Post Indyref Reflection

[ParisInAKilt]

Why was excluding people who don't live in Scotland and might never live in Scotland scandalous?

[scoobydoo]

I know one person here who would have voted no. one in about sixteen.

And for the record I don't think ex-pats should have had a vote either.

Talking pish phil and learn to make paragraphs.

Edited September 27, 2014 by scoobydoo

[ParisInAKilt]

I know one person here who would have voted no. one in about sixteen.

And for the record I don't think ex-pats should have had a vote either.

Talking pish phil and learn to make paragraphs.

50 odd in the pub last week and one admitted to being a no supporter.

The idea of finding a fair system to allow people abroad and in England the vote is ridiculous.

[scoobydoo]

The Greeks do it for their elections I believe. Lazy s too lazy to erase them from the register probably.

Given that, the Italians and Spanish probably do it too.

[ParisInAKilt]

Think you can vote in general elections up to 15 years being away, not sure I agree with that either but I've registered anyway.

[scoobydoo]

that, the taxman might want a word with me.

[exile]

Yes, good post Lamia, admire your spirit but disagree with most of what you are saying. The NO campaign was more inept that anything. Conspiracy theories about the evil establishment spreading lies and malice are pretty ridiculous frankly. 'They', if they exist, are not that smart. If they were there wouldn't have been a referendum in the first place, or certainly not on Salmond's terms. Reality check time: Salmond excluded 800,000 expats, which was scandalous, but I kind of almost admire him for it. He knew he had a battle on his hands and had to pull every stroke possible to pull it off. At the end of the day he is a politician, and a pretty crafty one. Point is, he obviously felt the expats were likely to vote no. He was probably right, they mostly fitted the profile of NO voters. Had they voted, and voted predominantly NO, the 45 could have been closer to the 40 or even the high 30s, and that would probably have been the end of the independence story. As for scare stories, well, plenty of big hitters with no connection to the NO campaign weighed in in agreement with the fears on the economy, and let's face it, big Alex's economic plan was utter pish. If he had had a better plan he might have pulled it off. And the Yes side were making up their own scarey stuff too - evil Tory plan plan to privatise the NHS? Er, plausible, but unfortunately, not possible. Bottom line, beware the Mannichaean impulse to divide the world into blocks of pure good and pure evil. Nationalism encourages that, and it's a sweet seductive message, 'we wuz robbed!', but the truth is always more complicated.

To include Scots expats in the vote would be open to criticism of 'ethnic nationalism'.

Didn't Labour say the NHS was safe within union, but spread scare stories about 'evil Tory plans' south of the border?

[scotlad]

To include Scots expats in the vote would be open to criticism of 'ethnic nationalism'.

Also, the sheer practicalities make it almost unworkable. For instance, how do you define 'a Scot'? If we take it as someone born in Scotland then you could have a situation where someone who moved away as a baby and never returned is presented with an opportunity to decided Scotland's future, which just seems absurd. And how would the authorities keep track of all these expat 'Scots' anyway?

I appreciate that the last couple of years must have been frustrating for expats who felt strongly about the issue (either way) but ultimately it was their decision to leave Scotland. Those of us who remain would have had to have lived with the decision they influenced; they would not. They can't have it both ways.

[Jonny]

Yes, good post Lamia, admire your spirit but disagree with most of what you are saying. The NO campaign was more inept that anything. Conspiracy theories about the evil establishment spreading lies and malice are pretty ridiculous frankly. 'They', if they exist, are not that smart. If they were there wouldn't have been a referendum in the first place, or certainly not on Salmond's terms. Reality check time: Salmond excluded 800,000 expats, which was scandalous, but I kind of almost admire him for it. He knew he had a battle on his hands and had to pull every stroke possible to pull it off. At the end of the day he is a politician, and a pretty crafty one. Point is, he obviously felt the expats were likely to vote no. He was probably right, they mostly fitted the profile of NO voters. Had they voted, and voted predominantly NO, the 45 could have been closer to the 40 or even the high 30s, and that would probably have been the end of the independence story. As for scare stories, well, plenty of big hitters with no connection to the NO campaign weighed in in agreement with the fears on the economy, and let's face it, big Alex's economic plan was utter pish. If he had had a better plan he might have pulled it off. And the Yes side were making up their own scarey stuff too - evil Tory plan plan to privatise the NHS? Er, plausible, but unfortunately, not possible. Bottom line, beware the Mannichaean impulse to divide the world into blocks of pure good and pure evil. Nationalism encourages that, and it's a sweet seductive message, 'we wuz robbed!', but the truth is always more complicated.

