To ask all Scottish MNers to join in and work together?

[SantanaLopez]

No gloating.
No blaming.

Just appreciation for a huge turnout and a peaceful process.

I am sad that people voted No but I hold no animosity against them. It is up to the Yes campaign to keep explaining its reasons, and to try to win people over in a peaceful and positive way, which we will do. It's all part of the democratic process.

Thank you for that scone I jst wish everyone felt the same and the goading and rudeness stopped on both sides. Some peoples behaviour has been hurrendous.

I have friends who know me and my situation who have called me many things over the past few days, people who have held my hand in hospital. To be called selfish, stupid and a traitor by them cuts deeply.

I hope I don't lose friends over this, but what has been said can't be unsaid.

Cameron refused to discuss details of currency union because he didn't have to and didn't want to. Had Scotland voted Yes, he and his successors would have been forced into years of negotiation, but he wouldn't have to agree to anything.

In a universe of infinite possibilities Scotland is definitively capable of being an independent nation. However, that is not going to happen without robust, logical, intelligent arguments in favour of independence and the support of other countries (who aren't Russia…unless the Scottish are really keen on Putin…).

I'd agree livingzuid, was just discussing with DH who the heck we would actually vote for!

I don't want to be part of a forum which is basically Yes voters and a few No voters who have come to regret their choice. I want something which is beyond the issue of independence, which involves yes and no voters equally as it isn't about that. Somewhere we can discuss the day to day, real life issues and how to fix them within the structures we have, or with changes to the structures we have that are achievable in the relatively near term. Something that make use of the greater political engagement we have just now on both sides.

I've read the white paper too - anyone who hasn't and wants to can read it for themselves - it's available here

For those who don't want to wade through it all (it's very lengthy and detailed), here's the position on currency:

The Fiscal Commission considered the currency options for an independent Scotland. Following a detailed analysis of the various options, the Commission[111]:

"commends to the Scottish Government retaining Sterling as part of a formal monetary union, and believes that this provides a strong overarching framework for Scotland post-independence."

The Fiscal Commission is a sub-group of the Council of Economic Advisers which was set up by the Scottish Government in 2007 to advise Ministers on how to best position Scotland amongst the world’s most competitive economies.

I want something which is beyond the issue of independence, which involves yes and no voters equally as it isn't about that. Somewhere we can discuss the day to day, real life issues and how to fix them within the structures we have, or with changes to the structures we have that are achievable in the relatively near term. Something that make use of the greater political engagement we have just now on both sides

Hear hear.

But its hardly just a "robust currency plan" that needed to be set out to make a Yes vote more likely. The Scottish Government and the SNP did a woefully incompetent job on providing the Scottish electorate with a convincing argument. In fact that's why theres so much animosity and allegations of bias and so on - the Scottish Government left it up to people to work out things like currency, laws, EU membership, farming subsidies, etc, themselves. And of course it was too wide and variable, and hard to agree upon.

In the issue of EU alone, I would have liked to have a seen a properly set out timetable to aspire to with the various stages of application and what would be put in place to achieve that in the White Paper (or a later document if it could not be prepared in time). Particularly with regards to the ECHR - "adopting a Scottish version" is just pathetic and unconvincing. Why not at least copy it and aim for signatory asap and not later than say nine months post-independence? (ECHR signature is essential for EU membership anyway). That gives the SP plenty of time to pass the necessary legislation.

I could have come up with a timetable like that in less than a day. Obviously you don't always meet timetable deadlines, but it gives something to aspire to.

How on earth did they expect to convince intelligent Scots to vote for such an unprepared plan, when most people have jobs that require them to put together better costed and planned proposals several times a month?

I am dithering about what to do now in the runup to the next election

Yes, regardless of whether you were a Yes or a No, we need to think about the next general election in the Scottish context. There must be very few people in Scotland who want to see a Tory/UKIP government.

As a total non-sequitur, is it not ironic, just days after the full weight of the UK establishment tried (unsuccessfully) to kill of Scottish aspirations for independence, that the Duke of Cambridge is off to represent the Queen at the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of Malta becoming independent. So, a wee island with a population of just over 400,000 can govern itself with the Queen as head of state, but independence on the same basis for a country of 5 million plus with rich natural assets and a strong economy is a non-starter... The central question is unchanged: why should Scotland not be able to govern itself like other small countries around the world?

Earth yy to your last post.

Some of the stuff I've seen has left me feeling really hurt and quite angry. I have sat on my hands and not said anything but some of the things people have come out with won't be forgotten.

sconequeen The central question is unchanged: why should Scotland not be able to govern itself like other small countries around the world?

Because it hasn't yet got itself a competent and able enough government to come up with properly planned and costed proposals to convince a majority of the electorate. many of whom are quite probably a great deal more informed than some working in that government appear to be

The common weal then stat. Look into it . Maybe see you at a meeting since we're both edinburgh based.

I feel Malta is different.
Geographically not part of same small Island for a start.

scone agree it was sheer irony to have Malta on the news today. Scotland in the UK is just part of what I was born with and governance didn't even come into my decision. I think the word independence was all wrong (for me, maybe not others). If it had been on constitutional reform or something around self-governance I probably would have voted yes. Full on independence was a step too far.

