>>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.