How do we ensure that Scotland gets the extra powers promised before the referendum?

[Hibrandenburg]

M59 made a valid point on the independence thread about moving on and making sure we get them. How do we do this or don't we need them?

[hibsbollah]

Pop down to Faslane and point a couple of Trident missiles in the approximate direction of London SW1A.

[heretoday]

What extra powers would you like?

[Hibrandenburg]

What extra powers would you like?

Those mentioned in the thread title would be a good start.

[Moulin Yarns]

M59 made a valid point on the independence thread about moving on and making sure we get them. How do we do this or don't we need them?

While the '45' appear to be still campaigning for Independence, I think the groups that made up the bulk of Yes Scotland, namely the 3 political parties and major groups like Women for Indy will continue to press for the maximum devolution setllement. I attended a local branch meeting of the Scottish Greens last night and the mood was upbeat about contuing to debate the wishes of the Yes campaign, and campaign for as close to full Independence as possible, a Federal UK, with all powers except Foreign Affairs, Defence and UK legislation devolved to local level. This, of course, includes English Votes for English Laws.

All fiscal powers lie at the local level.

[NAE NOOKIE]

I suppose it would be too much to expect them to devolve all oil and Whisky revenue.

That way we could also devolve a central bank, because apparently Scotland has no share in the UKs central bank, we could use the oil and Whisky revenue to build up a cash reserve to back up our own currency when the time comes :greengrin

To be serious though .. the pound sharing argument does throw up a sort of financial West Lothian question. If one day in the future, lets say when the oil runs out, the good people of England get fed up of subsidising the rest of the UK and decide to go it alone, who does the pound and the central bank it goes with belong to then?

Though England leaving the UK at some time in the future is unlikely .... it is not impossible .... in that event I think the subsidised regions of the UK like Scotland should be asking this question now. After all, with no central bank and no cash reserve to support our own currency we would be a failed state ..... or at least that's what I've heard.

Impossible I hear you cry.

Well 30 years ago people would have laughed in your face and sent for the men in white coats if you had suggested there would be concentration camps again in mainland Europe .. then the break up of Yugoslavia happened.

[Moulin Yarns]

I suppose it would be too much to expect them to devolve all oil and Whisky revenue.



Great minds think alike, you and George Osborne both :wink:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2793329/ephraim-hardcastle-osborne-hand-north-sea-oil-scots.html

[Moulin Yarns]

How important do we think Devolution is to the leaders of the Westminster parties?

Answer: Not very!!

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/party-leaders-won-t-attend-uk-devolution-q-a-1-3574431

[Pretty Boy]

I don't think we can ensure we get them.

The extra powers always had to be voted through the Commons, surely everyone knew that. If the house votes against it what can the Scottish population do?

[NAE NOOKIE]

Great minds think alike, you and George Osborne both :wink:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2793329/ephraim-hardcastle-osborne-hand-north-sea-oil-scots.html

Ach .......... think what you like about Hitler, the Germans still make use of the fantastic autobahn system he started and everybody else copied. Even folk you fundamentally disagree with on pretty well every level can be right sometimes :greengrin

Anyway ...... The first question you would ask the likes of Osborne is ......... whats in it for you and what will it cost us.

[Moulin Yarns]

Ach .......... think what you like about Hitler, the Germans still make use of the fantastic autobahn system he started and everybody else copied. Even folk you fundamentally disagree with on pretty well every level can be right sometimes :greengrin

Anyway ...... The first question you would ask the likes of Osborne is ......... whats in it for you and what will it cost us.

The article (I confess I couldn't read it all) aludes to this as a move to weaken Labour in Scotland, therby ensureing more glorious years of Conservative rule.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

I don't think we can ensure we get them.

The extra powers always had to be voted through the Commons, surely everyone knew that. If the house votes against it what can the Scottish population do?

Don't worry, I believe Gordon Brown is on the case. TEE HEE!

[Moulin Yarns]

Don't worry, I believe Gordon Brown is on the case. TEE HEE!

I think that's what is worrying a lot of us. Anybody else and I might have had a bit of faith, but a failed Prime Minister??

[NAE NOOKIE]

I digressed from the OPs question before.

IMO we cant ensure that the vow or any perceived new powers it promised can or will be delivered. There are a number of back bench MPs on both sides who are extremely pissed off that the 'vow' wasn't run by parliament first.

The Tories may well not back anything unless it comes with a cast iron promise of English votes for English matters. Labour will be highly unlikely to back anything which endangers the input of their Scottish, or Welsh for that matter, MPs.

What could further complicate matters is if any new powers proposals put before parliament end up going to a free vote. Though I have no idea if that is a possibility. This could all get very messy.

As an aside:

One Tory has already stood up ( yesterday ) and said any future referendum should only be run on the condition that in order to succeed a two thirds majority of the total Scottish electorate would have to vote yes for independence to happen. Even though he was firmly against the same rule being applied to an in / out EU referendum.

Labour's Jack Straw has already said that the break up of the UK should be prevented in law.

The Tory seems to be having a bit of a struggle with the concept of democracy.

Jack Straw seems to want parliament to head on a course the inevitable result of which would be the creation of a Scottish equivalent of the IRA.

I hope for all our sakes neither point of view gains any support .... especially the latter.

[RyeSloan]

Ach .......... think what you like about Hitler, the Germans still make use of the fantastic autobahn system he started and everybody else copied. Even folk you fundamentally disagree with on pretty well every level can be right sometimes :greengrin Anyway ...... The first question you would ask the likes of Osborne is ......... whats in it for you and what will it cost us.

O/T I know but the Autobahns were not Hitlers idea. The Nazi party even voted against them before Hitler came to power.

The idea was in the making long before Hitler took credit for them and long before he used prisoners to build them.

If you are to give any dictator credit for inventing the motorway I think the prize should go to Mussolini for the Milan autostrada...

[NAE NOOKIE]

O/T I know but the Autobahns were not Hitlers idea. The Nazi party even voted against them before Hitler came to power.

The idea was in the making long before Hitler took credit for them and long before he used prisoners to build them.

If you are to give any dictator credit for inventing the motorway I think the prize should go to Mussolini for the Milan autostrada...

Duly Noted.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Ach .......... think what you like about Hitler, the Germans still make use of the fantastic autobahn system he started and everybody else copied. Even folk you fundamentally disagree with on pretty well every level can be right sometimes :greengrin

Anyway ...... The first question you would ask the likes of Osborne is ......... whats in it for you and what will it cost us.

You do realise that you can't joke about the nazis? It means that you don't know what they did!

[NAE NOOKIE]

You do realise that you can't joke about the nazis? It means that you don't know what they did!

:agree:

[Hibrandenburg]

You do realise that you can't joke about the nazis? It means that you don't know what they did!

Quisling! Sure you used to have another opinion.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Quisling! Sure you used to have another opinion.

I think the correct term these days is to call traitors a "Murphy".

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

I think that's what is worrying a lot of us.

Aye I know, I was being sarcastic. Pity it never worried more of us on referendum day.

[Mikey09]

M59 made a valid point on the independence thread about moving on and making sure we get them. How do we do this or don't we need them?


Dunno if this would work..... Get the Daily Record to print the powers you want on there front page and seemingly it's a shoe in..... Worth a try.... :wink:

[ronaldo7]

I don't know "How" we get them to agree on more powers, but this is the stuff they were talking about pre Referendum.

