Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[coconut doug]

Id be happy enough with a 60/40 split in favour of the Union.

 

I too don't see the media bias but then again when you're convinced something exists you'll find a way to see it in everything.

 

I think the reality & mechanics of a Yes vote haven't been considered by the SNP. They do seem to be making it up as they go along - from the major (currency) to the smallish issues it does seen to being done on the hoof.

 

You'd have thought the White Paper would have been worked on for decades - it's their raison d'etra but it seems it was hastily cobbled together and not thought through.

 

 

Let me get this right. You are suggesting that by commissioning a report into Scotland's currency options post independence and putting 2 Nobel Laureates on it as well as many other respected economists and arriving at a multi faceted range of possible options the SNP are "making it up as they go along".

Contrast this with a Chief Secretary to the Treasury who prior to a press coference quoted the work of professor Dunleavy on independence start up costs only to abandon his reference to it in the press conference itself and quote another professor who was talking about Quebec. Dunleavy doubted the Treasury had even read the report saying that even if they did they did not understand it. He called the Alexander's and the Treasury's interpretation of his work a gross misrepresentation. The professor from Canada also stated that comparisons between his research and the situation in Scotland were not appropriate.

One of these situations is carefully planned and researched the other is "making it up as they go along". Anyone who can't tell which is which, is a victim of msm bias in my opinion.

[TheMaganator]

Let me get this right. You are suggesting that by commissioning a report into Scotland's currency options post independence and putting 2 Nobel Laureates on it as well as many other respected economists and arriving at a multi faceted range of possible options the SNP are "making it up as they go along".

Contrast this with a Chief Secretary to the Treasury who prior to a press coference quoted the work of professor Dunleavy on independence start up costs only to abandon his reference to it in the press conference itself and quote another professor who was talking about Quebec. Dunleavy doubted the Treasury had even read the report saying that even if they did they did not understand it. He called the Alexander's and the Treasury's interpretation of his work a gross misrepresentation. The professor from Canada also stated that comparisons between his research and the situation in Scotland were not appropriate.

One of these situations is carefully planned and researched the other is "making it up as they go along". Anyone who can't tell which is which, is a victim of msm bias in my opinion.

When did the SNP come up with the idea of a currency union?

 

Do you not remember Sturgeon with MPC gate? The idea of how an independent Scotland should operate should have been thought out by the SNP well before the White Paper. IMO. It shouldn't take a majority government and the taxpayers expense to do it.

 

& get over this msm bias nonsense. Even if we should all be wearing tin foil hats it doesn't mean that people can't make their own decisions on what's what.

 

Honestly, the 'Yes voters are all well informed and No voters are uneducated drones' that we get time and again from the Yes camp is ******* embarrassing.

 

It reeks of misplaced arrogance.

[Enzo Chiefo]

The tired old, whingeing Scottish stereotypes about "Tories" is an embarrassment for most Scots. Nicola Sturgeon is particularly culpable in this respect ...and really, she needs to get out more and broaden her horizons. Alex Salmond is, in all honesty, less than 4 months away from retirement but the behaviour of the likes of Sturgeon, Swinney etc after a No vote is crucial to the future of the country. The irony about "Thatcher" of course, is that, we have all been benefiting from the hard won rebate that she achieved from the EU back in the 1980s and this, of course, is the rebate that the Nats want to cling on to. Double standards anyone? The real fact, of course, is that throughout history, across all nations, Nationalism is a toxic and dated brand.

[IMac]

Douglas Alexander bringing the noise on Scotland 2014

[coconut doug]

When did the SNP come up with the idea of a currency union?

 

Do you not remember Sturgeon with MPC gate? The idea of how an independent Scotland should operate should have been thought out by the SNP well before the White Paper. IMO. It shouldn't take a majority government and the taxpayers expense to do it.

 

& get over this msm bias nonsense. Even if we should all be wearing tin foil hats it doesn't mean that people can't make their own decisions on what's what.

 

Honestly, the 'Yes voters are all well informed and No voters are uneducated drones' that we get time and again from the Yes camp is ******* embarrassing.

 

It reeks of misplaced arrogance.

I dont know when the SNP came up with the idea of a currency union unless it was after the Fiscal Commission reported!!

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/02/3017

 

I dont know what MPC gate is.

