A Final Appeal For The Union

[The Devil's Point]

Out of interest, TDP, in spite of the impressive YES campaign, why do you think that the "no" vote prevailed?

 

Because the Yes side didn't really make a convincing economic case. People were frightened by the uncertainty of the whole proposition.

 

And, to be honest because of the wars. Because of the blood shed together.

 

There will probably be Scottish Independence in my lifetime, so look at this as a trial run. Of course we can be an independent country, but we were not ready yesterday.

 

You will almost certainly see another chance.

[macaroon]

TDP, I agree with you on the economic uncertainties, despite being a "yes" I felt that there would be choppy economic waters ahead - in the medium term - but I felt that independence was viable and best in the long run. I'm not so sure about the blood shed point, World Wars 1 and 2 should never be forgotten but they were a long time ago. Sorry TDP but the British Empire is fast fading and it's track record, fighting fascism aside, isn't so glorious. Out of interest at what point would you consider Scotland to ready for independence?

[The Devil's Point]

TDP, I agree with you on the economic uncertainties, despite being a "yes" I felt that there would be choppy economic waters ahead - in the medium term - but I felt that independence was viable and best in the long run. I'm not so sure about the blood shed point, World Wars 1 and 2 should never be forgotten but they were a long time ago. Sorry TDP but the British Empire is fast fading and it's track record, fighting fascism aside, isn't so glorious. Out of interest at what point would you consider Scotland to ready for independence?

 

I noticed Willijag pointed out it was 98 years since the Somme. Mind you, by all accounts he is so old he was probaby there.

 

Bannockburn was even longer ago.

 

But the boys (and they were boys) who went over the top, or went up in their Spitfires, didn't really think about the politics. They relied on their pals whether they were from Birmingham, Lincoln, Cardiff, Kingussie, Coventry, Belfast or Cowdenbeath.

 

Much of what happened under the excuse of Empire was a disgrace, but defeating Facism was incredibly important. In the summer of 1939 we could have lost everything, but we didn't.

 

I am perhaps too tired to address the point about when we would be ready for independence. Let me get back to you on that.

 

Have to stay awake for another ten hours at least......

[macaroon]

I'm not a kilt and caterpillar boots nationalist. The last Scotland game for me was 15+ years ago and I just didn't like the atmosphere, the "if you hate the effin English" chants are pathetic. My favourite bands are from Manchester and Liverpool, England has produced many of the world's best talents across the arts and more generally. We could have had a modern progressive Scotland that doesn't hark back to Bannockburn, a country where all people are welcome to live in. It wasn't about the SNP or Salmond.

[Guy Incognito]

Heart goes out to the Yes campaigners tonight. You totally out-campaigned us, and in many ways didn't deserve to lose.

 

But you will have your time. We will keep our promises, and it you think we fail, then you will get the chance again.

 

It has been intense and emotional, and someone had to lose.

 

No one deserved to lose though.

 

Top post, DP.

 

I think the work done by ordinary volunteers was inspiring, but ultimately there were weaknesses in the pro-independence case put forward by the politicians - currency being the most blatant one.

 

_{Congratulations to the "no" campaigners. I just feel disappointed that the FUDs (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) were able to pull the wool over enough people's eyes. Not to mention the blatant lies about bombing airports, people not getting their pensions, not being able to watch the BBC and so on. A dreadful campaign by "no", .... but it was enough!}

 

_{On the positive side, the difference between the sides is only around the population of a city around the size of Dundee. When people see through the lies and empty promises from Westminster this time, and many of the old empire-age Brit pensioners will no longer be with us, the next referendum may well go very differently. Fingers crossed.}

 

When you think about some of the things the No campaign came away with it is hard not to feel bitter (such as telling Polish migrants that they might be deported if we vote Yes) but we have to move on.

 

It is killing me thinking about some of the great ideas that were put forward for Scotland and which are now unlikely to see the light of day. In a way I don't want us to have another chance, because that might mean that my fears of a f*cked-over Scotland will have come to fruition. But if we do get another bite at the cherry then we must from learn from mistakes that have been made in this campaign. Maybe then we will prevail.

[Guy Incognito]

I'm not a kilt and caterpillar boots nationalist. The last Scotland game for me was 15+ years ago and I just didn't like the atmosphere, the "if you hate the effin English" chants are pathetic. My favourite bands are from Manchester and Liverpool, England has produced many of the world's best talents across the arts and more generally. We could have had a modern progressive Scotland that doesn't hark back to Bannockburn, a country where all people are welcome to live in. It wasn't about the SNP or Salmond.