“The plan for a stronger Scottish Parliament we seek agreement on is for nothing else
than a modern form of Scottish Home Rule within the United Kingdom.”
(Gordon Brown, 8 September 2014)

“We’re going to be, within a year or two, as close to a federal state as you can be in a
country where one nation is 85% of the population.”
(Gordon Brown, 14 August 2014)

“Scotland will have more powers over its finances, more responsibility for raising
taxation and more control over parts of the welfare system – effective Home Rule but
within the security and stability of our successful United Kingdom.”
(Danny Alexander, Liberal Democrat Chief Secretary to the Treasury, 13 September 2014)

“If we get a No vote on Thursday, that will trigger a major, unprecedented programme
of devolution with additional powers for the Scottish Parliament.”
(David Cameron, 15 September 2014)

I will take stock for now and wait to see if they deliver anything close to any of those statements.

[Moulin Yarns]

We, and I mean everybody, has to stop this happening.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/voter-registration-row-over-threat-of-80-fine-1-3575534

[Phil D. Rolls]

Anybody else think that Broon fancies the FM job?

[Danderhall Hibs]

We, and I mean everybody, has to stop this happening.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/voter-registration-row-over-threat-of-80-fine-1-3575534

Why? Have you got an outstanding Poll Tax bill?

[johnbc70]

We, and I mean everybody, has to stop this happening.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/voter-registration-row-over-threat-of-80-fine-1-3575534

If you have nothing to hide what's the issue?

[hibsbollah]

If you have nothing to hide what's the issue?

Its not about having 'something to hide'. Being in debt, or having a history of financial problems, shouldnt be used to remove universal suffrage, or discouraging people to vote, which is the likely effect of these proposals. There are a few ex-bankcrupts and fraudsters sitting in the house of lords.

[Beefster]

Its not about having 'something to hide'. Being in debt, or having a history of financial problems, shouldnt be used to remove universal suffrage, or discouraging people to vote, which is the likely effect of these proposals. There are a few ex-bankcrupts and fraudsters sitting in the house of lords.

Am I missing something? The linked article is about reducing/mitigating the risk of electoral fraud.

For what it's worth, I agree with you about the electoral roll only being used for its primary purpose. It shouldn't be sold as a commodity either. Folk don't register to vote to have their details sold on to anyone that wants them.

[Moulin Yarns]

We, and I mean everybody, has to stop this happening.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/voter-registration-row-over-threat-of-80-fine-1-3575534


Why? Have you got an outstanding Poll Tax bill?


If you have nothing to hide what's the issue?


Its not about having 'something to hide'. Being in debt, or having a history of financial problems, shouldnt be used to remove universal suffrage, or discouraging people to vote, which is the likely effect of these proposals. There are a few ex-bankcrupts and fraudsters sitting in the house of lords.

What I am getting at is the whole idea that if you choose to excercise your democratic right to vote or not being dependent on giving your NI number, and if you don't you will be fined.

This does not affect me, I have been on the electoral register since I was 18, I have lived at the same adress for over 26 years, this is about Big Brother checking up on whether people are on th eElectoral Register or not, and if they excercise their democratic right not to be on it facing a fine of £80, and it being targeted at the unemployed and students, the least able to pay these fines.

[johnbc70]

If it's a democratic right not to be on the electoral roll how can a fine be enforced?

[Moulin Yarns]

If it's a democratic right not to be on the electoral roll how can a fine be enforced?

You tell me? the article suggests letters are going to be sent out, but not to everyone, mainly those that are students, unemployed, or recently moved house, asking them for their NI number to ostensibly "check for electoral fraud" but if you don't comply then you are liable for a fine of £80.

We don't yet live in a state where it is a requirement that every citizen must be on the electoral register, so why the threat of a fine if you then choose to remove your name from the register and therby avoid the need for Big Brother to cross check your NI number with your name on the Electoral Register.

This is a check to far as far as I'm concerned. It aims to disenfrachise those who added their name to the electoral register in the months before the referendum, why else is it happening?

[One Day Soon]

The bizarre nature of some of the 'logic' applied to discussions on the Referendum and post-Referendum themes is mind blowing.

Gordon Brown is apparently evil incarnate for selling out, or prospectively selling out, Scotland. Meanwhile he is alleged to be harbouring a desire to become FM of the country he is supposed to be selling out. No contradiction there at all. As an arch Unionist conspirator you might think he would be sitting back in his House of Commons green leather armchair, quaffing London Gin and thinking about buying his next set of Union Jack underpants while thinking 'job done'. But no, he appears to be pretty much the most vocal and active of any of the politicians in trying to keep up the pressure for more powers to be delivered to the Scottish Parliament. Perhaps one of our resident Yessers or fellow travelers could drop him an email to let him know he is failing to conform to their preferred form of pan UK BT stereotype.

Then there's Jim Murphy. Another man determined to sell out Scotland. So determined that he is a byword in his own right for treachery. So of course he is pursuing his climb up the greasy pole of Westminster politics now that he's sold Scotland down the river. Except, wait, he appears to want to come to the Scottish Parliament to replace Johann Lamont as Labour Leader in Scotland. That can't be right can it? Better cc him into that email too.

Alex Salmond of course is the untouchable lost father of the nation committed above all to independence, a sovereign Scottish Parliament and the will of the Scottish people. So that's why he wants to go back to Westminster as an MP. Oops.

Meanwhile 55% of the people who voted expressed a desire to remain within the UK so the issue is settled for a generation - as has been said by Salmond (apart from when he implied after the result that you might be able to get independence without a Referendum), Swinney and a number of others. Except of course now the SNP won't commit to that because the result wasn't the one they wanted and expected. Would a majority of SNP MSPs in the next Scottish Parliament elections mean a demand for another Referendum? We don't know, the SNP won't say and we don't find out Nicola's position until after she becomes First Minister.

[RyeSloan]

If it's a democratic right not to be on the electoral roll how can a fine be enforced?

I'm pretty sure it's not actually. You have the right not to be added to the one that is flogged to all and sundry but it is an offence not to be on the register itself...clearly not one that is ever followed up with any gusto but none the less I'm 99% sure that there is no democratic right not to be on the register.

[Moulin Yarns]

The bizarre nature of some of the 'logic' applied to discussions on the Referendum and post-Referendum themes is mind blowing.

Gordon Brown is apparently evil incarnate for selling out, or prospectively selling out, Scotland. Meanwhile he is alleged to be harbouring a desire to become FM of the country he is supposed to be selling out. No contradiction there at all. As an arch Unionist conspirator you might think he would be sitting back in his House of Commons green leather armchair, quaffing London Gin and thinking about buying his next set of Union Jack underpants while thinking 'job done'. But no, he appears to be pretty much the most vocal and active of any of the politicians in trying to keep up the pressure for more powers to be delivered to the Scottish Parliament. Perhaps one of our resident Yessers or fellow travelers could drop him an email to let him know he is failing to conform to their preferred form of pan UK BT stereotype.

Then there's Jim Murphy. Another man determined to sell out Scotland. So determined that he is a byword in his own right for treachery. So of course he is pursuing his climb up the greasy pole of Westminster politics now that he's sold Scotland down the river. Except, wait, he appears to want to come to the Scottish Parliament to replace Johann Lamont as Labour Leader in Scotland. That can't be right can it? Better cc him into that email too.