 

How Scotland operates will develop and evolve after we are independent. There will be change after independence otherwise what is the point of independence? The SNP is not trying to predict or determine the future they are trying to find the least offensive way to achieve independence and then let Scotland decide. If we want to keep Nuclear weapons and the House of Lords it will be Scotland's decision, not the decision of the SNP. I know you understand this, why else would you say that independence is the raison d'etre of the SNP.

Everybody can make up their own minds, of course they can. I understand that people have different priorities and different visions for Scotland. What concerns me is that people make up their own mind on genuine information. For years i thought Scotland was "too poor" to make it alone. I now know thanks to Gers reports, revelations relating to the value of North Sea oil and other information that we are not. Indeed i wonder if we would already be independent had the Labour government told the truth about the value of our oil in the 1970's. The media and government were biased then and they are biased now. I used to think we were "too wee" but now i know that a disproportionate number of countries of similar size and population to Scotland are amongst the countries with the highest social and living standards in the world.

I never thought that we were "too stupid" but i do believe that it will be a stupid decision to vote No for the majority of Scots. I never said that "yes voters are all well informed and No voters were uneducated drones" I dont believe that but obviously i have a different point of view. That is not being arrogant.

[curriehearts]

The tired old, whingeing Scottish stereotypes about "Tories" is an embarrassment for most Scots. Nicola Sturgeon is particularly culpable in this respect ...and really, she needs to get out more and broaden her horizons. Alex Salmond is, in all honesty, less than 4 months away from retirement but the behaviour of the likes of Sturgeon, Swinney etc after a No vote is crucial to the future of the country. The irony about "Thatcher" of course, is that, we have all been benefiting from the hard won rebate that she achieved from the EU back in the 1980s and this, of course, is the rebate that the Nats want to cling on to. Double standards anyone? The real fact, of course, is that throughout history, across all nations, Nationalism is a toxic and dated brand.

 

Let's not go down the Thatcher chat. For every rebate won there were communities who brutally lost a whole way of life.

The younger crowd don't need the oldies raking up the past.

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why did it take Labour ('the Party of Devolution') till earlier this year to outline their further devolution proposals?

 

My point is that it's pretty desperate (and below yourself) to attack the SNP for taking a while to bring out the White Paper. It's much more worthwhile attacking the White Paper because it's shite.

 

I don't think Scottish Labour has covered itself in glory at all in this process, and I don't mean better together. I mean the lethargy and the clear disconnect there still is in terms of the leadership of Scottish MPs and MSPs. I think on the "domestic" front they've done no bad. On this independence front they were too slow, have not called in the right troops to fight their corner and have focused on the wrong issues.

 

The fact is all 3 should've delivered a joint prospective and said if No wins irregardless of who wins in 2015 this will happen. That should've had the added caveat of having a post No constitutional convention to which the SNP were invited and have an opportunity to add their views to the process.

 

Sadly such a grown up, mature approach was not taken to undercut the SNP's own lethargy and u-turning circus on its key areas of the ? and NATO.

 

My criticism and cynicism cuts both ways on this whole saga. When I get asked, yes or no, how exciting or passionate this whole thing was I'll tell folk who were too young to remember it that it was a stodgy, dull and bitter episode which (to me won't) deliver the nation we deserve. Both sides are contemptable in how they've treated the electorate. Be it Salmond's pointing at UKIP and Tories or the likes of Darling banging on and on about transaction costs and the like,

[TheMaganator]

On the msm bias claim - I've just seen this posted by a No voter on Facebook which he claims shows a bias angle towards Yes.

 

That was my point earlier about seeing bias when you want to & go looking for it.

 

For me, ever since the SNP complained about the use of the word separatist by the BBC to describe supporters of independence the BBC have gone out of their way to be seen to be neutral.

 

Anyway - what do you think this shows?

 

[JamboX2]

The tired old, whingeing Scottish stereotypes about "Tories" is an embarrassment for most Scots. Nicola Sturgeon is particularly culpable in this respect ...and really, she needs to get out more and broaden her horizons. Alex Salmond is, in all honesty, less than 4 months away from retirement but the behaviour of the likes of Sturgeon, Swinney etc after a No vote is crucial to the future of the country. The irony about "Thatcher" of course, is that, we have all been benefiting from the hard won rebate that she achieved from the EU back in the 1980s and this, of course, is the rebate that the Nats want to cling on to. Double standards anyone? The real fact, of course, is that throughout history, across all nations, Nationalism is a toxic and dated brand.

