[amphibian]

I think putting this again to the question within two years is a truly terrible idea. Making it the primary campaign issue sounds even worse.

I'm speaking as an outside observer who would have voted yes if thrust into the situation.

[Abyss]

Drawing on the Quebec example again, no it's likely not. We danced this dance three times... 1970something, 1995 and 2014, and only in the most recent was the separatist movement soundly defeated.... In essence an entire generation had to grow old and lose influence if not just die for that to happen, plus a whole other generation of voters had to grow up into a world where separatist language based dogma had lost relevance in the face of wanting to follow English twitter feeds. The 45% aren't language centric or even cultural... More like nationalist... So yeah, I don't think this is done by a long shot.

[amphibian]

I think forcing the issue to come up again and again is a bad idea.

I'll use an American political example here: the healthcare system enacted by the Obama administration after Congress mangled it some. It's been continually challenged for years now and honestly, the time, effort, money and shitty healthcare had during this challenge it over and over has been colossally wasted.

I'm not for a "once a generation" time cycle, but giving it 5 or even 10 years is a better idea. The consequences of the decision now play out over a very long time and seeing the "data" since the decision add up into a more recognizable series of trends, movements and ideas is a good thing.

Bluntly put, it's a huge decision and having it come up again so soon decreases its importance, data collected after it was made and turns it into another political football to be passed around endlessly like Barca playing tiki-taka up 2-0.

[Silencer]

amphibian, on 21 September 2014 - 05:27 AM, said:

I think forcing the issue to come up again and again is a bad idea.

I'll use an American political example here: the healthcare system enacted by the Obama administration after Congress mangled it some. It's been continually challenged for years now and honestly, the time, effort, money and shitty healthcare had during this challenge it over and over has been colossally wasted.

I'm not for a "once a generation" time cycle, but giving it 5 or even 10 years is a better idea. The consequences of the decision now play out over a very long time and seeing the "data" since the decision add up into a more recognizable series of trends, movements and ideas is a good thing.

Bluntly put, it's a huge decision and having it come up again so soon decreases its importance, data collected after it was made and turns it into another political football to be passed around endlessly like Barca playing tiki-taka up 2-0.

It also entrenches division and bitterness, as well as driving people to ever more extreme rhetoric and actions to try and get their outcome. That's not good.

This is also not the kind of issue that should be fought over ad nauseum just to swing that 1% majority. If you have to fight that hard and often to get a "barely there", then you're not proving the strength of your arguments, just a level of dedication greater than other people have patience.

There's staunch determination to see through a worthy cause, and then there's dogged determination to win no matter what; forcing this issue falls into the latter camp, by far.

It's probably one of the best arguments to require more than a simple majority in circumstances like this - in order to ensure tensions cool and people have time to re-evaluate, it would make sense to have "moving goalposts". The movement has failed to gain 51% the first time - if they want to try again, the risk of failure a second time should be met with "If you fail again within five years, the third time requires 60%", and so on. Just to prevent people waging a war of attrition on a subject which shouldn't be beholden to petty "fuck the majority, we'll keep going until we win!" campaigns. >.>

[Grief]

I agree that it's not hugely likely in the next couple of years (assuming nothing huge like D'Iversify's article points out could happen - a vote to leave the EU where one country wants to and the others doesn't etc). Firstly, I don't think it's good keeping the country in a state of uncertainty by re-raising the issue too quickly. Secondly, I think a big part of it will be how devolution plays out (though sadly I suspect that a lot of people's political interest will disappear very quickly, and that if we don't get the promised powers 3 months down the line, then the reaction will be apathetic amongst a lot of people, and I'm not really sure how many "no" voters swung because of those promises). Thirdly, as D'Iversify's article also pointed out, it potentially benefits the independence campaign to wait, because more of the over-65s will die off in that time. Finally, I think it's just a matter of image - constantly forcing referendums every couple of years (when, for a lot of people, they won't think anything is really different from the last time), is just going to hurt their image imo.

[Mentalist]

Wanderer, on 21 September 2014 - 01:10 AM, said:

The result was a tough pill to swallow. The YES campaign had the entirety of the British Media and political establishment set squarely against it with the exception of ONE paper - The Sunday Herald. The amount of bias, lies and scaremongering put out by the media ( in particular the BBC) was atrocious. For the YES campaign to get 45% of the vote against all of that is a bloody miracle.

