Independence SE Poll

[Kelvin]

In the spirit of fairness, I completely agree it should be reviewed.

Do you? I mean Cameron said in December that a No vote would not lead to it being reviewed. Why do you think that less than 7 days after a no vote that pledge should be overturned?

Back in December there was no talk of extra powers going to Scotland there is now therefore everything should be reviewed. You can't have the Barnett fomula unchanged and DevoMax with the West Lothian question unresolved. It should all be happening at the same time. It's uncomfortable being a Scot living in England at the minute. Even Al Murray, the pub landlord, had a go at me last night at the JLA 2014 Real Variety Show. Sniff.

[woody]

In the spirit of fairness, I completely agree it should be reviewed.

Do you? I mean Cameron said in December that a No vote would not lead to it being reviewed. Why do you think that less than 7 days after a no vote that pledge should be overturned?

Pretty sure Salmond said he wouldn't stand down on the event of a No vote either and would respect it. Instead, after delivering an excellent resignation speech with delivered him a lot of respect, he gave the Sky speech on Sunday.

Never mind that he, many years ago, wished to ditch the pound for the euro in an Indy Scotland. Actually think that may have been a fairly major flaw in this campaign. When independence was put on the table at first, the Euro was still under a very black cloud. I'd say in the public's mind at least that black cloud has now pretty much shifted and the yes campaugn could have got away with wanting to use it more so than the pound. By looking to use the Euro he'd have made it appear at least, much more likely we'd have EU membership asap. I happen to think that is much more important for iScotland than, 'yeah trust me it'll happen' (when there are loud noises that it won't) in terms of exports etc.. Being in the euro zone makes it much easier to export globally, as indeed the business I work for does.

[pete]

Oh Pete, chill out.

I wasn't referring to the latest political posturing. Simply to the logical challenge of a temporary solution still in force decades later, as put by Kelvin.

Forgive me - what is your point here?

(Oh I was doing so well staying off this thread for a couple of days - remember why now )

The point is that we were told, pretty categorically, that Scotland's funding was not at risk in the event of a No vote. And a way too involved discussion I had with a Labour mate revolved for a while around this issue, and now a couple of days later it becomes clear that not only is it at risk but folk are making the case that it should be abolished.

Almost as if the pledges made in the run up to the referendum mean nothing.

Oh wait.

Right off for a hot milky drink and a bit of a lie down.

[pete]

In the spirit of fairness, I completely agree it should be reviewed.

Do you? I mean Cameron said in December that a No vote would not lead to it being reviewed. Why do you think that less than 7 days after a no vote that pledge should be overturned?

Pretty sure Salmond said he wouldn't stand down on the event of a No vote either and would respect it. Instead, after delivering an excellent resignation speech with delivered him a lot of respect, he gave the Sky speech on Sunday.

Fair play. I mean a lot of No voters only voted No on the condition that Salmond remained in charge. For a short period that was a keystone of the No campaign, I think I've still got a poster somewhere.

[woody]

Do you? I mean Cameron said in December that a No vote would not lead to it being reviewed. Why do you think that less than 7 days after a no vote that pledge should be overturned?

Pretty sure Salmond said he wouldn't stand down on the event of a No vote either and would respect it. Instead, after delivering an excellent resignation speech with delivered him a lot of respect, he gave the Sky speech on Sunday.

Fair play. I mean a lot of No voters only voted No on the condition that Salmond remained in charge. For a short period that was a keystone of the No campaign, I think I've still got a poster somewhere.

Love that even now, Yes voters (straw poll of my Facebook and guardian comments) still can't grasp why people voted no and see the same huge holes in what was proposed.

[Kelvin]

You're living on Fantasy Island if you think that everything can remain as is in Scotland plus you get extra powers and nothing changes for the rest of the UK. It's undemocratic and frankly unfair. The challenge is that it's a lot or resolve between now and the GE so much so that it seems unlikely that it can all be done.

[Lazydonkey]

Fair play. I mean a lot of No voters only voted No on the condition that Salmond remained in charge. For a short period that was a keystone of the No campaign, I think I've still got a poster somewhere.

I voted no and would still have voted no if salmond wasn't there but all other things remained the same.

Salmond wasn't the issue for everyone. Sure some people would have voted yes just because of him, but equally some people voted yes just cos they hate the English. Stupid people on both sides.

If yes continue down a strategy of assuming they lost due to conspiracy theories, vote rigging, media bias etc etc they will never understand and, in my view, never succeed. As I said above some people voted no for stupid reasons but many did not. It would be far more useful to spend time understanding the ones who had genuine concerns and addressing them.

[Kelvin]

Has anyone considered that a lot of people that voted No might simply want to remain part of the UK because they believe it to be the best decision for them, Scotland, and, perish the thought, the rest of the UK? Surely folk don't think that 1.7 million people were duped into it by a biased media or bribed at the last minute minute by a panicky Westminster?

[campbell]

Yes and No needed to be left behind on 19th September.

It's time to play the hand we're dealt.

Can we get on with that do you think?

Oh and Boris for PM.

[j2 lot]

Has anyone considered that a lot of people that voted No might simply want to remain part of the UK because they believe it to be the best decision for them, Scotland, and, perish the thought, the rest of the UK? Surely folk don't think that 1.7 million people were duped into it by a biased media or bribed at the last minute minute by a panicky Westminster?

well said

[woody]

If yes continue down a strategy of assuming they lost due to conspiracy theories, vote rigging, media bias etc etc they will never understand and, in my view, never succeed.

Thanks Martin you've captured my thoughts more succinctly than I could still lying in bed on a day off and typing on a phone.

[woody]

Yes and No needed to be left behind on 19th September.

It's time to play the hand we're dealt.

Can we get on with that do you think?

Oh and Boris for PM.

I kept spotting threats of Boris as next PM of you voted No. Not sure how that was meant to work.

[Shug]

Has anyone considered that a lot of people that voted No might simply want to remain part of the UK because they believe it to be the best decision for them, Scotland, and, perish the thought, the rest of the UK? Surely folk don't think that 1.7 million people were duped into it by a biased media or bribed at the last minute minute by a panicky Westminster?

Oh don't... You'll just give pete more reason to bang on about how you're WRONG WRONG WRONG!

The vote has been cast, the country decided. There was enough appetite for change to push forward with making it a more fair system for all, so let's actually get on with exploring that, rather than circular arguments about a done deal.

[Mikie711]

The problem now is that devolution is hot on the agenda for all in the union. Everybody wants it, so where does that leave the union if each member is doing their own thing?
Ironically their is now an independance movement building in England.

[campbell]

There's a difference between doing own thing and complete separation.

I like the sound of a more federated approach.

I didn't in 1997 but much has changed.