[SA Chris]

I'm deeply disappointed that the fear enslaught from the establishment won the day, but... on the positive side, the turn out was incredible and the sense of political engagement remarkable.

But what happens next?

If the turnout and political engagement can be continued until the GE, hopefully there can be big changes for everyone. I woke up at about 4:30 thought I'll just take quick peek at results on my phone, and I was hooked for the rest of the night zzzzzzzzzzz.

Fultonius, what the relevance of the tablet?

[Fultonius]

It's Fudge Chris, and that's what I think we'll end up with. A massive, great fudge.

[rich d]

Familiar feeling this morning as Scotland again fail to make it out of the group,

 (stolen from Twitter)

[SA Chris]

It's Fudge Chris, and that's what I think we'll end up with. A massive, great fudge.

Sorry, got it now. I like fudge anyway.

[Stewart]

Very disappointed today but we must move on. Hopefully this vote will be a good thing and galvanise voters across the UK and we will see some real reform. Really hope we will see the 16 yr olds get the vote in all future elections, that was certainly one positive aspect.

The one bit that made me angry was i felt that the scots were running away from an issue that they should be fighting to change. Lots of people in England feel the same about the government we have and agree with many of the yes campaigns ideas but just saying "we dont like what your doing so we are not playing" and therefore looking after them selves to the detriment of others seems a bit counter to there political ideas.

I don't think you can categorise yes voters as running away from the issue. The main appetite for change south of the border seems to be reflected in a (protest?) vote for UKIP which was never going to be embraced up here. Why has it taken the Scottish indy ref to reawaken the debate about constitutional change in England? It may have been out there but it was a murmer before this year.

One last quote from a fellow yes supporter last night when news of Inverclyde voting no broke. Inverclyde has many areas with huge social issues and poor housing conditions. Made me laugh at the time but a bit depressing thinking about it this morning.
 
"I mean - Inverclyde for f**k sake. How can you live in Port Glasgow, look out the window and think to yourself. "Aye, this is the life. I want more of this. We're better together. F*cking f**k."

[Falling Down]

Salmond and Cameron are both very compromised now that's for sure.

[Jaspersharpe]

Indeed. I bet Boris has been loving this.....

[Johnny Brown]

"I mean - Inverclyde for f**k sake. How can you live in Port Glasgow, look out the window and think to yourself. "Aye, this is the life. I want more of this. We're better together. F*cking f**k."

Not so surprising to me; these would be the folk hit hardest if independence had not delivered on its vague and lofty promises.

[tomtom]

I agree.

On a lighter note, Sloper was wrong again (see the other thread) but somehow managed to back both horses because tomtom owes him a pint.

How did that happen? Bloody lawyers.

Ahem. He never accepted the wager so no pint.

[SA Chris]

One last quote from a fellow yes supporter last night when news of Inverclyde voting no broke. Inverclyde has many areas with huge social issues and poor housing conditions. Made me laugh at the time but a bit depressing thinking about it this morning.
 
"I mean - Inverclyde for f**k sake. How can you live in Port Glasgow, look out the window and think to yourself. "Aye, this is the life. I want more of this. We're better together. F*cking f**k."

LOL.

There were a few regions which produced a bigger No result than I expected, Highlands and the Islands for example

[Pantontino]

"I mean - Inverclyde for f**k sake. How can you live in Port Glasgow, look out the window and think to yourself. "Aye, this is the life. I want more of this. We're better together. F*cking f**k."

Not so surprising to me; these would be the folk hit hardest if independence had not delivered on its vague and lofty promises.

And the alternative is... ...more of the same channeling of money and power to the 1% rich elite. Can’t say I share your (implied) faith in the neoliberal establishment to deliver anything but misery for those who find themselves at the bottom of the pile in Scotland (or anywhere else in fact). An independent Scotland might face some tricky obstacles but ultimately it would be a fairer and more inclusive country and one more likely to look after its own.

[Stu Littlefair]

Why? Are the scots somehow better than the rest of us?

[Johnny Brown]

I didn't intend to imply any faith in the current system, other than it exists. Unlike the proposed 'fairer and more just society' which didn't even have a proper plan for the currency underwriting the whole economy.

If there had been a bit more substance behind the yes campaign I'd have been right behind it. But it was obvious dealing in reality would have given them no chance of winning.

[Falling Down]

The marvellous Jerry Sadowitz as Sean Connery on Independence NSFW  

[Jaspersharpe]

 

[Joepicalli]

time for me to make my move to become Dictator of All South Yorkshire and Emperor of Abyssinia

I knew you were destined for this when you marched up and down the terrace range at Bolsover Castle with your helmet on and chest out saying "The M1 at this distance sounds like the roar of an adoring crowd. I shall address them"
I for one pledge my life to you Duce

[Pantontino]

Why? Are the scots somehow better than the rest of us?

Never said they were, just that they wouldn't be saddled with the neoliberal policies of a govt beholden to the ultra rich 1% in London.

[Rocksteady]

A bunch of semi-random thoughts on this whole thing:

I feel relieved about the result. From reading this very informative thread I got the impression that the main driver for the Yes votes for many was frustration with the status quo, with lack of feeling of representation for their local issues or personal viewpoints from the current parliamentary system. However, I found it deeply worrying that the main political advocates of independence hadn't put enough thought into the practical repercussions of it to produce a convincing White Paper. I hope that in the wake of the referendum the SNP will go away and commission some answers to the big questions posed that they brushed away with accusations of nay-saying and negativity. I feel like they couldn't answer the case against them so tried to persuade the electorate that there wasn't one. This was pretty disingenuous. I think the economic questions were so big, and had such an impact for the whole UK and Scotland individually, they should have been thought through to a high level of sophistication.