 

I disagree on thatcher. But I don't think sturgeon and the rest of the SNP cabinet are all they're cracked up to be and agree that their behaviour post No and Yes will shape how we all move in from this.

 

Salmond seems to have developed a bunker mentality recently. Sturgeon is taking he limelight more and it doesn't seem to have helped like they thought it would by moving him into the background more.

 

If No wins I can see Salmond leaving the SNP leadership by Christmas to allow a successor time to run a government before 2016. It'll then be a dogfight between gradualists like Sturgeon, Russell and the Ewings and Alex Neil and his band.

Edited June 3, 2014 by JamboX2

[TheMaganator]

 

 

I disagree on thatcher. But I don't think sturgeon and the rest of the SNP cabinet are all they're cracked up to be and agree that their behaviour post No and Yes will shape how we all move in from this.

 

Salmond seems to have developed a bunker mentality recently. Sturgeon is taking he limelight more and it doesn't seem to have helped like they thought it would by moving him into the background more.

 

If No wins I can see Salmond leaving the SNP leadership by Christmas to allow a successor time to run a government before 2016. It'll then be a dogfight between gradualists like Sturgeon, Russell and the Ewings and Alex Neil and his band.

 

[modedit]

 

[jambo1185]

Have to say I thought both Sturgeon and Alexander came across reasonably well on the BBC Scotland discussion last night. It was a bit more civilised, better structured and both sides managed to avoid, for the most part, petty attempts at points scoring (Sturgeon couldn't resist trying the YES campaigns own brand of "Project Fear" re Tory governments). One thing I will give Sturgeon is her clear passion and belief in her cause, even if I fundamentally disagree with it.

[coconut doug]

On the msm bias claim - I've just seen this posted by a No voter on Facebook which he claims shows a bias angle towards Yes.

 

That was my point earlier about seeing bias when you want to & go looking for it.

 

For me, ever since the SNP complained about the use of the word separatist by the BBC to describe supporters of independence the BBC have gone out of their way to be seen to be neutral.

 

Anyway - what do you think this shows?

 

A quick look at BBC Scotland's news pages reveals a headline which does not match what is actuallly said. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-27678910

This follows on from the misrepresentation, by the same method, of what was said by David Trimble a week or two ago. That followed on from the misrepresentation of Lucinda Creighton's comments on EU entry and many others. Today they are also going with Alexander's 1400 reasons to vote no despite the utter repudiation of this rubbish from the professors whose work he distorted.

You accuse me of arrogance but how arrogant is it to assume there is no bias because you can't see it and that it only exists because i am looking for it? The bias is quite subtle and the BBC are in a business that shapes and forms opinion. They are good at it a lot of the time.

[TheMaganator]

A quick look at BBC Scotland's news pages reveals a headline which does not match what is actuallly said. http://www.bbc.co.uk...otland-27678910

This follows on from the misrepresentation, by the same method, of what was said by David Trimble a week or two ago. That followed on from the misrepresentation of Lucinda Creighton's comments on EU entry and many others. Today they are also going with Alexander's 1400 reasons to vote no despite the utter repudiation of this rubbish from the professors whose work he distorted.

You accuse me of arrogance but how arrogant is it to assume there is no bias because you can't see it and that it only exists because i am looking for it? The bias is quite subtle and the BBC are in a business that shapes and forms opinion. They are good at it a lot of the time.

I accused elements of the Yes camp of arrogance in assuming that No voters are uneducated and uninformed - and that we are mindless drones who just belive everything that we read. Social media and this thread is riddled with it.

 

My point about is bias is evidenced above. The No voter who posted the image you quoted thinks that the BBC is bias towards Yes because (amongst other things) of those headlines. I expect you see nothing wrong with those headlines. He thought there was subtle bias towards Yes in the way that they were phrased. I don't see it. I don't think the BBC is bias. We have elements of both sides who think the BBC is bias against them - that is the point I was making.

[jambos are go!]

