Scotland Watch

[UndercoverElephant]

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...).

I'm not so sure. Cameron has got problems of his own, namely UKIP bleeding votes from his right while his party is already too right wing to get an overall majority at a general election. I don't think the tories know what to do, strategically.

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.

It's not so much that they'll be "conveniently sidelined". The problem is that the party leaders were no more in a position to make those promises than Salmond was promising a currency union or straightforward membership of the EU. In order to deliver on them, the Commons has to vote for it. And the problem there is that Wales and England have legitimate claims that Scotland already gets a good deal, and it is they who deserve constitutional changes in their favour.

[3rdRock]

Going ... going ... gone!

Alex Salmond is to step down as first minister of Scotland after voters decisively rejected independence.

He will also resign as leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP) after the "No" side won Thursday's referendum by 2,001,926 to 1,617,989 for "Yes".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29277527

[Tarrel]

Things appear to be "kicking off" in Glasgow City Centre.

[3rdRock]

Things appear to be "kicking off" in Glasgow City Centre.

Aye, yer bloody right it has boy!

[Catweazle]

And what does it look like from Cardigan....

It all looks a very, very long way away.

[Little John]

Cameron is going to use this as an excuse to absolve the state of providing social services. Just wait and see. All this talk of "devolving" power to the English councils where they will be given rights to raise taxes, but will be left to fend for themselves where they are unable to fund the requisite services will provide the perfect smokescreen for a further hollowing out of the the welfare system. Additionally, the setting up of an English only parliament will further enable the Tories to do this since Labour won't have enough people on the left in parliament to stop them.

Oh, yeah, we're going to get devolved aright. A large proportion of the 55% of scots who voted "NO" yesterday will, I believe, come to bitterly regret their decision. For myself, I'm glad they stayed,

[RenewableCandy]

Things appear to be "kicking off" in Glasgow City Centre.

Aye, yer bloody right it has boy!

Beatutt!!!

[nexus]

Cameron is going to use this as an excuse to absolve the state of providing social services. Just wait and see. All this talk of "devolving" power to the English councils where they will be given rights to raise taxes, but will be left to fend for themselves where they are unable to fund the requisite services will provide the perfect smokescreen for a further hollowing out of the the welfare system. Additionally, the setting up of an English only parliament will further enable the Tories to do this since Labour won't have enough people on the left in parliament to stop them.

Oh, yeah, we're going to get devolved aright. A large proportion of the 55% of scots who voted "NO" yesterday will, I believe, come to bitterly regret their decision. For myself, I'm glad they stayed,

Yep totally agree, the complete hollowing out of the welfare state continues apace. Furthermore local govt. grants to charities have been decimated in the last few years so we haven't even got a decent third sector to pick up a few of the pieces.

[fuzzy]

Cameron is going to use this as an excuse to absolve the state of providing social services. Just wait and see. All this talk of "devolving" power to the English councils where they will be given rights to raise taxes, but will be left to fend for themselves where they are unable to fund the requisite services will provide the perfect smokescreen for a further hollowing out of the the welfare system. Additionally, the setting up of an English only parliament will further enable the Tories to do this since Labour won't have enough people on the left in parliament to stop them.

Oh, yeah, we're going to get devolved aright. A large proportion of the 55% of scots who voted "NO" yesterday will, I believe, come to bitterly regret their decision. For myself, I'm glad they stayed,

Yep totally agree, the complete hollowing out of the welfare state continues apace. Furthermore local govt. grants to charities have been decimated in the last few years so we haven't even got a decent third sector to pick up a few of the pieces.

I thought the third sector was where the private school oicks went if they weren't in gov or marketing?

I suppose all the quango/charity HQ's are still in London so it's just the useful work outside that gets cut.

[nexus]

Yep my local county cut all the charity grants bar one. This meant that services to support children, disabled people and elderly people were all cut back as was the CAB. The only charity who kept their funding was one supporting unpaid carers and this is because nationally carers save the government the equivalent of the NHS bill annually, so keeping carers caring for free is seen as vital.

[Mr. Fox]

My lot are about to cut 'discretionary' rate relief for charities - so instead of a high street full of charity shops, they'll get boarded up.

Privatise absolutely everything possible, then sell the site of the local council offices to a[nother] supermarket.

Council Tax went up by 1.97% this year. How did they arrive at that figure? Well, under the 2011 localism act, over a 2% increase has to go to referendum - and we wouldn't want that, now, would we?

£41m of cuts this year (about 11% of the budget), then another £197m by 2019.

Roll on devolution, so we can tax the tourists - who account for about a quarter of the economy here and 90% of the population in the summer.

[Tarrel]

Further to my "Magnanimous in Defeat" post yesterday, I'm beginning to think the Scottish people have made a terrible mistake in voting "no".

The signed "Vow" from the three party leaders is clearly undeliverable, as anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the UK's parliamentary democracy will realise. The inter-party posturing and rivalry is already beginning to push the interests of the Scottish people into the shadows.

Commentary up here is already moving towards "the next referendum", and how the campaign will be re-started if Westminster delays or backtracks on its promises. Like they have a choice!

Alex Salmond's real political achievement was not the "yes" campaign, but the Edinburgh Agreement. He managed to achieve through agreement what many nations can only achieve through the barrel of a gun, or not at all. Witness Crimea, Donetsk and Catalunia. Do people honestly think they will be granted that opportunity again, given how close it went this time?

Those who were so easily persuaded by the last minute promises, or those who voted with their bus-pass*, have a lot to answer for.