Alex Salmond of course is the untouchable lost father of the nation committed above all to independence, a sovereign Scottish Parliament and the will of the Scottish people. So that's why he wants to go back to Westminster as an MP. Oops.

Meanwhile 55% of the people who voted expressed a desire to remain within the UK so the issue is settled for a generation - as has been said by Salmond (apart from when he implied after the result that you might be able to get independence without a Referendum), Swinney and a number of others. Except of course now the SNP won't commit to that because the result wasn't the one they wanted and expected. Would a majority of SNP MSPs in the next Scottish Parliament elections mean a demand for another Referendum? We don't know, the SNP won't say and we don't find out Nicola's position until after she becomes First Minister.

The bit in bold, I take issue with. He may be the most vocal, at the moment, but his attendance record at Westminster is woeful. He is also the most vocal to want the least additional powers for Holyrood. of the 3 proposals Labour are wanting to give the least. Why is that? He is maybe wary of the Conservatives and their EVEL campaign, knowing the more that Scotland gets the less power in England Labour would have.

Other than that, please remember that the Yes campaign wasn't the sole reserve of your arch enemy, the SNP, and they and the other parties will still be campaigning for the maximum settlement for Scttish Devolution, or Federalism.

[heretoday]

Anybody else think that Broon fancies the FM job?


I am finding it hard to figure out just exactly what Brown is on these days.

[One Day Soon]

The bit in bold, I take issue with. He may be the most vocal, at the moment, but his attendance record at Westminster is woeful. He is also the most vocal to want the least additional powers for Holyrood. of the 3 proposals Labour are wanting to give the least. Why is that? He is maybe wary of the Conservatives and their EVEL campaign, knowing the more that Scotland gets the less power in England Labour would have.

Other than that, please remember that the Yes campaign wasn't the sole reserve of your arch enemy, the SNP, and they and the other parties will still be campaigning for the maximum settlement for Scttish Devolution, or Federalism.

1. If he's the most vocal at the moment it means he's the most vocal unless something changes.
2. His attendance record has nothing to do with it. The notion that political momentum and force comes from attendance in the Westminster chamber is a nonsense.
3. You can split hairs on the who wants what powers but my point still stands. He was being criticised in relation to selling Scotland out in relation to 'The Vow' yet he is the most vocal of the politicians in respect of pressing Cameron, Clegg and Miliband to deliver on what they promised during the Referendum.
4. I don't think he gives a hoot about the EVEL stuff in so far as it relates to the more powers argument. He's on record repeatedly saying that more should be delivered and that it should not be held back for or by EVEL.
5. The Yes campaign was led, orchestrated, run and delivered by the SNP plus a number of other prophylactics. The notion that it wasn't wholly under the sway of Salmond and SNP central office is risible. We can pretend otherwise, but the notion that Patrick Harvie, Colin Fox and Tommy Sheridan were in any way in the driving seats is just daft.

And post Referendum the role, influence and importance of the other parties in prosecuting a pro-independence agenda will be even less than the negligible amount it was during the Referendum.

[One Day Soon]

Am I missing something? The linked article is about reducing/mitigating the risk of electoral fraud.

For what it's worth, I agree with you about the electoral roll only being used for its primary purpose. It shouldn't be sold as a commodity either. Folk don't register to vote to have their details sold on to anyone that wants them.


Apparently you have a right to vote, a right not to pay taxes if you disagree with them and then a right not to be checked as a name on the register for the purpose of avoiding electoral fraud. Right there is everything you need to self destruct a democracy before it even gets started.

The vast majority of people vote in good conscience, pay their taxes (even the bad taxes) and don't indulge in electoral fraud. The reason we have laws and rules about compliance on these things is because unless those principals are established and agreed people can just opt in and out of the laws they don't fancy to suit themselves.

[RyeSloan]

Apparently you have a right to vote, a right not to pay taxes if you disagree with them and then a right not to be checked as a name on the register for the purpose of avoiding electoral fraud. Right there is everything you need to self destruct a democracy before it even gets started. The vast majority of people vote in good conscience, pay their taxes (even the bad taxes) and don't indulge in electoral fraud. The reason we have laws and rules about compliance on these things is because unless those principals are established and agreed people can just opt in and out of the laws they don't fancy to suit themselves.

ODS....you do know all taxes are bad yeah ;-)

[hibsbollah]

Apparently you have a right to vote, a right not to pay taxes if you disagree with them and then a right not to be checked as a name on the register for the purpose of avoiding electoral fraud. Right there is everything you need to self destruct a democracy before it even gets started.

The vast majority of people vote in good conscience, pay their taxes (even the bad taxes) and don't indulge in electoral fraud. The reason we have laws and rules about compliance on these things is because unless those principals are established and agreed people can just opt in and out of the laws they don't fancy to suit themselves.

I'm not being disingenuous but I genuinely dont understand your position on this. Isnt policing the 'opting in and out' of laws the responsibility of the police and the courts, not the keepers of the electoral roll?

[One Day Soon]

I'm not being disingenuous but I genuinely dont understand your position on this. Isnt policing the 'opting in and out' of laws the responsibility of the police and the courts, not the keepers of the electoral roll?

There a range of areas in which compliance with society's laws and regulations are policed by agencies other than the police and the courts. The ultimate sanction may lie with the courts. In the case of local tax for example, the system is run by local government and their revenue collection departments. It is quite unusual to find a government or Minister taking the position that laws are there to be complied with if you feel like it. So when an SNP Minister recently said that he 'generally' expected people to pay their taxes it spoke to a pretty weak understanding of what democracy and society needs to have in place in order to function coherently.

In this case the keepers of the electoral roll are proposing to do nothing significantly different from what they already do in compliance terms. You can already be fined for completing your registration form incorrectly.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I am finding it hard to figure out just exactly what Brown is on these days.

Maybe hankering after some power and purpose after some torrid years. I'd certainly welcome him to fight our corner. Maybe he could sort out Strathclyde Labour at the same time.

[#FromTheCapital]

Do people even want the powers? Or would they rather just have the ammunition against westminster? I think there's an element who couldn't give a toss about the powers, but if/when we don't get what was promised to a tee, then it gives them another argument in the ongoing quest for full Independance.. and that's all that matters to them.

[lord bunberry]

Do people even want the powers? Or would they rather just have the ammunition against westminster? I think there's an element who couldn't give a toss about the powers, but if/when we don't get what was promised to a tee, then it gives them another argument in the ongoing quest for full Independance.. and that's all that matters to them.
I think there's also an element who wants to put down anyone who believes in independence. The threads on here started of great but have now decended into pettiness. I used to enjoy reading these threads but now I only bother when I'm bored.

[#FromTheCapital]

I think there's also an element who wants to put down anyone who believes in independence. The threads on here started of great but have now decended into pettiness. I used to enjoy reading these threads but now I only bother when I'm bored.

I personally wouldn't put anyone down for their belief in independance, and I haven't seen any evidence of that on Hibs.net at least.
I agree that the threads on here have decended but I put that mostly down to bitterness. If it had been a yes vote I'm sure you and many others would have a different view.

[Mibbes Aye]

I personally wouldn't put anyone down for their belief in independance, and I haven't seen any evidence of that on Hibs.net at least.
I agree that the threads on here have decended but I put that mostly down to bitterness. If it had been a yes vote I'm sure you and many others would have a different view.

