[Closed] SNP. You LOST, get over it

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.

[quote=eat_more_cheese ]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.
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.

@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.

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

[quote=Junkyard ]
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.
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 ****er.

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

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?

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?

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? [i]an[/i] 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...

[quote=tpbiker ]

Current thinking is another referendum before 2020.

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.

+1 scotroutes for the EU question.

How does that play out though? If UK get in/out EU referendum, and choose 'out', does Scottish Govt then push through an independence motion, or try to claim some sort of unilateral membership, outwith the UK?

Or we could just wait a few years, and wait for the OAPs who voted no to croak, and then it'll swing 10% in favour of yes.

Oh and are all the people who said 'we won't get any more devolved powers, it was all a big con, you mark my words' going to take it all back? 😛

But why did those OAPs vote No but the new one's won't? I thought it was due to the aging population and pension worries.

It might even be true but I've not seen any evidence.

we won't get any more devolved powers, it was all a big con, you mark my words' going to take it all back?

Just to point out a couple of facts
Only a 6% swing is needed
The Westminster govt wouldn't be able to impose another Indy vote if yes wins in the future. That's pretty dumb thinking.

Labour is fast losing it's remaining credibility, libdems are finished after the coalition and Tories clinging to one seat. It will be interesting to see how many SNP MP's end up in Westminster at the next general quite possible they could be the 3rd party in the uk. Do you think if SNP are in the majority they will stop pushing for Indy again.

With road signs becoming a devolved responsibility, some of the new designs are already on show.

[img] :large[/img]

I would like to see Bagpipes get licesened and taxed - about Eleventy Million pounds per minute of play - except for pipe bands - they would get 99% rebate at Hogmanay. See if you can guess which city centre I work in...

[img] [/img]

"A kilt covers the body from the waist down to the centre of the knees"

so the waist and the knees then ?

Not really 'evidence' granted but two close friends of mine who were undecided ended up voting no, largely on the basis of the proposed new powers.

Also whilst new powers have been proposed they are nowhere near what Gordon brown spoke of but they are closer to what the Labour / CONservative party suggested. It is also too early to judge as they are still just proposals and need Westminster approval.

SNP. You LOST, get over it

For ***** sake

I was quite happy ignoring both sides as they agreed amongst themselves and ignored the fact that those that disgreed still exist. At least on FaceTwit the two camps are still blissfuly ignoring each other.

Actually no, it doesn't look like they did.

Is scotland going to be an independent country any time soon?

No.

Additional powers wasn't what the SNP campaigned for, they campaigned for full independence. Hence theres no two ways about it, they lost.

Additional powers wasn't what the SNP campaigned for, they campaigned for full independence. Hence theres no two ways about it, they lost.

They certainly didn't win, but did they lose? They managed to wring a lot more concessions out of Westminster than looked possible at the start of the campaign.

Sturgeon needs some proper tax advice if she thinks making the top rate 50% will actually do anything.

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...

Even if the SNP had a 100% of the seats in Holyrood it could not declare independence, I am sure they would make plenty of noise, we know they are good at that, but they cannot exit unilaterally whether the UK remains in the EU or not.

True but it would be an interesting stand off as I dont the rUK would invade either and would have to respect a vote if they held one

Sturgeon needs some proper tax advice if she thinks making the top rate 50% will actually do anything.

They can abolish APT and get a few extra passengers from Newcastle but they will have a big hole in their budget.

[quote=NZCol ]Sturgeon needs some proper tax advice if she thinks making the top rate 50% will actually do anything.
I'm pretty sure that's a Labour policy and not an SNP one. Tax take has been estimated at around £8m pa. Hardly worthwhile in the grand scheme of things.

JY, why would the UK have to respect a vote in the regional Scottish parliament for independence ? I can't see us sending in the troops either but there are plenty of other mechanisms for preventing a unilateral declaration of independence having any meaning.

FWIW I cannot see there being another independence referendum without there being a corresponding vote in the UK, "Should Scotland be allowed a another referendum ?"

I totally understand why the SNP is trying to ride the wave in Scotland (interesting there is one at all given they lost the vote) as they want to reinforce their majority there and make trouble in Westminster

Hardly worthwhile in the grand scheme of things

Depends, how many votes will it win?

[quote=jambalaya ]
They can abolish APT and get a few extra passengers from Newcastle but they will have a big hole in their budget.
Lost tourism income due to APD estimated at £200m. Income from APD - £130m.

I can think of other reasons it should be retained (or even increased) but the financial argument in favour of reduction seems sounds>

True but it would be an interesting stand off as I dont the rUK would invade either and would have to respect a vote if they held one

Would they though? Without a very large majority i don't think the UK government would need to respect a vote they didnt agree to, especially if they haven't actively been engaged in the referendum process. I wouldn't see it any differently than the situation in Spain, only with less appetite for independence

And how would that sit with the fairly sizable and influencial population that voted no? I dont think Scotland could just walk away from the uk without their consent. Certainly there would be even greater challenges around aspects such as currency, split of wealth etc, that played such a prominant part in the recent ref debate.

Sure would be interesting, but i doubt in a good way!