Even if the promises are kept, some of the proposals are ludicrous. For example, the "lock step" clause, in which tax rates can be varied, but only in lock-step with each other. i.e. if the basic rate is reduced by 5%, then the top rate has to be reduced by 5% as well, thus strait-jacketing any opportunity to introduce a more progressive tax system. One can argue about the merits or de-merits of different tax-systems all day, but my question is; "Why introduce that restriction?".

It's now clear that the "yes" campaign's central argument - decisions about Scotland made in Scotland - vastly eclipses any of the detailed arguments about currency, oil, etc. I agree with UE; they're not to be trivialised. But they could have been addressed and dealt with following independence. All of the barriers to the extra powers being granted that have started to arise today, would have just not been an issue.

* I kid you not; a pensioner phoned in to Radio Scotland's phone-in the other morning (I think John Swinney was in the hot-seat) saying her main concern in the debate was whether she would get to keep her bus pass.

[OrraLoon]

Further to my "Magnanimous in Defeat" post yesterday, I'm beginning to think the Scottish people have made a terrible mistake in voting "no".

The signed "Vow" from the three party leaders is clearly undeliverable, as anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the UK's parliamentary democracy will realise. The inter-party posturing and rivalry is already beginning to push the interests of the Scottish people into the shadows.

Commentary up here is already moving towards "the next referendum", and how the campaign will be re-started if Westminster delays or backtracks on its promises. Like they have a choice!

Alex Salmond's real political achievement was not the "yes" campaign, but the Edinburgh Agreement. He managed to achieve through agreement what many nations can only achieve through the barrel of a gun, or not at all. Witness Crimea, Donetsk and Catalunia. Do people honestly think they will be granted that opportunity again, given how close it went this time?

Those who were so easily persuaded by the last minute promises, or those who voted with their bus-pass*, have a lot to answer for.

Even if the promises are kept, some of the proposals are ludicrous. For example, the "lock step" clause, in which tax rates can be varied, but only in lock-step with each other. i.e. if the basic rate is reduced by 5%, then the top rate has to be reduced by 5% as well, thus strait-jacketing any opportunity to introduce a more progressive tax system. One can argue about the merits or de-merits of different tax-systems all day, but my question is; "Why introduce that restriction?".

It's now clear that the "yes" campaign's central argument - decisions about Scotland made in Scotland - vastly eclipses any of the detailed arguments about currency, oil, etc. I agree with UE; they're not to be trivialised. But they could have been addressed and dealt with following independence. All of the barriers to the extra powers being granted that have started to arise today, would have just not been an issue.

* I kid you not; a pensioner phoned in to Radio Scotland's phone-in the other morning (I think John Swinney was in the hot-seat) saying her main concern in the debate was whether she would get to keep her bus pass.

So -- was that the end of Round One?

"Laura Bicker Scotland Correspondent, BBC News
SNP saying nearly 5000 new members now... gone from 25,642 on Thurs at 5pm up 4,844 to 30,486 as of Saturday 3pm"

[Tarrel]

So -- was that the end of Round One?

Who knows?

My gut feel is that, if a second referendum is granted, it will come through popular pressure rather than by a majority Scottish government having a mandate to negotiate a second referendum with Westminster.

I find the spike in SNP membership encouraging. Personally, although not a member (yet), I find they are the mainstream party that I can most readily identify with. I know that their primary raison d'etre is to achieve independence but, in a way, I think the party's name lets it down, as it carries too many Nationalist (capital N) connotations. Perhaps "Scottish Social Democratic Party" would be more appropriate. They're not perfect, and their stewardship in government hasn't been perfect. But it's not been bad IMHO.

However, I think the real impetus for a second referendum (if there is such impetus) will come from the continued existence of the grass-roots "Yes" campaigns. 55% vs 45% is decisive, but not THAT decisive. There could come a time when Westminster has to decide whether to protect its interests in Scotland, at the expense of increased dissatisfaction and unrest among Scots, with the uncertainties that brings, or to cut their losses and agree to Referendum 2.0.

If the fairy godmother comes along and waves her wand so that all the promised powers are granted, I think that will fix things. Let's face it; the movement from 30% in favour of independence to 45% was as a result of proactive campaigning from a very effective grass roots movement. Until their cages were rattled, a substantial majority were happy with things as they were. An effective Scottish government, exercising its stewardship responsibly with its new enhanced powers, should quell the hunger for change.

Of course, if the SNP win another majority in 2016, they could always run an informal referendum, a la Donetsk. If the result was decisive for "yes", with a decent turn-out, they could go to Westminster to ask for it to be ratified, or just declare UDI. That would really set the cat among the pigeons, given how the markets reacted to just a 1% lead in one opinion poll.

[Tarrel]

"Scotland started a glorious revolution. Don’t let Westminster snuff it out"

Jonathan Freedland in The Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... aks-debate

The dispiriting truth is that crises often do go to waste. Things fall apart but somehow the centre holds, against all expectation.

The exemplar is the global financial crash of 2008. It seemed impossible to imagine that having pushed the world economy to the brink of collapse, the banks might simply be allowed to revert to type. But revert they did. Despite the fevered anticipation of sweeping reform, if not the remaking of capitalism itself, Wall Street and the City soon returned to big business as usual.

Right now, even the most cool-headed Scottish historians and analysts are insisting that, thanks to the yes movement and the phenomenal civic energy it unleashed – confirmed by a turnout of 85% – Scotland will never be the same again. “The genie cannot be put back in the bottle,” says one. Trouble is, our system is very good at doing just that.