In the last ten days of the campaign Scotland was witness to the most horrific barrage of negativity and bribes. The banks were leaving, the markets were collapsing, the oil was running out ( AGAIN) and here came the three amigos ( Cameron, Clegg and Miliband) offering "more powers" which they ensured weren't on the ballot paper in the first place. Powers which, not even a two full days after the result, are being reneged on. The British state, eh? Good at keeping the provinces in check.

Scotland had a chance at something better. The YES camp was the greatest grassroots campaign I've ever seen and they should all be damned proud of what they achieved.

The 45% who voted YES - 1.6 million Scots - were emotionally crushed yesterday. Some had worked towards this goal for years. They put their souls into it and they lost. It took the campaign ONE DAY to grieve. One day and they were picking themselves up, organising and preparing to stride forward ( check out the #the45 #the45plus on twitter). They have tasted the power of real democracy and they are not going to lie down. A political war is going to be declared in Scotland against the parties supporting the Union with the 2015 General Election and 2016 Scottish Election being the battlegrounds. Scottish Labour, the Scottish Tories and Scottish Liberal Democrats will be routed. All pro-independence parties will be elected and another referendum will be inevitable.

This ain't over. It's just delayed.

protip from the Ukrainian example: such spikes in public's demand for change usually happen in intervals of about 10 years.

[Coco with marshmallows]

I think a key point will be what happens in terms of further powers, etc.

Cameron has been quite smart - seeking to turn it into getting a measure of devolution across all four countries, and permanently answer the West Lothian question by banning Scottish MPs from voting on English only policies. Interestingly, such a ban would only affect Labour and the Lib Dems. Any SNP MP's, as a matter of party policy, abstain from any votes that are exclusively about England.

Unsurprisingly, Milliband (the leader of Labour) is dead set against this as he'd be losing approximately 40 mps(at present) in any votes on the future.

What I think Milliband is failing to understand is that there are a LOT of pissed off people in Scotland that have just seen Labour act hand in hand with the Conservatives. If he tries to block this on the basis of it affecting his power block, and it prevents further powers going to Scotland, he may find his 40 MP's aren't there any more after the election next year.

Another thing is that the high level of political engagement, if it stays active (particularly amongst the 16/17 age bracket) could mean an unusually high turnout next year also. Will be very curious to see how this goes. In the past 3 days the SNP's membership has gone up by (amusingly) OVER 9000 (capitalisation necessary due to meme status)

Conversely Labour's membership has dropped by a few thousand.

[Malaclypse]

Mentalist, on 19 September 2014 - 01:31 PM, said:

Malaclypse, on 19 September 2014 - 12:51 PM, said:

OK, I'll try to phrase this differently - my comment (which has since been edited) was meant to refer to people who voted in the referendum, not anybody else - the chance of something new and interesting in their grasp and they choose the same old thing, it baffles me

With all due respect, Mal, "something new and interesting" isn't really a strong reason to overhaul millions' way of life. To vote "yes" people'd have needed to belive that their lives would have improved as a result (not necessarily economically-national pride plays into it as well)

Watching from the sidelines, I'd have supported a yes vote, (despite the whole Eastern UA thing, I'm a staunch supporter of self-determination).

Despite that, it seems the majority looked at numbers. And both sides had pretty sketchy numbers, so a status quo with a degree of predictability was preferable.

That being said, I agree with the sentiment that if London doesn't give Scots an actual devo max, there's very good reasons to raise the issue again: it seems that it was supporters of devo max that were the swing votes, so if they fell cheated, I think they'd be justified in reconsidering their decision.

I'm not due any respect for starters - the very notion that someone is 'due' a certain measure of respect irrespective of their actions is ludicrous imo

and the individual casting the vote should be thinking about themself, not worrying about the impact on millions, also imo

What I now wonder is how these things get to the referendum stage without real backing from the populace - it's embarrassing.

DeadHedge, on 19 September 2014 - 03:03 PM, said:

Malaclypse, on 19 September 2014 - 09:46 AM, said:

and I thought the Scottish had some balls -

When your enemy promises dire consequences, you know that they fear the consequences as well.

I would be screaming if I was Scottish and cared about this - the cowards in your midst are the ones that keep you back - as far as I'm concerned, the whole 'so-called' democratic system needs a massive upgrade. Eliminate the nation-states, they're the ones that always cause trouble - reduce it to local and global - as much as I get down on the Americans and their way of going about things, I like the idea of states that have a great deal of local control, in accordance with the wishes of their constituency - the model is good and it should be applied world-wide, by blocks of population, imo

Malaclypse, on 19 September 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

Because the 'no' supporters just want the status quo - they are happy enough with what they've got and don't want it threatened in any way

There's nothing to celebrate for them, only a reassertion of the status quo.