If there is a clear No win then what does the SNP offer to any current or aspiring poltician other than decades or a generation or two in the wilderness flogging a dead horse. IMO.

Edited June 4, 2014 by jambos are go!

[dobmisterdobster]

I do wonder what happens to the snp if it's a no vote. Salmond will resign as leader you would assume. However, I do wonder what that might do to the party?

 

He does seem to be pretty popular. I'm not sure the other options are that great for snp leader. Sturgeon I think could potentially be a disaster.

 

I do wonder if him leaving could effect independence negatively? A lot of people vote for leaders still, plus did the party suffer a bit of slump when he left previously?

 

He won't resign and the SNP should handily win the Scottish Parliament elections again.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JamboX2]

 

I do wonder what happens to the snp if it's a no vote. Salmond will resign as leader you would assume. However, I do wonder what that might do to the party?

 

He does seem to be pretty popular. I'm not sure the other options are that great for snp leader. Sturgeon I think could potentially be a disaster.

 

I do wonder if him leaving could effect independence negatively? A lot of people vote for leaders still, plus did the party suffer a bit of slump when he left previously?

 

 

He won't resign and the SNP should handily win the Scottish Parliament elections again.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Can't see how he would be able to stay in power. His party's reason for existence would have been defeated. He himself has lead a government steadily moving to this point, he has been the great strategist and hailed by his colleagues as a master tactician leading them to victory after victory. If he's beat here he'll be forced out if he doesn't go IMO.

 

Sturgeon, Russell and Neil will be the front runners as his replacement, one of the left, the centre and the right, a couple gradualists and radical.

 

How any of them do in the aftermath is anyone's guess. The majority means it's theirs to loose in 2016. But yes or no win I think they'll snatch a minority administration.

[jambos are go!]

Can't see how he would be able to stay in power. His party's reason for existence would have been defeated. He himself has lead a government steadily moving to this point, he has been the great strategist and hailed by his colleagues as a master tactician leading them to victory after victory. If he's beat here he'll be forced out if he doesn't go IMO.

 

Sturgeon, Russell and Neil will be the front runners as his replacement, one of the left, the centre and the right, a couple gradualists and radical.

 

How any of them do in the aftermath is anyone's guess. The majority means it's theirs to loose in 2016. But yes or no win I think they'll snatch a minority administration.

In the event of a No win how can the SNP campaign as before with their flagship policy rejected. And why should the electorate vote for a party that is not listening to the electorate?

[TheMaganator]

 

 

He won't resign and the SNP should handily win the Scottish Parliament elections again.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Nah. He'll go IMO.

 

If Yes lose the SNP will split. Maybe not immediately but it'll happen.

 

How many of the party faithful do you think are pro-NATO(nukes) Monarchists? I'd wager almost none.

 

There's been no dissent since 2011. If they lose (& with it their dreams of independence for a generation) the knives will come out.

 

Sturgeon will take over.

Edited June 4, 2014 by TheMaganator

[The Old Tolbooth]

Probably been posted already but thought I'd share anyway as I ain't sifting through all this shit fest, and I found it funny

[The Old Tolbooth]

Damn, image won't post

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jack D and coke]

Cybernats eh?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/463823/SCOTLAND-AT-WAR-Death-threats-shame-both-camps-as-fight-for-votes-spirals-out-of-control

[TheMaganator]

Cybernats eh?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/463823/SCOTLAND-AT-WAR-Death-threats-shame-both-camps-as-fight-for-votes-spirals-out-of-control

It'd be interesting to see a further breakdown of who they polled & whether they were active online.

[dobmisterdobster]

 

 

 

Can't see how he would be able to stay in power. His party's reason for existence would have been defeated. He himself has lead a government steadily moving to this point, he has been the great strategist and hailed by his colleagues as a master tactician leading them to victory after victory. If he's beat here he'll be forced out if he doesn't go IMO.

 

Sturgeon, Russell and Neil will be the front runners as his replacement, one of the left, the centre and the right, a couple gradualists and radical.

 

How any of them do in the aftermath is anyone's guess. The majority means it's theirs to loose in 2016. But yes or no win I think they'll snatch a minority administration.

 

The SNP have been in power for 7 years and they are still winning the popular vote in local and European elections.

They went from being a protest vote like UKIP to displacing Labour as "Scotland's party".

