 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
As a reasonable human being and also a voter in a Scotland last week, I am disturbed to observe the actual and social media aggression and intimidation by some (a minority) of Yes supporters to those who democratically did not support a Yes vote. Use that energy for something more positive please.
Like blocking new threads about scotchland.
its an emotive issue and folk are emotional who ever won some on the loosing side would be doing this
Couple this with some [ minority] no voters crowing and it was inevitable
TBH had yes won exactly the same thing would have happened but in reverse
No defence but it is what it is
It will calm down as long as westminster deliver on pledges but it will be a wee bit fractious for a while
Toys out of Pram Syndrome,
takes time and medication along with copious quantaties of alcohol to numb the mind.
also theyre wanting a boycott of certain shops who supported the yes group.
Has anyone ever respected democracy?
Lots of countries don't even have it because it means losing control. Those that do are hardly free of manipulation of voters... see the other thread about media bias and read Hack Attack about the NOTW hacking to see just how manipulated UK democracy has been for the last 40 years... honestly, it's a shocker...
s@$% em.
Junkyard is correct, and scotroutes link is good. I know how I would feel if the vote went the other way. Many people will are rightly gutted. The dust will settle, it has to. We need the Yes drive to help hold Westminster to account. Has only been a couple of days.
The first comment on that bellacaledonia blog is abhorrant
And indicative of some of the hateful bile I've seen on facebook
True, but maybe not so much, with a yes vote the was an alternative to being in an independent Scotland, move south! With a no vote they can't exactly retreat to the highlands and islands and do a funny dance in a kilt to defy the English like they did 500 years ago.TBH had yes won exactly the same thing would have happened but in reverse
There is a certain irony about people voting for independence because the current system is "undemocratic" complaining about democracy when the majority of people don't agree with them.
I have no doubt that had it gone the other way, specially if it was something like 50.3% in favour, the reaction would have been at least as bad. And probably a lot worse as it is generally accepted that Yes means forever but No means for about another 15 years according the Salmond.
It's worth remembering that the loyalists in Ireland were none too happy about the majority of Irish wanting independence. So the UK government insisted they be given a chunk of Ireland.
With a no vote they can't exactly retreat to the highlands and islands and do a funny dance in a kilt to defy the English like they did 500 years ago
Well if that wont build bridges what will?
There is a certain irony about people voting for independence because the current system is "undemocratic" complaining about democracy when the majority of people don't agree with them.
Can you remind us of the media position in the free vote?
Again you are bright enough to see why they claim this even if you disagree.
The point can be made well or it can be made like you are a tin foil hat wearing loon. It is generally the later to be fair.
ernie, you have a point, however had the vote gone the other way then I would hope that the best deal could be acheived for Scotland, in the hope of making independence a success. This is where Alastair Darling was leaving his arse in the breeze if he was to continue to say he would not support a CU if there was a Yes vote. What I hope does not happen is that Yes supporters step back or actively hope for the failure of devolved powers. At this stage it is very early and I am giving the benefit of the doubt.
What I hope does not happen is that Yes supporters step back or actively hope for the failure of devolved powers. At this stage it is very early and I am giving the benefit of the doubt.
I'm not. Already comments by some militant Yes supporters suggests they are hoping that Westminster fails to deliver.
Again you are bright enough to see why they claim this even if you disagree.
The lack of democracy? Yes, I can understand and sympathise with the claim. However that doesn't detract from the irony of them having just had a fully democratic free vote involving just the people of Scotland as they wanted and them complaining about the result. Not even any perceived media influence affects that - if anything all the post event analysis arguing it would have been Yes if this or that hadn't happened (or that under 55s voted Yes - a claim I note AS has also repeated, despite only one of the two polls giving demographics of actual voting showing that and then by a very small margin) is just as bad. That is the way democracy works.
I'm not. Already comments by some militant Yes supporters suggests they are hoping that Westminster fails to deliver.
I am sure that some staunch Yes supporters may think that. Remember though that 'devo max' was not on the ballot, and many have admitted that had it been on the paper then independence would have been blown out of the water. More powers for Holyrood is not the sole preserve of No voters. There will be many that voted Yes that would quite like more devolved power also, but maybe believed Westminster would not deliver. Here is their chance to use Yes drive in a positive way to help make sure it does.
comments by some militant Yes supporters suggests they are hoping that Westminster fails to deliver.
Like this one from the Lib Dem minister ?