:agree: There's a lot of unhappy, disgruntled, even bitter posts on here since the result.

And I would say it again, if it had been a Yes there would have been no shortage of :partyhibb-style posting on here.

We didn't see that from those who supported No, quite the opposite.

Folk need to man up and move on.

[lord bunberry]

I personally wouldn't put anyone down for their belief in independance, and I haven't seen any evidence of that on Hibs.net at least.
I agree that the threads on here have decended but I put that mostly down to bitterness. If it had been a yes vote I'm sure you and many others would have a different view.
You're right my view probably would have been different had there been a yes vote, but that's human nature.
In answer to your question about people not really wanting the extra powers to be delivered in order to further the case for independence, then I suppose it's what you believe the extra powers will mean for the people of this country. I find it hard to believe that this country could be successful while the rest of the UK wasn't. If the powers granted to us meant that our standard of living was much better than the rest of the UK, then that would lead to bitterness. Whilst we're part of the UK we're tied to the fortunes of the UK. I accept that in a global economy we will always be in part tied to the fortunes of the UK and indeed the rest of the EU.
In summary if you believe the powers are meaningless then surely you're going to be hoping they don't materialise in order to further the case for independence. The other way of looking at it is that more powers may well lead to independence anyway. I'm still undecided.

[#FromTheCapital]

:agree: There's a lot of unhappy, disgruntled, even bitter posts on here since the result.

And I would say it again, if it had been a Yes there would have been no shortage of :partyhibb-style posting on here.

We didn't see that from those who supported No, quite the opposite.

Folk need to man up and move on.

Spot on.

[lord bunberry]

:agree: There's a lot of unhappy, disgruntled, even bitter posts on here since the result.

And I would say it again, if it had been a Yes there would have been no shortage of :partyhibb-style posting on here.

We didn't see that from those who supported No, quite the opposite.

Folk need to man up and move on.

You're post and many others have in a roundabout way come across as rubbing people's faces in it. Personally it doesn't bother me, but let's not pretend that some no voters aren't enjoying winding people up.

[#FromTheCapital]

You're right my view probably would have been different had there been a yes vote, but that's human nature.
In answer to your question about people not really wanting the extra powers to be delivered in order to further the case for independence, then I suppose it's what you believe the extra powers will mean for the people of this country. I find it hard to believe that this country could be successful while the rest of the UK wasn't. If the powers granted to us meant that our standard of living was much better than the rest of the UK, then that would lead to bitterness. Whilst we're part of the UK we're tied to the fortunes of the UK. I accept that in a global economy we will always be in part tied to the fortunes of the UK and indeed the rest of the EU.
In summary if you believe the powers are meaningless then surely you're going to be hoping they don't materialise in order to further the case for independence. The other way of looking at it is that more powers may well lead to independence anyway. I'm still undecided.

Fair dos, although it should never be the case that more powers lead to independance. Referendum should be the only way. Imo new powers will need to be in sync with the rest of the UK, it's the only fair way - however this will take time, which isn't going to sit well with some who believe that scotland has some god given right to special treatment. I can understand that these people are most likely to believe that Scotland should be independant but at the same time they need to remember that the majority of scots voted to stay in the UK.

[Mikey09]

:agree: There's a lot of unhappy, disgruntled, even bitter posts on here since the result.

And I would say it again, if it had been a Yes there would have been no shortage of :partyhibb-style posting on here.

We didn't see that from those who supported No, quite the opposite.

Folk need to man up and move on.


Why should folk "man up and move on" just cause you say?? People who believe in Independence won't just give up there beliefs now....Cameron and his stooges spouted lies and promises they can't keep and now it's gonna turn into a complete pantomime. Independence is coming... Like it or not.

[Mibbes Aye]

Why should folk "man up and move on" just cause you say?? People who believe in Independence won't just give up there beliefs now....Cameron and his stooges spouted lies and promises they can't keep and now it's gonna turn into a complete pantomime. Independence is coming... Like it or not.

On you go. That's how to win the 55 over :agree:

I'm not saying give up your beliefs. I'm saying if you want success then stop moaning and start listening!

Not even sure why I should be giving you advice :greengrin

[RyeSloan]

You're right my view probably would have been different had there been a yes vote, but that's human nature. In answer to your question about people not really wanting the extra powers to be delivered in order to further the case for independence, then I suppose it's what you believe the extra powers will mean for the people of this country. I find it hard to believe that this country could be successful while the rest of the UK wasn't. If the powers granted to us meant that our standard of living was much better than the rest of the UK, then that would lead to bitterness. Whilst we're part of the UK we're tied to the fortunes of the UK. I accept that in a global economy we will always be in part tied to the fortunes of the UK and indeed the rest of the EU. In summary if you believe the powers are meaningless then surely you're going to be hoping they don't materialise in order to further the case for independence. The other way of looking at it is that more powers may well lead to independence anyway. I'm still undecided.

Good post Bunberry.

Maybe you have alluded to a reason some voted No...even an independent Scotland (esp. The type proposed) would still be tied to the UK and the EU. In some respects maybe people thought it actually wouldn't make a significant difference either way so decided not to bother with the upheaval?

Must admit my probably rather cynical view and the 'esteem' I hold most politicians in certainly had me thinking along those lines, at least to some degree...

[lord bunberry]

Fair dos, although it should never be the case that more powers lead to independance. Referendum should be the only way. Imo new powers will need to be in sync with the rest of the UK, it's the only fair way - however this will take time, which isn't going to sit well with some who believe that scotland has some god given right to special treatment. I can understand that these people are most likely to believe that Scotland should be independant but at the same time they need to remember that the majority of scots voted to stay in the UK.

I was meaning that new powers would be the next stage on the way to independence, the same way as devolution led to the referendum.
I can only speak for myself but I don't think we've got a right to be given special treatment, but I do think that the politicians have a duty to deliver what they promised in the timescale they promised. If they don't I certainly won't feel short changed, I didn't vote for what they promised. It's the people who voted no that should be applying the pressure to hold them to account.

[lord bunberry]

Good post Bunberry.

Maybe you have alluded to a reason some voted No...even an independent Scotland (esp. The type proposed) would still be tied to the UK and the EU. In some respects maybe people thought it actually wouldn't make a significant difference either way so decided not to bother with the upheaval?

Must admit my probably rather cynical view and the 'esteem' I hold most politicians in certainly had me thinking along those lines, at least to some degree...

I would've much rather the yes campaign had went further and announced a timetable for our own currency. A currency union was the only option to start with, but a plan to switch to our own currency in a certain number of years would've been the way to go for me.

[Mibbes Aye]

You're post and many others have in a roundabout way come across as rubbing people's faces in it. Personally it doesn't bother me, but let's not pretend that some no voters aren't enjoying winding people up.

Examples?

[lord bunberry]

Examples?

You and others have suggested several times that no voters have been far more magnanimous than yes voters would've been had the vote gone the other way. Who do you know this? The insinuation that the yes voter's were some sort of unruly mob incapable of being civil is wrong imo. The term 'the 45' is now been used in the same derogatory way. The 45 doesn't exist as a group, it has no leader or spokesman, its merely a % of the population who wanted change.