I think part of the reason for the strong push for independence for Scotland come from the fact that power have been so slow to head north of the boarder. You see this throughout history, central governments trying to keep too tight a control for too long. Give Scotland these promised powers, but also with it less backup from Westminster. Its too easy for the SNP to paint a picture of utopia if only they had more power where as the reality would be some improvements in some areas and other areas would get worse but the compromises made would come from Scottish parliament rather than Westminster and and the SNP would have to take responsibility rather than slopey shoulders.

TheBrick - Member
I think part of the reason for the strong push for independence for Scotland come from the fact that a minority of Scots love to whinge, especially about the English.

FTFY

Fortunately the majority saw and see sense and know what's in their best interests. They are less vocal but know how to vote - the beauty of the ballot box, you can't intimidate in there. hence the %age of SNP voters who voted NO!

Lost tourism income due to APD estimated at £200m. Income from APD - £130m.

I'd say the lack of decent direct flights does more harm. Yes, Easyjet etc offer foreign routes but it's an absolute pain that BA don't and everything needs to go via London. It took me 10 hours to get to from Glasgow to Stuttgart last week via two flights and a 4 hour wait in Heathrow.

Lost tourism income due to APD estimated at £200m. Income from APD - £130m.

You see this throughout history, central governments trying to keep too tight a control for too long.

Due to the late intervention of the UK parties with the promise of some kind of DevoMax, no-one can say for sure what would have happened without that. My view is that there would still have been a No vote, but with a smaller majority.

In most cases I think that would have parked the issue for maybe 20 years or so, however UK wide politics is in such a confused state at the moment that I can see a few scenarios where an earlier referendum might be likely:
1) If we were to get a Tory/UKIP coalition as a UK government
2) If there is Yes vote in a referendum to exit the EU
3) If the SNP were to gain a majority of the Scottish seats in westminster and use that to bargain their votes for another referendum
4) If the SNP were to get more than 50% of the vote at the next Scottish election with a referendum in their manifesto
5) If the next government backs away from the devoMax promises leading to some No voters feeling betrayed

And how would that sit with the fairly sizable and influencial population that voted no? I dont think Scotland could just walk away from the uk without their consent.

I think there would need to be a pro-independence vote of maybe 60% before it could actually happen without a significant backlash. A narrow Yes vote would have been a big problem in the last referendum I think.

the fact that a minority of Scots love to whinge, especially about the English.

Have you ever considered that you are part of the problem?

Well, we were not part of Scotland being slow to adjust to an unbalanced and uncompetitive industrial structure in the 70s and 80s and we are not to blame for an over concentration on Oil and financial services now.

But given the high percentage of foreign ownership of oil and whiskey these days, there is already an alternative set of targets to blame not just the English.

Still let's see if (unlike the tartan tax) these new powers can be put to good use.

Well, we were not part of Scotland being slow to adjust to an unbalanced and uncompetitive industrial structure in the 70s and 80s and we are not to blame for an over concentration on Oil and financial services now.

Who's "we" in this context?

We'll have to wait and see if they are implemented first. Much of what was previously recommended as part of the Calman Commission got no further (e.g. APD).

It took me 10 hours to get to from Glasgow to Stuttgart last week via two flights and a 4 hour wait in Heathrow.

Did you pick odd flights, as KLM and BA both offer flights on that route, with a total time of under 5 hours.

why would the UK have to respect a vote in the regional Scottish parliament for independence ?

I don't want to get dragged into this but people (not just here) keep alluding to the "fact" that older people and OAPs were the only group who voted majority No in the referendum.

This is probably based on the "Ashcroft poll" of 2000 people after the referendum which showed a majority for Yes in all age groups except the over 55s and 18-24s ..

This poll (although mentioned to by Alex himself and massively tweeted by yes voters after the vote, usually with jolly "wait until they die" undercurrent) was probably very wrong.

A larger Yougov poll of 4000 people, which came out a bit later and received very little attention, showed a majority No vote among all but one age group (25-39).

Theres more info here in an article at the [url= http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/referendum-survey-suggests-a-slender-majority-of-young-people-voted-no.25407723 ]herald scotland[/url] (registration required for full article)

Incidentally the Ashcroft poll also showed 71/29 in favour of independence for 16-17 year olds (also widely tweeted as an example of Alex Salmonds political canniness). That particular result was based on just 14 people out of the 2000, so draw your own conclusions.

I realise that yes voters want to find reassurance in the fact that they "almost won" or "would've won except for X.. Y or Z", but as they were fond of saying during the campaign "only one poll matters ".

Well they were right about that.

While there is no question that the SNP lost the referendum vote it's also quite possible that they've come out of the referendum by far the strongest of the parties in Scotland. Whether the current polling figures actually continue into the general election is debatable (as that often comes down to a straight Tory v Labour fight so voting for that has been very different than the voting for the Scottish parliament) but if they did then we'd be in a very confused situation indeed. If Labour lost enought Scottish seats that they'd need SNP votes in the UK parliament then it's very hard to see the price for that being anything other than an agreement to support the holding of another referendum.

The only people I know who are chuntering for extra powers are those who lost. All the No voters I know, don't want them. Which side was in the majority?

Back to the tax issue. How do you have a nation set it's own taxes, that then get paid to Westminster! What if the taxes are not comparable with the rest of the UK, how is the "big pot" then divi'd up? if the nation sets lower taxes, does that mean they get less back and that then affects everything in that nation,e.g Hospital, schools, roads etc?? or is it a bit like have your cake and eat it!

the alternative offer was for MORE devolution