SNP. You LOST, get over it

More Scottish powers?

So did my no vote count for nothing? I don’t want Sturgeon and her cronies in power, let alone deciding how much income tax I’ll be paying. So much for a democratic vote.

Ah but the alternative on offer was MORE devolution. That’s what’s coming. Get over it.

In this context, the SNP actually won the relevant election.

And the government devolving the powers also won the relevant election*

*sort of, but you get what I mean…

So did my no vote count for nothing?

Is Scotland independent? You got what you voted for.

I don’t want Sturgeon and her cronies in power, let alone deciding how much income tax I’ll be paying. So much for a democratic vote.

So vote for the blue, red or yellow Tories at the next election. The referendum wasn’t about which party is in charge at Holyrood or Westminster.

Ah but the alternative offer was for MORE devolution.

This. The government made a promise, which it should keep. The SNP has every right to hold it to account.

The Smith Commission stuff is pretty watered down – but worse than that, it’s got to get passed by whatever government is in power after the next General Election. So it probably won’t happen anyway.

Scotland was promised more powers and these are part of the proposals. The income tax rates are symbolic, the Scottish parliament will have very little room for manouver and in any case can not set the tax free threshold.

Agreed the Better Together campaign won, a yes vote would have been permanent and a no vote should be too.

As an England residing unionist, I have to agree with scotroutes.

I am somewhat annoyed when I hear the SNP still banging on about full independence though. Before the referendum it was a “once in a lifetime opportunity”. I hadn’t realised life expectancy north of the border was quite this short!

Current thinking is another referendum before 2020.

I am somewhat annoyed when I hear the SNP still banging on about full independence though.

Why? You know what “SNP” stands for, right?

The irony of this is that the man presiding over it all, on behalf of our great united nation, didn’t win an election either. In’t democracy brilliant?

And if Dave had wanted to immediately alienate as many people as possible north of the border, he couldn’t possibly have done any better than his breathtakingly cynical, self-interested, and potentially gerrymandering early morning press conference the day after the referendum.

What exactly did he expect the reaction to that would be?

Whose thinking? Probably not that of the government which will legislate for any such referendum.

The irony of this is that the man presiding over all this, on behalf of our great united nation, didn’t win an election either.

Plus, his father-in-law and rich mates will be pretty worried by the new land reform proposals 😀

Well that generated a bit of discussion. Apart from the slightly troll like thread title I believe it unlikely that the revenues from the devolved taxes will be enough to cover Scotland’s spending budget, and there will be a requirement for the Scottish Parliament to receive some form of grant from Westminster.

Apart from the slightly troll like thread title I believe it unlikely that the revenues from the devolved taxes will be enough to cover Scotland’s spending budget, and there will be a requirement for the Scottish Parliament to receive some form of block grant from Westminster.

That possibility was accepted by the government when it made its promise.

Westminster would have lost the vote had they not agreed to a raft of changes to allow Scots more power to make Scotland work for them – the vote was a simple yes/no and it was incredibly tight – but in reality a compromise was found.

If Westminster doesn’t honour it’s promises Scotland has every right to call another referendum and should do.

Perhaps Cameron decided that he couldn’t win the vote fairly, so made a lot of promises knowing he wouldn’t keep just to land the problem in the lap of the next Government?

Away from the tax thing…

Public sector bidding for rail franchises
Crown Estate
BBC Scotland reporting to Holyrood
Speed limits and road signing.
Air Passenger Duty

All positive I reckon

and there will be a requirement for the Scottish Parliament to receive some form of grant from Westminster

Well, yes. England receives a grant from Westminster, all the countries of the UK do. Because Westminster collects the centralised taxes (like the oil revenue) and does the borrowing.

Well duh. I think it’s still something like 70-80% of all taxes go to Westminster.

Current wishfull/dellusional thinking is another referendum before 2020.

FTFY @ben. The SNP was granted a referendum by Cameron, they have had that and lost. There will not be another granted for a very long time if at all.

@binner’s – the early morning press conference was genius, caught Labour off guard totally. Everyone keeps telling us how the Conservatives are finished North of the broader so why would Cameron care about trying to win votes there.

Away from the tax thing…

Public sector bidding for rail franchises
Crown Estate
BBC Scotland reporting to Holyrood
Speed limits and road signing.

Nice to have, but nowhere near the “almost home rule” Gordon Brown promised. And of course still not guaranteed as these proposals will have to be passed by Westminster which is still obsessing over EVEL.

The SNP are unable to accept the fact that the majority of people here rejected their plan of splitting up the UK. The Smith Commission is largely irrelevant, the majority of people were going to vote against separation well before any so called “vow” was made.

For me the true colours of the SNP were shown just after the vote when, rather than accept their ideology had been rejected by most people, they came out with one of the least democratic statements I’ve ever heard and said that in future they wouldn’t bother with a referendum and would just declare Scotland to be independent, regardless of what most Scottish people actually want.

The SNP know who won and who lost and you seem incapable of handling what was offered in order to secure the win . Do you really think the Unionist not delivering on a promise helps or hinder the independent/SNP cause?

a yes vote would have been permanent and a no vote should be too.

Yes this generation should be able to tie every subsequent generation to what it wanted- the right to bear arms seems a very good example of how well that works 😉

Try that argument with the EU vote will you

FWIW either way it would not have been the last vote as it was pretty close and there would still have been a movement for pro union and IMHO a vote to rejoin in the first decade had they left the union.