I've highlighted everything I can see that is total pish in that post. You seem to think you're clever but you make yourself look like an idiot with this post.

[Hertsscot]

Also, the sheer practicalities make it almost unworkable. For instance, how do you define 'a Scot'?

Grief, we all know the problems that causes just with the football. On other parts of this board the subject is guaranteed a 27 page long threads with no resolution at the end of it. Alex Salmond was correct in restricting the vote to those who actually live in Scotland.

[Toepoke]

I appreciate that the last couple of years must have been frustrating for expats who felt strongly about the issue (either way) but ultimately it was their decision to leave Scotland. Those of us who remain would have had to have lived with the decision they influenced; they would not. They can't have it both ways.

Absolutely. And if as an ex-pat you were absolutely hell bent on getting involved you had over 3 years to return and register. Plenty of warning...

[Lamia]

And the Yes side were making up their own scarey stuff too - evil Tory plan plan to privatise the NHS? Er, plausible, but unfortunately, not possible.

I take it you haven't been reading much about what is happening in England or heard of TTIP? Oh and if you mean NHS Scotland (since you haven't specified) no one ever claimed the Tories could privatise this

Could rip the rest of your post apart to but to be honest I am past all that.

Edited September 27, 2014 by Lamia

[Flure]

I take it you haven't been reading much about what is happening in England or heard of TTIP? Oh and if you mean NHS Scotland (since you haven't specified) no one ever claimed the Tories could privatise this

Could rip the rest of your post apart to but to be honest I am past all that.

Well played, girl!

[Mindimoo]

Well played, girl!

I'll second that

[sub50]

My reflection is that we lost as we could not reach too many of the 2M who voted No.

The almost total bias of the MSM meant that YES = SNP = White paper. As a result all of YES had to carry the can for what was effectively a manifesto. This proved to be a static goal and the No media did not miss.

Currency - No plan B. The crap stuck and many No voters did not like the idea of living in the uncertain world where we would not get a CU and there appeared to be no plan B.

Europe - I do not believe that this is a game changer for most people. Feeling on Europe may be different here than in the rest of the UK but I am not sure if it goes deep enough to have made much of a difference.

NATO - As per Europe.

Economy - This REALLY hurt us. The narrative was that a Scotland with the pound would be forced into economic purgatory and this would result in rising costs due to transaction fees, inflation, job losses and corporate flight. Pension companies would be forced to leave due to EU law on cross border schemes being in deficit and Michelle Mone would leave as she could not make money with Scotland outside the UK (wait a minute..).

Promising referenda on key issues post YES would have cut the legs from some of this. The SNP could still have championed the White Paper whilst making it clear that the people would be able to decide. (The CU issue would as we all know have been a different after a YES vote and this would have changed the dynamic after the vote. Before it the YES camp could have explored all the issues and although no scenario would have been acceptable to NO it would not have been the static target that CU presented.) NATO and European membership could have been shelved as issues with the script being that the SNP line is as per White Paper but at the secondary referenda's we all get a say.

This could have allowed us to focus more on the Economy. Bill Clinton was right (it the economy stupid) and polling had told us a long way out that if everyone believed they would be just £500 per annum better off the outcome was a clear YES. We needed to get the message through that the flow of money is from us to the south. That any extra we get back is not Englands money but is actually borrowed on our behalf. Rarely was there any acknowledgement that almost all wealthy countries are running a deficit all the time.