"It is deeply frustrating that briefings over the last 48 hours have distracted from the crystal-clear commitment of all parties to deliver the change Scotland voted for last week," Alexander, the chief secretary to the Treasury, told the Guardian. He is likely to sit on a cabinet committee overseeing devolution.
Indeed aracer they are upset and clutching at straws- whichever losing side we got they were bound to do this
they are upset and clutching at straws- whichever losing side we got they were bound to do this
Is this the point where we do "no our side is better"? 😉
Like this one from the Lib Dem minister ?
Yes just like that LibDem minister. It's obvious that Danny Alexander is [i]"hoping that Westminster fails to deliver"[/i].
I have no doubt that had it gone the other way, specially if it was something like 50.3% in favour, the reaction would have been at least as bad. And probably a lot worse as it is generally accepted that Yes means forever but No means for about another 15 years according the Salmond.
If you were looking from a bit further away you would really be looking for 65% or more hopefully up nearer 80% support for such a massive change.
So many people invested so much into Yes that it's going to take a while for them to come down, so many had a lot of smoke blown up them that they truly believed it was going to happen which is leaving a lot of disappointment.
From an outsiders point of view the Yes always contained the most vocal supporters who managed to shout louder and appear much bigger than their support was. This is more of the same really, the silent majority probably will be moving on, talk of things like the 45% or whatever it is is probably more like 45 people not 45%.
Hopefully a week down the road things will calm down a bit as everyone has to go back to work and get on with life.
aracer its either that or our Dads have to have a fight hard to tell
ernie he also said
He [ Alexander] told the Guardian: "It has always been the case that the Scottish process must be independent of any other political discussions and must be dealt with according to the timetable we set out. For wider constitutional changes it would be preferable to have all-party consensus."
that doesn't detract from the irony of them having just had a fully democratic free vote involving just the people of Scotland as they wanted and them complaining about the result
THAT'S NOT IRONIC
complaining is perfectly compatible with a belief in democracy - practically obligatory in fact. if Yessers had eg seized the radio stations, purged the military, blockaded the airport and installed a separatist junta, that would be ironic.
I think if Salmon wasn't their leader the loss would have been bigger. He was a great orator, a silver-tongued bastard compared to the Nu Labour's idiots that we had.
But in the last 48 hours has proved himself to be a dick. If he'd done a "Well done to the yes vote, we tried hard and didn't get it. Scotland will be independent one day but on this occasion our country has spoken and wants to remain in the UK" sort of speech I'd have had some respect for him.
Instead he effectively did this:
konabunny - getting the sort of democracy you're asking for and then complaining because democracy doesn't produce the result it's supposed to is very ironic.
I've just looked at the news. Oh jesus wept. Doesn't he know that the majority disagreed with him?
Doesn't he know that the majority disagreed with him?
He does seem a bit obsessed with this whole independence fad....
He'll be riding around on a white horse shouting orders before pissing off to France before long 😆
Perhaps Glasgow* could declare independence and free itself of the shackles of all those ill informed country types?
*and Dundee
The referendum results were Friday and already there were accusations that the change is behind schedule/going back on promises. WTF. Talk about bad losers.
It really makes you think the yes crowd are of a certain ilk. Yes bad on both sides but I've heard from different sources that alot of people considering voting no had to keep their decision private.
Seventh comment on scotroute's blog link also has an interesting take on democracy:
The right to vote in the referendum should have been restricted to those who were living in Scotland, born in Scotland and who had two parents born in Scotland.
That's kind of the same approach that the UAE and Qatar take. Countries that are widely respected for their open and inclusive form of democracy.
NB The final sentence above is sarcasm.
What nonsense Hora.
The so called 'vow' of new powers formed part of the 'No' campaign panic offer. Of course the moment the referendum was over, it turned out to be lies. What a shock. Complaining about this is being a bad loser? Get a grip.
A lot of people considering voting 'No' had to keep their decision private did they? If I was voting out of self-interest and fearfulness, to perpetuate the status quo (or worse) in a country with 20% child poverty I would keep quiet too.
If I was voting out of self-interest and fearfulness, to perpetuate the status quo (or worse) in a country with 20% child poverty I would keep quiet too.
Yes, with respectful and reasonable views of the opposition like this, it's a wonder any No voters felt that they didn't want to express an opinion 😆
scotroutes - Member
Some eye opening comments underneath the article. 😆
If I was voting out of self-interest and fearfulness, to perpetuate the status quo (or worse) in a country with 20% child poverty I would keep quiet too.