If independence is rejected, the SNP can still promote Scotland's interests and keep issues like further devolution on the table.

 

Salmond is generally liked in Scotland and considered one of the best politicians in the UK and it will take a lot more than a defeat for him to resign.

 

If No wins, I will keep voting SNP.

If Yes wins, my vote is up for grabs.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[dobmisterdobster]

Nah. He'll go IMO.

 

If Yes lose the SNP will split. Maybe not immediately but it'll happen.

 

How many of the party faithful do you think are pro-NATO(nukes) Monarchists? I'd wager almost none.

 

There's been no dissent since 2011. If they lose (& with it their dreams of independence for a generation) the knives will come out.

 

Sturgeon will take over.

 

Everybody politician has their own beliefs which will differ from their party.

A couple on SNP MSPs did resign over NATO. These things happen.

How many die-hard reds left Labour during the Blair years? A few.

Let's not forget the split in the Conservative party over the EU.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Everybody politician has their own beliefs which will differ from their party.

A couple on SNP MSPs did resign over NATO. These things happen.

How many die-hard reds left Labour during the Blair years? A few.

Let's not forget the split in the Conservative party over the EU.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yeah, the SNP is different though. Take away independence (either by achieving it or losing it for a generation) and you take away it's raison d'etra.

 

I could be wrong but it'll be interesting

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

The SNP have been in power for 7 years and they are still winning the popular vote in local and European elections.

They went from being a protest vote like UKIP to displacing Labour as "Scotland's party".

If independence is rejected, the SNP can still promote Scotland's interests and keep issues like further devolution on the table.

 

Salmond is generally liked in Scotland and considered one of the best politicians in the UK and it will take a lot more than a defeat for him to resign.

 

If he's that popular why has he went on the back burner of late?

 

They've done well nationally of late but have lost by election after by election as well. So where is it going wrong? Local candidates they offer or their local councillors may be the reason there. Don't think they've won a by election council or MSP since Donside.

 

Ask yourself this, if Cameron loses Scotland in the Union (as it's being characterised by the pres), should he resign?

 

IMO yes he should as it's a huge vote of no confidence in his Governemnt as much as it is the system, as the Yes side have made this part referendum on Coalition policy and part on Constituitonal position.

 

So if Salmond loses the referendum, his flagship policy the primary aim of his government, should he resign?

 

I think he has to. I think politically he'll look weak and defeated in the most important poll the SNP have ever fought.

 

If No wins, I will keep voting SNP.

If Yes wins, my vote is up for grabs.

 

As someone who has always voted on policy and not the nature of whether the Scottish nation is in or out of the Union I don't get that. But fair play to you.

 

[jack D and coke]

 

 

If he's that popular why has he went on the back burner of late?

 

They've done well nationally of late but have lost by election after by election as well. So where is it going wrong? Local candidates they offer or their local councillors may be the reason there. Don't think they've won a by election council or MSP since Donside.

 

Ask yourself this, if Cameron loses Scotland in the Union (as it's being characterised by the pres), should he resign?

 

IMO yes he should as it's a huge vote of no confidence in his Governemnt as much as it is the system, as the Yes side have made this part referendum on Coalition policy and part on Constituitonal position.

 

So if Salmond loses the referendum, his flagship policy the primary aim of his government, should he resign?

 

I think he has to. I think politically he'll look weak and defeated in the most important poll the SNP have ever fought.

 

 

 

As someone who has always voted on policy and not the nature of whether the Scottish nation is in or out of the Union I don't get that. But fair play to you.

I don't think Salmond should resign if a No wins whereas I think Cameron has to should it go the way of a Yes vote. The Yes campaign was always up against it and IMO 40%+ is a massive success for the SNP. The Yes campaign should've been crushed but it gains everyday albeit in probably too small numbers to get it over the line but I think they might even take enormous encouragement from it. What happens in the year or two after the No vote will see a calming of the electorate or if we take a bit of a kicking in certain areas it could see a huge surge of feeling that will drive the SNP into power for a while yet and who knows maybe even another referendum.

[JamboX2]

 

In the event of a No win how can the SNP campaign as before with their flagship policy rejected. And why should the electorate vote for a party that is not listening to the electorate?

