Scottish Independence

Sorry, I meant the Electoral Commission. They allowed the SNP to frame the question to give themselves the "YES" advantage. Yet in spite of this the clear majority of those Scots who were able to vote rejected separatism. Scots like me, who were disenfranchised because we happened to be living in another part of our country, heaved a huge sigh of relief and that should have been the matter settled - as Alex Salmond promised "for a generation or possibly for a lifetime".

The SNP have for the last four years been bankrolled by the people who won £160m on the Eurolottery, which helps them to keep up the constant pressure for another referendum and the media keep giving them the oxygen of publicity.

The Scots who voted for so-called "independence" (dependant on the Bank of England allowing continued use of the pound and the EU allowing continued membership) were conned and should now be grateful that the 55% prevented them from making a disastrous mistake which they would already be regretting as the fail in the oil price would have blown a £7bn hole in their budget.

The SNP should be concentrating on trying to improve their abysmal performance as the Scottish government. I spend a lot of time in Scotland, working there and meeting friends and relations. They point out the disgraceful decline in Scottish education. Scottish schoolchildren used to be high up in international comparison tables of numeracy and literacy, but have fallen so low that the SNP has now decided to remove Scotland from the league tables. There is outrage at SNP moves to control the universities and to forbid students at the ancient universities from freely electing rectors. They have centralised the police service (control freakery gone mad) and the NHS is in a dire state. However badly they perform, they still manage to blame it all on "Westminster". No wonder some English people are fed up with it all.

Alex Salmond wanted to include the option of devo max, increased responsibility and power for the Scottish government, on the ballot paper. The UK government refused to agree to that and so we had to have the yes/no stand-off.

The Electoral Commission suggested the indyref wording.

(I don't think you mean the Electoral Reform Society, they campaign for change in the way we elect our politicians and for increased democracy in the UK.)

The SNP have only one item on their agenda - they are separatists who want to destroy the United Kingdom.

They should never have been allowed to choose the date for the referendum (Bannockburn anniversary year, Commonwealth Games in Glasgow) or set the question. If the question had been "should Scotland remain part of the UK?" I believe the majority in favour of the Union would have been at least 75%, rather that 55%. It is always easier to campaign for "YES" than "NO".

Recently the government announced that in the Euro referendum the question would be " Should the UK remain in the EU?" but they have been told by the Electoral Reform Society that a YES/NO question cannot be allowed as it gives too much of an advantage to "YES". Where were the Electoral Reform Society last year when we needed them?

Xenophobic? The Scots?

"A Scotsman walking through a field, sees a man drinking water from a pool with his hand.
The Scotsman man shouts ' Awa ye feel hoor thatâs full Oâ coos Sharn'
(Don't drink the water, it's full of cow s ** t.)
The man shouts back 'I'm English, Speak English, I don't understand you'.
The Scotsman man shouts back 'Use both hands, you'll get more in.' "

Yes that would be it at a guess.

That's been my impression too, Jane10.

The belligerence is not focused on the English but against those of the silent majority of other Scots who want to remain part of the UK.

I can't understand where all this came from? It hasn't entered my head until reading this thread.

Which they are not.

There was a majority of 55 over 45 to remain as a part of the United Kingdom. Nicola Sturgeon hopes that she can increase the percentage who want leave, but that is what she wants not necessarily what she will get.

Even if half the population of Scotland say they would vote for independence, and that is by no means a certainty, most of that half would have no antagonism toward England at all. Their argument is for independence per se not for a declaration of war against our nearest neighbours and for many of us our nearest relations too.

There is a small minority who are vocal in their opposition. There is also a minority in England who are vocal in their condemnation of those Scots who voted to leave.

That does NOT mean that Scots visitors to England - myself on a visit to my daughter and English husband and family, for instance, or my other English son-in-law's visits to his mother and sister dahn sarf, are fraught with anxiety about how we will be received.

Edinburgh has been packed with tourists over the summer, many of them English. How many reports have you seen of xenophobic attacks?