Scotland has led the way on the debate and shaken up the establishment and I think us voters too. The turnout was incredible. For that the Yes campaign is to be congratulated.

Because it hasn't yet got itself a competent and able enough government to come up with properly planned and costed proposals to convince a majority of the electorate.

I have no doubt that the next phase of the process will include producing more detailed proposals.

Sconequeen, I don't want to get in to an indy debate with you. I think, personally, they the Yes campaign failed at least in part because it tried to be all things to all men. It tried to promise huge change to those who wanted huge change, whilst trying to reassure the nervous that life would be just the same. That we would be independent and free and socialist and different, yet still use the pound, various UK institutions, be in the EU, in Nato etc etc. In trying to appease everyone they created plans which lacked credibility.

The currency issue was just the one which became the talking point but there were numerous others. I think "keeping the pound" (in whatever form) was chosen for political reasons to try and avoid scaring people rather than for robust economic reasons. I'd have respected the Yes campaign a lot more if they had said "actually, we're going to be an independent country. To make this work well, the best thing to do for the long run is to float our own currency. Here's how we'd do that. Here's our timetable for that..." or whatever the argument was.

I think the word independence was all wrong (for me, maybe not others). If it had been on constitutional reform or something around self-governance I probably would have voted yes. Full on independence was a step too far.

I think there is a lot of common ground to be explored. I am looking forward to the next phase!

SC DH and I disagree on this historically. He is so far left - what I would call extreme socialism nudging towards the Communist on occasion - but has mellowed a bit over the years and has been very impressed by Gordon. We might just sign up to the Labour party which is a very big deal for me as I have been a Lib Dem/Green for all my voting life to date and quite anti Labour due to Blair. I will need to see significant changes in that party before I will vote for them I think.

My other motivation is that I have come from the land of Wilders and co and I have no intention of seeing that in mainstream politics here. I am not sure how I can stop that myself but I will give it a go!

You would have ripped apart any timetable they wrote. And it all depended anyway on negotiations and pre negotiating was not allowed as it would have shown it as possible and removed the NO campaign's main strategy

But its hardly just a "robust currency plan" that needed to be set out to make a Yes vote more likely.

I agree chelsy but providing this would have resolved many other economic uncertainties in its wake and IMO tipped enough of the No's to swing it.

The reality is there were no robust options- hence the result.

DH isn't especially political, but from a very much Tory voting family - his dad is swaying to UKIP for goodness sake (don't worry I'm working on him!) My mum is labour/lib dem. I'm kind of no-one at the moment. Thinking about labour - would never be SNP for me, Greens I just don't see as a terribly effective force overall, fib dems...well...Ruth Davidson really impressed me, but I don't think I could see myself becoming a tory somehow. I do need to look in depth at the specific Scottish policies of both parties as I wouldn't necessarily vote the same at WM vs Holyrood.

scone I agree I think the next phase is going to be very exciting. We must keep up the pressure on the politicians. I am so interested to see what is going to happen. Hope it doesn't all fizzle out, that would be depressing and so much energy on both sides for nothing.

The currency issue was just the one which became the talking point but there were numerous others. I think "keeping the pound" (in whatever form) was chosen for political reasons to try and avoid scaring people rather than for robust economic reasons. I'd have respected the Yes campaign a lot more if they had said "actually, we're going to be an independent country. To make this work well, the best thing to do for the long run is to float our own currency. Here's how we'd do that. Here's our timetable for that..." or whatever the argument was.

Yes, I agree to a large extent with that. People were looking for concrete answers which couldn't be given - albeit that it was impossible to give concrete answers because so much would need to have been evaluated once negotiations in the event of Yes vote got underway.

My central belief that was (and is) that we should have our own government first, and then, like other countries, decide through the ballot box on the policies and decisions for an independent Scotland to follow. In the next phase, we need to look at options in more detail and share this information widely. I think that if we do this, we can bring more people on board.

I find this interesting....

The Daily Telegraph interviews the formula's inventor, Lord Barnett.

The 90-year-old devised the calculation in 1979 when he was chief secretary to the Treasury in Jim Callaghan's government.

Lord Barnett tells the Telegraph that his solution - which aimed at saving money by getting rid of the need to have secretaries of state for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - was "fundamentally flawed" as it used incorrect figures for Scotland's population.

The resultant "over-allocation" of £1,600 more per Scot than per English person "means [the Scottish government] have been able to do things that we can't, like [cap] prescription charges and university fees. That's not fair on English taxpayers," the former politician says.

"The real problem is that now no politician wants to tackle it," he adds.

But he cautions: "In my opinion, the leaders will have a job getting any new devolution plan through that keeps the Barnett formula."

I think it would be helpful, moving forward, if people on the 'Yes' side acknowledged that most 'No' voters didn't vote that way because of media bias and the (frankly dreadful) Better Together campaign.

So, is this the thread to talk about what we do now?

What exactly are we wanting from Westminster?

I agree that a lot of the policies didn't really belong in the white paper. It should have been slimmed down to focus on the issues which would have needed to be progressed before we had a Holyrood election - i.e. the stuff that needed to be negotiated on and functioning by "independence day".

Things like promises of free childcare, to me, didn't really belong in there. That's a party manifesto issue, not a fundamental to independence.