Scotland Watch

[UndercoverElephant]

The turnout was always going to be high, because of its being one of the few elections in which the result would make a real difference.

I think Salmond was planning on standing down whatever the upshot. He wanted this election: when it's done, so is his work. Also as Tarrel pointed out, "Yes" is about much more than Salmond.

So is "no".

[RenewableCandy]

The "No" campaign doesn't really seem to have been about anything.

[Snail]

Looks like a bigger win for the no than everybody thought. Hope, at least, promises are kept and more meaningful powers are delivered. Not holding my breath 'tho.

[UndercoverElephant]

The "No" campaign doesn't really seem to have been about anything.

Apart from reality.

[UndercoverElephant]

Looks like a bigger win for the no than everybody thought. Hope, at least, promises are kept and more meaningful powers are delivered. Not holding my breath 'tho.

Promises to Scotland? No. Something more progressive is going to have to happen, and that is a complete re-think of the non-existent British constitution. Why should the Barnett Formula, which gives more money to Scotland than it deserves, be kept? How would you feel about that if you were Welsh? Why should Scottish MPs get to vote on English-only legislation (the "west lothian question")?

It's no use rushing to fulfill hasty promises to the Scots. What is needed is a proper constitutional settlement for the whole UK.

This referendum was offered to the Scots in order to "settle the constitutional question for a long time" - to end the debate. In fact, even though the result is NO, the consequences will be the opposite to this intended goal. Instead of ending the Scottish questions about the (non-existent) British constitution, it will cause the asking, and answering, of questions applying to the whole UK. This is long overdue, and, IMO, the best result for everybody.

Happy families.

[RenewableCandy]

The "No" campaign doesn't really seem to have been about anything.

Apart from reality.

It wasn't even about that.

Scotland has more resources per head than England does: therefore separaely, all other things being equal, they'd be better off than us...come ON UE, you're the one who's always going on about over-population.

Taking that into consideration, the Barnett formula, arbitrary though it may seem when looked at from the South coast, makes perfect sense. England is better-off paying the Scots slightly over-the-odds than we would be without them (and their land, oil, wind, fish etc).

[UndercoverElephant]

The "No" campaign doesn't really seem to have been about anything.

Apart from reality.

It wasn't even about that.

Scotland has more resources per head than England does: therefore separaely, all other things being equal, they'd be better off than us...come ON UE, you're the one who's always going on about over-population.

It's not the only game in town here though, is it? If that was the only important question, YES would have got 90%.

Taking that into consideration, the Barnett formula, arbitrary though it may seem when looked at from the South coast, makes perfect sense.

And what does it look like from Cardigan, or Holyhead?

England is better-off paying the Scots slightly over-the-odds than we would be without them (and their land, oil, wind, fish etc).

The whole constitutional arrangement needs to re-negotiated.

[RenewableCandy]

Apart from reality.

It wasn't even about that.

Scotland has more resources per head than England does: therefore separaely, all other things being equal, they'd be better off than us...come ON UE, you're the one who's always going on about over-population.

It's not the only game in town here though, is it? If that was the only important question, YES would have got 90%.

True, but the rest is the effect of people being naturally apprehensive about a change to a thing they've not yet "seen working", plus the nay-sayers' political efforts to capitalise on that fear.

[Standuble]

Thoughts about the no result?

[biffvernon]

And now is the time for working together. I love you RC and UE.

[nexus]

And now is the time for working together. I love you RC and UE.

[Tarrel]

Well, I'm satisfied.

I believe this has been a passionate, reasonable, well-managed debate. Probably the best one can hope for. Yes, one can point to individual faults on both sides; the last-minute concessions and fear-mongering from "No" and the insidious "Team Scotland vs Team Westminster" from "Yes". But I can honestly say that I couldn't have asked for more as a citizen being asked to choose. The sheer quantity of debate at local, regional and national level has been amazing to behold.