Not one.

I think if this subject runs in and on, it hurts the image of Scotland.
It makes it sound as if half the population of scotland are antagonistic.

The actual running of the referendum was paid for by the Scottish government.
fullfact.org/live/2014/sep/who_is_paying_for_the_scottish_referendum-35217

Read my link, Nellie, funding explanation there.

Perhaps the funding of the next and any subsequent referendums could be a question addressed to Nicola Sturgeon at some point?!! If the UK taxpayer is funding this exercise, then it's only right that the UK taxpayer has a vote?! Not sure that that is part of the plan though as I have the strangest feeling that Scotland would be sent on their way, with good riddance following along behind, which of course is not what Westminster wants.

I know you're not keen on him rosequartz understatement but Rev Stu covered the funding issue a couple of days ago.

when the money could be spent alleviating poverty.

Anti-austerity only when it suits then!

I don't know. Wherever it comes from the expense is indefensible!

At least I have some answers to my questions about 'The Corbyn effect' on Scotland on this thread. Thank you.

Another question: who paid for the last referendum, and, if there were to be another one before too long, who would pay next time? And if the Scottish people keep being asked in referenda until they give in and give 'the right answer' who keeps on paying?

Is is the UK taxpayer? If so, why can't we have a say as it will affect us too and we're paying for it?
Or does the cost come out of the budget allocated to the Scottish Parliament?

OMG, furore wouldn't be in it!! We'd simply never hear the end of such a wicked utterance!! Fine the other way round though!!! Hypocrisy comes to mind!!! I imagine that JC has put the cat among the proverbial pigeons north of the border which does raise a wry smile!! Now what? I wonder. I can't see a happy ending though if this beligerance continues.

That's what worries me, POGS. There has always been strength in numbers and almost every Scot I spoke to before the referendum was not in favour of separation. Travelling around there was a lot of 'Yes' propaganda everywhere and very little from the other side. Some said that they were afraid to put up posters as the attitude of the other side was so threatening! We did not visit my brother and his family as they are all rabid nationalists so we thought that we would avoid any confrontation that could have been very damaging.

I think Nicola Sturgeons speech and using the 'You are on borrowed time' line showed both weakness and strength at the same time.

I can just see the furore if Cameron 'ever' said that to Scotland by the way.

Why weak ? Because she looked like she was rallying the troops, trying to mark her territory and probably knows Corbyn 'could' regain Labour votes in Scotland. She wouldn't like to be 'threatened' would she.

Why strength? Because it sends out a signal to the other 3 nations they are of no signifigance to Scotland . Scotland is now affirmed to leave the UK. Do as I say or we will have another referendum and we WILL win.

It must be so nice to be in the position of being able to speak for 'your nation' only . Nationalism is without doubt easier to defend , easier to get votes for than the Union. Unless ofcourse it is English Nationalism, that is not permitted it would appear.

The PM (of any colour) has to speak for the Union and will never be able to speak on a nationalist platform. Of course if the Union breaks down, sadly as I suspect in the future, then it will be Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland all fending for themselves won't it . Th e people will have spoken and the people will have to live with their choice for good and bad I suppose.

Exactly! Hardly welcoming to the English tourist!!! I think her remarks were aimed at the Westminster government as well as Scottish union supporters? Maybe to the rest of the UK as well? who knows, but it wasn't friendly that's for sure!!

I do go to Scotland quite a lot but, I have to say that, if I didn't, the scenes on the news last night would put me off and Niclola Sturgeons threats of 'you're on borrowed time' are most unnerving. I assume she also means all of the people in Scotland who voted to stay in the Union .

Scottish parliament election is in May 2016. Guess we'll find out then if the Corbyn effect has had any influence.

Elegran - I hope you are right as I am heading up there fairly soon.
I prefer the 'United we stand, Divided we fall' scenario but would not be averse to a federation system. Just glad someone else will work out the rules of operation.