Instead we were fighting all the media and the establishment across too many different battlegrounds at the same time. That we ever got the 45% is in hindsight astonishing.

Going forward the following needs to be rammed home to the doubters who thought that nothing would change.

We get a higher per capita allocation of funding for public services. This is premised upon our increased level of need. Why then should that funding be the resource that we use to pay for a far better NHS, care for the elderly, free university tuition, better school estate, free prescription etc? Our need for these extra services is no greater than anywhere else. Surely if we need more money in a United Kingdom it should only be for the purpose of equalising services? Why are we entitled to a better level of public services than the rest of the UK? After all we just affirmed that we are not a country (in the proper sense as countries govern themselves) but a region of a larger state.

The reality is that the 55% want their cake and eat it. They want their own circumstances to remain the same and for some mysterious largesse from Westminster to pay for our increased spending. However they have sent a very clear message that they want to be better together.

Imagine how that sounds to the poor in Liverpool, Bristol or Newcastle?

We cannot demand more simply because we have always received it or even argue that we have greater need. When the extra spending is threatened and it certainly will be what will the 55% say then? Will they argue that we contribute more? If they believe that we do they should have voted YES. Or will they meekly shrug and just accept our lot? What would the MSM say, would they stand up then for Scotland? (Maybe as some of these journalists live here and may not be happy about tuition fees for their kids.)

The 45% will keep this interesting. Westminster knows that we have not melted away. They know that we need only convert 1 in 20 to form a majority.

There are too many variables to accurately predict the future. Labour is in dire straits in Scotland. The Tories are threatened by UKIP and need to curry favour more down south than in Scotland where they have 1 MP. And the the Lib Dems? People in Scotland will not easily forget that they climbed into bed with the Tories for 5 years.

We do indeed live in interesting times.

My prediction though is that we are about to be shafted, and probably for a while, before things get better.

[phil]

Regarding the ex-pats, Anne Miller in the Guardian suggested a workable solution to practicalities:

'you can still vote in UK elections for 15 years after you were last on the electoral roll and with amendments this could provide the basis for a solution. By the time you've clocked up a decade and a half of living elsewhere that should really count as a permanent move but a shorter time limit say five years would seem reasonable, especially if the onus was on individuals to submit their details, including when they were last on a Scottish electoral roll.'

Makes sense to me, and I know several expats who were desperate to vote Yes and were extremely annoyed that they couldn't. Not all ex pats are such by choice, and it's a fundamental principal that if a decision could affect a person's passport status they should have a say in it.

My wider point though is that the SNP were able to set up this referendum exactly as they wanted, including when it took place, who could vote and even the framing of the question itself - which kind of invited a Yes in my view. The 'establishment' idiotically, negligantly, arrogantly perhaps, but not conspiratorially, allowed them to so.

In a sense, good luck to them, but it undermines the whole idea that the fight was unfair and that all the advantages and resources were with NO. Sure, more newspapers were with NO than YES, but the Yes campaign had plenty of outlets, not least social media, too. And for all the crass and tasteless reporting from the Daily Telegraph, were their readers ever going to vote Yes? I doubt if the right wing press converted anyone.

If people want another referendum, and a Yes victory next time, talk of conspiracies, fixes, and betrayals isn't the way to go about it. People need to ask NO voters why they chose that option, and listen to their answers.

Edited September 28, 2014 by phil

[exile]

Regarding the ex-pats, Anne Miller in the Guardian suggested a workable solution to practicalities:

'you can still vote in UK elections for 15 years after you were last on the electoral roll and with amendments this could provide the basis for a solution. By the time you've clocked up a decade and a half of living elsewhere that should really count as a permanent move but a shorter time limit say five years would seem reasonable, especially if the onus was on individuals to submit their details, including when they were last on a Scottish electoral roll.'

Makes sense to me, and I know several expats who were desperate to vote Yes and were extremely annoyed that they couldn't. Not all ex pats are such by choice, and it's a fundamental principal that if a decision could affect a person's passport status they should have a say in it.