If I was delusional enough to think that voting yes would fix everything I'd keep quiet too.
Any new powers require acts of parliament and debate, they can't just be granted that's not democratic. Perhaps people should actually wait and see before crying foul.
@hora -
It really makes you think the yes crowd are of a certain ilk.
Really. Know quite a few Yes voters. Archetypical SNP nats / Scotland footie fans they were, on the whole, definitely. You do speak utter tosh man. Likewise, the No voters were not always toffs, ageing reactionaries or loyalists. Reasons for folk voting one of two ways (or three...) were as numerous as the voting numbers, not down to this vote == this type of person.
Rockplough - Member...it turned out to be lies. What a shock. Complaining about this is being a bad loser? Get a grip.
it's been little more than 1 working day since the result came in, it's possibly a little early to complain about broken promises.
and quite frankly, Scotland isn't the centre of the universe, a lot of 'other' stuff has been going on (ISIS, Russia, Downton Abbey, etc.)
...If I was voting out of self-interest and fearfulness...
yes, because everyone whose opinion differs from yours is a selfish and weak person.
The so called 'vow' of new powers formed part of the 'No' campaign panic offer. Of course the moment the referendum was over, it turned out to be lies. What a shock. Complaining about this is being a bad loser? Get a grip.
Lies in what way? Given that they are pressing ahead with this...
I'm not sure that it's hora (just for a change) who needs to get a grip!
The so called 'vow' of new powers formed part of the 'No' campaign panic offer. Of course the moment the referendum was over, it turned out to be lies. What a shock. Complaining about this is being a bad loser? Get a grip.
I'd be interested to know whether Salmond (and you) seriously expected the new powers to be voted in on Friday PM or if you're just afflicted by bitterness.
Just a few examples of why the PM or other politicians need to ask the approval of parliament for things
29 August 2013 - A motion provisionally authorising military intervention in the Syrian civil war was defeated 285-272.
9 November 2005 - An amendment to the Terrorism Bill to allow terrorist suspects to held without charge for 90 days was defeated 291-322.
6 December 1994 - A defeat on a plan to increase Value Added Tax on domestic fuel.
Parliament decides not the party leaders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Government_defeats_in_the_House_of_Commons_(1945%E2%80%93present)
Unless you want to had CMD all that power?
...If I was voting out of self-interest and fearfulness...
The problem is you can't deride 55% of the population in this way without undermining a basic premise of the Yes campaign: that if you let The People decide you are always going to end up with a Good Thing.
29 August 2013 - A motion provisionally authorising military intervention in the Syrian civil war was defeated 285-272.
Technically I don't think a PM does need to ask Parliament to vote on this, it was just a nicety.
Anyway, I've got to love the hate coming out of the Daily Mail since the election. Today we have an article complaining about Welsh racism directed at English immigrants, with most of the commentators equally outraged.
I ****ing laughed my balls off and then realized it wasn't satire.
I think it's probably another case of democracy not working the way they think it should.
Note to anybody complaining about the timetable - if more people had voted Yes you still wouldn't have any new powers yet.
Has anyone published this timetable (not including Gordon Brown who is simply 1 MP)
I've been struggling to get my thoughts in order since Friday morning. A wee break up north gave me some thinking time and has, I hope, let me put some perspective on things. I thought that writing some stuff down might also help. That link to bellacaledonia probably most captures my overall mood though.
First of all, let me say how angry I am. Not at those who voted No, more at myself. All my life I've believed that Scotland was a nation, a country in some sort of "reluctant" union with England. Folk talk of "national" anthems, of the "national" press. We have sports teams, leagues and competitions because we are a separate country. We have a separate legislature, education system and now a form of devolved government. We have a strong culture of song, story and poetry made richer by a frequent focus on Scottish nationhood. I guess I had allowed myself a semantic misunderstanding, that folk who talked of a separate Scottish nation actually meant it the same way that I did.
In the run up to the referendum, I had also fallen into a social media trap. I'm sure we've all done it to an extent. We "like" or "follow" the commentators, groups and feeds that back up our view of the world. Thus, with 18th September approaching, it was all too easy to read all the messages of confirmation and to believe that we really were capable of re-establishing nationhood. TBH, for me that probably didn't even have to result in too much change. A choice by the people of Scotland to assert their sovereignty could well have resulted in almost exactly the sort of union we currently have. The difference is that we would at least know it was of our choosing and that we could exit it without permission from some higher authority. This is, after all, the sort of union that already exists across the EU.
