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.

SC
Well, personally, as you know, I would have everything on this list decided in Scotland! What would you leave in/take out of this list?

If most of welfare gets devolved then there won't be a huge amount left that's centralised as it's close to 60% devolved already! Most of the difference does lie in the income and the sourcing/stability of it rather then the expenses. So the question about what income sources should be variable is quite important actually.

As I understand it, the Tories are suggesting that income tax raised in Scotland would be under the control of the Scottish Parliament which would equate to 40% of the money it spent. They have also suggested it get a share of Scottish VAT receipts.

The Tories are also suggesting that some welfare issues be devolved (eg housing benefits and attendance allowances) but it looks like key policy areas of welfare and benefits (ie mechanisms to get people back into the labour market) would not be devolved, which would constrain the ability of the Scottish Parliament to use its own levers to manage the economy.

As I understand it, there would be no borrowing powers for the Parliament under their proposals, which would mean very little ability to invest in strategic infrastructure projects. This is a major obstacle to economic development. Did you see, for example, that the Highland referendum count was delayed because of an accident on the A9 which meant no traffic could get south? The whole of the North-east area of the Highlands can be cut off from the rest of the country because it is reliant on one single carriageway(and sub-standard) road as its only road link to the south.

Thanks rita I didn't think it was them but wasn't sure of the equivalent. It's not my favourite organisation either so I am glad someone else runs those services here.

The A9 is a joke. It should have been dualled a very long time ago. Mind, we should also have considerably better roads linking east Scotland to nort east England too.

Housing benefit being devolved is a good start actually. I need to look at the individual party suggestions as I think Labour's are more extensive. I think it's probably right not to devolve the state pension for example - I know that Scotland has different mortality but the complexities of it when people will work across the country during their lives would make that very clunky. It could work, but I don't think it would be top of the list.

I think limited borrowing powers would make sense - but these are already coming via the Scotland Act 2012 although it is quite a strict limit which maybe should be increased if we get more income autonomy.

Sconequeen - the problem is not media bias or people being scared, its the incompetence of the Scottish Government in making a viable case for change.

In my own field for instance, which is Europe, I would have expected the White Paper or a separate plan to state a timescale for various measures to be achieved for an application on a stated date. That the ECHR would be adopted on a stated date and copy the existing one until then. That legislation would be drafted to achieve the preceding by x date. Obviously dates are not always achieved but I would at least expect some concrete proposals to examine on such an important issue!

Its not actually that difficult to do and one person could probably produce something decent in a relatively short time scale. But since the SP couldn't even be bothered listening to its home grown constitutional law expert, Prof Adam Tomkin of Glasgow University, how would they even go about this?-

I should imagine that plays out for other areas too, such as finance, economics, farming, fishing, etc..

What was actually delivered by the SG was some vague ideas in a White Paper containing mistakes and prepared without legal advice. It was pathetic and incompetent and its worrying that so much of the Scottish electorate were taken in by it. What then resulted was a mess and a squabble over various issues which should have been set out but weren't. I'm no economist and by far the best explanation of economic issues I've had was provided by StatisticallyChallenged on here. Not by my government which produced such vague and hopeless plans that it wasn't even sure of it itself, never mind whether it would automatically become an EU member or not until various parties, including ministers of foreign countries, pointed out the reality.

If the SG had produced plans which set out a document so trustworthy you could be certain that they were setting up a state similar to Switzerland, then perhaps the electorate would have felt more able to take a chance. Instead you got something that quite frankly would have embarrassed the government of a third world country.

I do suspect the SNP weren't actually ready for independence at all, and this was the explanation for this.

I'm not surprised you have a feeling of being short changed, but you were short changed by your own government, not by your fellow Scots.

WhatWouldFreddieDo So that's 6 weeks we have to work out what we want and what is feasible and make ourselves heard.

With respect, the Scottish Government under the SNP have had years to work this out. And since the clamour for independence has been going on for so long, I would have thought that measures for new powers would pretty much be worked out by now.

StatisticallyChallenged...the BBC online headline was and is in fact - Scottish referendum: Police separate rival groups in Glasgow.

Whether it was a riot or simply extreme appalling behaviour, there weren't rival groups, it was loyalists kicking off, by all accounts pre-planned no matter what the result was.

There are hundreds of videos people took of loyalists creating havoc, behaving violently to passers by, the independent, the mail, the mirror, the guardian all say it was loyalists, the STV reporter on the scene reported that loyalists arrived en masse from different directions in an organized way.

Some of the stuff people are complaining about with the BBC is IMO unjustified, but, when you look at that it is very annoying that it's not reported for what it is, thugs being thugs because they're thugs.

I do suspect the SNP weren't actually ready for independence at all, and this was the explanation for this.

Completely agree. I wish I could find the report that had a spokesperson for the SNP saying how completely unprepared they were for the amount of support for a Yes vote, saying they were only expecting 30% max or something similar. It was in the Guardian or something. I will try and find it.