Daft thread they bribed folk to vote no with this offer so they have to deliver. if you are cross be cross with Westminster parties

Anyway it is a strange outcome pre a vote AS would have taken this and none of the Westminster parties would have offered it and still he “lost” the vote.

EVEL is more of an issue IMHO

Ssssh! The SNP “lost”, remember?

When Salmon stepped down I thought ‘wow, he really felt for his cause etc’ then in the next breath he said ‘we could still become independent anyway’ – lost all respect as the majority voted NO ****.

There will not be another granted for a very long time if at all.

It would be political suicide for any PM who agrees to another. Certainly in the next 20-odd years.

Labour are as dead as the Tories now, it really is quite funny:

http://blogs.channel4.com/gary-gibbon-on-politics/scottish-labour-despair/29709

I feel sorry for Old Labour people. People I know who are working class, who remember the Labour of Keir Hardie and setting up the NHS. They’re feeling totally disillusioned and completely sold out by Labour now, and they’re the ones who are going to other parties in droves.

At a recent Green meeting I was at, about 75% were new members – and most of those were people who were “natural” Labour voters who were never going to vote Labour again.

So what would happen if Westminster were to raise tax in England to pay for additional funding for the NHS for example? Would they just have to increase the grant to the Scottish Parliament to cover the deficit, or would England’s NHS be effectively better off? Hardly fair is it?

Westminster would have lost the vote had they not agreed to a raft of changes to allow Scots more power to make Scotland work for them – the vote was a simple yes/no and it was incredibly tight – but in reality a compromise was found.

Do you have a single shred of evidence for this statement? It wasn’t really ‘incredibly tight’ either was it.

Everyone keeps telling us how the Conservatives are finished North of the broader so why would Cameron care about trying to win votes there.

Fair point Jambalaya. But as the campaign demonstrated (as is polling in England is now) generally people are really disillusioned by the arrogance and duplicity of Westminster, so to pull a stunt like that will have unintended consequences. It was typical Cameron. Short term, ill thought through, and opportunistic. For example: the Tories, to secure a majority (which they haven’t done since 1992) will have to win some northern metropolitan seats. Yeah, Dave …. well good luck with that!

Ssssh! The SNP “lost”, remember?

I will get back on message
GET OVER IT , SHUT UP DONT EXPECT UK TO DO WHAT THEY PROMISED

Personally I would say it was a score draw but the tide was for the independence as they got more independence and a much closer vote than anyone expected

Time will tell whether it was a battle or the end of the war I suspect a battle personally

If the PM agrees to another and the SNP wins, could we have another again in 2years or would the SNP suddenly see this as rude? I wonder..

Current thinking is another referendum before 2020.

Absolute nonsense…

Maybe the delusional thinking of a few hardline nats, but it won’t happen, and nor should it.

Out of interest, hypothetically what would have been your reaction if it had been a yes vote, and The UK government stated they planned to have a referendum to see if Scotland wanted to rejoin the union in 2020? Or is it only a permanent decision if it goes your way?

edit…this

If the PM agrees to another and the SNP wins, could we have another again in 2years or would the SNP suddenly see this as rude? I wonder..

Do you have a single shred of evidence for this statement?

Well its either that or during the debate the entire Westminster system/parties had a complete change of heart and were persuaded by the strength of the SNP argument despite nit allowing devo max on the ballot.

It was bribe caused by them panicking and loosing nerve
I do agree they did not need to do it but they did and because they were worried about losing the vote

IMHO the UK voting to leave the EU will lead to one

Ah but the alternative offer was for MORE devolution.

Where did it say that on the ballot paper? an alternative offered was more devolution, and that was an issue raised late in the day with nothing to say what ‘more devolution’ would be. So its not fair to say that ‘no’ voters were mandating for more, any, or no further devolved powers because devolution wasn’t on the ballot paper.

Given that we don’t even discuss, either at the ballot box or in the parliament, using the more powerful, more meaningful devolved powers we already have…. how is anyone concluding theres a mandate for more?

The winners (appropriately) are the Scottish people. This was obvious all along and why NO was the correct vote. Greater autonomy within a well functioning union.

As for the arguments about reneging on deals, those should be in the scrap bin with most of AS, yS BS.

Now let’s see if there are politicians capable of exercising this new responsibility well.

Page 2 already – is this one going to be as long as the last Scottish Independence thread?

I might disconnect my internet now, just in case…

Absolute nonsense…
Maybe the delusional thinking of a few hardline nats, but it won’t happen, and nor should it.
[/quote]17/18 years between Devo/Indy votes (1979, 1997, 2014) seems about right. I guess it will depend on how well these current proposals go down.

And as Junkyard says, the EU thing could make a big difference.

Where did it say that on the ballot paper? an alternative offered was more devolution, and that was an issue raised late in the day with nothing to say what ‘more devolution’ would be. So its not fair to say that ‘no’ voters were mandating for more, any, or no further devolved powers because devolution wasn’t on the ballot paper.

The government made it very clear what would happen if there was a no vote. So yes, it’s completely fair to say that there is a mandate for more devolution. To not do so is to have mislead the electorate.

It was bribe caused by them panicking and loosing nerve
I do agree they did not need to do it but they did and because they were worried about losing the vote

Yeah absolutely I’ve just heard numerous people state that it was this offer that decisively swung the vote as if it’s a fact. It might even be true but I’ve not seen any evidence.