To think that the new SNP leader just pledged to ignore the will of the majority of Scottish people?

[RudeBarbandCustard]

Forgive me if I'm being naive - I may well be.

But Nicola Sturgeon pledging to continue to fight for Scottish independence is essentially a pledge to fight against the majority of the Scottish people's democratically expressed wishes?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-30011423

I mean, it couldn't be clearer. The majority of Scottish people voted No. So she's essentially saying "Hey, majority of Scotland - I'm going to ignore what you voted for in a democratic process, and fight for the opposite!".

It smacks of arrogance, and a complete disregard for what people voted for!

I may be missing something though, but it's intriguing and bugging me so I'd be interested to hear what others think.

I'm referring to the status quo as in remaining with the UK.

Once again, I agree with SirChenjin you can't begin to understand why everyone voted the way they did.

What options does NS have now? Try to understand why the vote went the way it did, learn from it, without throwing around blame, and move on.

And they may well intend to do that, but their current rhetoric suggests an attitude of 'carry on regardless' which just doesn't sit right with me... it's not very democratic is it?

And again, I'm referring to NS as First minister, not as the SNP as a political party

I agree. I was more afraid of a 51% win than a defeat.

I did a postal vote long before further devolved powers were promised as I knew the likelihood of my being out of the country with work was high. It don't feel that it impinged on my No vote in any way whatsoever. I'm perfectly capable of making up my mind on the basis of formal sources (many of which I use in my job), as opposed to what politicians on the tv and media tell me.

I find it really insulting that SNP supporters are politicians suggest that the electorate who voted No are so stupid as to be unable to make up their own minds or critically analyse information, and need constant pointing towards very limited sources of informal information, such as the self-published fan fiction site Wings. I tried showing some of the postings on there to some of my colleagues from other European countries, and they really couldn't understand it. It must come across as similar to the ramblings of very disturbed individuals.

I also showed them links to Alex Salmond's comments about other routes to independence and his unilateral declaration of a mandate, and they were really shocked. "He is behaving like a dictator" comments were common.

And again, I'm referring to NS as First minister, not as the SNP as a political party

You can't separate the two when you are drawing assumptions on speeches made by the newly appointed snp leader at the snp conference.

Chipping completely agree.

I think if DevoMax had been presented as an option, that would have won. And then Scotland would have had the change it wanted, without the massive gamble of independence.

I think the SNP shot themselves in the foot massively

You can't separate the two when you are drawing assumptions on speeches made by the newly appointed snp leader at the snp conference.

Yes, I know, and I was corrected on that upthread. That's why I started the thread really, to understand this better.

But will she change her stance when appointed first Minister??

There are no other routes to independence.

The parameters of the no vote was changed at the last gasp by the vow. That's just fact.

I won't be so stupid as to presume every no voter done so on the back of that vow. Some might have though.

Chelsy if you look at the Buzzfeed link I posted above (reliable statistically robust opinion poll that it is ) you'll see that the majority of those asked blamed the media / westminster promises for the No vote.

It is insulting to people like yourself.

Salmond wanted devomax on the paper.

Cameron said no.

Let's not speculate - the fact is, the No side won. Now it's time to move forward positively with the views of the majority accepted, recognised and supported, after what was billed as the referendum to decide Scotland's future.

I won't be so stupid as to presume every no voter done so on the back of that vow. Some might have though.

Absolutely, I'm sure many did.

But can you be so sure that all Yes voters weren't similarly influenced by last-minute campaigning?

It's just the way it works - some have long made up their minds, others don't decide until the last minute depending on how the campaign goes.

It's just how it is. No point getting upset about it - people make their decisions how they see fit.

Rita

Salmond wanted devomax on the paper.

Cameron said no

I stand corrected! Sorry, told you I was Naive and just trying to learn!

Let's not speculate - the fact is, the No side won. Now it's time to move forward positively with the views of the majority accepted, recognised and supported, after what was billed as the referendum to decide Scotland's future.

Agreed

That's what I'm hoping to do Sir.