A question hanging over Scotland for generations has been addressed. nearly half a million more Scots decided to remain with the union than those wanting independence. IMHO, that result cuts across all the caricatures of blue-daubed "freedom" shouters that have built up over the years. Yes, there will be some hard-liners out there who will be bitterly disappointed this morning, but they should respect the democratic process which, while not perfect, is the best we've got. (And better than many people have).

If (and it's a big "if") Scotland is granted the additional powers it has been promised, including devolution of welfare, we will end up with a situation not that far removed from what the "yes" campaign were arguing for; a nation with a high level of self-determination, within a common monetary framework, and as part of the EU. Of course, the fly in the ointment is what happens with regard to future EU membership. If there is the prospect of the UK voting "out", then I suspect it may open up the whole can of worms again.

I believe the independence movement could benefit by turning their attention to campaigning for more local autonomy within Scotland (Scotland's local government, with its unitary structure, is highly centralised), and championing local grass-roots community projects (e.g. the community-owned windfarm that we are involved with). The SNP however, as the majority party in government, now has a big job to do in navigating the post-referendum political landscape in the best interests of Scotland.

For my part, I will continue my downshifting, re-localising process in order to develop a resilience against some of the turmoil which is building, irrespective of the referendum result.

[UndercoverElephant]

It wasn't even about that.

Scotland has more resources per head than England does: therefore separaely, all other things being equal, they'd be better off than us...come ON UE, you're the one who's always going on about over-population.

It's not the only game in town here though, is it? If that was the only important question, YES would have got 90%.

True, but the rest is the effect of people being naturally apprehensive about a change to a thing they've not yet "seen working", plus the nay-sayers' political efforts to capitalise on that fear.

The problems were more serious than that. It wasn't "fearmongering" when the No camp were repeatedly pointing to the currency issue and to the EU issue and saying that the Yes camp hadn't got a credible policy. Those were very real problems, and all the No campaign had to offer in response was "clever" replies designed to hide the fact that they didn't actually have any answers at all. They obfuscated the debate, or made claims that simply weren't true, just to get to the end of the interview.

And you can't run a country with clever replies. You need an actual currency, and unless you're Panama or Hong Kong, you also need a central bank. And saying "The EU would be crazy not to take us" doesn't stop Spain from vetoing Scottish membership.

I'm not sure it was impossible for the nationalists to have sorted these issues out, had they started long enough ago. Well, maybe not the EU/Spain problem, but they certainly could have had a better answer on the currency. They should have taken the following position:

Our preferred option is a currency union, but if this isn't available then we will use sterling outside of an official union, until we've had time to set up a Scottish currency.

The question the nationalists need to ask themselves is why this wasn't done. Why did they leave themselves open to the accusation that they didn't have a plan on the currency? If the answer is that the nationalists were not confident about Scotland's future with a currency of their own, or were worried that people wouldn't vote for independence if that was the plan, then you really do have to ask whether this whole idea of Nationalism wasn't a poorly thought out dream. Why shouldn't an independent country have its own currency? Other countries in the EU do. Why not Scotland?

The Yes campaign was not grounded in reality. Sorry, but it was based on wishful thinking, propped up by naked lies.

But it is all over now, and there's going to have to be a major constitutional rethink that not only addresses some of Scotland's remaining concerns, but also deals with unfairness currently affecting Wales and England. The Barnett Formula is not fair on England, and particularly not fair on Wales. Why should English and Welsh poor people subsidise Scots? And there is absolutely no way that Scottish MPs who can't vote on certain issues in their own constituencies can vote for them in England. That's nuts, and now it has to be, and will be, changed.

[biffvernon]

The Scotland vote lays a heavy responsibility on the English to make the UK a far better place than it has become. We have work to do.

[RenewableCandy]

But it is all over now,

That's the saddest bit.

I can see cammo and co talking about this, in future, as a ringing endorsement of all the stuff they haven't previously dared do to Scotland (e.g. privatising the water, setting up Internal Market in the NHS...).

There have been a lot of promises, including some desperate-sounding last-minute ones, from the Nos. Now there's nothing to stop them all being conveniently sidelined.