 

If No they'll say we want it, but we will work with what we've got for now. They can only do that. The Bloc Qu?b?cois took years to recover after pushing independence when it'd been rejected, even when they did regain power recently and had a vote on the issue, they were defeated and put back to the opposition benches.

 

It'll be more interesting after this vote either way. However, a Yes win emboldens the SNP and they win 2016 and try to build a consensus with 3 parties who opposed the result, and another who doesn't like their vision all that much but wanted their proposition and most worryingly trying to match the hyperbole and resultant expectations of an electorate who may not get all they promised and be left with a negotiated independence deal worse than promised, or not matching what had been promised by the yes campaign.

 

A no vote also likely leads to an SNP government but one having to work with something it didn't want, with new powers they view as inadequate and for a people who have elected them to work within that "straight jacket".

 

Either way, the SNP is facing the hardest slog it's ever faced, and IMO, Salmond's days on either outcome would be limited. Both by the outcomes of the next 24 months vote and negotiations and by those ambitious folk in his party wanting him and his generation to move on and let young blood lead and replace the MacAskill's and Neil's and Russell's and Swinney's at the top of the party.

 

 

[JamboGraham]

 

 

I don't think Salmond should resign if a No wins whereas I think Cameron has to should it go the way of a Yes vote. The Yes campaign was always up against it and IMO 40%+ is a massive success for the SNP. The Yes campaign should've been crushed but it gains everyday albeit in probably too small numbers to get it over the line but I think they might even take enormous encouragement from it. What happens in the year or two after the No vote will see a calming of the electorate or if we take a bit of a kicking in certain areas it could see a huge surge of feeling that will drive the SNP into power for a while yet and who knows maybe even another referendum.

 

It is certainly an unusual situation. In many ways it depends to what extent voters see the SNP as the 'Yes' campaign. If the referendum result is 'No' and the SNP leadership are able to convince the electorate that the two bodies are separate then they should be able to retain their leader and ethos. If they can't then I fear for them as a significant political movement going forward, at least for a generation.

 

[JamboX2]

 

I don't think Salmond should resign if a No wins whereas I think Cameron has to should it go the way of a Yes vote. The Yes campaign was always up against it and IMO 40%+ is a massive success for the SNP. The Yes campaign should've been crushed but it gains everyday albeit in probably too small numbers to get it over the line but I think they might even take enormous encouragement from it. What happens in the year or two after the No vote will see a calming of the electorate or if we take a bit of a kicking in certain areas it could see a huge surge of feeling that will drive the SNP into power for a while yet and who knows maybe even another referendum.

 

So Cameron goes if Yes wins. His proposition defeated. His nation divided. His government shattered. The UKs reputation and standing diminished. His judgement questioned.

 

Salmond fails to achieve a Yes win. His proposition defeated. His party shattered by the defeat. It's coffers near exhausted. His judgement questioned.

 

And Cameron should go but Eck stay on in case folk really want Yes when they voted No?

 

If No wins, he's been beat. His sole reason in Scottish politics since the 1970s will have been rejected. He will have suffered the biggest defeat of any Scottish leader since something like Flodden. Why should he stay? Equally why should his party have confidence in him?

 

Same goes for Call Me Dave (and arguably Nice Nick and Red Ed) on this. If Cameron tries to hold on after Yes wins he'd be booted by the Tories as the biggest failure in office. If Salmond tried to hold on his backbenchers should do likewise. 2 electoral wins isn't what they signed up for after all. They want independence. They put faith in Salmond and his deputy Sturgeon. Were quiet and loyal. Didn't rock the SNP boat on NATO and the common currency or shared services after a Yes win. And he loses, and you think they won't want answers and recompense?

Edited June 4, 2014 by JamboX2

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Parties sack their leaders, no one else.

 

Salmond is safe.

[jack D and coke]

 

 

So Cameron goes if Yes wins. His proposition defeated. His nation divided. His government shattered. The UKs reputation and standing diminished. His judgement questioned.

 

Salmond fails to achieve a Yes win. His proposition defeated. His party shattered by the defeat. It's coffers near exhausted. His judgement questioned.

 

And Cameron should go but Eck stay on in case folk really want Yes when they voted No?

