

They said what they intended to do, which in both cases would require the agreement of another organisation. They also made a case that, after a Yes vote, it would be reasonable for the other organisation to agree to something like their plans.

Their big problem on the currency was that the UK government was playing chicken with them: refusing to allow any contingency planning for a Yes vote so as to make it unnecessarily uncertain and hence bolster No. I don't see how you can blame the SNP for that.

Given what's happening in the rest of UK politics, i don't think Scotland's future connection with the EU is much clearer under No than Yes.

Interesting that Salmond believes the voting demographic will change due to ageing of the yes voting population. I would think a percentage will switch as they become unwilling to accept change in the status quo as they get older. Seems that people over 55 would naturally be less likely to accept upheaval and uncertainty which might last the rest of their lives than those under 30 who may see more benefit in the long run.

Also the YES campaign loses and within days another referendum is being discussed. There's really no grounds for that in the near future so why not concentrate on getting devo max and using it rather than predicting it's failure. As T-V has said there are plenty of changes it seems Scotland could have already have made that would have signalled real intent to be different from Westminster.

I feel sorry for the 4% of the population that wanted their own oil rich country, but I'm happy the UK has stayed together and saved years of negotiation. I hope the Scots can make Scotland a fairer place without independence.

agree TV

lol

This from a bitter, facetious wind up merchant who alternates between shrieking accusations of communism and baseless ad hominems...

I'll leave you to advise Yes voters on strategy, for point three (as much as it's nice you acknowledge that every time the tories think up an impracticable, bullshit policy the Scottish government need to find the cash to compensate out of a fixed budget or use their limited tax raising powers to compensate) they clearly don't have the power to reverse Westminster declared changes to housing benefits or they would do that... Your 'point of rhetoric ' in number four again, is a perverse reversal of the issues at hand of both Scottish sovereignty and self-determination to a 'but what about us' from the English. Why not devote your energy to asking why, in the richest city in the Uk there are so many foodbanks and leave the Scots to tackle their own issues, or else spend generations campaigning for English political reform in the way tge Scots have for their own before the what about me-isms. It's not particularly strong logic to propose that London having x foodbanks means that Glasgow having fewer is less unequal or richer, is it? And again, it's disingenuous to hold the Scottish parliament to a higher standard than your own, when at least people here are mobilised to tackle the root structural political and economic causes of the poverty they see around them without resorting to pulling a UKIP and blaming the forrins.

IMO the 65+ are more entitle to the a vote than the 16-17 year olds as they for a kick off haven't contributed anything to society yet(Money wise) unlike the 65+ who will have paid tax all throughout theres.

Plus the 16-17 years aren't allowed to vote normally and won't be on the next general election, so it was Alex Salmond twisting it with the hope that it would pay off and that table above I'd love to the see the numbers of people actually asked on each age cat.

@konastab01 I'm all for a rise in pensions year on year too but realistically older generations are less likely to set the country on a path that will matter to them where it is in 50+ years.

This from a bitter facetious wind up merchant

ftfy

I'm finding it hard to work up any bitterness over the whole farce. On balance, if I'd had any confidence that the UK government would have acted properly in the secession negotiation, I would have preferred a different result. On the other hand, I'm mystified by anybody getting at all worked up over a punch up in which the mainstream Yes group didn't want independence and the mainstream No group either never wanted, or were too afraid to argue for, union. As spectacles go, it was only marginally less pointless than two bald men fighting over a comb.

The 'data' on 16-17 year old voting pattern is from a sample size of 14, so it is meaningless in any event. In addition 18-24 year olds were majority No, according to the same poll:

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Scotland-Post-Referendum-poll-Full-tables-1409191.pdf

A bit of an indictment as to how democracy functions in this country really.

Why is that an indictment of democracy in this country? There was 97% voter registration and 84% turnout, and it's widely agreed that the debate engaged a nation.

I've experienced a lot of 'blame everyone but the Scottish electorate' from yes voters recently. Oh it was a no because this, because that, because Westminster, because old people voted no, because Labour, because the other. I'm getting the same from your posts to be honest.

I wouldn't go as far as to call it sour grapes, but a lot of people do seem to be having trouble accepting that Scotland could have decided to leave the union, but 55.3% of those who turned out to vote decided they didn't want to, so here we are (in a situation that isn't great for anyone, frankly).

4,283,392 people could have voted yes, in the end only 1,617,989 did. The people have spoken.

Given that, why on earth would you talk about forcing another referendum?

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

I've joined.

Like several on here, you're choosing to willfully ignore quite clearly stated parts of my posts, I'll summarise seeing as you can't parse the text for yourself:

-From the Lord Ashcroft poll it's clear that the over 65's delivered 'victory' to the No side.

-Given the (indisputable) scare tactics of the No side about security of pensions (contradicted by the Treasury) the above is deeply unsurprising. Add in their greater likelihood to vote by post weeks before the actual vote and you're seeing a huge swathe of some of society's most insecure and vulnerable voters being influenced by inaccurate information given out by the three main political backers of 'Project Fear' (again, their title). Class act.

-The purdah period agreed by Cameron in the Edinburgh agreement stated that within the last 30 days of the referendum, no substantive changes to the proposals on either side would be made. This is intended to stop the very same last minute desperate offers of Devo Max that Cameron, in his statesman like composed wisdom, didn't want on the ballot. He did it anyway in the last three days because he was going to lose Scotland, and having said the only thing he could have to get a No vote, now looks to be reneging on it-leaving Brown looking like even more of a gormless twat that he did after Blair kindly made him nursemaid to the recession and the war on terror. So, we'll never know how many more than 1,617,989 people would have voted yes if he'd stuck to the format of the in/out referendum he himself stipulated, will we?

-Now that Cameron's made his solemn vow to bribe people to vote no, if he backs out, he's basically lied to the Scottish electorate a la 1979. It makes it perfectly justifiable for the SNP to call another referendum.

If you sincerely don't understand any of the above as being self-defeating tactics, not to mention constitutionally and morally dubious behaviour on behalf of the UK government then really, it's not surprising you can only interpret the issue the way you do, and your voice will inevitably be joining the chorus of the newly outraged little ukipers who can only understand Scottish self-determination in relation to their own wants and needs. You're badly missing the point.