[Mibbes Aye]

You and others have suggested several times that no voters have been far more magnanimous than yes voters would've been had the vote gone the other way. Who do you know this? The insinuation that the yes voter's were some sort of unruly mob incapable of being civil is wrong imo. The term 'the 45' is now been used in the same derogatory way. The 45 doesn't exist as a group, it has no leader or spokesman, its merely a % of the population who wanted change.

So that will be no examples?

I want to work with you here, happy to take authentic examples you can provide?

[lord bunberry]

So that will be no examples?

I want to work with you here, happy to take authentic examples you can provide?

The post I originally replied to about there being lots of bitterness and that the yes voters would somehow have behaved differently to no voters. You also said we need to move on, we have moved on, lots of us have joined a political party and are looking to build on the momentum that the referendum created. Coming on here discussing how we felt the campaign or the result went doesn't make us bitter and it doesn't mean we haven't moved on. It's very easy for the victorious no voters to come out and call the yes voter's bitter, but to me they just sound similar to hearts fans talking about hibs fans, misinformed and only seeing what tbey want to see.

[#FromTheCapital]

I was meaning that new powers would be the next stage on the way to independence, the same way as devolution led to the referendum.
I can only speak for myself but I don't think we've got a right to be given special treatment, but I do think that the politicians have a duty to deliver what they promised in the timescale they promised. If they don't I certainly won't feel short changed, I didn't vote for what they promised. It's the people who voted no that should be applying the pressure to hold them to account.

I didn't vote for what they promised either. My mind was made up long before 'the vow'. In that case the only people who voted for the powers are no voters who were swayed by the vow- ie not very many at all. I do understand what you're saying though. If the powers don't come then it will make for a better argument for yes if/when there is another Indy ref. Although I certainly won't be taking the time out of my personal life to fight for these powers when I don't really care too much about them.


The post I originally replied to about there being lots of bitterness and that the yes voters would somehow have behaved differently to no voters. You also said we need to move on, we have moved on, lots of us have joined a political party and are looking to build on the momentum that the referendum created. Coming on here discussing how we felt the campaign or the result went doesn't make us bitter and it doesn't mean we haven't moved on. It's very easy for the victorious no voters to come out and call the yes voter's bitter, but to me they just sound similar to hearts fans talking about hibs fans, misinformed and only seeing what tbey want to see.

You're right many have moved on and fair play to them. Not everyone is bitter, you come across quite well yourself. However there's still plenty of bitterness on here. Here's a good example.....


Why should folk "man up and move on" just cause you say?? People who believe in Independence won't just give up there beliefs now....Cameron and his stooges spouted lies and promises they can't keep and now it's gonna turn into a complete pantomime. Independence is coming... Like it or not.

[Phil D. Rolls]

One of the frustrations on this thread is that there are people who pick up on musings which are attempts to provoke discussions and twist them into statements that are supposed to be representative of one side or the other.

Its not pleasant to read posts from people that are so entrenched in the bunker of their own opinion that they can't see the light of day.

The fact is most politicians are tossers and don't deserve the unconditional support that some people are prepared to give. As for calling them names, the only thing that would upset them there is if it was to stop.

They crave attention, and it is fuelled by sycophants who repeat their utterings without question. I'm becoming more disengaged the longer this bun fight goes on. Hell nobodies even come up with a good nickname for Murphy yet - how about Spider?

[Moulin Yarns]

http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by lord bunberry http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?p=4200742#post4200742)
You're post and many others have in a roundabout way come across as rubbing people's faces in it. Personally it doesn't bother me, but let's not pretend that some no voters aren't enjoying winding people up.


Examples?





The Yes campaign was led, orchestrated, run and delivered by the SNP plus a number of other prophylactics.

The use of the word prophylactic is obviously an insult rather than preventative medicine, as used here.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/andy-mcsmiths-diary-prophylactic-nick-clegg-is-no-protection-against-boris-johnson-9045003.html

There have been others, but I'm not going to trawl (or troll) the threads for more.


(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/andy-mcsmiths-diary-prophylactic-nick-clegg-is-no-protection-against-boris-johnson-9045003.html)

[Mibbes Aye]

The post I originally replied to about there being lots of bitterness and that the yes voters would somehow have behaved differently to no voters. You also said we need to move on, we have moved on, lots of us have joined a political party and are looking to build on the momentum that the referendum created. Coming on here discussing how we felt the campaign or the result went doesn't make us bitter and it doesn't mean we haven't moved on. It's very easy for the victorious no voters to come out and call the yes voter's bitter, but to me they just sound similar to hearts fans talking about hibs fans, misinformed and only seeing what tbey want to see.

Okay, but just to be clear, you've had several opportunities to post examples of what you called "rubbing people's noses in it" and you haven't.

I'm emphasising it because it's important.

The Yes campaign for me was based on a bunch of things that didn't make sense but were designed to engender an emotive response.

Suggesting that the No posters on here have been gloating does likewise. For example, I don't think I was anywhere near a referendum thread for several days after the result and that's true of others IIRC.

If you want independence you have to persuade people who voted No. A good start would be wanting to hear why they voted No rather than turning inwards and moaning to each other about the 'misinformed' No voters.

[Mibbes Aye]

http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by lord bunberry http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?p=4200742#post4200742)
You're post and many others have in a roundabout way come across as rubbing people's faces in it. Personally it doesn't bother me, but let's not pretend that some no voters aren't enjoying winding people up.






The use of the word prophylactic is obviously an insult rather than preventative medicine, as used here.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/andy-mcsmiths-diary-prophylactic-nick-clegg-is-no-protection-against-boris-johnson-9045003.html

There have been others, but I'm not going to trawl (or troll) the threads for more.


(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/andy-mcsmiths-diary-prophylactic-nick-clegg-is-no-protection-against-boris-johnson-9045003.html)

I don't think there have been others but hey-ho.

As for the one you cite, it feels more like ODS's sense of humour, which can be a bit erudite - I remember him from the Calendar Thread........it's probably a case of an oblique reference rather than gloating.

Actually, let's be frank, it's not gloating at all is it - how in any way, shape or form can it be considered gloating? Insult maybe, but as I say, it's probably more of an in-joke.

The point is it's not "rubbing people's noses in it", is it?

[One Day Soon]

One of the frustrations on this thread is that there are people who pick up on musings which are attempts to provoke discussions and twist them into statements that are supposed to be representative of one side or the other.

Its not pleasant to read posts from people that are so entrenched in the bunker of their own opinion that they can't see the light of day.

I agree with that.

The fact is most politicians are tossers and don't deserve the unconditional support that some people are prepared to give. As for calling them names, the only thing that would upset them there is if it was to stop.

I don't agree with that. Most politicians of all parties aren't actually tossers, they are mostly people trying to do a job that anyone would struggle to do to the satisfaction of a contemporary society in which people only want easy answers to difficult questions.

They crave attention, and it is fuelled by sycophants who repeat their utterings without question. I'm becoming more disengaged the longer this bun fight goes on. Hell nobodies even come up with a good nickname for Murphy yet - how about Spider?

They certainly crave attention, their future livelihood depends on it. But criticising them for that is rather like criticising a doctor for craving patients. I don't think the sycophants are the problem, I think the web, social media and people's willingness to self-reinforce their own assumptions are the problem. We live in an age where a little knowledge is now much worse than simply a dangerous thing. It means the vast majority of people become ever more entrenched in believing that each one of them is their own personal sun in their own personal universe. All logic goes out of the window and the power of assertion is king.