As we know many yes voters wanted change. I'd like to think many no voters do too on many areas, just not the union. I hope there's common ground we can all come together on and push forward the important issues.

I'm really hoping that all those no voters are back in their box!

NOT back in their box!

As we know many yes voters wanted change. I'd like to think many no voters do too on many areas, just not the union. I hope there's common ground we can all come together on and push forward the important issues.

Completely agree - I really hope the SNP can recognize that and move on from the relentless call for independence, and focus their energy on something that the population actually want.

SirChenjin is like a sensible headmistress, pulling us all into line

It was also, massively - massively, stupid to enable this to go to poll only requiring one vote over 50% to change the way a country is governed

When you change a company's constitution, you require a 75% majority (quorum) in favour. Its strange that you can change a country's constitution with 25% less.

This sort of thing should be laid down in a constitution, and the UK lacks a written constitutional document, so that's why we end up making comments like this.

However, Scotland isn't any better - the SNP manifesto didn't reference this properly, or promise a proper written constitution for Scotland (backed up by a constitutional court).

To be honest, the SNP had so long to think about this and prepare for it, the fact they didn't bother themselves to consider constitutional issues properly reflects really badly on them.

By comparison, I think the German Constitution might need 65% in favour to change it. I think the US, The Netherlands, Hungary, Latvia and many others also recognise the 2/3 type quorum, with a requirement that the Houses of Parliament must also vote 2/3 in favour. So for example, the State of Texas could not succeed from the United States without both Houses being 2/3 in favour AND 2/3 of the vote in any referendum being in favour.

Correct me if I'm wrong though - I've just found out this information by doing a 5 minute search on google. I feel that the SNP should have provided information on this, as we have already lost rights under the UK Constitution, as Scottish citizens.

There's a breakdown of the Ashcroft poll here - the link is to a pdf.

It shows that there was a larger swing towards yes than no in the final few days of the campaign. According to the poll, the majority of no voters made up their minds at least a month beforehand - which suggests that 'the vow' didn't actually have much an impact of people's voting intentions.

Chelsy if you look at the Buzzfeed link I posted above (reliable statistically robust opinion poll that it is wink ) you'll see that the majority of those asked blamed the media / westminster promises for the No vote.

Yes, I thought that was a bit pathetic and childish. Its not what I expect to see from my elected representatives; it showed a lack of self reflection and inability to take responsibility and admit their own faults.

This site, from someone in Ecuador, concerned about constitutional issues in his/her own country, puts them to shame. Look at the way the responses are written - it makes some of those MSPs look so dire in comparison that its embarrassing: aceproject.org/electoral-advice/archive/questions/replies/572011840

I suspect (and hope) any future referendum will require a certain percentage to be accepted. I am still furious that it was allowed to go ahead with one vote over 50% being able to carry it through when it's such a massively important life changing vote.

There call for independence isn't relentless. There's been an appetite for independence in Scotland for a long long time. There always will be.

It seemed like the logical step after 15 years of devolution but a step people obviously weren't ready for.

That doesn't mean that the dream is over. But in the meantime I trust that the snp will get on with running the country. Let's not forget they gained a majority in a system designed against that. People were obviously happy with them. People know what to do if they aren't happy.

I think given we're only weeks after the result, the culmination of a long campaign and the awakening of many people, that it's only natural independence is still on the agenda. If it hadn't been for the referendum I can't see people outside of Scotland even have been seeing coverage of the snp conference.

"According to the poll, the majority of no voters made up their minds at least a month beforehand - which suggests that 'the vow' didn't actually have much an impact of people's voting intentions."

But it changed what their vote meant...does it really not bother people that a no vote was no longer a straightforward no vote?

SirChenjin is like a sensible headmistress, pulling us all into line

I am the least sensible, headmistressey person you will ever meet in RL, but I like your imagined description much better!!

Chelsy I'm sure you're right. I think I remember similar posts in the lead up to the referendum stating the same thing. Quite how or why the Scottish referendum differed so much from others, I don't know.

Sorry meant to finish with that will fade in time. And the rUK will go back to never hearing about Scottish politics!