My wider point though is that the SNP were able to set up this referendum exactly as they wanted, including when it took place, who could vote and even the framing of the question itself - which kind of invited a Yes in my view. The 'establishment' idiotically, negligantly, arrogantly perhaps, but not conspiratorially, allowed them to so.

In a sense, good luck to them, but it undermines the whole idea that the fight was unfair and that all the advantages and resources were with NO. Sure, more newspapers were with NO than YES, but the Yes campaign had plenty of outlets, not least social media, too. And for all the crass and tasteless reporting from the Daily Telegraph, were their readers ever going to vote Yes? I doubt if the right wing press converted anyone.

If people want another referendum, and a Yes victory next time, talk of conspiracies, fixes, and betrayals isn't the way to go about it. People need to ask NO voters why they chose that option, and listen to their answers.

I don't think anyone is saying the Edinburgh Agreement was unfair. It was not 'exactly as they wanted' but an agreement that both sides were prepared to accept. This whole issue is a red herring.

The issue of 'unfairness' mainly refers to the BBC, which is supposed to be politically neutral, and which continues to claim it is. Some unionists would argue that it is rightly pro-British (the clue is in the title) but the BBC itself is in denial. And as far as I can see, people on the No side are in denial of this.

On one level, newspapers can take whatever position they like. But on another level, the degree of influence on Scottish public opinion wielded by interests outside Scotland is surely not healthy for democratic debate and decision-making in Scotland. Again, it seems the No side are in denial on this too.

(Can you imagine the furore if, in a EU yes/no referendum, the majority of news on the topic was emanating from Brussels?)

Lots of people on here agree that talk of conspiracies and fixes is not the way ahead. Also, people are of course listening to reasons people voted no. This includes arguments made - about so-called Devo Max being promised - that were trumpeted by the media but which may turn out to be misleading.

"betrayal" is a strong word, but if "the Vow" turns out to have been an empty promise, or if other things turn out to be the way the No side had them (oil, NHS in danger, etc.) some may well feel betrayed - including No voters.

Edited September 28, 2014 by exile

[King Of Paisley]

Phil

I actually agree with your last paragraph - if people harp on about such conspiracy theories then to a wider audience we will be seen as a nation of paranoid crackpots. There will be of course a section of the Scottish electorate who couldn't give a flying one about extra powers and simply don't want independence. What you have said is right - we need to take this on the chin, but make it clear the Yes campaign is here for the long haul and have dialogue with the soft No's and pragmatic undecided's who switched to No as to what made them choose the status quo and convince them, with a robust manifesto, why independence is the way forward.

Daily Telegraph - yes, their core readership are swivel-eyed Nigel Farage-supporting fundamentalists, but I would guess they and their ilk would have a wide enough circulation to possibly influence undecideds. The Scottish Daily Express, who I would say were on a par with the Torygraph on the scurrilous guff on their front page, certainly would have a high core readership up here.

Edited September 28, 2014 by King Of Paisley

[AbductedbyAliens]

Regarding the ex-pats, Anne Miller in the Guardian suggested a workable solution to practicalities:

'you can still vote in UK elections for 15 years after you were last on the electoral roll and with amendments this could provide the basis for a solution. By the time you've clocked up a decade and a half of living elsewhere that should really count as a permanent move but a shorter time limit say five years would seem reasonable, especially if the onus was on individuals to submit their details, including when they were last on a Scottish electoral roll.'

Makes sense to me, and I know several expats who were desperate to vote Yes and were extremely annoyed that they couldn't. Not all ex pats are such by choice, and it's a fundamental principal that if a decision could affect a person's passport status they should have a say in it.

My wider point though is that the SNP were able to set up this referendum exactly as they wanted, including when it took place, who could vote and even the framing of the question itself - which kind of invited a Yes in my view. The 'establishment' idiotically, negligantly, arrogantly perhaps, but not conspiratorially, allowed them to so.