[One Day Soon]

http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by lord bunberry http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?p=4200742#post4200742)
You're post and many others have in a roundabout way come across as rubbing people's faces in it. Personally it doesn't bother me, but let's not pretend that some no voters aren't enjoying winding people up.






The use of the word prophylactic is obviously an insult rather than preventative medicine, as used here.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/andy-mcsmiths-diary-prophylactic-nick-clegg-is-no-protection-against-boris-johnson-9045003.html

There have been others, but I'm not going to trawl (or troll) the threads for more.


(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/andy-mcsmiths-diary-prophylactic-nick-clegg-is-no-protection-against-boris-johnson-9045003.html)


I suppose you can fairly take my use of the term prophylactic as insulting to the Greens and whatever were the parties, groups and individuals other than the SNP inside the Yes campaign. Another way to express it would be to say that the SNP ran Yes and all others were just stooges. That's not an attempt to 'rub noses in it' (apart from anything else it isn't even a reference to the result), it is rather a statement of what I think is pretty obvious fact.

[One Day Soon]

I don't think there have been others but hey-ho.

As for the one you cite, it feels more like ODS's sense of humour, which can be a bit erudite - I remember him from the Calendar Thread........it's probably a case of an oblique reference rather than gloating.

Actually, let's be frank, it's not gloating at all is it - how in any way, shape or form can it be considered gloating? Insult maybe, but as I say, it's probably more of an in-joke.

The point is it's not "rubbing people's noses in it", is it?


I think the point you have been making repeatedly about the 45% versus 55% is an important one. At the end of the two years of debate what happened was what has been described elsewhere: the settled will of the SNP ran into the sovereign will of the Scottish people. Result, unhappiness for both Nats and nats.

Now this was despite:

The longest and worst recession since the great depression
A Tory government
An utterly awful Labour opposition in Holyrood and Westminster
A single party administration in Holyrood for probably the one and only time it will happen
Seven years of SNP 'don't rock the boat' government to nurse all the interest groups
A massively well funded Yes campaign backed by all the advantages and resources of government
A Better Together campaign that more often than not looked like it had been infiltrated by entryist Yessers deliberately trying to sabotage it
A First Minister who was probably one of the top three most experienced and accomplished politicians in the UK
An SNP campaign machine which is certainly the best in the UK in terms of personnel, message discipline and modern communications
Severe public spending cuts
Enthusiastic backing for Salmond and the SNP from the Murdoch press throughout the two years
A binary question in which the language of voting for independence was framed as positively as it could legitimately be
An extension of the franchise to include the 16 and 17 years olds who were widely expected to be more pro-independence
The biggest enfranchisement of Scottish - or indeed British - voters in history.

Despite all these factors in their favour Yes still couldn't get over the line. Now the post result feel has been an interesting diversion for the SNP what with a new leader imminent and all, but once that is done there are hard facts to deal with. The most salient of which is this, if they couldn't win with all those factors in their favour when can they ever expect to do it? Shouldn't they be thinking long and hard about why 55% said no despite all of the above?

[Mibbes Aye]

I think the point you have been making repeatedly about the 45% versus 55% is an important one. At the end of the two years of debate what happened was what has been described elsewhere: the settled will of the SNP ran into the sovereign will of the Scottish people. Result, unhappiness for both Nats and nats.

Now this was despite:

The longest and worst recession since the great depression
A Tory government
An utterly awful Labour opposition in Holyrood and Westminster
A single party administration in Holyrood for probably the one and only time it will happen
Seven years of SNP 'don't rock the boat' government to nurse all the interest groups
A massively well funded Yes campaign backed by all the advantages and resources of government
A Better Together campaign that more often than not looked like it had been infiltrated by entryist Yessers deliberately trying to sabotage it
A First Minister who was probably one of the top three most experienced and accomplished politicians in the UK
An SNP campaign machine which is certainly the best in the UK in terms of personnel, message discipline and modern communications
Severe public spending cuts
Enthusiastic backing for Salmond and the SNP from the Murdoch press throughout the two years
A binary question in which the language of voting for independence was framed as positively as it could legitimately be
An extension of the franchise to include the 16 and 17 years olds who were widely expected to be more pro-independence
The biggest enfranchisement of Scottish - or indeed British - voters in history.

Despite all these factors in their favour Yes still couldn't get over the line. Now the post result feel has been an interesting diversion for the SNP what with a new leader imminent and all, but once that is done there are hard facts to deal with. The most salient of which is this, if they couldn't win with all those factors in their favour when can they ever expect to do it? Shouldn't they be thinking long and hard about why 55% said no despite all of the above?

An honest question and I hope it generates debate that goes beyond voters being stupid and malleable.

There's echoes of 2010 and how or why the Tories didn't win a majority.

I think people are more complex and sophisticated and again, just more complex :greengrin than the pigeonholes we fit folk into.

It's a question the Yes camp have to confront though. Whether they are prepared to is another matter. Shades of the early '80s and the internecine warfare that belaboured the Left?

[lord bunberry]

Okay, but just to be clear, you've had several opportunities to post examples of what you called "rubbing people's noses in it" and you haven't.

I'm emphasising it because it's important.

The Yes campaign for me was based on a bunch of things that didn't make sense but were designed to engender an emotive response.

Suggesting that the No posters on here have been gloating does likewise. For example, I don't think I was anywhere near a referendum thread for several days after the result and that's true of others IIRC.

If you want independence you have to persuade people who voted No. A good start would be wanting to hear why they voted No rather than turning inwards and moaning to each other about the 'misinformed' No voters.
I feel like I'm pissing against the wind here. It's been the tone that you and other no voters have taken since the vote that I'm talking about. I already cited your earlier post as an example of what I'm talking about. You didn't answer my question about how you know the reaction from the yes vote would have been different if the vote had gone the other way.

[Mibbes Aye]

I feel like I'm pissing against the wind here. It's been the tone that you and other no voters have taken since the vote that I'm talking about. I already cited your earlier post as an example of what I'm talking about. You didn't answer my question about how you know the reaction from the yes vote would have been different if the vote had gone the other way.

What do you think the reaction would have been? Mild applause and generous comments to the No side for their contribution?

What exactly about my tone and that of others is pissing you off?

No one from the No camp has given it the Charlie Big Potatoes on here. If they have, cite it or report it.

You're being a bit precious IMO.

[Moulin Yarns]

What do you think the reaction would have been? Mild applause and generous comments to the No side for their contribution?

What exactly about my tone and that of others is pissing you off?

No one from the No camp has given it the Charlie Big Potatoes on here. If they have, cite it or report it.

You're being a bit precious IMO.


http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by lord bunberry http://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?p=4200742#post4200742)
You're post and many others have in a roundabout way come across as rubbing people's faces in it. Personally it doesn't bother me, but let's not pretend that some no voters aren't enjoying winding people up.






The use of the word prophylactic is obviously an insult rather than preventative medicine, as used here.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/andy-mcsmiths-diary-prophylactic-nick-clegg-is-no-protection-against-boris-johnson-9045003.html

There have been others, but I'm not going to trawl (or troll) the threads for more.


(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/andy-mcsmiths-diary-prophylactic-nick-clegg-is-no-protection-against-boris-johnson-9045003.html)


I don't think there have been others but hey-ho.

