(Independent) Scotland and the pound?

[The Hand]

I do feel sad for the "Yes" voters; 1.6million+ of them wanted indepedence within a few years, which will now not happen for a generation, if not longer.
I actually like Alex Salmond, an intelligent conviction politician, who scared the proverbial out of Westminster and I'm a thirty-something Englishman living in the English Midlands. The "Yes" voters just wanted to go their own way and it's unpleasant watching the gloating in the media and internet.
One thing is for sure things are not going to be same in the UK from now on.. English Devolution is on the march for a start.

[ik9000]

I do feel sad for the "Yes" voters; 1.6million+ of them wanted indepedence within a few years, which will now not happen for a generation, if not longer.
I actually like Alex Salmond, an intelligent conviction politician, who scared the proverbial out of Westminster and I'm a thirty-something Englishman living in the English Midlands. The "Yes" voters just wanted to go their own way and it's unpleasant watching the gloating in the media and internet.
One thing is for sure things are not going to be same in the UK from now on.. English Devolution is on the march for a start.

HAve you met Salmond? Really? I know people who have known him for years. And even they admitted they didn't believe a word he was saying about what would happen if independence went through

Given the areas that voted yes are predominantly those which bring down the average health, life expectancy, above average crime and state dependence, well if they want to leave, feel free! We can build a new island for them like China is doing in the south china sea and they would be welcome to it. We could call it Atlantia.

[The Hand]

No I haven't, but it doesn't change the fact he is or was obviously a bright, conviction politician. "Politician" being the keyword, as in they say what they need to at a particular point in time.

[Saracen]

I do feel sad for the "Yes" voters; 1.6million+ of them wanted indepedence within a few years, which will now not happen for a generation, if not longer.
I actually like Alex Salmond, an intelligent conviction politician, who scared the proverbial out of Westminster and I'm a thirty-something Englishman living in the English Midlands. The "Yes" voters just wanted to go their own way and it's unpleasant watching the gloating in the media and internet.
One thing is for sure things are not going to be same in the UK from now on.. English Devolution is on the march for a start.

Well, yes, but it turns out there's > 2.0m that did NOT want to go it alone, and many of them felt every bit as strongly about that as the separstists did about their desires. And the No camp, internet or not, are entitled to delight in their win, not least because you can bet your little patootie that the Yes camp, most especially Wee 'Eck, would have been crowing about it for ages, smug as an extremely smug thing, if they'd won.

As for Salmond, personally, I can't stand him, not least because he so smugly avoided so many legit questions. It was, IMHO, a .... dishonest .... way to run a campaign.

[Unique]

HAve you met Salmond? Really? I know people who have known him for years. And even they admitted they didn't believe a word he was saying about what would happen if independence went through

Given the areas that voted yes are predominantly those which bring down the average health, life expectancy, above average crime and state dependence, well if they want to leave, feel free! We can build a new island for them like China is doing in the south china sea and they would be welcome to it. We could call it Atlantia.

i know lots of people who know, met and worked with him, and not a single one had a nice word to say about him. he came over to speak to a family member i was with when he recognised them at an event, and afterwards they said they wouldn't have spoken to him or shook his hand if they could have avoided it, normally (as they used to see him often) they just pretend they haven't spotted him and turn away or walk away to avoid him. normally people will at least make some contact with someone in such a position just to say they have done so, but this person was so disliked that people actively tried to avoid him. people who have known him a long time said he changed dramatically since SNP came into power, and the idea that many had about him simply wanting to gain independence at any cost so he would go down in history is exactly how the people who worked with him felt. the bottom line that became apparent speaking to those people is that he was only in it for himself and nothing more

we are lucky to get rid of him, and hopefully sturgeon goes next. she must surely know she's the second most hated person in scotland now and she does her party no favours by not quitting. although the party in general won't be trusted ever again by millions of people in scotland. it's scotlands new disgraced party that we have to put up for a year longer than normal due to the uk general election

[The Hand]

@ Saracen's post #388

I couldn't stand Salmond until about a couple of years ago to be honest, I thought he was the personification of smugness, but then I saw a fair few documentaries and news programs, which slowly changed my mind over time. He is a politician, so I'm under no illusions though! The verbal jousting was great to watch in the debates.