 

If No wins, he's been beat. His sole reason in Scottish politics since the 1970s will have been rejected. He will have suffered the biggest defeat of any Scottish leader since something like Flodden. Why should he stay? Equally why should his party have confidence in him?

 

Same goes for Call Me Dave (and arguably Nice Nick and Red Ed) on this. If Cameron tries to hold on after Yes wins he'd be booted by the Tories as the biggest failure in office. If Salmond tried to hold on his backbenchers should do likewise. 2 electoral wins isn't what they signed up for after all. They want independence. They put faith in Salmond and his deputy Sturgeon. We're quiet and loyal. Didn't rock the SNP vote. And he loses, and you think they won't want answers and recompense?

The union was expected to win. Yes wasn't and imo anything over 40% is an enormous success for Salmond. He will come again in those circumstances I believe. Cameron will be humiliated and must be go.

[JamboX2]

 

The union was expected to win. Yes wasn't and imo anything over 40% is an enormous success for Salmond. He will come again in those circumstances I believe. Cameron will be humiliated and must be go.

 

It reduces Salmond in the eyes of those he is arguing against. There will be less fear of him if he lost this. Electorally in Scotland he's a success. Well since 2007 at Holyrood and European elections. Should he be beaten in this vote his standing diminishes in the eyes of the wider UK and world. For that reason the SNP would be wise to drop him.

 

The union was said by Salmond to be showing signs of terminal decline by now a year ago after the SNP's white paper was revealed. If we take it that a 33% Scots always generally back independence. And it's 60/40 for No. He's increased that by 7% (a crude estimation). Is that really success? Would you as an SNP backbencher see it like that?

 

Fwiw, for the good of the SNP and bringing in a new generation, and a more diverse leadership, it may be best irregardless of outcome for Salmond to move aside by 2017 ( yes win) or 2015 (no win). Should he go the new leader has a chance to show their worth and new direction in the 2015 election if a No win. That's a safer bet to test your message before 2016 and the election that really matters to your party.

Edited June 4, 2014 by JamboX2

[Boris]

If there is a clear No win then what does the SNP offer to any current or aspiring poltician other than decades or a generation or two in the wilderness flogging a dead horse. IMO.

 

Despite leading in all the polls re Holyrood elections?

[Boris]

In the event of a No win how can the SNP campaign as before with their flagship policy rejected. And why should the electorate vote for a party that is not listening to the electorate?

 

It's never troubled Labour or the Tories at Westminster before.

 

In what sense are the SNP not listening to the electorate? The electorate overwhelmingly elected them to be the Scottish Government. We have an Indy ref, that No will win, but doesn't mean the electorate are displeased with the SNP at Holyrood.

[jack D and coke]

More oil running out myths?

http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2014/03/25/oil-running-out-myth-charlie-gallagher/#.U5A4loJQff0.twitter

[reaths17]

 

 

 

It's never troubled Labour or the Tories at Westminster before.

 

In what sense are the SNP not listening to the electorate? The electorate overwhelmingly elected them to be the Scottish Government. We have an Indy ref, that No will win, but doesn't mean the electorate are displeased with the SNP at Holyrood.

 

surely if they ain't voting, the electorate have lost faith whether it be ind or union, in the party.

 

if they lose thier only ever goal it will be totally due to his/their campaign not getting it across, which after spending 50 odd years to get to the vote, they come across as never having thought about what independence actually means. they have stumbled along making it up as they go giving out no sign that they had a plan unless you count the manifesto white paper, surely they all should go as it's not that people are against independence, they are against what this campaign has highlighted is wrong with the party and its politics.

 

be nice to see salmond show a bit of honesty by telling us all the answer to the latest question from unionists "what will be the cost of seperation" but going by the rest of the campaign, it's probably never crossed any member of the parties minds to check.

[jack D and coke]

Things like this will make me vote Yes...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fury-tory-party-donors-handed-3123469

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Things like this will make me vote Yes...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fury-tory-party-donors-handed-3123469

We know!

[reaths17]

 

Things like this will make me vote Yes...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fury-tory-party-donors-handed-3123469

 

along similar lines to edinburgh councils compulsory works orders(see us scots aren't missing this boat).

 

who has their hands in the pot in scotland as there are many operations done by the private sector paid for by the NHS Scotland.