As for the one you cite, it feels more like ODS's sense of humour, which can be a bit erudite - I remember him from the Calendar Thread........it's probably a case of an oblique reference rather than gloating.

Actually, let's be frank, it's not gloating at all is it - how in any way, shape or form can it be considered gloating? Insult maybe, but as I say, it's probably more of an in-joke.

The point is it's not "rubbing people's noses in it", is it?


I suppose you can fairly take my use of the term prophylactic as insulting to the Greens and whatever were the parties, groups and individuals other than the SNP inside the Yes campaign. Another way to express it would be to say that the SNP ran Yes and all others were just stooges. That's not an attempt to 'rub noses in it' (apart from anything else it isn't even a reference to the result), it is rather a statement of what I think is pretty obvious fact.


They aren't in the order they were posted but, ODS use of 'Condom' to describe the Yes parties is a right kick in the baws to those that supported Yes.

I take that as a 'rubbing people's noses in it'.


Let's get over the name calling, and have some positive discussion. My discussion with yourself, Beefster and,up to a point, ODS about energy policy on the other thread is more positive than this petty stuff.

Keep it classy and we can get on with life, bring it down and it will remain in the gutter.

Let's work for a better Scotland, in or out of the Union.

[Moulin Yarns]

What do you think the reaction would have been? Mild applause and generous comments to the No side for their contribution?

What exactly about my tone and that of others is pissing you off?

No one from the No camp has given it the Charlie Big Potatoes on here. If they have, cite it or report it.

You're being a bit precious IMO.


Admitted, we would have been jubilant, because it would have been against the odds.

[Mibbes Aye]

They aren't in the order they were posted but, ODS use of 'Condom' to describe the Yes parties is a right kick in the baws to those that supported Yes.

I take that as a 'rubbing people's noses in it'.


Let's get over the name calling, and have some positive discussion. My discussion with yourself, Beefster and,up to a point, ODS about energy policy on the other thread is more positive than this petty stuff.

Keep it classy and we can get on with life, bring it down and it will remain in the gutter.

Let's work for a better Scotland, in or out of the Union.

I think he referred to the Greens and the SSP as prophylactics.

I know you have a loyalty to one of those and I liked the site you used to link to in your signature and I don't think it's that big a deal, but I respect you as a poster and I'm sorry you feel insulted.

You're right, those of us who can and want to, should be working for a better Scotland. Lord knows we face massive, massive challenges.

[Moulin Yarns]

I think he referred to the Greens and the SSP as prophylactics.

I know you have a loyalty to one of those and I liked the site you used to link to in your signature and I don't think it's that big a deal, but I respect you as a poster and I'm sorry you feel insulted.

You're right, those of us who can and want to, should be working for a better Scotland. Lord knows we face massive, massive challenges.

Ta, MA, we haven't always seen eye to eye, but nice to know we are willing to work together for a better Scotland. And yes, I am green in more ways than one :greengrin

Let's keep it classy. :thumbsup:

[lord bunberry]

What do you think the reaction would have been? Mild applause and generous comments to the No side for their contribution?

What exactly about my tone and that of others is pissing you off?

No one from the No camp has given it the Charlie Big Potatoes on here. If they have, cite it or report it.

You're being a bit precious IMO.

I'm not being precious in any way, quite the reverse in fact. I fully accept the result, I fully accept yours and any other no voters right to voice their opinion. What I take issue with is your assertion that somehow the no voters have been more magnanimous than the yes voters would have been. If the result had gone our way I would have partied for a long time. But I would have also at the end of the party be looking towards building a future for me and the rest of the country. This is something you think wouldn't have happened

[ronaldo7]

I think the point you have been making repeatedly about the 45% versus 55% is an important one. At the end of the two years of debate what happened was what has been described elsewhere: the settled will of the SNP ran into the sovereign will of the Scottish people. Result, unhappiness for both Nats and nats.

Now this was despite:

The longest and worst recession since the great depression. Tick, looks like we're moving into another one.
A Tory government Wrong
An utterly awful Labour opposition in Holyrood and Westminster Opinion
A single party administration in Holyrood for probably the one and only time it will happen We don't know yet do we captain hyperbole.
Seven years of SNP 'don't rock the boat' government to nurse all the interest groups. Which boat is this, captain hyperbole
A massively well funded Yes campaign backed by all the advantages and resources of government Against the British state :rolleyes:
A Better Together campaign that more often than not looked like it had been infiltrated by entryist Yessers deliberately trying to sabotage it Agreed. You are the captain afterall:wink:
A First Minister who was probably one of the top three most experienced and accomplished politicians in the UK Agreed
An SNP campaign machine which is certainly the best in the UK in terms of personnel, message discipline and modern communications
Severe public spending cuts Agreed
Enthusiastic backing for Salmond and the SNP from the Murdoch press throughout the two years Aye they backed yes didn't they. :na na:
A binary question in which the language of voting for independence was framed as positively as it could legitimately be Decided by both Unionist and Independence parties only when Devo max was excluded:wink:
An extension of the franchise to include the 16 and 17 years olds who were widely expected to be more pro-independence I was widely "expected" to die before I was 55. Not happened yet, thank god.:greengrin
The biggest enfranchisement of Scottish - or indeed British - voters in history. Agreed

Despite all these factors in their favour Yes still couldn't get over the line. Now the post result feel has been an interesting diversion for the SNP what with a new leader imminent and all, but once that is done there are hard facts to deal with. The most salient of which is this, if they couldn't win with all those factors in their favour when can they ever expect to do it? Shouldn't they be thinking long and hard about why 55% said no despite all of the above?

.

[ronaldo7]

An honest question and I hope it generates debate that goes beyond voters being stupid and malleable.

There's echoes of 2010 and how or why the Tories didn't win a majority.

I think people are more complex and sophisticated and again, just more complex :greengrin than the pigeonholes we fit folk into.

It's a question the Yes camp have to confront though. Whether they are prepared to is another matter. Shades of the early '80s and the internecine warfare that belaboured the Left?

It would be nice if your comrades knew we were being run by a Tory/Lib dem coalition though eh:wink:

[Mibbes Aye]

I'm not being precious in any way, quite the reverse in fact. I fully accept the result, I fully accept yours and any other no voters right to voice their opinion. What I take issue with is your assertion that somehow the no voters have been more magnanimous than the yes voters would have been. If the result had gone our way I would have partied for a long time. But I would have also at the end of the party be looking towards building a future for me and the rest of the country. This is something you think wouldn't have happened

Bollocks. I think there would have been no end of nose-rubbing directed at me, ODS, Beefster, SiMar, johnbc70, #FromTheCapital and the rest (sorry for those I've overlooked) had it been a Yes vote.

Don't try and tell me or anyone else that's not what it would have been like, it doesn't stand up.

As for you closing comments, I've posted repeatedly in recent days saying Yes campaigners need to engage with No voters.

No one is coming back to say they did or what the effects were.

Still, when you've got a pretty idea about flags and dreams it's better to polish it than ask why others don't buy into it :rolleyes:

[Mibbes Aye]

It would be nice if your comrades knew we were being run by a Tory/Lib dem coalition though eh:wink:

They aren't my comrades, they are the folk of Great Britain.

In the last four elections they have only voted for a majority that was Labour.