 

It really was a fantastic opportunity that we have just spurned. It is so sad that more people couldn't see it.

[Jaggernaut]

So the backlash is already starting down south about exactly what "extra powers" Scotland should "be granted," about excluding Scottish MPs from voting on "English" policy issues, even though these may ultimately impact on what happens in Scotland, and possibly ending any Scottish MP from ever being PM of the UK.

 

Well done, "no" voters; Scotland is already being put in its place by Westminster.

[kni]

So the backlash is already starting down south about exactly what "extra powers" Scotland should "be granted," about excluding Scottish MPs from voting on "English" policy issues, even though these may ultimately impact on what happens in Scotland, and possibly ending any Scottish MP from ever being PM of the UK.

 

Well done, "no" voters; Scotland is already being put in its place by Westminster.

 

Typical hypocritical nonsense from you. It's only Labour trying to stop English votes for English laws. Are the English not entitled to have their own devolution settlement?

 

Settling the West Lothian question would not stop a Scottish MP becoming Prime Minister of the UK. The most likely outcome is a Secretary of State and/or a First Minister for England.

 

We have has a Prime Minister and Chancellor from Scottish constituencies since devolution. The extra powers for Holyrood will not prevent it happening again.

 

Why can't you accept the democratic will of the Scottish people like Alex Salmond? Is you hatred of Westminster and the English that bitter? My English relations in Fife voted yes despite beIng told to **** off back to England by local SNP activists.

Edited September 19, 2014 by kni

[Jaggernaut]

Typical hypocritical nonsense from you. It's only Labour trying to stop English votes for English laws. Are the English not entitled to have their own devolution settlement?

 

Settling the West Lothian question would not stop a Scottish MP becoming Prime Minister of the UK. The most likely outcome is a Secretary of State and/or a First Minister for England.

 

We have has a Prime Minister and Chancellor from Scottish constituencies since devolution. The extra powers for Holyrood will not prevent it happening again.

 

Why can't you accept the democratic will of the Scottish people like Alex Salmond? Is you hatred of Westminster and the English that bitter? My English relations in Fife voted yes despite beIng told to **** off back to England by local SNP activists.

 

More unadulterated, blinkered britnat twaddle from you.

 

Question: What are the "extra powers" promised by the three unionist parties?

 

Answer: There are none; THEY DON'T EXIST.

 

Question: They were to be published on the 19th, if Scotland voted "no." Where are they? When will they be published?

 

Answer; THEY DON'T EXIST. Nobody knows when they will be published.

 

Any changes to the UK constitution have to be fully debated in parliament, passed, and then passed on to the House of Lords for scrutiny and ratification.

 

In any case, what do you think these "extra" powers will be? You can increase income tax? What political party of any persuasion will force workers to pay extra tax just for living in one part of what is still the UK. That would be equivalent to asking how you would like to be executed by the public, by hanging or shooting. Welfare reforms? Would you like your benefits in cash or in coupons? There will be no "extra powers" worth mentioning. And why? Because Westminster cannot allow Scotland to progress as a society in any way that would make it look to be progressing socially and economically beyond England. They simply cannot allow that to happen, and if you deny it then you are truly blind.

 

Your argument about Scots politicians leading the UK since devolution are totally irrelevant if the West Lothian "solution" comes to pass. Do you honestly believe that a PM l would be elected who could not vote, or even speak, at Westminster on matters that were directly relevant only to the 60+ million people that make up most of the UK?

 

The backlash has indeed started, with calls from English MPs (and they can push through any constitutional changes they want through sheer force of numbers) for Scotland to be denied for ever more the right to decide on whether they want to remain in the UK. Do you deny that this movement is growing? Maybe that's what you want?

 

All through this debate your position has been incoherent. You were getting your knickers in a twist over Scotland getting thrown out of the EU and how they would struggle to get back in, while I believe your position is that you think that we (who? Scotland? UK) should be independent of the EU.

 

So what next for you? Voting UKip? BNP?

 

ETA: I fully accept the democratic outcome of the referendum. But it's already perfectly clear, that the unionists lied to the electorate through panic, and that is becoming clearer with every day that passes. That you can attempt to deny it is astonishing.

