Scotland Votes "No"
 

Now that Scotland has voted by around 55/45 to stay in the Union, will Salmond feel that that he ought to resign over the issue, or will his ego prevent it?

This was like a child threatening to run away from home until they realized they must do their own laundry. It will only encourage the patriarchal English, as if they needed encouragement, and highlight the need for dependence for the Scots.

but Scotland won - will get even more autonomy and England loses - the English will be the only constituent part of the UK not to have autonomy over their own things like Scotland does and will more and Wales has...

poor English, losers again.

Why is there not autonomy for England? that is the question that will gain traction as the English sooner or later start to demand their own autonomy just like the Scots has.

Scotland wins!

Common sense has won.

Cameron has said that England will get similar benefits following the vote. It will follow a similar timetable to the Scottish one.

As long as Scotland gets similar benefits. I heard one women who works for a research foundation say she was afraid their grants would be cut off since they originate out of London. Change will come hopefully and healing must begin.

I think a great deal depends on which figures you are looking at. Certainly most suggest that the average Welshman does far less well out of being part of the UK than the average Scot - and the promises made to Scotland by the No campaign may increase that discrepancy.

AS in this thread, there will obviously be a lot of rationalization going on so that everyone's opinion turns out to be the correct one.

When you have a 84.6% turnout of voters you have in fact got a REAL indication of the will of the majority. That is very signifigant for all of the UK. In most elections/votes where you have less than 50% of the total electorate actually voting, you do not know the real will of the majority, only of the majority of those who bothered to vote.

This referendum has opened the eyes of many people in all parts of the UK including England to just how messed up their form of government really is. Why should an MP from Scotland sitting in the Westminster Parliament be voting on something that only affects England? That question has been asked before and is known as the 'West Lothian question'. But now it has become far more prominent.

Cameron in his speech this morning clearly indicated that ALL parts of the UK and their autonomy must be addressed. What's more, a specific timetable to do that has been given.

The time between now and January 15th when a 'white paper' is to be published is going to be a very interesting time indeed in UK politics.

Another factor to watch is how the SNP behave between now and then. Are they going to sit back and wait for Westminster to come to them with a proposal which they then predictably say is not sufficient or are they going to actively particate around the table with Westminster to arrive at a proposal which they then endorse? See the difference? That, I think is worth watching. To me it will indicate whether the SNP want to play politics or want to work to achieve results everyone can be happy with. I noticed that both Salmond and his deputy Nicola Sturgeon avoided answering that question.

What is very clear is that it will not be back to 'business as usual'.

Interesting discussion.

Alex Salmond is to resign as leader of the SNP.

Don't really see what alternative he had, having nailed his colours to this mast. His credibility has taken an irreparable blow.

The only way for the SNP is down. Salmond knows that and would prefer to be a (typically) tragic Scottish hero than a failure by staying too long.

Having said that - I wouldn't be surprised if he decides to go back to Westminster as a MP.

<<Don't really see what alternative he had, having nailed his colours to this mast. His credibility has taken an irreparable blow.>>

Really? Salmond is doing what British politicians still do and Americans lack the integrity to do: step down after the failure of a signature policy. There's still some honor on the far side of the Atlantic.

>>His credibility has taken an irreparable blow.<<

We will see how Miliband and Cameron's credibility is viewed by the public as they now attempt a shabby back-peddle on their pre-Referendum "vows" (aka bribe).

It's not just a question of honour - there's also the simple question of future electoral credibility. He might think the issue is off the agenda for a while, but with such a substantial minority of voters clearly ready to vote for independence on his somewhat hokey expectations and early follow-up polling suggesting the first-time voters and youngest voters most likely to do so, a younger generation of leaders will think it worth another try with a better case later.

For much the same reason, Cameron's position is not necessarily enhanced by the No vote, and the prospect of another ad hoc fudge over additional devolved powers may well only make things worse for him among his back-benchers. I don't think there will be back-pedalling in relation to Scotland - that would be too transparent, but the England question simply cannot be avoided any longer.

Coincidentally, there is a parliamentary consultation going on (not that many have actually noticed) on whether we should have a written constitution or not..........

I think the Scottish people should be very proud of the civilized way the whole event took place. Apart from the large number of hangovers caused by the fact that the pubs stayed open until 6.00am, the country seemed to get back to work almost as if nothing had happened. I wonder what other country could get 85% of their population to vote.