Are you saying they aren't trustworthy?

[Hibrandenburg]

Bollocks. I think there would have been no end of nose-rubbing directed at me, ODS, Beefster, SiMar, johnbc70, #FromTheCapital and the rest (sorry for those I've overlooked) had it been a Yes vote.

Don't try and tell me or anyone else that's not what it would have been like, it doesn't stand up.

As for you closing comments, I've posted repeatedly in recent days saying Yes campaigners need to engage with No voters.

No one is coming back to say they did or what the effects were.

Still, when you've got a pretty idea about flags and dreams it's better to polish it than ask why others don't buy into it :rolleyes:

Must be nice having access to parallel universes and being able to verify what would have happened if. For someone who supported a campaign that used the unknown as a weapon of fear you seem very certain about something that never happened.

[ronaldo7]

They aren't my comrades, they are the folk of Great Britain.

In the last four elections they have only voted for a majority that was Labour.

Are you saying they aren't trustworthy?

Stop being so Prissy for god's sake. If you're following the thread, you'll have seen IDS's rant, where he says we are run by a Tory government, He can't even get that right eh.:aok:

[One Day Soon]

.

So if the SNP couldn't win with all those factors in their favour when can they ever expect to do it? Was that question broached at all in your first branch meeting?

[One Day Soon]

It would be nice if your comrades knew we were being run by a Tory/Lib dem coalition though eh:wink:


You're quite right, in this instance the Lib/Dems are the prophylactic of choice. Serving a Tory Prime Minister and Chancellor, running a Tory economic and public spending programme and a Tory agenda on welfare. Remind me why the Lib/Dem bit matters at all?

It must have slipped my mind with Alex Salmond and the SNP's relentless Referendum message of vote Yes to get rid of the Tories. Funnily enough people like you weren't making too big a distinction about the coalition nature of the Westminster government at that point. :rolleyes:

[One Day Soon]

Stop being so Prissy for god's sake. If you're following the thread, you'll have seen IDS's rant, where he says we are run by a Tory government, He can't even get that right eh.:aok:


IDS? Can you not even get that right? :wink:

Anyway, how's your new party membership coming along?

[lord bunberry]

Bollocks. I think there would have been no end of nose-rubbing directed at me, ODS, Beefster, SiMar, johnbc70, #FromTheCapital and the rest (sorry for those I've overlooked) had it been a Yes vote.

Don't try and tell me or anyone else that's not what it would have been like, it doesn't stand up.

As for you closing comments, I've posted repeatedly in recent days saying Yes campaigners need to engage with No voters.

No one is coming back to say they did or what the effects were.

Still, when you've got a pretty idea about flags and dreams it's better to polish it than ask why others don't buy into it :rolleyes:

Why doesn't it stand up? When push comes to shove you and the rest of the the people who share your view have claimed the moral high ground, when in in my opinion you have no right to do so.
I expect you will now ask for evidence to support my claim and to be honest I can't be bothered trawling through the threads again. If you want evidence of what I'm saying have a look in the mirror.

[johnbc70]

Why doesn't it stand up? When push comes to shove you and the rest of the the people who share your view have claimed the moral high ground, when in in my opinion you have no right to do so.

"you and the rest of the people" I assume you mean No voters which includes myself. Would be interested is seeing where I have taken the moral high ground, whatever that means in this context.

[ronaldo7]

You're quite right, in this instance the Lib/Dems are the prophylactic of choice. Serving a Tory Prime Minister and Chancellor, running a Tory economic and public spending programme and a Tory agenda on welfare. Remind me why the Lib/Dem bit matters at all?


They don't. Just like Labour who are a mirror image of the Tories on Welfare with a few minor tweaks. You couldn't put a playing card in between the 2 main parties these days, and the people of Scotland certainly know that after the last couple of years.

It must have slipped my mind with Alex Salmond and the SNP's relentless Referendum message of vote Yes to get rid of the Tories. Funnily enough people like you weren't making too big a distinction about the coalition nature of the Westminster government at that point. :rolleyes:


IDS? Can you not even get that right? :wink:

I could have claimed this as a typo but it's not really. IDS seems very apt for your new buddies in politics.:wink:

Anyway, how's your new party membership coming along?

Couldn't tell you. Don't get that many updates but I will post a count when I get it. How's Labour in Scotland coming along?

You really should be putting all your efforts into saving your party, and not worrying about others:wink:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/mcleish-labour-supporters-no-longer-know-what-the-party-stands-for.25625773

[Phil D. Rolls]

This thread is degenerating into pitiful name calling. Maybe it's time it was put to bed?

[One Day Soon]

Couldn't tell you. Don't get that many updates but I will post a count when I get it. How's Labour in Scotland coming along?

You really should be putting all your efforts into saving your party, and not worrying about others:wink:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/mcleish-labour-supporters-no-longer-know-what-the-party-stands-for.25625773


I feel your pain.

[hibsbollah]

I think the point you have been making repeatedly about the 45% versus 55% is an important one. At the end of the two years of debate what happened was what has been described elsewhere: the settled will of the SNP ran into the sovereign will of the Scottish people. Result, unhappiness for both Nats and nats.

Now this was despite:

The longest and worst recession since the great depression
A Tory government
An utterly awful Labour opposition in Holyrood and Westminster
A single party administration in Holyrood for probably the one and only time it will happen
Seven years of SNP 'don't rock the boat' government to nurse all the interest groups
A massively well funded Yes campaign backed by all the advantages and resources of government
A Better Together campaign that more often than not looked like it had been infiltrated by entryist Yessers deliberately trying to sabotage it
A First Minister who was probably one of the top three most experienced and accomplished politicians in the UK
An SNP campaign machine which is certainly the best in the UK in terms of personnel, message discipline and modern communications
Severe public spending cuts
Enthusiastic backing for Salmond and the SNP from the Murdoch press throughout the two years
A binary question in which the language of voting for independence was framed as positively as it could legitimately be
An extension of the franchise to include the 16 and 17 years olds who were widely expected to be more pro-independence
The biggest enfranchisement of Scottish - or indeed British - voters in history.

Despite all these factors in their favour Yes still couldn't get over the line. Now the post result feel has been an interesting diversion for the SNP what with a new leader imminent and all, but once that is done there are hard facts to deal with. The most salient of which is this, if they couldn't win with all those factors in their favour when can they ever expect to do it? Shouldn't they be thinking long and hard about why 55% said no despite all of the above?

I voted Yes (after months of prevarication) and I often disagree with your posts. But you are spot on here. You could also have added 'an unprecedented rise in support for UKIP and isolationist paranoid politics in England' as another advantageous factor. It was a perfect storm for a Yes victory and it didn't happen, which leads me to think the Scottish people will never vote for independence in the foreseeable future.

[ronaldo7]

I feel your pain.

I'm glad you can.:wink: Seems others on here don't have your hard exterior.:aok:

[One Day Soon]

I'm glad you can.:wink: Seems others on here don't have your hard exterior.:aok:


I'm just a great big softie, apart from when pi5h is being talked. :wink: Cannot abide the talking of pi5h. Which has made the last eight weeks quite a difficult period....

[ronaldo7]

I'm just a great big softie, apart from when pi5h is being talked. :wink: Cannot abide the talking of pi5h. Which has made the last eight weeks quite a difficult period....

Don't be too hard on yourself mate:wink: