An Independent Scotland?

barneyrubble said:
Another referendum will require westminster's approval.

Do you really think they're going to give it after nearly losing the vote this time?
Click to expand...
I don't know but you'll see a totally different attitude if the promises aren't kept. Many people I know changed due to those promises.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
He can't win. Wtf do you want?
Click to expand...
Agreed. Personally I'd have liked to see him stay to finish it. I hardly agree with him on anything but he was committed and is head and shoulders above anyone else in the party.
 
He has only resigned as leader of the SNP. He will remain 1st. minister.
 
I wonder how much his redundancy will cost the UK...
 
Yip. heard it on LBC and they have just corrected their story and saying he will stand down from both jobs in November.
 
Staying as a MSP though, wonder if he will try to get on the MEP gravy train?
 
Westminster ministers can claim 3 months severence pay when they resign. Probably similar arrangement at Holyrood.
 
I think that by resigning, Mr Salmond has acted in a mature, honourable and dignified way. I wasn't impressed by the political rhetoric from either side leading up to the vote. I am still however disappointed by the point Mr Salmond has made in his resignation statement that he feels Scotland can still emerge as 'the winner'.

This whole excercise was/is surely not about winning or losing, but is instead about more important issues than that. To have a winner, implies that there must be a loser. The outcome of yesterday's vote should mean social and political change throughout the UK. On that basis we should all become 'winners' if the proper policies can be developed. Unfortunately it looks like many will be whiners instead.
 
big soft moose said:
to be fair i was pro - if wanting scotland to go forth and multiply and thinking england would be better off without can be described as 'pro' - i'm unsuprised by the vote though - the reasons why i'd like england unencumbered by scotland (and wales/ulster) are the exact same reasons a lot of scots voted no
Click to expand...

Pretty much on the money. I acknowledge freely rUK is better without Scotland, but Scotland isn't better without rUK. I voted no purely as I am resident here, and my heart is for Britain and all its people, but if living in England, I'd find it harder to want them to stay in the UK
 
Salmond did the right thing. Shame he didn't do it several years ago imho. I hope that sturgeon women will go as well.
 
GeeJay57 said:
I think that by resigning, Mr Salmond has acted in a mature, honourable and dignified way. I wasn't impressed by the political rhetoric from either side leading up to the vote. I am still however disappointed by the point Mr Salmond has made in his resignation statement that he feels Scotland can still emerge as 'the winner'.

This whole excercise was/is surely not about winning or losing, but is instead about more important issues than that. To have a winner, implies that there must be a loser. The outcome of yesterday's vote should mean social and political change throughout the UK. On that basis we should all become 'winners' if the proper policies can be developed. Unfortunately it looks like many will be whiners instead.
Click to expand...
I think that statement was meant more for the benefit of a "divided" Scotland, looking for a positive for everyone regardless of the referendum outlook. I don't think it was anything to do with there being a loser.
As for whiners, well you've started already.:D
 
Last edited:
MWHCVT said:
Got to say I'm disappointed to see so little posting from the Yes camp of TP but for one sore post about vote rigging...I guess it shows they really don't take defeat too well at all :( and that to me is the saddest thing
Click to expand...
Some of the yes posters on here have dreamt of Independence for years, little wonder they might be a little subdued today. Saying that Steeps post was ill adivsed and I am sure he probably regrets it now.
 
dejongj said:
Salmond did the right thing. Shame he didn't do it several years ago imho. I hope that sturgeon women will go as well.
Click to expand...
Don't think she'll be going anywhere. Bookies have her as favourite to replace Alex Salmond, and we all know the bookies are rarely wrong.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
I think that statement was meant more for the benefit of a "divided" Scotland, looking for a positive for everyone regardless of the referendum outlook. I don't think it was anything to do with there being a loser.
As for whiners, well you've started already.:D
Click to expand...

I like your avatar...
 
dod said:
I don't know but you'll see a totally different attitude if the promises aren't kept. Many people I know changed due to those promises.
Click to expand...

and do the politicians in question (or for that matter politicians in general) have a good record of keeping promises ?
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
I think that statement was meant more for the benefit of a "divided" Scotland, looking for a positive for everyone regardless of the referendum outlook. I don't think it was anything to do with there being a loser.
As for whiners, well you've started already.:D
Click to expand...
Thanks a lot..... :(
 
Didn't Salmond resign once before?
Anyway, I think Scotland is better off without him in charge to be honest.
He was leader of something that didn't come off, it would have been difficult for him to continue with at least an appearance of acting for both Scotland and the rest of the UK. The other fishy one will no doubt get the job, and the boot at the next Scots election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
big soft moose said:
and do the politicians in question (or for that matter politicians in general) have a good record of keeping promises ?
Click to expand...

Were the promises detailed, or were they just vague 'we'll do some stuff that may be seen to be something like we thought you thought we promised.....' politicanspeke?
 
Bernie174 said:
Stewart

It was a vote on Independence, and therefore all that could have supported that had an opportunity to express that.

But what I said was that only about 1/3 voted for it. The rest either didn't bother, couldn't or didn't want to, or voted against it. Whatever way you want to put it though 2/3's, roughly did not vote for Independence.
So the only thing that can be said with certainty is that 1/3 of the eligible voters opted for Independence. Thats what the numbers say.

Of course Politicians will say that it was 45% of voters, but thats the nature of politics, spin it to best advantage. Missing out the words "who voted" makes the statement true, but untrue at the same time.
Click to expand...
Using the same argument you could say that around 54% of scots didn't vote for the union either. Which ever way you look at it the vote was divisive and shows the general feeling of dissatisfaction of the current situation.
 
big soft moose said:
and do the politicians in question (or for that matter politicians in general) have a good record of keeping promises ?
Click to expand...

Well, they've got a chance to this time.
 
jakeblu said:
Using the same argument you could say that around 54% of scots didn't vote for the union either. Which ever way you look at it the vote was divisive and shows the general feeling of dissatisfaction of the current situation.
Click to expand...
I think there is a great deal of dissatisfaction throughout the UK. The SNP were skillful at bringing Scottish independence to the fore and have then demonstrated that given a clear choice, the majority of people could be engaged enough to vote. It's a shame that 'normal' political choices are so blurred that the overwhelming majority are disengaged and do not vote. Got to be a lesson in there somewhere..
 
Rapscallion said:
Were the promises detailed, or were they just vague 'we'll do some stuff that may be seen to be something like we thought you thought we promised.....' politicanspeke?
Click to expand...

well they did promise to be the greenest government ever .. shortly before truying to sell the NNRs, the forestry , relax planning laws and allow fracking and quarrying in national parks

and the lib dems promised to not allow student fees to rise - shortly before voting for an increase.

generally speaking you can trust the average politician considerably less far than you could chuck them (there are the occasional exceptions but not many - an even those that start out honourably soon find that power corrupts and absolute power is actuually pretty neat )

I'm reminded of Blackadder (a rotten candidate for a rotten borough)

BA "Criminal record ?"
Baldrick " Absolutely not"
BA " oh come on Baldrick you're going to be an MP for gods sake, I'll just put fraud and sexual deviancy"
 
Bernie174 said:
Didn't Salmond resign once before?
Anyway, I think Scotland is better off without him in charge to be honest.
He was leader of something that didn't come off, it would have been difficult for him to continue with at least an appearance of acting for both Scotland and the rest of the UK. The other fishy one will no doubt get the job, and the boot at the next Scots election.
Click to expand...

Yes Salmond was leader once before and resigned. They brought him back when Swinney was taking them nowhere.
 
jakeblu said:
Using the same argument you could say that around 54% of scots didn't vote for the union either. Which ever way you look at it the vote was divisive and shows the general feeling of dissatisfaction of the current situation.
Click to expand...

The turn out was massive for this. 87%. Off that 87% 55% voted for the union. That makes 47% off the population wanted the union. If all the non voters, 13% didn't vote and wanted a yes vote, that is their problem.

At 87% turn out, its clearly a large enough sample of the population to be indicative of the will of the people at large. It's a fair vote.
 
dod said:
I don't know but you'll see a totally different attitude if the promises aren't kept. Many people I know changed due to those promises.
Click to expand...

Cameron has made it clear today by quoting salmond about the once in a generation or even lifetime. He has said here will be no reruns


If uk govt want the scots to go they'll allow another referendum. Likelihood of that happening is 0.

All 3 main parties campaigned against it so there's no chance

Whether attitudes in Scotland change or not they've mised their chance of independence for this generation.
 
StewartR said:
Ah. I've watched those videos now and I have to say they look pretty damming. I guess you might ask, if it's that easy for one unsupervised counter to put 'Yes' votes on the 'No' pile, how many others were doing it and not caught on video? And the other thing you might ask is how many counters were putting 'No' votes on the 'Yes' pile?
Click to expand...

Been busy at work or I'd have got back earlier sorry, I don't for a minute think the entire result was fixed. The woman in the second video might have been checking and confirming voids, the first video seems the more suspect but he'd have had to go some to change the result.
 
frank said:
God! your like a dog with a bone about Salmond, is this a personal hatred of him as a person or what he stood for?
Click to expand...

Seriously? I've made two posts :LOL:
I don't know him as a person (and I suspect you don't either).
I simply think quitting is cowardly.
Being gracious in defeat would involve sticking around to deal with what I'm sure will be a lengthy aftermath, not running for the hills like a whipped dog leaving others to mop up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top