For me the crux of this is that it feels like a step in the wrong direction. I guess my hope is that the world becomes more globalised and unified and interdependent, with people less preoccupied with religious or national or cultural or linguistic difference and more on common goals. Putting emphasis on cultural difference instead of similarities is a step backward to a more primitive, pre-WW2 age.
The feeling of 'nationality' seems to me a bit like religion, which I'm sceptical of. It's something arbitrary and indoctrinated rather than rational. I really dislike the phrase 'proud Scot'. You had no control over where you were born or the language you first learn - why be proud of it? Why be proud of history? You weren't there and had nothing to do with it. The only things I'm proud of are things I achieved myself, small as they are. For some of those I have to thank my ancestors I guess, for putting me to an extent in the life I'm in, but I can't take any pride or credit for that. I don't take credit or blame for the acts of my ancestors, I can only try to emulate their behaviour or disown it and say 'not on my watch'.
I guess knowing about national history is important, but I don't think being proud or angry about it is a good idea. Knowing about it empowers you to make fair decisions and rational actions - pride and anger lead to biased responses, unfairness and irrationality, which ends in Ukraine or Israel/Palestine.

Now the 'No' decision is in it seems like everyone is saying, well the big difference isn't between 'Scotland' and 'England', it's between the 'rest of the UK' and 'London'. I think that's rubbish too. Regions don't think. People do. People are individuals. I think I've probably got more in common, more common experiences and more of a common lifestyle to a climber from Scotland or North Wales or Yorkshire or Spain (apart from taking a shant at the crag) than I do with the guy who sits next to me at my desk in London.

Assuming that people who come from a particular region all want the same things and will agree how to get them is a fallacy. The article linked above where 'Yes' means 'yes to everything' was very eloquent on that. Assuming that devolving votes to a local level will mean that you're more likely to get what you want isn't necessarily true either. I didn't vote for the party who got in in my London borough, and they don't run things how I would either.

I don't know what the solution is to all this. My feeling is that 'party politics' is outmoded. I can't really sign up to a 'party' who will think one thing or another because that's what their core beliefs tell them. I'm blue, I believe in less government support for people and less taxes and so I think x,y,z = 1,2,3. I'm red, I believe in more government support for people and more taxes on rich people to support poorer people and so I think x,y,z = 4,5,6. It just all seems overly simplified and silly to me.
The way I decide stuff is on the merits of the individual case, and my opinions change when I learn more facts. Politicians get pilloried for this in the press - oh you used to think this and now you've changed your mind. Isn't changing your mind when you learn more the only rational and intelligent way to be?

I think part of the problem is the type of politics we practise, and the type of person that goes into it. Isn't the type' of person that becomes a professional politician usually someone who's a bit power-hungry, wants to sit on committees and feel important, wants to tell other people what to do or think? No-one likes 'political' people at work, but generally real politicians are the exaggerated versions of these types. Until a different sort of person starts going in for politics, the sort of person you or I respect as an individual, I think we'll keep getting the same results.

Maybe Proportional Representation of some kind is an answer. Maybe that's the way to get a more nuanced, less predictable government - more like an individual person perhaps.

[Stu Littlefair]

Why? Are the scots somehow better than the rest of us?

Never said they were, just that they wouldn't be saddled with the neoliberal policies of a govt beholden to the ultra rich 1% in London.

Isn't this a bit of a short term view? The union is 300 years old after all, and scottish voting habits have changed massively over that time, and not always in one direction. After all, 100 years ago the parties themselves were essentially all different.

Far better to fix this with more political engagement, than tearing up the union. For example, I'm a bit sad there wasn't 80% turnout in the AV referendum, which could have addressed many of the same issues.

[GazM]

A bunch of semi-random thoughts on this whole thing:

Amen brother.  This No voting Inverness resident couldn't agree more.  My thoughts from the outset were that creating more divisions was a backwards step, when we take every other opportunity to celebrate our similarities.  Then came the complete lack of clarity on the economic practicalities which created the blind faith bandwagon.

Really, I'd like to have been able to give an explanation for my choice with my vote because it definitely felt like the perception was that No was conservative, boring, pro-status quo and Yes was progressive, optimistic, daring.  In reality, I don't know anyone (Yes or No) who wants things to continue as they are but I think No pipped it because there was just no credible substance behind Yes's optimism.  If there had been I'm sure I would have been a Yes man. 
 

[rich d]

But wouldn't the Yes vote just have put in a Scottish elite of professional politicians rather than an English one? I would have thought that Salmond was the prime example of this - and the SNP current government has been centralising power in Scotland - one of the reasons possibly for such a low Yes votes in the islands and highlands?

[GazM]

Yes that's what I mean.  As well as the lack of economic substance, I was confident that a Yes vote would just provide smaller (weaker?) version of the status quo, just with the word Westminster replaced by Holyrood.
They showed their true colours with the Donald Trump affair, but I'm not one to bear a grudge

[Jaspersharpe]

Salmond has resigned.

[i.munro]

A bunch of semi-random thoughts on this whole thing:


For me the crux of this is that it feels like a step in the wrong direction. I guess my hope is that the world becomes more globalised and unified and interdependent, with people less preoccupied with religious or national or cultural or linguistic difference and more on common goals. Putting emphasis on cultural difference instead of similarities is a step backward to a more primitive, pre-WW2 age.

That was the only convincing argument that I saw in the whole 'No' campaign. Completely undermined for me by the fact that a 'No' vote means, in all likelihood, walking (or worse being thrown) out of the EU.
Given as the Scots were, a choice between cutting themselves  off from  rUk or being cut off from the rest of the world I would have gone for the former.

[tim palmer]

Salmond has resigned.

Amazing, toys out the pram!