<< I wonder what other country could get 85% of their population to vote.>>

Officially, the USSR always did.

I thought the USSR had 100%!

"We will see how Miliband and Cameron's credibility is viewed by the public as they now attempt a shabby back-peddle on their pre-Referendum "vows" (aka bribe)."

LOL!

Very impressive turnout numbers. We have such poor turnout for elections in America but everyone loves to moan about the POTUS.

>>I thought the USSR had 100%!<<

It may be no surprise that Russia has been casting aspersions as to the validity of the referendum. If you want a laugh:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...ish-referendum

>>We have such poor turnout for elections<<

Ours have been getting worse for the last few general elections, and have usually been below 50% for local elections.

And now the First Minister says he will not run again.

"I think the Scottish people should be very proud of the civilized way the whole event took place."

There were quite a few reports of thuggish intimidation by the yes supporters in the press and "Cleggy" didn't think much of some peoples behaviour either:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEbXGDvlUrs

>>"Cleggy" didn't think much of some peoples behaviour either:<<

Hmm. Cameron = Foggy, Salmond = Compo, Miliband = Barry.

And Gordon Brown = Nora Batty.

(Sorry, US readers. I assume that completely mystifies you. Google is your friend.)

Don't be sorry; we just know the outcome was no.

Agreed Patrick - some people are totally focused on getting their pound of flesh post referendum when it would make more sense to amend the timetable and look at union-wide reforms that would be fairer to everyone and stop future divisiveness.

It would make more sense to amend the timetable

I really don't understand this.

The SNP promised independence by April 2016. So what's the hurry to change the current system of devolution any earlier?`

It has to be accompanied by stripping Scotland of its disproportionate influence over laws that don't affect it (as swell as its inequitably large number of MPs).

That takes time - but it's doable by "Would have been Independence Day". Any sooner is going to stoke up English resentment - which means more UKIP

If Gordon Brown=Nora Batty, then

Princess Beatrice=Vicky Pollard


Thin

>>but it's doable by "Would have been Independence Day"<<

Legislation might be. Confirmation of the plan for Scotland (White Paper + second reading) was announced for before the next general election: but it's not possible to do both in that timeframe without a half-baked fudge of the English question with heaven knows what unintended consequences.

i've asked this elsewhere, but I think that it's worth asking again - what about the No voters who don't want more autonomy for Scotland? There was talk of having a third option for just that PoV but it was rejected in favour of the YES/No formula.

Thanks for the link to the Grauniad article, Patrick - a real gem. WHat they seem to have missed is that none of the scots themselves are screaming fraud about the election, though there was a mention on the BBC that in one place, some people turned up to vote to find that their votes had already been used. As only 10 votes were involved, I suspect that no-one got too excited but anyone know what happened after that?

>>As only 10 votes were involved, I suspect that no-one got too excited but anyone know what happened after that?<<

I'd imagine the police would be questioning the polling station staff to try to work out when and who might have done the impersonation, but unless the perpetrators are stupid enough to have done it somewhere where they might be known, it'll be mrrdrr to get to the bottom of it.

>>what about the No voters who don't want more autonomy for Scotland?<<

They'll get what they're given <i>and they'll like it</i>.

The NO voters did not vote that they do not want more autonomy annhig. That was not the question they voted on. They voted NO on the question of, ""Should Scotland be an independent country?"

There is nothing in that question that asks whether someone wants more or less autonomy. You cannot jump from a no to independence to a no to autonomy.

Interestingly, the Scottish referendum question had just 6 words. Compare that to the 1995 Quebec referendum which had 43 words in it.
*"Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?"*

I'd say half the people reading that wouldn't even understand what the question meant. The Scottish question was a whole lot easier to understand. But it had NOTHING to do with saying you do not want more autonomy. That is a different question altogether.

It's easy to vote NO to independence and still vote Yes to more autonomy if asked a question about autonomy.

For example:

I'd vote No to independence but Yes to automy over healthcare, education and law. All of which Scotland already has autonomy over by the way.

But I would vote No to automy over the military. That just doesn't make any sense to me.

There is nothing in that question that asks whether someone wants more or less autonomy. You cannot jump from a no to independence to a no to autonomy.>>

nor can it be assumed, sojourntraveller, that ALL no voters want more autonomy, which is all that I previously posted. you can't jump from a NO vote to independence to a YES to more autonomy either.