I do believe that the media played a major part in the result. I saw too much stuff first hand that was somehow downplayed or simply lied about to believe it was all unintentional. Of course, newspapers and independent sources don't have to maintain balance but I really had expected better of the BBC. I guess I will never trust any of their reporting again.
I never really believed that 50%+1 was sufficient either. Even 55/45 the other way seems too close as a result. Looking at independence movements in other countries, I'd have hoped for something more like 80/20. And now we are left with "the 45". I'm still getting all the pro-indy comments, how we can do it again in 2020, or devise some other method for upsetting Westminster.
Currently, this looks to me like the actions of a spoilt child that hasn't got what it asked for and is now just shouting louder in the vain hope that the decision can be overturned. Whether what we now have is the "settled" will of the people, I cannot say but I'm certainly not in favour of re-running these past two years every decade or so.
At the moment, I'm going through my facebook and twitter feeds and removing what I can and I'm going to try to open my mind a bit more to what other folk are saying, to listen to their spin on what Scotland is.
Until then, the best I can describe my feelings is to say that I feel like a person displaced. Like the country I thought I belonged to has been obliterated and no amount of lashing out at others will change that.
because we are a separate country
We know. So is England. My identify is English->British->European.
Being British is not yoke around our necks; it's a platform we stand tall upon, together.
There is no such thing as the settled will of the people. It's a fairly anti-democratic if you think about it.Whether what we now have is the "settled" will of the people, I cannot say
Maybe.buzz-lightyear - Member
it's a platform we stand tall upon, together.
TBH, for me that probably didn't even have to result in too much change. A choice by the people of Scotland to assert their sovereignty could well have resulted in almost exactly the sort of union we currently have. The difference is that we would at least know it was of our choosing and that we could exit it without permission from some higher authority.
It sounds like you've got exactly what you wanted then. A union like you already had, it is of your choosing, and you could have exited it if you'd chosen to do so.
There is no such thing as the settled will of the people. It's a fairly anti-democratic if you think about it.
Presumably if Yes had won it would have been anti-democratic not to offer people the chance to rejoin the union in a few years time if their will had changed (after seeing the reality rather than the promises).
Just to let you all know I've reported Scotroutes to the mods.
That kind of eloquent, well-argued and self-critical piece is simply not what we expect nor want to see on STW.
🙂
They would have been free to agitate for it and try and attain it, if they wished, i'm pretty certain some would be.aracer - Member
Presumably if Yes had won it would have been anti-democratic not to offer people the chance to rejoin the union in a few years time if their will had changed (after seeing the reality rather than the promises).
Whether England offered it is another story.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-29307940 ]Another demonstration in George Square[/url]
I think the official news is a professional is doing the timetable
[img] 
[/img]
[img] .jpg)
[/img]
Scotroutes - good post.
Some of your comments speak along the aspects I considered , but fell on the side of voting no instead. I feel that Scotland does have enough of its own identity/culture/powers within the union and on a world wide stage. I just couldn't see that voting yes would have given us anything more, that significantly outweighed the risks of losing the securities of what the union brings.
As to the media trap ... perhaps ... also similar to other comments on here, the Yes camp were more vocal about things, and my Facebook would have Yes stuff all over it by friends, who are now posting bitterness: "You should be ashamed to call yourself Scottish " etc ... get a grip I think. Yes wanted a Scotland to have its own say, and now it has. I always have in the back of my mind, a scene from the good life where the posh one is talking to a shop worker who makes some political comment to which she replies "no, we are the silent majority" I think thats whats happened in this independence vote too.
I also get a bit annoyed about moans of business chipping in on the issue. Of course it affects them, and why shouldn't they have comment on it. The other thing is that a lot of people seem naive about businesses too. Many large companies don't care about sentimentality ... its about the bottom line, and if thats better by moving out, they will.
Its hard not to feel resentful against a campaign that used slogans like "Vote No. It's not worth the risk".
The mainstream media threw the kitchen sink at the Yes campaign and in the end it cracked.
I fell into Scotroutes' trap as well, for a Yes supporter social media (which was really the main campaign vehicle for that side of the debate) became a bit of an echo chamber.
But we have to respect the result.