Mal,

I take quite alot of offence at these statements. I am a 26 year old born and bred Scot who has lived her for my entire life. I voted NO and i am very proud of it. I didnt vote no due to 'fear' i voted NO due to FACTS!

One of the points the yes campaign was spouting was that Scotland would lose the NHS if we stayed with the union. This fact? WRONG, the NHS in Scotland is run BY scotland and owned by guess who, SCOTLAND. and this wouldnt change.

Could you explain how i am a coward because i voted using facts and not by using the SNP wish list? I didnt fear the consequencies, the risks of going independant were far too great and i wouldnt want my child growing up even more disadvantaged that we already are

Fair enough, Your position is far superior to mine. I just want a new country. I was insensitive about it and I am genuinely contrite. Please accept my humblest apologies.

Gnaw, on 19 September 2014 - 06:14 PM, said:

Malaclypse, on 19 September 2014 - 09:46 AM, said:

I would be screaming if I was Scottish and cared about this - the cowards in your midst are the ones that keep you back - as far as I'm concerned,

So this is you on a subject which you don't care about and have no stake in?

You're the old fart at the end of the bar yelling at the ref on the TV aren't you?

I do care about it even though I have no immediate stake in it. I want to see these old power blocs break apart under the weight of collective desire for ...something better.

I never yell at televisions, ever. OK but only when watching hockey.

Abyss, on 20 September 2014 - 04:17 AM, said:

Malaclypse, on 19 September 2014 - 07:05 AM, said:

I dunno, with Quebec and the 51/49, the separatists blamed it on Montreal, which is probably apt. Certainly my impression was that everybody out of the big cities was rabidly separatist, so cut off Montreal is my answer. No idea if a similar situation obtains in Scotland. In any case, my condolences to those who feel passionately about this, I was really looking forward to a new country

Your recall is somewhat inaccurate, but hey, Montreal was ready to walk. There was the whole 'if Canada is divisible, so is Quebec' movement, which gave the pequistes hives because they would lose a major port, business centre and tourist draw.
As for Scotland, I have no stake in that debate, but having lived the Quebec madness thrice now, I think the Scots and UK are better off for having avoided the ensuing mess potential.

You clearly have a better understanding of the situation than me - my POV is as a Manitoban farmboy while this was going on for chrissakes! Anyway, the Quebecers are fun and should have their own place, imo.

Macros, on 20 September 2014 - 07:41 AM, said:

Rioting to celebrate a win, good work guys.
Man i hate working in Glasgow

Victory riots! We used to have them when the Winnipeg Blue Bombers won the Grey Cup! Victory riots are the best kind - busses are overturned and set on fire by a bunch of happy people and that's about it really - it's a not-so-subtle gesture of defiance to those who would fancy themselves rulers

[Coco with marshmallows]

Malaclypse, on 23 September 2014 - 10:01 PM, said:

Victory riots! We used to have them when the Winnipeg Blue Bombers won the Grey Cup! Victory riots are the best kind - busses are overturned and set on fire by a bunch of happy people and that's about it really - it's a not-so-subtle gesture of defiance to those who would fancy themselves rulers

????

How is it a gesture of defiance when the people rioting are the ones that voted FOR the rulers?

[Malaclypse]

I'm just talking generally about my experience of victory riots - ok, you guys are still feeling pretty sensitive obviously so I'll just apologise and move on ...

[Gnaw]

Malaclypse, on 23 September 2014 - 10:01 PM, said:

and the individual casting the vote should be thinking about themself, not worrying about the impact on millions, also imo

Oh. You drink deeply from the grail of the Holy Rand I take it?

Malaclypse, on 23 September 2014 - 10:01 PM, said:

Victory riots! We used to have them when the Winnipeg Blue Bombers won the Grey Cup!

I watched a Grey Cup game sometime in the mid 90s. Iirc, for some idiotic reason the teams had to cross the field past each other to get to the locker rooms. So it's halftime and the punter (I think; his uniform was spotless at least) in red and white(??) is casually walking across and, just as casually, throws a forearm shot at the chin of an opposing player. Never broke stride, just knocked the fella on his ass and kept walking.