[jack D and coke]

 

 

along similar lines to edinburgh councils compulsory works orders(see us scots aren't missing this boat).

 

who has their hands in the pot in scotland as there are many operations done by the private sector paid for by the NHS Scotland.

I accept there might always be a bit of this but nothing on the scale of this government selling off public assets to their pals and the likes of the Royal Mail scandal and Osbourne's best man. All millionaires making each other richer and richer while telling us we'll be skint without them and less secure they make me sick. Cameron has made more peers than any government in history. Unfortunately a change of government from blue to red will make no difference whatsoever.

[jambos are go!]

Despite leading in all the polls re Holyrood elections?

Despite leading in all the polls re Holyrood elections?

 

Dont want to be unkind but cant see the relevance of that response to my post. If No wins a clear majority then YEs supporters will have reconsider their position in the face of the declared settled will of those who live and work in Scotland

[jambos are go!]

It's never troubled Labour or the Tories at Westminster before.

 

In what sense are the SNP not listening to the electorate? The electorate overwhelmingly elected them to be the Scottish Government. We have an Indy ref, that No will win, but doesn't mean the electorate are displeased with the SNP at Holyrood.

A minority (44%)of the electorate voted for them at the Holyrood election. More voted for Unionist parties - II think a small majority. The main parties Not listening to the electorate in last weeks elections seemed to be me the main reason for UKIPs strong performance would you not agree?

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

Dont want to be unkind but cant see the relevance of that response to my post. If No wins a clear majority then YEs supporters will have reconsider their position in the face of the declared settled will of those who live and work in Scotland

 

So when Labour won their landslide in 1997 did you think those who didn't vote Labour had to reconsider their position?

[Boris]

If there is a clear No win then what does the SNP offer to any current or aspiring poltician other than decades or a generation or two in the wilderness flogging a dead horse. IMO.

Dont want to be unkind but cant see the relevance of that response to my post. If No wins a clear majority then YEs supporters will have reconsider their position in the face of the declared settled will of those who live and work in Scotland

 

My point is valid, I think. As the SNP are the "number one" party at Holyrood and in polls for Holyrood, then I'd say that the SNP has a lot to offer current and aspiring politicians.

 

Also, if No wins, then that doesn't mean that independence is off the table forever. If at once you don't succeed etc etc etc

[reaths17]

 

I accept there might always be a bit of this but nothing on the scale of this government selling off public assets to their pals and the likes of the Royal Mail scandal and Osbourne's best man. All millionaires making each other richer and richer while telling us we'll be skint without them and less secure they make me sick. Cameron has made more peers than any government in history. Unfortunately a change of government from blue to red will make no difference whatsoever.

 

but a change to yellow will? really, as i've said scots millionaires are get just as much richer as their english counterparts. a change of colour hasn't tempted enough and many will view salmonds sales pitch with independence as nothing more than from blue, red to yellow, it will make no difference to them just a change o colour.

Edited June 5, 2014 by reaths17

[JamboX2]

Things like this will make me vote Yes...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fury-tory-party-donors-handed-3123469

 

The SNP wont bring in regulation of bus services because of Souter nor fully consider nationalising Scotrail because of him either. Parties look out for those who back them. Its disgusting and wrong. But no ones immune.

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

My point is valid, I think. As the SNP are the "number one" party at Holyrood and in polls for Holyrood, then I'd say that the SNP has a lot to offer current and aspiring politicians.

 

Also, if No wins, then that doesn't mean that independence is off the table forever. If at once you don't succeed etc etc etc

 

Yet in Quebec the try try again is more like defining madness as repeating the same actions and getting the same result when expect a different outcome.

 

How many votes before there is a settled will?

 

I know its poll 1/1 but there's been 3/3 Nos in Canada. If the same happened here in 40 years time when do we call it a day?

 

 

[Boris]

 

 

Yet in Quebec the try try again is more like defining madness as repeating the same actions and getting the same result when expect a different outcome.

 

How many votes before there is a settled will?

 

I know its poll 1/1 but there's been 3/3 Nos in Canada. If the same happened here in 40 years time when do we call it a day?

 

I'm not sure you can ever call it a day until independence is delivered.

 

That's not to say we would have referenda every year or even every decade, but rather when the electorate put a party in power that would hold one.

[maroonlegions]

[modedit]