I'm glad that the troubled that flared up in Glasgow on Friday night was an isolated incident, to honest I didn't know Britain First had that many supporters that could read well enough to organise a riot on social media
In the real world, I think the experience of most people is that we had a serious, grown up debate about independence. No vitriol or aggression. For me, and many others, the referendum was not anti English or even nationalistic. It was about the opportunity for Scottish society to go in a different political direction. I voted Yes and I'm disappointed with the result. I know there were No voters who shared the same vision of a more liberal, inclusive Scottish society, but didn't vote Yes because they were not happy about various issues such as the economic changes associated with independence.
The referendum debate engaged a lot of people who were not previously interested in politics. Whatever you think of the outcome, I hope some of those people continue to be engaged in the process and help build a better political system. The fallout from the referendum is just starting, and the implications for the UK are far from settled.
I wouldn't read much into a few people ranting on the internet. After all, you wouldn't see two wheels in a very positive light if you took some of the stuff posted on STW as representative of cyclists.
First of all, let me say how angry I am.
If you must (suppresses a yawn)...
Past your bedtime?
Might be worth actually reading his post rather than jumping one of the first lines, Woppit...
Its hard not to feel resentful against a campaign that used slogans like "Vote No. It's not worth the risk".
I'm not sure I see why that's considered an unreasonable attitude for a campaign resisting radical change to take to be honest.
If I was delusional enough to think that voting yes would fix everything I'd keep quiet too.
Straw man much?
yes, because everyone whose opinion differs from yours is a selfish and weak person.
Fearful, not weak. But on the referendum, essentially yes. They've voted for the perpetuation of a system which is failing financially and morally, but as long as they're ok...
I'd be interested to know whether Salmond (and you) seriously expected the new powers to be voted in on Friday PM or if you're just afflicted by bitterness.
Is this a serious question? The point is not that we don't have powers right now. The point is the very prospect is being backtracked on. Am I bitter about such a cynical and plainly transparent sop being trotted out to bolster the 'No' vote? Quite possibly.
Might be worth actually reading his post rather than jumping one of the first lines, Woppit...
Oh, O.K.
..............
Well that's another two minutes of life I'll never get back. 
Is this a serious question? The point is not that we don't have powers right now. The point is the very prospect is being backtracked on.
Where, by who?
Good piece Scotroutes, I feel that people expressed their view and the unionists won.I still believe independence was right for Scotland and if circumstances change I would campaign for it again.[b] Now is time to unite and try to build a better Scotland with further devolution[/b]. I am very proud to have been part of the Yes campaign, and I hope that the people who joined up in its various groups can stick together to work for a better future for Scotland. One thing I wont be joining -the 45 as I think it is divisive.
I like that post scotroutes. And to be honest it reflects to a somewhat lesser extend how I'd have felt if there'd been a Yes. I've always felt that my country is Britain, and Scotland's always been a part of that. Without Scotland the geographical entity would not have matched the sovereign state any more, so whilst rUK would still have been called Britain but to me it's questionable. Especially when you consider that without Scotland there really was no union - Wales was simply English held territory arguably as well as Ireland (if I understand correctly - or at least Northern Ireland.. but I'm no expert on that). The non-English native population would've been reduced by more than half. And I'm sure that without Scotland, Welsh devolution would never have happened and no-one woud be talking about English regional devolution.
But on the referendum, essentially yes. They've voted for the perpetuation of a system which is failing financially and morally, but as long as they're ok...
So you don't think there might be other rational reasons to vote No other than being selfish? Of course to imagine that would require you to question whether the crusade was perfect in all ways, so I can understand why you wouldn't want to do that.
You could do worse than to read the posts of your fellow No voters who have accepted the result and aren't being scathing about a majority of your own countrymen. That or just pause for a moment to wonder how the suggestion that the Scottish are less selfish (as suggested by bencooper amongst others, and not one I'm going to try and argue with) squares with your comments.
Where, by who?
Read the news.
An excellent and thoughtful post Colin. It does you credit that you can say these things in spite of the crushing disappointment. If the country is to move on from the result, people are going to have to accept what has happened. Too much of what is posted on the net does Yes no favours. I understand how depressed some people must be, but I do think the social media bubble gave them far too much grounds for hope, both in terms of the result and what might have happened if it had gone their way, but heigh-ho life goes on.
Read the news.
Maybe you can find a quote for us from one of those articles of somebody backtracking...
Read the news.