In a sense, good luck to them, but it undermines the whole idea that the fight was unfair and that all the advantages and resources were with NO. Sure, more newspapers were with NO than YES, but the Yes campaign had plenty of outlets, not least social media, too. And for all the crass and tasteless reporting from the Daily Telegraph, were their readers ever going to vote Yes? I doubt if the right wing press converted anyone.

If people want another referendum, and a Yes victory next time, talk of conspiracies, fixes, and betrayals isn't the way to go about it. People need to ask NO voters why they chose that option, and listen to their answers.

Nice one,troll

[Lamia]

If people want another referendum, and a Yes victory next time, talk of conspiracies, fixes, and betrayals isn't the way to go about it. People need to ask NO voters why they chose that option, and listen to their answers.

I have tried asking - sadly you rarely get an answer. Only the Brit Nats can really seem to give an answer

[Rossy]

I have tried asking - sadly you rarely get an answer. Only the Brit Nats can really seem to give an answer

I fully understand that for many people, their default mode was to vote 'no'.

Hopefully, only a relatively small percentage of no voters were died in the wool, independence hating loyalists.

The fact is, that from the outset independence was generally painted in every single media outlet as 'as risk', and supporters of yes as extremists.

The no campaign was portrayed as 'normal', and as such their campaign, and the future under a no vote, was rarely scrutinised.

Some may call that one-eyed propaganda....I really couldn't comment.

The Yes campaign had many faults, I think that's obvious. But if the media coverage had been anywhere close to balanced I think that many would have had the information they needed to vote Yes.

[Flora MaDonald]

God, now the reds are falling out

[Lamia]

God, now the reds are falling out

Where?

[mcnish]

Can't say I noticed a lot of this intelligence, dignity and friendliness amongst the local Yes campaign among the suddenly politically enlightened folks of Wishaw.

This nationalistic sermon I've been hearing so much of the last half a year from the Yessies out there sounds much like the manifesto's of those anachronistic revolutionary 'armies' that have been pestering South American countries the last few decades with their preaching about how they want to create a fair and just society which just happens to involve taking money for themselves off those members of society that happen to possess more than them and of which the majority of the country are entirely fed up with and wish they would leave them alone to get on with their lives.

Its easy to invent a vision of a utopian society much like the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia and just say we'll leave the details of exactly how we're going to make this happen to after the revolution (just substitute invented projected oil revenues for invented projected rice harvests which will make everyone universally prosperous and happy of course) Personally I'd rather have Pol Pot as a leader than Alec Salmond though.

What I'd like to know is will the highly vocal ,obnoxious, self-righteous and holier-than-thou contingent of the Tartan Army comprised by the idealistic folk of Aberdeenshire that believe they are ever so much more patriotically Scottish than the rest of us perhaps be slinking away in shame now that their own kinsfolk have so emphatically rejected the prospect of an independent Scotland?

[brant grebner]

Can't say I noticed a lot of this intelligence, dignity and friendliness amongst the local Yes campaign among the suddenly politically enlightened folks of Wishaw.

This nationalistic sermon I've been hearing so much of the last half a year from the Yessies out there sounds much like the manifesto's of those anachronistic revolutionary 'armies' that have been pestering South American countries the last few decades with their preaching about how they want to create a fair and just society which just happens to involve taking money for themselves off those members of society that happen to possess more than them and of which the majority of the country are entirely fed up with and wish they would leave them alone to get on with their lives.

Its easy to invent a vision of a utopian society much like the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia and just say we'll leave the details of exactly how we're going to make this happen to after the revolution (just substitute invented projected oil revenues for invented projected rice harvests which will make everyone universally prosperous and happy of course) Personally I'd rather have Pol Pot as a leader than Alec Salmond though.

What I'd like to know is will the highly vocal ,obnoxious, self-righteous and holier-than-thou contingent of the Tartan Army comprised by the idealistic folk of Aberdeenshire that believe they are ever so much more patriotically Scottish than the rest of us perhaps be slinking away in shame now that their own kinsfolk have so emphatically rejected the prospect of an independent Scotland?

Bell end