As for "dishonesty" or "being a politician", well I think he knew things would be a pigs breakfast after a "Yes" vote for a couple of years at least (probably half a decade) but he couldn't admit that during the campaign, such as the currency question as you say earlier. A new Scottish currency with a Scottish central bank, may have been the most likely scenario, even if it was the most derided and unpopular. The new Scottish currency would have devalued in a big way, but like Iceland they would worked their way through it and very likely become one of Europe's biggest exporters in time.

I think "Yes" campaign's message in between the lines was "do you want a thriving Independent Scotland in 10-20 years time? It's just going to be a very bumpy ride getting there". Not very compelling for a lot of Scots who actually liked the idea of indepedence, but didn't fancy the long hard road option.. a Norway-like destination was possible though IMHO.

Yes, over 2 million voted no, I was really just pointing out 1.6 million people had a different idea for the future and their dream ended and I can't help but feeling a bit sorry for them. I wasn't really talking about the Unionists celebrating with flag waving etc on the gloating comment, but about the volume of bitter resentment, you see virtually everywhere else on the net, which is inevitable but ultimately unhelpful. The Queen herself is being as conciliatory as she can here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29287662
"She said she understood there would be "strong feelings and contrasting emotions.
But she had "no doubt" this would be tempered by "an understanding of the feelings of others"

I personally have just been sat on the side lines watching all this feeling slightly disenfranchsied by the whole thing. In the long run maybe a federal UK will arise out of all this. Some kind of positive legacy for everyone.

[SeriousSam]

I fully expect politicians to obfuscate and dress up the truth against backdrop of party politics. However, spouting an outright lie to your own people in order to railroad through your own questionable ideology is something I find utterly unconscionable. Salmond is and always will be the worst kind of Demagogue...

That said I suspect the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will work in tandem portraying Labour as the roadblock to constitutional change. Consequently weakening their support in Scotland which in turn will allow the SNP to make gains. As to what effect that will have on the rest of the UK is debatable, not least as a lot depends on the state of the economy and the degree of continuing austerity.

[ik9000]

I fully expect politicians to obfuscate and dress up the truth against backdrop of party politics. However, spouting an outright lie to your own people in order to railroad through your own questionable ideology is something I find utterly unconscionable. Salmond is and always will be the worst kind of Demagogue...

That said I suspect the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will work in tandem portraying Labour as the roadblock to constitutional change. Consequently weakening their support in Scotland which in turn will allow the SNP to make gains. As to what effect that will have on the rest of the UK is debatable, not least as a lot depends on the state of the economy and the degree of continuing austerity.

well it's kind of an odd situation. Labour if they are sensible will allow the change to get control in Scotland - since people will be put off the SNP for a while, and still won't want the Tories or the ineffective lib dems. But for labour to do so is at the expense of diminished clout in Westminster other than on national UK matters. If they block it then presumably the Scots will feel they don't actually care about Scotland and are leaving it to the SNP - who without the gong of independence to bang will campaign on what exactly? And the Scots end up with the same hobsons choice voting again as the rest of us.

It's a clever play by someone to have got all the parties to make this promise, and the Tories have strategically manouvered themselves into a very good position on this. What's the outworking?

Could there be a situation where labour have the government, but on English matters have a minority due to Scottish MPs being blocked out? That would be an odd situation. Oh that there weren't political parties and people just actually voted on things based on the merits of the proposal rather than partisan blinkered bias.