You appear to be mistaking debate and disagreement as 'backtracking'
party leaders decide on policy, some people within the party disagree and voice it - thats the eternal basic rule of healthy politics since day one and happens in all parties, including the SNP (NATO and Euro policies for example) it doesn't mean that it won't happen.
So you don't think there might be other rational reasons to vote No other than being selfish? Of course to imagine that would require you to question whether the crusade was perfect in all ways, so I can understand why you wouldn't want to do that.You could do worse than to read the posts of your fellow No voters who have accepted the result and aren't being scathing about a majority of your own countrymen.
I'm certainly under no illusions of any kind of perfection. I spoke to plenty of No voters during the campaign but didn't hear any rationale from any of them. I heard plenty of talk of 'the risk', or of 'security' etc. But nobody could tell me what risk or security they were so concerned about. Did I hear any No voters telling me how things would - or even might - get better? No. Did I hear more positive but similarly nebulous statements from the Yes side? Yes I did.
I haven't said I don't accept the result. I do. But that doesn't mean I have to be happy about it, and it doesn't mean that the issues underlying the 45% Yes vote have gone away.
The country is in the toilet. Our debt is rocketing. Inequality is growing. Millions and millions of people can't afford to feed themselves, or buy even modest homes. Wages have plummeted in real terms, even further in purchasing power. We should be ashamed, instead I've heard people say the No vote is great because there'll be a housing boom in Scotland! Insane. We have three mainstream parties who pretend to oppose each other but who, when their true interests are threatened, join ranks.
Would this have changed in an independent Scotland? It really could have done. Certainly more so than the UK will ever do.
Could have is not that definite, really.
Did I hear any No voters telling me how things would - or even might - get better? No. Did I hear more positive but similarly nebulous statements from the Yes side? Yes I did.
The problem is, the yes people had a wide open field to play with about things they can do. Jetpacks, teleporters, money growing on trees. The no people had to offer new stuff to tempt people that they hadn't already. In any referendum like this, the people for a split show the utopia that can be achieved and the people against it show the mess that can occur. General fact of life.
The country is in the toilet. Our debt is rocketing. Inequality is growing. Millions and millions of people can't afford to feed themselves, or buy even modest homes. Wages have plummeted in real terms, even further in purchasing power.
Applies to most of the UK, not just Scotland. Maybe solutions could be found to help all parts of the UK, working together.
party leaders decide on policy, some people within the party disagree and voice it - thats the eternal basic rule of healthy politics since day one and happens in all parties, including the SNP (NATO and Euro policies for example) it doesn't mean that it won't happen.
You'll forgive me for not sharing your optimism. The last time a Conservative government promised Scotland powers it was 20 years before they delivered.
Of course I'll be delighted to be wrong on this, same as I'll be delighted to be wrong on everything else. Let's see what happens to national debt, to the NHS, to wages and poverty in the UK.
Did I hear more positive but similarly nebulous statements from the Yes side? Yes I did.
So you're happy that the Yes side is better because their vague ideas suggested positive change rather than negative change? 🙄
I'm not going to rehash the whole debate on independence, beyond pointing out that there is no evidence that any of the issues you are concerned about would be any better in iS than in the UK - on the contrary at least some would likely get worse.
However the issue I'm concerned about is that you think 55% of your countrymen are selfish.
You'll forgive me for not sharing your optimism.
So your lack of optimism leads to you making statements like: "the very prospect is being backtracked on" despite no such thing having happened? Why don't you wait and see before condemning them for something they haven't done.
Of course I'll be delighted to be wrong on this, same as I'll be delighted to be wrong on everything else. Let's see what happens to national debt, to the NHS, to wages and poverty in the UK.
It's a shame* we can't compare how these things change in iS, and see whether they actually do any better than the UK. Plenty of evidence to suggest that they wouldn't. Oh, and you do know that the NHS is fully devolved and the Scottish government has already chosen to increase spending by less than in the rest of the UK?
* well not really
Would this have changed in an independent Scotland? It really could have done. Certainly more so than the UK will ever do.
It's a bit like I could have won the lottery if I'd know the numbers and Yes would have won without those pesky kids pulling off AS's mask and revealing he actually ran the fun fair.
All the hopes are dreams were in Yes, but all Yes did was allow an election for a government, no idea which one or what they would do when elected. The no Nukes, no this, no that stuff was policy for a government to pick (what if UK had offered millions to rent the trident base that would pay for tuition fees and free school meals?).