I suspect it would have been a completely different debate, and result, if many Nos were confident in the information that was being put out there by the Yes campaign.

tahulahrasa that wasn't what I meant. My friend was complaining that they hadn't reported a specific issue i.e. 10 arrests and 2 stabbings which sky had, and sky were obviously correct. She was using this as evidence of their bias, but they hadn't reported the specific issue because it was actually false IYSWIM? I'm not saying they were perfect, just that people have been somewhat exaggerating.

Whilst that may be the headline (and it was true when the headline went up as that's exactly what the police were doing at that point) the written content, I would say, blames the loyalist lot.

I see the petition for a revote is now at over 70K.

I agree Chelsy. The SNP government actually failed monumentally in both their plans and their responses to criticism. This shouldn't have been a partisan slanging match, it should have been a clear laying out of facts and options.

The White Paper was bad enough, but when the response to every criticism of it was "you're lying", "bias", "scaremongering", "bullying", "sabre rattling" etc then it became very difficult to support. If you want me, and people like me, to vote for independence you need to make us confident that you have the knowledge, expertise and plans in place to make it work. And that you have the capacity to recognise when you've made a mistake or the plans need adjusting and do that openly and honestly. The SNP didn't do that. Yet they wanted me to believe that in 18 months they could negotiate and conclude on a good settlement for Scotland and set the basis for our constitutional future.

Text of motion put to parliament has just come out

"“That this House welcomes the result of the Scottish independence referendum and the decision of the people of Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom; recognises that people across Scotland voted? for a Union based on the pooling and sharing of resources and for the? continuation of devolution inside the United Kingdom; notes the statement by the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition regarding the guarantee of and timetable for further devolution to Scotland; calls on the Government to lay before Parliament a Command Paper including the proposals of all three UK political parties by 30th October and to consult widely with the Scottish people, civic Scotland and the Scottish Parliament on these proposals; further calls on the Government to publish heads of agreement by the end of November and draft clauses for the new Scotland Bill by the end of January 2015.""

Doesn't tell us much, but at least it exists huh!

On another matter my hairdresser has just told me she voted Yes but she's pleased it's No. She just voted Yes because her husband would be furious if she didn't.

And before you ask I'd be disappointed if she'd voted No for the same reason.

Chelsy I'm a No voter, what i was trying to express was the need for 'we' - ie Scotland as a whole, the No's and the Yes's - to come to some sort of joint expression of what we want.

but I guess I may as well wish for the moon

and yes I agree it has been a failure of the SP to unite over what Scotland as a whole 'wants' - but was that ever going to be possible?

"Whilst that may be the headline (and it was true when the headline went up as that's exactly what the police were doing at that point) the written content, I would say, blames the loyalist lot."

But it was edited after it was all done and dusted and they haven't changed the headline and the headline is all that shows on the news page...whether you agree that that's biased or not, it's not good reporting! How many people are going to see just the headline and think it was actually two groups of supporters and not what it actually was.

I do expect better than that from the BBC.

but instead of trying to move forward, we're just going to bicker about BBC bias?

"but instead of trying to move forward, we're just going to bicker about BBC bias?"

Aye, lol

No, it's bothering me because that headline for instance makes Scottish voters look bad, that after it was all done and dusted we were all still arguing to the extent that the police had to get involved.

Whereas an accurate one only makes the people involved look bad, and I think everyone's agreed that sectarians already look bad anyway? It wouldn't reflect in the same way on you or me...

So yes, I'm a bit annoyed about it.

No, I completely understand why a headline would annoy and appear biased ... But I don't think that should be a priority now.

Commentators like David Starkey are writing guff in the Telegraph about WM bribing Scotland with English gold, and if that sort of sentiment gets the upper hand it won't end well for Scotland..

So we need to try to unite behind a devolution plan, and focus on getting a decent settlement over the next year/18 months however long.

People want a recount based on what! A few hundred I would understand but several hundred thousands of votes between no and yes?

"No, I completely understand why a headline would annoy and appear biased ... But I don't think that should be a priority now."

Well no, but it does concern me slightly that it's the BBC reporting badly and not some tabloid.

Also, being angry at loyalists gives us someone to unite at being angry at, lol.

I saw quite a few things about the public and MPs being angry at what was being offered to Scotland as a bribe, both in the last week before the vote and yesterday...I do worry that that could become an issue.

I would think it is naive to imagine there will be extra powers worth anything before the next election. Potentially promises from the Labour Party is all.
If change was really what you wanted, the only change that might be coming is a swift exit from Europe and the rise of ukip.
Sorry but to say on one hand following the yes campaign was believing in pipe dreams, this is no better.

One thing that has come out is that the Scots are funded per person far more than England meaning that they can spend this on free university and free prescriptions. Surely this isn't fair and the Barnett Formula needs urgent review

The Barnett formula was based on need, the reason the funding is higher in Scotland is because of more deprivation and also because of the expanse and remoteness in the Highlands and Islands for services provision etc
however, hearing how prosperous Scotland has become over the past few weeks, I expect that while these haven't changed , the opinions of rUK with respect to the formula will have changed.

Luckytwo most no voters didn't vote based on extra powers. But hoping for one thing to come through is nowhere near the extent of the levels of baseless hope and optimism of some yes voters.

I appreciate what you're saying, it's just as well :).