[george1979]

I wouldn't think there's that many people put off the SNP to be honest. Perhaps the opposite after some unionists started trouble up here and the 3 main UK parties have started unraveling over the new powers for Scotland. There's quite a few no voters already regretting their vote - if the Con/Lab/Lib dream team don't get their act together soon I'd wager another referendum will come round sooner than we think.
The Tories and Labour will be at loggerheads over this West Lothian question, the Liberals are about as much use as a feather duster in a gun fight and now the Tories say they want to link Scottish devolution progress to English devolution (which I don't disagree with but if they renege on the timetable promise then hell mend them).

[ik9000]

I wouldn't think there's that many people put off the SNP to be honest. Perhaps the opposite after some unionists started trouble up here and the 3 main UK parties have started unraveling over the new powers for Scotland. There's quite a few no voters already regretting their vote - if the Con/Lab/Lib dream team don't get their act together soon I'd wager another referendum will come round sooner than we think.
The Tories and Labour will be at loggerheads over this West Lothian question, the Liberals are about as much use as a feather duster in a gun fight and now the Tories say they want to link Scottish devolution progress to English devolution (which I don't disagree with but if they renege on the timetable promise then hell mend them).

And that's the problem. they panicked and over promised!

Oh and some pro separatists also caused problems too. Let's not get lop-sided in our reporting!

There can't be another referendum for quite some time I'm afraid, that was part of the deal on having this one. But I agree, the timetable commitment was a real stuff up. However it also a very clever play by Cameron as it's really putting the cat among the pigeons with the labour camp! This will dominate our news for the next 3 months, and no denying it!

[Saracen]

well it's kind of an odd situation. Labour if they are sensible will allow the change to get control in Scotland - since people will be put off the SNP for a while, and still won't want the Tories or the ineffective lib dems. But for labour to do so is at the expense of diminished clout in Westminster other than on national UK matters. If they block it then presumably the Scots will feel they don't actually care about Scotland and are leaving it to the SNP - who without the gong of independence to bang will campaign on what exactly? And the Scots end up with the same hobsons choice voting again as the rest of us.

It's a clever play by someone to have got all the parties to make this promise, and the Tories have strategically manouvered themselves into a very good position on this. What's the outworking?

Could there be a situation where labour have the government, but on English matters have a minority due to Scottish MPs being blocked out? That would be an odd situation. Oh that there weren't political parties and people just actually voted on things based on the merits of the proposal rather than partisan blinkered bias.

It might seem odd now, but fundamentally, that's democracy. And yes, that situation could easily arise. It's fundamenral that people are being governed by those THEY elected, and having at least some ability to get rid of those making decisions the people don't like.

It is, of course, by no means certain that Labour won't get a majority in England in their own right. It just becomes a fair bit less likely. But if they can't get a majority in England, and have to rely on Scots MPs to get policy through in England, then they have no mandate on those policy issues, in England, and [i]shouldn't[] be able to just impose them, by virtue of support from Scots MPs whose constituents aren't affected by those decisions.

Imagine the ructions if, for instance, a Scottish Labour Chancellor decided to increase Income Tax rates in England, and was ONLY able to get his budget through by virtue of votes from Scots MPs, whose constituents had their Income Tax rates set by an SNP Finance Minister in Holyrood??

Such a situation is an insult to democracy, and goodness knows, there's enough flaws in the FPTP conjuring trick that we call democracy as it is.

Maybe Cameron ought to consult with Clegg, and even Farage, about a Federal system involving an English Parliament, the members of which are elected by a system based on, to some extent or other, proportional representation, not FPTP? That'd probably get LibDems on-side, because they've dreamt about it for years.

But whatever the solution is, it DOES need a proper, genuine resolution of the West Lothian problem, and the more power goes to devolved nations, the more angry the 85% of the UK that is England are going to get if it isn't, or if Milivand tries to coms up with some self-serving fudge.

[Saracen]

@ Saracen's post #388

I couldn't stand Salmond until about a couple of years ago to be honest, I thought he was the personification of smugness, but then I saw a fair few documentaries and news programs, which slowly changed my mind over time. He is a politician, so I'm under no illusions though! The verbal jousting was great to watch in the debates.