Edited September 21, 2014 by Jaggernaut

[kni]

Lord Smith of Kelvin, as Chairman of the Devolution Commission, will publish the agreement on extra powers on St Andrews Day as set out by Gordon Brown. Presumably, Alex Salmond has delayed his resignation to November to lead those negotiations. Don't you trust him to secure a good deal rather than that idiotic list of yours?

 

Lord Smith is a Knight of the Thistle and a cross bencher in the House of Lords. Lord Smith is Chancellor of Strathclyde University, Chairman of Scottish and Southern Energy and was Chairman of the 1014 Commonwealth Games organising committee. Don't you trust the man that Alex Salmond described as having a proven track record and tremendous experience?

 

The published timetable allows for the necessary legislation to be pass through both Houses in Parliament. The draft bill will published on 25th January, Burns Night. IIRC, the SNP wanted tax raising powers. Why do you suddenly oppose differing income tax rates that would have resulted from independence anyway? Why can't we have lower income taxes in Scotland to attract entrepreneurs and investors?

 

All through this debate, my position has been totally coherent. I support a truly independent Scotland that has its own currency and can government itself by not being part of the European Union's empire. I have provided clear evidence to back up my arguments and debunk the SNP's ridiculous claims on currency union and EU membership. All you have done is to misrepresent and smear my position as "Britnat" and repeat the SNP's lies.

 

As for my voting plans, I will wait and assess the events of the next 6 to 8 months. I will assume that your UKIP/BNP smear is a pathetic joke. Only the Conservatives and Greens are currently committed to a referendum on EU membership. The Lib Dems had such a commitment in their 2010 manifesto and then voted against a referendum in the Commons. They cannot be trusted and will lose most of their seats anyway. It is possible that I will abstain again - as I have done in every election since 2007.

[Jaggernaut]

The unionists proposals for "extra" powers were "guaranteed" to be published on the 19th in the event of a "no" majority.

 

They were lying, and still some people cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that.

[kni]

The unionists proposals for "extra" powers were "guaranteed" to be published on the 19th in the event of a "no" majority. They were lying, and still some people cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that.

 

Yet more lies, evasion and deflection from you. You did have not responded to the issues that I raised above. Please provide a link to any official statement from any of the three parties that the exact proposals for extra powers would be published on 19th September.

 

Gordon Brown said that the process would begin immediately after a no vote. The timetable was the one outlined in my earlier post. Lord Smith of Kelvin was then appointed to chair the devolution Commission.

 

How on earth could the final proposals be agreed and published on the 19th? Some cannot people bring themselves to acknowledge that the three main parties are sticking to the proposed timetable to negotiate and legislate for the extra powers.

Edited September 22, 2014 by kni

[jaggybunnet]

The unionists proposals for "extra" powers were "guaranteed" to be published on the 19th in the event of a "no" majority.

 

They were lying, and still some people cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that.

 

 

you do realize now how ridiculous you have made yourself look, that was never the case.

 

edit: might have been a bit harsh so replace ridiculous with bitter and twisted

Edited September 22, 2014 by jaggybunnet

[i@n]

"Commenting on the Better Together leaders' statements, SNP MSP David Torrance said: “Better Together told the Scottish electorate that a motion would be presented to parliament on Friday the 19th September on giving more powers to Scotland - a promise which has already been broken."

 

I have a better together flyer which states this too.

Edited September 22, 2014 by i@n

[kni]

"Commenting on the Better Together leaders' statements, SNP MSP David Torrance said: “Better Together told the Scottish electorate that a motion would be presented to parliament on Friday the 19th September on giving more powers to Scotland - a promise which has already been broken."

 

I have a better together flyer which states this too.

 

That would have required the House of Commons to have been recalled from the conference season recess that began on 12th September. The House of Commons returns on 14th October so that's when such a motion should be presented to Parliament. That leaflet should not have contained that ridiculous claim.

 

The rotten Better Together campaign was run by Scottish Labour. Its literature, like that of the Yes campaign, contained a lot of bogus claims. And politicians wonder why the people don't trust them! I can't endorse any party or its policies and this book sums up my attitude.

 

[i@n]

[kni]

^ As I said before, Parliament was in recess on 19th September. There was no way that Parliament was going to recalled for one day just ahead of the Labour Party conference. Whoever approved that leaflet should have checked that first. However, a Commons motion is not part of the formal legislative process and it would not have swayed voters on its own.