As for "dishonesty" or "being a politician", well I think he knew things would be a pigs breakfast after a "Yes" vote for a couple of years at least (probably half a decade) but he couldn't admit that during the campaign, such as the currency question as you say earlier. A new Scottish currency with a Scottish central bank, may have been the most likely scenario, even if it was the most derided and unpopular. The new Scottish currency would have devalued in a big way, but like Iceland they would worked their way through it and very likely become one of Europe's biggest exporters in time.

I think "Yes" campaign's message in between the lines was "do you want a thriving Independent Scotland in 10-20 years time? It's just going to be a very bumpy ride getting there". Not very compelling for a lot of Scots who actually liked the idea of indepedence, but didn't fancy the long hard road option.. a Norway-like destination was possible though IMHO.

Yes, over 2 million voted no, I was really just pointing out 1.6 million people had a different idea for the future and their dream ended and I can't help but feeling a bit sorry for them. I wasn't really talking about the Unionists celebrating with flag waving etc on the gloating comment, but about the volume of bitter resentment, you see virtually everywhere else on the net, which is inevitable but ultimately unhelpful. The Queen herself is being as conciliatory as she can here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29287662
"She said she understood there would be "strong feelings and contrasting emotions.
But she had "no doubt" this would be tempered by "an understanding of the feelings of others"

I personally have just been sat on the side lines watching all this feeling slightly disenfranchsied by the whole thing. In the long run maybe a federal UK will arise out of all this. Some kind of positive legacy for everyone.

Personally, I'd have had a LOT more respect for Salmond, and the "Yes" camp, if he could have just been "honest", though.

And I wouldn't be at all surprised if lack of it cost Yes the referendum.

Put it this way. Scots, by and large, are a canny lot. Most can smell horsepoop when someone's trying to peddle it to them. And "The Westminster lot will give us a currency union, just you see" is as big a load of horsepoop as I've seen in, well, maybe ever.

There is every likelihood that when they said "no chance", they meant it, not least because it'd cause fury down here if, after a successful Yes vote, Westminster voted to underwrite a newly separate Scottish government or banking system, and that IS what a currency union means. Not having one will cost both sides, but having one represents a far, FAR bigger risk to Westminster than the costs of not having one.

And, the one absolute certainty in all that is that nobody, and I mean NOBODY can be sure it would have happened.

Several Scots friends have told me that they were sympathetic with the self-determination aspects of Yes, but that Salmond and the SNP refusing to sincerely and properly address such major issues as currency, the EU, etc, meant they could not just buy into the SNP pig-in-a-poke. Not my words, but those of a Scottish friend.

Had Salmond just taken such questions as real, serious and fundamental actual concerns rather than as a No camp stunt to undermine him, he'd have given an honest, credible answer. It might have been that currency union is the best bet, but if not, we'll do .... whatever. He'd then have to address the real, practical problems ANY other solution would mean, including that it might cause Scotland years of hardship BUT .... that it'd be worth it in the end.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the notion Scotland couldn't survive on it's on is fatuous. It self-evidently could. It likely would take an economic hit, and a living standards hit, for several years, compared with life in the UK, because for any newly minted nation, it's going to take a while to find it's feet, for international partners to get comfortable, for traders and markets to gain trust. There would be a price to pay. But ultimately, Scotland could stand alone, and have self-rule. The costs of getting there would be a price many No camp Scots would've paid, IF they'd felt Salmond was being honest about both the upside and downside.

The problem was, by pretending all would be milk and honey the morning after a Yes vote, he took those canny Scots for gullible fools prepared to swallow the horsepoop, and too many weren't buying it.

Some honesty, some admitting that there could be problems getting a currency union, or EU membership, etc, and answering the "what if you're wrong" questions MIGHT have got him enough No voters to vote Yes if he had just been candid enough to admit the issues, and trust them enough to answer "what if". But he wouldn't trust them with honest answers, and so, they didn't trust him with thrir support or votes.