 

The rest of the timetable is tight but achievable if there the political will to adhere to it. With the 2nd reading and committee stages after the general election, the new Government will guide the Bill through Parliament. There could be a lot of new MPs who may oppose it, especially if the Labour or the Conservatives win with a large overall majority. The leaders of one or two of the main parties could resign before or after the 2nd Reading and they can't bind their successors. Those are the key points, not a Commons motion on the 19th September.

[i@n]

I don't think this would have swayed voters either way but it 's false information. (and never likley to have happened). I seem to remember an interview with Cameron stating this information too but have searched and searched and can't find it so I have no proof. I do think it's a bit unfair to call Jaggernaut bitter, twisted and ridiculous when really what he said was correct

[jaggybunnet]

I don't think this would have swayed voters either way but it 's false information. (and never likley to have happened). I seem to remember an interview with Cameron stating this information too but have searched and searched and can't find it so I have no proof. I do think it's a bit unfair to call Jaggernaut bitter, twisted and ridiculous when really what he said was correct

 

why? it wasn't correct, only an idiot would think that it Could be sorted by the 19th (i dont even think your pic says that anyway) and i doubt that any of those that voted on the grounds of more devo thought that. i voted no because the yes camp had failed miserably to prove there case and i believe this is the reason most people voted no.

[i@n]

ok

[jaggybunnet]

ok

 

thank you

[Blackpool Jags]

 

 

why? it wasn't correct, only an idiot would think that it Could be sorted by the 19th (i dont even think your pic says that anyway) and i doubt that any of those that voted on the grounds of more devo thought that. i voted no because the yes camp had failed miserably to prove there case and i believe this is the reason most people voted no.

 

Yes, the reason MOST people voted No (accepting that most No voters didn't feel the Yes case had been proven). But, do you not accept that, say, even 6 or 7 No voters out of every hundred were swayed in the end by the tripartite promises of devo-max? I spoke to two myself on Friday night. Therefore, if only 6 out of every hundred No voters had changed their voting intentions on the basis of Milicamclegg's promises, Scotland would be irreversibly on its way to being an independent country. Even your imaginary idiot could work that out.

[jaggybunnet]

Yes, the reason MOST people voted No (accepting that most No voters didn't feel the Yes case had been proven). But, do you not accept that, say, even 6 or 7 No voters out of every hundred were swayed in the end by the tripartite promises of devo-max? I spoke to two myself on Friday night. Therefore, if only 6 out of every hundred No voters had changed their voting intentions on the basis of Milicamclegg's promises, Scotland would be irreversibly on its way to being an independent country. Even your imaginary idiot could work that out.

 

never said they didn't so cant see what your point is, think the leaflet is pretty clear and cant believe that anyone thought we would know the full details by now.

[Blackpool Jags]

^ My point is that the Yes victory is more precarious than it might seem: it won't take a huge swing of No voters who feel they have been duped to create a resurgent Yes movement. A very possible increase in SNP Westminster gains next year places the status quo in no small level of jeopardy.

[kni]

^ My point is that the Yes victory is more precarious than it might seem: it won't take a huge swing of No voters who feel they have been duped to create a resurgent Yes movement. A very possible increase in SNP Westminster gains next year places the status quo in no small level of jeopardy.

 

Surely you mean NO victory. The Yes campaign had plenty of time to get its independence policies worked out and its messages across. Then the main parties and the EU said no on a currency union and Membership. The SNP and Yes campaign failed to come up with convincing alternative plans, e.g. a Scottish currency and EFTA membership which would have been deliverable. They just said that we use the Pound anyway (without a central bank) and that the EU Commission and Council Presidents were wrong.

 

As a result, independence sceptics and undecideds were open to the Devo Max deal proposed by Gordon Brown, despite the fact that the Bill will have to be guided through Parliament by the next Government. The big problem for the Yes campaign is that its still stuck with that credibility problems on those key issues. Simply moaning about Better Together's lies is simply preaching to converted to bring in members and money. It's just deflects attention from the Yes campaign's deficiencies and the policy credibility issue.

 

If Salmond was confident that another referendum and Yes vote could happen quickly, he would have stayed on as First Minister and SNP Leader. It seems that, unlike Sevco's Sally, he does do walking away. Sturgeon does not have his charisma nor his advocacy and leadership skills. Her immediate problem will be holding onto the SNP's seats at the general election after big No votes in the constituencies. However, any losses could be balanced by gains in the areas that voted Yes.

 

ETA - no one has spotted another error in that Better Together leaflet. I should have picked it up earlier.

Edited September 24, 2014 by kni